The Russian Adoption Agreement And The Russian Adoption Ban

It appears as though Russia wants to keep the adoption agreement in place for a year. This is, undoubtedly, to allow Russia to monitor Russian children in the United States.

Even though the agreement will remain in force, it does not, in any way, reverse the ban on the adoption of Russian children by Americans that came into force on January 1, 2013.

The ban is a reaction to many things, including the Magnitsky Act, improper practices of adoption agencies and advocacy groups, and lax treatment of parents who have abused children adopted from Russia.

Organizations serving as trade associations for adoption agencies, such as FRUA and JCICS have had no success whatsoever in lifting the ban or even obtaining information about its implications.



Reece’s Rainbow And Andrea Roberts: Have They Stalled The Adoption Ratification?

What follows below is a very intelligent commentary about the status of the ratification of the bilateral adoption agreement between the US and Russia-in contrast, of course, to propaganda from agencies who are now wary of their status in Russia due to apparent illegal dealings with Reece’s Rainbow, specifically the apparent illegal acquisition and distribution of photographs and medical files of children.

There are indications that about 6 licensed agencies have participated in these activities. It seems unlikely that Russia will rush to ratify an agreement in which these agencies continue to play any role whatsoever in Russian adoptions.

It stands to reason that the Duma may well demand that the “Reece’s Rainbow” agencies be banned or that the US enact-and enforce-strict laws against photo listing children from countries where the practice is illegal.

As discussed here, the US-Russian bilateral agreement’s ratification appears to be delayed, indefinitely, in the Russian Duma.


May, 23, 2012. U.S.-Russian Bilateral Adoption Agreement: Is No News Good News? The United States and Russia signed a bilateral agreement on international adoption last July. The Russian Duma (Parliament) needs to ratify the agreement before it can go into effect. As newly inaugurated President Vladmir Putin has now appointed his new cabinet, the Duma could consider this agreement as it gets down to business. But given Putin’s prior opposition to international adoption and the politics of U.S. -Russian relations in this U.S. presidential election year, we are not confident that the Duma will rapidly consider the agreement. Moreover, any changes demanded by the Duma to the agreement would have to be negotiated thereafter with the U.S. government.

EAC: A History Of Litigation Over Failure To Make Accurate Disclosures

More U.S. adoptions of Russians fail
Corruption, lack of regulations have resulted in troubled orphans

Sunday, August 13, 2000

By Cindi Lash, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

“Some parents sued, charging that agencies failed to disclose information about their children that might have affected their decision to adopt.

Among them are Michael and Susan McMullen of Franklin, Venango County, who earlier this year filed a lawsuit against European Adoption Consultants Inc. of North Royalton, Ohio, in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh.

In their suit, the McMullens charge that EAC and its director, Margaret Cole, committed breach of contract, fraud, intentional nondisclosure and negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress when it placed a 5-month-old boy with them in 1992.

The McMullens contend that EAC told them only that the boy had a correctable cleft palate. He later was found to be mentally retarded and affected with a severe form of epilepsy and is likely to require institutional care, according to the suit.

In court documents, Cole has argued that she personally should not be a party to the suit because the McMullens’ contract was with EAC. She also has argued that the suit was not filed in the correct jurisdiction and that she was not served with it in a timely fashion.

EAC has not filed a response to the suit pending the resolution of the jurisdiction issue. EAC representatives did not return calls seeking comment.”