Compared to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974, the Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act of 1992 is perhaps lesser known. While it is true that the Act does address adoption in America, that is not the whole thrust of this piece of legislation.

As it relates to child abuse, and thus, how it specifically proposes to amend the CAPTA, the Act brings economic force to protection of children’s rights, earmarking some $45 million for this cause and outlining procedures for states to become eligible to acquire these funds. As for the use of these Government grants, the Act stresses the need for community-based programs to take an active role in trying to prevent child abuse and neglect.         

Though child abuse and adoption are given their own sections in this bill, many would argue domestic child abuse is fundamentally linked to U.S. adoption policy, as a substantial percentage of children put into foster care are removed from the custody of their birth homes because of the unsafe environment created for them there. As noted, the Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act does mention adoption in America by name. 

In amending the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978, the Act symbolizes a changed mindset of the times with regard to U.S. adoption to give more weight to the needs of the child and getting children into permanent homes as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Act authorizes the creation of a National Resource Center for Special Needs Adoption.          

Even so, the Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act of 1992 does recognize the fact there are sometimes mitigating circumstances when it comes to termination of parental rights, such as the role of culture in raising children, especially in first-time allegations brought against parents.

While the bill does not explicitly reference any cultures or minorities in particular on the subject of child abuse, this language may still be seen as an oblique reference to perceived differences in child rearing along ethnic lines.

In terms of the Act’s legacy in the history of U.S. adoption policy, it made some small but important contributions to how we approached adoption in America. 

The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) is not just coincidentally related to provisions of international adoption law. By name, it references the Hague Adoption Convention.

As such, the provisions within the IAA are sort of an announcement of what preparations needed to be made to assure the United States was/is fully compliant with the terms of the Convention, and the language of its purpose largely echoes that of the articles of the Convention itself. Thus, the IAA calls for protection of adopted children from abduction and trafficking, insurance of consent between adoption laws of different member countries, and recognition of completed adoptions between jurisdictions.

As the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption specifies that all who are party to it designate a central authority for adoption, so did the Intercountry Adoption Act. According to this creation of adoption law, the Department of State via the Secretary of State is to handle accreditation and approval procedures for adoption agencies and to monitor agencies and even rescind their accreditation for failure to meet Hague standards. 

The Attorney General, meanwhile, was also was given duties by the Act, namely to forward applications of prospective adoptive parents to the Department to State and to review cases for evidence of fraud. Another function of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 that is of critical importance is how it addresses America’s conformity with the adoption laws of other countries. 

The majority of children living in the United States child welfare system (and thus, living outside the care of birth parents) have already outgrown infancy. Nonetheless, even babies as young as a few days old may be surrendered by their biological parents.         

Not just any place may be deemed a safe haven for the purpose of refuge for abandoned children. Depending on the region, hospitals, emergency medical service centers (i.e. ambulance buildings), police stations, and fire stations may all serve as safe havens. Even churches may fulfill this role provided “staff” are present. Preferably, people will be on hand who can provide immediate medical care should something go wrong with an infant.         

Not just any caretakers may relinquish custody of a child to an appointed facility either. Safe haven laws differ with regard to which parents may surrender their children, if at all. While a majority of states offer some sort of procedural rules of abandonment of a child, a handful have yet to formally address the issue.

For those states that do expressly permit temporary care of children at public institutions, meanwhile, some (e.g. Georgia) only allow birth mothers to surrender their children at safe havens and some (e.g. Illinois) do not specify who may leave a child for eventual adoption.

In addition, not just any children may be handed over to safe haven facilities. A significant majority of states (over 90%) require that children be less than three months old, and a substantial subset of that majority states (slightly over 50%) that children may only be 14 days or older. 

Though safe haven laws of the states have their terms for parents to give up their children, parents may, in turn, have their own requirements, namely that their identity remain a secret and that they are not prosecuted for deciding to waive their custody of their child. Thankfully for them, most states build in some sort of provision that anonymity and immunity from criminality will be ensured by the safe havens that accept children. Nonetheless, this is not guaranteed in all states and may be rendered moot if parents are suspected of neglect or abuse.

Safe haven laws dictate that usually children will be handed over to a system of public care. Still, once more depending on the jurisdiction, there are procedures whereby safe havens can or must remand children back to their custodial guardians. Authorities may need to check if a child was reported missing before accepting him or her, or they may have to consult a birth father registry to see if a father might want to assume primary care of his biological child.

An obviously critical consideration of rules and regulations of American adoption is who may be adopted. Technically, in about half of the United States, even adults may be adopted. As regards child adoption policies in the United States in themselves, all states allow for children to be adopted.

There are qualifications in some jurisdictions, though. States like Indiana will only consent to adoption of children under 18. As for, say, Texas, a child must be explicitly cleared to be ready for adoption, and in Iowa, in particular, a child must live with a family for some 180 days prior to adoption.

An equally essential aspect of American adoption is what rights adoptive parents and birth parents should have. First of all, prospective adoptive parents must be given the rights to adopt at all. The child adoption policies of different states will assess different minimum ages for individuals to become eligible to adopt, whether this be 18, 21 or 25, and in some states, such as California, adoptive parents must be at least 10 or 15 years older than their prospective children, respectively.

Furthermore, American adoption as a whole is largely restrictive of gays adopting children, or at the very least does not openly support the practice. In fact, Florida and Mississippi have an explicit ban on LGBT adoption.         

State child adoption policies vary as well in terms of who can give consent for adoption/placement. In all states, birth mothers/married birth couples usually will have to agree to any transfers of primary care (all too frequently, the rights of “putative fathers” are not given the same weight as those of biological mothers).

If termination of parental rights is done by force, however, this decision will become a responsibility of a public or private adoption agency. Then again, half of the states have provisions in their statutes allowing children above a certain age to object to their being adopted.

American adoption law is thus fairly complex. With any omnibus adoption legislation unlikely to pass soon, this complexity stands to remain. As far as adoption reform is concerned, it seems revision of individual State child adoption policies may be the best way to effect changes in the short-term.