New regulations for intercountry adoption became effective January 8, 2025. This change is significant in the world of intercountry adoption and particularly for adoption agencies. The last major change for intercountry adoption regulation was in 2014, with the Universal Accreditation Act.
Agencies and their accrediting entities are preparing for these changes, though it is yet to be seen how this will impact prospective adoptive families and children. Several changes were made, some changes seemingly to ease the challenges of intercountry adoption for relative/kinship adoptions and others to increase regulation on adoption agencies.
Adoption professionals and parents have long advocated for easing the burdens placed on relatives to adopt their foreign-born kin. We often hear from families including aunts, uncles, and grandparents who hope to adopt their relative abroad, particularly after the death of one or both parents. Relative prospective adoptive parents are often caught off guard when they learn from agencies and attorneys that the adoption will have to meet effectively the same requirements as if the adoption was of a non-relative and the cost will be similar.
The new regulations recognize the differences between relative and non-relative adoptions for the first time. The changes do not impact prospective adoptive parents directly, but rather, attempt to reduce regulations on agencies providing adoption services in relative cases. Generally, adoption agencies must provide six specific adoption services in all cases, but these changes require that agencies perform or supervise only three of the six services when the child to be adopted is a relative.
Unfortunately, these regulations do not go far enough for relative adoptions. The changes are unlikely to ease the burden on agencies in any significant way that would lead to the simplification of the adoption procedure or to a significantly reduced cost for the provision of services.
Another small, but potentially impactful change in the new regulations is an inclusion specifically requiring agencies adhere to all applicable foreign laws in the countries in which they operate. On its face, the regulation does not seem problematic, however, in practice this could have a harmful and chilling effect on adoption agencies and their willingness to accept certain cases. This regulatory change may lead to accrediting entities taking adverse actions against agencies for any perceived failure to follow foreign law in a particular case.
Comments to the proposed regulations rightly pointed out that foreign laws can be vague or even internally contradictory. The adoption agency is not a licensed attorney in the foreign country and is not, nor can they be, an expert in the foreign law. Further, the U.S. State Department’s interpretation of a foreign law is often in conflict with the country’s interpretation of its own laws.
These conflicting interpretations may put agencies and their accrediting entities in a precarious position. Neither the agency nor the accrediting entity overseeing the agency can be an expert in foreign law or responsible to resolve conflicting interpretations between two governmental entities. Is it possible that agencies will receive adverse actions merely because the U.S. questions whether foreign law was fully complied with in a particular case? If so, the new regulations are likely to have a chilling effect on agencies, who will be less willing to take on cases in new countries. This chilling effect will disproportionately, and negatively, impact relative adoptions.
The true impact of these new regulations is yet to be seen, though it is unlikely the changes go far enough to simplify intercountry adoptions or ease the burden of this process on U.S. Citizens seeking to adopt their foreign-born relatives.