Summary of HB 1675 and Editorial | Quick Homework Help

Part A: Background

            The HB 1675 was introduced by Representatives Roberts, Farrell, Kagi, Freeman, Ryu, Pedersen, Jenkins and Goodman with the aim of improving the process of adoption with regard to the recommendations outlined by the Severe Abuse of Adopted Children Committee 2012 report. In its report, the Office of the Family and Children Ombudsman (OFCO) identified a number of issues associated with the children adoption process such as neglect of adopted children and extreme child abuse. In the light of these issues, OFCO made three main recommendations including the state to oversee the child placing agencies; conducting evaluations on the potential adoptive families; and providing training and support services associated with post-adoption (Judiciary Committe, 2013). With respect to these recommendations outlined by OFCO, the sponsors of the HB 1675 proposed a bill aimed at improving the adoption process while at the same time protecting the adopted children. The bill was introduced on 2^nd February, 2013 and heard on 20^th February, 2013.

The HB 1675 acknowledges that implementing most of the recommendations outlined in the Severe Abuse of Adopted Children 2012 Report requires the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to come up with a comprehensive work plan that identifies the strategy and the timeline required to execute the proposed reforms. The HB 1675 also acknowledges that despite the fact that some of the proposed recommendations pose the need for statutory changes, it is imperative for the Legislature to make those changes as soon as possible in order to ensure that the recommendations do not languish. The HB 1675 also spells out the changes associated with the state oversight with regard to the child placing agencies and point out that it is the sole responsibility of the DSHS secretary to develop the requirements and procedures to be used to identify, track and report cases of adoption dissolution and disruption. With regard to the changes in evaluating potential adoptive families, the HB 1675 points out the changes to be made regarding the qualifications needed for individuals undertaking the assessment of the adoption homes and making post placement reports (House Judiciary, 2013).

According to the provisions outlined in HB 1675, the evaluators ought to have a master’s degree in social work or any other associated discipline together with one year experience undertaking social work. Alternatively, the evaluators can have a bachelor’s degree coupled with two years experience undertaking social work. As a result, the court will not have the authorizations needed to approve an individual who does not satisfy these experiential and educational prerequisites (House Committe on Higher Education, 2013). When conducting a pre-placement assessment concerning the fitness of the potential adoptive parent, the evaluation should report the potential adoptive parent’s punishment and disciplinary practices and philosophies as well as variables associated with the home environment, resources, facilities, and family health. In aIDition, the post-placement assessment report should detail all the practically obtainable information about the punishment and disciplinary practices and philosophies as well as the existing information about the child’s mental and physical condition, the nature of the home environment, family health and life, resources and any other information linked to the adoption process (Senate Committe, 2013).

It is undeniable that the bill is important, especially in the wake the increasing cases associated with the abuse of adopted children as outlined by the OFCO report. The implementation of the HB 1675 could be the most feasible and effective solution to this problem (House Judiciary, 2013). The gravity of the problem is evident from the findings of the OFCO report, wherein, out of the 15 victimized children, 2 died, 4 underwent sexual abuse, and 5 were denied food as a form a form of punishment, which resulted in malnutrition. The HB 1675 also seeks to aIDress the gap regarding the role of state in cases involving adoption of children. At present, the state has no any responsibility whatsoever, after a child has been adopted and things went out of hand. The HB 1675 is significant in aIDressing this gap by giving the state an oversight role in the adoption process; this would result in improving the overall adoption process (Higher Education Committee, 2013). The importance of the HB 1675 is also evident in the thoroughness of the adoption process advocated for in the bill. This will be instrumental in ensuring that the adopted child is safe and his/her needs catered for. It is apparent that the HB 1675 will be helpful in streamlining the adoption process in the United States.

Regarding the scope of the HB 1675, it is evident that the bill places much emphasis on the oversight role of the state through the role of the DSHS in developing a comprehensive work. Nevertheless, the state has the primary role in the implementation of the bill. Other entities affected with the implementation of the bill will include the social workers, potential adoptive parents, and the adopted children. Fundamentally, this bill will affect any entity involved in the child adoption process as well as the child placing agencies (Higher Education Committee, 2013).

The impacts implementing the HB 1675 extends beyond just improving the adoption process. The HB 1675 will play a key role in improving the child development outcomes for adopted children. An improved adoption process implies that the needs of the children will be met, their mental and physical conditions will be satisfactory, and their adoptive family environment will be conducive, which will result in improved child development outcomes. The adopted child will benefit most from the passing of the HB 1675 since the bill has the potential of reducing cases associated with the neglect and abuse of adopted children. By enacting the HB 1675, the well-being and safety of the adopted child is guaranteed. Nevertheless, the only likely negative outcome with the implementation of the HB 1675 is that the strict provisions regarding the pre-placement and post-placement assessment are likely to scare away the prospective adoptive parents. This is likely to hurt adoption in the United States, especially at a time when the demand for adoptive parents is soaring. This will widen the gap between the increasing number of children who are eligible for adoption and the decreasing the number of families eligible to adopt children (House Committe on Higher Education, 2013).

Regarding the fiscal costs of implementing the HB 1675, the bill will not impose any significant impact on the revenues collected by states. This stems from the fact that the provisions of the HB 1675 do not lobby for the creation of new statutory bodies; rather, it emphasizes on the restructuring of the statutory bodies; this implies that there will be no considerable fiscal costs ensuing the implementation of the bill. In aIDition, the HB 1675 focuses on legislative efforts rather than statutory requirements. Since the passing of the HB 1675 will rely on existing statutory bodies and the fact that changes are only needed with regard to procedures, there will no significant cost requirements to implement the bill (Judiciary Committe, 2013).

Regarding the status of the HB 1675 becoming law, the hearing of the bill in the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee was on 21^st March, 2013. At present, the bill is awaiting an executive action.

Part B: Editorial

            The current state of adoption in the United States is typified by disarray, and warrants to be termed a “failing adoption system”. In aIDition, adoption in the United States is worsened by the fact that there are an increasing number of adopted children becoming victims of severe child abuse and neglect. The adoptive environment in the US does not provide a favorable condition for the potential adoptive parents and the children to be adopted. This state of affairs does only disadvantage the thousands of children awaiting adoption and the thousands of potential adoptive parents, but is also a significant loss to the society in its entirety, which is compelled to pay both the financial and emotional price associated with the poorer child development because of an ineffective adoption system that does not guarantee the safety and welfare of the adopted child. Up to date progresses in neuroscience and infant psychology point out that the level to which a child is exposed to abuse and neglect during the early developmental stage impose long-term impacts, which are likely to hurt the development of an adopted child into adulthood. Perhaps, time is ripe to restructure the adoption system and establish checks and balances in the system to ensure the whole process of adoption runs smoothly.

In an effort to streamline the adoption process in the United States, Representatives Roberts, Farrell, Kagi, Freeman, Ryu, Pedersen, Jenkins and Goodman sponsored the HB 1675 bill with the primary aim of improving the adoption process in the country. It should be acknowledged that there are serious issues underpinning adoption the United States, which poses the need to devise effective strategies to tackle these problems that have been highlighted by several agencies such as the Office of the Family and Children Ombudsman (OFCO). The provisions highlighted in the HB 1675, if implemented effectively, can be the ideal solution, albeit not comprehensive, to curtail the issues underpinning adoption in the United States. The recommendations outlined by OFCO are the starting point to aIDress the issues underpinning adoption. As such, real solutions should use the recommendations as a framework for crafting the solution. In this regard, the HB 1675 attempts to tackle most of the problems although it does not aIDress the root cause of the problem. The provisions of the HB 1675 place so much emphasis on the standard procedures and disregards what might be the most effective solution as recommended by OFCO: providing training and support services during post adoption. Perhaps, the HB 1675 should be further amended to accommodate this recommendation if it needs to tackle the adoption issue effectively.

A review of the HB 1675 points out that the bill disregarded recommendation 3 as set out by OFCO in its report: training and support services during post adoption, which entails improving training and preparation for the potential adoptive parents; creating the threshold minimum training prerequisites for the child placing agency staff; offering training manuals to professionals taking part in the adoption process; and enhancing the support services for the adoptive families. It is perfect that the bill is non-partisan, which implies that it stands of chancing; the sponsors should exploit this aspect and make subsequent amendments to ensure that the HB 1675 offers a holistic solution to the real problem. The sponsors of the HB 1675 ought to look where the real problem is coming from; perhaps it is the lack of post-adoption support, and come up with strategies to foster post-adoption parental support.

The failing adoption system in the US requires an effective remedy, which is likely to be provided by the passing of the HB 1675 after amending the bill to cater for all the recommendations outlined in the OFCO report. Congress should not hesitate passing this bill and establishing structures to guarantee its effective implementation.

References

Higher Education Committee. (2013). HB 1675. Washington: Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research.

House Committe on Higher Education. (2013). House Bill Report. Washington: House Committe.

House Judiciary. (2013). Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1675. Washington: House Judicary.

Judiciary Committe. (2013). HB 1675. Washington: Judiciary Committe.

Senate Committe. (2013). Senate Bill Report HB 1675. Washington: Senate Committee.