What is Probate?

Probate is the process with respect to wrapping up someone’s affairs after they pass away.

This can include collecting the decedent’s assets, preserving the same, inventorying, insuring, and appraising the assets. It also includes collecting, addressing and dealing with all the debt and payment of debts.

The Probate process also includes admitting the Will if one exists, administering the Trust if properly funded, filing the appropriate tax returns, and finally the distribution of assets according to the Will or law.

The Probate process can involve the aforementioned duties and responsibilities as well as legal paperwork and possibly Court Hearings. The fees associated with Probating the Estate may be paid from the decedent’s Estate.

For more information about Probate/Estate Administration or Contact Us.

 

Adoption: Safe Havens for Abandoned Infants

Filed under: Adoption Tags: ,

In 1999, the Texas legislature enacted the first law addressing infant abandonment. Nicknamed “Baby Moses laws” after the biblical story of Baby Moses whose mother placed him in a wicker basket to save him from death, infant safe haven laws have been enacted in roughly 47 states and Puerto Rico. The purpose of safe haven laws is to encourage parents who abandon their child to leave the infant with persons who can provide the care needed for their safety and well being.

Ohio’s Safe Haven Law

No two state safe haven laws are exactly the same. Safe haven laws vary in the maximum age at which an infant can be surrendered, who may surrender an infant, and to whom the infant can be surrendered. Most states exempt parents who safely surrender their infant from criminal liability by either declining to prosecute a parent for child abandonment or providing that the surrender of a child under these circumstances is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime such as abandonment or neglect against the child.

In Ohio, an infant who is thirty days old or younger may be voluntarily surrendered by that child’s parent to a peace officer, hospital employee, or an emergency medical service worker. Prior to the enactment of Amended Senate Bill 304 of the 127th General Assembly, Ohio would only permit an infant seventy-two hours or younger to be voluntarily surrendered without the threat of criminal penalties. The intent of the bill, which became effective on March 24, 2009, was to allow a parent more time to safely surrender the infant rather than abandon the infant under unsafe conditions or subject the infant to potential abuse or neglect.

 Unless the infant has been surrendered in a condition that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect, the parent who delivers the child is not guilty of a criminal offense, is not subject to criminal prosecution, and has the right to remain anonymous. Once the child is delivered, a rebuttable presumption is established that it is not in the child’s best interest to return to the child’s natural parents.

The safe haven provider (i.e., peace officer, hospital employee, or emergency medical services worker) to whom the child is delivered is required to perform any act necessary to protect the child’s health or safety and must notify the local public children services agency that a surrendered infant is in their possession. The provider cannot coerce the parent to reveal the identity of both parents or pursue or follow the parent after the child has been delivered. If possible, the provider can make available to the parent forms that are intended to collect medical information, as well as provide written materials that describe services that are available to assist parents and newborns, but cannot force the parent to complete the forms or take the written materials.

The public children services agency takes emergency temporary custody of the infant and must prepare case plans, conduct investigations, conduct periodic administrative reviews of case plans, and provide services for the surrendered child as if the child were adjudicated a neglected child. The infant may then be eligible for placement in foster care and ultimately for adoption.

Criticism of Safe Haven Laws

While safe haven laws appear to be a safe and humane response to the problem of child abandonment, they are not without their critics. Safe haven laws have been seen as a “band-aid approach” to a much larger problem. Many child welfare experts, for instance, cite the lack of a comprehensive strategy for the prevention of infant abandonment and the need to integrate these laws into a much larger effort to improve services for those women most at risk of abandoning their child.

Others question the effect on fathers’ rights. The abeyance of criminal prosecution and the anonymity enjoyed by the abandoning parent or their agent can often conflict with the rights of the other parent. The father may not even know that he is a parent or that the mother is abandoning the child. Critics believe that safe haven laws should provide the unwed father his due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Some adoption advocates have their reservations about safe haven laws as well. Safe haven providers cannot compel an abandoning parent to disclose family and medical history information and the lack of this information can affect the child’s adoption prospects later on.

Others believe that these laws encourage abandonment by women who would not do so otherwise because it seems easier or less invasive than receiving counseling, help with parenting skills, or making an adoption plan. Safe haven laws have been said to propagate “baby dumps” by making it convenient for mothers to abandon their infants and shirk their responsibility. It is thought that these laws send a signal that there is no need to assume responsibility for actions taken and that discarding one’s child is acceptable behavior.

The most damning indictment of safe have laws is that they simply don’t work. In spite of the number of states who have enacted safe haven laws, abandoned infants continue to be found on porches, doorsteps and near trash piles.

Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater?

The abandonment of children is certainly not a new phenomenon; reports from the mid 1800s indicate the occurrence of over 900 abandonments over a period of ten years in New York State alone. Safe haven laws, then, may be seen as a new(er) approach to an age old problem. They may not be able to completely prevent the unsafe abandonment of children, but can serve as a valuable part of a comprehensive strategy addressing the issue of abandonment. Admittedly, safe haven laws do have their disadvantages, but when the lives of children hang in the balance, their value cannot be disputed.

In spite of its critics, safe haven laws do work. In Ohio alone, the Department of Job and Family Services found that 63 babies have been safely surrendered since enactment of Ohio’s safe haven law in 2001. While Ohio’s safe haven law didn’t prevent the recent abandonment of a newborn by the side of a road, it has resulted in the safe surrender of children who could have been left in a much more vulnerable location or under dangerous conditions. Ohio has been pleased with the success of its safe haven law and has recently extended the time in which a parent may safely abandon an infant to an authorized safe haven provider from 72 hours to 30 days to encourage more parents to pursue this option.

For additional information about Adoption or Contact Us.

Gay Adoption: The Latest Across the Country and In Ohio

Filed under: Adoption Tags: ,

On several different fronts the battle for and against gay adoption is once again being fought across the country. From the polls in Arkansas, to a Florida courtroom to the floor of the Tennessee legislature, people on both sides of the issue are fighting it out. Each battlefield however is producing very different results.

On November 4, the country’s primary focus was understandably the historic election of Barack Obama. But in the state of Arkansas the electorate wasn’t only casting votes for its elected officials. Voters there also passed a measure banning unmarried couples living together from serving as adoptive or foster parents. The measure, which was aimed primarily at keeping gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents, surprisingly received nearly 57-percent support.

The measure’s sponsor, the Arkansas Family Council, positioned the measure as a battle against a “gay agenda” and the strategy appeared to have worked. Exit polls taken on Election Day showed the measure was supported by residents identifying themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Rural voters by and large also supported the measure.

Those who opposed the ban included Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe. Opponents like Beebe pointed to a current lack in foster homes as reason enough to vote against the measure. With its passage they now fear children in need of homes will be the ones who suffer the fall out. According to state officials, 1000 children in Arkansas are presently waiting to be adopted. The ban will in effect reduce the number of homes available. Children in need of parents and guardians will now likely have to wait even longer.

With those concerns in mind, opponents of the new Arkansas law filed a lawsuit at the end of December, asking a judge to strike the measure down. The lawsuit contends the new law violates federal and state constitutional rights to equal treatment and due process. The suit also argues the measure disregards the best interests of children while keeping children in state custody at additional and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.

Very similar arguments are what compelled a Florida judge to overturn her state’s long standing gay adoption ban. Ironically, the Florida ruling was handed down just three weeks after the Arkansas vote. A Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge found a Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades unconstitutional. The judge said prohibiting homosexual adoption was not in the best interest of children and that the law violated equal protection rights for both children and prospective parents. Advocates for gay adoption say the Florida ruling also makes very clear that the evidence points to the fact that children raised by gay parents fare just as well as those raised by straight parents.

And now, the Tennessee legislature is weighing in on the issue. On January 30, a bill was introduced that would prohibit Tennessee couples-both gay and straight- who aren’t married from adopting. Unless a couple is actually married, they would be prohibited from adopting. The bill does not affect singles who adopt.

In fact across the country gay individuals have a far easier time adopting than couples. However in more than 20 states, it’s ambiguous as to whether the second person in a couple can also adopt their partner’s adopted or biological child if the person is gay. States like Utah, Michigan, Mississippi, and New Hampshire all have laws that do ban joint adoption.

It has been two years since the Ohio legislature took up the gay adoption issue. A bill introduced then would have fallen in line with the measures Florida recently overturned. Its intent was to bar all adoptions and foster care by gays and lesbians. The bill didn’t go far though, never even making it to the hearing stage. Presently Ohio permits single adoptions by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals. Ohio law does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption either. However, second-parent adoption, where one parent already has legal rights of the child and a second parent is petitioning for joint rights, is not allowed.

Ironically adoption advocates on both sides of this issue often cite the same concern when arguing their position on the subject of gay adoption: The quality of a child’s life. Advocates of gay adoptions claim that thousands of children need loving homes and to forbid gay adoption is to reduce the overall number of homes available. However, groups against gay adoptions contend that gay adoption is an affront to conventional family values and that it’s in every child’s best interest to have both a mother and a father. Some of those same anti-gay adoption groups insist children raised in homosexual homes, especially females, act out sexually and that self-identity issues are prevalent. But The American Academy of Pediatrics and other gay adoption advocates point to the fact that there is no credible evidence that shows having gay parents harms children. Proponents also argue that for the children who never get placed in an adoptive home the future is often bleak and many of these children who leave the foster care system without ever finding a permanent family end up on the streets, or in jail, without a job or family to support them.

In the meantime, statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicate there are approximately 129,000 foster care kids across the country. It is these children who hang in the balance, all in need of a stable home. For each of them, these continuing battles may very well make the difference as to when they finally find it.

For more information about Adoption or Contact Us.

Decline in Foreign Adoptions

Though the number of American foreign adoptions has tripled since the early 1990s and peaked in 2004, these adoptions have dropped in the past three years, declining 15% in the last two years alone. This decline is partially due to stricter adoption policies in China and Russia, previously the top two counties for American foreign adoptions.

China, the top country for foreign adoptions since 2000, has increased waiting time for adoptions to 24 months or more. In addition, the country has experienced an increase in domestic adoptions, allowing them to restrict foreign adoptions to financially stable, healthy married couples between 30 and 50 and exclude single, obese, or unhealthy prospective adoptive parents.

Russian officials prohibited all foreign adoptions for several months this year by suspending adoption agencies and are slowly beginning to recertify them. Russia, like China, is also attempting to increase domestic adoptions within the country.

Foreign adoptions from Haiti and South Korea have also experienced drops, while adoptions from Guatemala, Vietnam, and Ethiopia have increased. However, experts expect numbers in Guatemala to decrease as the government plans to introduce new adoption regulations in response to fraud and extortion claims as part of the Hague Convention on international adoptions. While the new regulations are being put in place, Americans are urged not to initiate Guatemalan adoptions.

Some experts find this decrease in U.S. foreign adoptions from previously popular countries to represent positive changes, such as increased interest in inter-country adoptions and an investigation and awareness of new countries. Others, however, view it negatively, suggesting that the changes in China and Russia reflect a trend encouraged by international children’s organizations, such as UNICEF, to care for children within their own country, even when such services are less than adequate.

For more information regarding Adoption or Contact Us.

Surrogacy: Some Words of Caution

Filed under: Surrogacy Tags:

Written by Connie Shapiro, PhD

Surrogacy has been in the news for a number of years. I well remember how early media coverage focused on heart-wrenching problems, such as a surrogate mother who chose to retain custody of the baby rather than to honor the agreement she had with prospective parents. Gradually I have seen the media focus becoming more positive, with recent stories of Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick welcoming their second child who was born to a gestational surrogate. Given the desperation felt by many infertile couples, I believe surrogacy has become highly appealing to couples who can afford it. And with the demand increasing, a number of fertility physicians have been responsive to couples’ efforts to pursue this option. However, the legal issues involved in surrogacy have not been clarified to keep pace with the increasing demand by hopeful couples for medical assistance in helping a surrogate conceive. I believe this “legal lag” needs to get just as much media attention as the medical successes in helping infertile people become parents. The following article is an excellent step in that direction, encouraging prospective parents to do careful homework on how they can protect themselves from the legal pitfalls that they could encounter.

A front page December 13 article in the New York Times highlighted the issues potential parents face when turning to surrogacy as a means to bring a child into their lives. The article emphasized what so many infertile people know from experience, namely that there is no legal consistency in how different states handle surrogacy. To illustrate the inconsistency, the article states some real-life examples. On one end of the spectrum, there is California, where courts have upheld the validity of surrogacy contracts. On the other end is Michigan, which holds that surrogacy is contrary to public policy and that surrogacy agreements are unenforceable. In between are about 10 states that allow for surrogacy but preserve restrictions, with the majority of states being “silent” on surrogacy, effectively creating legal uncertainty about how intended parents can proceed when their initial plans with a surrogate are challenged. The article did go on to say that fewer problems occur in those circumstances when prospective parents have a genetic link to the offspring, but also pointed out that potential trouble spots can occur in several situations including: when surrogacy arrangements are handled by for-profit agencies, when a woman has not given birth to her own child before becoming a surrogate, when the prospective parents have not been psychologically screened and when there has been no preapproval by a court in a process that would include a home study. For the approximately 750 babies born each year in the U.S. through gestational surrogacy, the legal limbo has potential ramifications for all the players in the effort to provide a healthy and loving home for these babies.

So, what lessons can we learn from this, given that legal protections will be slow to develop and, even when they do, different states will offer different enforcements? First, it is clearly important to choose a nonprofit agency that utilizes protective guidelines. Second, prospective parents should familiarize themselves with existing guidelines developed by organizations such as the American Bar Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Third, it is important to recognize, as the New York Times article emphasizes, that surrogacy is controlled mostly by fertility physicians who stand to profit financially from the procedures they carry out. Also, many of the 100 agencies in the U.S. that coordinate surrogacy arrangements do not adhere to guidelines that would protect prospective parents in case of a dispute. Given that a successful surrogacy can cost between $80,000 and $120,000, prospective parents are in a position to lose not only that money, but also the hope for a newborn to carry home.

What I have taken from this information is that prospective parents need to do careful homework and proceed with caution before choosing surrogacy as a path to parenthood. As attractive as surrogacy may be at first glance, I believe the bottom line is that prospective parents must be vigilant and legally careful in negotiating this particular path to parenthood — both to protect their rights and the well being of potential children.

For more information regarding Surrogacy or Contact Us.

Parent’s Home Will Avoid Probate

Written By McNichol & Tillem and Posted on NapaValleyRegister.com

Dear Len & Rosie, Before my dad died, he and my mom set up a living trust. When my husband and I set up our own trust, our attorney advised us to retitle our house in the trust’s name. My mom’s attorney told her that this wasn’t necessary. He said since she’s leaving the house to her trust in her will, she doesn’t have to go through the hassle and expense of changing the title on her house. My parents kept their home in joint tenancy.

Would it be better for her to change the title of her house to her trust? She wants to do the right thing. Would she have to do it in person, or can she do it by mail? She’s in her 80s and she likes to save her energy for going only places she really likes to go. The courthouse isn’t one of them. — Suzanne

Dear Suzanne, Think of a revocable trust as a great big basket that avoids probate. Everything in the basket will pass to your parent’s beneficiaries without the court’s involvement, unless there’s a legal dispute within your family. Everything out of the basket is subject to probate, probate fees, and probate delays, except for assets with pay-on-death beneficiaries, and assets held as Joint Tenants or Community Property With Right Of Survivorship.

Your parents’ home avoided probate because it was titled in Joint Tenancy between your mother and father. But now the property is titled solely in your mother’s name. She could retitle the home in joint tenancy with the children, but that’s a bad idea because she will no longer be in control of her own home, and her home would be subject to claims from her children’s creditors. She needs to put her home into the trust.

If your mother dies and the home is not in the trust, it is possible to obtain a court order declaring the home to be trust property in order to avoid probate. The appellate court decision in a case named “Estate of Heggstad” will allow your parents’ successor trustee to go to court, on bended knee, and say, “Your Honor, my parents spent thousands of dollars creating a trust to avoid probate, but they just didn’t get around to signing a new deed. Please, oh please judge, say that the home is really part of the trust because my parents really, really meant to do it and it’s not their fault.”

The petition is likely to succeed. We do about eight or 10 cases like this each year. It’s good money, for us that is. Your mother can help her children avoid spending this money by funding her trust. It is easy to fund the trust. Any estate planning attorney, even your own attorney, can prepare an affidavit of death of joint tenant, to remove your father’s name from the title of the home, and a deed from your mother conveying the home to herself as trustee of the trust. Your mother can sign the documents at the lawyer’s office, or before any Notary Public, and the lawyer can record them with the county recorder.

While you are at it, you should review your mother’s account statements to make sure that her other assets are in the trust except for her retirement accounts, for which you should also make sure your mother has designated beneficiaries. The whole point of having an estate plan is to make things easier for the children. Creating a trust is only half the job. Your mother should finish the job by funding the trust.

For more information on Probate or Estate Administration or Contact us.

Empty Nest Adoption Trend

Filed under: Adoption Tags:

As their adult children move out, get married and begin families, many “empty nest” parents, whether single, widowed, or married, are choosing to adopt children of their own. Many counties value older parents, and therefore many older adoptive parents chose to adopt intentionally. Some also chose to adopt older children or teenagers, who involve less physical lifting and are less likely to affect sleep schedules.

Agencies report that while it is more common than ever for older couples to adopt, general adoption statistics continue to grow and therefore “empty nest” adoptions are merely staying proportional to all other adoptions.

Critics of this growing trend suggest that older couples who adopt are subjecting their children to the risk of making end-of-life decisions and losing their parents at a young age. They worry that older parents may be seeking a second “baby experience” but will lack the patience and energy necessary to raise a child.

Oppositely, supporters of the trend site that this demographic group is a new source that can provide loving homes for many children who would otherwise live in orphanages or foster care. In addition, older adoptive parents have parenting experience and expertise which can assist in providing a prosperous environment for children.

For more information about Adoption or Contact us.

Lawyer’s Advice: Adopting A Haitian Orphan

Adoption Advice
NBC 4’s Ana Jackson talks to a local attorney about the challenges of adopting Haitian orphans.

Chances for Foreign Adoptions Plunge: Better Economies Overseas Help Parents Keep Kids

BY BONNIE MILLER RUBIN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

CHICAGO — For years, Americans hoping to build families through adoption looked overseas because the path was more predictable and less complicated than domestic adoption.

But in recent years, the landscape has changed dramatically, experts say.

Three of the most popular countries — China, Guatemala and Russia — have scaled back, tightened rules or temporarily halted adoptions as they struggle to establish more transparency and accountability.

Countries also have raised the eligibility bar, excluding more prospective parents based on income, marital status and even — in the case of China — body mass index.

Even if a couple manage to slice through the bureaucracy, there’s the price — which can hit $40,000 in some countries, double what it was 10 years ago and a deal breaker for many families.

“It’s never been so difficult to adopt internationally,” said Julie Tye, president of the Cradle in Evanston, Ill., calling it the most challenging climate that she has seen in a decade.

A decrease in available children has caused up to 25 of American agencies to close or merge since 2000, according to the National Council for Adoption in Alexandria, Va.

“The days of a large sending country are over,” said Chuck Johnson, the council’s vice president.

The current picture is a stark contrast to a nearly two-decade-long overseas baby boom, which started in the early 1990s and peaked in 2004 with almost 23,000 adoptions by U.S. parents. But since then, the numbers have steadily declined, with only about 12,750 international adoptions in the U.S. in 2009 — the smallest total since 1997, according to State Department data.

A major shift came in 2008 with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. The treaty — signed by 70 countries, including the United States — has been widely supported by accredited agencies as an important step in eliminating concerns of baby-selling and coercion. Such allegations were common in Guatemala and Vietnam.

Although the pact certainly slowed the process by implementing more safeguards, other factors explain today’s realities, as well.

Russia had routinely allowed about 5,000 or more adoptions to the U.S. annually, but that figure has shriveled to about 1,500 simply because the nation is in less turmoil than it was after the fall of communism, analysts say.

China — which sent almost 8,000 kids to the U.S. in 2005 — accounted for just 3,000 adoptions last year. The decrease can be attributed, in part, to a robust economy and a larger middle class, giving couples more financial stability to raise kids and afford fines for having more than one child, experts say.

“It used to be that if you met the requirements, you would have a child in 12 to 18 months … but no more,” said Tom Jackson of Sunny Ridge Family Center in Bolingbrook, Ill., and Munster, Ind.

His agency had such a backlog a year ago it stopped taking applications for its China program — and has no idea when it will reopen. In 2003, Sunny Ridge completed 84 Chinese adoptions, versus 16 last year.

And just about everywhere else, there’s a new emphasis to first look for prospective parents at home, with nations like South Korea and India pouring more resources into domestic adoption.

In fact, only Ethiopia is on an upswing. That country, which figured in a mere 289 adoptions in 2004, now ranks second with almost 2,300 U.S. adoptions.

Jackson said parents are reconsidering their options and looking at special-needs children, older children and sibling adoptions — both in the U.S. and abroad.

For more information about Adoption or Contact Us.

Surrogacy: The Most Important Factors To Learn About Being A Mother Surrogate

Filed under: Adoption, Surrogacy Tags:

Written by Rachel Lee Reynolds

Advancements in technology have provided numerous benefits to human life, making work easier and general quality of life far better than before. Apart from improving the quality of living, technology has also paved the way for the broadening of human perspectives allowing technology to be a tool in the perpetuation of the human species. One of the medical advancements which has raised controversial issues is mother surrogacy. Read on to find out more information about it.

In a nutshell, being a mother surrogate is a term that refers to a woman who bore and gave birth to a child who is either her own offspring or a fully developed fetus implanted into her womb. Surrogacy is usually an option taken by couples who are unable to bear their own children. In some instances, surrogacy is an option taken by unmarried women who have been wanting to become mothers even without domestic partners or by same sex couples.  Also, high profile infertile individuals make take this option and can afford to pay for commercial surrogacy, a term which may derogatorily be called “womb for rent”.

There are two general kinds of surrogacy. The first one is traditional because the mother surrogate is the biological mother of the child. The other is called gestational surrogacy as the mother surrogate’s womb serves as a host of the embryo being implanted until it becomes a fully developed fetus. In traditional surrogacy, the sperm needed to make fertilization happen can be taken from the male parent who requests a child or can be from a donor. In the gestational surrogacy, the mother surrogate cannot be called the child’s biological mother since she is only a host of the developing embryo.

Since surrogacy is a bit different from adoptions, this practice is marked by legal controversy. However, many countries even in US states have their own legal provisions concerning the legitimacy of the children born out of surrogates and their intended parents. To avoid lawsuits, some states require pre-birth orders to identify the intended parents of the child. This is to avoid legal disputes which were common before.

Another controversy is sparked by the feminists who liken mother surrogates to prostitutes. They describe surrogacy as patriarchal violence as it disrespects the bodies of women using them as “commodities” and degrades the babies being born. However, the feminists view against surrogacy is being ignored since most people believe that having children, whether biological or not, completes the family. Studies show that most surrogate mothers are not emotionally attached to the children they gave birth, unlike the intending parents who want the children in the first place. The series of studies have refuted the popular speculation that surrogates tend to be closer to the children they gave birth to since they were the host of the children for several months.

Whether morally good or bad, the source of the controversy is the fact that surrogacy is a non-traditional method of child bearing. Despite the different views regarding surrogacy, the most important thing is that the children born out of mother surrogates are given all the rights, respect and love which they rightfully deserve to have in order to live harmoniously in the world.

For more information about Surrogacy or Contact us.

Surrogacy: 4 Easy Steps To Become A Surrogate

Filed under: Surrogacy Tags:

Written by Rachel Lee Reynolds

Childbirth could be the most miraculous and joyful experience that people may have in their lifetime. What if this dream of having children is unable to come true because of the misfortune of infertility? The couple may experience their worst nightmare but will eventually find respite with the involvement of someone who would want to become a surrogate mother. This person is someone who is kind-hearted and generous enough to lend her womb to bear a couple’s bundle of joy and might just be the best answer. It is however challenging and fearful to be a surrogate mother or couple at that and this is the reason why the correct steps should be followed for a successful surrogacy procedure. What follows are these steps:

Screening the Application

To become a surrogate, the potential surrogate would have to apply to their chosen surrogacy agency. Once the application is received, a representative from the surrogacy agency would contact the applicant. After the applicant has been asked questions, a permanent counselor will be assigned to provide guidance during the whole process. At the first meeting with the agency, the applicant will be screened thoroughly. Once the applicant passes the screening, the applicant will receive an invitation to attend a group support meeting that may be available and have a background check. The applicant will meet with a representative of the agency to ensure that the pregnancy medical expenses will be covered by the applicant’s insurance policy. They will also have a medical screening by a fertility specialist whose expertise is working with surrogate mothers.

The Match-Making

The agency will present profiles of prospective couples to the would-be surrogate, previously matched based on the information gathered during the application screening. The would-be surrogate has the opportunity to choose the couple to work with. The would-be surrogate’s profile will be sent to the prospective couple and an initial meeting with a counselor will be set once both parties agree. After both parties have decided to work together, an agency attorney will be assigned to draft a contract and send it out to be signed. Once both parties sign the contract, the couple will be required to deposit the surrogacy fee and other possible expenses held in trust by the agency.

Medical Care

A fertility specialist associated with the agency will explain to the would-be surrogate all the procedures of the surrogacy program, whether artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Further questions about the process will be readily answered. The would-be surrogate will also be monitored throughout the medical process.

The Pregnancy and Childbirth

You will have the freedom of informing the couple of the exciting news as soon as the pregnancy is confirmed. You should choose an obstetrician that is approved by your medical insurance or continue working with an obstetrician you already have an existing working relationship with during the pregnancy. You may start doing doctor’s visits at least eight (8) weeks during your pregnancy. It may be suggested by the agency that you keep in touch with the couple at least once every two (2) weeks since most couples would want to take part during the pregnancy.

The couple will be completely responsible for the caring of the child as soon as the baby is born. While in the hospital, both surrogate mother and couple who may have established a bond would take turns with the baby. It could become emotional for the surrogate mother because she would have to part ways with the couple and the baby once the child is released from the hospital. The joy she has given to the new parents of the baby she selflessly carried is beyond compare. Inspiration, support and lasting friendships may be established with other surrogate mothers once the amazing story on how to become a surrogate is shared in the group support meeting.

For more information about Surrogacy or Contact Us.

House Bill 7: Summary of Adoption and Child Welfare Provisions

Filed under: Adoption Tags: ,

Changes in Adoption Laws

House Bill 7 provides additional financial support to the birth mother consenting to the adoption of her child. In addition to the payments of allowable expenses related to the adoption or placement of a child such as medical or legal expenses, prospective adoptive parents may now pay up to $3,000 of the living expenses incurred by the birth mother for the duration of her pregnancy and for 60 days after the child is born. The payment of these living expenses must flow through the attorney or agency arranging the adoption, but will ultimately provide much needed financial support for birth mother.

The bill also contains a requirement that the Director of Job and Family Services must promulgate rules that will ensure that adoption and foster care home study procedures and content are in alignment. This will help promote efficiency and consistency for the adoption and foster care systems, which should help make the adoption process go more smoothly.

The length of time in which a child must live with a foster parent before the foster parent may submit an adoption application has been decreased from 12 months to 6 months. Also, a juvenile court no longer needs to consent to adoptions before a probate court can grant adoption petitions that include legal guardians or custodians. As a result of these changes, children will have the opportunity to be adopted at a much faster rate and the number of children awaiting permanent homes will likely decrease.

Where a parent has not been in contact with the child for one year and failed to provide for the child, consent by the parent is no longer forfeited; rather, under the new law, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent did not try to establish contact with the child or provide any support. In addition, the clerk of courts must send a notice to the parent stating the legal ramifications of the adoption and informing the parent of his or her right to contest the child’s adoption. While the use of the “clear and convincing” standard as opposed to the automatic forfeiture of rights may be seen as a means to impede rather than expedite the adoption process, its usage will provide the birth parent(s) with the ability to contest the adoption before their parental rights are terminated and in doing so may reduce the possibility of lengthy appeals.

Another change provides for the finalization of an interlocutory order not less than six months and not over one year from the date the adoptee is placed in the adoptive home instead of anywhere between six months and one year from the date the order is issued. This provision will decrease the time the court has available for observation, investigation, and review of home study reports while also decreasing the amount of time that the adoptive parents must wait before the adoption is final. Current law which allows the court to vacate an interlocutory order sooner for good cause relating to adoptions involving foster parents or relatives remains unchanged in the bill.

A juvenile court must now consider the ability of the adoptive parents to meet the needs of the other children living in their home.

The bill also adopts a new definition of “non-identifying information” by listing types of information that may be requested in relation to the adoptive parent. Prior to the passage of House Bill 7, Ohio law only addressed the type of information considered as “non-identifying” as that which pertained to the birth parent. Under the bill, the adoptive parent’s age at the time of adoption, an adoptive sibling’s age at the time of adoption, the heritage, ethnic background, religion, educational level, and occupation of the adoptive parent, and general information known about the well-being of the adoptee both prior and after adoption is considered to be information that does not identify the parties involved and therefore subject to inquiry. The bill does authorize an agency, attorney, person, or other governmental authority to reclassify any non-identifying information related to an adoptive family as identifying information on a case-by-case basis and to deny the request made for that information. In addition, House Bill 7 preserves the ability of a birth parent of an adopted person, a birth sibling over 18 years, or a birth family member of a deceased birth parent to submit a written request for non-identifying information as well as retains the definition of what constitutes such information, but stipulates that the birth parent must wait until the adopted child is 18 years of age before the information can be requested.

Changes in Child Welfare Laws

Under House Bill 7, a juvenile court may extend a temporary custody order for an additional time beyond that by which a PCSA or a PCPA may extend a temporary custody order by motion. The bill permits a juvenile court to extend a temporary custody order in increments of six months each, but under no circumstance may it extend the order for more than one year. In addition, the bill prohibits the court from extending the temporary custody order beyond two years from either the date when the complaint was filed or when the child was put in shelter care, whichever comes first and irrespective of any previous extensions. This provision allows a juvenile court more latitude in its disposition of the child, while safeguarding against the placement of a child in temporary custody for an inordinate period of time.

The new law mandates that a juvenile court must, under specific circumstances, place a child in a PSCA’s or PCPA’s custody. The child is required to be placed with a PCSA or PCPA if all of the following apply: 1) the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; 2) the child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody; 3) the child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to current law; and 4) prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of the child.

The law provides specifications concerning when it is necessary for the child to stay in residential or institutional care. If the child is unable to function in a family-like setting due to physical or mental disability and must therefore remain in residential or institutional care, the law specifies that the child must remain in such care for “now and the foreseeable future” beyond the date of the child’s dispositional hearing.

Finally, the new law provides an additional standard for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of a parent who has already had his or her parental rights terminated in regards to a sibling of the child in question. Under House Bill 7, the parent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that in spite of the previous termination, the parent can provide a secure, permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child. While this provision allows the parent the ability to preserve his parental rights for the child regardless of the loss of parental rights in respect to another child, it also protects the child who is the current subject of a TPR proceeding by requiring the parent to meet a stricter burden of proof.

The passage of House Bill 7 effectuates many positive changes in Ohio adoption laws and will encourage adoptions in Ohio of children in need of permanent homes. With approximately 2,800 children waiting for adoptive families out of the more than 22,000 children in Ohio living in either foster care or some type of out-of-home placement, it is necessary to make the adoption process more accessible.

For more information about Adoption or Contact Us.

Thomas Taneff | 600 South High Street, Suite 201 | Columbus, Ohio 43215 | Phone: (614) 241-2181 | Fax: (614) 241-2160