Bella, 9, has a great sense of humor - The Boston Globe

Two of our cousins adopted. The USA adoption policies were so onerous that they decided to adopt a Vietnamese child from Vietnam. He is an M.D. and she is a engineer. Is the USA adoption procedures broken?

SPC Jeff Daley, PhD Adoption procedures are regulated by state, not federal (and in a couple of states, by county). In the job I just left, I got to work with kids from many different states, most of whom were eventually adopted. I only saw things second-hand, so I cannot say with 100% certainty. Additionally, my experience was with state adoptions (kids in foster care) not private adoptions. Finally, I did not work with every state throughout my tenure, but I got cases from around 30. So I have a pretty good idea of how things work across the nation, but my experience by no means covers every possibility.

Caveats out of the way, I will say that some states are better than others, but all states DO have a TON of red tape. Pretty much every foster/adoptive parents I talked to complained about how much paperwork they had to do, and how much time it took. And a couple of times, that was perfectly valid. The state (read: the state employee assigned to the case) would sit on paperwork for MONTHS before processing it. In one of my most egregious cases, the foster/adoptive parents had to go get new background checks, because their original ones, which are good for a year, had expired. And then again, ANOTHER year later. So, yes, stuff like that happens. BUT, in my experience, that is the exception, not the rule. And when that DOES happen, it is through error (i.e. lazy or incompetent worker) not by design.

On the other hand, the red tape, while most people involved feel like it is a bug, it really is a feature. Those things are there to do as much possible due diligence as possible to protect the children. Yes, including the length of time it takes. Because before we make things permanent, we want to make sure it is a good fit. So a kid has to "stabilize" in the home.... be there in the same basic household (i.e. no new babies, no deaths, divorces, or marriages) for a period of time to make sure that everyone gets along well, the parents are not overwhelmed, etc. Background checks are absolutely vital to make sure that prospective foster parents will not harm the kids, and prospective adoptive parents will not only help the kid survive, but help the kid thrive. Same for home inspections, periodic visits, etc. Plus we check financial health.

What I had to explain, and most people don't get, is that every single one of those "pointless" checks, every "stupid, needless" piece of paper is there because something bad happened. A foster child dies in a backyard swimming pool, now we have rules about fencing the pool to prevent kids from falling in. And then more rules later on about how that fence is secured. Etc. Does it put good people through the ringer, when there was never any need for all of that? You betcha. But does it ALSO catch some bad people and prevent them from abusing or exploiting children? You betcha. And it also catches good people whose heart is in the right place, but just are not a good fit for this, particular, child. Or maybe good people who live in horribly unsafe homes (lead paint, asbestos, exposed wiring, etc.), or good people who WANT to help, but realistically cannot support themselves, let alone adding a child to the mix. I have seen all of those situations.

TL;DR version: Yes, the process is usually frustrating, but it is there to keep kids safe and, overall, does a DECENT (not great or perfect) job of balancing timeliness/ease with due diligence. And, where the process errs, it errs on the side of safety.