Members of the law and justice committee,*
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Katy Faust and I’m the founder of the children’s rights organization Them Before Us. I am the former Assistant Director of Chinese Children Adoption International, the largest Chinese Adoption agency in the world, and I am an adoptive mother myself.
I would like to highlight how the Uniform Parentage Act violates child rights by contrasting it with adoption best practices.
In both cases- adoption and donor-conception- children lose a relationship with one or both biological parents, the two people to whom they have a natural right. (1) While adoption functions as an institution to meet the needs of children; third-party reproduction and surrogacy functions as a market to meet the desires of adults.
1. The right to the child’s best interests as a primary consideration. (2,3) In adoption the child is the client and their “best interests” meant that some “intended parents” were turned away. Our agency had a saying, “we exist to find every child loving parents, not to give a child to every adult.”
In the fertility industry, the adults are the client. The goal is to provide them a baby, literally, at any cost. As a result, and clearly illustrated in this bill, “best interest of the child” is rarely considered, if at all.
2. The right to not be separated from his or her parents against their will. (4) Adoption is a last resort (5), sought only when all avenues of keeping the child with their birth parents have been exhausted, because social workers acknowledge that separation from one’s birth parent is deeply painful and results in lifelong loss. Adoptive parents seek to mend that loss. Many agencies require training which helps parents support their child as they grieve.
The children affected by SB 6037 will also be separated from one or both biological parents. But the source of that loss isn’t tragic circumstance, it was willfully chosen by the very adults who are raising them. As a result, donor-conceived children often feel that they cannot be honest about their feelings of loss. (6)
3. The right to safe placements. (7,8) In adoption, social workers never casually place a child with a biological stranger(s) because living with unrelated adults increases the risk that children will experience abuse, neglect, and abandonment.(9) While we all know heroic step-parents, the statistics reveal that neither a romantic relationship with one’s biological parent nor an “intent” to parent mitigates that risk to children. As a result, adoption professionals have developed lengthy processes of screening, training and supervising “intended” parents.
Not so in SB 6037. This bill grants state-sanctioned parental authority to unrelated adults based simply on their “intent” to parent. While adoptive parents must rightly undergo background checks, references, home studies, parent training, and post-placement supervision, SB 6037 requires none of these, despite the fact that any/all of the “intended” parents may be unrelated to the child. Granting an adult parental rights simply based on “intent” is the most dangerous portion of this bill.
4. The right to be born free- not bought and sold. (10) Adoption professionals understand the moral dangers when adults who want children are working with vulnerable birth mothers. In those scenarios, it’s all too easy to move from adoption into baby buying. Preventing the trafficking of children in the name of adoption lead the US to sign the Hague Adoption Convention in 1994.(11) To prevent a market in children, the Hague specifically prohibiting payment directly to the birth mother in return for relinquishing her child. (12)
SB 6037 spurns that critical safeguard. This bill will institutionalize commercial surrogacy, even genetic surrogacy, where the mother can be directly paid to surrender her child. In many cases the only difference between the child trafficking the Hague sought to prevent and an enforceable Washington Surrogacy contract would be… timing. If the surrogacy contract is signed prior to conception, it’s “helping someone build a family.” If it’s signed after conception it’s child trafficking. To the child, the timing of the contract makes little difference.
5. The right to preserved kinship bonds. (13) The adoption world is embracing “open” adoption because social workers have observed that children benefit from as many connections with their biological family as possible. Priority is given to adoptive homes that can take sibling groups so as not to separate children from their brothers and sisters.
The fertility industry on the other hand, favors “anonymous” gametes to produce children, intentionally cutting them off from half or all of their extended family. Donor conceived children often have tens to hundreds of half-siblings scattered across the globe.
Time constraints prevent me from addressing the ways that a child’s right to accurate birth records (14), identity preservation (15), and right to not be taken abroad illegally (16) are threatened by the Uniform Parentage Act. But my hope is that when considering any legislation that impacts children, their rights and “best interest” will be at the forefront of your minds. If that is that case, then SB 6037 will be roundly rejected.
Thank you for your time.
Footnotes:
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 7-10, 18
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3 “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
- Hague Convention on Protections of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Preamble. “…to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interest of the child and with respect to his or her fundamental rights.”
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9
- Hague Convention on Protections of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Preamble. “Each state should take, as a matter of priority, appropriate measures to enable the child to remain in the care of his or her family of origin.”
- My Daddy’s Name is Donor, p.7 “53% of donor conceived children agree “I have worried that if I try to get more information about or have a relationship with my sperm donor, my mother and/or father who raised me would feel angry or hurt.””
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 25
- Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Articles 5(a), 15
- Biology Matters, ThemBeforeUs.com (studies on outcomes for children re: biological and unrelated cohabiting adults)
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 21 (d), 35
- Preamble: “Convinced of the necessity of to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interest of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffick in children”
- Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Article 16, 32
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 8, 9 (3)
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7
- Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Article 9
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 11
* Oral testimony was limited to 2 minutes. Katy’s comments can be viewed here at minute 1:45:45.
Thank you for your courageous stand, Katy.
Thank You Katy Faust for standing and speaking the truth on how horrible trafficking and selling babies is, how could anyone have voted for this horrible act, Senator Ann Rivers co sponsored this horrible Bill according to what we were told, shameful!!!
Thank you for your testimony and summary. Very important to view this from the “rights of the children” perspective. Children are not commodities for adult emotional needs and pleasure. The are unique, wonderful gifts from God and their rights must be protected.
The surrogacy and donor conception lobby must be hitting congress hard, which means those with common sense need to hit back harder. Katy, you have done a fine here.
When my partner and I started looking into adopting we set up quite a few meetings with different agencies. A number of factors guided our decision one was that any agency that was overly solicitous about our being a gay couple was out. Our assumption these folks where not going to be able to call us out on our own crap and while the fear that some agencies would struggle to get past prejudiced assumptions about us as gay men but our lives and that of this child could blow up if we are working with people who want a story for their next dinner party. We didn’t consider any agency that could not answer certain questions of ethical safeguards and a huge no thank you the minute we figured out that the way many of the agencies worked with gay people was to hide the fact of their being so. Our decision was to go the state rout mostly because when we met with an agent with Boston’s Horne for Little Wanderers it was clear we where being interviewed and they would tell us if they wanted to move forward, Early on she asked “Who is the one that really wants this and who is doing it because the person you love wants this?” we protested some but she was ruthless said she has worked with adoptive parents for over 25 years one person needs it one could take it or leave it. About half way through she said she heard enough from me. The rest of the time she wanted my partner to answer. In the months and years ahead we reconciled to an unpopular realization that there are advantages to gay parents over straight ones. Kids who need to know its OK that they have a mom and dad who are their real parents and know that the people who care for them and love them don’t need to have a child pretend otherwise.