Representatives from the Department will testify before the subcommittee this morning to review their activities in carrying out the legislative mandate to develop a model State adoption act. Following that presentation, we will hear from two panels of individuals concerned about certain provisions in the model act. Those individuals include adult adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents, as well as professionals working in the field of adoption who will explain why they agree or disagree with provisions in the model act. One final group of witnesses will include members of the advisory panel that developed the model act. As our first witness, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Cesar Perales, Assistant Secretary for Human Development Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. STATEMENT OF CESAR PERALES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OF- Mr. SIMON. I think I am correct in saying this is your first appearance on the Hill, is that correct? Mr. PERALES. No, it is the second. Mr. SIMON. Second? You are a veteran by now. Let me just add, if I may interject a personal note, that I am interested in this area because one of our children is adopted. I have two nephews who would be considered in the hard-to-place adoption category and it is of more than casual interest to me. I am, however, in a situation here today where I am also in Conference Committee on the Budget right now and we met until late last night; we are going to be meeting all day, late tonight again and I will have to be leaving in a very short time and will have to turn this hearing over to my colleagues, but I will be following the testimony and reading it with a great deal of interest. Mr. Perales, we welcome you here. Mr. PERALES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me introduce Mr. Frank Ferro, sitting on my right, associate chief of the Children's Bureau, within the Department of Health and Human Services, and on his right Ms. Susan A. Weber, who heads the unit primarily responsible for the implementation of this law. Mr. SIMON. Incidentally, you can proceed as you wish. If you wish to enter your statement in the record, it could be done and summarize it or you can read your statement. Mr. PERALES. I will try to read it as quickly as I can. Mr. SIMON. Very well. Mr. PERALES. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Cesar A. Perales, Assistant Secretary for Human Development Services in the new Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with the subcommittee, as you requested, the implementation of model adoption legis lation developed according to the mandates of the Adoption Opportunities Act. Before turning to the specifics, let me state that we believe the start we have made in carrying out the adoption opportunities program will fulfill the hopes of the more than 100,000 children who are free for adoption but who have yet to know the warmth and stability of a permanent home. The Congress has played a vital role in fashioning legislation that has made adoption opportunities available for more children, especially those children for whom a permanent home has been most elusive. We are also looking forward to the enactment of H.R. 3434, the Child Welfare Amendments of 1980. Together these two lawsH.R. 3434 and Adoption Opportunities Act-promise to make a lifelong difference in the lives of thousands of children and their families. The Adoption Opportunities Act was signed into law in April 1978, and we received authority to spend funds in October of that year. In implementing the program since that time, we have relied on much of what has been learned in the last decade. First: We know the terms "hard-to-place" children and "children who cannot be adopted" no longer need apply. We know that there is virtually no child, no matter how complex his or her needs, for whom a loving home cannot be found if the right efforts are made, and if, in some cases, subsidies are provided to meet the children's needs. Second: We know that because these children traditionally have been viewed as unadoptable, there are numerous legal, program, policy, and attitudinal barriers which stand between these waiting children and the families who would want to adopt them. Third: We know that the more essential changes must take place and have begun within the States themselves. The States now determine the policies, programs, and resources which are available to find homes for these waiting children. We have focused, therefore, on strengthening the State adoption agencies, and on working with the States to make the much needed changes. States have provided much leadership in this area-46 States and the District of Columbia already have provisions to facilitate adoptions through the use of subsidies. One important aspect of assistance to the States specifically required in the act is the development of a model State adoption act and procedures. Let me briefly describe the process by which we are fulfilling that mandate. Model adoption legislation: The law lays out a procedure and timetable for the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to publish model adoption legislation and procedures for use by States and to encourage and facilitate the enactment of this model adoption legislation by States. Before I briefly describe the process for the development of the model State adoption act and model State adoption procedures, let me make one point clear. The proposed model act which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 1980, represents solely the work of an independent panel representative of every issue and viewpoint in adoption. The panel included both men and women; six minority members, and representatives from pediatrics, law, social work, adoptive parents, State legislatures, as well as the public and voluntary sectors. All regions of the country were represented within this selection. The Secretary appointed this 17-member panel in August 1978. The panel met eight times for a total of 25 days between October 1978 and September 1979. The members worked on a series of drafts which were revised for each meeting according to the direction provided by the panel itself. The model act and procedures were then approved by the panel and submitted to the Secretary. It was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 1980. A 120-day period of public comments ends on June 15. To supplement the regular process of public comment, the Adoption Resources Center in each region has conducted a public meeting on the proposed model legislation, inviting both written and oral comments. Careful records of these meetings are being kept. Following the period of public comment, the Department will analyze the comments received and prepare the final model State adoption act and State procedures for publication in the Federal Register, as required by title II. As you know, the statute requires that the Department give due consideration to all comments received. We are currently in that public comment period. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Department or me to take a position on the recommendations of the panel. The Department will also reconvene the panel for their assistance in reviewing and analyzing the comments. The panel made a decision at its first meeting that it could only meet the requirements of title II by developing a comprehensive legal adoption code which covered the entire spectrum of State legislative requirements in adoption. The proposed model act, therefore, covers every aspect of adoption, including termination of parental rights, placement for adoption, adoption proceedings, records, agency adoption services, and subsidized adoption. Within these areas many controversial issues are addressed such as the rights of birth parents, including putative fathers; open records; and issues affecting independent adoptions. In addition, there are substantive sections which address in detail the barriers to adoption of special needs children such as termination of parental rights, services to prospective adoptive parents, use of subsidized adoption, and postadoption services. At this point I would like to thank members of the panel for their work and dedication in dealing with a number of controversial issues. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the development of the model State adoption law and procedures. I look forward to an opportunity to discuss with the committee at a later date the other aspects of the adoption opportunities program. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. SIMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. You made very explicit a couple of times that you are not ready to comment on the model adoption act. Mr. PERALES. That is quite correct. Mr. SIMON. That shows wisdom on your part at this point. There will come a time when we will be very much interested in having those comments. At what point do you anticipate we will be hearing from the administration on that? Mr. PERALES. I would say at the beginning of next year. We are presently in a public comment period. We will need a certain amount of time to analyze all of those comments. I would imagine that we would not have a position until at least the latter part of this year if not the beginning of next year. Mr. SIMON. OK. So that we have some parameters, that would mean by February 15 or so this committee could anticipate some kind of a reaction from the Department. Mr. FERRO. I would think so, Mr. Simon. We have received thus far approximately 1,800 letters commenting on the model act, plus within the next several days we will have completed our regional hearings, in each of which we have a transcript of the comments we received. So it is quite a large job as you might imagine, to review and analyze those comments in a meaningful way and to synthesize them in such a way that the Department will be able to make some decisions about the positions it will take. But I think February 15 of this next year is a fair date by which to expect that from us. Mr. SIMON. In the process of the panel proceeding you mentioned they went through several drafts. Who is responsible for providing the original draft? Mr. FERRO. We provided a contract through the competitive contract process of the Department to the American Public Welfare Association to assist the panel in drafting the legislation, the commentary and the procedures. Î must hasten to add, however, that what was drafted by the American Public Welfare Association was what they were directed to draft by the panel. Mr. SIMON. Very well. Maybe I am getting into an area you don't wish to comment on at this point. The aim, of course, was to make it easier for the adoption of hard-to-place children. As you look at the model code some of the provisions seem to be moving in precisely the opposite direction, at least to someone who has not had a chance to look in depth, for instance, the provisions for the putative father, and so forth. Any reaction, from a technical viewpoint, I am not asking now for your comments, but from a technical viewpoint are we making it easier or more difficult to place the hardto-place? Mr. PERALES. That is obviously a subject of opinion, but if I might just comment very briefly without in any way appearing to take a position on behalf of the Department, I do recall that that part of the model adoption act which relates to putative fathers was supposed to be based primarily on very recent Supreme Court decisions. The panel indicated they felt they had very little freedom there, that they were merely restating the law of the land as they interpreted it. So that I think that is one area in which the panel perhaps had less freedom than it otherwise might have. I think it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not the establishment or the restating of the rights of the putative father would have the effect of limiting the opportunities for adoption. Mr. SIMON. I have received some complaints from my colleagues in Congress about how HHS is responding. I got a letter from Jim Wright, the majority leader, for example, who complained. He enclosed the response made to one of his constituents. The response goes: Your constituent's comments appear not to be based upon the panel's recommended adoption act and procedures themselves, but upon the minority report prepared by a panel member. Then the majority leader has written to me and I quote: "The Department reply was not in any way responsive to the legislative issues which were raised in my constituent's letter." Another colleague said to me, and here I quote, that the response "may indicate a systematic effort by HEW to cloud the real issues on whether we agree or disagree with a piece of the model adoption act. Are you finding much dissatisfaction with the way you have been handling this act? Mr. PERALES. I can tell you that there is, understandably, a sense of frustration when we do not comment affirmatively as to whether or not we agree or disagree with a piece of the model adoption act. Our position remains, that we are not in a position to say that we agree or disagree with something, it is not an effort on our part to cloud what it is we are doing. If we appoint a panel of experts, ask them to go out and draft a model adoption act and then go out and seek comment on it, I think it would be inappropriate for us at this point to act as if we have already made up our minds, pro or con, on any of these issues. That is the very purpose of public comment, of holding hearings. Mr. SIMON. I understand that. I wonder if in your responses you can make that a little clearer. Mr. PERALES. We have attempted to do that. Mr. SIMON. I might just review that because we have some unhappy members of the House anyway who reflect unhappy constituents back home. Mr. PERALES. What we might be able to do is, if we had their names, communicate with them once again and indicate that we are not making any effort to cloud the issue and again explain the process, as I laid out in my testimony. We could not at this point appear to take any position pro or con on any parts of the model adoption legislation. Mr. SIMON. Very well. We will be happy to supply those names. Mr. PERALES. I have also been told we have met with House staff on occasion. Mr. SIMON. Very well. So I understand, the panel itself had 17 members, is that correct? Mr. PERALES. Yes, sir. Mr. SIMON. When the model act was adopted, there were how many members present and what was the vote? MS. WEBER. Fourteen members attended the September 1979 meeting of the Model Adoption Legislation and Procedures Advisory Panel. Appendix A of the official proceedings of the Panel, which lists those present at the meeting, is attached. The decision to submit the Panel's report to the Secretary was made by concensus, and not by formal vote. [Information referred to above follows:] |