'Ounce of prevention' proposed for adoption law.

The adoption process should be more careful, more efficient, and more uniform from state to state, according to an ambitious model statute that calls for significant changes in traditional adoption laws.

The Uniform Adoption Act, approved in July by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, calls for aggressive searches for unknown biological fathers and careful evaluation of prospective adoptive parents. If enacted in the states, the law would make it harder for birth parents to claim parental rights long after an adoption has been finalized.

The law seeks to prevent situations like the one in the famed Baby Jessica case, in which a court ordered that a child who had lived with her adoptive parents for two years be returned to her birth parents. The child's biological father claimed he had not known the mother was pregnant, so he had not consented to the adoption.

"What we're attempting to do is to put an ounce of prevention" into adoption law, said John McCabe, legislative director of the conference.

Another major objective is to bring uniformity to the patchwork of state adoption laws. "The norm out there is chaos," said McCabe. "The states are all over the place."

Elizabeth Bartholet, a Harvard law professor and advocate of children's rights, said the model act reduces the "biologic bias" of traditional adoption law. "The act moves in the direction of giving greater weight to nurturing relationships and according greater respect to adoption as an institution," she said. "For the first time, it gives prospective parents something that comes close to a right to adopt."

But not everyone agrees that the act takes the correct approach to the sensitive and sometimes heart-wrenching issues that adoption can raise. Organizations like the American Adoption Congress, the Child Welfare League of America, and Concerned United Birthparents have criticized the proposal, claiming that it emphasizes the rights of adoptive parents over those of children and biological parents.

Some of the act's major provisions:

* Biological parents would have eight days after the birth of a child to revoke their consent to place the child for adoption by another family.

* A biological father would have 20 days to assert his parental rights after being notified in the adoption proceeding of the mother's, wish to place their child for adoption. If the father failed to respond during that time, his rights would be terminated.

* People seeking to adopt would be evaluated for their fitness to be parents both before and during formal adoption proceedings so that "people who shouldn't have children don't get them," McCabe said.

* Characteristics like race, gender, and marital status could not be considered in evaluating whether a person may adopt a child. Although the law does not explicitly mention gay and lesbian couples, sexual orientation, like race, is "not part of the equation" when determining fitness for parenthood, McCabe said.

* Adoption agencies would be required to disclose to prospective parents nonidentifying information about the child's and the birth parents' medical and psychological histories. The report would also include information about their educational backgrounds and any past criminal convictions.

* Finalized adoptions could not be challenged after six months.

* Adoption records would remain scaled for 99 years.

Proponents say the model law builds in thorough procedures that would resolve potential conflicts between birth and adoptive parents long before an adoption gains court approval. Critics like the Washington, D.C.-based Child Welfare League, however, cite shortcomings in the proposal.

In a written analysis of the act, the league contends that the law provides for insufficient counseling for birth parents and calls for only "cursory examination" of prospective adoptive parents.

The organization also faults the act for setting too low a standard for determining whether a person is suitable to be an adoptive parent. Under the act, prospective adoptive parents would be declared unsuitable if they "would pose a significant risk of harm to the physical or psychological well-being of the minor."

According to the league, "This standard closely approximates the standard used by the states to intervene in families suspected of child abuse and neglect and [to] remove children from their parents' custody. It certainly does not reflect quality services to children."

Fathers' Rights

Critics also charge that the proposal gives inadequate consideration to birth fathers' tights.

The act requires adoption agencies, private attorneys, and courts overseeing adoption proceedings to take certain steps to locate an unknown biological father. A mother's claims about the identity and whereabouts of the father would be subject to investigation, and the court could have the power to order that notice of the pending adoption be made public.

If the father cannot be found before the adoption is finalized but comes forward within six months, the law provides a procedure for "fairly and constitutionally" determining whether his parental rights can be terminated, McCabe said. A judge considering whether to terminate a biological parent's rights would have to consider, among other factors, how long the child was in another family's custody and how removing the child from that home would affect the child's well-being.

After six months, however, a birth father would have no right to challenge the adoption. Opponents argue that this is unfair to fathers who are unaware that their children were born and placed for adoption.

McCabe said the law tries to balance the parties' rights.

"There is a careful effort to preserve the constitutional rights of birth fathers," he said. "At the same time, once the adoption proceeding is launched, there is a time when the balance tips to the interests of the child and the adoptive parents."

Debate over Openness

Critics also say the 99-year seal on adoption records runs counter to a trend toward openness in adoptions, which allows birth parents and adoptees to remain in contact after the adoption or to find one another later in fife if they wish to be reunited. Open adoptions have "been shown to be in the best interests of children when utilized appropriately and in a manner that is sensitive to the needs, feelings, and capabilities of all members of the adoption triad," according to the Child Welfare League statement. "The act's omission in this regard is unacceptable."

McCabe said open adoptions may work in some situations. But "the operating norm here is `Do no harm.' There are people who have been harmed by gratuitous searches and openness. You don't have a clear case that [keeping records open! is to everybody's benefit."

The proposed law does allow birth parents and adoptees the option of listing themselves on a national registry that would remain open.

Bartholet said the confidentiality dispute should not overshadow more significant attributes of the model law. "I think it's a great proposed act," she said. "It is a rare example of an adoption reform proposal that would facilitate adoption rather than pose new barriers to adoption."