 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy G. v. Department of Children and Families5/18/1999
The plaintiff, Nancy G., appeals from a decision of the adoption subsidy review board (board) denying her request for a postadoption subsidy for her son, Jonathan. The statutes governing adoption subsidies provide that in order to be eligible for an adoption subsidy, a child either must be a ward of the commissioner of children and families (commissioner) or must be "placed" by a licensed child-placing agency. See General Statutes §§ 17a-116 and 17a-117. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Jewish Family Service of New Haven, Inc. (Jewish Family Service), the only licensed child-placing agency involved in Jonathan's adoption, "placed" Jonathan for adoption within the meaning of § 17a-116. We conclude that it did not and that the plaintiff, therefore, is not eligible to receive a postadoption subsidy.
The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. In 1980, the plaintiff, a resident of New Haven, sought to adopt a child through the International Mission of Hope in India . At that time, the International Mission of Hope was affiliated with Crossroads, Inc. (Crossroads), an adoption agency located in Minnesota. Crossroads provided education and guidance to persons who were interested in adopting a child from India and assisted the prospective adoptive parent or parents in the adoption process. The role of the International Mission of Hope was to identify children in India for adoption and, once a child had been located for particular prospective parents, to institute guardianship proceedings in an Indian court on behalf of the prospective parents so that the child could be brought to the United States and adoption proceedings could be commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States.
The International Mission of Hope and Crossroads provided the plaintiff with general informational letters regarding Indian children available for adoption. On November 25, 1980, although the International Mission of Hope had not yet located a child for her, the plaintiff executed several documents that would be required to allow the International Mission of Hope to institute a guardianship proceeding on her behalf in an Indian court once a child had been identified. Specifically, the plaintiff signed a declaration stating her intent to take guardianship of an Indian child for prospective adoption, a power of attorney, a bond, an affidavit and a blank guardianship agreement.
In May, 1981, in an effort to regionalize its services, the International Mission of Hope also became affiliated with Americans for International Aid and Adoption, an adoption agency located in Michigan. The plaintiff subsequently requested that Crossroads forward her adoption file to Americans for International Aid and Adoption. Neither the International Mission of Hope nor Americans for International Aid and Adoption was licensed by the state of Connecticut.
Immigration regulations require that in order for a foreign-born child to enter the United States for purposes of adoption, the child's visa application must be supported by a home study of the prospective adoptive home. On June 1, 1981, noting that the International Mission of Hope had requested that Americans for International Aid and Adoption "complete the [plaintiff's] adoption of an Indian child" and that the home studies contained in the plaintiff's adoption file were over one year old, Americans for International Aid and Adoption contacted Jewish Family Service and made arrangements for that organization to provide an "update . . . concerning any changes with the [plaintiff's] family." Jewish Family Service thereafter prepared an updated home study of the plaintiff's home and sent a copy of that study to the H
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Connecticut Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|