text:
User talk:Sietske

Hi, I'm the user formerly known as SietskeEN (because Sietske was already taken by another Frisian). If you wish to drop me a line, feel free to do so.

Regards, Sietske (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Proper name
I would suggest you leave that name as is. If someone went through the trouble of collecting a whole printing run, extra attention is not exactly going to help. 2601:201:8001:790:926:80D1:E394:B649 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean with "that name". Could you please indicate the text or article you are referring to? Sietske (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I guess you refer to Talk:Sydney Warburg. I'll copy your comment to the talk page for future reference. Sietske (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sietske


text: User talk:134.151.40.3

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:134.151.40.3


text: User talk:167.206.52.67

title: User talk:167.206.52.67


text:
User:Keltron

Welcome to my User Page!

title: User:Keltron


text:
Endenich

Endenich is a neighborhood in the western part of Bonn, Germany. Before 1904 it was an independent municipality. The village of Endenich was founded in the 8th century, and was first mentioned in 804 as Antiniche. Today, about 12,000 people live in Endenich.

Sights
The composer and pianist Robert Schumann lived for the last two years of his life in the mental clinic Richarz'sche Heilanstalt on Magdalenenstraße (on today's Sebastianstraße), where he died on July 29, 1856. The former clinic now houses the Schumannhaus Bonn, a music library and museum.

In the northern part is the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy which was opened in 1972.

The improvisational theatre Springmaus, founded by Bill Mockridge, is located in Endenich. Well-known comedians such as Bernhard Hoëcker, Dirk Bach and Bastian Pastewka have performed at this theatre.

Endenich is one of the most cultural districts of Bonn. There are many good restaurants, a very charming retro cinema, pubs and an event location with concerts and shows nearly every night.

title: Endenich


text:
Samuel B. Roberts

Samuel Booker Roberts Jr. (12 May 1921 – 27 September 1942) was a U.S. Navy coxswain who was killed in the Battle of Guadalcanal, and became the namesake of three U.S. Navy warships.

Roberts was born in San Francisco, California, on May 12, 1921. He enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1939 and was called to active duty in 1940. Roberts served aboard the USS California (BB-44) and the transport USS Heywood (AP-12), before being transferred to the cargo transport USS Bellatrix (AK-20, later AKA-20).

In 1942, Bellatrix was assigned to Task Group Four and became part of the Guadalcanal Assault Force. As a coxswain for the Bellatrix's assault boats, Roberts helped ferry supplies from the transport ships to a tenuous beachhead.

After the ships withdrew in the face of Japanese attacks that began 7 August 1942, Roberts volunteered for duty on the island of Guadalcanal, where he was attached to a beachmaster unit at Lunga Point. The unit, which included Navy and United States Coast Guard sailors, transported Marines and their supplies to beaches along the island's northern coast, and also evacuated wounded Marines.

Early on the morning of 27 September 1942, Roberts volunteered for a rescue mission to save a company-size unit of Marines that had been surrounded by a larger Japanese force. The rescue group of several Higgins boats was taken under heavy fire and was perilously close to failure. Roberts volunteered to distract Japanese forces by guiding his boat directly in front of their lines, drawing their fire. This decoy act was performed effectively until all Marines had been evacuated. However, as he was about to withdraw from the range of the Japanese guns, Roberts’ boat was hit and he was mortally wounded. His boatmates brought him back to base and he was flown out on a medical evacuation flight, but died the next day.

Roberts was awarded the Navy Cross for his valor in the face of enemy fire.

Warships named for Roberts

 * USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413), a John C. Butler-class destroyer escort, commissioned in April 1944 and sunk on 25 October in the Battle off Samar. Roberts' younger brother, Jack, served aboard DE-413 and was the "voice" of the Samuel B. Roberts on the ship's intercom. He survived the ship's sinking at Samar.
 * USS Samuel B. Roberts (DD-823), a Gearing-class destroyer, commissioned in 1946 and struck in 1970.
 * USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58), an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate guided missile frigate, commissioned in 1986 and decommissioned in 2015. She survived an explosion from an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf in 1988. The blast also broke the keel of the ship; such structural damage is almost always fatal to most vessels. The crew fought fire and flooding for five hours and saved the ship.

Other honors
In 2009, the U.S. Navy named a damage control trainer at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii after FFG-58. It trains sailors to fight shipboard flooding of the sort the frigate faced after striking a mine in 1988.

title: Samuel B. Roberts


text:
Reformatory Political Federation

The Reformatory Political Federation (Reformatorische Politieke Federatie; RPF) was a minor Protestant Christian political party in the Netherlands.

History
The RPF was founded on 15 March 1975 by three groups of orthodox Christians. The first group were members of the Protestant-Christian Anti-Revolutionary Party, secondly the National Evangelical Union, a small party which had earlier left the ARP, and several independent electoral committees. The founders opposed the formation of the Christian Democratic Appeal, because the Protestant ARP and Christian Historical Union would join the Catholic People's Party. During the period of pillarisation, the Catholics and Protestants had lived in a form of cold war.

The RPF sought to unite all other orthodox Protestant Christian parties, namely the Reformed Political League (GPV) and the Reformed Political Party (SGP).

In the subsequent 1977, elections the RPF was unable to win any seats. In 1981, it won two seats in House of Representatives (Meindert Leerling and Aad Wagenaar). In the period between 1981 to 2002, it had one to three members. It also won seats in the Dutch Senate. The remained in opposition throughout its existence.

In 1985, one of its two members of parliament seceded form the party to form the Anti-Revolutionaries 1985, the party never got any seat.

In 1996, RPF party leader Leen van Dijke came under public criticism when magazine Nieuwe Revu had suggested that in an interview he had declared: "Why would stealing, for example committing social welfare fraud, be less of a sin than going against the seventh commandment? Yes, why should someone in a homosexual relationship be better than a thief?" When turmoil broke out, Van Dijke explained that he had meant to convey a universally accepted vision within Christianity that trespassing one of God's commandments makes a man guilty before God, and that all breaches herein are equal. But the general public, and especially the Dutch gay movement, criticised the statement as printed in Nieuwe Revu heavily, considering it discrimination. As such, a gay magazine (Gaykrant) reported it to the Attorney General. In 1999 the Dutch high court ruled that Van Dijke's views were not discriminatory according to Dutch law. In 2001 he was cleared by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

From 1998, the RPF and GPV began to work closely together in parliament. In 2000, the Christian Union, in which both would unite was officially founded. In 2002, it first contested in elections and won five seats.

Linked organisations
The Party magazine was called RPF signal and the scientific foundation Marnix van St. Aldegonde Stichting. The Evangelical Broadcasting Association had strong personal and ideological links with the RPF, but it was never officially linked to the party.

Ideology
The RPF believed that society should be based on Biblical norms and values. The political differences between the GPV and SGP, the two other orthodox Protestant parties, were marginal and based on theological differences.

The RPF was a staunch defender of the Dutch monarchy and a strong government. It opposed abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. In economic and environmental issues, the RPF was in favour of strong government influence.

Internationally, the party was comparable to the American Christian Right and the small Protestant parties of Scandinavia, such as the Christian Democratic Party of Norway, the Swedish and Danish Christian Democrats. The RPF never took part in a government coalition, instead it chose to voice its concerns over government policies, while acknowledging that the party itself (a testimonial party) was not big enough to force its opinion upon others.

Electorate
The RPF was supported by orthodox Reformed of many denominations, such as the Reformed Churches and the Dutch Reformed Church. Furtherm members of newer churches (such as the Evangelical Church and the Pentecostal community) supported this party. The electorate was concentrated in Zeeland, the Veluwe, parts of Overijssel, forming what is known as the Dutch Bible Belt.

Party leaders

 * Meindert Leerling: 1980 - 1994
 * Leen van Dijke: 1994 - 2001

title: Reformatory Political Federation


text:
Talk:River Dee, Wales

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Dee, Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212235136/http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/station_summaries/067/020.html to http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/station_summaries/067/020.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530154629/http://216.31.193.170/commondata/acrobat/deeconsafety_1169122.pdf to http://216.31.193.170/commondata/acrobat/deeconsafety_1169122.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Canoeing and 'tidal section'
The article contains the following text: "Canoeing and kayaking are also permitted between Farndon and Chester, as this section of the river is tidal and falls under the jurisdiction of Cheshire West and Chester Council." One or two observations; to what extent is this really tidal? The weir in Chester forms the normal tidal limit though spring tides do overwhelm it and cause river water to back up upstream but quite how far - as far as Farndon? Some additional explanatory text might be appropriate here. And secondly what is meant by 'under the jurisdiction of CWAC Council'? Part of the described course has the national border running down the centre of the river so any 'jurisdiction' would be expected to be shared between the authorities on either side (CWAC and Wrexham CBC). There is perhaps an agreement that CWAC has jurisdiction over navigational rights over a certain stretch but surely jurisdiction for most purposes (water quality, fisheries, flood defence etc) will fall to Natural Resources Wales on the one hand and to the Environment Agency on the other? Again explanatory text would help the reader. cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 * The uncited claim was added by an anon IP; I'd concur that it sounds dubious. This may have been the source, which states "ACCESS HASSLES: Tidal and an historic navigation, so you have full right of passage." – my instinct would be that there is probably de facto access, but no legal right of access (mind you, that's coming from a position of complete ignorance on my part, as a walker rather than a canoeist). Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Length
I had concerns about the stated length of the river in the article for various reasons; i) it comes from EB1911 which is frequently inaccurate, ii) it's unclear where it is deemed to end with I suspect different editors assuming different locations and also iii) the start has been taken by various folks as either the exit from Llyn Tegid/Bala Lake or the headwaters near Dduallt - a difference of 18km / 11 miles. I decided to measure its length on online 1:25,000 scale OS mapping using a digital tool (wheresthepath)and determined it at 173km / 107.5 miles - I'd be confident of the accuracy of the figure to within 1%. This is hugely different from the 113km / 70 mile figure quoted. Note that I measured from the furthest reach of its headwaters at SH 8147 2769 (labelled as Afon Dyfrdwy within a mile of that spot) all the way down to the county limit in the Dee estuary at SJ 257736 - even allowing for the fact that EB1911 starts the Dee at Bala, that leaves a great deal of difference. It's about 32km from the NTL at the weir in Chester to the county limit. This is of course original research on my part so cannot be included in the article but it does at least give an idea of what a true figure should look like if and when an editor finds a suitable reference out there! cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree. There is a source here which gives a reliable figure for the length of the stretch from the estuary to Farndon as 33 miles. Using old fashioned wheel measurer on an OS 1:25000 map then gives 18.8 miles to Overton, a further 16.6 miles to Llangollen, then 29.1miles to Bala sluices, 3.24 miles as the straight line length of Llyn Tegid plus 6.25 miles to the source - a total of 106.55 which is within your 1% error band. I also agree that this is OR and not directly useable, but the supposed reliable source is patently wrong.

 * The other issue is where the measurement starts. The Inland Waterways measure starts at the White Sands marker buoy a little to the south-east of Fflint. However if the start is assumed to be Chester weir, then some 14.7 miles needs to be deducted. If the tidal limit is taken as Farndon, then that reduces the total length to 73.55 miles. Maybe this is the length the EB had in mind? If so, this is inconsistent with other rivers. For example the River Thames is measured to a point somewhat off Canvey Island where it is a substantial estuary with Isle of Grain on the other shore barely visible. If we took a similar view for the Dee, then the length would be measured out to Point of Ayr which is a further 10.8 miles from White Sands buoy. So..... if we were to adopt the same standard as for the Thames then the total length becomes 117.35 miles! I think that this article should state approximate lengths and note that the EB link is probably from Chester Weir to Llyn Tegid. No matter what the RS states, when that source if very clearly in error, the issue must be addressed. After all, I would regard 1:25000 OS maps as pretty reliable sources!  Velella  Velella Talk 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:River Dee, Wales


text:
Medina River

The Medina River is located in south central Texas, United States, in the Medina Valley. It was also known as the Rio Mariano, Rio San Jose, or Rio de Bagres (Catfish river). Its source is in springs in the Edwards Plateau in northwest Bandera County, Texas, and it merges with the San Antonio River in southern Bexar County, Texas, for a course of 120 miles. It contains the Medina Dam in NE Medina County, Texas which restrains Lake Medina. Much of its course is owned and operated by the Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Water District to provide irrigation services to farmers and ranchers.

History
The Medina River was named after Pedro de Medina, a Spanish cartographer, by Alonso de León, Spanish governor of Coahuila, New Spain in 1689. It once served as the official boundary between Texas and Coahuila with the San Antonio River being considered its tributary. At that time, the river was called the Medina all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, but now the part below the confluence is called the San Antonio River.

From 1849, Castroville on the river was a water stop on the San Antonio-El Paso Road and a stagecoach station on the San Antonio-El Paso Mail and San Antonio-San Diego Mail Line.

Natural features
Much of the source water to the Medina River is produced by springs emerging due to the presence of the Balcones Fault. This locale of the Balcones Fault is associated with an important ecological dividing line for species occurrence. For example, species such as the California Fan Palm, Washingtonia filifera, occur only west of the Medina River or Balcones Fault.

The Medina River once received significant waste discharge from upstream catfish farming operations, which utilized more water than was sustainable to the basin's safe usage.

title: Medina River


text:
Eddie Rocket's

Eddie Rocket's is an Irish restaurant chain, with its headquarters in Dublin. It offers American-style food in 1950s' style diners (similar to the Johnny Rockets diner restaurants in the United States). It is owned by Rocket Restaurants Limited.

Company
Rocket Restaurants Limited opened their first restaurant in Dublin in 1989 and at one point were present in 42 locations in Ireland (both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland), England, Wales, and Spain. The company still has a substantial franchisee base. The Spanish, English and Welsh sites have since closed. They also have a number of restaurants branded Rocket's by Eddie Rocket's these restaurants are smaller fast casual restaurants which feature self service instead of table service which is the norm in Eddie Rockets locations and have a more modern decor similar to that found in chains such as Five Guys and Shake Shack.

Franchise
Eddie Rocket's restaurants are largely franchised, with 32 of the 40 restaurants held by franchisees. It is a member of the Irish Franchise Association.

Locations
There are currently 38 restaurants in operation in Ireland including:

 * Arklow
 * Athlone
 * Bray
 * Belfast
 * Carlow
 * Dublin
 * Drogheda
 * Killarney
 * Mullingar
 * Naas
 * Navan
 * Newbridge
 * Newry
 * Portlaoise
 * Tullamore

Shake Dog / Rockin' Joe's
A number of Eddie Rocket's restaurants in Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford and Clonmel were dissociated from the company and were rebranded as Rockin' Joe's in 2013 following a dispute between Eddie Rocket's and its largest franchisee, Limerick businessman Brian Dunne. Rockin' Joe's later rebranded as Shake Dog.

title: Eddie Rocket's


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Rice

Brian Rice
Brian Rice was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

Vanity, or joke at best. Note that the original poster of this page 66.24.73.45 has already removed one "delete" tag. Gsd97jks 20:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Vanity with attempts to keep it making it worse. Kiand 20:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Student vanity.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  Now if he'd won his campaign for public office at the age of 20, that might be notable... -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, probable vanity. Shane King 23:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This would be appropriate User Page content. The original author has been blanking the whole page, indicating an agreement with deletion.  It was, however, well written and in encyclopedic format, so I hope he gets an account and continues to contribute with more appropriate content. Geogre 05:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The user blanked the whole page, including the VfD tag, so I reverted. Now delete as vanity. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 06:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this vanity, borderline speedy. Wyss 11:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  19:50, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
International adoption

International adoption (also referred to as intercountry adoption or transnational adoption) is a type of adoption in which an individual or couple residing in one country becomes the legal and permanent parent(s) of a child who is a national of another country. In general, prospective adoptive parents must meet the legal adoption requirements of their country of residence and those of the country whose nationality the child holds.

International adoption is not the same thing as transcultural or interracial adoption. However, a family will often become a transcultural or interracial family upon the adoption of a child internationally.

The laws of countries vary in their willingness to allow international adoptions. Some countries have established rules and procedures for international adoptions, while other countries expressly forbid it. Various countries, notably many African nations, have extended residency requirements for adoptive parents that, in effect, rule out most international adoptions.

Process overview
The requirements necessary to begin the process of international adoption can vary depending on the country of the adoptive parent(s). For example, while most countries require prospective adoptive parents to first get approval to adopt, in some the approval can only be given afterwards. Often, an "orphan" is a child whose living birth family has consented to an adoption. Some describe orphanages as "nurseries" or "children's homes" because in numerous instances children's parents have not consented to the adoption of their children. It is not uncommon for a parent to put a child in a "nursery" temporarily while they deal with poverty or work, or want to take advantage of the educational opportunities in the orphanage/nursery. Because orphanages/nurseries often provide education, they function more like subsidized boarding school.

Prospective parents of international adoptees wait to get a referral for a child, which often means waiting until one of these parents of the children in nurseries/orphanages consents to the adoption. Although bureaucracy is often blamed for the slow process of adopting a child, often what is to blame is that the demand for children in the less-developed world exceeds the supply. A senior advisor on child protection with UNICEF, Alexandria Yuster, argues that international adoption is now more about finding children for first world (developed world) parents than finding homes for children. Susan Bissell, also of UNICEF, said that she does not oppose international adoption, but believes that it is preferable for abandoned children to be taken back by their previous families and advises governments to provide small monetary incentives to families who are willing to do so.

In the United States, typically the first stage of the process is selecting a licensed adoption agency or attorney to work with. Each agency or attorney tends to work with a different set of countries, although some only focus on a single country. Pursuant to the rules of the Hague Adoption Convention (an international treaty related to adoption issues) the adoption agency or attorney must be accredited by the U.S. government if the child's country is also a participant in the Hague Convention. If the child's country is not a participant then the rules of the Hague do not apply, and the specific laws of the child's and adoptive parent(s)' countries must be followed. Even when the Hague does not apply, a home study and USCIS (United States Citizen and Immigration Services; formerly INS, Immigration and Naturalization Service) approval are requirements. The Hague is discussed below.

A dossier is prepared that contains a large amount of information about the prospective adoptive parents required by the child's country. Typically this includes financial information, a background check, fingerprints, a home study review by a social worker, report from the adoptive parents' doctor regarding their health, and other supporting information. Again, requirements will vary widely from country to country, and even region to region in large countries such as Russia. Once complete, the dossier is submitted to the appropriate authorities in the child's country for review.

After the dossier is reviewed and the prospective parents are approved to adopt, they are matched to an eligible child (except in some countries such as India, which does not allow "matching" of a child to (a) prospective parent(s)). The parent is usually sent information about the child, such as age, gender, health history, etc. This is generally called a referral. A travel date is typically provided at a later time in most adoptions. However, some countries might also provide a travel date at the time of referral, informing the parents when they may travel to meet the child and sign any additional paperwork required to accept the referral. Some countries, such as Kazakhstan, do not allow referrals until the prospective parent travels to the country on their first trip. This is called a "blind" referral.

Depending on the country, the parents may have to make more than one trip overseas to complete the legal process. Some countries allow a child to be escorted to the adoptive parents' home country and the adoptive parents are not required to travel to the country of their adopted child.

There are usually several requirements after this point, such as paperwork to make the child a legal citizen of the adopting parents' country or re-adopt them. In addition, one or more follow up (or "post placement") visits from a social worker may be required—either by the placing agency used by the adoptive parents or by the laws of the country from which the child was adopted. In the United States, citizenship is automatically granted to all foreign-born children when at least one adoptive parent is a U.S. citizen, in accordance with the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Depending on the circumstances of the adoption, the grant of citizenship takes place upon the child's admission to the U.S. as an immigrant or the child's adoption in the parent's home jurisdiction.

Policies and requirements
Adoption policies for each country vary widely. Information such as the age of the adoptive parents, financial status, educational level, marital status and history, number of dependent children in the house, sexual orientation, weight, psychological health, and ancestry are used by countries to determine what parents are eligible to adopt from that country.

Information such as the age of the child, fees and expenses, and the amount of travel time required in the child's birth country can also vary widely from one country to another.

Each country sets its own rules, timelines and requirements surrounding adoption, and there are also rules that vary within the United States for each state. Each country, and often each part of the country, sets its own rules about what will be shared and how it will be shared (e.g., a picture of the child, child's health). Reliability and verifiability of the information is variable.

Most countries require that a parent travel to bring the child home; however, some countries allow the child to be escorted to his or her new homeland.

The U.S. Department of State has designated two accrediting entities for organizations providing inter-country adoption services in the United States and work with sending countries that have ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. They are the Council on Accreditation and the Colorado Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Department of State maintains a list of all accredited international adoption providers.

Major origin and receiving countries of children
Basic demographic data on origin and receiving countries since the 2000s have only recently been analyzed and summarized in a specialized publication.

Major origin countries of children
According to one recent study, 6 countries (China, Ethiopia, India, South Korea, Ukraine and Vietnam) were major origin countries for almost a decade in the period 2003–2011. Yet there has been slight change in other countries sending most children.

In 2019, the top sending countries for children adopted by US citizens were China, Ukraine, Colombia, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Haiti, Nigeria.

Major receiving countries
Based on Selman's research, during the year of 1998 and 2007, the top 10 receiving countries of all 23 reported countries, (ranked from the large to small), are the United States, Spain, France, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Australia. Among these 10 countries, the top 5 accounts for more than 80% of overall adoption, and the US is responsible for around 50% of all cases. Although historically the United States has been among the leaders in adopting children via international adoption, this has changed dramatically over the last decade. In 2004, 22,884 children were adopted internationally, while only 2,971 were adopted in 2019. This is attributed to a combination of factors: increased bureaucracy due to implementation of the Hague Convention guidelines, legal changes in the countries from which the adoptions occur eliminating countries from which to adopt, increased cost, corruption in some foreign courts/orphanages, and the policy of many countries to only free children with significant special needs.

The US (as the largest receiving country)
In 2019, the top sending countries for children adopted by US citizens were China (819), Ukraine (298), Colombia (244), India (241), South Korea (166), Bulgaria (134), Haiti (130), and Nigeria (116).

These statistics can vary from year to year as each country alters its rules; adoption from Ethiopia used to be common, but international adoption was banned in 2018 by Ethiopia. There were only 11 adoptions from Ethiopia in 2019, compared with 177 in 2018 and a high of 313 in 2017, when Ethiopia was No. 2 on the list. Romania, Belarus, Russia and Cambodia were also important until government crackdowns on adoptions to weed out abuse in the system cut off the flow. Abuses with regard to adoption in some Eastern European countries in the 1990s led to bans on international adoptions in those countries in the 21st century. China has long been a major sending country in international adoption, but recently the numbers have fallen (although it still remains a leader), due to an improved Chinese economy and more restrictive laws. Concerns about abuses with regard to international adoption have been raised for years with regard to China.

Sex ratio of children adopted (US and Europe)
Generally, the US adopts more girls than boys. From 1999 to 2012, around 62% of adoptees by US families were girls, and only 38% were boys. Yet this discrepancy between female and male adoptees has gradually declined. In other words, now the sex ratio of girls and boys adopted is more balanced.

It used to be true that China had more girls available for adoption, due to the Chinese culture's preference for sons in combination with the official planned birth policy implemented in 1979. Until the early 2000s, around 90–95% of Chinese children adopted by American families were girls. For numerous reasons, including a recent amendment of the one child policy, the dwindling number of available females for marriage, and an increased prevalence of sex selective abortions, most orphanages in China now house only children with special needs, the majority of which are male. Because of the heavy preference for females in adopting families most waiting children in China are boys, as girls with the same needs are quickly matched with a long line of families seeking Chinese daughters. Although India also has a noticeable excess of girls available for adoption (around 70%), In contrast, South Korea, another East Asian country, has a relatively large excess of boys being adopted; about 60% are boys.

Countries suspending/ or reducing adoption by US families
There have been several countries (including certain major sending countries) that are completely not or only partially accepting inter-country adoption requests from US families for certain reasons.
 * Russia: In December 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a measure, effective January 1, 2013, banning the adoption of Russian children by US families. The ban was seen as diplomatic retaliation for the passage of the Magnitsky Act in the US, while popular support in Russia focused on incidents of abuse to adoptees by US parents. In January 2013 about 20,000 people marched against the law in Moscow.
 * Ethiopia: In February 2018, the Ethiopian Parliament amended the country's adoption laws and removed reference to adoption of its citizens by foreigners. The new law became effective on February 18, 2018.

The US also suspended adoption relationship with selected countries, due to Hague Convention or other rationales.
 * Vietnam, temporarily suspended due to allegations of corruption and baby-selling
 * Guatemala, the adoption was shut down in 2007 for adoption after allegations of corruption, families being coerced and children kidnapped to feed U.S. demand. (See also: Adoption in Guatemala)
 * Nepal: Although Nepal has not closed its doors for adoption, the United States government has suspended adoptions from Nepal. Documents that were presented documenting the abandonment of these children in Nepal have been found to be unreliable and circumstances of alleged abandonment cannot be verified because of obstacles in the investigation of individual cases.

International legal framework
At the international level, the main legal instrument on intercountry adoption is the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (hereafter the Hague Adoption Convention, 1993). However other relevant international legal instruments exist to ensure that the best interest of the child and the concern for their welfare inform the practices of intercountry adoption. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) contains some specific references to intercountry adoption. The Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally (1986) calls Member States to establish policy, legislation and effective supervision for the protection of children involved in intercountry adoption.

All those instruments have some common principles:

 * The principle of subsidiarity according to which intercountry adoption should only take place when suitable adoptive parents cannot be identified in the country of origin of the child
 * The best interest of the child should be the paramount consideration
 * The placement of the child should be made through competent authorities or agencies with the same safeguards and standards as domestic adoptions
 * In no case should an adoption result in improper financial gains for those involved.

According to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (art. 21), as well as to the UN Declaration on the Protection and Welfare of Children (art. 17) and the Hague Adoption Convention (Preamble and art. 4), international adoption should be considered as an option if other arrangements (with priority to kin and adoptive families) cannot satisfactorily be arranged for the child in their country of origin (principle of subsidiarity between national and international adoption). However the international community still disagrees on the point whether the option of being placed in a permanent family setting through international adoption should prevail on the alternative of the placement of children in domestic care institutions. The United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000) is an additional international instrument that calls on States parties to ensure that coercive adoption is criminalized under national law, regardless of whether the offence is committed domestically or transnationally, on an individual or organized basis.

UN Declaration Relating to the Welfare of Children (1986)
The UN Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally was adopted by General Assembly resolution 41/85 of 3 December 1986. The UN Declaration Relating to the Welfare of Children reaffirms principle 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, according to which, "The child shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security." Article 17 affirms the principle of subsidiarity in these terms: "If a child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the country of origin, intercountry adoption may be considered as an alternative means of providing the child with a family." Article 24 requires Member States to consider the child's cultural and religious background and interest. The Declaration encourages States not to hurry the adoptive process. Article 15 states, "Sufficient time and adequate counselling should be given to the child's own parents, the prospective adoptive parents and, as appropriate, the child in order to reach a decision on the child's future."

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
The United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child marks a turning point in the international law of children's rights recognizing the child as an active subject of international law whose views must be taken into consideration when dealing with matters affecting them (art.12). The principle of the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies (art, 3). This same principle shall be the paramount consideration also when States Parties recognize and/or permit the system of adoption. Particularly, article 21 requires that States Parties "ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine that the adoption is permissible in view of the child's status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption. The placement of the child also should not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it (art. 21.d).

The Hague Adoption Convention (1993)
Recognizing some of the difficulties and challenges associated with international adoption, and to protect those involved from the corruption, abuses, and exploitation that sometimes accompanies it, in 1993 the Hague Conference on Private International Law developed the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Convention came into force in May 1995.

As of December 2018, there were 99 states parties to the convention. Korea, Nepal and the Russian Federation are signatories but have not ratified.

With respect to the previous multilateral instruments, which include some provisions regarding intercountry adoption, the Hague Adoption Convention is the major multilateral instrument regulating international adoption. It calls for coordination and direct cooperation between countries to ensure that appropriate safeguards promote the best interest of the child (Article 1) and prevent the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children.

The convention also requires that all processes should be authorized by central adoption authorities designated by the contracting states. (Chapter III of the Convention outlines the roles and responsibilities of this authority.) If fully implemented at the national level, the convention offers also a protective framework against the risks potentially implied in private adoption (when the adoptive parents set the terms of the adoption directly with the birth parents or with children's institutions placed in the country of origin, without recurring to accredited adoption service providers).

The Convention lets states decide which public agency is the central adoption authority (whose supervision and authorization is necessary to proceed with adoption (article 17 ) and which other bodies should be accredited as the provider of adoption services (Article 9). If fully implemented at the national level, the convention offers also a protective framework against the risks potentially implied in private adoption (when the adoptive parents set the terms of the adoption directly with the birth parents, without recurring to accredited bodies).

The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Inter country Adoption Convention****: Guide to Good Practice provides a guidance for the Convention operation, use and interpretation. The convention is crucial because it provides formal international and intergovernmental recognition of intercountry adoption, working to ensure that adoptions under the convention are recognized in other party countries.

To comply with international standards, many changes have been introduced in national legislation enacting laws to criminalize the act of obtaining improper gains from intercountry adoptions. However instances of trafficking in and sale of children for the purpose of adoption continue to take place in many parts of the world. Especially during emergency situations, natural disasters or conflicts, has been found that children are adopted without following appropriate legal procedures and risk to be victims of trafficking and sale. It has been raised also the issue that an excessive bureaucratization of the adoption process – following the implementation of the Hague Adoption Convention – possibly establishes additional barriers to the placement of children.

Africa
Much interest is shown for cases of international adoption in Africa especially after highly publicized stories of adoption of African children by celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie. Legal frameworks on adoption in general and on international adoption in particular are available across Africa and may vary from one country to another. The following overview of legal provisions put into place by African countries reflects a diverse but not a comprehensive view on how the question of international adoption is dealt with on the African continent. The focus is on countries for which bibliographical resources were immediately accessible.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
On September 25, 2013, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo enacted a suspension of exit permits for Congolese adoptive children that prevents adoptive children from being allowed to depart the country with their adoptive parents. Although Congolese courts continue to issue new adoption decrees, these are not currently recognized by the Congolese immigration service, the Direction Generale de Migration (DGM), which controls the points of entry. Congolese officials have said the suspension will remain in place until the parliament enacts new legislation reforming the adoption process. Because of the suspension, the U.S. Department of State announced on October 6, 2014, that it strongly recommends against adopting from the DRC at this time.

According to the DRC Family Code, an adopted child holds the same rights as a biological child in the adopting family. Links with original family are preserved. This regime is applied to simple adoption. As far as international adoption is concerned, the DRC Law does not provide a definition specifically; but the judicial practice authorizes the adoption of Congolese children by foreign parents. Fundamental principles for any child adoption are defined by Law No. 09/001 from 10 January 2009 relating child protection, as follow: As for conditions to be met in the host state for a valid international adoption, article 19 of the Child Protection Code explains that the host state should certify that: However, even though international adoption is allowed under fulfillment of the above-mentioned conditions, article 20 of the DRC Child Protection Code denies the right to adoption to homosexuals, pedophiles and mentally-ill people.
 * All children are entitled to adoption
 * The adoption of a child by a foreigner can only happen when competent authorities from the origin state:
 * 1) Have verified, after having examined the social conditions in the origin state that the adoption is to be done in the best interest of the child.
 * 2) Have made sure that:
 * 3) The consent for adoption is not given in exchange with payment or any kind of compensation and that this consent was not later retrieved.
 * 4) The Child's wishes and opinions have been taken into account in accordance with their age and level of maturity
 * 5) The consent expressed by the child for their adoption, when it is required, is freely expressed in ways required by the law, and that this consent is given or recorded in a written form
 * The future parents are qualified and are capable of adopting children
 * The adopted child is authorized to enter and reside permanently in the host country

Ethiopia
In 2018, Ethiopia banned the adoption of children by foreigners.

This followed the conviction of U.S. parents, Carri and Larry Williams, who were found guilty of manslaughter after their thirteen-year old Ethiopian adopted daughter, Hana Williams, died of hypothermia in 2011. The Ethiopian Government's official news outlet, ENA, claims that the state banned international adoptions due to concerns over child abuse and neglect overseas. There were instances of children who were relinquished by their parents and listed as orphans on adoption registries, which led to the avoidance of undesirable court procedures. Some critics of international adoption cite the reason for unethical adoption processes as being the high demand that countries faced from adoptive parents.

From an Ethiopian standpoint, some citizens felt that international adoption was becoming "the new export industry" of their country at the time of its peak around 2008.

In 2016, Denmark officially ended international adoption with Ethiopia over concerns surrounding the ethics of the adoption process, as well as the health and safety of the children involved.

According to the U.S. State Department, Ethiopia is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention). The Hague Abduction Convention attempts to negate the harmful side effects that can result in countries participating in international adoption. The convention "focuses on the child," rather than the adoptive parents or biological parents. Additionally, the U.S. and Ethiopia have never had any kind of agreement that would outlaw child abduction, in special relation to international adoption. Prior to Ethiopia ceasing its international adoption process, the U.S. attempted to work with Ethiopia to improve the adoption process.

In 2007, Ethiopia ranked 5th among countries for international adoption by Americans. This was a large increase from their 16th-place ranking in 2000. International adoptions rose after Angelina Jolie's adoption of her daughter Zahara Marley Jolie that took place in 2005. The U.S. embassy to Ethiopia reported that adoption numbers in the country had risen so much that extra staff had to be hired to handle to workload. Average waiting time for adoptive parents averaged about five weeks, accompanied by low cost and simple, easy procedures. The high interest found among Americans and Europeans, as well as the cheap and easy adoption process, made the U.S. embassy concerned about adoption fraud. As American laws regarding the practices involved with international adoptions strengthened, adoptions from Ethiopia decreased. Eventually, Ethiopian adoption agencies in the capital of the country, Addis Ababa, began shutting down and going out of business.

Asia
According to recent research, certain Asian countries have been top origins of intercountry adoption, namely China, India, The Republic of Korea (South Korea), Vietnam, etc. Yet Asian countries have different legal framework towards intercountry adoption.

China
China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) have been party to the Hague Adoption Convention since 1 January 2006. All adoptions in China from another country must meet these requirements as well as Chinese domestic law.

On the international level, China also has bilateral agreements with certain countries, including Australia (The Family Law (Bilateral Agreements – Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998) etc.

Domestically, China has two major legislations directly responsible for international adoption affairs.

 * Adoption Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised), which deals with general adoption issue. Its Article 21 is specifically linked to international adoption.
 * Measures for Registration of Adoption of Children by Foreigners in the People's Republic of China, solely addressing international adoption issues.

Other pertinent documents include
 * Article 26 in Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, also defines adoption in China in a general manner.
 * Measures of China Center of Adoption Affairs for Authorizing Foreign Adoption Organizations to Seek Adoptive Families for Children of Special Needs

Legally, the China Centre for Children's Welfare and Adoptions (CCCWA) (which is different from the China Center of Adoption Affairs (CCAA) is the only agency authorized by the Chinese government to regulate and process all inter-country adoptions from China. And China requires all inter-country adoption be handled through government approval instead of any individual application.

Taiwan
Having been one of the major sources of adoptive children, yet Taiwan is not party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention).

Domestically, Taiwan has enforced The Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act since May 30, 2012. And according to the Act, all the adoption cases in Taiwan shall consider the national adopter as priority. Besides, all the international adoption cases shall be matched via the legal adoption matching services agency. Except almost the same peer within six degrees of kinship of relatives and five degrees of kinship of relatives by marriage, or one of the couple adopts the other party's children. Taiwan organizations that provide international adoption service work with foreign agency or governmental authority instead of individuals.

The Republic of Korea (South Korea)
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) is not party to Hague Adoption Convention. South Korea's law requires the use of an adoption agency for the overseas adoption of all Korean orphans, and requires that such agencies are authorized by The Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs.

On May 24, 2013, it signed the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the convention). This is the first step for South Korea in becoming a Convention partner. Adoptions between the United States and South Korea, however, are not yet subject to the requirements of the convention and relevant implementing laws and regulations. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which will be designated as South Korea's Central Authority, there is no set date when South Korea will deliver its instrument of ratification or when the convention will enter into force with respect to South Korea.

Domestically, the Republic of Korea (ROK) Special Adoption Act, which governs intercountry adoptions from South Korea, went into effect on August 5, 2012. This law prioritizes domestic adoptions and endeavors to reduce the number of South Korean children adopted abroad. Under the Special Adoption Act, each intercountry adoption requires the approval of the ROK Family Court.

India
India is party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention).

In January 2011, India implemented new procedures to provide more centralized processing of intercountry adoptions. In addition to the new guidelines, prospective adoptive parents should be aware of all Indian laws that apply to intercountry adoption. A child can be legally placed with the prospective adoptive parents under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 (HAMA), the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 (GAWA), or the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 (JJA).

Vietnam
Vietnam is a party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention).

Domestically, Vietnam Government has promulgated the Law on Adoption and it took effect from January 1, 2011. It contains 53 Articles, and addresses both domestic and intercountry adoption. Article 14 of the Vietnamese law outlines the requirements for adopters, which is also applicable to foreign adoptive parents.

Europe
Since the 1970s, European countries such as Spain, France, Italy, and several Scandinavian countries have experienced a considerable increase in the demand for adopted children from non-European countries as a result of a scarce numbers of national children available for adoptions. Gender studies have also suggested that this is the result of the modern trend in the Global North of delaying conception of the first child, which increases the risk of reduced fertility and the demand for adoption. However, recent data show a stabilization or even a decrease in the inter-country adoptions. From one side it has been argued that this is the result of a decrease in the causes of abandonment, implementation of social policies in favour of families, less stigmatization of unmarried mothers, economic development and an increase in the national adoptions in the main source countries. From the other side it has been considered also the result of new regulations and policies adopted by some countries of origin (e.g. Romania) aiming at regulating the outflow of children and preventing child trafficking. The trend however differs from country to country. Between 2000 and 2005, for example Spain, France and Italy have experienced an increase in international adoptions of 70%, while in Switzerland and in Germany they have decreased and in Norway have remained stable.

Council of Europe
The enactment and enforcement of international standards and laws regulating adoption depends on how the competent authorities in each contracting state interpret international instruments and implement their provisions. European regulation and practices on the matter vary from country to country. An attempt to harmonize adoption laws among Member States of the Council of Europe was made with the European Convention on the Adoption of Children (1967), which entered into force in April 1968. In 2008 a revised version of the European Convention on the Adoption of Children was prepared by a Working Party of the Committee of Experts on Family Law under the authority of the European Committee on Legal Cooperation within the framework of the Council of Europe. The convention was opened for signature on 27 November 2008. As of November 2013, the 1967 Convention has been ratified by 18 of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, while 3 Member States are signatories but have not yet ratified. As for the revised Convention, 16 countries have ratified, while another 3 have only signed. The European Convention establishes common principles that should govern adoption. The Convention establishes procedures affecting adoption and its legal consequences to reduce the difficulties in promoting the welfare of the adopted children caused by the differences in legislation and practices among the European States. Among its essential provisions, the Convention stipulates that the adoption must be granted by a competent judicial or administrative authority (art. 4), that birth parents must freely consent to the adoption (art.5) and that the adoption must be in the best interest of the child (art.8). Any improper financial advantages arising from the adoption of a child are prohibited (art.15).

European Union
Within the European Union regulation, reference to intercountry adoption is made in article 4 of the Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. The article regulates the immigration of adoptive third-country-national children provided that the parents are established third country nationals within the European Union. EU Member States authorized the entry and residence of children adopted in accordance with a decision taken by the competent authority of the Member State concerned. Entry can also be authorized by a decision that is automatically enforceable due to international obligations of the Member State or must be recognized in accordance with international obligations (art. 4 (b)). With the ratification and adoption of the Hague Adoption Convention, European countries have developed training for social workers in charge of providing international adoption-related services. They have appointed competent specialists and created a centralized system of control (e.g. Italy and Germany). In Switzerland, on the other hand, the bureaucratization of the procedures has been considered to have slowed down the process resulting in a decrease of the number of children adopted. Traditionally in Spain, France and Switzerland, the adopting parents can choose between two paths to carry out international adoption: referring to the intermediation of an accredited body – most of the time a private organization – and with the supervision of the central adoption authority designated by the state, or opting for a private adoption without the referral to the intermediary. In Italy and Norway the second option, considered as "private adoption", is forbidden. In Italy for example all international adoptions must be arranged by competent bodies accredited by national law. The only exception is granted to prospective adoptive couples where one spouse is a native of the country the child comes from, or for Italian families who have lived for a long time in the country and have a significant relation with its culture. In these two cases their demand for international adoption can be sent to the International Social Service, an international not-for-profit organization active in more than 100 countries through a network of branches, affiliated bureaus, and correspondents, without recurring to the accredited national bodies. France and Germany recently adopted a third path, creating public bodies that simultaneously exercise a formal intermediary role and in practice perform the functions of a central adoption authority. Data show that in all European countries, both those that legally prohibit and allow for it, the practice of private adoption is widespread and has raised concerns most of all in relation to the risk of child trafficking. Many European countries have signed bilateral agreement with countries of origin of the adopted children (e.g. Spain with Philippines and Bolivia, France with Vietnam). Legally speaking, bilateral agreements cannot disregard the guarantees provided by the Convention of the Rights of the Child and by the Hague Adoption Convention.

United States
The United States (US) is bound both by domestic and international laws regarding adoptions of children. The laws cover US families adopting children from abroad, and families abroad adopting US-born children. Many US children are adopted abroad. However, foreign adoptions by American families have dropped in recent years: families in the US adopted 2,971 children from abroad in 2019, compared with a high of 22,884 in 2004.

There are several international treaties and conventions regulating the intercountry adoption of children. When possible, the US prefers to enter into multilateral agreements over bilateral ones, because of the difficulty in getting the Senate to ratify international agreements.
 * Inter-American Convention on Conflict of Laws Concerning the Adoption of Minors, 1984 (US not signed or ratified)
 * US bilateral agreement with Viet Nam on 1 Sept 2005
 * United Nations General Assembly Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to Adoption and Foster Placement of Children Nationally and Internationally (adopted without vote)
 * Hague Adoption Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention). The US has acceded to (signed) but the Senate has not ratified the Hague Convention. The US also made a declaration that this convention does not supersede Title 18, United States Code, Section 3190 relating to documents submitted to the United States Government in support of extradition requests.
 * United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US signed (16 Feb 1995) but the Senate has not ratified because of states' rights to execute children (minors tried as adults). This was deemed unconstitutional by Supreme Court in 2005, but the Senate has not reversed its position.

The US Department of State lists the pertinent legal documents regarding adoptions. In particular, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 incorporates the Hague Convention into domestic law. The act stipulates requirements for US children being adopted internationally. Paragraph 97.3 (§97.3) stipulates the requirements for a US child being adopted internationally in a country that has also ratified the Hague Convention.

A family' eligibility to adopt from another country is fairly similar to the requirements of domestic adoptions, with additions regarding citizenship, visas, and immigration. These are detailed in the booklet Intercountry Adoption from A to Z.

The State Department provides interactive maps detailing US adoption rates since 1999 by several categories.

Critiques of International Adoption Between Africa and the United States
United States citizens in recent years, have had an increase in interest of the adoption of African children. Before the 1980's international adoption was not very favorable to United States citizens, especially with African children. After an increase in positive international relations between the two countries, there is a noticeable difference, "According to NCFA data, there were 10,019 foreign adoptions in calendar year 1986, accounting for 16.4% of all unrelated adoptions occurring in that year." (Stolley 1993). While both international adoption and African adoption rates have been on the rise, we see the biggest increase in African adoption due to the leniency of the restrictions and protocols. "The resulting scale places the top African countries of origin of children adopted into U.S. families, Ethiopia and Liberia among the least restrictive countries. Two other countries scored similarly on the restrictiveness scale: Guinea-Bissau and Swaziland." (Breuning 2009). Scholars expect to see an upward trend of American citizens adopting African children as requirements decrease, and general adoption rates increase.

But as the adoption rates of African children by white American families increase, we see the issues of transracial adoption occur more frequently. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families and the National Council For Adoption recorded that in 2020 there were 92,237 black children in foster care and 9,588 adopted black children by white families, a large percentage of those being of direct African descent. The National Association of Black Social Workers has critiqued the efficiency of transracial adoption. The NABSW (National Association of Black Social Workers) has concluded that, because of the historical relations between the two races, that white parents cannot adequately prepare their adopted children for how society treats people of color. The American Adoption Association has also critiqued issues concurring of those of the NABSW. They state that transracial adoption has a lack of diversity, that transracial adoptees face racism notably from their adoptive families, adoptees lack connection to their birth cultures, and adoptees struggle with their racial and cultural self-identities. Through both critiques we can notice that transracial adoption, especially when international can be controversial. While each critique is made with the certainty that each child should be adopted, and that transnational adoption does not and is not always a negative commodity, they are providing reoccurent issues that happen frequently with transracial adoption.

Reform efforts
Due to the appeal and otherwise obvious difficult issues presented by international adoption, the reform movement seeks to influence governments to adopt regulations that serve the best interest of the child and meet the interests of both the adoptive and biological family members. Significant advances have been made in increasing the regulation of international adoptions.

Adopting families in general have a variety of motivations, such as infertility, being a same-sex couple or single parent, and not wanting to contribute to human overpopulation. International adoptions can have additional motivations, including reducing the chance that a biological family member will later challenge the adoption or interfere in the child's life, rescuing a child from a life of poverty (seen by some as patronizing or even neo-colonialist), and "saving" a child in the religious sense of converting them to the family's religion (not necessarily considered beneficial by those of different religions or no religion). In particular, evangelical Christians have been urged to adopt internationally in addition to having large biological families. International adoption generates additional controversy where the children will be raised in a different culture or religion than they were born into, or by parents of a different ethnicity, especially where this will be visually apparent to others in the society (which may subject the child to stigmatization or discrimination). Some adoptions compensate for problematic attitudes or practices in the source country, such as abandonment of girls and children with disabilities or serious medical problems, or for economic or aesthetic reasons.

Considering adoption in the crude terms of a market, the global demand to adopt infants is higher than the naturally available supply; most children available for adoption are of school age. This mismatch encourages international adoption as domestic supply is exhausted, but also creates financial incentives to identify more young children for adoption, especially in developing countries and those with high levels of societal corruption or poor law enforcement. Certain aspects of international adoption make it easier for agencies and child recruiters to commit fraud, including distance, language barriers, difficulty enforcing laws across international boundaries, and adoption agency contracts disclaiming responsibility for incorrect biographical details. Abuses which impact adoption decisions that laws, treaties, and reform efforts are trying to stop include representing a child as an orphan when parents are still alive, representing an orphan child as without family when there are extended family members willing to adopt, representing a child as more impoverished than they actually are, falsely representing a child as having no siblings they would be leaving behind, representing to biological parents that a permanent adoption is actually a program to temporarily send their children to a developed country for educational opportunity, and not disclosing that biological parents were (probably illegally) paid to relinquish custody of their children.

After a disaster
Of special note to international adoption are campaigns for adoptions that occur after disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and wars. There is often an outpouring of adoption proposals in such cases from foreigners who want to give homes to children left in need. While adoption may be a way to provide stable, loving families for children in need, it is also suggested that adoption in the immediate aftermath of trauma or upheaval may not be the best option. Moving children too quickly into new adoptive homes among strangers may be a mistake because it may turn out that the parents survived and were unable to find the children or there may be a relative or neighbor who can offer shelter and homes. Providing safety and emotional support may be better in those situations than immediate relocation to a new adoptive family. There is an increased risk, immediately following a disaster, that displaced and/or orphaned children may be more vulnerable to exploitation and child trafficking.

Effects of adoption on adoptive parents
Adoption is a dynamic shift on both the adoptive parent(s) and the child. The adoption process is long and arduous to ensure that the living environment will be suitable for the child. However, it can be very overwhelming; many grow up with a total loss of connection to their biological families, culture and roots. According to Child Welfare Information Gateway, "The home study process can feel intrusive and may highlight issues that you have not fully addressed." The uncertainty of the whole process, including being able to even adopt a child can be overwhelming. However, the adoption of the child has countless beneficial effects on the child. Adopting a child can provide a stable foundation and family situation that is essential for growth and development and can provide new opportunities and resources for an adoptive child. It can also give the adoptive parents a sense of purpose and completion. However, the Post-Adoption Period can be mentally and emotionally taxing for both parties. Child Welfare Information Gateway also states, "Parents may be unprepared for the issues that may come up throughout the lifelong adoption journey." Unidentified trauma from the adopted child can be hard to pinpoint and treat. Adopted children can also have a fear of rejection and abandonment, which make it hard the parent(s) to connect instantly with the child. This in turn can trigger senses of being let-down, sadness and depression in the parent(s).

In popular culture
Blue Bayou, a film written and directed by Justin Chon, depicts a Korean-American man who was adopted by a white family and is at risk for deportation because his parents did not file for his citizenship. The movie is based on true stories about interracial adoption, which is related to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

title: International adoption


text: Category:Transplantation medicine

title: Category:Transplantation medicine


text:
Comănești

Comănești (Kománfalva) is a town in Bacău County, Western Moldavia, Romania, with a population of 19,996 as of 2021. It is situated on the river Trotuș, which flows between the Ciuc and the Tarcău mountains; 10 km of the course of the river pass through Comănești.

The town administers two villages, Podei and Vermești.

History
The area of the town of Comănești has been inhabited since the Neolithic period - Neolithic remains were found in the Vermești area of the town. The name is derived from the Cumans who once ruled the region. Its first written record dates from 1657, and its first presence on a map from the 1696 Sanson Map.

From the late 18th century onwards, the town was in the domain of the Ghica family of boyars, who remained an important presence in the area until the middle of the 20th century. The Ghica Palace (now housing the local museum), the park in front of the museum, and the railway stations are testimonies to their presence in the town.

During the summers of 2004, 2005, and 2006, Comănești suffered severe flooding of the Trotuș. Some specialists have associated those floods with the deforestation in the area. In 2006 and 2008, Comănești was the site of large explosion-like sounds that were not identified.

Demographics
At the 2021 census, the town had 19,996 inhabitants; of those, 84.7% were Romanians and 5% Roma.

Natives

 * Alexandru Corban (born 1998), footballer
 * Andrei Florean (born 1992), footballer
 * Anca Grigoraș (born 1957), artistic gymnast
 * Ionuț Iftimoaie (born 1978), kickboxer
 * Ionela Loaieș (born 1979), artistic gymnast
 * Iulian Petrache (born 1991), footballer
 * Ilie Verdeț (1925 – 2001), communist politician, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1982

Industry
As of 2003, Comănești had an unemployment rate of 18.1%, much higher than the country's average, and the town was declared an underdeveloped region.

The town is in the center of a large coal field and there are also smaller amounts of oil in the area. The Comănești Coal Mine, which in 1989 employed 5,000 people, was finally closed down in 2005, leaving the last group of miners (260 in all) unemployed. The other major industry of the town is forestry, but the large lumberyard and factory were also closed; this area of enterprise is now dominated by small local businesses, but in the last few years some international investors started to appear in the city, especially in retail and commerce.

There have been new initiatives in recent years to attract investment into the area in both the industrial and tourism sectors.

Train station
The Comănești train station was built in 1899, modeled on the Lausanne and Curtea de Argeș railway stations. The design was done by the Italian architect Giulio Magni, while the construction was done by the engineer Elie Radu.

title: Comănești


text:
Primary immigration

Primary immigration is a term which describes the movement of the earner of a family, or a young unattached single man, from one country to another, usually to improve their economic condition. Once the primary immigrant is established in the new country, they will often send for their family to come and join them (perhaps many years later), according to family reunification immigration laws. This is known as secondary immigration. Most countries tend to restrict the categories of people allowed to be primary immigrants, but allow the reunification of families of people already legally resident.

title: Primary immigration


text:
Figures of Earth

Figures of Earth: A Comedy of Appearances (1921) is a fantasy novel or ironic romance by James Branch Cabell, set in the imaginary French province of Poictesme during the first half of the 13th century. The book follows the earthly career of Dom Manuel the Redeemer from his origins as a swineherd, through his elevation to the rank of Count of Poictesme, to his death. It forms the second volume of Cabell's gigantic Biography of the Life of Manuel.

Cabell's working title for Figures of Earth was initially The Fairy Time, then The Figure or The Figures, before the final version emerged. The book was published in February 1921, during the legal battle to clear his previous novel, Jurgen, from charges of obscenity. He accordingly dedicated Figures of Earth to "six most gallant champions" who had rallied to Jurgen's defense: Sinclair Lewis, Wilson Follett, Louis Untermeyer, H. L. Mencken, Hugh Walpole, and Joseph Hergesheimer. The scandal that surrounded Cabell's name at this time may have adversely affected reviews of Figures of Earth, which, according to the author, registered "some disappointment over its lack of indecency"; he himself preferred Figures of Earth to Jurgen. In the "Author's Note" preceding the novel's 1927 reprint, Cabell observed that "Not many other volumes, I believe, have been burlesqued and cried down in the public prints by their own dedicatees" alluding to the fact that both Untermeyer and Mencken had publicly expressed dislike with the novel in comparison with Jurgen. A 1925 reissue included illustrations by Frank C. Papé. In Cabell's later years Figures of Earth fell, like most of his other works, into comparative neglect, but two paperback reissues in 1969 and 1971, with introductions by Lin Carter and James Blish respectively, brought it back into circulation.

Reception
The New York Times, reviewing Figures of Earth, declared that "This new novel is, very much of it, beautifully written. Its characters share with the majority of his creations the curiously unhuman quality which is never more apparent than when he is trying to make them quite commonplace. . . . It is a curious, often very beautiful, and at the bottom very sad book."

On Cabell's death in 1958, Edmund Wilson wrote "the more I have thought about Figures of Earth -- and its sequel The Silver Stallion -- the more remarkable they have come to seem. . . . [T]he chronicle of Manuel the Redeemer was not a book for the Young nor was it a book in the mood of the twenties. The story of the ambitious man of action who is cowardly, malignant and treacherous and who does not even enjoy very much what his crimes and double-dealing have won him, but who is rapidly, after his death, transformed into a great leader, a public benefactor and a saint, has the fatal disadvantage for a novel that the reader finds no inducement to identify himself with its central figure. Yet I am now not sure that this merciless chronicle in which all the values are negative except the naked human will, is not one of the best things of its kind in literature -- on a plane, perhaps, with Flaubert and Swift."

E. F. Bleiler noted that while the novel's storyline was "meandering", it included "entertaining diversions on symbolically disguised book reviewers, philistines and their sexual obtusities, and pseudo-mythology." He concluded that "As a totality, [it is] repetitive, nagging, and boring, but with excellent moments."

Anticipating its 1969 Ballantine reissue, James Blish wrote that "the effect of this heroic fantasy is rather anti-romantic despite its materials, an effect reinforced by Cabell's style." David Langford, in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, comments that "We are not admitted to any of [the protagonist's] thoughts, giving the book a chilly aspect despite fine poetic passages."

title: Figures of Earth


text:
Neo-Luddism

Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. The term Luddite is generally used as a pejorative applied to people showing technophobic leanings. The name is based on the historical legacy of the English Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1817. While the original Luddites were mostly concerned with the economic implications of improving technology in regard to industrialization, neo-Luddites tend to have a broader and more holistic distrust of technological improvement.

Neo-Luddism is a leaderless movement of non-affiliated groups who resist modern technologies and dictate a return of some or all technologies to a more primitive level. Neo-Luddites are characterized by one or more of the following practices: passively abandoning the use of technology, harming those who produce technology harmful to the environment, advocating simple living, or sabotaging technology. The modern neo-Luddite movement has connections with the anti-globalization movement, anarcho-primitivism, radical environmentalism, and deep ecology.

Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment, Neo-Luddism stipulates the use of the precautionary principle for all new technologies, insisting that technologies be proven safe before adoption, due to the unknown effects that new technologies might inspire.

Philosophy
Neo-Luddism calls for slowing or stopping the development of new technologies. Neo-Luddism prescribes a lifestyle that abandons specific technologies, because of its belief that this is the best prospect for the future. As Robin and Webster put it, "a return to nature and what are imagined as more natural communities". In the place of industrial capitalism, neo-Luddism prescribes small-scale agricultural communities such as those of the Amish and the Chipko movement in Nepal and India as models for the future.

Neo-Luddism denies the ability of any new technology to solve current problems, such as environmental degradation, nuclear warfare and biological weapons, without creating more, potentially dangerous, problems.

In 1990, attempting to found a unified movement and reclaim the term Luddite, Chellis Glendinning published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". In this paper, Glendinning describes neo-Luddites as "20th century citizens—activists, workers, neighbors, social critics, and scholars—who question the predominant modern worldview, which preaches that unbridled technology represents progress". Glendinning voices an opposition to technologies that she deems destructive to communities or are materialistic and rationalistic. She proposes that technology encourages biases, and therefore should question if technologies have been created for specific interests, to perpetuate their specific values including short-term efficiency, ease of production and marketing, as well as profit. Glendinning also says that secondary aspects of technology, including social, economic and ecological implications, and not personal benefit need to be considered before adoption of technology into the technological system.

Vision of the future without intervention
Neo-Luddism often establishes stark predictions about the effect of new technologies. Although there is not a cohesive vision of the ramifications of technology, neo-Luddism predicts that a future without technological reform has dire consequences. Neo-Luddites believe that current technologies are a threat to humanity and to the natural world in general, and that a future societal collapse is possible or even probable.

These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by genetically modified organisms, nuclear warfare, and biological weapons; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political inequality, widespread social alienation, a loss of community, and massive unemployment; technology causing environmental degradation due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding.

Types of intervention
In 1990, attempting to reclaim the term Luddite and found a unified movement, Glendinning published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". In this paper, Glendinning proposes destroying the following technologies: electromagnetic technologies (this includes communications, computers, appliances, and refrigeration), chemical technologies (this includes synthetic materials and medicine), nuclear technologies (this includes weapons and power as well as cancer treatment, sterilization, and smoke detection), genetic engineering (this includes crops as well as insulin production). She argues in favor of the "search for new technological forms" which are local in scale and promote social and political freedom.

Movement
Contemporary neo-Luddites are a widely diverse group of loosely affiliated or non-affiliated groups which includes "writers, academics, students, families, Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, environmentalists, "fallen-away yuppies", "ageing flower children" and "young idealists seeking a technology-free environment". Some Luddites see themselves as victims of technology trying to prevent further victimization (such as Citizens Against Pesticide Misuse and Parents Against Underage Smartphones). Others see themselves as advocates for the natural order and resist environmental degradation by technology (such as Earth First!).

One neo-Luddite assembly was the "Second Neo-Luddite Congress", held 13–15 April 1996, at a Quaker meeting hall in Barnesville, Ohio. On 24 February 2001, the "Teach-In on Technology and Globalization" was held at Hunter College in New York city with the purpose of bringing together critics of technology and globalization. The two figures who are seen as the movement's founders are Glendinning and Kirkpatrick Sale. Prominent neo-Luddites include educator S. D. George, ecologist Stephanie Mills, Theodore Roszak, Scott Savage, Clifford Stoll, Bill McKibben, Neil Postman, Wendell Berry, Alan Marshall and Gene Logsdon. Postman, however, did not consider himself a Luddite.

Relationship to violence and vandalism
Some neo-Luddites use vandalism or violence to achieve social change and promote their cause.

In May 2012, credit for the shooting of Roberto Adinolfi, an Ansaldo Nucleare executive, was claimed by an anarchist group who targeted him for stating that none of the deaths following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami were caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster itself: "Adinolfi knows well that it is only a matter of time before a European Fukushima kills on our continent [...] Science in centuries past promised us a golden age, but it is pushing us towards self destruction and slavery [...] With our action we give back to you a small part of the suffering that you scientists are bringing to the world."

Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, initially sabotaged developments near his cabin but dedicated himself to getting back at the system after discovering a road had been built over a plateau he had considered beautiful. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski engaged in a nationwide bombing campaign against modern technology, planting or mailing numerous home-made bombs, killing three people and injuring 23 others. In his 1995 Unabomber manifesto, Kaczynski states: "The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics."

In August 2011 in Mexico a group or person calling itself Individualists Tending to the Wild perpetrated an attack with a bomb at the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, State of Mexico Campus, intended for the coordinator of its Business Development Center and Technology Transfer. The attack was accompanied by the publication of a manifesto criticizing nanotechnology and computer science.

Sale says that neo-Luddites are not motivated to commit violence or vandalism. The manifesto of the "Second Luddite Congress", which Sale took a major part in defining, attempts to redefine neo-Luddites as people who reject violent action.

Origins of contemporary critiques of technology in literature
According to Julian Young, Martin Heidegger was a Luddite in his early philosophical phase and believed in the destruction of modern technology and a return to an earlier agrarian world. However, the later Heidegger did not see technology as wholly negative and did not call for its abandonment or destruction. In The Question Concerning Technology (1953), Heidegger posited that the modern technological "mode of Being" was one which viewed the natural world, plants, animals, and even human beings as a "standing-reserve"—resources to be exploited as means to an end. To illustrate this "monstrousness", Heidegger uses the example of a hydroelectric plant on the Rhine river which turns the river from an unspoiled natural wonder to just a supplier of hydropower. In this sense, technology is not just the collection of tools, but a way of being in the world and of understanding the world which is instrumental and grotesque. According to Heidegger, this way of being defines the modern way of living in the West. For Heidegger, this technological process ends up reducing beings to not-beings, which Heidegger calls 'the abandonment of being' and involves the loss of any sense of awe and wonder, as well as an indifference to that loss.

One of the first major contemporary anti-technological thinkers was French philosopher Jacques Ellul. In his The Technological Society (1964), Ellul argued that logical and mechanical organization "eliminates or subordinates the natural world". Ellul defined technique as the entire totality of organizational methods and technology with a goal toward maximum rational efficiency. According to Ellul, technique has an impetus which tends to drown out human concerns: "The only thing that matters technically is yield, production. This is the law of technique; this yield can only be obtained by the total mobilization of human beings, body and soul, and this implies the exploitation of all human psychic forces." In Industrial Revolution England, machines became cheaper to use than men. The five counties of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire had a small uprising where they threatened those hired to guard the machines. Another critic of political and technological expansion was Lewis Mumford, who wrote The Myth of the Machine. The views of Ellul influenced the ideas of the infamous American neo-Luddite Kaczynski. The opening of Kaczynski's manifesto reads: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." Other philosophers of technology who have questioned the validity of technological progress include Albert Borgmann, Don Ihde and Hubert Dreyfus.

title: Neo-Luddism