During the recent Georgia legislative session, the Georgia legislature passed HB 154 which makes some changes to the Georgia Adoption Code (“Code”). The changes will be effective starting July 1, 2021. Whether you are a biological parent, prospective adoptive parent or attorney, there are some changes that you should be aware of that will impact the adoption process.
Adoption
While only the eighth most populous state in the United States, Georgia has the second highest rate of babies abandoned by their mothers and has the largest number of babies on the East Coast abandoned in just their first few days of life.
Recently, this alarming epidemic drew national attention with the story of Baby India, a newborn who was found clinging to life, bloody and with her umbilical cord still attached, in a plastic bag near a wooded area in Forsyth County, Georgia. A local family heard Baby India’s cries and came to her rescue. Thankfully, experts, media commentators, and advocates are hearing the cries of babies like India and hoping to point mothers to Georgia’s Safe Haven Law.
Adoption
The Georgia Adoption Reunion Registry is maintained by the Division of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) to organize and provide information to connect adopted individuals and their families. As DFCS states on the Reunion Registry website, “adoptees, birth parents, or siblings who have been permanently separated through adoption often reach a time in their lives when they want more information about their biological family. This ‘need to know’ may be due to medical, genetic, genealogical, or personal reasons.”
Adoption
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC” or the “Compact”) is a statutory agreement between all 50 states and the District of Columbia which regulates and ensures uniformity in the process of placing children living in one state into another state. Since the 1950s, the ICPC has been adopted in every U.S. jurisdiction, including the State of Georgia. Before the law became universally adopted, each individual state’s ability to ensure the best interests of a child adopted beyond its borders was geographically limited. A patchwork of conflicting rules and regulations prevented a state from having any oversight of how a child’s well-being was provided for once the child was sent beyond the state’s borders. This was a double-edged sword for states, which could neither help children placed in bad adoption situations or get children into good out-of-state homes.