text:
In 1995, when Rachel[679] and her partner (both wheelchair users) decided to adopt, they had no idea they were embarking on a 15-year journey to become parents. They contacted the local child welfare agency to express interest in becoming foster or adoptive parents. They were immediately told that because of their disabilities they were not qualified. After they worked their way "up the chain" and threatened a lawsuit, the agency finally allowed them to apply. The couple met all the requirements and completed the necessary training. Soon after that, a brother and sister were placed with them. After only three months, the agency removed the foster children because their birth mother did not want them placed with a disabled couple. The agency offered another child, who proved to be an inappropriate match. Nearly five years later, with no communication from the agency, Rachel and her partner went through the training process again. Despite successful completion of training a second time, they never heard from the agency.
In 2004, after Rachel's partner started a new job that paid well, the couple decided to apply for private adoption, hoping a private agency would better engage and assist prospective parents with disabilities. But the private adoption process was also riddled with discrimination. In 2006, the couple applied to adopt a young girl. After a home study and nearly two years of silence, they inquired again. Finally, in early 2009, Rachel and her partner were allowed to meet a child. In March 2009, the agency contacted the couple and told them that the girl's foster parents were relinquishing her (which Rachel and her partner assumed was owing to her significant intellectual and psychiatric disabilities) and asked if they would like to become her foster parents. They agreed and she moved into their home in April 2009. In June 2010, 15 years after beginning their journey to become parents, Rachel and her partner adopted their daughter. Tragically, Rachel's partner passed away five months later.
Adoption horror stories are all too common for prospective parents with disabilities. The adoption system is riddled with de facto and de jure discrimination that prevents countless prospective parents with disabilities from adopting. Examination of domestic and international adoption practices reveals that reforms are urgently needed across the broad spectrum of adoption practices and procedures.
The Adoption Law System: A Brief Overview
Adoption law (both domestic and international) creates and governs the legal relationship of parent and child and bestows on the adoptive parents all the rights and responsibilities of that role.[680] Once adoption is finalized, adoptive parents play the same role as biological parents in the life of their child.[681] There is no inherent right to adopt a child or become a foster parent. Parenting by adoption is not guaranteed by the United States or any state constitution.[682] Accordingly, many people with disabilities encounter discrimination when engaging in the adoption process.
The goal of adoption is to "provide a permanent home that is suitable for the child and that is in his or her best interests."[683] The uncertainties posed by the best interest standard, well documented in legal commentary on issues involving rights and protection of minors, also contribute to bias in adoption cases. Reaffirming this issue, researchers from Northwestern University note:
"The vagueness of the 'best interests of the child' standard is compounded in practice by the administrative structure of adoptions agencies in the US. The vast majority of non-family adoptions in the US are arranged by private, independent agencies that usually operate on a commercial or for-profit basis. These independent agencies are generally lightly regulated and characterized by wide variability in terms of policies, practices, and procedures. Consequently, adoption remains a complicated construct within the legal system of the United States. In fact, there is no national legal framework governing the adoption process, with matters of law and policy determined separately by each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A few umbrella pieces of legislation along with related judicial decisions bring a degree of national foundation for adoption in the legal realm, but statute law, policy, and practice in relation to adoption are largely determined at the state level."[684]
During the adoption process, courts and agencies consider a list of criteria to determine whether an individual or couple will be suitable parents. Criteria typically include "age, religion, financial stability, emotional health, capacity for parenthood, physical health, marital status, infertility, adjustment to sterility, quality of the marital relationship, motives for adoption, attitudes toward non-marital parenthood, the attitude of significant others, total personality, emotional maturity, and feelings about children."[685] In deciding among prospective adoptive families, agencies may also consider where the couple lives and whether they have other children.[686] For international adoption, each country defines its own criteria.
Domestic Adoption
Domestic adoption is largely governed by state law, with federal laws providing overarching standards with which state adoption laws must comply.[687] Massachusetts passed the first adoption statute in the United States.[688] By 1929, all states had enacted similar laws, emphasizing the best interest of the child standard.
Domestic adoptions can be accomplished through many different routes, but each must be approved by a presiding judge.[689] There are five types of domestic adoption in the United States: public agency adoptions, licensed private agency adoptions, independent adoptions (often referred to as attorney adoptions), adoption through a facilitator (allowed in some states), and unlicensed private agency adoptions.[690] Public and licensed private agencies are required to meet state standards and operate under more oversight to ensure quality services.[691] Unlicensed agencies and facilitators often are not subject to the same state oversight; consequently, there may be more financial, emotional, and legal risk for adoptive and birth families who use these services.[692] Public agencies generally oversee the adoption of children in the state child welfare system.[693] Children in foster care have been removed from their families for a variety of reasons, including abuse or neglect, and range in age from infants to teens.[694] In public agency adoptions, matches are generally arranged by the agency—through a meeting of several social workers and supervisors or by a placement committee—and are based on the needs of the child and the ability of the family to meet those needs.[695]
In licensed private agency adoptions, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights to the agency and the adoptive parents then work with the agency to adopt.[696] Many agencies allow birth parents to choose a prospective adoptive family for their child on the basis of profiles prospective families create to share information about themselves.[697] "Prospective parents may have an opportunity to meet the birth parents face to face; however, social workers may make decisions about which families' profiles are shared with expectant parents considering adoption, or agency staff may make the match of a child and prospective adoptive parent. In addition, agencies may give preference to certain types of individuals or couples (e.g., due to religious affiliation or marital status)."[698]
In independent adoptions, private attorneys assist prospective parents with the adoption process, which usually involves the adoption of an infant.[699] Families that adopt independently identify the expectant parents without an agency's assistance, and [700] infants usually are placed with the adoptive parents directly from the hospital after birth.[701] While state laws differ about the timing of the birth parents' consent and the conditions and timing of the birth parents' right to revoke that consent, there is always the possibility that birth parents will change their minds when the baby is born; because of the inherent parenting rights of the biological parents, their rights are stringently protected.[702] The birth parents are the child's legal parents until they consent to the surrender of their parental rights.[703] Birth parents typically provide written consent for the adoption, which must be approved by the court.[704] Independent adoptions are permitted in 46 states; Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts prohibit them.[705]
Adoptive placements by facilitators and unlicensed private agencies offer the least amount of supervision and oversight.[706] A facilitator is a person who links prospective adoptive parents with expectant birth mothers for a fee.[707] Facilitators may or may not be regulated in their state and may have varying degrees of expertise in adoption practice.[708] Two states (Delaware and Kansas) strictly prohibit the use of facilitators.[709]
Adoptions often take place across state lines; these are regulated by federal legislation.[710] Interstate adoptions are affected by two agreements between the sending and receiving states: the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (ICAMA) and the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). These agreements carry the force of law.[711] Currently, 42 states participate in the ICAMA, which regulates and coordinates the payment of benefits to children with special needs, adopted pursuant to an adoption assistance agreement, when they are adopted from one state by a family in another state, or when the adoptive family moves from one state to another. The ICPC is an agreement among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and is covered by legal statute in all states. The compact applies to placements of minor children made from one state to another by public and private agencies, the courts, independent placers (i.e., physicians and attorneys), and individuals.
There is a growing need for adoptive families; but although the number of children in foster care is on the rise, adoptions have dramatically decreased since the 1970s.[712] Nearly 127,000 children are adopted every year in the United States, but this is "a sharp drop since the century-long high point of 175,000 adoptions in 1970."[713]
International Adoption
International adoption (also referred to as intercountry adoption) differs from domestic adoption in several significant ways.[714] Children who are eligible for intercountry adoption must have lost their birth parents to death or abandonment, or the birth parents must prove that they are incapable of caring for the children.[715] In some cases, children adopted through intercountry adoption come from orphanages or institutional settings.[716] The placement process for international adoption underwent significant change following the United States' ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption on April 1, 2008.[717]
The convention is "designed to protect the best interests of children and prevent the abduction, sale, and trafficking of children."[718] In the United States, the Department of State has overall responsibility for implementing the Hague Convention, although the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security also play a significant role.[719] The United States is one of 85 nations that are parties to the Hague Convention.[720] When a U.S. citizen wants to adopt a child from any of these nations, Hague Convention rules apply. In adopting a child from a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention, some rules vary.[721]
Disability Law and the Adoption System
The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act govern the adoption system, both domestic and to a lesser extent international. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination by public entities run or funded by state and local governments, such as public adoption agencies.[722] Conversely, Title III of the ADA prohibits any public accommodation from discriminating against people with disabilities by denial of access to goods and services.[723] Title III unquestionably governs access to private adoptions, as it includes "adoption agency" in the definition of public accommodations.[724]
One of the key ADA provisions is that adoption agencies may not use "standards or criteria or methods of discrimination that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability."[725] Of particular relevance for adoption agencies is the prohibition against "imposing or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying" any services "unless the criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision" of those services.[726] (These exceptions are discussed below.)
According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, adoption agencies often ask whether they may exclude a person with HIV infection because that person allegedly poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.[727] The ADA explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of HIV infection; adoption agencies may not categorically reject individuals as prospective adoptive parents on this basis.[728]
Additionally, the ADA requires adoption agencies to provide reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures as needed for prospective adoptive parents with disabilities. The agencies must provide auxiliary aids and services when they are necessary to ensure effective communication with prospective parents with disabilities. These mandates apply to the entire adoption process (e.g., application, home study, and interview).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act governs adoption agencies that receive federal funding. In at least one reported case,Doe v. Nebraska,[729] a prospective adoptive parent with a disability who was discriminated against successfully sued for damages on the basis of the Rehabilitation Act. In this case, a couple was fostering two children in a foster care-to-adoption program. When the social services agency learned that the foster mother was HIV-positive, the agency immediately removed the children. A court ordered the agency to return the children based on its finding that returning them to the family was in their best interest. Subsequently, the agency found another placement for the younger child. The family filed a motion with the court, and the agency was found in violation of the court order. Eventually, the family won back custody of the younger child. Sadly, the mother died eight months later. The adoption was finalized the day before she died. Using the Rehabilitation Act, the estate of the mother and her adopted son sued the county for discriminating against the deceased foster mother. The state of Nebraska argued that it was immune from suit under the 11th Amendment. The court ruled that the couple had won the underlying discrimination claim on the merits, that Nebraska had waived its immunity from suit by accepting federal monies to run its program, and, therefore, the estate could sue under the Rehabilitation Act.
While federal disability laws, such as the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, do not govern other countries' conduct, they do govern key aspects of international adoption. For instance, "The ADA applies fully to all adoption agencies doing business on U.S. soil so, by law, they must serve and accommodate the needs of adoptive parents with disabilities."[730] This means that private adoption agencies, even if they are engaging in international adoption, must comply with the access and nondiscrimination mandates of Title III. This is particularly relevant for home studies and the application process.
The Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to provide programmatic access and reasonable accommodations as necessary. Accordingly, USCIS and other federal agencies engaged in international adoption must comply with the Rehabilitation Act. This is especially significant for prospective adoptive parents with disabilities during the application and screening process.
Access to the Domestic Adoption System
Many people with disabilities seek to form families through domestic adoption. For some, the type of disability may make adoption the sole means by which parenting becomes possible. Unfortunately, access to domestic adoption is often impeded by discriminatory practices. Many prospective parents with disabilities are categorically denied the opportunity to adopt because of their disability, while others encounter bias and speculation concerning their parenting abilities. Because of the unspoken ranking system among domestic adoption agencies, prospective adoptive parents with disabilities are often completely precluded from adopting or are forced to wait for indefinite periods before a match is found. In light of the growing need for adoptive parents and "[i]n order to place as many children as possible, no one group of prospective parents should ever be categorically excluded."[731]
Discrimination and Bias
Despite the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, prospective adoptive parents with disabilities regularly encounter barriers erected by discrimination and bias. According to Elizabeth Bartholet, Harvard Law School professor and one of the nation's leading experts on adoption, "Discrimination is the name of the game in adoptive parenting. Those who procreate live in a world of near-absolute parenting rights. Those who would adopt have no rights. They must beg for the privilege of parenting and do so in a state-administered realm that denies them both the right to privacy and the civil rights that we have come to think of as fundamental. Differential treatment on the basis of age, race, religion, and disability has been outlawed in almost all areas of our communal lives in the United States. Increasingly the law forbids discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation. It is only in the area of adoption that our system proclaims not simply the right to discriminate on all these bases but the importance of doing so. It is not just the prospective parents who are treated shabbily, but also the children, in whose best interests the system is supposedly designed."[732]
Echoing Bartholet's sentiments in his article "Empowerment for the Pursuit of Happiness: Parents with Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act," Dave Shade says, "The adoption process is complex, and because it frequently involves personal judgments by parents, social workers, judges, and other adoption professionals, it is fraught with the opportunity for discrimination."[733]
Categorical Discrimination
The ADA prohibits adoption agencies from using "standards or criteria or methods of discrimination that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability."[734] Specifically, adoption agencies are forbidden from "imposing or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying" any services, "unless the criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision" of those services.[735] The limited exceptions to this mandate are discussed later in this chapter.
Despite the ADA mandates, research demonstrates that a significant number of adoption agencies continue to categorically deny prospective parents with disabilities. In 2010, researchers from Northwestern University completed a study that examined the experiences of prospective adoptive parents who were cancer survivors.[736] The study was aimed at the attitudes of the adoption agencies. Of the 27 agencies that were interviewed, 7 admitted that certain medical conditions would prevent people from adopting through their agency. They cited a variety of illnesses and medical conditions that included "contractible diseases; AIDS; active, life-threatening diseases; use of antidepressants; terminal illnesses that shorten lifespan; conditions that require a large amount of narcotics that render the person unconscious; substance addiction; and severe mental conditions like schizophrenia." Agencies were also asked whether they have a policy for dealing with prospective adoptive parents who are HIV-positive. Two agencies responded affirmatively; one said that HIV-positive persons would be disqualified, and the other cited the state law regarding the right of HIV-positive persons to adopt. Extensive research into state laws regarding the potential for an HIV-positive person to serve as an adoptive parent yielded no results.[737] The researchers concluded, "Although existing legislative documents such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protect cancer survivors' rights to adopt a child, these protections are largely inconsequential in practice…. [The] network of adoption agencies working with potential parents in the U.S. is characterized by fundamental variability and ambiguity…[and] the current adoption system permits informal prejudice in practice that likely varies from one agency to the next."[738]
Prospective parents with disabilities continue to encounter categorical denials. When Christina,[739] a woman with significant physical and sensory (vision and hearing) disabilities, applied to adopt her niece, she was astounded and appalled by her experience. The social worker at the public adoption agency told Christina that "a handicapped woman can't take care of a handicapped child." Christina's battle to adopt her niece lasted for nearly a year. Eventually, she adopted her niece, after a court-appointed special advocate got involved and the state child welfare agency was almost held in contempt. Since this experience, Christina has adopted two more children and is in the process of adopting another.
Agency Discrimination and Home Studies
In addition to categorically denying prospective parents with disabilities, domestic adoptions frequently engage in other discriminatory practices. Bartholet says that prospective adoptive parents are subject to an unspoken "ranking system." That is, the domestic adoption system ranks prospective parents in terms of relative desirability, "using factors that reflect the system's bias in favor of a biologic parenting model, as well as a socially traditional family model."[740] Pursuant to this ranking system, "Heterosexual couples in their late 20s or early 30s with apparently stable marriages are at the top of the ladder. These are the people who can, if they are not infertile, produce children, and who should in the system's view be parents. Single applicants and those in their late 30s and 40s are placed lower on the ladder, along with people with mild disabilities. Gays, lesbians, and those who are significantly older or seriously disabled are generally excluded altogether."[741]
Similarly, the children in need of adoption are also ranked in a list, which is based on the desirability of the adoptive child. Explained by Kimberly A. Collier in her Texas Wesleyan Law Review article, "This list places healthy newborns and infants at the top of the list as being most desirable. The children next on the list are somewhat older or less healthy than those at the top of the list. As the age of the children increases or the health issues become more problematic, the ranking of desirability continues to fall until one reaches the bottom of the list, where the oldest and most seriously disabled children are placed. Once the agency has composed these two lists, it works to match the children with the prospective parents. The parents with the highest ranking are given the most 'buying power,' with the most desirable parents being matched with the most desirable children. Less desirable parents are matched with the less desirable children, and so on down the list."[742] Given the proliferation of discriminatory agency standards, the most coveted adoptable children are least likely to be matched with applicants with disabilities.[743]
Case law, research, and anecdotal evidence demonstrate that disability often counts against prospective adoptive parents or negatively affects their adoption experience. In a national survey of 1,200 parents with disabilities, conducted for TLG by Linda Barker and Vida Maralami, 8 percent reported that they experienced attitudinal barriers that inhibited or prevented adoption.[744]
Most prospective adoptive parents with disabilities are mindful of the discriminatory practices that pervade the domestic adoption law system. According to a disabled couple that adopted, "At the start of our adoption process we were not concerned about whether we were capable and would make good parents, but were rather concerned about whether we would be viewed as capable parents by the adoption counselor at the agency as well as by the birth mother."[745]
Although the potential for discrimination against people with disabilities exists during other stages of the adoption process—such as the placement decision and the judicial finalization—the home study is often where people with disabilities face the greatest vulnerability.[746] According to Shade, prospective adoptive parents with disabilities often face discrimination in one of two ways: "First, the evaluator may simply refuse to approve any adoptive placement, judging the parents unsuitable to raise any child. Second, the evaluator may limit the approval of an adoptive placement to only those children deemed compatible with the disability of the adoptive parent. The stereotypes and societal attitudes concerning parents with disabilities are pervasive and powerful. Even evaluators trained to assess parental fitness are capable of falling victim to these prejudices. Social worker texts, for example, continue to propagate the paternalistic tendencies that conclude that disability is an important factor in assessing parental fitness."[747]
Most domestic adoptions, whether private or public, include a rigorous preplacement evaluation of the adoptive home known as a "home study."[748] A home study is the principal instrument used to assess the fitness of prospective adoptive parents.[749] Some states require that a state agency complete the home study, while others allow any licensed child placement agency to complete the study.[750] Generally, the evaluator is a social worker, but the credentials and qualifications of home study workers vary greatly among jurisdictions.[751] Further, "the home study process may also vary widely, even within the same locality, depending upon the attitude and diligence of the individual evaluator."[752] The content of a home study can also vary.[753] "Most state statutes describe the required content in very general terms, if at all, leaving the form and content of the study to the evaluator."[754] Given the enormous latitude home study evaluators possess, Shade says, "It seems reasonable to conclude that the individual evaluator will have a tremendous amount of discretion when conducting a home study, perhaps making it easier for discrimination to be a part of the process."[755]
Despite ADA protections, several nonlegal issues limit its usefulness.[756] Shade says, "Situations in which the evaluating agency will also be making the placement decision put the adoptive parents in a terrible quandary: alienating the agency by initiating an ADA claim may jeopardize the placement process, a risk that many adoptive parents may be unwilling to take. Even where two different agencies will be making the home study and placement decisions, adoptive parents may fear that expressing dissatisfaction about the home study process or outcome could be communicated between the different agencies and might jeopardize the adoption. Finally, parents may be afraid to 'cause trouble' during the present adoption out of fear that any future adoptions might be jeopardized. These fears may hinder prospective adoptive parents from seeking legal relief, regardless of the strength of their legal claims and despite specific regulations explicitly designed to protect them from retaliation. Thus, rather than initiating an ADA claim, these parents may be more likely either to re-apply with another agency, or delay their adoption plans in the hopes that they can 'rehabilitate' themselves to the agency's satisfaction."[757]
In sum, the discretion and latitude bestowed on home study evaluators often results in prospective parents with disabilities encountering bias and discrimination. While the ADA unquestionably applies, prospective parents with disabilities often feel ambivalent about bringing it up.
Discrimination by Birth Parents
Birth parents can also play a role in discriminating among potential adoptive parents. In the majority of independent adoptions, birth parents "determine the ultimate suitability of adopters and, therefore, can openly disfavor against" parents with disabilities.[758] In fact, the right of birth parents to place their child for adoption with whomever they choose, or to authorize another person to do so on their behalf has been embodied in the laws of all but three states (Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts).[759] For Ken[760] (a man with hemophilia, hepatitis C, and HIV infection) and his wife (a wheelchair user), being chosen by birth parents was their biggest concern.
Sara C. Mills examined discrimination by birth parents in her 2011 article "Perpetuating Ageism via Adoption Standards and Practices" in the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society. According to Mills, "In independent adoptions and those involving private agencies, the opportunity for discrimination against prospective adoptive parents is far more common; this is because agency policies and the wishes of birth parents dictate the choice of applicants."[761]
Permissible Discrimination or Valid Defenses to the ADA?
In general, adoption agencies may not deny prospective parents with disabilities the opportunity to adopt on the basis of the applicant's disability, but there are exceptions. One factor that can be cited to justify the use of disability-related screening criteria is safety.[762] Pursuant to the ADA, adoption agencies may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of their services, programs, and activities. However, they must ensure that their safety requirements are based on actual risks, not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about people with disabilities.[763]
Similarly, adoption agencies may use the justification of direct threat. Agencies are not required to permit a person to participate in or benefit from their services if that person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. However, in determining whether a person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, adoption agencies must make an individualized assessment based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence to ascertain the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.[764] The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute advises agencies, "When such individualized assessments are utilized, the result may well be an acceptance of an individual with a significant disability, such as, for example, a woman who has crippling degenerative arthritis but whose home has been thoroughly adapted to enable her to function and whose husband is actively involved in parenting and home management."[765]
The first court to address the applicability of the ADA to adoption and foster care agencies has weighed in, with a decision supporting the right of adoption and foster care agencies to take disability into account as a "legitimate consideration" in assessing a person's fitness to become an adoptive or foster parent, provided that the agency does not routinely exclude disabled applicants from consideration by reason of their disability. In 1998, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York decided Adams v. Monroe County; it held that adoption agencies may consider a prospective parent's disability as a "legitimate" consideration.[766] In this case, a blind woman and her husband had qualified to participate in the foster to adoption program in their county, but no child was placed with them during their year with the program. The couple then proactively requested that a four-year-old child they had learned of be placed with them. The agency responded that the child was very active and the wife's disability precluded placement. In a lawsuit alleging violation of the ADA, the court ruled that three elements must be present to proceed with such a claim: (1) demonstrate that the plaintiffs were disabled in the meaning of the ADA; (2) prove that the prospective parents were otherwise qualified for placement of a child (had met all program requirements); and (3) illustrate that they had not received a child on the basis of discrimination. The court ultimately did not find in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that discrimination had not been proved. The court found that the alleged safety issue related to this particular child, rather than a blanket denial of placement of any child in the home, precluded a finding of discriminatory conduct. The Adams precedent has potentially devastating power to prevent prospective parents with disabilities from adoption because of arbitrary "legitimate" considerations raised by adoption agencies.
Patchwork Quilt of State Laws
Despite the protections afforded by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, prospective adoptive parents with disabilities face increasing barriers to adopting domestically. To address the egregious practices of adoption agencies, some states have begun to add protections in their state statues.
For instance, Michigan amended its adoption laws in 1994 to prohibit adoption agencies from discriminating against potential adoptive parents on the grounds of age, race, religion, disability, or income level.[767] As noted by Jehnna Irene Hanan, "The benefit of such a scheme is that it opens more potential adoptive homes for waiting children. By providing more placement options, the new law better safeguards the rights of children to a stable and permanent home."[768]
Similarly, Wisconsin's adoption statute states, "Although otherwise qualified, no person shall be denied the benefits of this section because the person is deaf, blind or has other physical handicaps."[769] Idaho's adoption statute also bars discrimination on the basis of disability: "Adoptions shall not be denied solely on the basis of the disability of a prospective adoptive parent."[770] Idaho's adoption statute further states that "the prospective adoptive parent shall have the right to provide evidence to the court regarding the manner in which the use of adaptive equipment or supportive services will enable the parent to carry out the responsibilities of parenting the child."[771]
However, some states specifically deny prospective parents with disabilities the opportunity to adopt. As recently as December 2011, Virginia erected an enormous impediment by approving regulations that allows adoption agencies to discriminate against prospective adoptive parents based on six categories, including disability.[772] This regulation not only hurts many prospective adoptive parents, but is devastating for the more than 1,200 children currently waiting to be adopted in Virginia.[773] Moreover, this regulation raises significant concern about whether other states will take similar discriminatory action.
North Dakota has a similar statute: "The department of human services may not deny a license because of the applicant's objection to performing, assisting, counseling, recommending, facilitating, referring, or participating in a placement that violates the applicant's written religious or moral convictions or policies."[774] Thus, the state may not refuse to license adoption agencies even if it knows that the agencies will discriminate against certain classes of people.
In light of the patchwork quilt of state adoption laws—especially Virginia's recent enactment, which explicitly discriminates against prospective parents with disabilities—the need for action could not be more timely or clear. Federal protections of prospective adoptive parents with disabilities must be promulgated.
Ensuring Access to Domestic Adoption
In light of the vague and indeterminate state-by-state legal system of adoption and the variability in policies and procedures among adoption agencies, a multipronged approach is necessary to eradicate the discrimination that pervades the adoption system.
The Federal Government, which has been nearly silent about the discrimination experienced by prospective adoptive parents with disabilities, must focus on ensuring the rights of these prospective parents. For example, the HHS Office for Civil Rights Web site contains extensive information on the legal rights and protection from race, color, and national origin discrimination for prospective foster and adoptive parents.[775] However, despite similar civil rights protections, there is no analogous information for prospective foster or adoptive parents with disabilities.
DOJ has addressed the discriminatory practices of domestic adoption agencies in at least one case. In 2002, DOJ announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Maple Star Nevada, a nonprofit agency in Las Vegas.[776] Pursuant to the agreement, the agency will "allow deaf and hard-of-hearing applicants to be considered for selection as foster parents."[777] Moreover, the agency agreed to provide effective communication, specifically including sign language interpreters. Further, it agreed to adopt new policies to ensure compliance with Title III of the ADA, including a nondiscrimination policy. This settlement agreement resolved a complaint filed by a deaf woman who contacted Maple Star Nevada for information on applying to become a foster parent. "Maple Star allegedly refused to provide an interpreter during the required application process and certification. The deaf applicant was interested in providing foster care services for children with special needs and adolescents who cannot be maintained in large group care or foster care setting." [778]
Accordingly, DOJ, in collaboration with HHS as appropriate, must issue guidance to domestic public and private adoption agencies, reinforcing their legal obligations pursuant to the ADA. Such guidance must address the agencies' duty to provide reasonable accommodations to prospective adoptive parents with disabilities throughout all phases of the process and the fact that presumptions of parental incompetence based on disability violate the ADA. Further, DOJ, and HHS as appropriate, must investigate all reported allegations of domestic public and private adoption agencies violating the ADA and enforce as appropriate.
Congress must also address the discrimination facing prospective adoptive parents with disabilities. Congress has made laudable progress in addressing discrimination against prospective parents of color. The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA), as amended by Section 1808(c) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (also known as the Interethnic Adoption Provisions or Section 1808) prohibits the use of a child's or prospective parent's race, color, or national origin to deny or delay a child's placement.[779] The law also requires states to provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in care for whom homes are needed. Congress must pass similar legislation protecting the rights of prospective adoptive parents with disabilities.
Finally, state courts must ensure that adoption agencies comply with federal disability laws and do not discriminate against prospective parents with disabilities. In re Adoption of Richardson[780] highlights the brutal bias lower courts have against prospective parents with disabilities. This case involved a deaf couple who had previously raised biological children and were denied the right to adopt on the basis of their disabilities. The lower court judge actually said, "Is this a normally happy home? There is no question about it, it is a happy home, but is it a normal home? I don't think the court could make a finding that it is a normal home when these poor unfortunate people, they are handicapped, and what can they do in the way of bringing this child up to be the type of citizen we all want him to be?"[781] The judge then wrote a letter to the county adoption bureau that said in part, "This adoption should be nipped in the bud before these unfortunate people get too attached to the child as, in my opinion, we are not doing right by the youngster in signing and approving an adoption to deaf-mutes."[782] This decision was reversed on appeal, but it illustrates biases that pervade the lower courts.
Unfortunately, few contested cases reach the courts and even fewer reach the appeals courts.[783] According to Mills, one study found that only 0.1 percent of adoption cases nationally are litigated and even fewer involve contested adoptive parents (0.001 percent).[784] It is unclear how many of these contested cases involve discrimination based on disability; probably very few. Richardson suggests that many prospective parents with disabilities may need to appeal their decisions because of the bias that exists in lower courts. Litigation, especially appeals, is very costly and likely not an option for many prospective parents with disabilities. State courts, especially lower courts, must appropriately apply federal disability laws to adoption cases.
Surely, "every child has the right to a loving, nurturing and permanent family, and … people from a variety of life experiences offer strengths for these children."[785] And everyone, including prospective parents with disabilities, should have an equal opportunity to provide that family.
International Adoption: A Promising Alternative?
In consideration of the pervasive discrimination in the domestic adoption system, does international adoption provide prospective parents with disabilities greater opportunities? According to Erika Lynn Kleiman:
"One of the most common reasons for a person to turn to international adoption is that he has effectively been rendered ineligible as a prospective adoptive parent by domestic agency criteria…. Foreign countries often have less stringent requirements than American agencies. In addition, international home studies are often less rigorous than domestic ones. Admittedly, there are some countries with strict restrictions regarding which people may adopt their children. Nevertheless, the large number of countries that are willing to allow Americans to adopt their orphaned children increases most people's chances of meeting the standards of eligibility for adoptive parents in at least one country. As such, international adoption provides an alternate source of children for Americans who may not qualify as eligible adoptive parents under domestic standards." [786]
As this section reveals, prospective parents with disabilities encounter mixed results with international adoption. Some countries have less stringent requirements, and international home studies tend to be less rigorous. On the other hand, some countries categorically deny prospective parents with disabilities, and people with disabilities often face barriers to accessibility and travel.
Invidious Criteria
While international adoption may provide greater opportunities, nations differ in whether they permit people with disabilities to adopt. Some countries completely disqualify people with disabilities, while others apply more liberal criteria. Some nations are becoming increasingly restrictive in their eligibility requirements for prospective parents. Some of these countries have fewer children available, so they can become more selective about who can adopt.[787] Restrictions are also likely a result of cultural differences in how disability is understood in other nations. The substantial gulf between understanding of disability in much of the United States and that demonstrated by other nations is often displayed when Americans with disabilities attempt to adopt from abroad. Ella Callow, director of the legal program at TLG, offers the following advice: "In choosing which type of international adoption to undertake, people with disabilities must be aware of the realities in other countries. The whole world is not America and most other nations have not focused as much attention on physical accommodation and education to increase societal inclusion. In light of this…[m]any other countries have policies that reflect strongly held beliefs about what constitutes disability, what disabilities will adversely affect the ability to parent and what type of children should go to homes where a parent is disabled." [788]
For example, China recently modified its eligibility requirements, making it impossible for most people with disabilities to adopt from there. The Department of State says that to adopt a child from China:
"Both partners must be physically and mentally fit, with none of the following conditions: AIDS; mental disability; infectious disease that is actively contagious; blind in either eye; hearing loss in both ears or loss of language function (those adopting children with hearing or language function loss are exempted from this requirement); nonfunction or dysfunction of limbs or trunk caused by impairment, incomplete limbs, paralysis, or deformation; severe facial deformation; severe diseases that require long-term treatment and that may affect life expectancy, including malignant tumors, lupus, nephrosis, epilepsy, etc.; major organ transplant within ten years; schizophrenia; severe mental disorders requiring medication for more than two years, including depression, mania, or anxiety neurosis; and Body Mass Index (BMI) of 40 or more."[789]
Of the top five sending countries in 2011, three had eligibility criteria that completely or nearly precluded prospective parents with disabilities from adopting children from their countries.[790] China, the top sending country, outright denies prospective parents with disabilities.[791] Russia, which is number three, denies prospective parents with tuberculosis (active or chronic), illness of the internal organs or nervous system, dysfunction of the limbs, infectious diseases, drug or alcohol addictions, psychiatric disorders, or any disability that prevents the person from working.[792] Ukraine, the fifth of the top sending countries, denies prospective parents with substance abuse, syphilis, and HIV infection or AIDS.[793] In contrast, Bulgaria has the fewest requirements for adoptive families and will often accept parents with disabilities.[794]
Because of some countries' stringent eligibility criteria, many prospective adoptive parents with disabilities do not pursue international adoption. For example, Ken and his wife[795] (the adoptive parents mentioned earlier) made a "conscious decision not to explore international adoption because of countries' rules."
Agency Discrimination and Home Studies
Generally, the first step in the international adoption process is to choose an adoption agency. Each agency works with a different set of countries; some focus on a single country.[796] Pursuant to the rules of the Hague Convention, the agency must be accredited by the U.S. government if the child's country is also a participant in the convention. If the child's country is not a participant, the Hague rules do not apply, and the process will follow the laws of the sending and receiving countries.[797] Even when the Hague rules do not apply, a home study and USCIS approval are required.
Linda A. Cronin, in Action Online: Magazine of the United Spinal Association, said, "The ADA applies fully to all adoption agencies doing business on U.S. soil so, by law, they must serve and accommodate the needs of adoptive parents with disabilities."[798] Thus, such adoption agencies, even though they are engaging in international adoption, must provide prospective parents with disabilities reasonable modifications, auxiliary aids, and services.
But despite federal disability law protections, the same impediments found in domestic adoption exist in international adoption. These adoption agencies are not likely to be immune to the bias that pervades the domestic adoption system; in fact, they are often the same agencies that facilitate domestic adoption.
Other Barriers to International Adoption
In addition to stringent eligibility restrictions and agency discrimination, prospective adoptive parents with disabilities often encounter barriers related to accessibility, travel requirements, and cost.
International adoption includes an extensive application and screening process conducted by USCIS. Jessica, a woman with osteogenesis imperfecta, and her husband, who adopted two children from Guatemala, said USCIS "wanted a very specific letter from [Jessica's doctor] that indicated exactly what my medical history was, how my disability impacted my life and my prognosis for the future. They also wanted a letter from family members who would be able to step in and care for my child in an emergency."[799] USCIS also requires a background check, which includes fingerprinting, for all international adoptions. Rebecca,[800] a mother with disabilities, noted that the fingerprinting requirement may preclude some people who do not have fingerprints because of their disability.
As a federal agency, USCIS must comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The agency must provide reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures as needed for prospective adoptive parents with disabilities, as well as auxiliary aids and services when they are necessary to ensure effective communication. Examples include a sign language interpreter for deaf prospective parents or application materials in alternative formats for blind or low-vision prospective parents.
Some prospective adoptive parents may encounter travel requirements that preclude or limit them from international adoption. Some countries require more than one trip, while others allow the children to be escorted to the United States by someone other than the parents.[801] Some nations require longer trips than others. For instance, the Ukraine requires adoptive parents to stay for at least seven weeks.[802] Travel can be difficult for some prospective parents with disabilities, who may need specialized equipment, personal assistance services, accessible hotels, and transportation. This can be cost-prohibitive for some, thus precluding them from international adoption.
Despite significant obstacles, people with disabilities do successfully adopt internationally. The Chicago Tribune published the story of a blind couple who adopted two girls, one from India and the other from China (presumably before China changed its requirements). [803] Both girls are also blind. The couple was reluctant to have children, until a pair of nuns collecting money for overseas orphanages told them about a blind orphan in Bangalore, India.[804] After 18 months, they adopted their first daughter; a year later, they adopted their second.[805]
Improving Access to International Adoption
As international adoption continues to expand and become a route to parenthood for many, the United States must ensure that all prospective parents have the opportunity to benefit, including prospective parents with disabilities. NCD recommends that CI, part of the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the Department of State, and the Department of State's Office of the Special Advisor for International Disability Rights work together to expand the rights of people with disabilities to adopt internationally, particularly from nations that have ratified the Hague Convention. Such work will require educating state and private adoption agencies in other countries on the ability of people with disabilities to parent, with or without adaptive parenting equipment, techniques, or supportive services. Further, DOJ, in collaboration with HHS and the Department of State as appropriate, must ensure that international adoption agencies on U.S. soil are complying with federal disability laws. Similarly, USCIS must ensure that it is complying with its 504 mandates.
Around the world, countless children are waiting for their forever homes. At the same time, many people with disabilities want to provide a loving and nurturing home and family for children. Ignorance, stigma, and misconceptions are forestalling harmonious solutions. The result is devastating: Children spend many years in deplorable conditions in foster care and orphanages, while people with disabilities are robbed of the opportunity to welcome these children into their homes and hearts.


text:
Not a member yet? Sign Up now!
Already have account ? Sign in here.
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Thanks for your feedback. We will review your request.
Copyright © 2019 humminglive. All rights reserved.
© humminglive.
In order to continue to use our site, we require you to accept the changes to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Industry: Provincial regulatory services
No address found.
DriveTest Travel Points offer periodic DriveTest services. Open Mondays 1-4:30 and one Tuesday per month
We are collecting data to better understand who is looking for work and what kind of opportunities jobseekers are searching for. This data is completely anonymous and non-personally identifiable.
Your Age:


text:
WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that some 4 million people had signed up for health insurance through exchanges provided by his signature healthcare law known as Obamacare.
Obama made the comments to a gathering put together by OrganiSing for Action, a political group formed from his 2012 campaign apparatus.
A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March, the lead Obamacare agency, the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a statement.
The figure given by Obama showed an increase of 700,000 from the 3.3 million people who had enrolled in private Affordable Care Act plans from Oct 1 to Feb 1. Enrollment has picked up momentum since the botched rollout of the HealthCare.gov website in October.
The deadline for enrolling for 2014 coverage is March 31, and the administration and allied groups are pushing to persuade more uninsured people in big cities to sign up.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has trimmed its enrollment forecast for 2014 to 6 million from its original projection of 7 million.
Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged last week that "we may not get to 7 million, we may get to 5 or 6, but that's a hell of a start".
Obama urged supporters on Tuesday to keep reaching out to people to get them signed up for health insurance coverage.
"We've got more work to do," he said, citing "a combination of an implacable opposition that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, spreading misinformation on this plan".
"You combine that with, let's face it, the website didn't work for the first month," he added Obamacare remains a target of attack by Republicans, who hope to use the programme's unpopularity with voters to craft a winning campaign message for the November election battle for control of Congress.


text:
METRO ParaCruz is Santa Cruz METRO's ADA Complementary Paratransit service offering accessible door-to-door shared rides for people who are not able to use the bus due to a physical, cognitive, or psychiatric disability.
See further ADA Paratransit Information Here
METRO ParaCruz service is limited to people who have been certified as meeting the strict eligibility criteria described in the ADA.
The eligibility assessment includes an in-person transit evaluation in order to determine a person's functional ability to use fixed route bus service. You can be found eligible even if you live more than three-quarter (¾) miles away from a bus route; however, ParaCruz will only pick-up and drop-off within three-quarter (¾) mile of an operating bus route. You will have to make other arrangements to travel beyond three-quarter (¾) mile of an operating bus route.
If, as a result of a disability, you can never use the fixed route buses under any conditions, you will be determined eligible and "unrestricted."
If you can use fixed route buses for some trips, you may be determined eligible but "restricted" from those trips that you could make by bus. Restricted eligibility may be based on how your disability is impacted by environmental conditions, such as extreme weather, or may be location specific, such as a destination at the top of a steep hill.
To apply for Paratransit, either call METRO ParaCruz at 831-425-4664 or click here to schedule an appointment for a transit evaluation.
Transit evaluations normally take about 30 minutes. If you need transportation to and from the evaluation, ParaCruz will provide it at no charge to you. The person who interviews you will discuss your travel abilities and needs. You may also ask any questions you have about the service.
Your eligibility determination will be postmarked within 7 days of the transit evaluation. If you are approved, a letter and ID card will be sent to you. If for any reason a decision is not made within 21 calendar days, METRO ParaCruz service will be provided until a final decision is made. If you do not agree with the decision, you may appeal the decision to an independent appeals panel (details below).
METRO ParaCruz eligibility is good for a maximum of three years.
Between 60 and 90 days prior to the customer's eligibility expiration date, a one-page form will be sent to the most current address on file with METRO ParaCruz. The customer is asked to verify that their condition still prevents them from using the fixed route bus and to verify their contact information and mobility device(s). Customers who indicate that they have had a change in their mobility or mobility device may be asked to attend another transit evaluation.
Immediate Needs
METRO recognizes that due to unforeseeable circumstances there may be times when a new customer may need transportation before they are able to complete the eligibility process. In these cases, the METRO ParaCruz Eligibility Coordinator may be able to arrange temporary eligibility for up to fourteen days while the customer goes through the eligibility determination process.
Temporary Disabilities
Temporary eligibility is provided to customers who have a limited term condition that prevents them from using the METRO bus system. Limited term eligibility may be provided for the expected duration of the disability. Should the disability continue longer than expected, the customer may request an extension of eligibility.
Appealing an Eligibility Determination
Applicants who believe an eligibility determination was made in error may appeal the decision. The applicant may initiate an appeal in writing (forms are included with eligibility denials) within 60 days of the determination.
Address the appeal to:
METRO ParaCruz Eligibility Coordinator
2880 Research Park Dr, Suite 160
Soquel, CA 95073
Prior to your hearing, please provide additional information to assist the panel in making a determination:
- The reason you believe the determination was incorrect
- Any information you would like the appeals panel to consider supporting your request
An appeal hearing will be scheduled within 30 days of receipt of the appeal request.


text:
Who am I? I am retired librarian and database developer Laurence (Larry) Sloma, and please note that that's Laurence with a "u". Search engines find me and some of my professional activities, but they also find an evangelist who shares my name. Please don't confuse us. This is where I store (some) photos.
Don't expect either reasonable or consistent organization of the photos on this site. There isn't any.
Lyn and I take a driving trip to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and have a fine time.Read More


text:
Some people don╢t like building a custom kernel. For those of you: you must build your own kernel if you want to share data between Solaris and Linux on one hard disk. If, however, you do not want to share data, you are safe with your old kernel.
Here are your kernel options for ``Solaris compatibility'':
code maturity:
Prompt for development drivers
Unfortunately UFS writing is still experimental.
file systems:
UFS file system support
UFS is the Solaris file system
UFS file system
write support
The only way to pass data to Solaris
partition types / Solaris
(x86) partition table support
Is needed for the slices within your Solaris partition to be found.
Before messing with your boot loader, please make sure that you have an emergency disk ready which enables you to boot your old system.
Unfortunately the Solaris install overwrites the master boot record (MBR) and overwrites your old boot manager.
Fortunately, the Solaris boot manager is able to chain-boot. For this to work you have to put your old boot loader (e.g. lilo) into the boot sector of one primary Linux partition.
For lilo this means: look at your
/etc/lilo.conf. Look for the
line. If it is something like
everything is fine. But if it╢s something like
boot=/dev/hda it points to the MBR. Please change
it to point to a primary Linux partition
A way to check if your boot-loader is chain-loadable is installing lilo in to the MBR and trying to chain load your other boot-manager. I used the following file called lilo.conf.mbr for this:
#lilo.conf.mbr #Lilo in Master Boot Record doing nothing but chain-loading another lilo boot=/dev/hda root=/dev/hda5 install=/boot/boot.b map=/boot/map vga=ask delay=50 other=/dev/hda1 label=lilochain
lilo -C lilo.conf.mbr to install lilo into your
MBR. And don╢t forget to run
lilo to have lilo in
the boot sector of your hard-drive.
If you reboot
now, you should have a lilo-prompt. When you select
other this
chain loads the old lilo, which in turn loads Linux.
Закладки на сайте
Проследить за страницей
Created 1996-2023 by Maxim Chirkov
Добавить, Поддержать, Вебмастеру


text:
This week: Patricia Maloney sits down with queer feminist artist and writer Emily Roysdon, as well as Phyllis Wattis MATRIX Curator Elizabeth Thomas. The conversation took place on December 10, 2010, as Roysdon was in the final stages of preparing for her exhibition at the University of California, Berkeley Art Museum's Emily Roysdon: If I Don't Move Can You Hear Me?/MATRIX 235, on view through March 6, 2011. Topics range from nostalgic delusions in Berkeley to hallucinations of the apocalypse on New York's West Side. Along they way, they cover regulation, claiming space, collaboration, ecstatic resistance, and opening up language to find meaning. http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibition/235
This interview is part of the ongoing collaboration between Bad At Sports and Art Practical.
Emily Roysdon is an artist and writer living and working in New York and Stockholm. She completed the Whitney Museum Independent Study Program in 2001 and an MFA at UCLA in 2006. She employs wide-ranging methods in developing her projects, including performance, photography, installation, text, and video, among others. Roysdon's concept of "ecstatic resistance," which reflects on the impossible and imaginary in politics, was featured in simultaneous exhibitions of Grand Arts in Kansas City, and X Initiative in New York. Recenlty, her work has been included in the 2010 Whitney Biennial, Greater NY at PS1, Manifesta 8, and the Bucharest Biennial 4. Roysdon is editor and co-founder of the queer feminist journal and artist collective, LTTR.
- Episode 853: Devin T. Mays - September 8, 2023
- Episode 852: Farah Salem, Regina Agu, and A Very Serious Gallery - September 6, 2023
- Episode 851: Kevin Demery - August 28, 2023


text:
Home Page Chess Life Online 2008 July Daniel Fernandez Wins U.S. Class
|Daniel Fernandez Wins U.S. Class
|By Franc Guadalupe
|July 23, 2008
2008 US Chess Championships (July 18-20, Houston, Texas) IM Daniel Fernandez had extra motivation to win -- He faced the young Denker and Texas State Champion, Warren Harper, who beat him in last year's US Class. Harper also happened to be the second seed, behind Fernandez, in this year's event. Daniel came out on top and that win propelled him to this year's title. Harper recovered from the loss and won his last three games to finish all alone in second place.
In the second round of the
Despite Harper's impressive string of wins, Fernandez was on fire as well, and he cruised to first place with 2.5/3. Having already disposed of the second seed Harper and the third seed, FM Michael Langer, Fernandez accepted a quick draw offer from Nick Schoonmaker in the last round to secure his victory and the $860 check. Fernandez played particularly entertaining game in the fourth round, against Deepyaman Datta.
The attendance at the event was great, with 188 players participating, and the competition was fierce. The 18 players in the Masters Division provided many exciting games, but so did the competitors in the other divisions.
In the Expert Division, we had a three-way tie for 1st place between Jeffrey De Jesus, Anton Solovyov, and Ernesto Malazarte. De Jesus claimed the Champion's plaque on tie-breaks. The Class A Division ended in a tie as well, as four players, Steven Chen (the winner on tie-breaks), Mitchell Powell, Mariano De Medina, and Frank Brack all finished with four points.
The top seed in the Class B Division, Dylan Scott James, was perfect at 5-0 and captured that title. The other divisions also produced clear winners. Stephen Rugh won the Class C, while the lowest rated player in the Class D division, Kyle Hecker, came on top of his higher rated opponents. Kyle, a young teenager from Louisiana, was the only non-Texas winner and attributed his win to two chess camps he went to before this event. This outstanding performance resulted in Kyle's rating improving a whopping 147 points! The Class E division was won by Robert Settles while Socaciu Gheorghe was an easy winner among unrated players.
Over a dozen prizes, courtesy of Saitek, were awarded. Six-year old Celine Le was our youngest participant in the main event while Cole Erskine from Portala Valley, California traveled the farthest. Cole talked his parents, both previously unrated players, into participating in the event and his dad,71-year old Don Erskine, proudly accepted the Saitek clock for being our oldest competitor. Francisco Correa Mora, rated 728, beat a player rated 349 points higher to capture the Biggest Upset award. Jean Troendle, President of Cajun Chess and yours truly organized the event. Korey Kormick directed our Scholastic divisions and assisted me in the main event. Jean also handled the computer work.
U.S. Class Championships
Final Standings
For complete standings, go to the cajunchess homepage.
1. Daniel Fernandez- 4.5/5
2. Warren Harper- 4/5
3-5. Nicholas Schoonmaker, Mark Dejmek and Deepyaman Datta- 3.5/5
1-3. Jeffrey De Jesus, Anton D. Solovyov and Ernesto Malazarte
Class A
1-4. Steven Chen, Mitchell Powell, Mariano De Medina and Frank E. Brack
Class B
1. Dylan Scott James
Class C
1. Stephen I. Rugh- 4.5
Class D
1. Kyle J. Hecker- 4.5
Class E
1. Robert Settles-4.5
1. Socaciu Gheorghe- 5
1. Ruifeng Li- 5
1. Andy Beams-5
1.Jeffrey Wu- 5


text:
Industry News for Biotics Research Corp.
Rosenberg, Texas 77471-5755
Contact: Debra Fish
Biotics Research Corporation
6801 Biotics Research Drive
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
Phone: 800-231-5777
Biotics Research Supports Healthy Blood Pressure with Launch of Bio-CardioSirt BP™
Rosenberg, TX – July 9th, 2013 – Biotics Research Corporation, the industry leader in combining "The Best of Science and Nature™" in the development of superior nutritional supplements, recently launched Bio-CardioSirt BP™ in its efforts to support healthy blood pressure for patients through its extensive network of healthcare professionals.
"We were thrilled to work with Dr. Mark Houston, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Director of the Hypertension Institute and Vascular Biology at Saint Thomas Hospital, in the development of Bio-CarioSirt BP™," commented Denis DeLuca, President of Biotics Research. "Blood pressure increases with age, and unfortuantely affects a large percentage of the population. Working with Dr. Houston in performing clincial trials, we're able to bring a supplement to our family of healthcare professionals that is clinically proven to support healthy blood pressure for their patients."
The blend of micronutrients found in Bio-CardioSirt BP™, which is both gluten free and dairy free, was the subject of the clinical study, and was recently featured in the Integrative Medicine Clinician's Journal (IMCJ), a peer-reviewed journal. The study by Dr. Houston was conducted to evalualte the benefits of specific nutrients in lowering blood pressure in individuals with hypertension.
"The results of the study found that the intake of the specific blend of nutrients can aid in the regulation of blood pressure in individuals with hypertension," (1) said Daryl DeLuca, Vice President of Biotics Research. "With millions of people suffering from hypertension, many of whom don't even realize they have it, every patient's blood pressure should be checked when visiting a heatlhcare professional. Bio-CardioSirt BP™ can help healthcare professionals have a substantial impact on their patients' health."
Bio-CardioSirt BP™ supplies a uniqe, patent-pending combination of 7 key micronutrients that have been clinically proven to support normal, healthy blood pressure levels, and can be ordered directly from Biotics Research Corporation or through their authorized network of regional distributors.
(1) Houston, MC, Sparks, WS. Combination Nutraceutical Supplement Lowers Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Individuals. Integrative Medicine. Vol. 12, No. 3, June 2013.
To learn more about Biotics Research Corporation, please visit www.BioticsResearch.com.
About Biotics Research Corporation
Biotics Research Corporation has been a leading manufacturer of specially designed nutritional supplements for over 37 years. Our mission remains constant: to be the benchmark of excellence in nutritional science, technology and service, providing the clinician with reliable, innovative products of superior quality as well as the highest level of customer service. Visit www.BioticsResearch.com.


text:
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Cynthia Watros Returning To LOST
ABC saw Cynthia Watros on the 50 Greatest Soap Actress of All Time list and immediately rehired her for the final season of LOST! Seriously, Watros (Libby) and Harold Perrineau (Michael) will be returning as announced at the Television Critics Assocation (TCA) Press Tour today.
Posted by Roger Newcomb
3 comments:
I guess I'm going to have to unfollow WLS from Twitter now. I did not want to know this spoiler. I know, it's my fault, but I had no idea I'd find LOST spoilers here.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Great news!!ReplyDelete
I hate spoilers too (maybe in the future, casting news like this that affects story, could be posted under the fold??) but I'm also THRILLED with the news and makes me even more excited about the upcoming season..ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
SNOW HILL – The following is the entire statement released by Christy Freeman at a press conference yesterday morning.
"Christy Freeman, a prominent business owner and well-known figure in Ocean City, had the misfortunate of having a miscarriage in her 25th week of pregnancy on the 27th of July 2007. This event resulted in her losing eight pints of blood, nearly causing her death. When the Ocean City Police Department caught wind of this, the Chief of Police, Bernadette DiPino, immediately charged her with murder one, murder two and manslaughter without any evidence to support the charges. Even after receiving the Medical Examiner's report, which stated that the fetus was stillborn, the Chief of Police continued the relentless assault on Miss Freeman.
"Forced into a corner, DiPino [Editor's Note: State's Attorney Joel Todd made this decision] dismissed the murder charges on the miscarried fetus but instead of taking a step back to assess the situation, she plunged blindly forward and placed murder charges on her again for a miscarriage that happened in 2004. In the next few years, the OCPD would completely devastate her property: stripping away bushes, landscaping, fences, a brick barbeque pit and even the grass. The OCPD vandalized the property further by busting out all the sheetrock from the walls and ceiling in the first floor laundry room.
"During the course of the next 54 days, a total of eight search and seizure warrants would be executed. Detectives were sent to Baltimore to try to dig up dirt on Miss Freeman, to no avail. Freeman's children were forced to testify against their mother at the first grand jury hearing and were repeatedly called "liars" by State's Attorney Joel Todd. With time running out for her preliminary hearing, Joel Todd somehow convinced a District Court Judge, Danny Mumford, to postpone her preliminary hearing.
"Stripped of her constitutional rights, held without bail, murder charges thrown around like Frisbees, Miss Freeman remained strong, knowing that she had committed no crime. Freeman patiently waited for the Medical Examiner's report, knowing full well that it would set her free.
"The devastation done to her business and her reputation because of all the media hype could have been avoided if the Chief of Police, Bernadette DiPino, had not rushed to judgment and conducted a proper investigation before charging Freeman. If an investigation had been done, Miss Freeman would have never been charged with anything.
"When it's all said and done, the reality of the situation is Miss Freeman had four miscarriages over a period of five years."


text:
Campus Turmoil: Jewish students and activists call UC Irvine a hotbed of anti-Semitic harassment
At a Muslim Student Union (MSU) event at UC Irvine, Amir Abdel Malik Ali speaks to a crowd of 150 about Zionist control of the American media, Zionist complicity in the war in Iraq and Zionists' ability to deflect justified criticism. Jewish students at the Orange County school say the campus, at times, has become a hostile and hateful place.
In the center quad at UC Irvine, Amir Abdel Malik Ali stands before a crowd of 150, his hands clutching a podium bearing the message, "Desperation of the Zionist Lobby."
"Zionism is a mixture, a fusion of the concept of white supremacy and the chosen people," the Oakland-based Muslim religious leader and teacher told the audience at the Feb. 2 Muslim Student Union (MSU)-organized event.
Malik Ali unleashed an attack about the Zionist control of the American media, Zionist complicity in the war in Iraq and Zionists' ability to deflect justified criticism.
"You will have to hear more about the Holocaust when you accuse them of their Nazi behavior," he told the group of mostly Muslim students.
At a time when Israeli and Palestinian leaders are taking baby steps toward a peaceful two-state solution, Malik Ali made it clear that he had a different vision.
"One state. Majority rule," he said to rousing applause. "Check that out. Us. The Muslims."
Not So Quiet On Campus
Once a sleepy suburban university, UCI has joined the ranks of Columbia University and UC Berkeley as a hotbed of anti-Zionism. The situation has become so tense that the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights — in reaction to a complaint filed by the conservative Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) — is investigating allegations of anti-Jewish harassment at UCI and administration indifference.
In recent years, UCI Muslim student groups have invited speakers like Malik Ali to attack Israel and its supporters in language that has the unmistakable ring of anti-Semitism.
Pro-Israel students say they have been sworn at and intimidated by Muslim students. They say that a few pro-Palestinian activists have followed Jewish students around campus, pushed placards in their faces equating Zionism with Nazism and, in one instance, threatened violence.
Muslim students and some UCI faculty members say that Jewish groups have exaggerated the problems and, at times, contributed to campus tensions by taking their slanted case to the media at every opportunity. Others argue that UCI is a hospitable place for the vast majority of the university's 750 to 1,000 Jewish students, and that the loudest complaints come from a core of pro-Israel advocates who confuse anti-Zionism, or criticism of Israel and its supporters, with anti-Semitism.
To be sure, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel sentiment have become ever more common at American universities. In recent years, campus support for divesting university funds from Israel has grown, reflecting the decline of the Jewish state's standing since the beginning of the second intifada. Still, UCI students and their activist supporters say the frequency and intensity of anti-Zionism and sometimes anti-Semitism at UCI has earned the school a particularly tarnished reputation.
"It's been a struggle as a Jewish student here," said Larry Mahler, a 21-year-old UCI senior active in several Jewish groups, including Hillel and fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi. "It's hard to be openly proud and celebrate my heritage. I feel uncomfortable and feel [other students] won't accept my Judaism to the same extent they accept other cultures and religions."
UCI senior Osman Umarji, MSU's 22-year-old president, refuted accusations that the advocacy group he heads engages in anti-Semitism. He said MSU once donated food left over from an event to a Jewish student group meeting nearby on campus.
MSU guest speakers, including a few of Jewish origin, make clear distinctions between Jews and Zionists, Umarji said. In his opinion, Zionists illegally occupy Palestinian land and, like the Nazis, force those under their control to wear ID tags and to live in squalid conditions. Despite his support for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, Umarji said he hopes for better relations with UCI Jewish student groups.
"The door is open to much more amicable relations," he said. "If Zionist student groups have a problem, they should come to me, and we can work together to solve it."
University officials say they offer a tolerant, safe environment for all students, and have met with Jewish and Muslim organizations whenever problems have arisen, including the controversy over green stoles worn by some Muslim students at last year's graduation.
Administrators add that they want to address ZOA's grievances through mediation and dialogue. To help defuse campus tensions, UCI has held a series of forums on such subjects as hate crimes and Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The university also plans to introduce a new course, Imagining the Future, which will bring Muslim, Jewish and Arab students together in teams to develop viable solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, said he has been on three UCI panels in the past year, and has spoken about the similarities between Judaism and Islam, including their Semitic roots and shared veneration for Abraham, Jacob, Moses and other prophets.
"The more we know about each other's religion and our other commonalties, the more we will work together," he said.
Mark LeVine, a UCI associate professor of Middle Eastern history, said that outside advocacy groups on both sides have stoked tension between Jewish and Muslim students for their own selfish purposes. He said their fear mongering might have helped them with fundraising efforts, but it has widened the cultural, ideological and political chasm on campus.
"My sense is that the majority of Muslim and Jewish students here are not that politically active and don't primarily relate to each other based on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and terrorism," said LeVine, himself Jewish.
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
Whether or not most Jewish and Muslim students get along, they both have strong feelings about the UCI administration. Whereas Muslim activists appreciate officials' willingness to protect their freedom of expression, some Jewish students and advocacy groups charge the administration with failing to publicly condemn what they characterize as anti-Semitic hate speech. They say that UCI deans and chancellors have ignored repeated requests to take a stand against intolerance, and that their indifference has contributed to a hostile atmosphere on campus.
"The school has turned a blind eye long enough for it to appear OK for these extremists to escalate their hate speech," said Roz Rothstein, executive director of StandWithUs, an advocacy group that has worked extensively with the Anteaters for Israel student group at UCI. "This makes pro-Israel students on campus feel marginalized."
However, Rusty Kennedy, executive director of the Orange County Human Relations Committee, praised the efforts of UCI administrators to encourage intergroup dialogue and create a good learning environment for all students.
Manuel N. Gomez, UCI vice chancellor of student affairs, said he has rarely denounced controversial speech on campus, because he would have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so if he responded to every real or perceived slight. Instead, he places his faith in unfettered free speech.
"Your views are going to be challenged at any great university," Gomez said. "If they're not, I'm not sure what kind of education young people are receiving."
Some Jewish students and advocacy groups say that their concerns go beyond the UCI administration's unwillingness to speak out on their behalf. They claim that the campus has, at times, become a hostile and dangerous place for them.
"I get nervous when I'm on campus and I walk by one of [the MSU events]," said UCI junior Natalie Korthamar, president of Hillel at UCI.
One Jewish student, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said he carries mace around with him because Muslim students have followed him around campus on two separate occasions since he became a high-profile, pro-Israel activist.
In a 2004 video titled "Incitement at UC Irvine" a young student said, "Jewish students are afraid to speak out; Jewish students are afraid to be themselves." The video never aired, because some students worried that their complaints about UCI would alienate the administration and faculty to their detriment, said Rothstein of StandWithUs, which produced the tape.
Anti-Zionism at UCI
Among the incidents at UCI that have upset Jewish activists:
•In a controversy that received national media exposure, about 30 Muslim students wore green stoles over their robes at last year's graduation. The color green is frequently identified with the terrorist group Hamas. Critics said the stoles showed support for Hamas.
Muslim students and advocacy groups countered that the Arabic lettering on the stoles meant, "There is no God but Allah" and showed religious solidarity. Muslim students at UCI, UCLA and other universities had worn the same stoles at past graduations without controversy.
UCI Vice Chancellor Gomez, among others, criticized organized Jewish groups for fueling the imbroglio by erroneously claiming beforehand that Muslim students would be wearing headbands and armbands supporting Hamas. MSU head Umarji said he resented Zionist groups' public accusations after he personally explained the intent behind the stoles.
Jewish groups maintain the stoles represented support for "martyrs" carrying out suicide and other attacks against Israel.
•After last year's destruction by arson of a mock Israeli security wall, the Society of Arab Students organized a campuswide rally against hate. When Hillel, Anteaters for Israel (named after UCI's mascot) and Jewish fraternities and sororities asked to participate to show their solidarity, Muslim student groups told them they did not want the Jewish groups to come to the event, let alone play an official role. In spite of that, Vice Chancellor Gomez chose to attend the rally.
"The administration thus expressly endorsed the rally and actively participated in a so-called campuswide event that deliberately excluded Jews," the ZOA said in its federal complaint.
At the event, Gomez said he called for civility and respect among all students. He said rally organizers had the right to invite whomever they wanted, and that he would appear at any event sponsored by Jewish students, if invited. After the demonstration, Gomez said he met with Jewish students for two hours to apologize for any misunderstandings surrounding his participation.
•Last year, UCI Chancellor Ralph Cicerone condemned on the university's Web site the arson attack on the mock security wall (which Israel says it's building to keep out suicide bombers). By contrast, the university issued no public statement after vandals damaged a Holocaust exhibit in 2003, Jewish groups and UCI administrators said.
The chancellor took a stronger stand against the arson attack because of the seriousness of the crime, campus officials say. Unlike the Holocaust incident, they say police investigated the arson as a hate crime and were assisted by the FBI.
•In January 2004, a Jewish student wearing a T-shirt that said, "Everybody Loves a Jewish Boy," allegedly had a rock thrown at his face as he passed by an MSU student table on campus. The rock barely missed him. When the Jewish student turned around, an MSU member holding a young child reportedly turned to the infant and sarcastically said, "Don't do that. That's not right," the ZOA said in its complaint.
•At an anti-Zionist rally in 2003, about 300 Muslim students and their supporters marched through the center of campus chanting anti-Israel slogans and placing body bags on campus emblazoned with the names of victims of "Israeli Genocide," said Allyson Rowen Taylor, associate director of the American Jewish Congress (AJC) of Los Angeles.
Taylor said AJC executives, StandWithUs leaders and about 15 Jewish students were cordoned off in a grassy area behind campus police lines and told not to verbally engage the protesters, even when demonstrators walked within inches of the group and shrieked about Israel's alleged misdeeds.
Silencing the Jews in face of such provocations might have violated their right to "counterspeech," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Vice Chacellor Gomez said that since Taylor never filed a formal complaint, UCI cannot confirm the accuracy of her allegations.
•In 2002, UCI graduate student Sarah Becker sent an e-mail outlining her own concerns to four top administrators, including Chancellor Cicerone and Thomas Parham, assistant vice chancellor for Counseling and Health Services. She complained about an anti-Israel protest by about 200 students on campus. In her letter, she characterized the event as an anti-Semitic "riot" that made her feel unsafe. Becker chastised UCI and campus police for not stopping the march and noted that Parham and another administrator had witnessed the chaos without intervening.
Parham, in an e-mail response to her, said that although he found some of the marchers' comments offensive, they had not engaged in unlawful conduct, destroyed property or physically menaced anyone. He suggested that if Becker "continued to experience these strong, uncomfortable feelings in the aftermath of the demonstration event, I would like to invite you to our counseling center on campus."
Becker, in a recent telephone interview, said she found Parham's remarks insulting and patronizing. A sixth-year Ph.D. candidate in environmental health, science and policy, she no longer wears a Star of David or chai (the Hebrew letters chet and yud meaning life) around her neck on campus, lest she attract unwanted attention.
A university spokesman said that Parham's response to Becker was appropriate given the anguished tone of her missive and his role as a counseling administrator.
Not all administrators of universities have adopted such a hands-off approach toward anti-Zionist activities. Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, for instance, spoke out against calls to divest from Israel, saying, "Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent."
Simon Wiesenthal Center Associate Dean Abraham Cooper said California public universities have largely failed to combat anti-Semitism. To prevent the further demonization of Jewish students, he said education leaders should consider revisiting the issue of hate speech.
The University of California once banned so-called fighting words, but the courts struck down those provisions as violating free speech, said Ravi Poorsina, spokesperson for UC President Robert Dynes. Dynes, she added, is committed to providing a good learning experience for all UC students in the spirit of the Principles of Community, a set of high-minded ideals distributed to students and adopted by UCI and other UC campuses that call for tolerance, civility and mutual respect for different religions, ethnicities, genders and races.
Rabbi Marc Dworkin, executive director of the American Jewish Committee of Orange County, said UCI must do a better job enforcing its code of conduct. Dworkin, in a two-and-a-half-hour meeting last year with Vice Chancellor Gomez and Dean of Students Sally Peterson, suggested bringing together Jewish, Muslim and other students to rewrite the principles for greater clarity and to help break down barriers between them. The administration never responded to Dworkin's proposal, he said.
Gomez said he is open to revisiting the issue, but that it would be unfair for Jewish and Muslim groups to work on amending the principles at the exclusion of the rest of the university community. He added that UCI cannot impose sanctions on students who run afoul of the Principles of Community unless they actually break a law. When asked whether the MSU had violated university policies by hosting the stridently anti-Zionist Malik Ali, Gomez said he was unsure. He added that he personally found Malik Ali's speech offensive.
UC Irvine is not the only school with a declining reputation in the Jewish community. In recent years, American, Canadian and European universities have seen an explosion of anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic activities on campus, partly fueled by the second intifada.
An informal alliance among Palestinians, the far left and Islamists who share an antipathy toward Israel as well as U.S. policies in Iraq and the Patriot Act have also contributed, said Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum. University faculties have grown increasingly anti-Israel as Arab and other money has flowed in to fund professorships and Middle East institutes, said Gary Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.
Between 2000 and 2002, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported an increase of anti-Semitic vandalism and harassment at U.S. colleges. Two years ago, the visit of Israeli official Natan Sharansky to Boston University to defend Israel was greeted with a bomb threat that nearly forced the cancellation of his lecture; at a 2001 Muslim Student Association conference at UCLA, cleric Imam Muhammad-al-Asi said, according to the Middle East Quarterly: "Israel is as racist as apartheid could ever be … you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew."
More recently in October, somebody scrawled the messages, "Kill the Jews" and "Make it snow Jewish ash" in a classroom at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. That same month at UC Riverside, a pro-Palestinian display equated the Star of David with a swastika and Zionism with Nazism.
Given the climate at American campuses, the former head of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights said he expects more complaints against universities for anti-Semitism.
"I'm certainly praying that there will not be more of these cases, but my sense is this is going on, and there will be," said Kenneth L. Marcus, now the staff director for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, D.C.
More than four decades after the abolition of university quotas limiting Jewish enrollment, campus anti-Semitism has reappeared, said Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University.
"Whereas in 1975, Jews who supported Israel didn't have to ask the question as to whether they'd feel comfortable at a [particular] university, just one generation later, many students are asking that question," Sarna said. "Many of us thought those days were over."
Unfortunately, they are not, said Jeffrey Rips, UCI Hillel executive director. In recent years, several concerned Jewish parents have called him to express great misgivings about the university. A few have opted not to send their children there, he added.
A Ray of Hope
Amid all the gloom, a few rays of hopefulness have emerged. Reversing a three-year trend, the ADL said that anti-Semitic incidents on American campuses declined in 2003, the latest year for which data exist. At UCI, recent developments suggest a slight cooling off might be under way between Jewish and Muslim student activists.
UCI Jewish student groups recently held a campus rally against suicide bombings that attracted 300 supporters but only a handful of protesters. In mid-February, Jewish groups held their first-ever Blue-and-White Day to celebrate and promote Israel. The event went off without incident.
Junior transfer Maya Salter said she has felt little if any anti-Semitism on campus. Although Salter said some non-Jewish UCI students appear to have unfavorable preconceived notions about Israel and Jews, she said she proudly displays her Star of David tattoo and has found her place at UCI through her participation in Hillel and a Jewish sorority.
Meanwhile, the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has offered to "work with the administration and student groups on campus to help foster an atmosphere of constructive dialogue, without necessarily having to agree on the politics," said Sabiha Khan, CAIR's Southern California communications director and a UCI graduate.
The thaw could prove short-lived, though. With the fifth-annual Zionist Awareness Week just months away, some in UCI's Jewish community worry that they might soon feel under siege again.
Said Merav Ceren, the 20-year-old president of Anteaters for Israel: "We know the attacks are coming."
Tom Tugend contributed to this article.
Originally published here: https://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/print/campusturmoil_20050311/