Center for Adoption Policy
Ethical and effective legislation and policy create families


Who We Are


CAP Projects


Speaking for Children

Facts and Figures

Contact Us



March 2018

March 7, 2018. Washington State Enact Uniform Parentage Act. Washington state is the first state to enact the new Uniform Parentage Act. The law addresses crucial issues related to surrogacy, same-sex marriage, the right to genetic information, the status of children conceived as a result of sexual assault and updates other parentage laws. It also permits paid surrogacy in Washington state. Prior to the enactment of the new law, paying for surrogacy in Washington state was a crime. To review the law, please click here to download PDF.

March 6, 2018. Update on Ethiopian International Adoption. The Department of State has informed the adoption community since the Ethiopian suspension of international adoption, 66 in-process cases have been completed with another 128 cases still outstanding. The Ethiopian government has taken further action to ensure the closure of Ethiopian international adoption. DOS officials have reached out to Ethiopian counterparts but can provide no indication when, if ever, international adoption from Ethiopia will resume.

March 5, 2018. USCIS Is Now Accepting Credit Cards For Its Fees. USCIS is now accepting credit card payments for the I-600/A fees, I-800/A fees as well as fingerprinting costs. The Department of State does not yet accept credit card payments for passport fees although you can use a credit card for the payment of the execution/processing fee. USCIS currently believes that using a credit card will not affect the timing of processing through the lock box.

March 1, 2018. UK High Court Rules Sperm Donor's Parents Have Right To Contact With Their Biological Grandson. In a landmark ruling, the British High Court has allowed a boy's biological grandparents to have mandated visits with their grandchild. The sperm donor was a friend of the two mothers. He was the donor for their five year old son; the women used a different donor for the other son. After the baby was born the two mothers and the sperm donor had different views of his role in the boy's life: the women thought he would see the boy on the same basis as any friend's child while he thought he would have be known to the boy as his biological father. Initially contact was normal and amiable and the boy's grandparents also saw him. But as time went on, and after the women split up, the mothers found the continued contact "burdensome" and sought to limit it. The donor went to court and was granted visitation, with his parents allowed to participate occasionally. The women sought to block the grandparents from gaining mandated rights because they maintained such a grant would interfere with their freedom to parent. The lower court disagreed and the High Court affirmed the lower court's ruling with an opinion which stated that the "order made by the judge was one that she was plainly entitled to make on the evidence before her." This landmark case illustrates three factors: the new world of family relationships, the large discretion family court judges have, and the importance of donors and intended parents obtaining sound legal advice before proceeding. More Information.

Center for Adoption Policy (CAP)
168A Kirby Lane
Rye, New York 10580
(914) 925-0141