<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ethica Comments on DOS Statement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/</link>
	<description>A collaborative blog advocating ethics in adoption</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alix</title>
		<link>http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1121</link>
		<dc:creator>Alix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1121</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Amy! I'm so happy that a reputable advocacy organization like Ethica is seeking clarification on this.  I would hope that their request will be given attention, as opposed to individual requests from PAPs...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Amy! I&#8217;m so happy that a reputable advocacy organization like Ethica is seeking clarification on this.  I would hope that their request will be given attention, as opposed to individual requests from PAPs&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christina</title>
		<link>http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1119</link>
		<dc:creator>Christina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1119</guid>
		<description>Thanks for pointing that out Amy - it wasn't there yesterday when I posted.  I think Ethica is doing a very good job of staying on top of things and representing the concerns of PAPs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for pointing that out Amy - it wasn&#8217;t there yesterday when I posted.  I think Ethica is doing a very good job of staying on top of things and representing the concerns of PAPs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1117</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/01/31/ethica-comments-on-dos-statement/#comment-1117</guid>
		<description>Even better... Ethica posted on 1/31/08 that they have requested that the DOS seek a definitive answer from the DIA re: what will happen to in process families on Sept 1, 2008 should the MOU not be renewed by then. It seems they're getting clarification on the definition of "in process" (dossier logged in? referral in hand? etc). I'm extremely encouraged to find someone is asking these questions and hope the DOS will work to get these answers for understandably worried PAPs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even better&#8230; Ethica posted on 1/31/08 that they have requested that the DOS seek a definitive answer from the DIA re: what will happen to in process families on Sept 1, 2008 should the MOU not be renewed by then. It seems they&#8217;re getting clarification on the definition of &#8220;in process&#8221; (dossier logged in? referral in hand? etc). I&#8217;m extremely encouraged to find someone is asking these questions and hope the DOS will work to get these answers for understandably worried PAPs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
