"Adoption from China is a 'politically sensitive issue'"

I have tried to render as accurate a translation of Ina's report as I am capable of. There are, however, some difficult passages that I am not confident were accurately translated. I have included the original passages in Dutch for those passages. If any of our Dutch readers would like to submit a more accurate translation, we welcome any and all suggestions. If there are passages that appear problematic, please let me know. Improvements to the translation will be published as they are received.

___________________________

On October 1, 2009, Ina Hut, former director of Weltkinderen in the Netherlands, presented a summary of actions, taken by herself and the Dutch Ministry of Justice, to the Dutch Parliament. Her report details how she became aware of issues of corruption in China's international adoption program, attempts made by herself to gather more information on these issues, and the response she received from both the CCAA and the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

Presented below is an English version of her presentation. On our subscription blog one will find two interviews I conducted with Ms. Hut, one prior to the report's release, one following. In these interviews she expands on the evidence she found for corruption on her visit to China in April 2008, and the difficulties she experienced in bringing such problems to the forefront.

With the Canadian government now walking the same path as the Dutch, one can see that "official" investigations instigated by receiving countries are impotent at best, and deceptive at worst. The structure of such investigations is always the same, and the outcomes are just as predictable: 1) Media raise and publicize evidence of wrong-doing; 2) Receiving government feels pressure to perform some action of inquiry; 3) Receiving government makes a "formal" inquiry of the CCAA asking for reassurance that all is well; 4) CCAA admits some isolated events, but assures receiving country that problems have been resolved; 5) Receiving government, thus reassured, announces that questions concerning corruption have been answered satisfactorily.

Why Ina Hut's report is so damning is that is clearly demonstrates that receiving governments have no real interest in "rocking the boat" with China, and actively work with the CCAA to downplay any negative outcome. It is all a formalized dance of inquiry and obfuscation. There is little desire, by any party, to get to the truth.

____________________________________

Reporting of Ina Hut, Former Director/Director of World Children (from February 2003 to September 1, 2009 statutory director/director).

I. Introduction
This document provides a chronological account of events surrounding adoptions from China, how this issue was handled by the Ministry of Justice (MVJ), and how the “World Children” responded.

This report is also a response to statements issued by the MVJ on the “Netwerk” broadcast of August 18, 2009 and replies to the official questions as a result of the broadcast were made by the opposition Socialist Party and Christian Democratic majority party.

Reporting starts from the moment that “World Children” confronted evidence of abuse surrounding adoptions from China (early 2006) until the moment I resigned my position (September 1, 2009).

The reason I resigned my position can be summarized in outline:
- The high risk to children inherent in the current system;
- The fact that the Central Authorities in inter-country adoption place other interests above those of the children;
- The lack of support, even from the MVJ of the opposition party, to examine the accuracy of the backgrounds of children from China and the correct procedures. Although the MVJ stated that it would be possible to do an undercover investigation, there was no form of investigation acceptable to the MVJ.

This report is designed in particular to substantiate the above outline, based on a chronological listing of events with respect to adoptions from China (Part II). Some of the criticism can also directed at a number of other sending countries. I will then go to the personal conclusion (Part III) and finally give some recommendations on international adoption (IV).

II. Background on adoptions from China
For several years, there have been indications that China’s orphanage directors were paying money to bring children into welfare institutions. There is already several years’ worth of evidence that the background and identity of children proposed for adoption are routinely changed. There are also many indications of direct children. (Daarnaast zijn er vele aanwijzingen van directe kinderhandel.) This survey does not aim to provide a complete picture of all indications and evidence, but does give a picture of what was known to “World Children” and the MVJ.

In late 2005/early 2006 the Chinese media reported a large child trafficking scandal in Hunan, which took place in the period from 2003 to 2005. From the moment that “World Children” received these reports, in the Spring 2006, “World Children” called for further research on adoptions from China at the Ministry of Justice (MVJ). These reports were publicized in February 2007 by the Dutch media, including in newspaper “Trouw” (Exhibit 1).

In March 2006, a delegation from “World Children” (including myself) traveled to China to get answers to the questions of whether this particular scandal in Hunan may involve children who were adopted to the Netherlands. The Chinese Central Authority (CCAA) declined formally disclosing the identities of the children involved to “World Children”, because “World Children” was not a formal governmental body or interlocutor. Formally, the Dutch Central Authority (MJV) had a communication link with the CCAA, and the CCAA wished communications go through the Dutch CA, the MVJ. Informally, we were told by members of the CCAA that children from the Hunan trafficking scandal had gone abroad. In response, “World Children” urged the MVJ to obtain more information through their contact with the CCAA (eg, letter dated April 21, 2006, Exhibit 2).

The Ministry of Justice in May 2006 visited the CCAA in Beijing. The travel report the Ministry indicates that "given the sensitivity of the subject the irregularities were discussed only in the course of conversation.” The travel report indicated that it was "found that none of the children went to the Netherlands' and that in all cases where children for adoption abroad have gone, the embassies of the countries concerned are informed.” “World Children” is based on this information which the Ministry of Children World has passed, then the Dutch adoptive parents informed. (Wereldkinderen heeft op basis van deze informatie die het Ministerie aan Wereldkinderen heeft doorgegeven, vervolgens de betrokken Nederlandse adoptieouders geïnformeerd.) At that time it appeared that the CCAA had the scandal well under control and that all the accused had been punished (see travelogue MVJ May 2006, requested from MVJ).

In early 2007, however, there were signs that the CCAA had given the same answer to all receiving countries. While the CCAA had informally confirmed that children from this scandal had gone for adoption abroad, every country was told that no children have gone to that country. Additionally, researchers who had studied the matter thoroughly indicated that there may have been many more children involved in the scandal, and that not all perpetrators had been punished. “World Children” thus continued to have questions -- questions “World Children” could not make directly to the CCAA, for the CCAA had clearly stated that “World Children” did not have formal contact. “World Children” also received during the first half year 2007 new indications and messages via the media and adoptive parents that there was more to it than that claimed the CCAA. “World Children” informed the MVJ of this, with the request that they do further research (including telephone and email exchange, January 2007). In July 23, 2007, the Ministry of Justice sent then - at the insistence of “World Children” - a letter to the CCAA (exhibit 3), which asked whether, after the visit with the CCAA, any new facts had been made available and whether anything was revealed about possible irregularities concerning adoptions to the Netherlands. Also, the letter asked what efforts on the part of the CCAA be been done to prevent or deter trafficking of children for (intercountry) adoption, and what preventive measures are taken to ensure that children are not unlawfully obtained (i.e. contrary to the principles of international conventions), to make available for intercountry adoption.

In October 2007, British Channel 4 news reported another case of child trafficking in China (Exhibit 4). In China, 70,000 children are marketed and sold annually, stated Kevin Bales, adviser to the UN program against human trafficking.

Child has brought the world MVJ letter on October 18, 2007 requested to investigate a possible connection between the abuses mentioned in the documentary and international adoption (Exhibit 5). (Wereldkinderen heeft daarop het MvJ per brief op 18 oktober 2007 verzocht om onderzoek te doen naar een mogelijk verband tussen de in de documentaire genoemde misstanden en interlandelijke adoptie (bijlage 5).)

The MVJ then sent on November 15, 2007 (Exhibit 6) a letter to the CCAA in which the Minister of Justice expressed concern over the recurring reports of child-trafficking in China. He asked for a response from the CCAA. This letter also referred to the letter of July 23, 2007 of the MVJ to the CCAA, which at that time not been answered by the CCAA.

Moreover, we received the two letters sent to the CCAA until January 28, 2008, at our request (by mail). (Overigens ontvingen wij de twee aan het CCAA gestuurde brieven pas op 28 januari 2008, op ons verzoek (per mail).) After “World Children” on January 22, 2008 inquired by mail whether a response was received from the CCAA, the MVJ on February 1, 2008 sent a reminder letter to the CCAA.

On February 20, 2008 (Exhibit 7), the CCAA sent a response to the letters from the MVJ. The letter of February 20, 2008 by the CCAA stated that the child trafficking scandal in Hunan was a singular incident. In the same letter the CCAA indicated that all the children were abandoned children, and were proposed for adoption in accordance with the rules, and that the interests of the child were paramount. The whole procedure had transpired in accordance with the rules of the Hague Adoption Treaty. It was noted: “It's better not to pursue, expand or elaborate on this issue further and to keep secret for related families in order not to interrupt the bond established between the adoptive parents and the children.” In the same letter the CCAA stated that the BBC documentary had not been viewed by her, and that she therefore could not comment on the issue (this documentary was available on the Internet; see previous comments in this report). “World Children” received moreover, after repeated requests, the letter of the CCAA to MVJ until July 17, 2008.

On February 22, 2008 (Exhibit 8) “World Children” sent a letter to the MVJ which mentioned the persistent rumors that the Hunan scandal involved a much larger group, approximately one thousand children, many more than the 65 children spoke about by the CCAA.

“World Children” also stated in that letter to the MVJ the CCAA all recipient countries have reported that the children into the country would have gone. The CCAA stated to “World Children” (during our trip in March 2006) and the MVJ had been informed that there were children from Hunan sent abroad for adoption. Where had those children then gone?

But there was more to it. “World Children” mentioned in this letter that a prominent high official in China had stated "off the record” that “an examination by the CCAA in China showed that there were enough domestic parents available to adopt the healthy children, and that they are queuing up.” “World Children” again asked the MVJ in the same letter to do further research.

There was however no conclusive answer. All "World Children" received the aforementioned letter of the CCAA to MVJ dated February 20, 2008, we also only after repeated requests on July 17, 2008 received from the MVJ. (Hier kwam echter geen afdoende antwoord op. Het enige dat Wereldkinderen ontving is de eerder genoemde brief van het CCAA aan het MvJ d.d. 20 februari 2008, die wij na herhaald verzoek overigens pas op 17 juli 2008 ontvingen van het MvJ.)

“World Children” felt that research should be done, so on February 25, 2008 we asked the Hague Permanent Bureau if they saw opportunities to investigate this matter further. The letter from “World Children” to the MVJ (dated February 22, 2008) was included. On March 4, 2008, “World Children” was informed that none of the central authorities had received a request for further research. It was further stated that she could not respond to a request by a private entity. Moreover, it was told that the Hague Permanent Bureau didn’t have the resources nor the powers to investigate. The MVJ is about by World Children informed on April 25, 2008 and by mail and by mail copies of two letters received on. Quote from the letter of the Hague Permanent Bureau (signed by William Duncan): “I have to stress that we have not been asked by either of the Contracting States (i.e. China and the Netherlands) to provide any assistance in relation to the matters mentioned in your letter (dated 22 February 2008) to Mr. Levenkamp. Indeed, it would be highly unusual for us to be asked to investigate particular alleged abuses in a Contracting State – we are simply not equipped, nor do we have powers to undertake investigations of this sort.” (letter d.d. 4 March 2008). With “Contracting States” means the States participating in the Hague Adoption Convention (Exhibit 9).

A delegation of the House visited the Hague Permanent Bureau in late March 2008. One of the delegates responded (by email) to “World Children” that the Hague Permanent Bureau also told them that their resources and capacities are limited. It was also stated by the Hague Permanent Bureau that licensees and private organizations under the Convention have big responsibilities, but limited opportunities to make that true.

“Network” (EO) did further research into adoptions from China in Spring 2008. On March 11, 2008 (Exhibit 10), “Network” showed pictures which showed that directors of orphanages in China had paid for children and that children may have been wrongly proposed for international adoption. Then I, as director of “World Children”, publicly called for an independent and international investigation. To date, this study has not been produced.

On March 13, 2008 “World Children” received an alarming report by two American students (Patricia Meier and Xiaole Ling). “World Children” sent the report to the MVJ with this request in preparation of the planned MVJ trip to China (see attached report, Exhibit 11).

“World Children” at that time stressed the importance of dialogue with China. We asked the MVJ for a fundamentally substantive discussion about adoptions from China. We asked the MJV to ensure that choices are made not based on political interests, but the interests of children must prevail. We ask the MJV to initiate a “round table” discussion on adoptions from China, with key players in the field. The essential debate on adoptions from China remains open.

On March 14, 2008 the Minister informed the House, in response to questions by Ed Anker (CU) that he would approach the Chinese authorities and ask for clarification. The minister indicated that he would inform the Court by May 1 (2008) (Exhibit 12).

On March 24, 2008 MVJ received a letter from the Chinese Embassy that the reports by the Dutch media were not correct. First, according to the Embassy, it was not true that local officials would take away children from parents in Hunan. Second, all 17 children adopted by Dutch parents from the Shaoyang Welfare Institute had been abandoned children. Third, the Chinese Embassy stated that getting a twin or multiple births are not an infringement of the Family Planning policy, as it was and is seen, but that these families would receive financial compensation from the Chinese government. (Ten derde werd door de Chinese Ambassade gesteld, dat het krijgen van een tweeling of meerling niet als overtreding van de family planning policy werd en wordt gezien, maar dat deze families juist een financiële tegemoetkoming zouden krijgen van de Chinese overheid.) It was specified that the reporting was based on unfounded allegations, which would damage the image of China. The Chinese Embassy gave to believe that the MVJ the Dutch media in an objective way control (letter was requested from MVJ). (De Chinese ambassade gaf aan te geloven dat het MvJ de Nederlandse media op een objectieve manier kan aansturen (brief is opvraagbaar bij MvJ).)

On April 1, 2008 the Minister informed the Court, in response to questions from Ed Anker, that the minister saw no reason for drastic measures in relation to adoptions from China. He also indicated that there was frequent contact with the licensees and that license holders would be involved in the preparation of the proposed visit to China (Exhibit 13).

On April 21, 2008, Brian Stuy, an American researcher (married to a Chinese woman and three children adopted from China) sent a report by email to “World Children”. A copy of this report was sent by him to the MVJ. Mr. Stuy had on March 25, 2008 also sent a mail to the MVJ, but had received no response. He also sent “World Children” diverse research materials and evidence. “World Children” gave the U.S. research material to the MVJ. This material sent by Mr. Stuy consisted of audio tapes of interviews with directors of Chinese children's homes, which confirmed that on a larger scale directors have paid and are paying reasonably large sums of money (more than a half year’s pay) for children to enter the orphanages. Also this director said that these practices still continue at that time (see audio recording of Fuzhou, the largest orphanage in Jiangxi, Exhibit 14).

Also, the study material demonstrated an extreme increase in the number of intercountry adoptions from certain orphanages in China. Brian Stuy, in his email, stated that he believes that at least 10-20% of the homes in China are involved in baby-buying programs, if not more. He has evidence from several homes to substantial this.

Brian Stuy indicated that he believes that a program is fairly widespread across China, and “I have specific evidence from orphanages in Chongqing, Jiangxi and Hunan provinces.” The MVJ was informed of this evidence from Brian Stuy (Exhibit 15).

It was my urgent request to the MVJ that they make contact with him. In April and May 2008 they held two telephone conversations with Mr. Stuy. Brian Stuy has indicated that these interviews were brief.

Brian Stuy indicates, in a recent email, that he has become aware of more orphanages that pay money for children, stating "There are many more orphanages we are very sure are doing baby-buying, but for which we have not had a chance to talk to anyone to confirm.”

On April 24, 2008 the Minister informed the Court that a high official delegation would visit China in the second week of May, 2008, that that the Court would be briefed of this visit by June 1. This delegation consisted of two employees of the Bureau Central Authority (Exhibit 16).

“World Children”, prior to the trip, sent the MVJ very many questions about adoptions from China, and urgently requested that they come back with answers (interview April 6, 2008 and letter dated April 25, 2008, Exhibit 17 and 18).

On May 1, 2008 “World Children” ceased taking applications from adoptive parents wanting to adopt healthy children from China. Reasons for stopping included the long waiting times and the belief that China had enough parents willing to adopt a healthy child. We also wanted to obtain the results of the survey before making a final decision on whether or not to proceed with the adoption of healthy children from China. The last reason is World Children also do not actively communicated to the constituency, because this in advance could cause unrest among adoptive parents and adoptees. (De laatste reden heeft Wereldkinderen overigens niet actief naar de achterban gecommuniceerd, omdat dit op voorhand onrust zou kunnen veroorzaken onder adoptieouders en geadopteerden.)

From 6 to May 9, 2008 the MVJ visited China (trip report is requested from the MVJ. “World Children” its request to the travel of the MVJ received containing the request to the MVJ confident to handle).

On May 12 there was a documentary shown by ABC News (Exhibit 19): Here it was shown that large-scale baby buying programs in China were still in place, not only in Hunan, but in several other parts of China. These children were being submitted for international adoption.

I made the MVJ on May 13, 2008 aware of this documentary. They indicate that this is an example from practice in the province and during the trip already confronted with it. (Zij geven aan dat dit een voorbeeld is uit de praktijk in de provincie en er tijdens de reis ook reeds mee zijn geconfronteerd.) The MVJ gave this response that they will still check with the CCAA.

After returning on May 26, 2008 was the result of this trip at the request of the "World Children" in China working licensees feedback.(Na terugkomst werd op 26 mei 2008 het resultaat van deze reis op verzoek van Wereldkinderen aan de in China werkende vergunninghouders teruggekoppeld.) "World Children" had the appropriate questions by them during this trip performed "research". (Wereldkinderen had de nodige vraagtekens bij het door hen tijdens deze reis uitgevoerde ‘onderzoek’.) This we have also reported to the MVJ. There are the MVJ talks in China, research did not exist. A few things to light I below.(Dit hebben wij het MvJ ook gemeld. Er zijn door het MvJ gesprekken gevoerd in China, van onderzoek was geen sprake. Een paar zaken licht ik onderstaand toe.)

-- In a preliminary briefing before meeting with the CCAA, the Dutch Embassy requested the MVJ be prudent when discussing sensitive topics.
-- Furthermore, the MVJ stressed that it is the responsibility of competent authorities in the country of origin to determine if adoptions comply with the requirements of the Hague Adoption Convention. These authorities would be responsible for checking the requirements as stated in the Hague Adoption Convention. This means that the cooperating countries are heavily dependent on mutual trust (see also letter from the Minister of Justice to the House dated September 10, 2008). In other words, thorough investigation is not really possible and is not performed.
-- The Ministry of Justice did not visit any provinces, and did not engage in any discussions with local authorities.
-- A meeting with an employee of UNICEF as an official statement presented by the MVJ, while UNICEF itself and others have indicated to us that she has done no research into adoptions in China and there is nothing to say about it (see also September 10, 2008). (Een gesprek met een medewerker van Unicef is als een officiële verklaring gepresenteerd door het MvJ, terwijl Unicef zelf aan derden en aan ons aangegeven heeft dat ze geen onderzoek heeft gedaan naar adopties in China en er dus eigenlijk niets over kan zeggen (zie ook bij 10 september 2008).)
-- Moreover, there were still many unanswered questions from “World Children”, including questions “World Children” had passed to the MVJ before they traveled to China. These questions as yet have not been answered conclusively by the Ministry of Justice.

The MVJ has some unanswered questions. We gave the MVJ an overview of the open questions given to them (Exhibit 20).

Because there were still many open questions, “World Children” decided to do our own research. Licensees in the “Quality Framework” are required to obtain as much information as possible about the accuracy of the procedures, and must be able to identify the backgrounds of the children. With adoptions from Convention countries the formal responsibility lies with the Central Authorities. However, it is - despite the “Quality Framework Licensees” - still not clear where the responsibility of the licensee ceases and its relationship with the responsibility of the MVJ begins. Anyway, I felt then as director of “World Children” morally responsible for the accuracy of the procedures and I believed that this was an obligation towards adoptees, the adoptive parents and the biological parents. For that reason, a colleague and I traveled to China in July 2008. During one part of our journey one or more of our Chinese staff in China accompanied us.

During this trip (3-12 July 2008) we interviewed in Beijing, but we are also visited a few outside provinces. We talked with the Central Authorities (CCAA), with local authorities, with directors and staff of orphanages, with executives from fellow adoption agencies from abroad, an investigative journalist, with a staff member of UNICEF, the ILO, with a Chinese Dutch scientist, with the Dutch Embassy, and with our own four local staff. The talks were conducted in both English and in Chinese.

During the trip we got more and more indications that Chinese orphanages were paying on a larger scale for children who are placed in orphanages, and that the CCAA has been informed of this practice. Also, insiders told us about large-scale baby buying programs in China. The people who told us this received their information directly from directors and staff of orphanages. One person told me that the directors have contact with local midwives and they (the directors) heard from them when pregnant women were found. They contacted these women (I don't know if this contact was made by the directors or via midwives) and offered money (200 - 300 USD) to the mothers if they decided not to keep the baby, but would give the baby to the orphanage after they gave birth. For example, when the mother got to know that the baby would be a girl (before they gave birth or at the moment she gave birth). There are now also known amounts of up to 600 USD. Thus, orphanages would ‘book' children, by offering pregnant women money in exchange for their child when born. Also, there were many examples of children who come from a particular province and were transferred to homes in other provinces, although not formally. Papers were then falsified, finding locations made up, etc. This is what we were told by our informants.

We visited several provinces during the trip, and held official talks with local authorities, also visiting several orphanages. In the provinces, we learned that there is more information about the children that the local authorities know, but is not provided by the CCAA to the adoption agencies.

During the trip “World Children” held two talks with representatives of the Dutch Embassy in Beijing, on July 7 and July 11, 2008. During these conversations, employees of the Embassy stated that the issue of possible abuses surrounding adoptions from China is a “politically sensitive issue” and that the Embassy can only get information through official channels. The Embassy is not looking at the adoption documents on local or provincial levels. They further agreed that the path before a child comes to a Social Welfare Institute remains vulnerable.

Also gave an employee of the Embassy that the date of the notarial deed, the date the document, often the same date as that which the child would be placed abandoned. (Ook gaf een medewerker van de Ambassade aan dat de datum op de notariële akte, de datum waarop de akte wordt opgemaakt, vaak dezelfde datum is als die waarop het kind te vondeling zou zijn gelegd.) That is not correct, said an employee of the Embassy. She indicated that for the Embassy to issue a passport, they must take a substantive look at the deed. However, in issuing a MVV (Temporary Residence Permission), they do not. Adopted children travel to the Netherlands on an MVV, so there is no requirement to look substantively at the documentation.

Our staff in the Embassy also stated that the CCAA has more information about children than the deeds mentioned.

During the second interview with the staff of the Embassy, is was also discussed how there can be more clarity on certain issues. The Embassy stated that a National Human Rights Organization is an option that may provide more information, collectives and lawyers.

There is much more to tell about our own experiences and the conversations we have had, but this report is already so large. The report of this trip is demand, partly anonymous due to possible risks to interviewees. (Het verslag van deze reis is opvraagbaar, deels geanonimiseerd ivm mogelijke risico’s voor de geïnterviewden.)

On July 15, 2008 “World Children”, after returning, gave the results of the trip to China in oral feedback to the Ministry of Justice. In outline:

There remained the question whether Chinese orphanages on a larger scale paid for children, or that this incident was going to. "World Children" was mentioned during trip to China the impression that in paying for children who were placed in homes, not incidents would go, but that these payments on a larger scale it; (bij Wereldkinderen bleef de vraag bestaan of er in China op een grotere schaal werd en wordt betaald voor kinderen, dan wel dat dit om incidenten zou gaan. Wereldkinderen kreeg tijdens genoemde reis naar China de indruk dat het bij het betalen voor kinderen die werden aangebracht bij de tehuizen, niet om incidenten zou gaan, maar dat deze betalingen op grotere schaal plaatsvinden;)
-- “Subsidiary Principle” (a requirement of the Hague Adoption Convention) was not followed in China, and China did not first consider whether local children could be placed in a domestic family;
-- The local authorities and orphanages often have more information that is known about the children than was given agencies by the CCAA;
-- “World Children” feels that there are enough parents in China wanting to adopt a healthy child. In other words, inter-country adoptions of healthy children from China are not necessary and are against the Hague Adoption Convention.

Children were heard by the world and was particularly MVJ as feedback that the situation in a World with Children colored glasses were viewed. Criticism of restrictions on Children of the World 'research' of the MVJ were discarded. Further investigation was not necessary under the MVJ. (Wereldkinderen werd gehoord door het MvJ en kreeg met name als feedback dat de situatie door Wereldkinderen met een te gekleurde bril was bekeken. Kritiek van Wereldkinderen op beperkingen van het ‘onderzoek’ van het MvJ werden terzijde geschoven. Nader onderzoek was volgens het MvJ niet nodig.)

“World Children” felt that more research was needed before a final decision on whether to proceed with adoptions from China could be undertaken.

Because the MVJ, in the view of “World Children”, took insufficient action, “World Children” urged that further research be performed by the MVJ. The MVJ, however, remained committed to its position, that all 'research' had been done. World Children has stated this on his own initiative or want to do proper research. It is "World Children" had already, as early as July 2008, discussed several types of research with the Ministry of Justice.

On August 12, 2008, the Dutch Embassy in Beijing, in response to outstanding issues, held a meeting with the CCAA. The report of this conversation we shall not hesitate to provide. The CCAA said that no children involved in the Hunan abuses were adopted by Dutch families. The CCAA does not say whether those children were adopted into other countries, but that it would "contact the effected countries concerned to discuss".

The ABC documentary was also raised. This the CCAA dismissed as an old case, and that action had been taken. (The report of this meeting was requested from the MVJ, but “World Children" was told the request is too confidential to handle.)

On August 29, 2008 “World Children” received a draft of the letter that would be sent to the House. “World Children” did not entirely agree with the contents of the letter and believed that further examination should be done before conclusions could be drawn. This is also indicated by “World Children” to the MVJ.

On September 4, 2008 a meeting was organized - at the urging of the “World Children” - to draft a letter on adoptions from China, to be sent to the Ministry of Justice and the House to open discussions. These officials were present, along with the MVJ, and representatives from two of the three adoption agencies operating in China. The third agency was not physically present, but participated by telephone. In this conversation “World Children” indicated that they wanted to do further research. In this regard, “World Children” again expressed its concern regarding adoptions from China and has been discussed by World Child by Child World to initiate research, which should be carried out undercover possible.

The withdrawal of the authorization of “World Children”
After this conversation Mr. Leven asked me to sit Camp. (Na dit gesprek verzocht de heer Levenkamp mij te blijven zitten.)I asked a colleague of "World Children" to also sit, which happened. This conversation was alongside Mr Life Camp, also half (interim) MVJ official of the present, Mrs. Van 't Wout (Bij dit gesprek was naast de heer Levenkamp, ook een tweede (interim) ambtenaar van het MvJ aanwezig, mevrouw Van ‘t Wout.). During this "personal" call of “World Children”, various options were put forward on how to do further research. “World Children” suggested topics of research could be run by a Dutch University and several Chinese Universities. Also suggested by “World Children” was the idea to conduct research through local Chinese or human rights organizations as well by an American researcher. This interview also discussed the possibility of an undercover investigation, among other possibilities. It did not specifically discuss just an undercover investigation.

“World Children” by Mr. and Mrs. Van Camp Life 't Wout during this interview originally urged to conduct any research, no matter what kind of investigation whatsoever. (Wereldkinderen werd door de heer Levenkamp en mevrouw Van ’t Wout tijdens dit gesprek aanvankelijk dringend verzocht geen enkel onderzoek uit te voeren, ongeacht wat voor soort onderzoek dan ook.) No research was to be discussed. When we kept insisting, we were then told that if “World Children” did their own research, their adoption license would be revoked. "Lack of cooperation" would be the reason that the MVJ would give to justify the revocation. The reason for this measure, it was said, was that other interests were at play, and damage to the China-Netherlands relationship could arise. To some extent meet the insistent requests of World Children until further investigation, gave the two officials of the Ministry of Justice that they are the ISS and the Hague Permanent Bureau would consider whether they could do further research. This was also true with some caution be included in the letter to the House. Based on that promise as I am then director of "World Children" not yet agreed to the implementation of further investigation, by or on behalf of World Children to implement. (Om enigszins tegemoet te komen aan de nadrukkelijke wens van Wereldkinderen tot nader onderzoek, gaven de twee ambtenaren van het Ministerie van Justitie aan dat ze met het ISS en het Haags Permanent Bureau zouden overleggen of zij nader onderzoek zouden kunnen doen. Dit zou met enige voorzichtigheid ook zo worden opgenomen in de brief aan de Tweede Kamer. Op basis van die toezegging ben ik als toenmalig directeur van Wereldkinderen akkoord gegaan met het vooralsnog niet uitvoeren van nader onderzoek, door of in opdracht van Wereldkinderen uit te voeren.)

I confirmed the meeting by email on September 5, 2008. In that mail, I thanked the officials for the frank discussion. The conversation was indeed frank, because it was recognized that other interests played a role with China’s relationship with the Netherlands, and that possible damage could rise if “World Children” would do further research.

In the week of September 8, 2008 I was called by one of the two officials, Mrs. Van't Wout, saying that the ISS (?) would not allow for any further investigations. In the letter to the House it was then recorded by the MVJ that "organizations like the Hague Permanent Bureau have an important role to play, in awareness of adoptions from China.” However, the Hague Permanent Bureau has no investigative powers and of that the MVJ is aware. I feel this was therefore a false solution. On September 10, 2008 letter, the answer to parliamentary questions sent to the House (Exhibit 21).

The question of “World Children's” letter to the House
“World Children” had many questions to answer around the official questions concerning adoptions from China. “World Children” had used its own visit to China, according to the travel of the MVJ and additional evidence under a different impression of adoptions from China than what the MVJ puts in her letter to the House. (Wereldkinderen heeft op grond van het eigen bezoek aan China, op grond van het reisverslag van het MvJ en op grond van aanvullend bewijsmateriaal een andere indruk gekregen van adopties uit China dan hetgeen het MvJ verwoordt in haar brief aan de Tweede Kamer.)

In answering the central questions surrounding “State Convention” that States should work based on mutual trust, according to “World Children” there was sufficient evidence that further investigation by an independent party was warranted.

The Minister, in his reply from the Hague Adoption Convention, received the following key principles:

1. the mother who would give up a child for adoption, which must voluntarily and after the birth of the child have done (to an established procedure);
2. for there should not those involved in the adoption of a profit there, paying for costs is allowed;
3. first is near the child's country of origin or a solution to be sought before intercountry adoption can be in brought into the picture (“Subsidiary Principle”). (1. de moeder die een kind ter adoptie wil afstaan, moet dat vrijwillig en na de geboorte van het kind hebben gedaan (volgens een vastgestelde procedure);
2. er mag voor geen van de betrokkenen bij de adoptie een winstoogmerk bestaan; het betalen voor gemaakte kosten is wel toegestaan;
3. eerst dient in de omgeving van het kind respectievelijk het land van herkomst een oplossing te worden gezocht alvorens interlandelijke adoptie in beeld kan komen (subsidiariteitsbeginsel).)

“World Children” seriously doubted whether these three principles were/are being satisfied with adoptions from China.

As regards the first point: there is growing evidence that many mothers do not voluntarily surrender their child, as in connection with the birth control policy children are taken away by local authorities. These children have been proposed for international adoption. There is also evidence that we had learned of many children being “booked” before birth, the so-called "baby-buying programs.” According to some researchers and experts, this is done with the knowledge of the CCAA.

The second approach seemed and seems not to be conducted many Social Welfare Institutes and Children Welfare Institutes paid large sums for children are made, they can amount to more than half years salary. There are several audio recordings of such directors 'orphanages' who pay large sums of money. (Het tweede uitgangspunt leek en lijkt ook niet te worden uitgevoerd: vele Social Welfare Institutes en Children Welfare Institutes betalen grote bedragen voor kinderen die worden aangebracht, deze kunnen oplopen tot meer dan een half jaar salaris. Er zijn meerdere geluidsopnames met o.a. directeuren van ‘orphanages’ die deze grote bedragen betalen.) For “World Children” there remained the question of whether in China on a larger scale money is paid for children, or if this incident was isolated. “World Children” has, after the visits to China and from the additional evidence that was also provided to the MVJ, more and more the impression that the incident was not isolated, but that payments on a larger scale happened and are happening. This was the view of “World Children” that needs to be further investigated.

The third principle is not observed above: That the two systems of international adoption and domestic adoption co-exist. It is not first considered whether a child can be placed locally. The CCAA provides that it is better to find a family as soon as possible for a child, and that it does not matter whether this is a Chinese or a foreign family. Given that the orphanages for a large part depend on the donations they get through adoption and foreign adoption, and that usually brings more revenue than local adoptions, many orphanages prefer international adoption. This is a violation of the “Subsidiary Principle” of the Hague Agreement.

Then was also played for “World Children” the following (this information was then also shared with the MVJ): That local authorities and orphanages often have more information that is known about the children from within the CCAA licensees. This “World Children” told the Dutch Embassy (in July 2008), this we know from American research, and this we know because we have seen this with the local authorities (July 2008 trip). Children offered for international adoption have been abandoned and are often offered, while in the homes and at local / provincial level and perhaps at the level of the CCAA the names and addresses of the biological parents are known. (Kinderen die worden aangeboden voor interlandelijke adoptie werden en worden vaak als vondeling aangeboden, terwijl in de tehuizen en op lokaal/provinciaal niveau en wellicht ook op het niveau van het CCAA de namen en adressen van de biologische ouders vaak bekend zijn.)

-- "World Children" is of the belief that enough parents inside China wish to adopt healthy children. This was confirmed by a senior Chinese official who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. In other words, inter-country adoptions of healthy children from China are no longer necessary. This does not, however, apply to Special Need Children.

-- China, with its large trade surpluses, is economically able to provide the orphanages the necessary financial resources. China and the Netherlands must comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This requires States to protect children, so the cost of the orphanages should be borne by the State. Orphanages should therefore not be dependent on donations from international adoption.

We also got different and sometimes contradictory information than the information that was received by the MVJ or was given to us. These contradictions have given "World Children" cause to worry.

Thus the travel of the MVJ that the CCAA indicates that the Social Welfare Institutes and the Children Welfare Institutes are less dependent on donations, because they receive more money than before from the government. According to the information obtained in July 2008 during “World Children's” visit to the local authorities from different Provinces in China, many institutions receive $1.80 per month for the care of each child, while for each child placed for intercountry adoption abroad the orphanages receive $3,000. Local authorities and the management of the orphanages in the provinces we visited indicated that they desperately need donations in order to pay for necessary care. In the same trip, we learned that the orphanage which the MVJ visited received no state grants, but depended entirely on donations. Also, the travel indicated that "Save the Children" stated that the orphanages would prefer to join international adoption, this in connection with the donations (funds from adoptive parents, being $3,000-$5,000). These practices are not consistent with what the CCAA indicates.

Thus, if it is true that donations from international adoption are no longer an issue, as the CCAA has indicated to the MVJ, why are not they just abolished? And where does that money go then, the home has not yet required under the CCAA? (En waar gaat dat geld dan naar toe, het tehuis heeft het volgens het CCAA toch niet nodig?)

Thus, the travelogue of the MVJ indicated that the CCAA held the view that paying for a child is punishable. However, at the same time the Director of the CCAA stated to “World Children” that it is acceptable for directors to pay a certain amount to “the finder”, the introducer of the child to the orphanage.

Since 2008 more evidence and signals have come forward to show that more is going on than what the MVJ indicates in the letter to the House. There is increasing evidence that directors of orphanages pay large sums in baby-buying programs. This takes place with the full knowledge of the CCAA. At a conference of directors of the CCAA with the orphanages (16 and February 17, 2006), for example, the CCAA indicated that amounts of 500 to 1,000 yuan were acceptable. But the CCAA also said it understood that directors of orphanages needed more money and that they often have to pay more, since they otherwise would receive no more children for international adoption. (That much is paid and that the CCAA is aware and approves, is confirmed by audio recordings of Brian Stuy -- Exhibit 22, not inserted, but sent separately).

In the letter to the House dated September 10, 2008, it is further stated that the staff of the UNICEF delegation that spoke point out that their understanding of the incidents is that they are exceptions. However, email correspondence of UNICEF with others shows that UNICEF has done no research into adoptions in China. “We currently do not have enough information in the area that you are most interested. Most of what have been reported in the media are isolated cases and it is not possible for us to come up with a sound situation analysis at present.” (from email exchange of Arun Dohle with UNICEF, August 2007). Furthermore, UNICEF by mail in 2008 indicated that they have done no further investigation: “Currently UNICEF China office does not have a project on adoption as such, but we are including this component to be looked into through one of the "mini"-situation analysis that we are conducting as part of our ‘Mid-Term Review of Our Country Program with the Government of China’ - an initial step leading to perhaps a more comprehensive study that we may want to consider conducting in the future.” (from email change of Arun Dohle with UNICEF dated July 5, 2008). The same information was orally confirmed to “World Children” during the visit of the delegation of “World Children” with UNICEF in China.

In summary, there was sufficient reasons for “World Children” to continue to press for further investigations. This is especially important because the ability to research by other organizations is not possible. “World Children” feels responsible for the accuracy of the procedures and the accuracy of the background of the children who are adopted through “World Children”. As the ex-director of “World Children”, I continued to press for further investigation, either from an external party to carry out either by itself out (leave) perform.

“World Children” was told a number of times by the MVJ in October and November 2008 by telephone that their own research, in any form, was unacceptable.

Then I, as director of World Children, tried to obtain a clear written statement of what could or could not be done. Unfortunately not succeeded, I got an evasive answer or not.

I also wanted to know whether the threat of withdrawing the license of “World Children” was a personal action of two individual officials or the policy of the MVJ. As Prof. Hoksbergen was to have a conversation with the Minister on January 9, 2009, I asked him to raise this question in the interview. When Professor Hoksbergen raised the topic of adoptions from China, the issue was immediately countered: He was informed that a study had been done and that everything was in order.

Meanwhile "World Children" told the MVJ about signals, messages in the media about possible abuses, etc. American studies from “World Children” felt that this was disturbing information which warranted further investigation (see Exhibit 22, a document submitted by Brian Stuy).

Eventually, “World Children” on June 8, 2009 (Exhibit 23) sent a letter to the MVJ, which included “World Children”s attempts to obtain clarification as to who is ultimately responsible for abuses, if “World Children” is prohibited from doing further research. In this letter I once again indicated that “World Child” was told by two officers that we were forbidden to further investigate, on penalty of revoking our adoption license.

On July 3, 2009 another adoption scandal emerged from China. This time it dealt with about 85 children from the Zhenyuan Welfare Institute. Once again the message was that children were taken away from their biological parents and then unlawfully submitted for intercountry adoptions to foreign countries (including the Netherlands). Recent studies by Brian Stuy have shown that some children from the orphanage contained the home address of the biological parents in their reference file (with the local authorities or the orphanage). These children were not abandoned, yet were offered for inter-country adoption. The identity of the child had been deliberately changed, which in itself can be regarded as a crime.

“World Children” was informed by the MVJ on July 7, 2009 (Exhibit 24) that two children from this orphanage had been adopted through “World Children” into the Netherlands. In this letter I again referred to the threats of withdrawal of my license: "Since we have no power to check in China ourselves, and as you have discouraged us, under penalty of revoking our permit, I request that you send me the background of these children to verify whether these children were properly disposed."

On July 14, 2009, “World Children”, after repeated calls and with reference to the possible involvement of the National Ombudsman, received a written reply to the letter of the MVJ June 8, 2009. It read in part: "Our research can not be banned. But you must realize that, depending on how you perform this study, the effect it can connect China to all adoptions from China can be great."

In the letter itself on July 14, 2009 (Exhibit 25) is was not denied that the two officials had threatened to withdraw the license and also again not suggest a supposedly undercover investigation. It explicitly requested the matter on paper, indicated "Our research can not be prohibited....” During the last ten months the MVJ held that “World Children's” own research should not be done, no matter what kind of research it was, under penalty of revoking the license.

The same letter also announced that following the recent scandal in Zhenyuan, officials of the Ministry would travel to China in September 2009, during which a discussion of the recent irregularities in Zhenyuan would be conducted.

The Member of Parliament De Roon (PVV) adopted on July 3, 2009 questions about this scandal. The MVJ replied on August 4, 2009 (Exhibit 26). It shows the results of the investigation by the Chinese authorities want to wait. Again we see the flaws of the Hague Adoption Convention emerging: the participating countries are self-policing. But if you are part of the system’s problem, then how reliable is that research?

Given the experience we have with the Department of Justice and the CCAA, there will again be no question of an independent investigation, and the truth about the backgrounds of children from China and whether or not systemically children are paid for by directors of orphanages in China will not be investigated. The proposed trip of the MVJ to China will not change that. It will be a repetition of moves.

Meanwhile, there are again signs that many more adoptions from China are not transparent (enough), or not accompanied by appropriate information about the backgrounds of children. In a recent audio recording provided by Brian Stuy (Exhibit 22) one can hear that the CCAA in February 2006 was already aware of the fact that directors of orphanages paid large sums for the application of a child. This evidence shows that the CCAA believes that the orphanages can’t help paying, because otherwise too few children for international adoption will enter the homes, and the orphanages can not survive.

III. Personal Opinion: filing function per September 1, 2009
Given these experiences, but also given the national and international setting whereby intercountry adoption is surrounded by market forces (demand determines supply), the corruption in some countries and the risks of such to children, the way the Central Authority of the Netherlands, and one number of other countries handle this, I can no longer be part of the system and I no longer want the responsibility for the risks and possible abuses. This applies not only to adoptions from China, but also for adoptions from other countries, which - coupled with the mechanism of market forces - I think also possess too much risk.

Adoptees, adoptive parents and biological parents are entitled to protection. This protection should be that inter-country adoption should be pure. And that is my opinion within the current system sufficiently. There is always risk, and a 100% guarantee can not be given. But the risk to children within the system of intercountry adoption worldwide has grown. While inter-country adoption was primarily motivated from earlier idealism, it has now become a system that is surrounded with too much “market”, corruption and high risks to children.

I've been trying to change society from within and to achieve within the global system that the interests of children be made first. The interests of children means that only sincere efforts are made to local children in a family place.

In my commitment to transparency and open procedures, and in my pursuit of truth regarding the backgrounds of the adoptees, I was not sufficiently supported, and even stopped by the Ministry of Justice. A Ministry of Justice is part of inter-country adoption the interests of the adoptees and children to be placed. My experience is that in the application of international law, the rights of adoptees and children are not sufficiently guaranteed, and that the Hague Adoption Convention and the interests of children and adoptees are subjugated by the MVJ to economic, diplomatic and political interests.

The latter is demonstrated by the obstruction of the MVJ to a thorough examination of adoptions from China. It is clear from the results of the AO on June 11, 2009 (which is not a method to control part of mediation can continue as usual, despite the fact that all the experts and the Minister himself believes that this method is not sufficient to control). And it is also clear from the ban on our doing our own research into the quality and background of adoption procedures in countries that are economically important to the Netherlands.

Where you should expect the Hague Adoption Convention may give a certain confidence, it gives a high degree of false security because the participating States will be dependent on several other interests when faced with whether they each will or will not account for (possible) abuse.

IV. Recommendations
-- International adoption has, over the past decades, become a system where the demand for children supply (and price) of children is affected. One sees similar experiences in many different countries. A moratorium on intercountry adoption is, in my view, desirable in order for us to reflect on how desirable adoption is in the current system. The international system is too screwed up. A thorough independent investigation into the desirability or otherwise of intercountry adoptions (in general), within the framework of the market for children, with all the risks of child trafficking and its consequences, is desperately needed. During this period no new process should be started, no new principle consents issued, and no new intakes to the adoption organizations.
-- Thorough independent research into adoptions from specific countries, specifically targeted to the countries where Dutch work with licensees.
-- Parliamentary investigation into the affairs relating to adoptions from China and the attitude of the Ministry of Justice in this matter.
-- Research into the impact of the Hague Adoption Convention. Does it promote local adoptions or is the opposite the case? And does it work in terms of preventive or the correction of abuses, or does it offer only a kind of false security?
-- Investigate the development of policies surrounding adoption does not fit better within the Ministry of Development (promotion of local solutions in the country of origin) or the Ministry of Health (child). Lawyers of the MVJ should only monitor the implementation of laws and regulations.
-- The Dutch system of agencies (e.g. voluntary versus professional organizations, the number of licensees, the private nature of the organizations) reviewed on desirability, possibilities and impossibilities.

Drs. Ina H.R. Hut, former Director World Children (February 2003 to Sept. 2009)
October 1, 2009

Good-Bye Director Lu?!

The unconfirmed rumor confirmed fact that CCAA Director Lu Yin will be leaving his post after eight years has resulted in much speculation as to the reasons and impact his "promotion" re-assignment will have on China's international adoption program. While I have nothing directly to add to the puzzle, there are a few pieces of information that might help clarify what this change means to Director Lu and the adoption program in general.

Given the ambiguity of the move, there is reason to suspect that this move is not a promotion. First, he is being moved from a directorship in a top-level department (CCAA) to a "post" in a "department". The lack of title may be meant to suggest that he is being moved down the bureaucratic ladder.

There are three main hypothesis as to why Director Lu has been moved from his position as director of the CCAA:

1) The Chinese central government is so proud of the job Director Lu has done that they feel his talents are now needed in another area of the Chinese Social bureaucracy. Thus, this move can be viewed as a promotion.

2) The central government realized that the increased international attention being brought on the Chinese adoption program is a result of pressure placed on orphanage directors by Director Lu. In recent years repeated "inquiries" of the China program by the Dutch and Canadian governments (among others) has left the central government feeling that it is only a matter of time before another scandal breaks out, and that Director Lu has done little or nothing to curb the abuses that are resulting in the negative international attention. Thus, by quietly moving Director Lu from the CCAA, the central government can respond to future controversies by claiming they were proactive in removing the offending director, thus "saving face".

3) Director Lu has overseen a 70% decline in China's adoption program over the past four years, from a peak of over 14,000 children in 2005 to under 5,000 adoptions in 2008. This fall in adoptions, with its accompanying decline in adoption revenues ($27 million), has prompted the central government to seek a new head of the CCAA.

All three of the above scenarios are possible, but some are more likely than others. Scenario 1 appears unlikely since there has been no official announcement on the CCAA website, the official announcement (made after we made this posting) lacks any indication that Director Lu was given a directorship position. It says only that he joins the staff of the "Department of Social Welfare and Charitable Corporation Advocacy at the Ministry of Civil Affairs". Additionally, as of this writing none of the orphanage directors we spoke with had even heard that a change was being made. This lack of "publicity" of a promotion discounts the probability that it is a promotion. Rather, it appears that Director Lu is being quietly "re-assigned" in a fashion very common in Chinese government -- reassign as quietly as possible to avoid questions and controversy.

Scenarios 2 and 3 are both likely, in my opinion, but recent events increase the possibility of scenario 2 being the reason. The Central Government must realize that there are serious issues in the adoption program, issues that are becoming increasingly visible as more and more investigations are conducted (even now there are several Chinese and international investigations taking place). It is unlikely that given the realization that at any moment "another shoe can drop" that they would put themselves in a position of being complicit in the problems. Thus, scenario 2 can be viewed as a "house-cleaning", replacing Director Lu with a new director who will shortly announce "changes in orphanage procedures" to clean up the problems. In this way, if new reports surface of corruption and wrong-doing, the central government can assert that such problems have been rectified, and responsible parties removed from their positions (the standard response to such discoveries).

Scenario 3 is possible if the Chinese are politically tone-deaf and seek simply to expand their adoption program to increase funding into the Social Welfare program. In this scenario, Director Lu's attempts to increase adoptions by increasing the orphanage donation to $5,000 in January 2009 is seen as ineffective, given the apparent lack of response from orphanage directors in general. Thus, a new director that can play "hard-ball" is needed to increase the pressure on directors even more, either through "growth quotas" or some other idea. This scenario pre-supposes that the central government is not happy with the decline in adoptions over the past four years, and Director Lu's apparent inability to rectify it.

In summary: Given the short and terse announcement of Director Lu's re-assignment, and the complete lack of awareness inside China of Director Lu's "re-assignment" (it is not at all clear whether his new job is a promotion, and in fact does not seem to be) seriously undermines the contention that this change is a result of exemplary job performance on the part of Director Lu. Thus, it is likely that Director Lu is being moved to make way for a new director (Zhang Shifeng, previously the assistant director of the Ministry of Civil Affairs), who will bring significant chances to the CCAA's handling of international adoptions. Will the new director reign in the orphanages by instigating "procedural changes" to eliminate "reward" programs, or will he increase pressure on orphanages to produce more children for international adoption? Given the press coverage of corruption the CCAA has had to deal with in recent years, one would assume this change is to improve the ethical underpinnings of China's IA program, but this assumption is only partially offset by the desire of the Chinese to improve their social welfare system on the backs of a healthy and vibrant IA program.

"If you don’t pay any money, how will you find any babies?"

The article below is a substantially redacted version of a more indepth treatment of the subject I have available on our subscription blog. I offer that as an explanation for why this article may seem choppy or incomplete in places. To protect the identities of many of the witnesses to the CCAA conference, orphanage baby-buying programs, etc., I have removed them from this public forum.

_______________________________

BEIJING, Nov. 24 -- Some orphanages in central China's Hunan Province had been selling babies to make money for many years, a Hunan based newspaper reported today. Police in Qidong County have caught more than 20 people this week, including the heads of some of the orphanages.

In late November 2005 the world was made aware of a relatively small story in Hunan Province detailing baby-buying by orphanages involved in the international adoption program. While the CCAA loudly worked to contain the story by creating a "wall of silence" around the press coverage and limiting the number of orphanages involved, behind the scenes it was quietly dealing with a controversy of its own: How to calm the hundreds of orphanage directors who were involved in the same activities and now were terrified of being caught and made known.

In response to such concerns, the CCAA called a conference to be held on February 16-17, 2006, in Tianjin. Invited were directors from fifteen Provinces, and ironically the meeting was called to formalize China's ratification of the Hague Agreement, which occurred the previous September. The published agenda indicated that sessions would discuss international adoption, baby fostering and domestic adoption. Absent from the official reports is any discussion concerning the Hunan scandal and the CCAA's reaction to the baby-buying trials that were beginning the following week in Qidong, Hunan. The orphanage directors in attendance were understandably concerned. The six directors who were being tried were accused of doing what many in the conference were doing -- offering substantial sums of money for healthy infant girls. The CCAA thus put clarification of "reward" protocols on the agenda.

The Qidong orphanage directors were accused (and convicted) of purchasing babies from traffickers for 2,500 yuan. The CCAA had taken specific steps to limit the fall-out from the Qidong scandal, including protecting its largest player -- the Changsha First orphanage in Hunan's capital. But at this conference of directors, the CCAA wanted to spell out how far the directors could push the line and still be protected by the government.

In response to the growing international concern surrounding the scandal, the CCAA closed Hunan Province from December 2005 through April 2006, requiring the local Civil Affairs Bureaus to hold all files. This had an immediate impact on the number of children available for adoption, since Hunan Province was the second largest Province for adoptions (behind Guangdong Province). As a result, wait times began to increase. While the wait time from when an application was submitted until a child was referred had been stable at 6-8 months from October 2003 through December 2005, in January 2006 it broke out and hit nine months. By the time most of the Hunan orphanages were allowed to resume submissions in April 2006, the wait had reached 12 months. Like a drain with a small obstruction, the backlog began to build as the supply-demand equation was disrupted by the closure of Hunan Province. When adoptions resumed from Hunan in April 2006, most waiting families and other observers (myself included) anticipated a decline in wait times once Hunan Province returned to normal. Instead, the wait has continued to increase every month since the scandal broke, and now stands at forty-one months.

With three years of subsequent data to look at, we can now understand why things never returned to "normal".

Hunan Province
The impact of this conference can be seen in the adoption submissions the following three years. Hunan Province itself saw dramatic changes in adoption rates by individual orphanages, and these changes reveal the extent of the baby-buying programs throughout the Province. It must be remembered that the primary defense of the Qidong directors at trial was the contention that many, if not most, of the area orphanages were involved in similar programs. This is borne out by the changes that occurred following the February 2006 conference.

In 2005, thirty-three orphanages participated in the international adoption program in Hunan Province. When one looks at these orphanages collectively, suspicious changes occurred in eighteen of them. These eighteen orphanage saw submissions decline on average 87% between 2005 and 2007 (adoptions were halted in Hunan for four months in 2006, so a comparison with that year is problematic, although steep declines are apparent).
While the steep decline in submissions is by itself a reason to wonder if an orphanage was buying babies, internal data also presents additional reasons to suspect that baby-buying was occurring. For example, Zhuzhou City orphanage, the whistle-blower in the Hunan scandal, saw submissions fall from 26 children in 2005 to only five children in 2006 and three children in 2007. Additionally, over twenty children were found at the gate of the orphanage each year between 2000 and 2005. Orphanage gate findings collapsed after 2005 to only about five per year, a 75% decline.

Yiyang City saw a similar pattern. After submitting 101 files for adoption in 2005, Yiyang saw its submissions crash to only eighteen in 2006 and twelve in 2007. Its internal patterns also bore suspicious patterns. Between 2000 and 2008, for example, nearly sixty-five percent of all findings were at the gate of the orphanage, a common tell for trafficking orphanages. Like Zhuzhou, Yiyang's finding patterns changed substantially after 2005, with orphanage gate findings falling from thirty-three in 2005 to only eight in 2006 and three in 2007. Additionally, Yiyang City submitted only four boys for adoption between 2000 and 2008 (about 1%), substantially lower than Hunan Province in general (8% in 2006 for example). Low gender ratios are one of the surest indicators of baby-buying programs, because orphanages specifically target families giving birth to female children.

Collectively, the eighteen orphanages that display characteristics of baby-buying accounted for over 85% of all Hunan adoptions in 2005. Put another way, of the twelve thousand children adopted from Hunan Province between 2000 and 2006, over 9,700 of them came from orphanages with substantial evidence of trafficking.

Jiangxi Province
Patterns of baby-buying aren't seen just in Hunan Province, however. A study of every one of the fifteen Provinces participating in the international adoption program results in similar patterns all over China. Few, however, have as many suspect orphanages as neighboring Jiangxi Province. A study of this Province's orphanages displays patterns that indicate that baby-buying was/is even more widespread there than in Hunan.

The number of orphanages involved in trafficking in Jiangxi is very significant. As was the case in Hunan, a majority of orphanages in Jiangxi were also involved in baby-buying. Of the forty-four orphanages participating in the international adoption program in 2005, thirty-four (77%) show substantial evidence of trafficking. These orphanages supplied nearly 83% of all of the children adopted from Jiangxi in 2005. To put it another way, over 12,500 children adopted from Jiangxi between 2003 and 2008 came from orphanages with probable or confirmed baby-buying programs.

When one looks at the orphanages around China that experienced steep declines in adoptions following the February 2006 CCAA meeting, or that display other signs of trafficking -- dearth of male foundlings, or those with special needs, or that have large finding clusters at the gate of the orphanage or area hospitals -- it becomes clear why the CCAA was terrified in December 2005 that investigations inside China would lead to an explosion of revelations of orphanage baby-buying, and most likely result in the closure of its international adoption program.

_________________________

Some orphanages apparently took the CCAA's words of caution seriously, lowered the amount of money they were willing to pay for children and saw their adoption programs collapse as a result. Other orphanages shrugged off the warnings and continued with their programs, and have seen steady adoption programs as a result. Some initially went into hiding, but have since returned to the market place (Changde was shown by ABC News in 2008 to be again openly buying children for 2,500 or more yuan).

The fact that the CCAA openly discussed the issue with all of the directors involved in international adoption shows how wide-spread the problem was, and continues to be. But was the CCAA aware of the number of orphanages buying babies? "Yes," was the response from a Jiangxi orphanage director I interviewed. "I think the CCAA has the same problem as the orphanages. If there are no adoptions, then they will have to close. So the CCAA encourages the orphanages to buy the babies, but they are also afraid that the orphanages will get caught!" And what happens if an orphanage doesn't pay money as a reward for babies? "If you don’t pay any money, how would you find any babies?"

Ultimately, the CCAA and the Chinese government controlled the Hunan story, convinced the world that the problem was isolated to a few orphanages, and that the directors of those orphanages had been punished. "In reference to the incident in Hunan," the CCAA wrote the Dutch Justice Minister in February 2008, "I would like to reaffirm that all of the children involved for inter-country adoption are all abandoned children, who were placed for adoption in accordance with the principle of 'children's interests as the priority' and the whole procedure was legal and in light of the spirits [sic] of Hague Convention. The adoptions are protected by law and will not cause any problems for the adoptive families. It is known that these children are well cared for in the adoptive families and are doing fine. It is better not to pursue, expand or elaborate on this issue further and to keep secret for related families in order not to interrupt the bond established between the adoptive parents and the children and impose any unnecessary pressure on them."

Translation: Let sleeping dogs lie.

Even as the CCAA was granting approval for orphanage directors to pay money in incentives, telling them they would be protected if they paid no more than 1,000 yuan per child (more than 6 month's income to most Chinese families), but implicitly instigating a "don't ask-don't tell" environment for the orphanages to work in, they were telling the Dutch that they shouldn't do any more investigations into these issues.

But the trials had their effect. Across China many orphanage directors apparently concluded that the risks involved, as well as the ethical problems, were no longer worth the trouble. Many of these orphanages reduced their finders fees below 1,000 yuan.

The decision to increase the adoption donation was a transparent attempt by the CCAA to increase the incentives for the orphanages to adopt children internationally, thus providing additional monies for incentive programs. As the increase came into effect in January 2009, employees in the CCAA expressed confidence that the wait times would soon begin falling as more children were submitted for adoption. Fortunately, this has so far failed to materialize. How long will orphanage directors be able to resist the funding that each internationally adopted child provides? Given the poor public funding for orphanages, and the increasing overhead most directors face, how long can these "reformed" directors hold out before returning, like the Changde orphanage in Hunan, to the available market of black-market children?

LA Times: The Root of the Problem

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times investigative piece on Family Planning confiscations has brought a wide-spectrum of responses from those both inside and outside the adoption community.

Over on "Resist Racism" the focus was on the comments of Wendy Mailman, the adoptive mother who began the whole scandal in Zhenyuan by actually seeking the truth about her daughter's history. The author of that blog apparently misunderstood the rhetorical questions Wendy has been asking when contemplating her daughter's "official" story -- Born in September and kept until the dead of Winter, only to be abandoned. Wendy's question is why a birth mother would do such a thing? Because she is cruel and heartless? Or because she was forced to give up Wendy's daughter by a cruel and heartless Family Planning official? After the revelations from Zhenyuan, she now suspects the later.

Few adoptive families are willing to face the consequences of searching for their children's birth families, but Wendy has moved fearlessly from one avenue to the other. Rather than being intent on simply "sending a photograph" to her child's birth family, Wendy plans on doing what growing numbers of adoptive families have decided to do: Keep the birth family informed of their child's progress, but leave the decision of forming a relationship with them to her daughter. I agree with that plan. So many adoptive families either disallow their children a choice by avoiding the investigating, or they push their child's birth family upon their children in spirit or fact. Leaving the decision to her daughter is an appropriate decision.

But the article contained a quote that I feel personifies the entire problem in China:

"They're better off with their adoptive parents than their birth parents," argued Wu Benhua, director of Zhenyuan's civil affairs bureau.

To understand the problems found in China's international adoption program, one must understand the racial and economic prejudice that exists in China. Whether it is orphanages offering incentives to buy babies, or Family Planning abusing families by taking unregistered children, the subtext to all of these activities is that most in China's government feel that these birth families are unable to provide a "prosperous and happy future" to their children. A prominent theme in Chinese culture is the belief that if anything can be done to improve a child's future, it should be done. It is this belief that motivates parents to leave their children with grandparents while they work; it is this belief that motivates families to sell their children to orphanages that promise that their child will be adopted by a rich foreign family; and it is this belief that allows a Family Planning official to steal a child from her birth family in order to adopt her internationally.

As long as the principle players in China's IA program, from the director of the CCAA to the foster families and employees used as recruiting tools by the orphanages believe that the children of poor and uneducated birth parents are "better off with their adoptive parents than their birth parents" corruption will continue.