Now that the Olympics are past, waiting families hope that the flow of children will accelerate and wait times will decrease. Hope is often pinned to the large number of non-IA orphanages in China's Social Welfare system. Once some of these orphanages join the international adoption program, the thinking goes, they will submit large numbers of dossiers to the CCAA, and wait times will begin to fall.
There are several problems with this assumption. The CCAA has been adding new orphanages to the program since it began international adoptions in 1992. Each and every year has seen new orphanages join the program. Some of the early orphanages eventually had large adoption programs, but the last orphanage to join with any significant numbers was Suixi County in Guangdong, who joined in 2002. Since that time, I am aware of no new orphanage that has submitted any significant numbers of children.
There is a very good reason for this. In my conversations with directors of non-IA orphanages, all have expressed little desire to become part of the IA program. There are several reasons for this reluctance. First, the CCAA requires orphanages to make substantial investments in the facilities in anticipation of visits by foreigners. Additionally, orphanages are required to hire medical and nanny personnel beyond their current levels. Lastly, the paperwork required for an international adoption is significantly more cumbersome than paperwork for a domestic adoption. All of this obviously adds to the overhead of a facility, and consequently many directors have chosen not to participate.
But what about the financial benefits derived by the international adoption program? Won't that create an incentive for orphanages to join the program?
Many of the orphanages joining the program begin by submitting files for special needs children. For example, Huidong County (Guangdong) joined the IA program in May 2007, submitting five files. Four of the five children had special needs, and the fifth child was over four years old. Thus, the adoption of special needs children can be a motivation for directors to join the program.
But what about the orphanages? Are there not possibly large numbers of untapped children that could be brought into the international adoption program?
Probably not. The problem has several facets. China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs reported in 2001 that there were 1,550 state-run welfare institutions, 160 of which specialized in the care of orphans. These facilities were said to have cared for approximately 41,000 children (Kay Johnson, “Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son – Abandonment, Adoption and Orphanage Care in China”, Yeong & Yeong Book Company, p. 204). The problem is that in the Chinese, "Social Welfare Institute" (fuliyuan) encompasses not just orphan care but also old people care. A significant portion of the 1,550 State-run "welfare institutions" take care of no children whatsoever. In fact, upwards of 30-40% of the above numbered facilities take care of only old people.
Thus, the pool of potential participants in the IA program realistically stands at around 1,100 facilities, still a large increase over the approximate 450 facilities currently in China's international program. (A 2004 Chinese Government pronouncement states that “Today, China has 192 special welfare institutions for children and 600 comprehensive welfare institutions with a children's department, accommodating a total of 54,000 orphans and disabled children. If accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, that would reduce the number of non-IA orphanages to a little over 300 facilities).
It is difficult to make contact with the 700 non-IA orphanages. There is no centralized listing, and often even local 114 (Information) directory assistance have no phone numbers for the small orphanages scattered around China. Thus, conducting a systematic survey of the non-IA orphanages is practically impossible. However, in July we contacted thirteen non-IA orphanages located in Fujian, Guangdong, Hebei, Hubei, Hunan, Liaoning and Zhejiang Provinces. While not a large survey, the results of our conversations with these directors is nevertheless informative.
Keep in mind that these thirteen orphanages are not direct participants in the international adoption program. Conventional wisdom suggests that these directors should have large numbers of children in their care, and be anxious to cooperate with any family seeking to adopt a child in their care.
Duplicating the protocol of our April 2006 survey of international orphanages, I had a caller pose as a domestic family from the area interested in knowing if there were any children available for adoption. Two of the thirteen (15%) indicated that they did not care for children, and were strictly in charge of old people care. Four of the thirteen (30%) flatly stated that they currently had no children in their care, and that there were waiting families. The number of families waiting averaged about 25. One of the orphanages (Lianzhou, Guangdong) indicated that they transferred all of their foundlings to the Qingxin orphanage for international adoption. Only one orphanage (Xianyou, Fujian) indicated a single available child, adoptable with a 20,000 yuan donation.
The remaining six orphanages reported that they only had special needs children in their care, with waiting lists of families desiring healthy children (in the case of Enmei orphanage in Zhejiang the list has 600 families). One director indicated that his orphanage would not adopt a special needs child domestically because "we don't trust a family to care for the special needs child long-term." Experience has apparently shown this director that domestic families may indicate a willingness to adopt a child with a special need, but that most, if not all, change their minds some time down the road.
I am convinced that none of the non-participating orphanages in China's welfare system has any significant number of healthy children that can be brought into the IA program. Every non-IA orphanage I have ever visited or contacted had no healthy children available, and nearly all of them had waiting lists of families ready to adopt any children that arrived in the orphanage.
Thus, non-IA orphanages don't join the international adoption program for several reasons -- high capital expenditure requirements; few children that need placement in the IA program. In other words, the orphanages not in the IA program already have a working adoption program outside the IA program, programs that don't require the bureaucracy of the CCAA.
_____________________
The thirteen orphanages contacted were:
Xianyou, Fujian
Doumen, Guangdong
Lainzhou, Guangdong
Xinfeng, Guangdong
Hengshui, Hebei
Hongshan, Hubei
Zigui, Hubei
Ningxiang, Hunan
Hongwei, Liaoning
Rixin-Dalian, Liaoning
Huangnanzhou, Qinghai
Enmei, Zhejiang
Tongxiang, Zhejiang
Showing posts with label Domestic Adoption China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Adoption China. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Saga of Ding Shuang Yuan
The vast majority of adoptions in China, both domestic and international, are of children whose birth parents have willingly abandoned their child into the hands of the State. China's laws are clear as to the procedure in processing these foundlings: A "finding ad" is placed proclaiming the pending transfer of legal custody of the child to the State, and if no birth parents come forward to claim the child, after 60 days the child is processed for adoption.
But what happens if the child is kidnapped and moved to another Province? What is the legal response when the birth family finally locates the missing child, only to find that child has been legally adopted to another family?
The following story details the experience of Ding Junchao and his wife Yang Zhaofuang, a couple whose oldest son was kidnapped and trafficked to another Province. When the kidnapper was arrested, the child was brought to the area orphanage and adopted. Years later, Ding Junchao located his lost son. What followed is a heartrending story.
______________________
There is a couple -- Ding Junchao and his wife Yang Zhaofuang -- from Anhui Province. They had a little boy named Ding Xiaowei, and also an older son called Ding Shuangyuan. However, since he was born, Ding Xiaowei didn’t have a chance to see his older brother.
Reporter: Tell me who is your brother?
Ding Xiaowei: Ding Shuangyuan
Reporter: How did you know about your brother Ding Shuangyuan?
Ding Xiaowei: My mom told me.
Reporter: But you never saw him, right?
Ding Xiaowei: No.
Where had Xiaowei’s brother gone? In fact, on April 12th, 2000, Xiaowei’s brother Shuangyuan suddenly disappeared.
Yang Zhaofuang: My husband was working on the mountain in the morning. When he came back at meal time, he asked me where the kid [Ding Shuangyuan] was. I told him that he was right outside playing in front of the door with He Jiangjun.
He Jianjun was their neighbor who worked in the quarry factory at that time.
Yang Zhaofuang: At first, he was playing with He Jiangjun in front of the door. Later, we discovered that He Jiangjun was gone and so was our son.
What happened next gave the couple a sense of foreboding.
Yang Zhaofuang: Riding on the motorcycle, together with the boss of the factory, we went searching the kids around the whole Luquan city. Later we couldn’t find them and decided to report the case to the police station in Shijing.
The person in Shijing police station: He Jianjun and Ding Junchao who had reported the case were neighbors working in the same factory. He Jianjun always played with the kids and what’s more, someone saw him at the scene leaving with the kid. According to what we knew, He Jianjun was the suspect.
After further investigation, the police found that He Jianjun had another friend named Gong Shidong, also a local. Gong carried goods with a tri-motorcycle in the neighborhood, and disappeared after the event. Given the situation, the police staked out Gong Shidong’s house.
The person in Shijing police station: As soon as Gong Shidong came back to Luquan the next day, he was arrested.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were so excited to catch Gong Shidong, as we desperately wanted to know where our kid was.
The couple felt a big relief when Gong Shidong was caught. They couldn’t wait to hear from their son, so they came to the office of the police station early the next morning.
Yang Zhaofang: My husband gave Gong Shidong a cigarette as he wanted and asked him where He Jiangjun was. Gong Shidong said that He Jiangjun had gone. When pressed further, he said nothing but that He Jiangjun had taken away the kid.
The person working in Shijing police station: He Jiangjun took the kid and parted ways with Gong Shidong in Jiangxian, who later went back to Luquan and didn’t know where either the kid or He Jiangjun had gone to.
What Gong Shidong said deeply disappointed the couple. The only clue was lost since no one knew where He Jianjun had taken the kid. Not knowing the whereabouts of their little son who was only three years old, the couple again went home anxious and kept waiting for some news to come up.
Ding Junchao: We were so worried thinking of our lost baby and didn't sleep well during that time.
Yang Zhaofuang: We went back and forth between the police station and the Public Security Bureau.
Ding Junchao: We went to every place where we thought we might get information and never did we give up.
Time passed fast, but the pain of losing their son did not ease. The couple never stopped their efforts to look for their son. They went to the police station frequently asking for any new information about their son. However, every time they only grew more disappointed. More than two years elapsed in a flash. One day in December, 2002, came the news from the police station saying that the suspect He Jianjuan had been caught in Hubei province. After almost three years, the trader in children had finally been captured. Whether they can have their son back this time? The couple had hope again.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were so happy thinking that we had He Jianjun, and that we would finally know where our kid was.
However, everyone’s heart would be suspended again.
Yang Zhaofuang: The man in the police station asked He Jianjun and he confessed that he abandoned our son in the north railway station in Shijianzhuang.
As what He Jianjun said, he parted from his friend Gong Shidong the day after he had spirited away the child with whom he then took the train to Shijiazhuang.
The person working in Shijing police station: He Jianjun confessed that when he got off the train in Shijiazhuang, he couldn’t sell the child for he kept crying. He didn’t know how to deal with him. Being afraid that the people around would discover what was happening, He Jianjun left the child in the north railway station in Shijiazhuang and went away by himself.
After hearing all of these, the couple felt cold deep in their hearts. The couple went to the north station in Shijiazhuang with their last hopes. The work staff there provided them an important clue.
The work staff in the north station in Shijiazhuang: I was on duty on April 13th, 2000. After I checked the tickets for the train coming from Tianjin to Xi’an which was No. 2561, I found there was a boy in front of the checking counter who was about three or four years old. No one came to take that boy even after the train had left. When there a few people left in the waiting room, we made an announcement, but with no results. The next morning, the boy was taken to the police station.
The news once again brought hope to the couple. According to the time, that child who was sent to the police station probably was little Shuangyuan. After checking the records in the police station, they found out where the child had gone.
The police in the police station: We sent our fellows to investigate immediately after we received the report and found the child who was abandoned by someone else. On the morning of the 14th, the police and some employees working for passenger transport in the north railway station took the child to the social welfare institute in Shijiazhuang.
Upon learning this, the couple, together with the police, hurried to the SWI in Shijiazhuang immediately, only to find out that the child sent there three years before had been adopted by a couple in Shijiazhuang. The police confirmed that the adopted child indeed was Ding Shuangyuan. Shuangyuan’s parents asked the welfare institute to return their child, but were rejected in their request.
Yang Zhaofuang: The person in the institute said that he had to keep the identity of the adopting family secret.
The Ding couple kept asking for their child, but the welfare institute told them nothing. Was there any particular reason?
The president in the Shijiazhuang welfare institute: We felt sorry for the Ding couple, and wanted to help them find the child. However, we should respect the adopter. They have been raising the child with their intense care and we should respect that. They love the child and give him happiness. We don’t want to destroy that.
The welfare institute was in a quandary about this. There was nothing wrong with the natural parents’ request, but the institute had signed a contract promising to keep the adoption a secret. So they were not supposed to tell anybody anything about the adoptive parents. But the Dings wanted to know who on earth was keeping little Shuangyuan? How was he?
We finally managed to meet the adoptive mother of little Shuangyuan, Ms. Jiang. She told the reporter that the natural parents had brought her family a big disaster. She and her husband were desperate when the received the news from the welfare institute.
The adoptive mother: The welfare institute told us that our child came from the north station, and had been kidnapped. The police in Luquan had solved the case and his natural parents had come to look for him at the beginning of the New Year. The institute said that they had come by three times. I was so afraid to tell my mom. I couldn’t believe what’s happening.
The outspoken husband rarely said a word that day.
The adoptive mother: I remembered he’s been sitting there all night long. Even the child sensed the odd atmosphere at home. The child wrote in his diary that, “mother cried today. I must be obedient and responsible from now on and never make mother cry."
The child wanted to behave well and cheer up his parents, but he didn’t know the sorrow of his parents was about him. They knew they hadn't given birth to little Shuangyuan, but still it’s so hard for them to be parted after three years of living together. Ms. Jiang still remembered the first time she met little Shuangyuan.
Ms. Jiang and her husband hadn’t had a biological baby since they gotten married. Then in 1998, they went to Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute and registered to adopt a child. After two years’ waiting, word finally came in the summer in 2000.
The adoptive mother: It had been a long time since we contacted the institute. When we had almost given up, I received a phone call one day unexpectedly. It was from the welfare institute and they said that I may go to adopt a child. I was so thrilled that I talked to my husband immediately.
That afternoon, Ms. Jiang and her husband hurried to the Shijiazhuang welfare institute.
The adoptive mother: Seeing the boy was dark and dirty, I hesitated. Later the people in the institute told him to call me mom and he did. Being a woman in her thirties and with no child, I was deeply touched by the call. Without a second thought, I went over and took him home.
This boy was the little Shuangyuan that had been sent by the police station in north railway station in Shijiazhuang. The first time they met the boy, the couple fell in love with him. They held him walking around the institute and then bought him some snacks.
The lady in Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute: They became close the moment they saw each other. It seemed they were meant to be together. I could tell the couple loved the child very much.
Ms. Jiang and her husband decided to adopt the child. A week later, they had all the procedures done and took the child home. The trial adoptive period began.
The adoptive mother: These are the new pillows and new tick for the child. He is asleep right there. My brothers and sisters-in-law came to see him, as did the grand-parents.
Later, when registering for the formal adoption, the couple picked June 1st as the child’s birthday. A happy family of three people was formed. Since the first day the child entered the family, there was love and caring from the parents everywhere. At the same time, the child also brought tremendous fun to the family.
The adoptive mother: He was so glad that I called him "little puppy", and acted like a real one towards me which made me feel so happy. It’s not that we gave him a family; the truth is he gave us the family.
The family planned that they would go to Beijing for the Olympic games in 2008.
After long, deep thinking, they decided to keep the child and never give him up. Moreover, they refused to see the child’s natural parents, who still didn’t know where their child was no matter how hard they tried. The road of looking for their child suddenly was blocked. Another year had almost passed. The parents really couldn’t stand it any longer.
Yang Zhaofuang: We couldn’t figure why the welfare institute refused our request over and over again. We didn’t know the adoptive parents, so we could only think of suing the institute.
In May 2004, the natural parents took the Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute to court. They asked the welfare institute to return their child and pay them about 30 thousand yuan in economic compensation. The People's Court in Qianxi district in Shijiazhuang took the case and found the adoptive parents were the defendants first according to the procedures. Facing such a special case, Hao Zengliang, the chief judge, found it tricky to deal with.
Hao Zengliang, the chief judge: Neither party had done anything wrong. The natural parents didn’t lose their child on purpose. It’s the criminal’s fault who took the child away. However, we checked the adoptive registration and other materials, and the adoptive behavior was in accordance with the rules and regulations in the “Adoption Law”.
When little Shuangyuan was sent to the welfare institute by the police in Shijiazhuang’s north railway station, there was no clue about his identity which meant that he could be adopted according to the country’s adoption regulation as follows:
The forth provision in the country’s adoption law
The following people who are under 14 can be adopted:
1. Orphans who lost their parents
2. Abandoned babies and children whose parents cannot be found
3. The natural parents are not capable of raising their children
Little Shuangyuan belongs to those whose parents couldn’t be found. That’s why the welfare institute wanted a family that was capable of raising Shuangyuan to adopt him. So finally they chose Ms. Jiang based on the requirements for the adopter in the “Adoption Law”.
To make sure that little Shuangyuan could be adopted, the welfare institute published the claim ad in the local newspaper—“Hebei Economy daily” and “Hebei Labor” which was a must in accordance with the “Adoption Registration Procedures in the People’s Republic of China” enacted in 1999 by the Civil Administration Department.
The seventh provision in the “Adoption Registration Procedures in the People’s Republic of China”: "A claim ad shall be published by the related registration department before the adoption of abandoned babies and children whose parents cannot be found. If no natural parents or other guardians claim the abandoned babies and children after 60 days, it’s officially regarded that the abandoned babies and children’s natural parents cannot be found."
60 days later, no one had come to claim little Shuangyuan, and the welfare institute had the registration procedures done for the adoptive parents. The whole adoptive issue was undergone in a legal way.
Both couples love the child and had done nothing wrong. The chief judge found it so difficult to make the decision for one family, since inevitably someone would be hurt no matter what the result is. It’s reasonable that little Shuangyuan should be back with his natural parents legally; however, if so, little Shuangyuan may not accept it. How can he manage this huge sudden change? Was there any better idea? The judge hoped the two families could reconcile.
Judge Hao made efforts and finally enabled the two parents to meet first.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were wondering how old the adoptive parents would be and how their family is. We soon learned that they were rather nice.
The fine quality of the adoptive family and their love for the child set the natural parents’ heart at rest and closed their relationship as well. The adoptive parents were persuaded to let the child meet his natural parents on the basis that before all was solved, the child should not be told anything about his natural parents. The place where they chose to meet was the Square before the Yuyuan Hotel.
Ding Junchao: Our child was right in front of us singing us a song and reciting a poem. He called me "Uncle" and my wife "Aunt". We wanted to give him a hug but the adoptive parents were reluctant to allow us. You can imagine how we felt.
As they got to know each other, the natural parents came to have a good impression towards the adoptive parents, being satisfied and thankful to them for bringing up the child with love and care. Things were developing in a positive way. It seemed highly possible that the two families would reconcile successfully in the end.
Ding Junchao: If the child were to be with us, we cannot give him the good living quality of living as that.
Yang Zhaofuang: The court talked to us several times trying to persuade us to give up our child for his own good. We thought it over and were persuaded.
December 17th, 2004, on the advice of the judge, the two parents took the child and had dinner in a hotel. After that, Judge Hao took out a written agreement hoping that both parties could officially reconcile.
The agreement stated that:
Little Shuangyuan will live with the adoptive parents until 14 years old when he can decide who to live with.
The natural parents can visit little Shuangyuan on the May and October vacations as well as the summer vacation and winter vacation.
The natural parents give up the request of compensation from Shijiazhuang’s welfare institution.
The adoptive father of the child signed the agreement, but his wife didn’t want to at the last minute.
Yang Zhaofuang: At least, let our child know who we are, but they [the adoptive family] just didn’t want to.
The adoptive mother: The natural parents couldn’t understand us. The child is little and he didn’t know what was happening, let alone how to deal with it. Otherwise I wouldn’t be insisting on that. They asked why and I think it’s easy to understand. If I told the child everything, he would definitely cry hard which I don’t want to see. I don’t want him to be hurt again.
The natural parents asked for the revealing of their identity, but the adoptive parents insisted that it should not be told until the child was grown up. Moreover, the natural parents asked for the compensation from the welfare institute. Inevitably, they didn’t sign on the agreement on the last day. Therefore, Judge Hao had to hold court the next day.
Things had come to a deadlock again. What can be the right solution? We consulted some experts and they thought that the right for the natural parents should be considered first, but the fact is to let the child choose by himself is best; however, being just 8 years, little Shuangyaun is not mature enough to make the decision, and he has adjusted to the life in the adoptive family, so it would be hard for him to deal with the complicated situation. Then, what verdict will the court make?
August 18th, 2004, the court in the west district in Shijiazhuang had its verdict for the case.
Hao Zengliang, the chief judge: We care much more about the child and the living conditions he will face in the future.
The verdict from the court: The Ding couple’s request of 30 thousand yuan in compensation from the welfare institute in Shijiazhuang is turned down. The child is under the custody of the adoptive parents for the time being.
Hao Zengliang, the chief umpire judge: After what we’ve done, we think this verdict is the best.
After the judgment of the first trial, the Ding couple appealled to the intermediate court in Shijiazhuang. On July 15th, 2005, the intermediate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original verdict.
Maybe the verdict is not the best, but now it’s the best for little Shuangyuan, bringing the least negative impact on his life. Little Shuangyuan is unlucky for going through all this, but at the same time, he is lucky that he has two pairs of parents who love him very much and are willing to give him a steady and happy family. There are still things to deal with when little Shuangyuan grows up.
(http://www.cctv.com/program/jjyf/20050926/102343.shtml)
But what happens if the child is kidnapped and moved to another Province? What is the legal response when the birth family finally locates the missing child, only to find that child has been legally adopted to another family?
The following story details the experience of Ding Junchao and his wife Yang Zhaofuang, a couple whose oldest son was kidnapped and trafficked to another Province. When the kidnapper was arrested, the child was brought to the area orphanage and adopted. Years later, Ding Junchao located his lost son. What followed is a heartrending story.
______________________
There is a couple -- Ding Junchao and his wife Yang Zhaofuang -- from Anhui Province. They had a little boy named Ding Xiaowei, and also an older son called Ding Shuangyuan. However, since he was born, Ding Xiaowei didn’t have a chance to see his older brother. Reporter: Tell me who is your brother?
Ding Xiaowei: Ding Shuangyuan
Reporter: How did you know about your brother Ding Shuangyuan?
Ding Xiaowei: My mom told me.
Reporter: But you never saw him, right?
Ding Xiaowei: No.
Where had Xiaowei’s brother gone? In fact, on April 12th, 2000, Xiaowei’s brother Shuangyuan suddenly disappeared.
Yang Zhaofuang: My husband was working on the mountain in the morning. When he came back at meal time, he asked me where the kid [Ding Shuangyuan] was. I told him that he was right outside playing in front of the door with He Jiangjun.
He Jianjun was their neighbor who worked in the quarry factory at that time.
Yang Zhaofuang: At first, he was playing with He Jiangjun in front of the door. Later, we discovered that He Jiangjun was gone and so was our son.
What happened next gave the couple a sense of foreboding.
Yang Zhaofuang: Riding on the motorcycle, together with the boss of the factory, we went searching the kids around the whole Luquan city. Later we couldn’t find them and decided to report the case to the police station in Shijing.
The person in Shijing police station: He Jianjun and Ding Junchao who had reported the case were neighbors working in the same factory. He Jianjun always played with the kids and what’s more, someone saw him at the scene leaving with the kid. According to what we knew, He Jianjun was the suspect.
After further investigation, the police found that He Jianjun had another friend named Gong Shidong, also a local. Gong carried goods with a tri-motorcycle in the neighborhood, and disappeared after the event. Given the situation, the police staked out Gong Shidong’s house.
The person in Shijing police station: As soon as Gong Shidong came back to Luquan the next day, he was arrested.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were so excited to catch Gong Shidong, as we desperately wanted to know where our kid was.
The couple felt a big relief when Gong Shidong was caught. They couldn’t wait to hear from their son, so they came to the office of the police station early the next morning.
Yang Zhaofang: My husband gave Gong Shidong a cigarette as he wanted and asked him where He Jiangjun was. Gong Shidong said that He Jiangjun had gone. When pressed further, he said nothing but that He Jiangjun had taken away the kid.
The person working in Shijing police station: He Jiangjun took the kid and parted ways with Gong Shidong in Jiangxian, who later went back to Luquan and didn’t know where either the kid or He Jiangjun had gone to.
What Gong Shidong said deeply disappointed the couple. The only clue was lost since no one knew where He Jianjun had taken the kid. Not knowing the whereabouts of their little son who was only three years old, the couple again went home anxious and kept waiting for some news to come up.
Ding Junchao: We were so worried thinking of our lost baby and didn't sleep well during that time.
Yang Zhaofuang: We went back and forth between the police station and the Public Security Bureau.
Ding Junchao: We went to every place where we thought we might get information and never did we give up.Time passed fast, but the pain of losing their son did not ease. The couple never stopped their efforts to look for their son. They went to the police station frequently asking for any new information about their son. However, every time they only grew more disappointed. More than two years elapsed in a flash. One day in December, 2002, came the news from the police station saying that the suspect He Jianjuan had been caught in Hubei province. After almost three years, the trader in children had finally been captured. Whether they can have their son back this time? The couple had hope again.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were so happy thinking that we had He Jianjun, and that we would finally know where our kid was.
However, everyone’s heart would be suspended again.
Yang Zhaofuang: The man in the police station asked He Jianjun and he confessed that he abandoned our son in the north railway station in Shijianzhuang.
As what He Jianjun said, he parted from his friend Gong Shidong the day after he had spirited away the child with whom he then took the train to Shijiazhuang.
The person working in Shijing police station: He Jianjun confessed that when he got off the train in Shijiazhuang, he couldn’t sell the child for he kept crying. He didn’t know how to deal with him. Being afraid that the people around would discover what was happening, He Jianjun left the child in the north railway station in Shijiazhuang and went away by himself.
After hearing all of these, the couple felt cold deep in their hearts. The couple went to the north station in Shijiazhuang with their last hopes. The work staff there provided them an important clue.
The work staff in the north station in Shijiazhuang: I was on duty on April 13th, 2000. After I checked the tickets for the train coming from Tianjin to Xi’an which was No. 2561, I found there was a boy in front of the checking counter who was about three or four years old. No one came to take that boy even after the train had left. When there a few people left in the waiting room, we made an announcement, but with no results. The next morning, the boy was taken to the police station.
The news once again brought hope to the couple. According to the time, that child who was sent to the police station probably was little Shuangyuan. After checking the records in the police station, they found out where the child had gone.
The police in the police station: We sent our fellows to investigate immediately after we received the report and found the child who was abandoned by someone else. On the morning of the 14th, the police and some employees working for passenger transport in the north railway station took the child to the social welfare institute in Shijiazhuang.
Upon learning this, the couple, together with the police, hurried to the SWI in Shijiazhuang immediately, only to find out that the child sent there three years before had been adopted by a couple in Shijiazhuang. The police confirmed that the adopted child indeed was Ding Shuangyuan. Shuangyuan’s parents asked the welfare institute to return their child, but were rejected in their request.
Yang Zhaofuang: The person in the institute said that he had to keep the identity of the adopting family secret.The Ding couple kept asking for their child, but the welfare institute told them nothing. Was there any particular reason?
The president in the Shijiazhuang welfare institute: We felt sorry for the Ding couple, and wanted to help them find the child. However, we should respect the adopter. They have been raising the child with their intense care and we should respect that. They love the child and give him happiness. We don’t want to destroy that.
The welfare institute was in a quandary about this. There was nothing wrong with the natural parents’ request, but the institute had signed a contract promising to keep the adoption a secret. So they were not supposed to tell anybody anything about the adoptive parents. But the Dings wanted to know who on earth was keeping little Shuangyuan? How was he?
We finally managed to meet the adoptive mother of little Shuangyuan, Ms. Jiang. She told the reporter that the natural parents had brought her family a big disaster. She and her husband were desperate when the received the news from the welfare institute.
The adoptive mother: The welfare institute told us that our child came from the north station, and had been kidnapped. The police in Luquan had solved the case and his natural parents had come to look for him at the beginning of the New Year. The institute said that they had come by three times. I was so afraid to tell my mom. I couldn’t believe what’s happening.
The outspoken husband rarely said a word that day.
The adoptive mother: I remembered he’s been sitting there all night long. Even the child sensed the odd atmosphere at home. The child wrote in his diary that, “mother cried today. I must be obedient and responsible from now on and never make mother cry."
The child wanted to behave well and cheer up his parents, but he didn’t know the sorrow of his parents was about him. They knew they hadn't given birth to little Shuangyuan, but still it’s so hard for them to be parted after three years of living together. Ms. Jiang still remembered the first time she met little Shuangyuan.
Ms. Jiang and her husband hadn’t had a biological baby since they gotten married. Then in 1998, they went to Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute and registered to adopt a child. After two years’ waiting, word finally came in the summer in 2000.
The adoptive mother: It had been a long time since we contacted the institute. When we had almost given up, I received a phone call one day unexpectedly. It was from the welfare institute and they said that I may go to adopt a child. I was so thrilled that I talked to my husband immediately.
That afternoon, Ms. Jiang and her husband hurried to the Shijiazhuang welfare institute.
The adoptive mother: Seeing the boy was dark and dirty, I hesitated. Later the people in the institute told him to call me mom and he did. Being a woman in her thirties and with no child, I was deeply touched by the call. Without a second thought, I went over and took him home.
This boy was the little Shuangyuan that had been sent by the police station in north railway station in Shijiazhuang. The first time they met the boy, the couple fell in love with him. They held him walking around the institute and then bought him some snacks.
The lady in Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute: They became close the moment they saw each other. It seemed they were meant to be together. I could tell the couple loved the child very much.
Ms. Jiang and her husband decided to adopt the child. A week later, they had all the procedures done and took the child home. The trial adoptive period began.
The adoptive mother: These are the new pillows and new tick for the child. He is asleep right there. My brothers and sisters-in-law came to see him, as did the grand-parents.
Later, when registering for the formal adoption, the couple picked June 1st as the child’s birthday. A happy family of three people was formed. Since the first day the child entered the family, there was love and caring from the parents everywhere. At the same time, the child also brought tremendous fun to the family.
The adoptive mother: He was so glad that I called him "little puppy", and acted like a real one towards me which made me feel so happy. It’s not that we gave him a family; the truth is he gave us the family.
The family planned that they would go to Beijing for the Olympic games in 2008.
After long, deep thinking, they decided to keep the child and never give him up. Moreover, they refused to see the child’s natural parents, who still didn’t know where their child was no matter how hard they tried. The road of looking for their child suddenly was blocked. Another year had almost passed. The parents really couldn’t stand it any longer.
Yang Zhaofuang: We couldn’t figure why the welfare institute refused our request over and over again. We didn’t know the adoptive parents, so we could only think of suing the institute.
In May 2004, the natural parents took the Shijiazhuang’s welfare institute to court. They asked the welfare institute to return their child and pay them about 30 thousand yuan in economic compensation. The People's Court in Qianxi district in Shijiazhuang took the case and found the adoptive parents were the defendants first according to the procedures. Facing such a special case, Hao Zengliang, the chief judge, found it tricky to deal with.
Hao Zengliang, the chief judge: Neither party had done anything wrong. The natural parents didn’t lose their child on purpose. It’s the criminal’s fault who took the child away. However, we checked the adoptive registration and other materials, and the adoptive behavior was in accordance with the rules and regulations in the “Adoption Law”.
When little Shuangyuan was sent to the welfare institute by the police in Shijiazhuang’s north railway station, there was no clue about his identity which meant that he could be adopted according to the country’s adoption regulation as follows:
The forth provision in the country’s adoption law
The following people who are under 14 can be adopted:
1. Orphans who lost their parents
2. Abandoned babies and children whose parents cannot be found
3. The natural parents are not capable of raising their children
Little Shuangyuan belongs to those whose parents couldn’t be found. That’s why the welfare institute wanted a family that was capable of raising Shuangyuan to adopt him. So finally they chose Ms. Jiang based on the requirements for the adopter in the “Adoption Law”.
To make sure that little Shuangyuan could be adopted, the welfare institute published the claim ad in the local newspaper—“Hebei Economy daily” and “Hebei Labor” which was a must in accordance with the “Adoption Registration Procedures in the People’s Republic of China” enacted in 1999 by the Civil Administration Department.
The seventh provision in the “Adoption Registration Procedures in the People’s Republic of China”: "A claim ad shall be published by the related registration department before the adoption of abandoned babies and children whose parents cannot be found. If no natural parents or other guardians claim the abandoned babies and children after 60 days, it’s officially regarded that the abandoned babies and children’s natural parents cannot be found."
60 days later, no one had come to claim little Shuangyuan, and the welfare institute had the registration procedures done for the adoptive parents. The whole adoptive issue was undergone in a legal way.
Both couples love the child and had done nothing wrong. The chief judge found it so difficult to make the decision for one family, since inevitably someone would be hurt no matter what the result is. It’s reasonable that little Shuangyuan should be back with his natural parents legally; however, if so, little Shuangyuan may not accept it. How can he manage this huge sudden change? Was there any better idea? The judge hoped the two families could reconcile.
Judge Hao made efforts and finally enabled the two parents to meet first.
Yang Zhaofuang: We were wondering how old the adoptive parents would be and how their family is. We soon learned that they were rather nice.
The fine quality of the adoptive family and their love for the child set the natural parents’ heart at rest and closed their relationship as well. The adoptive parents were persuaded to let the child meet his natural parents on the basis that before all was solved, the child should not be told anything about his natural parents. The place where they chose to meet was the Square before the Yuyuan Hotel.
Ding Junchao: Our child was right in front of us singing us a song and reciting a poem. He called me "Uncle" and my wife "Aunt". We wanted to give him a hug but the adoptive parents were reluctant to allow us. You can imagine how we felt.
As they got to know each other, the natural parents came to have a good impression towards the adoptive parents, being satisfied and thankful to them for bringing up the child with love and care. Things were developing in a positive way. It seemed highly possible that the two families would reconcile successfully in the end.
Ding Junchao: If the child were to be with us, we cannot give him the good living quality of living as that.
Yang Zhaofuang: The court talked to us several times trying to persuade us to give up our child for his own good. We thought it over and were persuaded.
December 17th, 2004, on the advice of the judge, the two parents took the child and had dinner in a hotel. After that, Judge Hao took out a written agreement hoping that both parties could officially reconcile.
The agreement stated that:
Little Shuangyuan will live with the adoptive parents until 14 years old when he can decide who to live with.
The natural parents can visit little Shuangyuan on the May and October vacations as well as the summer vacation and winter vacation.
The natural parents give up the request of compensation from Shijiazhuang’s welfare institution.
The adoptive father of the child signed the agreement, but his wife didn’t want to at the last minute.
Yang Zhaofuang: At least, let our child know who we are, but they [the adoptive family] just didn’t want to.
The adoptive mother: The natural parents couldn’t understand us. The child is little and he didn’t know what was happening, let alone how to deal with it. Otherwise I wouldn’t be insisting on that. They asked why and I think it’s easy to understand. If I told the child everything, he would definitely cry hard which I don’t want to see. I don’t want him to be hurt again.
The natural parents asked for the revealing of their identity, but the adoptive parents insisted that it should not be told until the child was grown up. Moreover, the natural parents asked for the compensation from the welfare institute. Inevitably, they didn’t sign on the agreement on the last day. Therefore, Judge Hao had to hold court the next day.
Things had come to a deadlock again. What can be the right solution? We consulted some experts and they thought that the right for the natural parents should be considered first, but the fact is to let the child choose by himself is best; however, being just 8 years, little Shuangyaun is not mature enough to make the decision, and he has adjusted to the life in the adoptive family, so it would be hard for him to deal with the complicated situation. Then, what verdict will the court make?
August 18th, 2004, the court in the west district in Shijiazhuang had its verdict for the case.
Hao Zengliang, the chief judge: We care much more about the child and the living conditions he will face in the future.
The verdict from the court: The Ding couple’s request of 30 thousand yuan in compensation from the welfare institute in Shijiazhuang is turned down. The child is under the custody of the adoptive parents for the time being.
Hao Zengliang, the chief umpire judge: After what we’ve done, we think this verdict is the best.
After the judgment of the first trial, the Ding couple appealled to the intermediate court in Shijiazhuang. On July 15th, 2005, the intermediate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original verdict.
Maybe the verdict is not the best, but now it’s the best for little Shuangyuan, bringing the least negative impact on his life. Little Shuangyuan is unlucky for going through all this, but at the same time, he is lucky that he has two pairs of parents who love him very much and are willing to give him a steady and happy family. There are still things to deal with when little Shuangyuan grows up.
(http://www.cctv.com/program/jjyf/20050926/102343.shtml)
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Hunan, One Year Later III: Reactions & Reflections
How was the Hunan story interpreted inside China? In a country that frequently reports child abductions and trafficking, was this episode treated with a collective yawn and ignored? Or did the fact that these children were adopted to foreign families make this story resonate with those inside China? In this third article from China's Fenghuang Weekly (March 2006), the reporter editorializes about how the Hunan scandal was perceived by himself, and the impact he feels it will have on China.
Since this essay concludes the articles detailing the events surrounding the Hunan scandal, I offer my reflections on what Hunan should tell adoptive families, and the warnings we should take from this event. It is my fervent hope that we never hear of another scandal involving the buying and selling of children to support our adoptions. It is my hope, but it is not my expectation.
________________________________________
Self-reflection within the Chinese System of Adoption
By Deng Fei (of Hengyang City, Hunan province)
Cases of buying and selling infants involving welfare centers reflect the predicament of those in charge of this kind of charitable work. At the moment the most pressing issues are to expand the industry’s openness to new ideas and willingness to test them, encourage nongovernmental investment, and thereby put the charitable industry on the right track.
"Babies will not be taken in anymore." That is what an official with the Hengdong County welfare center on February 22, 2006 after listening in on the examination of an infant buying and selling case in court. Another official right to his side interposing, exclaimed: "How is that possible?"
At present, China and fifteen other nations have established transnational links for cooperation on the subject of adoption involving a total of 200 welfare centers all involved in international adoption. Data provided by the China Center on Adoption demonstrates: since 1992 the number of toddlers that have been sent abroad for adoption has surpassed 50,000 with more than 90 percent of them being female and more than 90 percent of them going to America. Adoption by foreigners has already become a major method for the placement and fostering of Chinese babies.
An official of the Hunan Provincial People's Government agreed to discuss foreign adoptions with the Fenghuang Weekly. According to him, in 1992 the people's government asked that adopters pay fees for the initial care of the child, but payment was not clearly delineated. Payments therefore varied widely and at some welfare centers touched on the absurd. Later on, the government systematically introduced norms of payment. Now the clear and definite fee to be paid by foreign adopters as reimbursement for the center's initial care for the child is 3000 American dollars.
In 1997 the justice department and the civil administration cooperated in the releasing of a document called "Methods of implementation of the adoption of children by foreigners." This document stipulated that payment of initial care fees should be made to the "Children's Foster Society” (a governmental organ). This clarification led to the easing of the Civil Administration of Welfare Centers' budget pressures as most of the money was redistributed to the welfare centers.
China's local governments have long been responsible for the welfare centers in their area, bearing many of their associated costs, including expenses for the basic care of the children. Unfortunately though, many of these governments do not have the financial strength to pay for all that is required. An official of Hengyang city informed the Fenghuang Weekly that county finance departments will usually give money to the centers according to the number of children in them each year.
In 2004 welfare centers in Hengyang County received 300,000 yuan, money that was divided between the care of children, elderly people, the payment of staff, and all other necessary expenses. The exact distribution of this money, however, was not fully clear.
One manager of the Hengyang County Civil Administration explained that, before the beginning of adoptions involving foreigners, outside of the income the centers earned from the local finance bureau, centers would also rely on profits from the raising of pigs and fish. These programs were helped by the fact that, generally speaking, welfare centers are located in relatively remote locations and so are able to get a good amount of land. Since their budgets have often been so limited these welfare centers tend to have very limited access to the material benefits of the outside world.
Since the beginning of the implementation of measures allowing for foreign adoption, welfare centers have been able to earn nearly 3000 American dollars for each child given out in adoption. The money allows welfare centers to raise the foster care conditions of their children. Before these measures Hengyang County welfare centers would have to send any ill children to the Provincial People's Hospital for treatment, "that was something nobody dared to think about."
Some critics point out that welfare centers in Hengyang that went so far as to purchase infants were engaging in a sort of unusual method of problem alleviation. As they see it, in this way people were provoked to become more determined in the implementation of the government's "planned birth" policy.
As the price of infants on the market began to rise, cases of stolen infants began to appear. In October of 2004 the Public Security Bureau, in cooperation with others, was able to solve a large-scale inter-provincial child kidnapping case. One hundred and ten people were arrested in the course of the case and seventy male children from six different Provinces were liberated. The kidnapping of children is now rampant, but we are only able to glimpse the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, as some of these children enter the channels of foreign adoption through the welfare centers, the cost of the rectification of these cases becomes very significant.
The Civil Administration, Justice Department, and Public Security Bureau have issued many statements concerning problems involving foreign adoption and have promulgated strict regulations. Yet, despite the efforts of these departments, some welfare centers have become spellbound by the potential for profits. The Hunan Province's justice department has itself gone so far as to put the head of the Hengdong County Welfare Center in the defendant's seat, somewhat aggravating the bad elements within the current system. Also, the voice of those on the internet calling for a reevaluation of the current system has been growing gradually.
An official with the civil administration of Hunan Province stated that the incidents of buying and selling of infants surrounding Hengyang's welfare centers have indeed provoked many to rethink the current system of foreign adoption.
In comparison with the more and more thriving channels of foreign adoption, domestic adoption has been sagging all along. Those in the Civil Administration inevitably blame the rigorousness of current family planning related policies. A single man must be over the age of forty before he can adopt a child, and he must never have had children in the past. A couple that has been married for five years with both members over the age of thirty and without biological children of their own may also be permitted to adopt a child.
What's more, many families within China that have wanted to adopt a child have been turned down for already having one biological child. Judging from current regulations, welfare centers are generally unwilling to allow the further developments of domestic adoption unless adopters pay a 24000 yuan initial support fee for the child. Thus, there are great barriers to domestic adoption. For contrast, in developed countries the government will provide subsidies to the households of adopted children.
Some officials within the Hengyang civil administration system suggest that the nation should adjust its adoption policies in order to encourage more domestic adoption. With the smooth development of domestic adoption, welfare centers could collect enough money to provide much needed standard aid to the sick, the old, and the weak. It is said that now the Civil Administration is promoting a new kind of "place trust in families to bring up the children" method. In certain Provinces, this method has already become a principal method for raising orphans.
Some experts believe that cases of the buying and selling of infants can be seen as a reflection of the predicament of charitable industry in China. Among the most pressing issues of the moment are the need for the vigorous development of new and multivariate ways of thinking on the issue, and the need for nongovernmental investment to help get China's charitable industries onto the right track.
___________________________
Reflections on Hunan
by Brian H. Stuy
I believe the Hunan scandal story will be remembered as a turning point in the China International Adoption program, for it was in November 2005 that a prominent myth of China’s program was cast into doubt. (I use the term “myth” as defined by Dictionary.com as meaning “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution”. The term does not insinuate a belief that is necessarily untrue, merely that it is assumed to be true, but unproven. The assumption may, of course, also be false, having never been true. )
I say “myth” because all of us were taught, and believe, myths regarding China and the adoption program. It involves such innocuous myths such as lady-bug sightings and red threads. But other myths are more profound and important to adopting families. For example, when I adopted Meikina in 1998, I was taught by my agency, the media, and fellow adopters that the children in China’s orphanages would never find homes, and those who survived would probably grow up to become prostitutes and drug abusers. Their futures looked bleak indeed, and we were compelled in those early days to view our adoption as an act of grace.
It seemed so very simple “back then”. The Chinese preferred boys, so female infants were being abandoned wholesale. Unless adopted by benevolent foreign families (few families in China, the story went, considered adoption so there was little hope of these girls being adopted domestically), these girls had no chance for higher education or other opportunities in life. In adopting a little girl, not only were we providing a home for a beautiful child, but our donations and support would help improve the circumstances of those left behind. Thus, China’s program was viewed as perfect: Perfect ethics, perfect process, and perfectly predictable.
I advised families to consider China above other programs because it was demonstrably legitimate, and had no apparent corruption. Unlike Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and other countries, China’s record was spotless. There were no stories of families having to pay “unforeseen” processing fees once in-country. The child a family received was the one they were referred. It seemed to work flawlessly. (There were, of course, individual experiences that refuted some of these assumptions, but they were viewed as the exception).
That is why the Chinese adoption community was shocked when the allegations from Hunan became known. How could this story be true, many families asked, given what we know about China? In a country where so many children are being abandoned, why would there be a need for orphanage directors to buy infant girls?
But Hunan should be viewed as the canary in the coal mine, for in Hunan we have the clearest evidence yet that many of our cherished myths may no longer be (if they ever were) true.
At its foundation, Hunan is about greed – greed of orphanage directors, traffickers, and probably birth parents. We can argue the motives of this greed, but it is undeniable that a desire for money led Hengyang County director Jiang Jianhua to first require his employees to seek out unwanted babies, and later to purchase children outright from traffickers. It was greed that motivated Duan Meilin and her sister, and the other traffickers, to “adopt” children from various individuals and transport them hundreds of miles to Hunan, where they sold them to the orphanages. It was greed that created the environment where the price of these children rose from 200 yuan to over 3,500 yuan in the space of two years.
Defenders of the China program, including myself, point out that these children were unwanted, and therefore the trafficking was not that bad. It certainly is not serious enough to label China’s program as corrupt, as we commonly understand the term.
If pushed, I would admit that I see little problem with the idea that unwanted children were accepted from birth parents and delivered to the orphanage in lieu of payment. Trafficking per se is an innocuous term, covering everything from being reimbursed for travel expenses to the buying of children abducted and smuggled to their buyers. But the Hunan scandal begs several questions, questions that serve to muddy the waters.
We must ask ourselves, for example, if it is possible that there were birth parents who gave up their daughters because they were able to receive a substantial sum from the orphanage or from the traffickers. In other words, is it possible that the situation in Hunan actually increased the number of children that were deserted by their birth families in order that those families would be given what for them was a substantial sum of money? Did the actions of the orphanage directors create a “market” for these children that otherwise would not have been there?
And if these directors were, for whatever reasons, compelled to purchase these babies to fulfill the demands placed upon their orphanages, what other means might be employed by other directors to accomplish the same ends? Would they, for example, be willing to seek out unregistered children in poor villages and confiscate those children to adopt to Americans and other foreigners? Before we reject such a hypothesis, we might want to consider the story of a dozen families in Gaoping County, Hunan.
In March 2006, families in this rural village filed a petition asking for the return of eleven children taken from them by Family Planning officials over the past four years (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5696). One of these families, Yang Li Bing, stated that “his de facto wife gave birth to a girl in July 2004 and even though she was their first child, the county's family planning officers took the infant away on April 29 last year [2005] citing an 'unregistered marriage and an illegal child'."
In an area where the average annual income is about 3,000 yuan, Mr. Yang was told that he could have his daughter back if he paid 8,000 yuan. A few days later, that ransom was increased to 20,000 yuan. Unable to raise that amount of money, Mr Yang lamented that “We are poor people and my relatives were not able to collect so much money in several days.” When he was unable to come up with the cash, a Family Planning official notified Mr. Yang that his daughter had been brought to the Shaoyang orphanage, and that “even if you could offer 1 million yuan,” he could not get his daughter back. He was simply told to “give up hope.”
One must question why Family Planning officials would confiscate unregistered children to bring them to an orphanage that was already filled with abandoned babies? Were they simply acting out of a desire to strictly enforce the laws of the land, even if that resulted in an increased burden being placed on the orphanage? Or were there other motives? The Hunan scandal forces us to ask these questions.
And what happened to these confiscated children?
It is perhaps coincidence that the following month the Shaoyang orphanage submitted dossiers for two children to the CCAA for international adoption that listed birth and finding dates that exactly match the birth and confiscation dates of two of the eleven children confiscated in Gaoping County. If we knew the birth and confiscation dates of the other nine, would we find internationally adopted children with those dates also?
In June 2006 I detailed a survey of the orphanages that participate in the international adoption program. When asked if they had children available for domestic adoption to a local family, 93% of the over 250 directors stated that they had no healthy babies available for domestic adoption. Many admitted that most of their healthy children were adopted internationally, and that a domestic family should look elsewhere to adopt a healthy infant.
It is a sad reality that families inside China have no legal options to adopt if denied access to the children in the area orphanages. Many families, like the one who told her story in an August posting, resort to extra-legal adoptions from close friends or other families that seek to get rid of an unwanted child. But these families face suspicion and high fees when they seek to register these children, and as we saw in Gaoping County risk discovery by Family Planning officials.
Some of us fail to consider the plight of these families in China – mostly childless, they desperately wish to build a family through adoption, only to be denied that opportunity because their city or county orphanage adopts the children internationally. Placed in such a position, some families buy their child from traffickers, while the most desperate kidnap a child off of the street.
Thus, Hunan is the canary in the mine in that it, along with many other lesser-known articles, describes the changing dynamics of children in China. Hunan highlights the growing imbalance between the number of unwanted children, and the number of families seeking to adopt those children. It illuminates to what extent directors will seek to profit from that imbalance by illegally seeking and purchasing additional infants from other areas of China. While their motives may be altruistic (giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), the results are not. Domestic families are denied children, other families are coerced to give up their child for an inconceivable amount of money, and still others have their children confiscated under the umbrella of the law. And those are just the stories we know about.
I have defended China’s program in the past, and I continue to believe it is among the best in the world. I have spoken with hundreds of finders who confirmed the truthfulness of the stories given to adoptive families. I have sat at dinner with many directors who have displayed and conveyed a deep desire to do the best they could for their children. But these experiences are not universal, and exceptions have occurred. China must work to remove the conflicts that exist in their adoption system, and remove the financial pressures that devolve on its orphanage directors.
Maybe I expect a perfect system, one in which no one’s rights are infringed upon, and where the children are always prioritized. A system where the governments, agencies and adoptive families think first what is best for the child, and second what is best for them. A system where an orphanage director would never willingly encourage or force a birth family to relinquish their child, and adoptive families would never participate if they suspected such things were happening.
If I expect too much, perhaps it is because that is the myth I was taught when I began adopting. Perhaps that is the myth many are still taught today.
Since this essay concludes the articles detailing the events surrounding the Hunan scandal, I offer my reflections on what Hunan should tell adoptive families, and the warnings we should take from this event. It is my fervent hope that we never hear of another scandal involving the buying and selling of children to support our adoptions. It is my hope, but it is not my expectation.
________________________________________
Self-reflection within the Chinese System of Adoption
By Deng Fei (of Hengyang City, Hunan province)
Cases of buying and selling infants involving welfare centers reflect the predicament of those in charge of this kind of charitable work. At the moment the most pressing issues are to expand the industry’s openness to new ideas and willingness to test them, encourage nongovernmental investment, and thereby put the charitable industry on the right track.
"Babies will not be taken in anymore." That is what an official with the Hengdong County welfare center on February 22, 2006 after listening in on the examination of an infant buying and selling case in court. Another official right to his side interposing, exclaimed: "How is that possible?"
At present, China and fifteen other nations have established transnational links for cooperation on the subject of adoption involving a total of 200 welfare centers all involved in international adoption. Data provided by the China Center on Adoption demonstrates: since 1992 the number of toddlers that have been sent abroad for adoption has surpassed 50,000 with more than 90 percent of them being female and more than 90 percent of them going to America. Adoption by foreigners has already become a major method for the placement and fostering of Chinese babies.
An official of the Hunan Provincial People's Government agreed to discuss foreign adoptions with the Fenghuang Weekly. According to him, in 1992 the people's government asked that adopters pay fees for the initial care of the child, but payment was not clearly delineated. Payments therefore varied widely and at some welfare centers touched on the absurd. Later on, the government systematically introduced norms of payment. Now the clear and definite fee to be paid by foreign adopters as reimbursement for the center's initial care for the child is 3000 American dollars.
In 1997 the justice department and the civil administration cooperated in the releasing of a document called "Methods of implementation of the adoption of children by foreigners." This document stipulated that payment of initial care fees should be made to the "Children's Foster Society” (a governmental organ). This clarification led to the easing of the Civil Administration of Welfare Centers' budget pressures as most of the money was redistributed to the welfare centers.
China's local governments have long been responsible for the welfare centers in their area, bearing many of their associated costs, including expenses for the basic care of the children. Unfortunately though, many of these governments do not have the financial strength to pay for all that is required. An official of Hengyang city informed the Fenghuang Weekly that county finance departments will usually give money to the centers according to the number of children in them each year.
In 2004 welfare centers in Hengyang County received 300,000 yuan, money that was divided between the care of children, elderly people, the payment of staff, and all other necessary expenses. The exact distribution of this money, however, was not fully clear.
One manager of the Hengyang County Civil Administration explained that, before the beginning of adoptions involving foreigners, outside of the income the centers earned from the local finance bureau, centers would also rely on profits from the raising of pigs and fish. These programs were helped by the fact that, generally speaking, welfare centers are located in relatively remote locations and so are able to get a good amount of land. Since their budgets have often been so limited these welfare centers tend to have very limited access to the material benefits of the outside world.
Since the beginning of the implementation of measures allowing for foreign adoption, welfare centers have been able to earn nearly 3000 American dollars for each child given out in adoption. The money allows welfare centers to raise the foster care conditions of their children. Before these measures Hengyang County welfare centers would have to send any ill children to the Provincial People's Hospital for treatment, "that was something nobody dared to think about."
Some critics point out that welfare centers in Hengyang that went so far as to purchase infants were engaging in a sort of unusual method of problem alleviation. As they see it, in this way people were provoked to become more determined in the implementation of the government's "planned birth" policy.
As the price of infants on the market began to rise, cases of stolen infants began to appear. In October of 2004 the Public Security Bureau, in cooperation with others, was able to solve a large-scale inter-provincial child kidnapping case. One hundred and ten people were arrested in the course of the case and seventy male children from six different Provinces were liberated. The kidnapping of children is now rampant, but we are only able to glimpse the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, as some of these children enter the channels of foreign adoption through the welfare centers, the cost of the rectification of these cases becomes very significant.
The Civil Administration, Justice Department, and Public Security Bureau have issued many statements concerning problems involving foreign adoption and have promulgated strict regulations. Yet, despite the efforts of these departments, some welfare centers have become spellbound by the potential for profits. The Hunan Province's justice department has itself gone so far as to put the head of the Hengdong County Welfare Center in the defendant's seat, somewhat aggravating the bad elements within the current system. Also, the voice of those on the internet calling for a reevaluation of the current system has been growing gradually.
An official with the civil administration of Hunan Province stated that the incidents of buying and selling of infants surrounding Hengyang's welfare centers have indeed provoked many to rethink the current system of foreign adoption.
In comparison with the more and more thriving channels of foreign adoption, domestic adoption has been sagging all along. Those in the Civil Administration inevitably blame the rigorousness of current family planning related policies. A single man must be over the age of forty before he can adopt a child, and he must never have had children in the past. A couple that has been married for five years with both members over the age of thirty and without biological children of their own may also be permitted to adopt a child.
What's more, many families within China that have wanted to adopt a child have been turned down for already having one biological child. Judging from current regulations, welfare centers are generally unwilling to allow the further developments of domestic adoption unless adopters pay a 24000 yuan initial support fee for the child. Thus, there are great barriers to domestic adoption. For contrast, in developed countries the government will provide subsidies to the households of adopted children.
Some officials within the Hengyang civil administration system suggest that the nation should adjust its adoption policies in order to encourage more domestic adoption. With the smooth development of domestic adoption, welfare centers could collect enough money to provide much needed standard aid to the sick, the old, and the weak. It is said that now the Civil Administration is promoting a new kind of "place trust in families to bring up the children" method. In certain Provinces, this method has already become a principal method for raising orphans.
Some experts believe that cases of the buying and selling of infants can be seen as a reflection of the predicament of charitable industry in China. Among the most pressing issues of the moment are the need for the vigorous development of new and multivariate ways of thinking on the issue, and the need for nongovernmental investment to help get China's charitable industries onto the right track.
___________________________
Reflections on Hunan
by Brian H. Stuy
I believe the Hunan scandal story will be remembered as a turning point in the China International Adoption program, for it was in November 2005 that a prominent myth of China’s program was cast into doubt. (I use the term “myth” as defined by Dictionary.com as meaning “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution”. The term does not insinuate a belief that is necessarily untrue, merely that it is assumed to be true, but unproven. The assumption may, of course, also be false, having never been true. )
I say “myth” because all of us were taught, and believe, myths regarding China and the adoption program. It involves such innocuous myths such as lady-bug sightings and red threads. But other myths are more profound and important to adopting families. For example, when I adopted Meikina in 1998, I was taught by my agency, the media, and fellow adopters that the children in China’s orphanages would never find homes, and those who survived would probably grow up to become prostitutes and drug abusers. Their futures looked bleak indeed, and we were compelled in those early days to view our adoption as an act of grace.
It seemed so very simple “back then”. The Chinese preferred boys, so female infants were being abandoned wholesale. Unless adopted by benevolent foreign families (few families in China, the story went, considered adoption so there was little hope of these girls being adopted domestically), these girls had no chance for higher education or other opportunities in life. In adopting a little girl, not only were we providing a home for a beautiful child, but our donations and support would help improve the circumstances of those left behind. Thus, China’s program was viewed as perfect: Perfect ethics, perfect process, and perfectly predictable.
I advised families to consider China above other programs because it was demonstrably legitimate, and had no apparent corruption. Unlike Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and other countries, China’s record was spotless. There were no stories of families having to pay “unforeseen” processing fees once in-country. The child a family received was the one they were referred. It seemed to work flawlessly. (There were, of course, individual experiences that refuted some of these assumptions, but they were viewed as the exception).
That is why the Chinese adoption community was shocked when the allegations from Hunan became known. How could this story be true, many families asked, given what we know about China? In a country where so many children are being abandoned, why would there be a need for orphanage directors to buy infant girls?
But Hunan should be viewed as the canary in the coal mine, for in Hunan we have the clearest evidence yet that many of our cherished myths may no longer be (if they ever were) true.
At its foundation, Hunan is about greed – greed of orphanage directors, traffickers, and probably birth parents. We can argue the motives of this greed, but it is undeniable that a desire for money led Hengyang County director Jiang Jianhua to first require his employees to seek out unwanted babies, and later to purchase children outright from traffickers. It was greed that motivated Duan Meilin and her sister, and the other traffickers, to “adopt” children from various individuals and transport them hundreds of miles to Hunan, where they sold them to the orphanages. It was greed that created the environment where the price of these children rose from 200 yuan to over 3,500 yuan in the space of two years.
Defenders of the China program, including myself, point out that these children were unwanted, and therefore the trafficking was not that bad. It certainly is not serious enough to label China’s program as corrupt, as we commonly understand the term.
If pushed, I would admit that I see little problem with the idea that unwanted children were accepted from birth parents and delivered to the orphanage in lieu of payment. Trafficking per se is an innocuous term, covering everything from being reimbursed for travel expenses to the buying of children abducted and smuggled to their buyers. But the Hunan scandal begs several questions, questions that serve to muddy the waters.
We must ask ourselves, for example, if it is possible that there were birth parents who gave up their daughters because they were able to receive a substantial sum from the orphanage or from the traffickers. In other words, is it possible that the situation in Hunan actually increased the number of children that were deserted by their birth families in order that those families would be given what for them was a substantial sum of money? Did the actions of the orphanage directors create a “market” for these children that otherwise would not have been there?
And if these directors were, for whatever reasons, compelled to purchase these babies to fulfill the demands placed upon their orphanages, what other means might be employed by other directors to accomplish the same ends? Would they, for example, be willing to seek out unregistered children in poor villages and confiscate those children to adopt to Americans and other foreigners? Before we reject such a hypothesis, we might want to consider the story of a dozen families in Gaoping County, Hunan.
In March 2006, families in this rural village filed a petition asking for the return of eleven children taken from them by Family Planning officials over the past four years (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5696). One of these families, Yang Li Bing, stated that “his de facto wife gave birth to a girl in July 2004 and even though she was their first child, the county's family planning officers took the infant away on April 29 last year [2005] citing an 'unregistered marriage and an illegal child'."
In an area where the average annual income is about 3,000 yuan, Mr. Yang was told that he could have his daughter back if he paid 8,000 yuan. A few days later, that ransom was increased to 20,000 yuan. Unable to raise that amount of money, Mr Yang lamented that “We are poor people and my relatives were not able to collect so much money in several days.” When he was unable to come up with the cash, a Family Planning official notified Mr. Yang that his daughter had been brought to the Shaoyang orphanage, and that “even if you could offer 1 million yuan,” he could not get his daughter back. He was simply told to “give up hope.”
One must question why Family Planning officials would confiscate unregistered children to bring them to an orphanage that was already filled with abandoned babies? Were they simply acting out of a desire to strictly enforce the laws of the land, even if that resulted in an increased burden being placed on the orphanage? Or were there other motives? The Hunan scandal forces us to ask these questions.
And what happened to these confiscated children?
It is perhaps coincidence that the following month the Shaoyang orphanage submitted dossiers for two children to the CCAA for international adoption that listed birth and finding dates that exactly match the birth and confiscation dates of two of the eleven children confiscated in Gaoping County. If we knew the birth and confiscation dates of the other nine, would we find internationally adopted children with those dates also?
In June 2006 I detailed a survey of the orphanages that participate in the international adoption program. When asked if they had children available for domestic adoption to a local family, 93% of the over 250 directors stated that they had no healthy babies available for domestic adoption. Many admitted that most of their healthy children were adopted internationally, and that a domestic family should look elsewhere to adopt a healthy infant.
It is a sad reality that families inside China have no legal options to adopt if denied access to the children in the area orphanages. Many families, like the one who told her story in an August posting, resort to extra-legal adoptions from close friends or other families that seek to get rid of an unwanted child. But these families face suspicion and high fees when they seek to register these children, and as we saw in Gaoping County risk discovery by Family Planning officials.
Some of us fail to consider the plight of these families in China – mostly childless, they desperately wish to build a family through adoption, only to be denied that opportunity because their city or county orphanage adopts the children internationally. Placed in such a position, some families buy their child from traffickers, while the most desperate kidnap a child off of the street.
Thus, Hunan is the canary in the mine in that it, along with many other lesser-known articles, describes the changing dynamics of children in China. Hunan highlights the growing imbalance between the number of unwanted children, and the number of families seeking to adopt those children. It illuminates to what extent directors will seek to profit from that imbalance by illegally seeking and purchasing additional infants from other areas of China. While their motives may be altruistic (giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), the results are not. Domestic families are denied children, other families are coerced to give up their child for an inconceivable amount of money, and still others have their children confiscated under the umbrella of the law. And those are just the stories we know about.
I have defended China’s program in the past, and I continue to believe it is among the best in the world. I have spoken with hundreds of finders who confirmed the truthfulness of the stories given to adoptive families. I have sat at dinner with many directors who have displayed and conveyed a deep desire to do the best they could for their children. But these experiences are not universal, and exceptions have occurred. China must work to remove the conflicts that exist in their adoption system, and remove the financial pressures that devolve on its orphanage directors.
Maybe I expect a perfect system, one in which no one’s rights are infringed upon, and where the children are always prioritized. A system where the governments, agencies and adoptive families think first what is best for the child, and second what is best for them. A system where an orphanage director would never willingly encourage or force a birth family to relinquish their child, and adoptive families would never participate if they suspected such things were happening.
If I expect too much, perhaps it is because that is the myth I was taught when I began adopting. Perhaps that is the myth many are still taught today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
