The article over the weekend in the Guelph-Mercury News on James/Jim Garrow allows me to finally come forward with what I know about James and his "Pink Pagoda" program. I became aware of Jim in early June 2008 when an article published by "Mimi Magazine" was forwarded to me. This article, still available on Garrow's website, goes into his "Pink Pagoda" program, a program that supposedly has brought over 24,000 baby girls into China's orphanages.
The sheer number of children Garrow claims to have "saved" raised red flags in my mind of course. 24,000 children (now supposedly 34,000) represents approximately half of all the children adopted internationally from China since 2000. But the basic assertion -- that Garrow's employees were passing out vouchers in China's countryside offering financial payments for relinquishing a child -- fits very comfortably into what we know about incentive programs in China generally. In other words, one could not dismiss his assertions out of hand.
The following day, I called Jim,1 using an alias of "Lance Davis" (I suspected he may have already heard of Brian Stuy, and thus wanted to use an unknown alias), an adoptive father with a child from Xiushan, Chongqing. I asked him about his "Pink Pagoda" program, and how exactly it worked. He largely confirmed what was written in the Mimi article, but added a few new insights. In our conversation he admitted that he worked extensively in Chongqing Municipality, particularly with the Chongqing City orphanage. Readers of our subscription blog know that most of the Chongqing-area orphanages display patterns consistent with "non-random" findings, so Garrow's assertion that he works in Shapingba and other areas of Chongqing was plausible. According to Garrow, he is responsible for 80% of the children that have been adopted from the Chongqing area, especially from the Chongqing and Fuling orphanages.
James Garrow's claim that he is protected by politically powerful people inside China is also very interesting. In the following interview he goes into this in more detail, revealing that his protector is none other than Hu Jintao, China's President. According to Garrow, President Hu's niece attended one of Garrow's schools in Shenzhen, where they met. Also according to Garrow, connections resulted from this meeting, as well as from the "Lucky Money" (bribes) envelopes that he subsequently "liberally" dispersed to various officials.
During this time I contacted a number of press outlets to initiate an investigation into Garrow's program. It was hoped that either the press or the Canadian government (who was also notified) could thoroughly investigate the situation without alerting Jim. Unfortunately, in the midst of this Jane Liedtke was made aware of Jim's program, and began to raise concerns on her various adoption groups and newsletters (I got Jim's side of that issue in the second conversation). This caused Jim to begin removing references to his program from his websites and to begin covering his tracks.
At the end of the second interview, Garrow introduces another program that he had just started the previous April (and which he completely denies in the Guelph-Mercury article) -- the smuggling of Chinese infants directly into Canada and the United States. At the time of our conversation he alleged that he had smuggled over 30 children to Canadian and U.S. families, which then re-adopted the children (using fabricated paperwork). We arranged another phone call to go more into that program. I edited this interview to eliminate the caller's voice out of safety concerns. For that reason, the conversation tends to jump as questions are asked, but the details of Garrow's smuggling program are evident.
It is clear from Garrow's account that what he says is possible. Having had experience with immigration procedures myself, it is very possible to see how immigration officials would not pay close attention to infant visas, allowing someone like Garrow to smuggle a child using a Chinese student.
Is James Garrow really doing what he says he is doing, offering poor Chinese families money vouchers to turn their children into the orphanages for international adoption? It is very possible. Is he doing it with the full knowledge of the Chinese government? Also possible. As we saw in the Hunan scandal, the government is less concerned with stopping the baby-buying than it is with saving face in the international community. The abduction of children unwillingly from birth parents seems to be taken seriously by the CCAA and the rest of the government; but the willing relinquishment of children for money to IA orphanages is systematically ignored, and even encouraged by the government. Thus, there is every possibility that the Chinese would allow a program such as Garrow's "Pink Pagoda" one to operate freely in China's orphanages.
In the end I don't know if Jim Garrow is actually doing what he says, or is simply seeking attention and money. Reporters from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, as well as Dateline have investigated and found no substantiation of his program in China. But it could be happening on a localized and informal basis. What is needed is for someone to look seriously at these assertions: Did the Bethune Institute pay students to smuggle infants into Canada between March and June 2008? If so, who adopted these children? Has anyone in the Canadian Government audited the citizenship applications for Chinese children adopted in 2008? What about Chongqing? Has anyone investigated Garrow's claims about funneling infants through vouchers into the Chongqing and Fuling orphanages? This program, if indeed it exists, is not a new program -- advertisements for his "Certification Programs" discuss his "Pink Pagoda" program as far back as 2004. There must be many people aware of his "voucher" (baby-buying) program in these areas, if it exists.
In the end it may be that Garrow is a fraud, and to be ignored (it is easy to claim a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, for example, since the nominees aren't revealed for 50 years). But if what he says is accurate, it would mean that the entire China adoption program since 2000 existed largely as a result of children being purchased for "significant" sums of money by orphanages, working in connection with a Christian crusader driven to "save China's children", and fully supported and protected by the President of China himself.
_______________________
1) All phone calls were recorded by myself, and are protected activity under Federal law, since Utah is a one-party State under Federal taping guidelines(http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html; http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html). These recordings were sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and are part of their investigation.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Experts Respond to "The Baby Business"
The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism asked "adoption professionals" to respond to the publication of E.J. Graff's "The Baby Business", published in the Summer 2010 journal "Democracy: A Journal of Ideas".
While many of the responses are predictable (JCICS, the mouthpiece of the adoption agencies, downplays adoption corruption with this rationalization: "Unfortunately, in virtually every human endeavor, isolated individuals use human suffering for their own advancement. This can be seen in banking, commerce, and human services."), some, such as PEAR's, offer a broader recognition of the problems of corruption.
Any discussion of corruption in international adoption must, of necessity, address the problems one sees in China, an area that E.J. Graff practically ignores in her studies. Of the respondents, only PEAR references stories of corruption in China's program. Given that China is the single largest source of children in international adoption (accounting for 3,000 of the 12,700 international adoptions into the U.S. in 2009), a refusal to address allegations of widespread corruption in that country leaves a gaping hole in Graff's study, as well as the responses.
It is now clear to all but the most ardent defenders of China's adoption program that corruption episodes such as those seen in Hunan, Guizhou, Jiangxi and other Provinces are not "isolated events", but systemic issues. Orphanage adoption records for the six Hunan scandal orphanages, for example, prove that almost EVERY child adopted from those orphanages between 2000 and 2005 were obtained through trafficking. Testimony of participants in that story, as well as those involved in such programs today, show that these programs started in many areas as early as 1995, when less than 3,000 children were being adopted from China world-wide. As demand for Chinese infants increased to over 6,000 in 2000, many orphanages instituted all-out baby-buying programs. In Jiangxi Province, China's largest adopting Province, over 80% of all adoptions originate in orphanages displaying evidence of baby-buying and Family Planning confiscations.
E.J. Graff, as well as most of the respondents, focus on the domestic side of the problem -- agency directors and employees, in-country-liaisons, etc. The presumption is that while the countries themselves seek to operate ethically, isolated players within the system might participate in unethical behavior. The Hague Agreement is touted as the safety mechanism for abuse, and a push is made to get all adoptions to comply with Hague guarantees.
Unfortunately, the Hague Agreement is only effective if the ratifying countries take it seriously. Considerable evidence suggests that many don't. For all its professions of ‘subsidiarity’, transparency and verifiability, the Hague Agreement is powerless to do anything to enforce these principles. As the Dutch Parliament hearings showed, it is all built on a foundation of trust. If a sending country like China is untrustworthy, there is little receiving countries can do except terminate adoption agreements, something that receiving countries are reticent to do.
And why are they reticent? Because at the end of the day adoption is, as Graff aptly names her study, about "the baby business." The voices for the status quo are loud and numerous; the voices for ethics and reform few and easily drowned out. The political constituency for continuing a corrupt program often includes waiting families, adoption professionals, and religious activists who see adoption, even if conducted under clouds of corruption and abuse, as ultimately better for the child. The political realities include trade agreements, economic benefits, and political goodwill. With such powerful forces on the side of perpetuating a "working" program, voices of alarm and experience are quickly drowned out and labeled as outsiders to be ignored.
As I wrote in the midst of China's Hunan scandal, “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.” In the five years since that day I realize that such a expectation is in all likelihood unreasonable.
While many of the responses are predictable (JCICS, the mouthpiece of the adoption agencies, downplays adoption corruption with this rationalization: "Unfortunately, in virtually every human endeavor, isolated individuals use human suffering for their own advancement. This can be seen in banking, commerce, and human services."), some, such as PEAR's, offer a broader recognition of the problems of corruption.
Any discussion of corruption in international adoption must, of necessity, address the problems one sees in China, an area that E.J. Graff practically ignores in her studies. Of the respondents, only PEAR references stories of corruption in China's program. Given that China is the single largest source of children in international adoption (accounting for 3,000 of the 12,700 international adoptions into the U.S. in 2009), a refusal to address allegations of widespread corruption in that country leaves a gaping hole in Graff's study, as well as the responses.
It is now clear to all but the most ardent defenders of China's adoption program that corruption episodes such as those seen in Hunan, Guizhou, Jiangxi and other Provinces are not "isolated events", but systemic issues. Orphanage adoption records for the six Hunan scandal orphanages, for example, prove that almost EVERY child adopted from those orphanages between 2000 and 2005 were obtained through trafficking. Testimony of participants in that story, as well as those involved in such programs today, show that these programs started in many areas as early as 1995, when less than 3,000 children were being adopted from China world-wide. As demand for Chinese infants increased to over 6,000 in 2000, many orphanages instituted all-out baby-buying programs. In Jiangxi Province, China's largest adopting Province, over 80% of all adoptions originate in orphanages displaying evidence of baby-buying and Family Planning confiscations.
E.J. Graff, as well as most of the respondents, focus on the domestic side of the problem -- agency directors and employees, in-country-liaisons, etc. The presumption is that while the countries themselves seek to operate ethically, isolated players within the system might participate in unethical behavior. The Hague Agreement is touted as the safety mechanism for abuse, and a push is made to get all adoptions to comply with Hague guarantees.
Unfortunately, the Hague Agreement is only effective if the ratifying countries take it seriously. Considerable evidence suggests that many don't. For all its professions of ‘subsidiarity’, transparency and verifiability, the Hague Agreement is powerless to do anything to enforce these principles. As the Dutch Parliament hearings showed, it is all built on a foundation of trust. If a sending country like China is untrustworthy, there is little receiving countries can do except terminate adoption agreements, something that receiving countries are reticent to do.
And why are they reticent? Because at the end of the day adoption is, as Graff aptly names her study, about "the baby business." The voices for the status quo are loud and numerous; the voices for ethics and reform few and easily drowned out. The political constituency for continuing a corrupt program often includes waiting families, adoption professionals, and religious activists who see adoption, even if conducted under clouds of corruption and abuse, as ultimately better for the child. The political realities include trade agreements, economic benefits, and political goodwill. With such powerful forces on the side of perpetuating a "working" program, voices of alarm and experience are quickly drowned out and labeled as outsiders to be ignored.
As I wrote in the midst of China's Hunan scandal, “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.” In the five years since that day I realize that such a expectation is in all likelihood unreasonable.
Monday, June 07, 2010
A Look At the Provinces II: Jiangxi
Over on our subscription blog, we have completed our analysis of China's largest adopting Province -- Jiangxi Province in central China (a previous analysis focused on Chongqing Municipality). This largely rural Province has supplied more than 17,000 children for international adoption since 2003. Where were these kids found? How old were they? How many boys have been found? An analysis of this and other data allows us to make assessments into how reliable the information provided by the orphanages is, and come to some solid conclusions as to which orphanages have incentive programs in place.
Our subscription blog can be accessed for $20 per year. This nominal amount is assessed in order to control who is able to read the material. The information on the subscription blog is very specific, with interviews, photos, and video obtained from trusted sources in China. The subscription blog is our best attempt at making the information available to adoptive families, while still maintaining security of our sources. We have no doubt adoptive families will find the information on the subscription blog highly interesting, and extremely important to their child's pre-adoption history.
You can access the private blog here.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
"What to Tell -- And When" Follow-Up
The response to my last blog post ("What to Tell -- and When") has been spirited and fascinating. Many of the comments have raised significant issues, and have got me thinking about just how well we know our own children. So, I decided to sit down with my girls last night after dinner. I drafted a survey of questions that I hoped would give me insight into two areas of their persons: How comfortable they are being adopted; and if they would want to know more about their histories if we had information.
The first section of questions were as follows:
1) How often do I think about my birth family (1 = Never, 10 = Constantly)
2) How comfortable am I discussing adoption with my friends (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
3) I have been asked by friends about my birth family. This made me feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
4) When my parents bring up my adoption, it makes me feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
5) Overall, I feel good about what I know about my life and adoption (1 = Not true, 10 = Very true)
I assumed going into the questions that my kids would display some ambivalence about the topic of adoption; that they would feel somewhat uncomfortable when asked about birth families, etc., when talking with friends or teachers. The results, however, surprised me. My oldest daughter indicated complete comfort in discussing her adoption with friends, but less comfort to discussing it with her parents. As a budding teenager, she displays this reluctance in every subject, not just adoption.
My younger two also expressed complete comfort in discussing adoption with both friends and parents. The last question, which I use as an indicator of feeling well in their own "skins", was answered in the 7-8 range by everyone.
So, my take-away from this section is that there don't appear to be any uncomfortable aspects in my daughters's minds concerning their being adopted, or discussing adoption.
The second section of questions were designed to explore how receptive my kids were to learning more about their histories. These questions were:
6) I would like to know more about my birth family in China (1 = Don't Care, 10 = Care Greatly)
7) I would like to know more about the time I was in the orphanage (1 = Don't Care, 10 = Care Greatly)
8) If my parents had information about my life in China, I would (1 = Not Want to Know, 10 = Definitely Want to Know)
9) If I had a question about my birth family or my life in China, I would feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable) asking my parents about it.
All three girls were ambivalent about learning more about their birth families (giving the question a "5"). In post-questionaire discussion, two of them indicated that they simply want to know what their birth parents looked like, rather than necessarily meeting them. For them, a photo would probably be sufficient.
All of my kids ranked knowing more about their life in the orphanage very low (1-3).
All of my kids ranked the communication of information specific to them highly (7-10). Thus, it appears that they expect us to give them any information we find about them. This was a serious point of discussion last night between my wife and I, as we do have substantial information.
The answers to the last question again fell into two camps, with my oldest being very reluctant to discuss any questions about birth family or her life in China with her parents, and the younger two feeling very comfortable discussing such topics.
The questions definitely enlightened me to some facets of my girls's inner-thoughts. Although we seldom discuss personal histories, there seems to be a lot of confidence about discussing adoption and birth families with friends.
However, the survey also brought home what many of the comments pointed out -- there is an unspoken understanding that any information about their birth families is desired, even if it is limited to just seeing what they looked like.
I would be interested in the answers from others. You are welcome to take some of the above, or draft you own. Is there a point where kids feel too much focus is placed on their adoption? Do they ever feel uncomfortable with what we, as adoptive parents, do to try to instill a sense of heritage and culture into our children?
Last night, before my oldest went to bed, I asked her how she felt about the level of adoption discussions in our home. Did we talk about it too much? Not enough? She said, "Dad, I think it is about perfect. You bring it up once in a while, but usually you leave it for us to think about."
The first section of questions were as follows:
1) How often do I think about my birth family (1 = Never, 10 = Constantly)
2) How comfortable am I discussing adoption with my friends (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
3) I have been asked by friends about my birth family. This made me feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
4) When my parents bring up my adoption, it makes me feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable)
5) Overall, I feel good about what I know about my life and adoption (1 = Not true, 10 = Very true)
I assumed going into the questions that my kids would display some ambivalence about the topic of adoption; that they would feel somewhat uncomfortable when asked about birth families, etc., when talking with friends or teachers. The results, however, surprised me. My oldest daughter indicated complete comfort in discussing her adoption with friends, but less comfort to discussing it with her parents. As a budding teenager, she displays this reluctance in every subject, not just adoption.
My younger two also expressed complete comfort in discussing adoption with both friends and parents. The last question, which I use as an indicator of feeling well in their own "skins", was answered in the 7-8 range by everyone.
So, my take-away from this section is that there don't appear to be any uncomfortable aspects in my daughters's minds concerning their being adopted, or discussing adoption.
The second section of questions were designed to explore how receptive my kids were to learning more about their histories. These questions were:
6) I would like to know more about my birth family in China (1 = Don't Care, 10 = Care Greatly)
7) I would like to know more about the time I was in the orphanage (1 = Don't Care, 10 = Care Greatly)
8) If my parents had information about my life in China, I would (1 = Not Want to Know, 10 = Definitely Want to Know)
9) If I had a question about my birth family or my life in China, I would feel (1 = Very Uncomfortable, 10 = Very Comfortable) asking my parents about it.
All three girls were ambivalent about learning more about their birth families (giving the question a "5"). In post-questionaire discussion, two of them indicated that they simply want to know what their birth parents looked like, rather than necessarily meeting them. For them, a photo would probably be sufficient.
All of my kids ranked knowing more about their life in the orphanage very low (1-3).
All of my kids ranked the communication of information specific to them highly (7-10). Thus, it appears that they expect us to give them any information we find about them. This was a serious point of discussion last night between my wife and I, as we do have substantial information.
The answers to the last question again fell into two camps, with my oldest being very reluctant to discuss any questions about birth family or her life in China with her parents, and the younger two feeling very comfortable discussing such topics.
The questions definitely enlightened me to some facets of my girls's inner-thoughts. Although we seldom discuss personal histories, there seems to be a lot of confidence about discussing adoption and birth families with friends.
However, the survey also brought home what many of the comments pointed out -- there is an unspoken understanding that any information about their birth families is desired, even if it is limited to just seeing what they looked like.
I would be interested in the answers from others. You are welcome to take some of the above, or draft you own. Is there a point where kids feel too much focus is placed on their adoption? Do they ever feel uncomfortable with what we, as adoptive parents, do to try to instill a sense of heritage and culture into our children?
Last night, before my oldest went to bed, I asked her how she felt about the level of adoption discussions in our home. Did we talk about it too much? Not enough? She said, "Dad, I think it is about perfect. You bring it up once in a while, but usually you leave it for us to think about."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
