A Letter to the Washington Post

The following letter was e-mailed this morning to the editor of the Washington Post.

Sunday's article by Peter Goodman ("With U.S. Couples Eager to Adopt, Some Infants Are Abducted and Sold in China") artfully weaves several issues in China into one inaccurate construction that impunes the motives of adopting Americans, and the orphanages from which their children come.

Goodman begins by detailing the tragic abduction of a child from the streets of Dongguan in Guangdong Province. He artfully transitions to China's adoption program, leading readers to conclude that somehow the seven month old girl had been kidnapped to satisfy an adopting American family.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to establish this link, and in fact considerable evidence to disprove it. By Goodman's own admission, 50,000 children were adopted to the U.S. since 1992, an average of 4,000 per year. I suppose Goodman proposes that these 4,000 children represent a significant number of China's 1.2 billion people to result in kidnapping rings to develop, but the sad reality is that annually an estimated 250,000 children (mostly girls) are abandoned in China, 35,000 of which end up in China's foreign adoption program. One can readily see that there is no shortage of adoptable children.

The trials of those involved in the Hunan baby-trafficking ring all testified that the children involved were unwanted newborns willingly relinquished by their birthparents. Defense testimony by Police and other witnesses confirm this. No lost child reports, no response to found baby newspaper notices. Goodman makes some sweaping generalizations, inaccurate assumptions, and faulty reasoning to falsely assert that the international adoption program is contributing to child abductions in China.

Additionally, he erroneously quotes me as asserting that the Chinese orphanage program is "a corrupt system. . . driven by money, and there's no check and balance to the greed." This statement was made in what I thought was an off-the-record conversation discussing China's governmental structure, not its adoption program. I have frequently and publicly written that I believe the Chinese adoption prgram to be one of the most ethically run in the world. A family leaving the U.S. knows who their child will be, exactly what fees will be paid, and where they will be on any given day while in China. Few other international programs run this predictably and effeciently.

Goodman also anonymously attributes to a "Western aid worker " a quote that proposes that few of the donation dollars given by adoptive families and other NGOs actually reach the children. This is patently false to anyone who has visited orphanages over the last few years. Whereas orphanage facilities in the early 90s were most often housed in small, unheated adobe or brick buildings, today nearly every orphanage is housed in third-generation modern facilities, many with medical and educational facilities on site. These orphanages are often located next to facilities for the aged, to allow a symbiotic relationship to develop between the elderly and the young. Contrary to Goodman's assertion, a more engaging argument could be made that China is over-investing in their orphanage system, given China's declining abandonment rates. This decline can be attributed to China's increasing personal wealth, as well as the passing of male-preference traditions in its culture.

Goodman also falsely characterizes the American families that come to China to adopt, portraying them as almost being on a shopping expedition, being ferried "to sightseeing spots in Beijing", and walking streets "thick with stroller-rental shops and silk baby outfits embossed with traditional Chinese logos." This characature belies the fact that most adopting families try to experience, in the short time made available, as much of their child's Chinese heritage as possible. All have spent more than a year preparing the paperwork required by both the U.S. and Chinese governments, and paid significant fees to both governments. For most, the adoption trip is an emotional and spiritual experience, and are deeply offended to have it portrayed as a shopping excursion.

Goodman's article does a disservice to almost everyone involved in the Chinese adoption program. There is little doubt that the adoption of Chinese children by foreigners has altered the perceived value of these children, but to falsely assert, with no substantiating evidence, that these families are fostering kidnapping rings in China to satisfy their parental urges does a disservice to them, and the legacy of their children.

Brian H. Stuy
Research-China.Org
Guangzhou, China

A Regular Firefight

The Hunan story obviously touches a very raw nerve with families, and I can completely understand all of the emotion around this story. There are several possible responses that most people have when confronted with contradictory information on firmly held beliefs (whether religious, political, or in this case, concerning the adoption of their child): Accept the information and modify a belief; seek to negate the new information by impuning the character and motives of the messenger; test the new information against previously available knowledge, or conduct personal research.

Most adoptive parents (including myself at one time) cling to the following paradigm: China has a large number of abandoned girls due to a collision between a cultural bias and the one-child policy. These children will remain in a Chinese orphanage until they grow up unless adopted. A child that grows up in an orphanage has no social standing, and therefore will probably not get married, may have to resort to prostitution for employment, and therefore will have a miserable life. Thus, by adopting a Chinese girl, one is providing a much-needed home to a person that otherwise would live an unhappy life. It is truly a win-win situation.

Anytime someone attacks this paradigm with contradictory information, adoptive families are forced to reconcile that new information through the processes described above. Some accept the new information gratefully, others strike out and try to impune the writer's motives; others do research to test the veracity of the new information. In the case of the Washington Post article and this blog, one can see all of the methods employed.

But my motives and "credentials" are relevant to any comments or observations I make, so I have no problem describing them. As any "Google" search will clearly show, I have been conducting research for over a decade, including publishing in Utah history, Mormonism (my prior religious belief-system) and most recently China. I conducted my first research project in 2000, and have visited over 60 orphanages since then. While conducting my trips I tenaciously investigate the thoughts and opinions of the directors, caregivers, foster families, taxi drivers, shop-keepers, and anyone else I think may have experience or knowledge about China that is relevant to my families. So, since little is "offically" available concerning these topics, I must say that my experience with the above people is my primary data source. That, and being involved with an opinionated native Chinese woman for two years, and having walked the adoption road three times in various ways.

When I first offered finding ads to families, no one had seen one. The CCAA prevented their distribution to adoptive families, and even though I had just paid my finding ad fee for Meigon's adoption, I was denied a copy by her orphanage. Through the years I have sought out and obtained the ads (over a quarter million ads if one must know) from almost every Province that is involved with international adoption. After I began offering the ads, the CCAA instructed the orphanages to begin giving the families copies of their child's ad in an attempt to destroy my market. In the intervening four years, families have gone from receiving no ads to demanding high-quality reproductions and the actual papers the ads appear in. We have come a long way.

Finding ads are a business for me and my family. I have had families complain that I should offer these ads for free to families, but it appears no one is willing to pay my airfare to China and my expenses to travel to the various Provinces to locate the ads.

I do visit orphanages, and have always attempted to do my projects as cheaply as possible. Other organizations exist that do finding location photographing, but most families have found them to be expensive. I charge the costs of travel to photograph and videotape a finding location, visit with orphanage personel, interview foster families and finders, and basically get as much information as possible about the child I am researching. NO ONE does that service, and NO ONE charges so little. I do offer the orphanage DVD to any family interested for $25, not much considering the cost of small-volume reproduction and shipping.

But my business isn't the core issue here, it is the "adoption paradigm" outlined above. The problem is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all this -- yes, adoptive families are providing homes for children that probably wouldn't be adopted if they remained in China. Conversely, not every child adopted internationally would have remained in an orphanage. Many would be adopted domestically. The international adoption program has altered the dynamics of domestic adoption in China. Children adopted internationally would have gone to domestic homes is they had not been adopted by a Western couple. All of them? No. Most of them? Probably not. So, one can't advocate stopping the international adoption program because there is no doubt that would result in many children remaining in the orphanages. But as adoptive families we must realize that our program is impacting adoption by Chinese families. The solution to this problem I believe I have already proposed.

I am an adoptive father of three children that wants simply to know the truth concerning their history, their heritage and their birth families. It is a mission for me. I am programmed to ask "why" in everything. It is a wonderful journey, and I try to present my findings to others. I publish my blog so that others are freely able to comment, criticize or add-to my findings. It is the ultimate democratic tool. Am I a professional? No, I don't think so. Just a person who has "been on the ground" more than probably anyone else. I offer my layman's observations. Of, and just to settle this once and for all, I do not claim to speak for all adoptive families. I'm not even sure I speak for most of them. I speak for myself, but do try to make that voice heard.

The Washington Post

Sunday saw the publication of another article dealing with the Hunan baby-trafficking story, one that is intended to convince adoptive families that their child was possibly abducted instead of abandoned, and that foreign adoption is the root of the problem of child abductions in China.

Since I assisted Peter Goodman in the researching of his article, let me start by saying that Peter's article is accurate in presenting information on several disturbing trends in Chinese culture. Children are regularly abducted in China. The newspapers are filled with stories of missing children. There is no doubt that the episodes he describes in his article happened.

Second, it is a fact that the foreign adoption program has had a huge impact on the "value" of infant children in the Chinese orphanages. As I described in "The Finances of Baby-Trafficking", the orphanages that deal with foreign adopting families have made it more difficult for domestic families to adopt. As hard as one tries to refute these points, they are fact.

However, Peter tries to connect dots in the story that I feel can't be connected. Neither of the children profiled in his story ended up in an orphanage. None of the evidence (except for the Government-issued verdict, which is not evidence) in the trial of the participants in the Hengyang County trafficking case suggested that the children were abducted. In fact, ALL involved insisted they were not. Nevertheless, Peter boldly asserts (including in the title to his piece) that abducted children were adopted internationally. This is speculation, unsupported by fact.

I have spoken with directors of orphanages who have confirmed that they too have been approached by traffickers offering infants for sale. A Google search of the trafficking stories in China over the past few years reveals a common M.O. for traffickers -- contacting a trusted local representative, often a doctor in a birthing hospital. This person solicits birth parents that do not wish to keep their newborn child. The birth parents are told that contacts have been made to find their child a good home. The birth parents relinquish their child, since their alternatives are abandoning the child themselves, or keeping an unwanted child.

The traffickers then "adopt" the child for a fee to domestic couples that badly want children, or in this case to hungry orphanages that wish to increase their revenue through international adoption.

Some people in China seek to bypass even that system and abduct children from the streets.

To put this bluntly -- there are many, many available unwanted children in China. When one looks at the finding ads for the cities that do international adoptions, frequently one sees abandonment patterns that reveal "hot spots" -- Huangpo Town in Wuchuan and Zhanjiang cities in Guangdong(and the likely origin of the Hunan children); the Daiyutai area of Huainan City in Anhui. It seems that most cities have areas that are poor, uneducated, and locations of frequent findings. An enterprising or compassionate individual could easily establish a network of collecting some of these children and trafficking them to couples or orphanages. This is precisely what Liang Guihong swears she did.

I appreciate Peter's reporting. But I take exception to his weaving of two issues to make it appear that they are one. Lisa Ling did the same thing in her National Geographic piece in dealing with female abduction. Yes, children are abducted in China; yes, trafficked babies were adopted by international families; no, there is no evidence that abducted children were adopted by international families. Those dots cannot be convincingly connected.

P.S. -- My "It's a corrupt system" comment was made in the context of local Chinese government, not specifically about the orphanage program. As I have written in the past, I personally feel that the orphanage program is over-all fairly honest. Yes, directors skim funds from the adoption fees, some more than others. But in the context of overall Chinese society, which is filled with graft and corruption on the government level, it is almost expected that directors would do this. However, I am amazed by the number of directors I meet that are honest and selfless. They truly seek the best interests of the kids.

Additionally, China has recently made bold announcements of change in their orphanage program. These changes involve closer scrutiny of those in places of leadership in the orphanages. This is well and good, but the single most effective step that could be taken is the imposition of a quota system on each individual orphanage. Only by destroying the "each child is $3,000" mentality will orphanage trafficking ever truly stop.

The Future Leaders of China

As I stood watching the children in this small, rural orphanage, I suddenly heard a commotion coming from the baby room's door. Turning, I was surprised to see a small crowd of High School students, many dressed smartly in their school uniforms, entering the room with bags of candy and fruit. They were as puzzled by my presence as I was by theirs. They quickly dispersed into the room, each student searching out a small child to introduce themselves to, and to engage in a simple conversation or game of play.

I watched one of the eighteen students as they knelt beside a small boy, his smile marred by his severe cleft pallet. The little boy gazed into the face of the the girl as she addressed him, sang some songs, and gave him a small treat. He beamed. Another student walked over to a nearby crib, a newborn infant lying in some blankets, and began to gingerly stroke its hands. The backlighting on the student and infant produced a solemn effect of intimacy and connection, two hands touching in a quiet and peaceful gesture.

I approached one of the students and introduced myself. "Why are you here today?" I asked her, "Today is Sunday, a school holiday, is it not?" She explained that all of these students were in her class, and that today was "The Day of Lei Feng". "We have come here to help the orphans, to give something back to our community."

Lei Feng Day was first announced by the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong forty-one years ago today. Lei was an altruistic soldier who selflessly devoted his life to others, assuming a life of simplicity and poverty for himself. He died tragicly in a truck accident in 1962 at the age of twenty-two.

Each year in China thousands of students perform acts of service for others to celebrate the life of Lei Feng. Some visit the aged in rest homes, cleaning rooms and giving baths. Others pick up trash and do recycling programs. Today, as I watched, eighteen students knelt in front of two scores of orphaned children and sang, talked, and laughed with them. The children beamed, full of pride and excitement at being the center of such lavish attention.

It is difficult to describe, let alone quantify the changing attitudes of China's youth. In contrast to their grandparents that hold tenatiously to dying traditions of patriarchy, the youth of today sport cell phones, IM endlessly on computers in one of the many cyber cafes located in each town and village, and watch pirated Western movies in their homes. Decried by their elders as often slothful and disrespectful, the rising generation displays a progressive and open-minded attitude towards themselves, their country and the world. As this generation assumes control of the political structure in China, I have no doubt that phenominal and dramatic changes will occur.

"May I ask you a question?" a male student asked me as I watched the action around me. "What should society do about the disabled?" The question was so unexpected that I did not know how to answer articulately, but uttered something about providing opportunities. I was, however, impressed that this student was asking these types of questions. What is our responsibily indeed! As these students interact with these children in this orphanage, no doubt they will take home images of the faces and smiles much like I do. As they mature and become influencial in Chinese society, they will work for change. I am certain few of them will contribute to the problem of abandoned children.

Today I saw China's future, and it is bright. Perhaps in a decade or two I will return to this place, and take a tour of a cultural artifact that one stood here. Perhaps, in that day, a progressive and powerful culture will have risen and taken its place among the noble and best of the world's civilizations.