The Washington Post, today, printed this short yet powerful look at International Adoption. Of specific interest to those of us involved in adoptions from Vietnam is this bit:
A cable from the U.S. embassy in Vietnam, recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, said that, “while there are legitimate orphans in Vietnam, the corruption in the adoption process has become so widespread that [the embassy] believes that there is fraud in the overwhelming majority of cases of infants offered for international adoption.”
This is the first time we have really heard that fraud has tainted the vast majority of adoptions. This is a hard pill to swallow and certain one that conflicts with what we’ve heard from such Agency Advocacy organizations as JCICS who, in their most recent position paper, refer to the corruption in Vietnam adoptions as “isolated reports of abuse”.
In fact, the very level of abuse and fraud is something that interests many. Some believe that the US government is grossly exaggerating the level of corruption. Others believe that the corruption has been much closer to the statement from the US Embassy, above, and this only verifies what has long been understood and experienced first hand.
Meanwhile adoptions continue in Vietnam with families still awaiting I600 approval for referrals received before the shutdown and some families fighting to bring home the babies they were referred after the shutdown or for whom they received a NOID. Simultaneously, both the US government and Vietnam’s government have received pressure from American citizens and Agency lobby groups to arrive at a new agreement and open doors to US-Vietnam adoptions again, as soon as possible. Truly every orphan without a chance at reuniting with their natural family or being adopted domestically in Vietnam deserves the chance at a permanent stable family abroad. But is it wise, given the extent of fraud that exists, to rush a new agreement that may inadvertently continue to hurt the very orphans we hope to help?
We may never know the true extent of corruption in Vietnam but for those of us who have already completed our adoptions, it is important that we keep abreast of these investigations and studies as they supply vital pieces of information that will be of value as our adopted children grow. It is tempting to be convinced that certainly our own adoptions could not have been tainted but the reality is that few of us can say with complete certainty that our adoption process was untouched by any fraud or corruption. Our children will have questions and eventually they will have the means to research their own answers. Meanwhile we can do the best we can to read, with an open heart and mind, the information as it becomes available that might lead us to a better understanding of the true situation that existed during the 2006-2008 span of adoptions in Vietnam.
22 Responses
One has to wonder if the “widespread corruption” mentioned is referring only to corruption concerning how the child came to the orphanage or if they are lumping all forms of corruption involved in Vietnam adoptions together such as: Orphanage directors and in country agency staff taking exuberant amounts of humanitarian aid money for their own, selling orphanage donations, gifts and trips for orphanage directors and government officials, etc. and calling that “widespread corruption.” I think that yes, most of adoptions from Vietnam have been touched by corruption whether it be as horrific as unknowingly adopting a stollen baby(I truely belive this has been isolated) to the much more common occurance of money going where it shouldn’t and people profiting off of it. I do believe that is what the US Embassy is referring to and NOT that all of our kids have been stollen and wrongly adopted. My big question is what the heck happened in 2007??? It seems like VN was taking their time and being very selective at first about what agencies were getting licenses and things were going well but then by Spring 2007 they started handing them out like candy and it all went to Hell in a Hand basket!!! Also, Who’s Brilliant idea was it to allow more than one agency to work with the same orphanage??? That was just asking for trouble! Why is it that no one has mentioned that???
Jessica-
You raise some valid points.
Especially this part:
“My big question is what the heck happened in 2007??? It seems like VN was taking their time and being very selective at first about what agencies were getting licenses and things were going well but then by Spring 2007 they started handing them out like candy and it all went to Hell in a Hand basket!!! Also, Who’s Brilliant idea was it to allow more than one agency to work with the same orphanage???”
What I know firsthand is that one very reputable agency had a very difficult time obtaining a license because they would not pay for it. This same agency refused to work in a certain province when it became clear that they could not do it without compromising. This same agency also refused to pay “hospital donations” to help give incentive to a hospital in Saigon to funnel healthy infants to the orphanage where they worked. The result, families with this agency waited and waited and waited while families with other agencies who were working in the same orphanage were given referrals.
I also know that another agency applied 3 times to get the license and were denied, mysteriously, on the 4th try they got it. I wonder what made the difference.
My opinion is that $$$ made the difference. That is why multiple agencies were allowed to work in orphanages. Because it generated more $$$ for the orphanage(i.e donations)
Where I believe this whole thing gets very sticky is that the incentive for adoptions is not to provide families for children that need them, but to make $$$. And when the incentive becomes making money, ethics are thrown out the window and what used to be black & white gets very gray.
Jessica – speaking personally, my daughter’s adoption was completed in 2006 and there was rampant corruption at that time. I saw it with my own eyes when I was in Vietnam. And even before that, earlier in the year, I heard tale after tale of corruption, fraud and other extremely questionable practices. In fact I left my first agency back in May 2006 because of issues like this. I’m not sure but I think that 2006 was the ramping up year and because agencies were still being licensed and the program had only really begun under the new MOU, practices were not more closely scrutinized until 2007.
I think it is fair to presume that when the Embassy talks about fraud they are talking about all levels of fraud. The question is, I think, when it comes to our children’s adoptions, when or where is it ok to draw a line and say “this fraud is ok and this isn’t”? And how will we explain fraud at ANY level to our children as they grow?
Nicki, wonder if you could share the corruption that you saw. I know that there are problems and would like to know more about what you saw…
Where is the proof of all this? I’m not saying corruption isn’t there, but saying their is “widespread corruption” and proving it aren’t the same thing. And you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much corruption in US adoptions, but you don’t shut down the whole process. There are ways to determine if children are in fact true orphans. Why don’t they limit adoptins to children over a certain age who have resided in orphanages for a period of time. Why prevent all children from being adopted? It doesn’t make sense.
Hi PJ – just as a reminder, the US didn’t shut down the process. Vietnam requires an MOU, the MOU expired, it has not yet been renewed or replaced and the law requiring it has not been lifted in VN.
I think you have some great ideas but it isn’t entirely within the control of the US government. Basically the USG can follow the laws for granting a visa, that’s it. They can’t change those laws to reflect only a certain country which is what would be required to limit visas by age or length of time in an orphanage. Ultimately, the USG does not determine who is adoptable, the sending country has that responsibility.
Frankly, I don’t believe anything the US Embassy says anymore. The US Embassy seems to change stories as it suits them. No hard evidence is ever provided to the public and no criminal charges are ever brought.
Human trafficking is an international crime, and Viet Nam is a member of the United Nations. If this corruption is so widespread and the US Embassy has so much proof, then why isn’t the US petitioning the UN’s Human Rights Council to do an investigation? If the Embassy has so much proof, this situation better come up in Viet Nam’s Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights this May. I’m sorry, but how much do you want to bet that you won’t hear one peep from our US Embassy then?
Not to mention this glaring problem- If the corruption was so widespread, SOME agencies MUST have SOME knowledge of what was going on and the Embassy must have SOME proof of this. Why isn’t the US Government pursuing more agency representatives for aiding human trafficking?
I’m sorry, but I cry bull-puckey on this. We are just supposed to “buy” the Embassy’s theory of the day without question, and I, for one, refuse to do so.
Alice,
I don’t believe the embassy, either; but there’s just too much independent evidence. The Schuster Institute at Brandeis has some solid facts, on Vietnam and other countries. But I disagree with Niki that USG can do nothing more than follow the laws for granting a visa. The USG can make better laws. The I600 is a USG form. Right PAPs/APs are solely responsible for ensuring the children are orphans, which is ridiculous. Why not add a line to the form so that agencies are legally responsible for ensuring a child is legally an orphan? If agencies rather than PAPs are faced with $20,000+ to fight a NOID, or get a reputation for failed orphan petition after failed orphan petition, that would cut down on incidents of corruption pretty darn fast.
You are right that the USG can change laws to better protect our citizens and states should change laws to hold agencies accountable. I think you have excellent ideas. The difficulty might be in finding a way to mesh state law (agency oversight) with federal law (orphan visas).
You can live in any state and use an agency in another state. We’ve already seen examples of agencies being forced to close in one state, and simply opening under a new name in a state with weaker regulations. The federal government needs to regulate adoption agencies; then those who do wrong can be prosecuted under federal laws. This is especially important where crimes can take place overseas; states can’t deal with this. It was US senators who wrote the Hauge treaty, it’s DOS who negotiates MOUs in countries like Vietnam, it’s CIS who issues visas. Since the federal government is already involved, they should do so properly. Instead, they issue NOIDs to PAPs and APs while agencies open programs in new countries. Alice is right — any crimes in Vietnam as alleged by DOS and CIS would have violated international law. Why is no one who actually committed these crimes being held accountable?
Vast majority? Sorry, I don’t buy it. There is corruption no doubt, but I don’t believe vast majority. There is no way American agencies that have been working in Vietnam for years and are Hague compliant are involved is widespread corruption. IMO the article offers no proof, simply a vague statement. Yes, changes need to be made before a new agreement is reached, yes there is and has been corruption, but no way to this ectent.
I did indeed read the article by the Schuster Institute at Brandeis. Frankly, I started to notice that I have personally spoken with some of the people that Graff quotes. I went well beyond due diligence as an adoptive parent to make sure that my daughter’s adoption was on the up and up, and I am angry that Graff and the US Embassy are attempting to paint all international adoption with this brush of widespread corruption because it is encouraging public assumptions about my family. I’m sorry, but there were people doing it right in Viet Nam, and I know this first hand. Unfortunately, some of the people who were doing it wrong are now Hague Accredited (for whatever that’s worth” and some of the people doing right will never be Hague Accredited and are being forced out of adoptions altogether.
Alice and K,
That’s all fair enough, and I wonder about “vast majority” myself. The embassy has an agenda, and my opinion is they have been overstating things for a long time. Agencies have an agenda, and for too many that means making money. I just figure that whether we are talking about a “vast majority”, a majority, a significant minority or a small minority, even a small minority of cases being corrupt means there need to be changes, because even a few is too many. And the US federal government is the only entity with enough power and reach to make a real difference.
This whole thing is sickening, Vietnam needs to go to having the government match families with children with a national registry. This way there isn’t a case where a family only wants a 6 month old girl, and suddenly there appears one. Only one or two agencies were caught doing this, only 4 cases out of 1700 were deemed faulty.
Now all approved families like myself who was opened to any child, any age were held back because I wasn’t able to go directy to the national orphanges which has 20,000 legitimate orphans available, but deemed “older”. I had to wait in line at my agency and hope an older child walked through the door of that orphanage, which obviously didin’t happen. There should be no relationships between agencies and orphanages, the government should direct traffic only.
Now here I am 3 years later $15,000 which I can’t deduct/recover and I can’t start over. My paperwork is being returned as we speak- dossiers don’t change so why cancel them. All we ever asked was to stay on the list, some national list so when the country re-opens we could be first. The sadness for the children is overwhelming.
Oh Jeanne I’m so sorry to hear all of that. Can your agency transfer you into another program? I’m guessing you’ve already asked. Like you, I am also hoping that the US and Vietnam can work out a much stronger agreement, or that Vietnam can acceed to the Hague conventions. My husband and I would like to adopt again, but would only do so from Vietnam (just a personal preference; we’d like the kids to have that little bit in common). The agencies who screwed this up for everyone, especially the kids that didn’t find homes, really should have to pay for what they’ve done.
This was already my 3rd country that closed down and my agency closed with no transfers unless you had an active referral. My journey is over. I am sponsoring, but it does not compare to being a Mom day to day.
I’m so sorry for all the people who want to parent Vietnamese children but why would you take any chance that you are stealing someone’s child? Try and transfer to another country or, God forbid, adopt domestically!
Jeanne- We are so sorry to hear about all the difficulties you have faced. We hope someday you will have the opportunity to have your dream cometrue.
We were so fortunate that we were able to bring our daughter home before the shutdown. We were orginally concerend with using a “large” agency because we had heard they were somewhat impersonal. However now we think we would not have been able to bring our daughter home without that “large” agency and their experience and influence.
Jeanne, I’m very sorry to hear all of that. For what it’s worth, I do hope another path opens for you.
Let’s discuss credibility:
Staff at the US Embassy in Vietnam have done wonderful, above-board things like asking Vietnam’s DIA to decertify agencies who were not part of the first cycle of Hague Accreditation, 3 months before the US had even implemented it. A cable that they thought would not become public could contain just about anything from hair-brained ideas to hungover rants.
The pattern of manipulation and undercurrent of agenda are barely below the surface: US DoS expresses a zero tolerance policy in October 07; DoS hands over I-600 processing, in essence, to USCIS in November of 07 – enormous backlog and confusion ensue; DoS releases “10” cases (actually 9) in a white paper through Representative Price’s office as justification for the (Full Name): Adjudicate Orphan First program in February 08; DoS re-releases these same 9 stories, but not as 9 of 1400 cases – instead, they release it on their website in a theme format. Each story can then be used multiple times, as evidence of corruption in different stages of the process. Masterful and twisted. The diplomatic reaction from Vietnam is not surprising – they lose face. Why would they want to sit down at a table with the same people who wrote this, to renew the MOU? And so, the US position is completely tenable and bullet proof. They do not have to justify to their tax payers why they have chosen not to renew the MOU – it is a Vietnamese government issue. AND, we discover in July 08 that the USCIS Officer in Charge is not the final authority for I-600 approval as laid out in November 07. Instead, a series of reviews, perhaps including committees, in Washington D.C., are completed for each case that she cannot “straight-forwardly” approve. Why? To prevent a repeat of the overturning of at least half of the NOIDs issued by DoS, including at least one of the infamous white paper cases! The delays and failure to communicate this governmental CYA fit nicely into an overall strategy of discouraging entry into the Vietnam program, one that ultimately will close. If real children, really amazing ones, weren’t forced to live in orphanages as a result, I could almost admire the strategy and implementation. As it is, it makes me sick!
So, let’s talk about credibility of sources again…
Am I the only one who had a problem with this section of the article?
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
investigates the child’s orphan status if it suspects fraud but deals only with the prospective parents in approving or denying these applications.”
Excuse me? I thought USCIS investigated every case. In mine, I had to pay for DNA testing of the bio mom and child, and USCIS used this as an excuse to conduct a one hour interrogation of the bio mo (I know this from an american who was there at the time adopting independently). USCIS also interviewed orphanage staff, and my bio mom’s family and friends. Please. I don’t know what the US’s “agenda” is, but I do not believe a word that our government has said on this issue. I think there was fraud and corruption, just as there is in some US domestic adoptions. What I have not seen is any proof that the overwhelming majority of adoptions are tainted. I also believe that our government should not approve any I-600s in which it believes the process was corrupt – why is this not an option? Instead of doing this, and thereby proving its allegation, our government has chosen a route that allows it to smear the entire adoption process at the expense of innocent APs, birth families, and children.
I was outraged by this article, as well as by the State Dept’s “cables,” because it paints all adoptions from VN with a broad brush, and I fear that my daughter will read this some day as proof that her adoption was not above board. I hate that these unsubstantiated reports are out there to color her story. She deserves better.
Ditto, Laura.