UPDATE: You can now read the Embassy statement directly on the Embassy website.
For privacy reasons, the US Embassy in Hanoi can not discuss specific cases or comment on specific agencies. However, the Embassy believes it is important for people to have accurate information about the current situation in Vietnam and have kindly sent us this statement to share with our readers:
In recent months, the Embassy and USCIS have seen an increase in the number of irregularities appearing in orphan petitions and visa applications in Vietnam. This has resulted in a similar increase in the issuance of Notices of Intent to Deny.
We recognize that a decision to deny a petition is an extremely undesirable outcome for adopting parents and for children, who themselves may be the victims of unscrupulous agents. For this reason, we urge adoptive parents to be extremely diligent in reviewing qualifications and standards before selecting an adoption service provider. Unfortunately, as news stories and blogs often reveal, the glowing report of an adoptive parent who successfully “brought home” a child cannot be taken as evidence that the adoption was ethical or fully legal.
We at the Embassy have a legal responsibility to ensure the integrity of the adoption process when that process is part of the request for an immigrant visa. Moreover, we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that international adoptions include adequate safeguards for the rights of the children, birth parents, and adoptive parents throughout this process.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Intercountry adoptions signed by the U.S. and Vietnam in 2005 was the beginning of a step towards an intercountry adoption program that would meet international standards such as those established by the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions. That convention contains a number or protections and safeguards currently lacking in Vietnam. For that reason, we are urging the Government of Vietnam to push forward with its efforts to become a Hague partner.
The MOU was designed to increase transparency and reduce corruption, and came after a period when adoptions had been suspended in Vietnam because of significant problems involving corruption and “Baby buying.”
The ongoing number of irregularities that we are currently seeing strongly indicates that the adoption process in Vietnam still lacks sufficient oversight and regulation. Specifically there is insufficient control of the so-called child finders and an inadequate regulation of the fees paid to individuals and institutions. Despite its stated intention to do so, Vietnam has yet to publish a schedule of fees. We are extremely concerned by reports of significant increases in the number of abandoned children since 2005, especially in the provinces of Phu Tho and Thai Nguyen.
We continue to encourage the DIA to work with provincial authorities in Vietnam to improve the integrity of the adoption system. We recognize there may be legitimate questions concerning the DIA authority in these cases. Whatever the cause, to date we have seen little remedial action to address the problems. Even more important, we have seen little if any action to identify and prosecute those responsible for fraudulently documenting the abandonment of children, offering monetary inducements to families for relinquishing children, and offering children for international adoption without the consent of the birth parents.
We strongly endorse international adoption as an important option for Vietnamese children who do not have permanent families. We are deeply concerned, however, by confirmed cases of child selling, and by evidence that children are being released for adoption without the consent of the birth parents.
We are continuing to work with the Government of Vietnam to find ways to strengthen and improve accountability in the adoption system. We continue to urge Vietnam to pass a new, responsible, comprehensive law regulating adoptions, one that puts in place a process that protects the interests of all parties involved in and adoption and one that meets the standards of the Hague Convention. We look forward to the day when both of our countries are full participants in that convention.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE TO OUR COMMENTERS: This is not a chat group, forum or discussion list. This is a blog post. On a specific topic. Please restrict comments to this topic. If you are not able to do so, your comment will be deleted. If all comments dissolve into off-topic remarks, the comments on this post will be closed.
Thank you very much,
Christina
editor & contributor
113 Responses
For those of you who have been around Vietnam adoptions for a while (before the shutdown), I would be interested to know how long the Embassy sent out cautionary statements such as these before adoptions were shut down, because this message scares the poop out of me. And like everyone else who reads this (i’m sure), I am infuriated by the agencies that participate and/or turn a blind eye to corruption. Infuriated for the children who are being robbed of their histories, and perhaps even the chance to remain with their birth families…and infuriated that future adoptions including ours) are being put at risk.
Lauren – try not to let it scare you. Let it empower you to make every effort to put ethics above all other priorities in any given adoption experience (ie age of child, gender, quick referral or travel). That doesn’t mean these things are not valid needs, just that they absolutely CAN NOT come before a sense of obligation to chose an ethical agency. If every single parent chose only an ethical agency, we would not see messages like this. We do have the ultimate power and I think that’s what I hear when I read this message. Lets use our power wisely.
Nicki-would you be saying the same thing about gender, age of child, quick referral today if your only option was to go with an agency that wouldn’t allow you to choose gender or told you that you had to wait for 2 years for a referral? I know it was a major reason you adopted, to have a little girl. I am not advocating corruption in adoption, but I wonder if your perspective would be any different if you were still on the other side of the experience.
I am so thankful that the embassy took the time to prepare this statement. I hope that the message will be heard. I am hopeful that the changes with I600 will make a difference (although I still wish the transition period were longer).
Re: E’s comment, for myself, we did go into adoption requesting a healthy baby girl AYAP. By the time our dossier was complete, we faced a choice. Stay with what I believe to be an extremely ethical agency and face a wait that would surely be 2 years at least, or switch countries. We would have switched to Ethiopia–there are agencies working there whose ethics are solid and millions of children who need parents. But due to a unique set of circumstances, we had the opportunity to be first on the list with a newly licensed agency in a province that has not completed adoptions for Americans since the shut down. So I knew that there were baby girls waiting in the orphanage who needed parents.
My point is that many of the APs who completed adoptions in the early part of the reopening in Vietnam were in a similar situation. There were many baby girls in need of homes, and *at that point* requesting a baby girl was not contributing to corruption in the way that it is today, in provinces where many adoptions have taken place, and where facilitators are going into villages in search of baby girls to meet the demand. If we were starting from scratch at this point, for our family personally we would be open to gender–but we would also be switching to Ethiopia and probably adopting a sibling group rather than waiting 2+ years with the Vietnam program. For whatever that is worth.
I *am* still on the other side of the experience. I hope to adopt another child. I would love a sister for my child. I have absolutely ZERO issues with the wait. It is a small price to pay for an ethical adoption. If gender choice were very important to me and I was ready to adopt today and could not find an ethical agency that offered gender choice, I would not adopt. Period. Because I *am* living these choices, this isn’t purely speculative.
I have considered other country programs and domestic adoption as an alternative and, for me, my heart is in Vietnam. That won’t be the case for others and, for them, there are other alternatives than just going with an unethical agency in order to complete an adoption at any cost. I just can’t comprehend a scenario where someone can justify why that is ok. Seriously how can it ever EVER be ok to knowingly opt into corruption?
Wow, I am really impressed (and, like Lauren, terrified) that the Embassy finally came out with a statement that actually has some beef to it! I’m really surprised they actually called out the problem provinces, finally. I’d be really afraid to be with any of the problem agencies in either of the problem provinces. So let’s see, who still works in Phu Tho…
ADOPPT, PLAN, Orphans Overseas, Children’s House Int’l, WASATCH, CHSFS, Small World. Have any others, in addition to VORF, pulled out of this province (at least temporarily) because of the issues??
And the list is pretty short for Thai Nguyen province:
Orphans Overseas (again), and World Child.
Are any of those not accurate?
IMO, any decent agency should up and run from the provinces the Embassy just named. Wow, I’m just really impressed that the Embassy actually named their areas of concern. I just feel bad for any family currently holding a referral from either of these provinces, awaiting the results of their I-600 investigations. I truly truly hope this is not beyond repair and things can be cleaned up so that the program can remain open. But how can it sustain itself if cases of baby buying and stealing have already been confirmed?!
We got an email from our agency today. They are predicting an even longer slowdown (they work out of only one province in central VN). I’m trying not to be a negative nancy, I just hope that even those like us who weren’t even DTV until September will be able to bring babies home…at the same time, I am trying to prepare myself emotionally for a shut down. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst, right?
I should not have posted before, it was bound to be misinterpreted. I am not for adoption at any cost. That is not at all what I was saying. I just don’t think that it has to be without choice of gender and take 2 years to be ethical. With that said, I am glad that the embassy issued this statement, and I am glad that it was posted here. I wish for more transparency in the process, from our government included, and things like the change in I-600 processing and this letter move in that direction.
I’m currently in Hanoi and am part of publicized group of families who received NOIDs from USCIS. This has been a crushing experience for my family and I fully support the enforcement of ethical adoptions. I was surprised to see such a statement issued when the Embassy wouldn’t even say such things to our agency or our family about systematic problems within a province. In my surprise, I asked the Embassy today about these statements and they have denied issuing such a statement to VVAI. For the benefit of the adoption community, please cite your source so that we know that this information can be trusted.
I assume this statement from the Embassy is only referring to infants, not waiting children. For those PAPs willing to open their hearts & homes to children older than 2 years or with special needs (some are mild), the wait is short and the ethical considerations non-existent. Jena posted so beautifully about this recently. Our homestudy & agency application state we want a healthy child under 18 months and we are now trying to decide if we want to ammend that to include special needs or an older age. As this is our first child, it’s not an easy decision. But it’s one we’re now exploring. The choice does not have to be just about the wait-time, it can also be about changing our own expectations as PAPs, and understanding which children truly need homes. And, sadly, if Vietnam adoptions shut down, all orphans will be affected, including the waiting children who already have so few options. I fear for them much more than for PAPs, most of whom will be able to find another adoption alternative.
I really appreciate this statement from the embassy. It is scary, but, at the same time, it gives me hope that things aren’t going to suddenly shut down. I mean, if they were going to shut down sometime soon, the whole I600 change wouldn’t have happened, right? It seems to me they are going to try to improve things, and caution people, before they just say, “enough is enough — we’re done here!” That is my hope, anyway.
Also, as far as the girl thing goes, for what it’s worth, my mother said she saw a segment on one of the cable news channels (sorry, I don’t know which one) wherein they were talking about Vietnam starting do do what China has been doing and limit family size. This means girls are becoming less desirable in Vietnam because everyone wants a son. They are predicting, supposedly, that in a few years Vietnam will be in the state China is in now as far as the male/femal ratio. Has anyone else heard anything about this? I’ve tried to do some quick research this morning, but have come up empty handed so far. It would be an interesting topic to delve into, and would certainly change the landscape of adoption from Vietnam if it is truly happening.
Ooops. It wasn’t on tv. It was online. Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566321/
I haven’t read it yet, but still though it might be interesting.
E.
Ellen, I think you make such an excellent point. Thank you for bringing up that aspect of adopting from Vietnam.
Sarah,
Can you share what else your agency said about an potential shutdown. In the very near future???
Thanks,
Julie
Laurie,
Orphans Overseas has temporarily suspended all referrals from Thai Nguyen, and they are being very diligent in looking at all of the paperwork carefully for any of their current Phu Tho referrals.
Where is this statment on the Embassy website? I have not been able to find it anywhere except this site as of yet. Has it been officially published? thanks for the information.
It is not an officially published statement but rather a communication issued to us directly in response to our questions.
Julie – my agency said *nothing* about a potential shut down. Those are MY OWN FEARS. Just to make that clear.
With all due respect, I find it highly unlikely that the United States government would issue a highly charged statement like this one to
one group in response to their inquiries. I was an attorney with USCIS and this is not how they operate.
I also find this statement very unusual. There is nothing on JCICs.org or ethicanet.org and my agency was not aware of this statement. I would think the embassy would want to send a similar statement to all concerned groups and individuals. If this is from the embassy, I think the strong language is undermined by the informal means of communication.
I personally am aware of the situation surrounding some of the old NOIDS issued prior to the shut down and have recently learned of the newer issued ones. I know in many of the cases, it was an error made by the orphanage: such as they failed to record something in their log book, but did everything else proper such as advertising for a child’s arrival at the orphanage. That didn’t necessarily make the Adoption Agency unscrupulous because of an error made by the orphanage. I disagree with some of the wording of this article where it implies that agencies are totally responsible for everything that happens. I know that my previous agency stopped working with a particular orphanage or group of people because they felt they were not being ethical. If an agency knowingly continues to work with orphanages or VN officials that participate in unethical practices, then Yes, the agency should be at fault. But, folks need to realize that not all agencies are bad and not all agencies participate in unscrupulous activities and the majority of agencies that do find errors occuring in VN, take action to correct them or stop working with those folks. Vietnam has many areas in which they could strengthen the program. But has anyone stopped to think why doesn’t the US gov’t question all the abandonmnets that occur in China. You never hear of field investigations in China or Russia. Sometimes I wonder how much this has to do with higher political issues between our two governments. Look at how long it took the two countries to come to an agreement for the new bilateral agreement. The US knew 6 months in advance of the new adoption laws which VN created more than 3 years ago and little or no effort was made to implement a bi-lateral agreement in time so that adoption could continue uninterrupted. Countries like Ireland and France do not go through all the hoops that US families must endure. Why is that? are we saying that those countries just turn a blind eye to corruptions while the US continues its’ sometimes overzealous policing of other countries governments? I am in no way advocating for the continuation of unethical practices, however, I do think that there is a more practical way of addressing things than shutting down the entire system one some wrongs are found. When one of our Banks are robbed, we do not shut down the entire banking network. We look at where the weaknesses were with that branch and see how it can be improved or corrected.
I am confused. Was this correspondence written for publication or did you ask if you could publish it after receiving it? Whom was the letter from at the Embassy?
Lynda & Others – this is not the first time a USCIS employee has spoken out to PAPs in this way. Back before the shutdown, for example, USCIS participated in an interview with a website where they shared very similar concerns, suggestions and information:
http://www.adoptvietnam.org/adoption/ins-hcmc.htm (also linked from our sidebar)
For once a debate I didn’t start….lol. I too have e-mailed the Embassy in Hanoi 2 times during my adoption agency research phase and they did write me back. Unfortunately they were very non-specific and would not name names. I do believe this was from the Embassy and for once I don’t doubt what is being said, I have said I believe there are probably unethical agencies. What I personally have a problem with is naming provinces without naming agencies. To me if you are going to publically (and face it, this was not an private e-mail) name provinces then people are going to see which agencies work there. Why not just name the agencies? It’s not fair for the agencies who work in that province (I’m sure not every one of them are unethical since Phu Thu works with ADOPPT, PLAN, Orphans Overseas, Children’s House Int’l, WASATCH, CHSFS, Small World as was pointed out earlier and I THINK (but will admit I could be wrong about this) WASATCH is brand new and not even doing adoptions yet (I recently talked with someone who is using them and used them for a China adoption and said they were very ethical-in her opinion. And I have heard speculation about problems with SOME of these agencies, but not ALL of them). So it’s not fair that they are ALL painted with the same brush if they are not all guilty of receiving NOIDS and more importantly participating in the behaviours that are named-and I will be the first to admit that I don’t know which of these agencies are the ones getting NOIDS. (I am sorry I do not remember who pointed this out), but one person wrote that some of the problems have been with the orphanages, so lets distinguish between agency and orphanage issues and which agencies (if any) are taking appropriate action. I think if the Embassy is going to make a statement, it should be a public statement and one that is posted on their site. I LOVE that they are talking to APs, but they should not be saying anything to an AP that they wouldn’t post on their own site-they are a government agency that holds a lot of power in this system and as such should not be releasing anything but specific facts (IMO). Maybe someone at the Embassy thought they were doing everyone a favor by making an “unoffical” statement, but that’s not really their place and if they are you have to wonder if they had permission to do so….like it or not they are a US government agency and are held to a certain standard. But hopefully now that they have come out with the province information they will take the next step and name the agencies involved, that is what we need.
Tracy
Well here I am again at your website completely bummed out. I am not saying your posts aren’t reality, just completely depressing. Thanks for sharing this “unofficial”, scare-the-poop-out-of-you (as mentioned above) information! Don’t worry, I won’t visit anymore.
I agree Lynda. This email seems a little suspect. Not that there isn’t a problem with unethical agents, but I do not think the USCIS is going to email some random about this very important information. I am will be keeping an eye out for anything official coming out of Vietnam.
Oh my God. You people are accusing the owners of this blog of lying. I am sure that they have nothing better to do with their time than to MAKE UP a statement and pretend it was from the US govt. Lynda, USCIS is a huge government agency. Were you an attorney who dealt with adoption visas in country with known corruption? I don’t believe that you having once worked for the agency gives you the experience to say how USCIS would operate in this situation.
Anna, I don’t see how not visiting anymore is going to serve you well in your adoption. Ignoring problems doesn’t make them go away.
Amanda,
The US govt. doesn’t question abandonments in China because it is illegal to relinquish your baby in China. That isn’t the case in Vietnam. I agree with you that I hope change can happen without shutting down the system, and that the recent changes with the I600 are a step in the right direction.
If you’re concerned about the letter or about why the US Embassy would issue letters of such nature to a blog, you can do what I did the other day — email the embassy yourself and ask about it. While the letter may be perfectly legitimate, I think it’s irresponsible for the embassy to to send letters of this nature to a blog for publication, and I told them that.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. No one said the blogger lied. It is true that this is not an official communication nor was it signed. The fact is, it doesn’t even read like something written by USCIS. Look on their site nad judge for yourself. It isn’t neccesary for me to have worked in that particular division to know that an unsigned statement, with no name attached, that was not an official statement (but claims to be a statement issued by he US embassy), is not standard operating procedure in the government.
I am fully aware that there are probems and concerns involving ethics in adoption in Vietnam and in many other places. I have concerns about this and that’s why I read and research, as do many others. I do not believe in putting my head in the sand. Nor do I accept everything I read on a blog as automatically true. Like all people, I look for indicia of reliability in what I read and, sorry if this offends, but that statement does not have indications of reliability.
Lynda,
So if you believe that the statement doesn’t have indications of reliability, then what you are saying is that is fake or forged or inaccurate and that the bloggers are misrepresenting things, otherwise known as lying. How is that putting words in your mouth?
I can only imagine that there could be a message that the US Embassy in Hanoi would like for PAPs to get, but that there are complicated reasons why a statement couldn’t be made officially, on the embassy website for example. What better place for them to start then a site called Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity?
I certainly do not believe that everything I read on the internet is true. Clearly this wouldn’t be standard operating procedure in the govt. the majority of the time–but I also believe that it is absolutely credible that this statement came from the embassy.
Nicki,
In a comment above you stated, “Lynda & Others – this is not the first time a USCIS employee has spoken out to PAPs in this way. Back before the shutdown, for example, USCIS participated in an interview with a website where they shared very similar concerns, suggestions and information.”
However, the USCIS is NOT the same entity as the US Embassy in Hanoi, which you said is the author of the posted letter. Also, the interviewee you refer to on a different site is identified as a *former* official of the USCIS. I wanted to make sure that was clarified.
Again, you are making assumptions. Isn’t it the case that the blogger might believe this statement is from the embassy? and if so, he/she isn’t lying.
I am simply stating that I can not conclude that it is from the embassy nor can I conclude that it isn’t from the embassy, but I am skeptical. We are all entitled to our opinion on this.
I have to just say, I’m shocked and disappointed at the insuations and accusations I’m reading here. A few weeks ago I posted that we had attempted to contact the embassy in the past and gotten no response. Our commenters responded that we needed to try harder and I agreed. So we tried again. And what do you know, that time we got a response. In fact, we got a personal response from the Consular Chief, apologizing for our previous lack of responses and asking us not to hesitate in contacting him with any future questions.
So, I did. I didn’t want to post any information on the NOIDs without confirmation from the embassy but I knew they wouldn’t be able to divulge private info, so I asked for any substantiating information they could share with PAP’s … I explained that every adopting parent wants to be certain they are adopting in an ethical manner and that any information he could share would be very valuable. I made it clear that anything he told me would be shared with our readers.
And honestly I was a little surprised but very pleased that I got an actual detailed response. But let’s be honest here: nothing he wrote in that post was news. Certainly Nicki and I have written very similar things about ethics concerns before and it’s buzzing all over the lists and blogs which provinces were under scrutiny. But coming from someone in an official position, I think it holds more weight. It’s no longer “rumors and innuendo” but the cold hard truth from someone who sees things in Vietnam firsthand.
And now, people want to suggest that this statement could not possibly be from someone at the embassy … or worse, that the embassy should not be communicating with adoptive parents?!
I just don’t understand. This embassy official went out of his way to reach out to the adoptive community through the most logical way possible – a blog created specifically for informing adoptive parents about ethical issues in Vietnam. And now the embassy is going to get slammed for that? Do you really want the embassy to stop communicating? Or to limit communication to the agencies? We have been asking for a voice, been working to be heard… and now that we have, some of you think it’s “inappropriate”??
I’m confused – isn’t this America? A country created FOR the people BY the people? And are WE the “people”? Who else should the embassy be talking to?
I apologize if the title of the post was misleading. This was not an “official” USCIS statement. This was an aswer to a question … from the embassy to the people. And I for one sincerely hope that it is not the last time the embassy reaches out and responds to our questions… but at this point, I won’t blame them if it is.
OK-
So from what I am reading thus far, it seems as though(please correct or otherwise inform me) some readers do not believe that this post is from the Embassy.
To my mind there would be several ways that this is the case:
1. Nicki, Christina and Rachel are completely irresponsible and did not check the source of this email.
2.Nicki, Christina and Rachel thought it would be really fun in their spare time to sit around and make up all this stuff for the sole purpose of-
Thanks for that clarification Chirstina, I sincerely hope it clears things up for some people.
You might have done your readers a better service — and the embassy too — had you identified the source of the letter, first of all. If they gave you permission to print it, then you ought to have identified specifically who it was. It’s especially important when information in it can whip up the frenzy about alleged unethical practices simply because an agency may work in one of the provinces mentioned. Surely you know that one of the things about America is that the law says someone is innocent until proven guilty. To date, I’ve seen nothing but the opposite here, and on certain Yahoo groups by contributors to this blog. Again, you are not practicing what you are so righteously preaching.
People – you can ask the Embassy to stop sharing information with PAPs, you can stop reading the site, you can choose to rationalize why this can’t possibly be an email from anyone in the Embassy but that does not make the problems disappear or not exist.
Power beings and ends with us, the parents.
I for one just want to say how sorry I am to Michael (your post kind of got lost I think). You are the ones who are truly suffering by all of this right now. Yes, some people may have to wait longer for travel or referrals, but at least they are not over in Vietnam holding a baby and not knowing if or when they will be able to bring that child home. What a horrible place to have to be in (I vividly remember my days in Vietnam and how stressful it was not knowing what was going to happen). I hope your situation gets worked out quickly and I hope you are able to bring your child home. Good luck to you, your family and any others who are currently dealing with a NOID right now.
Tracy
I do not believe that the owners of this blog would have published this statement if they were not 100% certain that it was from the US Embassy in Hanoi–and I believe it would be very easy for them to verify that it was. There is a thread about this on the China Adopt Talk Vietnam forum–apparently this statement was in response to questions e-mailed to the embassy. So it would be pretty clear to the reciever of the e-mail that the response was indeed from the embassy.
Nicki,
Every single adoptive parent I know wants an ethical adoption. You can’t seem to understand how poorly your accusations and actions sit with so many people. The responsible adoptive parents I know do not go around blithely yelling “red flag, red flag, red flag!” at shadows and rumors. We want the same thing, Nicki. Some of us simply choose to advocate for ethical adotpions in an ethical manner.
I was told that VN shut down before was to make the program more stable and it reopened when it was. I choose to believe that it is stable.
Keep in mind that with everything there are a few bad apples. Not every agency is going to be on the up and up. Educate yourselves and if something seems too good to be true it probably is so steer clear. I seriously doubt that the program will come to a screeching hault. Seems to me the CIS had the foresight to see this coming and had a plan implimented for if/when it did.
I would also hesitate to advise someone to steer clear of an agency that works in one of these provinces. Now that the CIS has put these regulations into effect it is going to put the brakes on these corrupt agencies anyway. Educate yourselves and don’t be afraid to ask your agency questions and if anything seems off then it probably is. Trust yourself and your instincts.
Jennifer,
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that there would be information the Embassy would want to be released, but without “officially” linking it to a particular embassy official? Did it occur to you that perhaps the author of the statement does not want his/her name officially connected with it, but that that doesn’t change the truth that this is the embassy’s perspective? This happens constantly in politics and govt. Because it wasn’t on official embassy letterhead doesn’t make it not true. I am extremely thankful that this embassy official took the time to respond, and I hope that the silent majority of lurkers will take the words to heart when choosing an agency.
Jennifer–you are absolutely out of line. According to the embassy official, faciliators currently working in Vietnam are “fraudulently documenting the abandonment of children, offering monetary inducements to families for relinquishing children, and offering children for international adoption without the consent of the birth parents.” Parents have left Vietnam without their babies. Your agency is currently being investigated. Those are facts. They are not shadows and rumours.
Jennifer G – you are more than welcome to submit anything you’d like to this blog for publication. I assume, since you are so active in this forum, that you have the experience and knowledge to share with others pursuing ethical adoptions and you certainly like to write! It is clear you feel strongly about ethics and have feelings about the One Right Way to go about advocating for ethical adoptions. We all have a choice about the ways in which we use our voice. Some of us speak out. Others criticize those that do. Which are you?
Nicki,
I think I’ve made it pretty clear where I stand on ethical adoptions and how to go about achieving them in an ethical way, and it’s abundantly clear that you have your own agenda.
Jennifer G – maybe you misunderstood. I didn’t post this blog post. I didn’t write this blog post. I wasn’t even the recipient of the original email. I didn’t invite you to read it or comment on it, specifically. I think you might be reading a little too much into my “agenda” and perhaps you are personalizing it a bit. I’m ok being your villain if that’s what helps you sleep at night.
If you have a voice, use it to advocate, not to criticize. You don’t have to agree with my methods or my opinions. But you can only keep proclaiming loudly about your advocacy and ethics for so long without putting actions behind those words. The offer still stands.
You make some great points Tracy. I agree that naming names is an important first step however I can understand why it is unlikely that the Embassy will do this any time soon. It isn’t their place, first of all. I think it would be up to the state department to do this and the likelihood that they will is slim to none. In these cases, it isn’t as easy as just giving families the head’s up. There are legal issues all over the place. I think most, if not all, of these recent NOIDs are on-going. They are not done deals, they are being challenged and further investigations are on-going. As stated, there are privacy issues for the families and children involved as well.
That said, it is a goal of ours to continue to research the NOID issue and try to get clarity on which agencies are definitely involved and what the outcomes of the cases are so that parents can use this as a starting off point for questions and accountability within those agencies.
What I would like to see at this point is orphanages named, not so much agencies. I think this is a reasonable next step.
Sorry for seeing the humor in this situation…but can I make a wager that all the incredibly defensive PAP’s who hate this site, doubt the validity of its posts, question its moderators, etc. are working with agencies most of us suspect are the reasons we are having these problems now in vn adoptions? The reasons the rest of us have to file I-600’s in advance and possibly be held up…to prevent you all from getting the NOID you might have been headed for? UGH. I’m sorry for being nasty, but this is infuriating. People, this site is FOR US. Knowledge is power. What the hell is wrong with you if you’re so bothered by the truth you refuse to believe it or ever read it again? THAT is why we are having problems with ethics in international adoptions.
Thank God for people with balls, like Christina and Nicki!! Keep speaking the truth guys. Those that are going to do good things with it will keep on listening! Maybe the rest of us just have to yell louder too. But will they ever hear us?
Sarah,
I read your post too quickly. I apologize, and thank you for the clarification.
Julie
Tracy, with all due respect…your perspective is yet another example of a line of thinking that disturbs me. To me, PAPs are only one part of the picture in a NOID situation. The most important individual in this is the child, whose life is in the balance. The second most important individual(s) is the birth mother (and father), who may have lost their child through coercion, deception or force. While I can only begin to imagine how hard it would be to be a PAP who loses a referral, I feel much more pain for the child and the birthfamily. Let’s face it, a PAP who loses a referral will move on (I know someone this happened to – it was hard but she went on to adopt another child). They will adopt again, or not, but they will not have to live with the doubt as to whether their child was the victim of corruption. Nor will they have the level of pain that an adult adoptee who thinks they were “stolen” from their mother might feel. I don’t know the details of Michael’s situation and I am by no means implying this is the case for him, but using this situation as an example to illustrate my point and express my dismay with how narrowly NOIDs are viewed by so many in the adoption community. I, frankly, do not think a child should be brought into the US if there is any doubt about their origins. Sorry, but that’s my viewpoint — and it seems to be shared by the Embassy and the USCIS.
Ellen,
You are right, when I made that post I was thinking more about how people were reacting to the Embassy statement and how it effected their own adoptions/travel times and that someone who is faced with a NOID is going through so much more than any of us here at home.
But as I said, I agree with you, the children who will most likely never have a family (birth or adopted) are the ones that are going to suffer the most and I can not even imagine how difficult it has to be for a birth family never knowing what happened to their child if they willingly gave that baby up for adoption let alone if their economic situation was expoited or worse if a child was abducted. Of the three you are so very right, any PAP/AP is a the bottom of the list.
Thank you for pointing that out to me, first and foremost are the children…..on that I will not argue.
Tracy
Michael,
I’m also very sorry to hear about the heartbreaking situation you and other families are in right now.
Michael,
I am so sorry. I hope very much that this situation is resolved for you and your family.
Sorry, got a kid on my lap so tying will be short.
I am glad that they posted this.
I would add that it isn’t remotely unusual that a government official would say or write something off the record that the official government agency might then distance themselves from–that doesn’t mean the original statement isn’t factual. It happens every day in the press. The purpose of the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi is to protect and promote the interest of the American people–which is why I so much appreciate this statement. However, diplomacy is a delicate balancing act, and adoption is not the only business of the embassy, so it isn’t surprising that the statement isn’t on the website.
For the people who doubt the authenticity of it–please share what possible motive you think there could be. Why on earth would Christina, Nicki, or Rachel publish something that they were not certain was truly from the embassy? It would not be in their best interest or in the interest of this site, which would then lose all credibility. It is absolute craziness to think or imply that they would go to this effort just to stir the pot or because they have some personal vendetta or agenda, other than protecting the children of Vietnam and wanting the program to continue so that the children who really need families can be placed for adoption.
Not NOID related post-
I have spent some time reading some of the blogs of people who are posting on here (most I was already familiar with and love them). What I am wondering though is many of their own adoptions don’t meet the guidelines that are talked about here. Is this because hindsight is 20/20 (which I understand, I advocate for things now that my children are home that were not on my radar back when I was paperchasing), or is just that you know where YOUR intentions are and are sure you aren’t breaking any ethical standards?
Nicki-you have a post on your site where you say you were waiting for your agency to get licensed and started looking at other agencies but didn’t like the referral timelines quoted. From your own timeline posted on your site you received your referral 2 months after signing with your new agency (which back in July 06 was still VERY fast for a baby girl-I know CHI was quoting 18 months at that time because a friend was wanting to adopt a little girl and we had both used CHI and she was looking into other agencies). Why is your own agency (VORF I think) not listed on your ethical agency list? You post about switching agencies and that your old agency was NOT unethical, but I thought I saw a post from you on Agency Research saying you used ADOPPT and VORF, so am I wrong (and I admit I may be on this one since it was not specifically written) that you were originally with ADOPPT which I think is one of the agencies on the “unethical” lists. It also looks like your baby girl was about 2 months old at referral-which I thought was a red flag? Again, if hind sight is 20/20 then I totally understand that, but just remember when you (or anyone) is upset with people who are trying to complete their adoptions in less than 2-3 years, you were there yourself at one time also.
And what about people who are completing concurrent adoptions with Vietnam and China right now? There are LOTS of people doing this, how is that not an ethical delemia? Even though Vietnam allows this, China most certainly does not. So how ethical is it to search for an agency that will allow you to do this? You are either lying to one of your agencies or you are only applying the ethical sticker to your Vietnam adoption and not your China adoption.
There are others but they aren’t as concrete as these so I won’t post about them. I will probably be banned from the site, or at the very least this post will probably be removed, but I just wanted to point this out to all the people who are feeling beat up on regarding this issue. I think the moderators and posters of this board have valid concerns and points, but they are just other AP and/or PAPs just like the rest of us. They are advocating to make the system better, which is never a bad thing to do, but they need to remember that it’s much easier to apply standards after your child is home safe and sound and you are not in the middle of a very long and difficult paperchase
Tracy
Thanks for your post Tracy.
Please understand that people reading this site for the most part do not know one another at all nor do they know the people who write the blog. This is not a personal attack on anyone. These emotional responses that are attacking people who have legitimate questions about where the statement came from are not helpful to the dialogue. It’s just that people will be skeptical of statments made without attribution. Also, when the embassy has not put the info on their website, and (according to another poster) has denied making the statement, questions arise about the statement, and it’s authenticity. It’s ok to have questions, in fact, it is essential to question everything when dealing with adoption IMO.
I do not doubt the good intentions of those who are attempting to keep the adoption community informed in this case, and their efforts are appreciated. Most of us feel it is crucial to stay informed and to attempt to have an adoption that is ethical. That’s why we read and research these topics. I do not “hate this site†either…that is not what this is about…..but I do not think it is entirely ethical of the EMBASSY, not the poster, to put this statement out to ONE group and not to all people seeking to adopt from Vietnam…I could not agree more with Tracy who said:
“I think if the Embassy is going to make a statement, it should be a public statement and one that is posted on their site. I LOVE that they are talking to APs, but they should not be saying anything to an AP that they wouldn’t post on their own site-they are a government agency that holds a lot of power in this system and as such should not be releasing anything but specific facts (IMO). â€
IT is obvious that USCIS and the Embassy have concerns about Vietnamese adoptions, and those concerns may well focus on certain provinces. I am not looking to deny that truth. But, IMO, this particular statement (but not all the concepts in it) is suspect.
BTW, If people continue to get flamed so aggressively for stating their opinions politely, they will seek info elsewhere and tune out the site. Let’s just try to treat one another and differing opinions with respect.
Lynda
Tracy,
I am not a moderator here, but honestly, I can’t imagine why you think that the moderators would ban you or remove this post? This is a discussion that needs to happen, and it is good to bring up alternative viewpoints.
I can’t speak for Nicki, but I can say that back in the spring when we were contemplating changing agencies, she very candidly shared her opinions about both of the agencies with which she has personal experience. Obviously she chose not to continue with Adoppt. As far as the specifics of age at referral, I think, (but am too lazy to actually research) that at the time Nicki received her referral, that it was legitimate for a 2 month old to be referred. I believe since then that the Vietnamese law has changed, and now a baby should be at least 3 months at time of referral. (I could be totally wrong about that, but that was my impression).
I personally am embarrassed and mortified by some of my thinking starting this journey, and I recognize that it is a process to learn about all of the complicated issues surrounding adoption and raising transracially adopted kids. So I do get where new PAPs are coming from.
We did choose a newly licensed agency without an established history in Vietnam, which means that some of the criteria others use to pick an ethical agency can’t be applied. But I believe it is possible, based on the way a program is set up, the way that the agency handles referrals, and several other factors to know that an agency would absolutely not work with an unethical faciliator and would do everything humanly possible to ensure that my baby is truly an orphan in need of a family.
I also think that the current climate is different than it was even several months ago. There is more information available now, as more parents have traveled and brought their children home. I think that any reasonable person can have compassion for PAPs just starting out, and understand the urgency they feel to choose an agency.
But when patterns are emerging, investigations are occurring, and NOIDs are being issued, and there are still PAPs who will choose for example an agency that everyone commenting here would agree is unethical, that effects all of us. That is why I will probably not be celebrating Christmas with our baby. I have to admire the APs who have come home, who have admitted that they were blinded by the desire to get their baby home, and are speaking out now about their experiences, even though it is painful for them. It is frustrating when PAPs choose to ignore what they are saying.
In case anyone reading the comments here is also checking out my blog (and if you are, please comment on how fabulously clever and well-dressed you think we are, I mean, it’s only fair), I stand by my agency 100% with all of the information I was able to gather.
Our agency works only in one province in VN, and they are the only American agency working there. They might be the only agency period, but I’m not sure about that.
This summer, our agency stopped accepting applicants from anyone who wanted a child under 3. In October, they stopped accepting applicants ENTIRELY. I don’t know exactly why – I haven’t asked. I hope it means they refuse to make promises to PAPs they can’t fulfill. Should the unthinkable happen and red flags are found within our agency or province, DH and I are commited to WALKING AWAY. We have discussed this. We are willing to take a hit of several thousand dollars before referral if it means we will a) not be supporting corruption and b) not have the voice of suspicion hanging over our heads for the rest of our lives.
If our agency was working out of the two named provinces, you can bet your bottom dollar that I’d be down there in a New York minute with a list of questions and a demand for answers and a WILLINGNESS TO WALK AWAY. The fact that this is not happening, that people are not leaving these agencies, or at least flooding them with demands for meetings, is puzzling. And sad. And infuriating.
“The fact that this is not happening, that people are not leaving these agencies, or at least flooding them with demands for meetings, is puzzling. And sad. And infuriating.”
This is the kind of judgemental accusatory comment that helps no one. How on earth could you possible know what people may or may not be doing if they are using those agencies? You are not privy to the conversations they may be having with their agencies, or to the decisions they may have made.
I just wanted to comment that I feel S. is completely correct in stating that “the current climate is different than it was even several months ago. There is more information available now, as more parents have traveled and brought their children home.” I just wish I could express more of my thoughts on this subject as eloquently as many of the other posters. Thanks to VVAI for continuing to attempt to educate and enlighten the masses!
Tracy, I think you’re a bit out of line attacking Nicki! You’re right, hindsight is 20/20. I know that as well as anyone, and that experience, the experience we gain from having hindsight, is valuable to others. Or can be if they’re intersted in listening. Nicki’s adoption was at a VERY different time in the world of VN adoptions. For one, there was no VVAI at that time!! Two, there were very few blogs because the program had recently reopened. Thirdly, the discussion forums had very little info about people’s experiences because few had yet completed an adoption in the new process.
There were VERY few NOIDs (I think OO started off with a big bang and launched that for us, and FHSA was quick to follow while I was in-country). But otherwise, there wasn’t widespread panic over baby buying and stealing.
Things are obviously very different now.
I appreciate your perspective on this site, but I do feel you have negatively impacted the program by attacking the wrong things (and people). You have been insistent that fast doesn’t = unethical. Hence, you have advocated for agencies who operate VERY quickly and are unethical because they fall under that category. You have therefore provided much reassurance to those who have chosen such agencies. Furthermore, you have encouraged others to do the same because they read your comments and the supporting ones from PAP’s who are with scary agencies and find reassurance in your words. It’s easy to say “every family wants an ethical adoption,” but while it’s true in theory, most families don’t want to know if there’s WASN’T ethical. And that’s why you see so many AP’s coming home and rabidly defending horrifying circumstances and completely unethical agencies, rather than speaking out against them and dealing with the realization that maybe there’s wasn’t an ethical adoption.
And Nicki or Christina, can you clarify here what the youngest age is a baby can currently be ethically be referred? I thought it was a 30 day investigation for a relinquishment and 60 days for an abandoned child? I’d actually like to know the answer to that one too.
Does anyone know why are my comments all “awaiting moderation” when other comments that were posted later are not?
Laurie,
You referred to Orphans Overseas having started off with a big bang with NOIDS. Would you mind telling me about that? thanks
I just wanted to add that one of the agencies with the most vehement defenders currently has families in Vietnam who received their referral 2-3 months after being DTV and families seem to typically be traveling in LESS than 30 days after referral. I don’t think that would have been at all unusual in the early days of the program since the reopening–but it certainly seems unusual today.
Laurie,
If you think I am advocating for any fast (or slow) agency then you are sadly mistaken. I am advocating for guidelines and standards that can be applied across the board to help PAPs make an educated choice when it comes to chosing an agency. I HAVE been insistent that fast does not equal unethical, but that does not mean I am stupid enough to think that any agency that can (or tries) to promise anyone a completed adoption within 3-4 months is ethical (and I believe I have said basically just that in other comments).
To say that things are so different now is true in some ways, but these same agencies were being talked about (with no more information then than now) back in the summer of 2006 that are being talked about now. The same standards (when things were faster across the board) were being said back then that are being said now….in many cases this is like a broken record and anyone who dares to disagree with people branding agencies as unethical on nothing more than speculation is someone “hurting” the system. Nothing is going to change without good hard facts being talked about, most people are not going to leave a “bad” agency because 100 people e-mail them and tell them how they are supporting a corrupt agency any more than they will stay with them because I am saying that there need to be more standardized guidelines being applied to ALL agencies. What I do believe in is not believing everything I read on the internet and applying my own experience to the mix (just as everyone else should be doing). If every AP would be honest about their experiences (good and bad) and talk about them openly then that would help the PAPs still in the research phase the most. Like S. said, your POV on all of this changes throughout the process and maybe someone who uses a “bad” agency now will remember all of this and not use them a second time (as I believe you are the perfect example of) and by telling their experience they will make a positive change on the system (which is exactly why I posted about my own experience after I came home-to hopefully help other PAPs making this difficult decision).
One more thing, adoption blogs are not something new, I have been reading web sites for 12 years about adoption and the subject of ethics is not new either (just read some adoption blogs about Russia or the Ukraine to see that). Yes, Vietnam blogs are new, but there was still APV (and APC before that), Agency Research and Vietnam travel talk back in 2006. These things have been talked about for a long time, they just didn’t have a dedicated site to it.
Tracy
I think what often happens when an agency is being discovered to be unethical and their practices are being exposed is that the parents who are in the process of using that agency or who have recently completed adoptions with that agency wrongly take this as a personal attack. They feel defensive about their choices and defensive for their agency. As a response to that defensiveness, they start justifying, rationalizing and demonizing those who speak out in opposition to the practices of which their agency participates. If they can discredit others then, by default, they feel guilt-free and justified in their own choices. Usually when one is losing footing on this quest, they resort to personal attacks. Its like a last-ditch effort to deflect from their own poor choices and redirect the conversation/thread/situation onto someone else.
My adoption experience, minus parts that may be private to my daughter, is an open book. I have always freely and openly talked about it – the good, the bad, the indifferent. I am always willing to answer any questions about my situation. But not when it is an attempt to deflect from the topic at hand.
What is new though is the recent slew of investigations and pending NOIDs directed at the very agencies who experienced APs have been warning about since the summer of 2006.
Lynda – I believe that when you changed your posting name from Lynda to LA that WordPress then considered you a “new commenter” and held your comments until one of us approved the first one, like usual. It should be fine now so long as you continue to sign the comments with either Lynda or LA. Clear as mud?!
I understand the questioning. I question everything, myself. S. asked a good question – what would be our motivation in this particular situation to publish such a thing alleging it is from the Embassy if, in fact, it was not?
Moreover I would guess that someone who alleges that the US Embassy shared something such as what we published if, in fact, that was not the case could stand to be in a good deal of legal trouble, no?
But I think it is important to note that only one person – ONE person – has ever contacted any of us here at VVAI privately to verify or question the source. And that one person is not one of the handful of folks in these comments who so loudly and publicly challenges the veracity of the post. The fact that a handful of people have very publicly tried to insist that the source is questionable without ever contacting any of us here to inquire further tells me a little something about THEIR motives.
I encouraging questioning. But what I see going on here feels more like a blatant attempt to discredit rather than a genuine desire to question and seek out information.
All of this is unbearably sad.
I wanted to say that I agree completely with the person who wrote that the focus with respect to the refusals that are taking place in VietNam must be on those who are most vulnerable and who need and require the protection of all the adults involved in the circle of adoption – the children. And the birthparents who may not have consented or consented under circumstances that are not supportable also require and deserve protection.
I remain interested in these issues as they relate to VietNam not because we will be adopting again – we will not. Our daughter came home in 2001. I am interested and always concerned because all of this is relevant to all our children. There is no doubt in my mind – we will all be held to account. As it should be. There is no closing one’s eyes and hoping for the best. Ten, fifteen or twenty years from now our children will require that we account for how we conducted ourselves. They will read what we have written here today . They will want to know. And some of our children will be very very angry.
Mary.
You’ve said what I’ve been thinking so eloquently and I share your sadness.
I’ve been involved in adoptions from Vietnam since 2001, having adopted in 2002 and 2006. I was very hopeful that the agreement that took so long to reach would lead to real improvements in the system. What we are hearing more and more of lately is so similar to what was happening prior to the closure. I myself did not see many changes in the process between 2001 and 2006, mostly just an added layer of paperwork. What will help PAPs most is those who provide details of their experiences, whether they do it publicly or privately.
And I want to thank Christina and Nicki for getting a statement from the Embassy – I see it as a credible, carefully worded document that urges PAP’s to proceed with caution and research, research, research.
And my heart goes out to Michael and the other families who have received NOIDS.
LA–I would say that if anyone has access to a computer, and is adopting from Vietnam, that there is no excuse for not finding this site. I just googled vietnam adoption, and this actually came up before the embassy page. So if for whatever reason, the embassy has decided not to issue an official statement on their website, this seems like the next best place. I can’t imagine spending more than a few hours researching Vietnam adoption and not ending up here. I don’t think there is any excuse for anyone adopting from Vietnam not finding this site and reading the statement–it isn’t directed to one group–it is directed to all PAPs adopting from Vietnam.
I have to say that I’m a bit shocked at the amount of disrespect and aggressive behavior ‘we’ have shown to each other. This isn’t a pissing contest to see who knows more or who is more ethical. We should be sharing information in a supportive manner and if we disagree then at the very least be a bit more civil.
I’m “cross-posting” this down here in the comments – it is also posted at the bottom of the blog post. Thanks Christina!
___________
NOTE TO OUR COMMENTERS: This is not a chat group, forum or discussion list. This is a blog post. On a specific topic. Please restrict comments to this topic. If you are not able to do so, your comment will be deleted. If all comments dissolve into off-topic remarks, the comments on this post will be closed.
Thank you very much,
Christina
editor & contributor
A pissing contest? No…but here is where I am coming from–I am pissed. As early as March of last year all signs were pointing to what was going on with these provinces and the agencies in question (not all agencies licensed in these provinces–but it seems to be common knowledge which agencies we are talking about). But because PAPs continued to sign on with agencies that were supporting child selling, forcing the embassy to change the I600 procedure, I had to explain to my 6-yr. old daughter today that unless there is some miracle, we will not have our baby home for Christmas. I had to wipe her tears as she cried about our baby’s Christmas dress that she won’t get to wear, and the stocking she won’t get to empty. Our baby may have a significant medical issue that needs to be evaluated by a specialist here, and it is certainly not in her interest to prolong not being accurately diagnosed. My mother will have to lose a significant amount of business due to caring for my son while we are in Vietnam because of the new timing. My husband may not be able to travel after the New Year. We have to figure out how to pay for our son’s aide without the tax credit we would have received for 2007, and budgeted accordingly. And most importantly, instead of being united with a loving family, our baby is spending precious, irreplaceable time in a crib in an orphanage.
I see friends in similar situations due to being caught in the I600 change–and I also see friends who chose not to go with agencies suspected of extremely unethical practices, now confirmed unethical practices, waiting with agencies who refuse to support corruption, in a program that unless things turn around (which I am hopeful they will) may never bring home their babies.
It isn’t about who knows more or who is more ethical. It is about the babies who may lose the chance to be adopted, birth parents who have been deceived, and the babies who will be left behind if things don’t change. And yeah, for me, right now, it is also about me, and my baby–whose picture I can barely look at because it hurts too much to know that it will most likely be months before we hold her in our arms.
S-
I understand very well the issues and am as concerned and angry as you. I’m just suggesting that the nastiness some posters are expressing not be directly so pointedly at people.
I’m sorry for your situation. There are many of us who are also in the pains of waiting.
Nicki and all,
What you said felt like a blatant attempt to discredit may have felt that way to you but truly was not, it was genuine questioning of the statement and the fact that it was “unofficial”. I did not e-mail you privately to ask about the origins of the statement but I did in fact, e-mail the Embassy to ask if the statement was in fact issued by them. In fact, it was sent by the embassy, and they plan to issue a formal statement on their site clarifying this because of the many questions they received about it.
The most important point here is that the statement is indeed from the embassy, and all will know about it now that it will be posted officially. That is a very positive thing, even though the statement will and should cause grave concern. A secondary point however, is to remember that people may be doing their own research, and may be questioning and challenging their agencies and others (privately) in ways no one no knows about……there were a lot of assumptions that people are being dishonest and don’t care about ethics simply because they need to do their own checking and research into something before they know it is legitimate.
Lynda
All,
I have received a reply from the US Embassy in Hanoi in regard to my inquiry about the letter posted here. They confirmed the letter is from Hanoi (which was not the main reason I wrote to the embassy about the letter anyway) and said they will be issuing an official statement on the embassy Website about this whole matter because of the huge volume of interest in it. The email I received was signed by a particular person with his full name and title. I’m not at liberty to post it here because I did not ask for permission to do so. To reiterate what I said earlier, I think some of the controversy here could have been eliminated had the letter writer been identified with full name and title, especially given the inflammatory nature of the letter.
Lynda,
Thank you for sharing what you heard from the Embassy. While I, personally, did not doubt the authenticity of this post, many others did. In any case, it will be greatly helpful to have a more specific announcement listed on the government’s own website.
I want to respond to something posted earlier in this thread… I don’t think the person was trying to be malicious, but I think is misinformed, which is understandable since there has been lots of confusion and varying opinions (even among agencies in the US) up until now on whether China allowed concurrent adoptions or not.
The comment was: “And what about people who are completing concurrent adoptions with Vietnam and China right now? There are LOTS of people doing this, how is that not an ethical delemia? Even though Vietnam allows this, China most certainly does not. So how ethical is it to search for an agency that will allow you to do this? You are either lying to one of your agencies or you are only applying the ethical sticker to your Vietnam adoption and not your China adoption. ”
The statement “China most certainly does not” (allow concurrent adoptions) is not true. China has actually put out a formal statement on the CCAA website regarding concurrent adoptions and/or pregnancies. They have confirmed that they DO allow it, under certain guidelines. (There’s more detail posted on the Rumor Queen blog today). Even before they put out this statement, they had NEVER issued a formal statement saying they did not allow it. Some agencies told their clients China did not allow it. But just as many agencies (mine included) said that it was OK. Just wanted to clear that up since I know there are several people doing concurrent adoptions (myself included) and I would hate for people to think we were doing something unethical. We made the decision to pursue a concurrent adoption ONLY after consulting with both our China agency and our Vietnam agency – both knew about our pending China adoption and supported our decision to adopt concurrently from Vietnam. I do not consider either of these adoptions unethical, nor either of our agencies unethical, nor our choice to do so unethical.
I think people need to be careful stating something as fact when they are not 100% sure it is verifiable fact. Doing so is very dangerous and has the potential of doing SO much harm. Before saying something is unethical, it is important to have FACTS – not just speculation, not just opinion, not just something that was heard from a friend of a friend or read on the comments in a blog.
And with all the recent corruption/NOIDS, etc. conversation going on right now, I would just like that… facts. What specifically is the unethical behavior. Who specifically is doing it. What orphanages are specifically involved. What agencies are specifically involved. Not just: “Someone is doing something bad in a province so all agencies that work there are unethical.” I don’t think that serves anyone. Just my 2cents today.
The Embassy website has posted this statement. It looks to be verbatim what was posted here.
http://hanoi.usembassy.gov/adoptionstatement1107.html
It is my sincere hope that all persons involved in the adoption process will continue to work for ethical, legal adoptions.
It looks like a group of PLAN families just received NOIDS today. One of the families has a blog at http://journey2matthew.blogspot.com
I have five children adopted from Vietnam before the shutdown and this note from the American government employee is very similiar to the converstations I had personally with US officials in VN at the time of my adoptions. We discussed the desires of American PAPs for healthy young infant girls, the general makeup of the orphanage populations, older children, many with special needs and the money issue. The real cost to adopt in 2001 and 2002 was 1M Dong to the provincial justice department in HCMC, (about $89 US), document translation fees in country of less than $100, $25 US for the child’s passport, $55 for the visa physical and less than $500 to the US Consulate for the visa application and visa fees. Those costs are still about the same. How many of you have asked where the thousands of dollars you pay for “in country fees” go? Do the math…American adoption money would have build and funded excellent facilities and care for the children if that was where the rest of the fees went. Look at where your children are living and the care they receive, for those of you have traveled. Of my adopted children, two were older, and three were very serious special medical needs, not what most PAPs want. My referral time was one day at the orphanage, with my documents in hand.
Please remember you will ultimately have to tell your child their adoption story. Many will ask hard questions. My heart breaks for the children who will learn they were part of some unethical process, with birth parents deceived into the “relinquishment”, as were numerous birth parents at time of my adoptions. Whatever sorrow any PAP might feel about a fraudlent adoption being prevented with a NOID, remember there may be birth parents who have a much greater right to their child. Sorry if this offends anyone, but the truth of how birth parents have been deceived in to losing their children is the history of Vietnam adoptions.
[…] as a surprise to any of us. The Embassy issued a really strong statement to the moderators of VVAI (and if you were one of those commentors trying to cast doubt on the statement’s […]
As sorry as I feel for these families, this point from the blog above hit a cord with me. I’m sorry, but these are NOT ‘small’ points. I feel for this family, I hope it works out, but this is the kind of stuff is part of the core of the problems:
The adoption agencies are happy with the paperwork, the Vietnamese government is happy with it, but the US is worried about a couple of small points. Really small points… things like, did the birth parents know the baby was going abroad (the parents signed the paper that said they knew that)… Then it’s, did they understand the paperwork they signed (the Vietnamese birth parents go through an interview process before they relinquish the baby and it is all gone over with them then).
Wow. I decided to stay away from adoption blogs for a few days and look what I missed! What a heated conversation! Clearly we all have a lot at stake here, so emotions are high. I agree with whomever said it above that people tend to react from their own experiences. So a person using an agency that some say now is or might be unethical is naturally going to be defensive and want to say that the accusers are overreacting. Or to go off on tangents, like blaming the messenger (or questioning the messenger’s ethics!) I think it’s likely I would be tempted to do the same thing if I were in that position.
But I come from a different experience, which is that of a waiting PAP who DID walk away from an agency with red flags (admittedly I walked away early enough that I only lost hundreds, not thousands, of dollars) but I still lost time, and I still don’t have a referral and probably won’t for a long time. So I am probably extra sensitive to those who had the same information I did but chose to stay with the red-flag agency–and are now defending it to the death.
I also write as a birthmother who placed a son for adoption when I was a teenager, so I am even more sensitive to issues that touch on the rights of birthparents than most.
Believe me, I have days when I wish I had gone with my first agency because I’d be home enjoying my son by now. But I’m still glad I made the choice I did. I want to be able to look my son in the eye and say I did everything possible to make sure his adoption was ethical. And I”m grateful to the embassy and to this site for continuing to raise these issues to inform me and all PAPs. Thank you.
Does anyone know which agencies (and how many) have received NOIDs up to this point? I had only heard about World Child, ADOPPT, and PLAN. I thought there were only about 5 (3 for World Child, one for ADOPPT, at least one – maybe more as these just came out – for PLAN) NOIDs received, but I just read on another blog that there have been 10-15 so far?!?!?
Melinda,
Just a technical issue here, Plan has not yet received a NOID. It may be coming but has not been issued as of this time. I also read on AAR that CAS had received 2 in Danang last week I believe. Have no idea if this is true or not, just what I read on AAR.
I just have a question.
The reason of NOID issuance may come from paperworks or CIS’s investigation (on unclear financial matter or so-called child finder, etc.). There are so many complicated relationships which agency can not control all. So why do you just point your spearhead at agency only?
p.s: I am neither PLAN nor World Child… I read through your topic and just want to ask so.
Thank you Ginger. I know that I read on a blog that they were going to receive a NOID and they were with PLAN, which is where my assumption came up. My guess is that if it’s not official yet, it will be. Although, I didn’t know about CAS – thank you for that information.
I wish there could just be a list of this somewhere for reference.
Ginger’s right – no NOID yet and I also wonder if this inflated number might be related to the number of investigations of late, not NOIDs. There is a big difference. I can think of at least a few investigations that ended with a child receiving a visa and not a NOID but becuase of the long delay a lot of people assumed it was a NOID or used that term instead of investigation.
Emma – that is an excellent question. It deserves a blog post of its own.
This is a diifficult situation, I almost have no words. I have reached out to my agency to discuss the NOIDs situation, but it makes me wonder. What if my agency, which has never rec’d a NOID, gets one now? Do I leave the agency based on that or do I stay hoping that the new I-600 procedures will significantly diminish NOIDs? Can you switch agencies even if your dossier is in Vietnam? That may be outside the scope of this discussion, I don’t know. But it is something that I worry about constantly these days.
Also, following up on Melinda’s desire for a list, I too would love one. But I would then have to have some indicator of where the information that an agency rec’d a NOID came from – if it’s from the agency themselves, or a parents’ blog, or the US gov’t, then I would find it reliable. But there are so many rumors/stories flying around right now, it’s just so damned difficult. I wish the Embassy would publish a list of which agencies had received NOIDs, which province, and the end result – ie. was the NOID sustained or overturned. (I’m not sure if this is the right wording…) I don’t think the Embassy would need to name the families involved, but it would provide a definite starting point.
Alix,
The embassy will never print a list of families or agencies that have received NOIDs due to privacy issues with the families and children involved.
Take this however you would like, believe it or not if you choose too. My agency has said that there are alot more NOIDs being issued right now than the ones we collectively know of. They are for children from many different provinces, not just Phu Tho or Thai Nguyen and involve families from lots of different agencies. I personally don’t know if this is true, but I surely hope it is not.
Melinda, Alix and all: you want a list, I somehow also want… and so for what? choose this, do not choose that, or switch to other agency with a hope that next agency may not receive a NOID in future?
I prefer the Embassy would publish their statistics of NOIDs with REASONS (e.g how many NOID issued ’cause of corruption, of child selling, of law violating, of unclear child origin, etc.) instead of listing the involved agencies and families. Thus, everybody knows experience and we know which information/data we have to ask our agency to prevent us from NOID.
I just realize that you are so concentrated to name agencies received NOID but forgot the reasons, and you might be gone with the unfair competition fight (?) among agencies.
Again, I am none of agencies named above!
Thanks, Melinda and Emma for your thoughtful comments. I think we are all wishing for the same thing: reliable information so we can make as informed a choice as possible.
Melinda, regarding lots of NOIDs being issued in lots of provinces. I too have heard of other provinces and other agencies. I don’t know how to react to that, to be quite honest. There is something comforting (again, I don’t know if that is the right word) in being able to say “these 3 agencies have rec’d NOIDs” – because you can not use those agencies. But if it’s many provinces and many agencies, then maybe that points to a more systemic problem that transcends individual agencies. But then, would that give a false sense of security to person who may be using an ethically-challenged agency?
I have no answers or solutions. these are just the things I grapple with as a PAP.
We try to compile resources here in different ways to help PAPs research agencies. We have a list of unlicensed agencies who inappropriately advertise Vietnam programs, we have a list of provinces and which agencies are licensed in each. A natural extension of this goal is to have a list of agencies who have received NOIDs. The problem with this is that the agency did not receive the NOID, the child did. And due to privacy issues and legal issues, I don’t think we can expect to see the DoS naming agencies, families or children’s cases. However I think Emma has a good point – would it be so difficult to list numbers and reasons without identifying information? Then again, how would that help PAPs researching agencies?
Just FYI, one of the blogs for the PLAN families in Vietnam right now said that 20 NOIDs have been issued, and it is multiple provinces, not just the 2 mentioned in the Embassy letter. It also mentioned something about the bilateral agreement needing to be renewed in March of 2008 and that it may not be renewed in light of what is going on right now.
E, can you give a link to that blog?
20 NOIDs? Horrific.
E – I read this too and have inquired with the Embassy directly for further clarification. The paper trail for this particular rumor is fraught with ulterior motive from unreliable sources (ie the agency under scrutiny) so it is definitely something that should be verified with the source (the Embassy) before passing on.
Just relating what was posted on a blog from a family that has been *in* the Embassy in the last 2 days.
Nicki,
What the blog says is that the bilateral agreement between the US and Vietnam is up for renewal in 2008. The ageement does expire in June 2008 and is scheduled to begin discussions for renewal in March 2008. Then the blogger goes on to state that it is her personal opinion that the the bilateral opinion may not be renewed. She clearly says that it is her personal opinion, not anyone elses.
When these families went to the embassy, they all saw a board with familiy names and provinces for NOIDs that had been issued or cases that were under review. This was a public board, anyone in this room at the embassy could see it. It may be where she got the number 20 from, I don’t know.
This is really just horrible and I hope there aren’t really 20 NOIDs out there. If your agency is honest, I would think they would have to (or at least want to-I personally think it’s your right to know as a client) tell you if they have anyone currently held up in the country with a NOID or a threat of a NOID. Can EVERYONE (not just those that are with the “bad” agencies) call their agency and ask if any of their families now in Vietnam are being delayed, investigated for a NOID or have recieved a NOID as of right now. You could also ask how long the most current group has been in the country (which would give you an idea if there are hold-ups) and maybe even the group that just got home- and then post back here? I don’t have an agency since my adoptions are complete. If everyone were honest (even if you hear back something from your “ethical” agency) it would give everyone a clearer picture of what is going on in the country. This may not be an agency acting illegally, immorally or unethically. It may be a province issue, an orphanage issue or the US Embassy wanting to take time to ENSURE everything is being done correctly. Let’s not convict and hang the agencies yet, especially not if it’s true and there are 20 NOIDs in the process. Maybe someone could keep a list of the responses and post it somewhere?
Tracy
Ginger – I read the blog this morning. This is not unlike what is written in the Embassy statement. If the Vnese government does not step up and meet the terms of the bilateral agreement, the US government should not renew. I hope that our government will hold them accountable. And most of all I hope that VN will stand up and make the changes they promised in 2005. The bilateral agreement was created specifically to address issues of integrity in adoptions. If the agreement is not upheld in Vietnam, these issues were not and will not be resolved.
Was the issue with this public board something that was mentioned on a blog? If their own names were on this board and, as we know, they have not yet been issued a NOID, then perhaps like I originally said it is just a number of cases being investigated. I would not be at all surprised if there were 20 cases being investigated at this time. 20 NOIDs, though, is a serious allegation.
This current troublesome situation has caused me to seriously consider switching agencies. I cannot take the heartache and spend the next several months wondering if my agency is part of ongoing corruption. My dossier is already in Vietnam. I need help and advice, and I apologize if this is not the right place to ask for it, but I don’t know where else to turn. My email addy is alixromanov@yahoo.com.
[…] won’t work for me, rarrrr) and http://vietnamlucy.blogspot.com/Â , and most importantly, http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2007/11/01/embassy-statement-on-recent-noids/Â (check out the 100+ comments as […]
Alix,
This is a difficult time in Vietnam adoptions and I can’t imagine how PAPs are feeling right now. I just wanted to say to go with your gut on your agency. I just wrote this to someone else, but you have the same information as everyone out here. EVERYONE is getting their information from the Yahoo groups and blogs, people are just interpreting it differently. Don’t rely on anyone else making this decision for you (you obviously have read and researched or you wouldn’t be here). If you feel your agency has potential ethical or legal issues then leave them, but make that decision for yourself please because you are the one that is paying for this adoption and you are the one that has to live with your decision. I have no idea which agency you are with and I’m not saying ignore the red flags, but there is a lot of misinformation out there right now and don’t let other peoples interpretations of the information sway you. Read the sites and try to see what they are saying for yourself. In the end you will do the right thing, if you were only worried about getting through the fastest way possible you would not be asking these questions.
That won’t the popular answer and it’s only my opinion, take it for what it’s worth and I hope you are able to make a decision that you and your family is happy with.
Tracy
[…] hitting the Vietnam adoption scene right now. I’ve shared my opinion on lists, I defended our decision to post the Embassy statement over at VVAI that ultimately led to the official statement on the Embassy site. I don’t think it’s a […]
Here is a call for needed prayers:
http://www.holtintl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=666824&highlight=#666824
I wonder very much if a ‘golden standard’ agency may receive a NOID…
Thus my questions are:
– ‘Is there any deep implication of recent NOIDs explosion?’
– ‘Why now, recently NOIDs did broke-out? Not since 2005 or 2006 when US Embassy has found the significant increasing of abandoned children in some provinces?’
– ‘If US Embassy needs supports from families for new I-600 process, is there any other better way than NOID which caused APs’ and PAPs’ deep grief?’
Anyone can tell me why????
Emma – the agency this family is using for their current adoption is *not* Holt. I just wanted to set the record straight on that right away.
Thanks Nicki and …. God!!!!!!!!!!