Some of you may have noticed that VVAI has been a little “quiet” lately. A few people commented in the last news post that they wondered why we hadn’t written any opinion pieces in a while. Certainly there are things happening in Vietnam adoptions… There’s the new group, Bring Our Children Home, comprised primarily of waiting families that has been organizing and advocating for improvements in the I600 process. And the recent emails from the embassy informing those waiting on I600 approvals that certain provinces have “blocked investigations” and therefore their petitions are in limbo. So why haven’t we posted about these issues? Well, to be honest, the silence is in part due to the deafening silence we are getting from State, CIS and the DIA in regards to where things stand with the MOU and the status of Vietnam adoptions in general. Repeatedly we’ve heard that an announcement is “coming” and so we’ve been waiting to share concrete information, rather than just conjecture. And no one, not an individual family or the embassy itself, has been willing to go on the record about the recent complications and issues regarding the I600 process. And so I find myself stepping back, pausing, trying to make sense of an extremely complex and seemingly ever-changing situation. But the discussion that grew out of those first comments last week has led me to change my mind, a little. I don’t have a firm grasp of the situation, and I can’t predict what will happen next. But then, it seems, we are all in the same boat. And perhaps what we really need now is to take another look at the circumstances that have led us to where we are today. Not to rehash the past, but to try to get some perspective. So bear with me now as I attempt to peel back the layers and consider the various angles and viewpoints involved.
In its simplest terms, adoption is about a child needing a family. Most of us came to Vietnam adoptions believing there were many babies and children in Vietnam who were “true” orphans. According to the USCIS definiton, a child is an “orphan”:
if he or she does not have any parents because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. A foreign-born child is also an orphan if his or her sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing care of the child and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption
Unfortunately, there are many children in Vietnam who fit that description. From there, it should be as simple as a licensed agency matching a child with a loving family. And in many cases, it is that simple. But sometimes, it’s not. And that is where this all gets complicated. Because according to the US Embassy in HaNoi as well as Ethica and others who have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in Vietnam, sometimes documents are forged or altered. And sometimes children are being offered for adoption without the knowledge or consent of their families. And this is where the black and white world of adoption suddenly becomes very gray.
Supposing for a moment that everyone involved in inter-country adoption agrees that these are serious concerns that need to be addressed in order to protect children and families, the question then becomes Who is Responsible? Is this strictly under the authority of the Vietnamese government? What if American agencies are involved in the fraud? Then should the U.S. government step in? Should we draw a line – any fraud done by the Vietnamese is policed by their government and any fraud perpetrated by an American is subject to U.S. enforcement? What if one goverment holds to higher standards than the other – what then?
Consider for a moment this report from Global Integrity, an independent, non-profit organization tracking governance and corruption trends around the world. Vietnam received an overall “Very Weak” rating in their 2006 report. According to their reporter:
At the end of last year, the Central Internal Board of the Communist Party carried out a Sweden-sponsored research study on corruption. The study revealed that paying bribes is now a habit of the Vietnamese; 71.2 percent of people in Hanoi and 67.4 percent of people in Ho Chi Minh City, the two biggest cities in Vietnam, are willing to bribe to get things done. Meanwhile, one third of the government workforce interviewed admits receiving bribes. …
This reveals the difficulties facing most businesses in Vietnam. They win few government contracts unless they offer kickbacks to government officials. According to the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 77 percent of businesses in Hanoi (highest percentage) and 12 percent of businesses in Binh Duong provinces (lowest percentage) pay “commissions” to government officials. As a matter of course, the higher the kickbacks are, the worse the quality of the completed projects is.
What does this report mean for inter-country adoptions? Well for one thing, it explains why the U.S. insisted that Vietnam provide a published fee schedule when they signed the Agreement in 2005. And it also may explain why Vietnam has never produced that list of fees, despite promising to do so numerous times. And apparently it also supports the rumor that some of the U.S. agencies licensed in Vietnam had to pay additional “fees” to receive their licenses. Or to set up partnerships with government orphanages. (The agreement requires agencies to give “humanitarian aid” to the orphanages, it seems this phrase has been used to cover all manner of “donations” such as large sums of money not used to feed/care for the children or “gifts” like new cars for orphanage directors.) It also brings into question the validity of children’s documents, especially in cases of abandonment where birth family can not be identified who could verify the facts.
So what is the American government to do? Do they accept the investigations and approvals of the Vietnamese government, knowing that in at least a few cases bribes may have been paid and documents may have been forged?
There should never, ever, ever be a case where an American citizen adopts a child who is not eligible to be adopted. There is no tolerance in my country for the buying or selling of children. Children are not commodities. Children are human beings.”
This is the standard set by Assistant Secretary Maura Harty. Never. Not one case. That is a very high standard and it basically requires the U.S. government to do some type of investigation into every single orphan petition that comes across their desk. Most of us agree, this is a right and a responsibility of the U.S. government. But to what extent? Do they have the right to question paperwork that has already been stamped “approved” by high levels of the DIA? Do they have the right to conduct their own field investigations? What about showing up unannounced (and uninvited) at orphanages, or knocking on Vietnamese citizen’s doors? Is that going too far? Clearly some provincial officials think so, if they are in fact “blocking” the U.S. from conducting these types of investigations. Can we really blame them?
If a foreign government wanted to conduct an investigation here in the United States, in most cases they would be allowed to – but they certainly wouldn’t be able to subpoena documents or witnesses. To do that, they would need the cooperation of local or federal authorities. Recently I have heard that a similar solution has been suggested to the Embassy – that they conduct their investigation in cooperation with Vietnamese authorities. If a Vietnamese official were to accompany the Embassy’s team, perhaps that would alleviate the concerns of provincial officials. It may also make orphanages and citizens more comfortable answering questions. (Though some may argue that Vietnamese citizens may not be as forthcoming with information if they fear the consequences of sharing such information with local officials). In my view, while it might be imperfect, it would be a good compromise for the Embassy to team with a few trustworthy Vietnamese officials to conduct their investigations.
In the meantime, there is also the issue of the level of service due to American citizens from the U.S. Embassy. Waiting families have complained of lack of communication and unnecessary delays. The originally quoted “60 days” for an I600 recently morphed into “60 working days” without any explanation or apology. Some agencies report that none of their cases have been investigated since the new I600 process began in November. It appears that the U.S. Embassy is overwhelmed by the number and scope of adoption petitions. Do they need additional staffing? Do they perhaps need more training in customer service or culturally-appropriate investigation methods? I don’t know. If so, I truly hope CIS and State officials here in the U.S. are taking action to rectify the situation. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the ongoing negotiations for a new (and hopefully improved) Agreement. How much are these behind-the-scenes meetings impacting the day to day processes?
It’s a gray, gray world in inter-country adoption. So many parties involved, and few easy answers. Our hope in creating VVAI was to point out these complex issues, and also to suggest that adopting parents do in fact have some power and responsibility. We can seek out the best most ethical agencies and refuse to work with others that make lots of promises but do nothing to improve the system. We can speak up when we see things we know are wrong – in our agencies, in our in-country process, or in our own government’s procedures. As an adoptive mom who has been actively involved in these complex issues in Cambodia and Vietnam for 6 years now, may I suggest that we use this power carefully and wisely? Consider the big picture – what is best for all adoptions, and not just our own. Be willing to wait a little longer if that time results in the process being conducted in a more aboveboard and scrupulous manner. And stick around to advocate for the children and families who come after you. This is a tough time in Vietnam adoptions. But I still believe that together, we can make a difference.
23 Responses
If the US is concerned about corruption (I believe we should be) and partnership, I am confused that the US government is not creating a dynamic that allows for working together. Having officials show up at orphanages without VN government knowledge is against VN law and unfortunate for VN/US relationships. Every government will demand that other countries are responsive and respectful of their laws and customs. The US really does need to dialogue with VN about how these investigations should take place. Better yet, both of these countries should be able to come to an agreement as to what VN can certify to appropriateness of these referrals before the US is ever involved.
Thanks for the perspectives and thoughts.
“Because according to the US Embassy in HaNoi as well as Ethica and others who have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in Vietnam, sometimes documents are forged or altered.â€
What bothers me about the above statement is that “others” always have “first-hand” knowledge that never comes to light for the mainstream VN adoptive community. While I’m not saying that corruption doesn’t exist, I’m sure it does because it exists in our own country (U.S.). I’m not privy to the “first-hand” knowledge that some claim to possess. I don’t have a lot of numbers, but the numbers I do know show some exaggeration. Example: out of the 20 NOIDS that were issued in November, I can think of only 1 that was upheld and 1 that was dropped by the PAP. Some say it was U.S. political pressure that overturned some of them, not evidence of there not being wrongdoing. If that’s true, I say that the U.S. government is guilty of facilitating the corruption in those cases. However, my gut tells me that there just wasn’t enough evidence to satisfy the guilty charge and thus they were overturned. Some will say that just because there wasn’t enough evidence doesn’t mean there wasn’t any corruption. Our judicial system here in the U.S. works the same way. Not enough evidence = not guilty.
“Who is Responsible?
What if American agencies are involved in the fraud? Then should the U.S. government step in?â€
IMO, yes the U.S. government should step in. Why shouldn’t they be held to the same scrutiny as the PAP’s? We have to submit to all sorts of checks in order to protect the children. Why shouldn’t the agencies undergo similar checks on a regular basis?
“Meanwhile, one third of the government workforce interviewed admits receiving bribes.â€
That’s a non-starter. It happens in the U.S. government all too frequently, mostly under the term “lobbyingâ€. How many times have we read about our representatives taking vacations paid for by the lobbyists? The lobbyists want something in return for this which to me equals bribe. How many times has it been in our news about illegal campaign donations? Again, something is expected in return. I know what they’re saying, but I’m only trying to point out that “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stonesâ€.
I’m in agreement with you about the “fee scheduleâ€. At the same time I can understand that it’s hard to accomplish in a socialist republic where each province, and locality have claim to their own autonomy and that’s what socialism is.
“If a foreign government wanted to conduct an investigation here in the United States, in most cases they would be allowed to…â€
That statement is really so untrue and I would like to know your facts for presenting such a statement. Can you point out to me in some U.S. law that says that if a foreign government wants to come to my house to investigate me that would be permitted? If someone from a foreign government would come knocking on my door wanting to grill me, you can bet your bottom dollar that I’d be calling the police. If the foreign government came to my door with some U.S. official wanting to grill me, I’d might hear them out (but most likely call an attorney to sit with me). That’s my right as a U.S. citizen. Shouldn’t the VN citizens be entitled to their own laws preventing such an intrusion?
“Consider the big picture – what is best for all adoptions, and not just our own.â€
For the most part, from the various listservs, blogs, forums, etc. that I read, I think this is being done. My feeling is that people are just stressed at how the U.S. government is making a difficult situation worse. I think that the pressure that is being applied is meant to force the U.S. government to act in a manner that is accepted globally. For too long now, the U.S. government has been acting unilaterally. Yes, I want the investigations to continue. However, I want the investigations to be done with respect and dignity. We live in a global community where each partner has to be treated equally. I want to be able to be proud to tell our child how a proper investigation was completed that respected the laws and the people of his/her country.
Ok, that’s my 2c
Thanks, F., for pointing out that foreign governments are NOT allowed to freely investigate in the US. I cannot understand why we think we should be allowed to do so in Vietnam.
Christina, to answer some of your questions about how the US government should be handling things – the MOU currently in place (not yet expired) addresses these matters as does the Foreign Affairs Manual. For some reason our civil servants in VN have largely ignored the guidance in place. Further, I would submit that breaking our international agreements and violating VN law is absolutely, undeniably going to far. I’m not sure how there could be any question on that issue. The very first step in expecting ethics from others is to conduct your own affairs in an ethical manner. If we, as a country, cannot do that, what right do we have to demand it of other countries?
Further, if we, as a country, cannot effectively regulate our adoption agencies and weed out those that need to be by not licensing them here, why on earth would we expect Vietnam to do it for us? Why should they? Why would they? It appears that we want to be able to drop the ball repeatedly on our end then cry foul at the visa issuance stage for the child. Is that responsible? Is that the actions of a world leader? Is it ethical treatment of the child? The very child that should be our focus, our concern? No, no, no, and no again.
Therefore I respectfully submit that putting the focus on our government is not putting the cart before the horse as Nicki seems inclined to believe. It is exactly what we should be doing. Only then do we have any hope of assisting other countries in raising their standards and reducing fraud.
It isn’t so black and white, L. Unannounced, unscheduled, uninvited visits by foreign governments may not be allowable under VN law but it is also *exactly* what is needed in order to make headway against corruption. It is *exactly* what has been done in the past when major corruption was discovered. There are deeply political issues here at work, on both sides. It simply can’t be summarized as the US gov’t breaking laws and if they would just make appointments first then all would be good. If they agreed to make appointments they might as well agree to just stop investigations entirely: the results would be the same.
There are some highly ethical and proactive agencies and organizations that are working to come up with solutions that meet both the investigative needs of the US and the privacy and legal requirements of the VN government. These efforts should be encouraged rather than continuing to focus on the wrong-doings of either government. Division is not what we need right now. Real, diplomatic solutions will go a lot further.
Unscheduled, unannounced, uninvited visits may well be what is needed. But it would never be allowed on US soil, so what gives the US the attitude that it should be allowed in Vietnam?
I never said all would be good if the US operated under the law and according to protocol. But I firmly believe that you lead by example. Breaking laws sets absolutely the wrong example in combating fraud and corruption and I remain firmly opposed to it.
And, yes, real diplomatic solutions are needed. Too bad our diplomats in place aren’t finding those. They do get paid for that with our tax dollars.
Sorry, I’m sounding annoyed with you and really am not. I think you have made incorrect assumptions about my post. I definitely think our governments should work together. I definitely think the US should act responsibly and like the world leader that it is. I definitely think our civil servants in VN are failing miserably in their mission and as a taxpayer it hacks me off, no end. Is it all black and white? Definitely not. Do I encourage solutions? Absolutely. (Just wish our paid employees would do their jobs and we didn’t have to do it for them.)
So if we agree that it may be what is needed and we agree that it may be legally impossible, where does that leave us? Do we just stop processing orphan petitions because we can not be sure that harm has not been done without an investigation? Do we process them anyway, possibly feeding into the corruption by enabling it and turning a blind eye? It seems to me that no matter what the options are, someone’s laws will be broken unless the program is just shut down.
I think we should be careful about presuming what is happening behind the scenes. Unless you have a direct line to these particular diplomats, there is no clear way of knowing whether they are pursuing other ideas (or not!). Right now there is a lot of presumption that they are not working for us simply because we are not hearing about every conversation, privy to every communication and being debriefed weekly. Because it is important TO ME to keep the program open AND ethical, and becuase I do NOT know if the government is being diplomatic or what their talks have consisted of and what is going on behind the scenes, I am also not willing to SOLELY place in their hands the duty of finding a solution. The last MOU was signed due in part to a group of PAPs & APs who pushed for it and worked hard to make it happen. It isn’t just government officials who can be diplomatic and push for change. So I’m not presuming the government is or is not pushing for diplomatic solutions but I *am* pushing for them through other productive means. But what I’m seeing a lot of right now isn’t so much diplomatic ideas or suggestions for change but outright attack of the government frequently based on presumptions and assumptions. And a LOT of “bring our children home NOW NOW NOW, laws be damned”. This is neither diplomatic nor in the best interest of the future of the program. Of course most PAPs stuck in these situations are primarily concerned with their child and the children of their friends but there are many MANY future children who stand to be affected on the actions of those of us *today*.
[…] it HERE for […]
Hmmm… does anyone know what to make of the latest breaking news on bringourchildrenhome.org? They’ve posted a memo that starts out with the following statement: “Effective immediately the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offfice in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, has determined that any prospective adoptive parent(s) seeking to participate in the “Orphan First” program for the adjudication of Petition to Classify an Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form 1-600) will be required to submit a DNA test in order to establish a relationship between an abandoning parent and a prospective adoptive child.”
Amy, this is news to me. I’m searching all over the web and not finding anything (aside from the BOCH site). I’m also contacting my sources to see if they know anything. As soon as I learn more, I’ll post.
I’m losing my mind, we have been waiting 62 days for our I600. We are trying to adopt a five year old boy. I can’t believe they are changing the rules and now we have to do DNA testing.
I am pretty sure that if your I600 (NOT I600A)
has been submitted, you are safe from the DNA testing. That is what we were told from our agency.
I would like to know too – I heard about this from my agency first before seeing it posted on APV and BOCH. Please, let this be a hoax.
Just a reminder that there has been nothing officially published on this issue. The BOCH memo stated it was not for public publication and there has already been a few reports of it containing erroneous or incomplete information. We will post anything solid, reputable and factual when it is released, with comment.
IF this is true – it will increase the number of abandonments AND I certainly hope they grandfather in all existing referrals and any babies which were relinquished before April 1st (or whatever date this becomes effective) because you can NOT change the relinquishments rules/requirements AFTER the baby is already at the orphanage – that is not fair to the birthparent(s) and many will be hard to find and track down once they have dropped off the baby, in some cases many months ago or even years ago…..
/L
Our agency told us about the DNA testing and stated that it is for cases of relinquishment, not abandonment. The wording on the memo is terrible.
This is the information that I have received as well.
I thought the USCIS was concerned about there being so many more abandonment cases vs relinquishment. Don’t you think this will cause more mothers to abandon their children rather then relinqish them – so they won’t have to go through DNA testing?
I thought the USCIS was concerned about there being so many abondonments. Won’t this cause there to be even more mothers abondoning their babies rather than reliquishing them – to avoid DNA testing?
Sara – that was my initial thought, too…
Yep, me too.
Getting back to “Searching for Answers,” ~
why is it that some provinces have had difficulty
with the investigations…and others, undergoing
similar investigations, have not? IMO, it comes down
to ethical conduct from both parties. We are one of the
families affected (PAP, Quang Nam), and although it is
dfficult to digest, the option of withdrawing our I-600
in exchange for transparency and clarity in the province is clearly a possibility. This is about doing what is right and ethical; and
modifying the system so that this never happens again to any child and family.
Hi. I am a journalist working on a story about international adoptions. If there are any Americans who are having difficulty in completing their adoptions in Vietnam and would like to discuss their story with me, please be in touch. Thank you.