I suppose the way I see it, agencies that have the strongest commitment to birth/first families and to children, adoptable or not, in orphanages will also have the strongest commitment to PAPs. That is especially true as things go downhill, like they are now. Many agencies will simply leave Vietnam and move on to other countries. Some, though, will continue their humanitarian work. Those agencies are the same that will work hardest for their clients and the children they also represent as time runs out. Their commitment is to adoption, not to money.

It took me a long time to think about things this way. We all know there are millions of children in orphanages worldwide — if those children are already in orphanages, why is a such a strong (and time-consuming) commitment to birth families so important? But as we’ve seen in Vietnam, children continue to come into orphanages. Once money from the US involved, our under-regulated agencies have to take responsibility to see the money is used wisely and not to tempt anyone to bring a child to an orphanage to be adopted. Some agencies ensure PAP money goes where it should. Some seem to use our money totally unethically (and yes, like the rest of you, I am waiting to see these agencies named and in REAL trouble); others seem to send our money in and not question their good luck as adoptable children appear at orphanages. I guess I’ve come to believe that there are too many of the last two kinds of agencies. Without stronger rules to guide them towards better accountability, PAPs like you and I will always be left in the lurch.

As the popular slogan goes, an ethical agency has puts its priority in “finding families for children, not children for families.” I’d be interested to hear if anyone would actually argue against that motto.

I hope it is crystal clear that I am an adoption advocate, I support a PAPs right to an ethical adoption, but in international adoption I can only APPLAUD an agency that has put humanitarian efforts and made first family rights its priorities. I think the difference in our stances is that I believe I can advocate for PAPs in the context of ETHICAL adoptions.

The other piece of the humanitarian work versus # of referrals argument is that by ignoring the humanitarian need, you are doing NOTHING to help solve the underlying inequalities that exist. You are just encouraging a market for international adoption, which is not in the best interest for children who would be best off remaining with their birth families if it were a possibility. I know there may be people who will not see eye to eye with me here, as there may even be people out there with a genuine disinterest in helping find long-term solutions to these inequalities…because if they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have been able to be a mother/father. And that, over ethical adoptions, over helping solve world issues, over everything, is their only goal. This is a VERY emotionally charged topic, but I cannot relate to that mentality - the entitlement, the “I-want-to-be-a-mom-at-all-costs,” the ethnocentric view (the most disturbing opinion of all to me) that Vietnam’s children are better off in American homes no matter what, etc.

I think you should continue to advocate for PAPs, but there are people at the other end of this process and there is a systemic impact each unethical adoption leaves. So please don’t advocate PAPs at all costs. There is just too much at stake.

There are so many other issues to address, but I’ve already written a comment longer than the actual post. I apologize for my long-windedness!

I think it is the US/VN adoption system itself that is flawed and which inadvertently allows and sometimes even encourages corruption to take place. When you have a situation where vulnerable parties involved, large sums of money are changing hands, and a decentralized system lacking sufficient oversight and regulation under which participants are allowed to negotiate their own terms, then trouble is almost certainly going to follow.

It’s sort of like blaming someone for knocking a glass off the edge of a counter - yes, they definitely should’ve been more careful, but a fragile glass shouldn’t have been placed there in the first place.

I believe we need a different model which is able to better protect the vulnerability of ALL parties concerned: birthparents in developing countries, PAPs, orphans, and yes, even agencies themselves.

And again:
Agencies can still ask (demand) that families sign waivers of responsibility that effectively place all of the risk in the adoption process on the adoptive parents. §96.39

You can see their full comments here:
http://www.ethicanet.org/HagueRegComments.pdf

You singled me out, so I feel compelled to write back. First of all I know you think I am the biggest supporter of unethical agencies and that is fine with me (because I know it’s not true). I have a thick skin, so I try not to let things like that bother me. I know I am so much more than just my opinions on international adoption. But I will NEVER for as long as I live forget the pain of infertility and what it was like to be a PAP. I do think that they are just as important as the children in this equation and I will always stand up for their rights. Advocates are needed on all sides of this issue, not just one.

I will NEVER forget the pain of knowing I would never have a biological child due to ovarian cancer and the even greater fear that I would never be a mother. I will never forget the fear of knowing that a virtual stranger (my social worker) had the power with her words to decide if I would be a fit parent and could take my dreams away from me with a bad homestudy report. Or wondering what I had done so wrong in my life to make God punish me when our surrogacy failed.

And although it’s true that holding that baby in your arms takes that pain away-it never removes the memories that brought you to that point. So the reason that I am writting this is because I am only one person and there are thousands and thousands of people (PAPs) out there that have their own stories. There are many of us out here whose only option (if we wanted to be mothers/fathers) was to adopt. And those people especially are suffering in all of this also and deserve a voice in all of this.

EVERY adoption agency needs to be held accountable for their actions. No matter if it’s because they are buying babies or taking on too many clients knowing they will be unable to place children in those homes. There is more than just one side to this story.

Sorry this was long and had too much of my own personal information in it, feel free to delete it Christina or Nikki

You are right on two things, first this is not a time to start a war-I was talking about an AGENCY (which to me is not personal) and we all have our own opinions and standards for agencies (a big one for me would be that they are actually able to produce referrals and complete adoptions) and second I do not have any first hand knowlege of this agency-I get my information from friends (in real life and online) who are using this agency-and have yet to be matched sadly.

I have a lot I could say about this agency (since you used my name 2x I am guessing you want to know what I think…haha), but I said my piece in my first statment about agencies (more than just LSS), honestly I understand why people are defensive right now-they have put their trust, time and money into agencies and may walk away without a baby. But I won’t say anything further about this agency because it’s just not worth hurting and/or making my friend (that I know in real life) angry or upset with me.

I hope everyone is matched, but my point was there are MANY families out there that will not be matched and some of that is the fault (IMO) of agencies. If you want to e-mail me privately I will be more than happy to tell you my thoughts (but I doubt you are truly interested) on LSS and others.