Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity

This is reposted with permission from Linh Song of Ethica. As a personal note from the editor, I hope we will take her words to heart. We all want to react and Do Something but let’s be careful that our actions do not have unintended consequences.

> “TRY! Make some calls. Contact your resources. NOW.”

You’re exactly right, our elected representatives need to know what’s going on and that as a consequence of policy failures and lack of oversight, families will once again be caught in adoption limbo as another country closes.

Hopefully, you’ll zero in on the “lack of oversight” part. Here’s why.

On Tuesday afternoon, Ethica joined over 60 participants on the JCICS Vietnam conference call. The call went over an hour and a half blaming the US government and strategizing media and political responses NOT to the cases summarized in the Embassy report, but how to make sure adoptive families will speak to agency interests and support the Vietnamese government. One agency mentioned that CNN has contacted them looking to feature a family with an empty crib. ABC will be following families in Vietnam.

Please, don’t let your grief and pain be exploited in order to keep adoptions open WITHOUT FIRST having the powers at large address enormous ethical and legal concerns surrounding Vietnamese adoptions.

Keep in mind not all of the agencies believe that this is an appropriate or effective response. We’ve all been through this before with the first moratorium. Our elected representatives will be asking, what has changed? How is this different from Romania, Cambodia, Nepal, and Guatemala? When will the endless line of devastated adoptive families end?

We can have our politicians look at referral photos and feel the loss that has left people sobbing on the Ethica phone lines. But we can also have them look at the Embassy report and and tell them that you don’t want a child who has been trafficked. You want a child that needs a home. You do NOT want a child at all costs especially when there’s some likelihood that the child already has a family.

THIS is what differentiates your voice from the mob of families clamoring to keep Vietnamese adoptions open. THIS is what starts adoption reform. THIS is how we honor Vietnamese children and their families.

Here are some questions you can ask your representatives:
1. Do you know if my agency has been implicated in the Embassy report?
2. Does my state attorney general and state adoption licensing authority know which American adoption agencies are paying to solicit Vietnamese children for adoption?
3. Will you support criminal investigations against Americans bribing foreign officials, soliciting children, and engaging in visa fraud?
4. Will you advocate for a Congressional hearing on international adoptions?
5. In 2006, there was a similar situation in China where rural officials compromised the adoption process. China responded with an investigation, criminal convictions, and reassurances that children adopted to the U.S. were not involved. Will you advocate for this kind of response from Vietnamese authorities?

Finally, I invite community members to take a look at a Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Asian adoptions back in 2006. Key supporters of adoption presented but there were no families speaking to the difficulty of the process, the unknown, corruption, or failed adoptions. We all hope that these experiences are anomalies but how do we know if no one looks into them? If we don’t ask our politicians for accountability? Where were the families who suffered through the first moratorium and Cambodia? Where are the victims? Why is there absolutely no mention of how American money and actors can encourage putting children INTO institutions? How sad to think that we can only focus on getting them out, when we’ve had a hand in putting them there in the first place.

Here is a quote from the hearing by Senator Larry Craig:

“Let me stress, I do not know of anybody in the adoption community who would countenance trafficking in children. As much as we want to facilitate adoptions, these adoptions must be ethical, and they must be transparent. Having said that, however, we should help these nations find ways to fight corruption while allowing legitimate adoptions to proceed. Otherwise, it is the orphan who will be paying the price for somebody else’s criminal behavior, the orphan who cannot be adopted domestically, and may be deprived of a permanent, loving home from an adoptive family of another country.”

I leave you with this quote by Catherine Barry, a Department of State representative. How sad to think 2 years later, the key MOU principles she speaks of have not protected Vietnamese children, families, and adoptive parents.

“The past year saw several milestones that I believe portend good things for the use of intercountry adoptions in Asia to help children in need. On June 21, 2005, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Maura Harty, and Vietnamese Justice Minister Uong Chu Luu signed a bilateral adoption agreement that reaffirmed both countries’ commitment to high standards and safeguards and allowed for the recommencement of adoptions from Vietnam. The bilateral agreement is consistent with several key principles of the Hague Convention such as having government authorities determine that: • A proposed adoption is in the best interests of the child; • The consent to the adoption was given by the persons or institutions authorized to do so; • Adoptive parents had received counseling;
• There were no improper requests for compensation; and • Prospective adoptive parents paid reasonable fees for necessary administrative, medical, and court matters”

–
Linh Song, MSW
Executive Director
Ethica, Inc.

Vietnam will cancel baby-adoption agreement with U.S.

Vietnam will end a baby-adoption agreement with the United States after being accused of allowing corruption and baby-selling, government officials said Monday.

The agreement was being considered for renewal but the two sides remained far apart over revisions, said Vu Duc Long, director of Vietnam’s International Adoption Agency. The agreement is due to expire Sept. 1.

The decision was made after the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi released a report earlier this month alleging pervasive corruption and baby-selling in Vietnam’s adoption system.

…

In a letter sent to the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi on April 25, Vietnam said it will stop taking adoption applications from American families after July 1, although it will continue to process applications of families matched with babies before July 1.

Today the US Embassy, Hanoi released a summary of irregularities in adoptions in Vietnam that is the longest and most thorough, to date. Likewise they have also released a Warning Concerning Adoptions in Vietnam which states, in part (emphasis mine):

On April 25, the Government of Vietnam announced that it will allow adoption to be completed in cases where prospective adoptive parents have been matched with a child and received an official referral prior to September 1, 2008. It further stated that in accordance with Vietnamese law, the DIA will suspend the acceptance of new dossiers on July 1, 2008. On September 1, 2008 any dossier that has not received a referral will be closed and returned to the Adoption Service Provider. In view of the processing time required in Vietnam from placement to the Giving and Receiving Ceremony, an adoption process begun now cannot be completed before the current Agreement expires.

This finally puts the rest the last several months of speculation about deadlines for referrals and processing of adoptions in Vietnam. You can read the full warning here.

The Summary of Irregularities is too long to post in its entirety but I’ve posted highlights along with my own comments, where applicable:

Orphanage directors in four provinces have reported to the Embassy that there is a strong financial incentive to maximize the number of children available for foreign adoption in their centers. The donation provided per child (available for intercountry adoption) can be up to 10 times the standard government funding. Hospital and social workers have reported that orphanage directors offer them financial incentives for each child sent to their orphanage.

As a result of the autonomy given to orphanage directors by MOLISA, individual orphanage directors, in conjunction with representatives of their sponsoring ASP, have broad latitude in determining how donations will be made, what the amount will be, and whether applications from prospective domestic adoptive parents will be processed. For example, one orphanage, which is entirely funded by an American ASP, submits expense reports and receipts to the ASP on a monthly basis. The ASP then transfers funds to reimburse the orphanage for its expenses. The number of infants in this orphanage has remained steady for the past three years. The orphanage is clean, well stocked with medicine and has an RN on duty. This orphanage prioritizes reuniting children with their biological parents, and processes equal numbers of domestic and intercountry adoptions. By contrast, another orphanage receives a fixed monthly donation for each child in the orphanage who is available for international adoption and the payment is made in cash directly to the orphanage director. This orphanage has seen the number of infants in its care increase by over 2000% in the past year, but it has not made significant increases in staff and does not have an RN.

I think this is a very interesting comparison between an agency that is clearly doing things right and another agency that is not and how an agency, itself, has the potential to directly impact trends within an orphanage.

It goes on to discuss some of the negative consequences of the donation system that is enshrined in the MOU:

Two orphanage directors have confirmed to consular officers that they are feeling pressure to find more children for their orphanage to “compensate” ASPs for their donations.

Another effect of the donation system is that it can reduce the protections that Vietnamese law grants to birth parents, such as the required 30 day search for birth parents and/or domestic adoptive parents as described above. Since, in most cases, the ASP has a close relationship with the orphanage, the ASP representative may be informed as soon as a potentially adoptable child enters the orphanage. This can result in the issuance of a “soft referral,” where adopting parents are notified that they have been matched with a child before the completion of the two consecutive 30 day search periods. The DIA has stated that such pre-referrals are illegal. Nonetheless, in over 40 documented cases, DIA has taken no action to punish or prevent the issuance of soft referrals, noting that all they can do is to inform provincial or district officials of the law and request their compliance.

Indeed this is a practice we PAPs and APs in the Vietnam adoption community have heard about over and over again since the inception of the MOU, unfortunately.

An on the efficacy of finding ads:

Further, provincial officials have stated that the advertisements are made in a manner that significantly decreases the likelihood that they will be heard or seen by the birth families. Investigations by the Embassy have also confirmed that the ads are not effective. In 6 cases where investigations by the Embassy have located the birth family of allegedly deserted children, the birth families said that they never heard or saw any ads seeking the parents of the child.

And on domestic adoption as a priority:

Orphanage directors in two provinces have confirmed to the Embassy that while they receive applications from families interested in domestic adoption, they do not process these applications. They have said that the reason these applications are not processed is that their orphanage will receive a donation from an ASP if the baby is adopted internationally, but not if the child is adopted domestically.

The summary discussed the current figures of abandonments to relinquishments in historical terms and the concerns about the trend toward abandonment:

Prior to the suspension of adoption in 2002, 80% of cases were relinquishments, and 20% were abandonments. Since the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) went into effect in 2005, those figures have flipped with over 85% of the cases involving desertions. Orphanages not involved in intercountry adoption, however, have reported to the Embassy that they have not seen any increase in the number of deserted children, and the vast majority of children in these facilities are children in care . Post has received multiple, credible reports from orphanage officials that facilitators are deliberately staging fraudulent desertions to conceal the identity of the birth parents.

Also, while not in the statement I think it is beneficial to point out that not all ASPs have shown a similar 85% abandonment rate.

On the validity of relinquishments:

75% of birth parents who were interviewed by a consular officer stated that in addition to payments for food, medical care and administrative expenses, they received payment from the orphanage in exchange for placing their child in the orphanage. On average this payment was six million Vietnamese Dong, which is the equivalent of 11 months salary at minimum wage in Vietnam. Many of these families cited these payments as the primary reason for placing their child in an orphanage. The majority of these parents also state that they had not considered placing their child in an orphanage until a health care worker or orphanage official suggested to them that they should do so and informed them that they would receive a payment for doing so. Many of these parents also report that orphanage officials told them that the child will visit home frequently, will return home after they reach a certain age (often 11 or 12), or will send remittance payments from the United States. In these cases, the majority of birth parents have said they do not consent to the adoption if any of these conditions are not kept.

…..Accordingly, while MOLISA can confirm that the reported payments from orphanage officials to biological parents must have come from ASP funds, they do not have the ability to take action or to investigate reports of child buying.

Again this points to the all-important relationship between agencies and orphanages. There should be no incentive for an orphanage to employ a child finder and there should be no financial incentives offered by the ASP for such services.

On the increased abandonment rate:

Orphanages in 7 provinces report a 17 fold or greater increase in desertions. Officials at orphanages not connected with intercountry adoption, however, have not seen an increase in desertions.

Provincial records also document an unusual pattern of “desertion pockets.” For example, in one province in 2007 there were 77 cases of child desertion. Of these, 76 occurred at one particular orphanage…….The orphanage director attributed the growth in the number of children and the number of desertions to the fact that the orphanage was receiving funds from the American ASP. He also stated that the orphanage had hired contract employees to find children between zero and six years of age whose families were in a particularly difficult situation and encourage the families to put their children in the orphanage. The orphanage guards also confirmed that desertions were extremely rare before 2006, but now they “find” five infants per month on average.

On those who find abandoned children:

In other cases, individuals report finding children in a field or by the side of the road. Often the individual who purportedly found the child (child finder) is a police officer, a village official or a member of their immediate family. These individuals are often related to the orphanage director or the local official who approves adoptions. Embassy investigations have shown that many of these reports are fraudulent. These include cases in which those individuals, who only months or weeks before had signed statements claiming to have found a deserted child, told consular officers that they had never in their lives found a deserted child. In one case, the child finder could not remember finding a child, even though the purported event had happened the day before. In another case, the child finder stated that the police told her if she did not sign a fraudulent statement claiming that she had found a child in 2007, they would arrest her for kidnapping in connection with a child finder statement that she signed in 2006.

In over 10 cases, Embassy investigations have discovered the identity of the birth mother in cases where a child was purportedly deserted. In all of these cases, the birth mother was known to orphanage or hospital officials, but these institutions fraudulently document the case as a desertion. In some cases, this was to conceal payments to the birth family. In others, children were declared to be deserted with unknown parents after the birth parents failed to pay outstanding hospital bills.

Both of these activities have been long happening in Vietnam. At least one agency has told PAPs that this happens, that it is just how it is done and that often - not just sometimes - the birth parents are known. I don’t believe this is the case for all agencies but I know that it is an admitted practice by some.

On Pregnancy Homes:

In five provinces, the Embassy has discovered unlicensed, unregulated facilities that provide free room and board to pregnant women in return for their commitment to relinquish their children upon birth. None of these facilities openly advertises its services. Women learn of the facilities existence solely by word of mouth. While the facilities are open and the women are free to come and go as they please, they incur a debt for each night that they stay that they have to pay if they do not relinquish their child. Recent Vietnamese media reports of such facilities have revealed that women often live in squalor and in many cases are forced to labor during their stay. In several of these facilities, there is a policy that the birth mother cannot see her child after delivery, in order to prevent bonding. Women in these facilities report receiving up to 6 million Vietnam Dong as payment for their children. While the source of funding for these facilities is unclear, they appear to have close connections with nearby orphanages.

When the Embassy visited these facilities, we saw up to 20 women living in a single home. These women reported that orphanage officials came to the house in order to have them sign paperwork relinquishing their children. The women would then receive the promised payments. Often, the child is then taken to a nearby hospital or orphanage where a second set of paperwork is produced stating that the child was deserted. This is the paperwork that is submitted to the DIA and to the Embassy to support the claim that the child is an orphan.

This is so incredibly reminiscent of the Baby Scoop Era back in the 50’s and 60’s in our very own United States when the culture of adoption was to vilify the “bad girl”, the Mother who sinned and had a child out of wedlock, poverty or violence. It is agonizing to read about such similar activity in 21st century Vietnam. When coercion of any kind - financial, emotional or psychological - occurs then the child is not legally orphaned. We like to think we’ve come a long way since those condemnation decades in the US. If that’s the case, we need to rally against practices such as these that vilify women for pregnancy and turn around and profit from it. We have now seen the full effects of the Baby Scoop Era on the mothers, the children (adoptees) and even the extended family members. There is no beauty or goodness that can come out of a woman being forced to give up her child, no matter how wonderful the adoptive parents might be.

On Paperwork Irregularities:

Documents relating to adoptions in Vietnam, such as birth certificates, abandonment reports, relinquishment agreements, and investigative reports are generally issued by orphanage directors, local People’s Committees, Provincial Departments and the Department for International Adoptions (DIA). The facts asserted in these documents are not verified by the issuing officials. Attempts by U.S. officials to verify the accuracy of these documents have routinely uncovered evidence of fraudulent or inaccurate information. Therefore, all documents issued by the authorities listed above and any other documents containing information not verified by the issuing authority cannot be considered adequate evidence of the facts claimed and, at best, may be used in conjunction with primary and contemporaneous secondary evidence or must be must be independently verified by U.S. officials in Vietnam before they can be considered valid for immigration purposes.

….

Fraudulent police reports have also been submitted to the Embassy in connection with adoption cases.

On DIA’s oversight and authority:

DIA’s explicit position is that, as long as the appropriate papers have been signed by the correct officials, DIA will certify that the adoption complies with Vietnamese law. DIA has stated that it does not actually have the authority to declare an adoption illegal, revoke a Giving and Receiving Ceremony, or cancel a referral. The lack of verification and accountability regulations in Vietnamese adoption law creates a situation where an unscrupulous orphanage director or local official who fabricates a “desertion” or “relinquishment” is also only that official who can investigate the alleged fraud in the case.

A provincial Department of Justice official told the Embassy of cases where under Vietnamese law children had been matched with adopting families and the cases were referred to her office for verification. In one case, hospital records stated that the birth mother had registered at the hospital under an assumed name and then died shortly after the birth. The child was listed as deserted. However, the DOJ official found a reference in the hospital file that the woman’s family had come to the hospital to claim her body. As a result the official contacted the family, who stated that the hospital had transferred the child to the orphanage without their consent and that the orphanage had denied them visitation rights. The family has now been reunited with the child, who is being raised by his maternal grandparents. However, the official noted that under Vietnamese law no one had technically done anything wrong in separating this child from his family. Only her personal interest in the case and her ability to persuade other local officials to do the right thing prevented this child from being permanently separated from his family.

On ASP corruption:

The Embassy has received credible reports from current and former employees of ASPs working in Vietnam regarding corruption in the adoption system, beginning with the licensing procedures. Several ASPs have reported that they were told they had to fund tours to the United States for DIA and other government officials in order to receive their licenses. According to ASP employees, these tours included shopping sprees, where ASP employees were expected to pay for all of the purchases of the Vietnamese delegation. Others have reported being asked to pay bribes in order to obtain provincial licenses.

In addition, statements from adopting parents and ASP employees show that many ASPs ask adopting parents to pay cash donations to orphanage directors and staff. These payments are illegal according to the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry acknowledges that they are widespread and that they are a key factor in the irregularities seen in the adoption system in Vietnam. Further, ASPs have reported that cash and in-kind donations have been diverted by orphanage officials and used to finance personal property, private cars, jewelry and, in one case, a commercial real estate development.

On Refuting the Claims:

DIA has acknowledged that when it receives reports from the Embassy regarding fraud in adoption cases, they meet with the ASP or local facilitators to develop a strategy to refute the Embassy’s evidence.

….

The Embassy has informed the DIA of cases of potential fraud and illegal activity. However, the DIA has acknowledged that it has not taken any action, criminal or administrative, against any individual or organization for any violation of Vietnamese law or regulation concerning adoption. They have also stated that they have taken no action to address concerns or allegations of wrongdoing submitted to them by individuals, ASPs or the U.S. Embassy. Instead, DIA has stated that it is in the “humanitarian” interest of the Government of Vietnam to ensure that every proposed adoption is completed as quickly as possible. They note that the ASPs have made a donation for the child, and thus, even if they had the authority to revoke a referral or an adoption, they would not do so because they could not break their contract with the ASP.

Clearly we are looking at two very different cultural and political ideologies. If there is a presumption that both governments want to work toward continuing to offer international adoption from Vietnam to the US then a bridge must be built and work must be done to agree on some very most fundamental issues of human rights and rights of the child and methods upon which those rights will be legally enforced.

These are only some of the highlights of the Embassy’s incredible summary document. Please read the entire Summary in order to get the best feel for the climate that is and has been adoptions in Vietnam for the least 2 years.

Posted today on the wire:

Vietnam has failed to police its adoption system, allowing corruption, fraud and baby-selling to flourish, the U.S. Embassy says in a new report obtained by The Associated Press.

The nine-page document describes brokers scouring villages for babies, hospitals selling infants whose mothers cannot pay their bills, and a grandmother giving away her grandchild — without telling the child’s mother.

Please read on for the full story. This is a very balanced and fair representations of the adoption landscape in Vietnam at this time.

From Ethica:

According to CIS, On April 1, 2008 an internal USCIS field memo was inadvertently given to the public regarding a new policy requiring DNA testing for known birth families. CIS maintains this memo was not forwarded to adoption service providers. However, some adoptive families were alerted to the new requirement upon receipt of their I600 petitions, and they then forwarded the information to their agencies. USCIS has confirmed that a public statement was scheduled to be released at the same time however there were delays with revisions and in obtaining clearance. They are expecting that the statement, along with a Q&A, will be released sometime on Tuesday or Wednesday.It is our current understanding that USCIS expects that DNA testing will expedite the process, allowing orphan status confirmation for example, in cases in which investigations cannot be completed due to non-cooperating Vietnamese authorities. Ethica will be having additional talks with USCIS and DOS in the coming days to clarify the rationale and basis for this policy as well as the consequences to Vietnamese adoptions. We hope to address the adoption community’s concerns and will share information as we receive it. Thank you for your support and patience.

It’s Friday evening, April 4th. Four full days after the new DNA regulation apparently went into effect. Three full days after the USCIS internal memo was unofficially posted on the internet and we were assured (per the memo) that an official announcement would be published “soon.” And yet, there is no information about this new regulation on either the State Department website or the USCIS website. Apparently some agencies (but not all) and the USCIS field offices did receive the original memo…One state field office is now notifying people who file their I600a for Vietnam:

… please be advised that if you are planning to adopt a child that has been abandoned, the USCIS office in Ho Chi Minh City requires a DNA test for all Orphan First abandonment cases, in order to establish a relationship between an abandoning birth parent and a prospective adoptive child as part of the adjudication of the Form I-600. USCIS is taking this step in response to concerns regarding the integrity of the adoption process in Vietnam, and to ensure that all abandonment adoption cases are valid. The DNA matching test will confirm that the prospective adoptive child is matched to the birth parent who voluntarily consented to the adoption.

In order to arrange for DNA testing for adoption cases where a birth parent has been identified, you must contact the USCIS office in Ho Chi Minh City once the child has been identified and a Form I-600 has been accepted by USCIS.

I’m attempting to withhold judgement and commentary until we receive official word on the details of the DNA regulation - unfortunately USCIS leaves us to make our own conjectures when they institute a regulation without any explanation whatsoever. But it is my hope and expectation that USCIS will post an official notice early next week and provide answers to at least a few of our many questions.

It’s my guess that everyone connected to Vietnam adoptions has seen the internal USCIS memo regarding a new DNA requirement that was posted on Bring Our Children Home yesterday. This memo was news to us as it was to most people in the adoption community - although it appears that USCIS did notify some agencies and organizations ahead of time. As soon as we learned of the memo, we went to work contacting sources and doing research online to find verification and clarification. An assistant to the author of the memo told us this:

the memo that was posted to the Bring Our Children Home website was for internal guidance.
Accordingly, it did not include the level of detail normally provided in documents intended for public dissemination. A corresponding update to our website on this issue is also being prepared and should be posted shortly.

We have also learned that the USCIS has been considering implementing this requirement for at least a month.

At this point, we still have many questions and can only hope that the USCIS announcement will answer them. But there are a few answers I can provide based on information we already have.

Abandonment - This term has multiple meanings. For most of us, it means anonymously leaving a child. But the USCIS definition is somewhat different and more complex. In its entirety, from the USCIS Guidebook for international adoption the definition reads as follows:

Abandonment by both parents means that the parents have willfully forsaken all parental rights, obligations and claims to the child, as well as all control over and possession of the child, without intending to transfer, or without transferring, these rights to any specific person(s). Abandonment must include not only the intention to surrender all parental rights, obligations and claims to the child, and control over and possession of the child, but also the actual act of surrendering such rights, obligations, claims, control and possession. A relinquishment or release by the parents to the prospective adoptive parents or for a specific adoption does not constitute abandonment. Similarly, the relinquishment or release of the child by the parents to a third party for custodial care in anticipation of, or preparation for, adoption does not constitute abandonment unless the third party (such as a governmental agency, a court of competent jurisdiction, an adoption agency or an orphanage) is authorized under the child welfare laws of the foreign sending country to act in such a capacity. A child who is placed temporarily in an orphanage shall not be considered to be abandoned if the parents express an intention to retrieve the child, are contributing or attempting to contribute to the support of the child, or otherwise exhibit ongoing parental interest in the child. A child who has been given unconditionally to an orphanage shall be considered to be abandoned.

So, basically when USCIS says “abandoned” they mean relinquished permanently and unconditionally, or a child who is available for international adoption.

The complication is that in Vietnam, apparently 85% of children are anonymously abandoned. And what is not clear at this point is what the new regulation will mean for those children. Also not clear is what would happen to a child who was legally relinquished some time in the past but now the birth parent(s) can not be located in order to do a DNA test. These are just two of the many questions I have and hope that USCIS will address as soon as possible.

My reason for posting today, aside from clarifying the meaning of the word “abandoned”, is to attempt to be a somewhat calming influence on what is clearly a very stressful situation. First, I want to say, I know what people are feeling. No, this exact thing did not happen to me, but actually something worse. With absolutely NO notice, USCIS suspended all adoptions from Cambodia - while we were right in the middle of adopting our daughter. The announcement was made on a Friday night, right before Christmas and it was literally weeks before we got any answers. So I will be the last person to minimize how scary and frustrating these sudden USCIS announcements can be. But the good news is that in time there was some additional information - and while at first it seemed we were facing a brick wall, in fact we found the wall was not immovable and USCIS did eventually work with all the families involved to resolve our cases and our daughter came home.

My suggestion for those in process right now is to look to your agencies and your congressional offices for help and support. Check in with you agency and find out what they know. Probably at this point they are still gathering information, but just hearing that they are on top of things will be a reassurance. Your congressional office can be a great resource at times like this. During our Cambodian experience, USCIS told us they preferred to work with our congressional representatives. And your congressional office is required to open a file for any constituent who calls with a specific need. So when you call, explain your circumstances and be very clear about what you want them to do for you. (ie, “Please contact USCIS and find out what the new DNA regulation means, when it takes affect, and how it will impact cases in process.”) If you don’t know how to contact your congress people, a good place to start is Congress.org - it’s an independent resource that allows you to enter your zip code and then displays all your local elected officials and their contact information.

Hopefully in the days to come we will have more official statements and information to post. But as we wait, please remember that we are all in this together - we all came to this place wanting nothing more than to open our hearts and homes to Vietnamese children in need of families. Let’s not bicker or attack one another, but instead do what we can to support each other and work together toward that common purpose.

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.

Millville woman’s agonizing wait for adoption ends with happy homecoming
By EDWARD VAN EMBDEN
Press of Atlantic City

“Vietnam is a cautionary tale,” she said. “The parents, effectively, were told they should give up. In the end it might have been a test of wills.”

The legal battle has cost Sawyer, a single 25-year-old, nearly every cent she has worked to accumulate. But even with about $30,000 in legal fees to contend with, she said it’s the best investment she has ever made.

Along the way, she has made some allies. There’s U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer from California, who actively campaigned on behalf of Sawyer and the other families, and there were other politicians who lent their support to the cause.

She’s willing to join with others fighting the same cause now, too.

A Web site, www.bringourchildrenhome.org, was designed to help shed some light on the issues adoptive parents of Vietnamese children currently face. And she’s actively involved in the cause, she said.

Some observations that our team made was that both the Ha Tay and Bac Giang centers were involved in international adoption. Ha Tay has had children adopted to Italy, France, and the U.S. Bac Giang children were being adopted to the U.S. (though it wasn’t clarified if children were being placed elsewhere).

Read more on Ethica’s Blog.