More coming in on weight
Oddly enough, I’ve now had two people who called their agency about their weight and came away from the conversation feeling that their agency knew something but would not (could not?) give out any details.
In both cases the agency rep asked for height and weight, did some figuring, and then told them they were fine.
One person told me her agency, the other did not. I don’t know if they are using the same agency or not. Both people did tell me that they are under 300 pounds, but neither told me their weight.
I’m seeing more and more clues that there is going to be a weight restriction put out soon, and that it is not going to be retroactive for those already logged in. We’ve been hearing murmurings of it since late fall or early winter, and the murmurings are getting louder.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
I guess it would be a great motivation to start to lose some weight before considering to adopt!! I feel really, really sorry for those who will be affected. This is something I would not wish on anyone.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
hi rq,
As a single, I am worried they may be imposing stricter restrictions on single parents as well. I get terrified at the thought of the the possibility that these restrictions may be retroactive… What makes you think that the weight restrictions are NOT going to be retroactive for those already logged in???
May 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
My wife and I applied to a large china only agency at the beginning of the year. A few days after we sent in our application we got a call asking for our height and weight. After I told them (I’m around 230, my wife is under 150) they said our application was approved. So in my opinion (at least with my agency) they have been screening on the basis of weight for several months now.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I don’t think they will be retroactive because we have now seen two people denied for weight (one a couple of months ago, and now this).
Someone emailed me asking about other medical issues - the other issues I’ve seen pop up are organ transplants and a history of cancer. Oh, and someone was denied based on “mind altering” medication that she took for epilepsy.
Also, it seems they are getting a lot stricter about minor indiscretions that happend early in life, sometimes 20 plus years ago. Many people are now being told to get their records expunged before starting the adoption process.
I have no facts about what is coming down the pike at us. I’m just trying to put together the information that is coming at me into some kind of cohesive hypothesis.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I have heard a rumor that you should be cancer free for some amount of time- 3 or 5 years or something like that. I had not put much thought into it- but maybe now I should…
May 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
This makes me crazy. I’m LID July 5 and overweight. Healthy as a horse, but feeling very nervous now.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I’m told there is also someone who does not have epilepsy but has seizures, and they are being questioned because the drug she takes is considered a “mind altering drug”. This is fairly recent.
But, what I’m remembering was from a couple of months ago, and I’m pretty sure it was for epilepsy. I am sure of the phrase though “mind altering drug”.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I’m confused. Wouldn’t the fact that we’ve seen people who have been logged in for a long time being denied now because of weight tend to suggest that the new restrictions ARE being retroactively applied?
May 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
RQ,
To the best of your knowledge, histories of cancer……..if you were past 5 years in remission were they still denying you to adopt?
I am an ovarian cancer survivor and have been in remission since 2000. This thought scares me to death. I let the agency know when we signed the application and they required me to get documentation from the oncologist. After the letter was submitted to the agency, along with my updated physical information, they said no problem.
I have to admit…. this is an issue that is very alarming!
May 25th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
jes,
I have to agree with you…… the couple of issues that we have heard about, are people that have been logged in and waiting. It looks as though they are going to make them retroactive. Unless, these particular agencies did not do a good job of presceening the applicants. Let’s hope that is the reason and everyone that is logged in is safe!
May 25th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
sorry, been away for the past several days, but have slowly caught up on everything here.
I…well actually my DW thinks that whatever new restrictions, policies, etc are going into effect they are going to go all the way back to where they are in the referral process. One has to figure that they’ve had the Sept apps out of the review room for some time now and have yet to post they’re finished with Oct. That means that July/Aug/Sept Dossiers have been sitting in the match room and we have a feeling they’re going to be looked over again. I hate the idea of this…I don’t believe myself nor my wife have anything to worry about, but just the thought of those of us who’ve been out of the Review Room for awhile now being re-reviewed is frustrating and a tad scary. But yeah, I wouldn’t be suprised that they have started any new ‘restrictions’ with the Oct group and now have been working backwards up to where they are currently matching. :(
May 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Hmm, maybe I’ll use another word.
I don’t think that they will let those of us already logged in be grandfathered with the new rules. I think the new rules will apply to us.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I heard (third hand) that the reason why my HUGE China-only agency sat on my totally completed dossier for over a month was because they were hustling through their singles dossiers (they had 80 open slots in January) and their dossiers were rolling in right when mine did. Mine sat . . . and sat . . . and sat. When I heard someone mention changes for singles, this triggered my memory.
Does anyone have any idea when this announcement will be made??
May 25th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Crickety,
I don’t understand. You mean your dossier had to wait because your agency was working on the singles dossiers? At least in Spain, it is just the other way around. Since there is a quota for singles, it is always us who have to wait.
and, what kind of changes for singles do you infer from the fact that your agency was hustling through their dossiers?
May 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
My dossier is being sat on right now waiting to be sent. It has been done for a little while. Hmm I wonder if this is why?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
RQ,
Where did you hear about the minor indiscretions being an issue. Unfortunately, both my husband and I have a minor indiscretion on our records (both over 15 years ago…and really minor…dumb kid stuff). Actually, mine was expunged, but I told my home study agency anyway b/c the documents from immigration said to report anything even if it was expunged. So now it is typed up in my homestudy!!! Does anyone anymore on this? I just emailed my agency about it. Thanks!
May 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Okay, something isn’t right with this. None of it makes sense.
Why is this happening all of a sudden (restrictions), even before it has been announced? I know that China can do what ever they want but this seems rather outrageous to do to people after they have been so long in the process. If it is true, China will be destroying the strong reputation/respect they have in the IA world. I don’t understand why they would do this just to slow down the number of dossiers. It doesn’t seem to be in character for them. I can (sortof) understand putting the restrictions on new dossiers but the ones through review-this makes no sense. I am having a really hard time believing that this is actually (even tho I believe the people on here) happening. Could it be that some agencies are not
letting people know that this is a restriction? Or do the agencies not even know? If CCAA has not let agencies know this “rule” then that is completely unfair to ALL involved.
Every day I just get more and more confused. We went with China for our international adoption because their program is so well respected. Wow, what a shame if this all is true.
Any ideas out there???
May 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
This just sickens me that they would place a weight restriction on couples. It is blatant discrimmination! The reason we didn’t go with Korea was because of the weight restrictions. What do they consider to be “grossly overweight”?????
May 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
No answers, but I agree with you wrigsassy. The question is: why this confusion? Also I would really like to know why only one person has been pulled, there must be many others with a higher weight that have not. I also find it very strange that the CCAA have been treating countries unequally — why did Denmark, Holland, Australia hear about the age of approval restrictions before many others? And above all, why did no single country hear about them until after they were implemented (Jan 1 this year)
May 25th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
flowerpower — maybe i am being dense, but could you clarify what you meant by ‘age of approval restrictions’ that were implemented in jan of this year? i’m not familiar with that phrase…
May 25th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Oh my goodness! This all really scares me. I thought NOT retroactive meant that those of us logged in are safe. But then I think I read that RQ wrote, “I think the new rules will apply to us”. Has anybody ever heard of somebody being denied because of plastic surgery - breast implants? (foolish college mistake) Anyway, my agency told me that I have nothing to worry about - that they’ve accepted many applicants who have had various types of plastic surgery. But now I have to say that I’m a little worried. RQ, have you heard anything on this topic? Anyone?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
waitingforyou — i can’t imagine that they would have ANY problems with plastic surgery!! It’s life-and-death conditions( or things “they” feel could shorten your lifespan) and surgeries they are concerned about.
i’m no expert, but i’d dare to say DON’T WORRY on this one!
May 25th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
eli, Age of approval means the age of the child you are allowed to adopt. The CCAA has now said it must be 0-24 months (or higher I suppose, like 0-5 years) but can no longer be 2-4 years, for example.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Waitingforyou
I have them also and my agency said not to worry. They did not even want a doctors letter. They did require a doctors letter for my dh because my dh takes valtrex.
I think that we all need to snap back to reality. Based on what we know so far, it sounds like they are being a little bit more conservative than in tha past and what they are looking at is if you have a medical or health condition that will effect you ability to parent a child.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Back in December 2005, my very large China-only agency basically prepared its clients for the fact that China could be looking more closely at weight. I appreciate that the agency was being proactive. However, until China “officially” announces something regarding weight, medical conditions, etc. I know this is hard on everyone. Regarding singles, China already has imposed everything on us short of prohibiting adoption (quotas, more paperwork, income, etc). I certainly hope China doesn’t eliminate a group of wonderful parents-to-be.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I was so relieved when we cleared the Review Room, and now I am nervous.
My husband has Type II Diabetes. He is actually a little underweight, and his doctor wrote a glowing letter about how well he is controlling the disease. Has anyone ever heard of a denial due to Diabetes?
Getting a denial at this stage is something I cannot even imagine.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Just a thought….but maybe not too far off….maybe the reason we are all being delayed is because they are now reviewing the Dossiers twice applying a pass or fail based on any new restrictions the CCAA may have in place. Just putting it out there.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Valeri, if China is anything like Japan, then unless you’re a Sumo wrestler, most people do not even weigh over 200 pounds. If you are very tall and stocky, 250 pounds, tops. But 280 or 300 would be the weight of two average Japanese in one human body, and to them this is a kind of shocking state of obesity for anyone to be in.
As I wrote before, I’m convinced that I would weigh 30 pounds more than I do if I didn’t eat on a pseudo-Japanese diet. Americans take in way too many empty carbs and calories, have huge portions, and we don’t bicylcle around everywhere like they do in Tokyo. Americans eating 3-4 slices of Domino’s Pizza for dinner with sugar-packed cans of Coke, driving everywhere, and popping unhealthy snacks between meals, the state of obesity now is not hard to understand.
Where I have a problem is with China and/or Agencies leading very overweight people on to think they can adopt and then slamming the door. It’s just not right.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Flowerpower– oh, i see, thanks!
May 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
If that’s the case Alexander, then there will probably be a few hundred more being denied. I want to think that there is more to this than what is being told. I would tend to believe that a family, in this circumstance, would undoubtedly be very upset, but may not be telling the REAL reason for their denial. They may blame the only thing “acceptable” in their mind to tell people.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
If there is anyone who has checked with their agency and had the height/weight tally done and passed - and would be willing to share what their figures are, I am sure it would help alot of other people who have all gone on a drastic diet today. Remember this is an anonymous blog!
May 25th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Forgot my second point..if people are being denied for weight, what happens if they have then loose it? Are their applications “parked” or can they be reactivated after documented weight loss?
May 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
True….good point….with nothing concrete to really go with your mind starts thinking crazy scenarios. How can nobody really not know? I truly believe all the Agencys that are closely associated with the CCAA actually know what is going on and actually know what the upcoming restrictions are but do not say anything because they know that once the cat is out of the bag info will spread like wildfire through these chat groups before the CCAA officially makes any announcement and that could only jeopardize any future relationship they have with the CCAA.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
“I heard (third hand) that the reason why…” that pretty much says it all about this thread. Wrigsassy seems to be the only voice of reason here?
“…two people who called their agency about their weight and came away from the conversation feeling that their agency knew something…” - Ever have to call the IRS? *They* really sound like they know more than they’re telling you! Yes, we’re all worried because the referrals are slowing down. But heck, it’s probably like going to the DMV - the busier they are the slower they work! (sorry if anyone works @ the DMV).
My wife just heard that next week the US agencies are *definitely* getting a memo from China about *something* - It’s just like when there’s a memo coming at work, everyone gets worked up then it’s usually something like “a reminder that the red zone is for loading and unloading only - do not park there.”
May 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
I think we all need to take a deep breath. Do we have any concrete evidence (aside from a fvery few denials of applications) that new restrictions are even something that are going to be put in place in the near future? Has anyone’s agency said that the rumored upcoming “announcement” from CCAA is even going to address any new restrictions? As far as weight restrictions go, I would assume that if they are turning people away who are less than, say, 100 or 150 pounds overweight, that we would be seeing a LOT of people being denied. So far, that does not seem to be the case. This is a nerve-wracking process and I think everyone worries that CCAA will find some reason to deny their application, but I think we need to balance our worry with the facts and, at least so far, the facts don’t support widespread rejection of dossiers already reviewed, because of weight or any other issue. That said, my heart breaks for the couple that was denied due to weight.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Hi, I’m a long time lurker, first time poster. I agree with you michitakem that we must look very overweight to some in China. But I myself am part German and Native American and come from very hearty stock. I’m 5′10 and weigh 190, but really don’t look overweight. I fit my body type. I’m sure the people in China realize that people from around the world have different body types and take that into consideration, right?
May 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
another thing to consider is that polycystic ovarian syndrome is one of the most common reasons, if not *the* most common reason, a woman may not be able to conceive a child and thus want to adopt from china. PCOS makes it very difficult for some women to maintain a “normal” weight. not everyone who is overweight gets there from too much domino’s pizza. i hope china realizes this.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
To clarify what I meant: yes, there is a singles quotal already, but agencies know their number in advance & open that number of slots. My agency opened their entire years’ woth of spots in January. Those dossiers came in in March-May (for the most part, I’m guessing a little here). My dossier SAT, completed for 6 weeks (and sat, without an I-171 for 10+ weeks). That is not rumor, it is fact.
I wondered why & through one of my lists (and I CANNOT remember which, that’s why I called it “third hand” because I honestly cannot remember the source or the poster’s source), I learned that this agency communicated concern that “rules might change for singles.” I have NO IDEA what that means, but I do know that this poster suggested that might be a reason why my dossier sat for an extraordinarily long time.
The agency, of course, offered me no explanation.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
That’s very possible that the agency wanted to process as many singles as possible if it heard something about Singles from the CCAA. I’m sorry your dossier sat there but I understand why your agency would want to do that and give as many singles the opportunity to be DTC before whatever it thought might happen happens. I applaud the agency for that.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Hi all, my first post but have been checking in daily a while now. Thanks, RQ for all your efforts and getting this info out there.
Regarding the weight issue, I’ve been told that this has been flagged by CCAA for sometime but that they are talking about what is medically termed “morbid obesity” not just overweight. The figures mentioned to me were if one partner was over 300lb then the other needed to be under 250lb.
Nothing definite mind you but this was some relief to me in these agonising times!
May 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Um. I might be willing to “applaud” them if they were forthright about what they were doing. But they weren’t. Their clients were left with platitudes (from them) and rumors (from outside sources). That’s just crappy client service. And their stated policy is that the dossier could take “up to 15 days.” Nothing about 6 weeks in the event that they wish to hustle through singles in front of us. Since they are doing MASSIVE numbers of dossiers, why not hire extra help to process them simultanously, eh?
May 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Regarding getting records expunged: to my knowledge there is really no way to get your records expunged. As one commenter mentioned, you need to put everything in your homestudy because even when your records have been cleared the FBI retains that information. If you haven’t come clean about some past indiscretion you will have a hard time getting your I171. In fact, it can be downright tricky if your records HAVE been expunged because you still need to have some proof of that, since the FBI report will show something and you will need the details.
If anyone has information to the contrary I would be very interested to hear it, since this has been my understanding based on lots of others’ experiences.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
This weight issue is making me crazy! I for one still think it was more than a weight issue for this couple. From what I understand they were asked to update Homestudy and had some medical questions. The only way It could be a weight issue is if they were both relly obese. China wants 1 healthy spouse.I do not think that new guide lines are going to effect anyone logged in already. I know plenty of Heavy people who are getting accepted and their dossiers logged in. I do not see how an Agency could accept people knowing that with in a couple of months that they will get denied! Rumor has it October is out of reviewing room. I think I heard they are up to December already! They just have not posted it yet! I do not think China will be so unfair to people already logged in. I am sure people who just received their referrals are not all thin! It does not make sense. I think alot more people would be getting calls. Yes I do believe China is going to set new guide lines but with a date down the road. My agency said that China could put a weight restriction but never have they just did it and said to bad. My Agency also said thay could close down singles, they could do anything! I am going to hope for the best and I can not wait for all of this to be over. Our first Adoption we had SARS that delayed us but that was a breeze compared to this. We are DTCL Oct. 13
May 25th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Crickety, maybe your agency couldn’t be forthright with you. I think there is a delicate balance between being as forthcoming as possible with clients while respecting certain confidentialities to which it may be privy. Assuming your agency is doing what you say, I believe there may be a good reason for it.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Mo, I say this with a wink & a smile: Isn’t “good reason” relative? Good for WHOM? But seriously, I think we are all a little tripped out that a process that was formerly “predictable” (and for many, this was the greatest attraction — I wouldn’t adopt from Russia again for this reason) is now UNpredictable. Last time my agency mailed my dossier within HOURS of its completion, now we have rumor blogs — how blissfully unaware would we be without it? ;)
I used to compare the China & Russia program for people: Russia is judicial — a judge decides each case (and does NOT have to say Yes!) and China is administrative: fill out the paperwork, meet the requirements, get your baby. That is now a “wild card.”
RQ, do we have any more definite guess about when the “announcement” will be made?
May 26th, 2006 at 12:53 am
michitakem:
I agree with you, and there is no doubt about it that Americans do not have as healthly life styles as we should. But did you really feel it was a helpful to post such insulting comments? There are many people who are over 200 lbs. I just don’t know what your post was supposed to accomplish.
Didn’t your parents ever teach you “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then say NOTHING at all”? How ignorant and so callous of you to make such rude statements.
I hope you never fall off of your pseudo-Japanese diet.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Kelmoco,
I’m posting the reality of what I experienced in Japan. I know that I myself look large and “overweight” to them, and I felt the strong pressure to conform to their standards and perhaps even came to see things like they do over nearly a decade in Tokyo.
No intent was made to be insulting. Valeri asked what they consider overweight and I replied, perhaps too bluntly. Forgive me if I offended you, please.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Thanks for the quick response eli and babs! Does anybody know if the couple who was denied for weight was already logged in? Were they out of the review room? I hope they were still in the paperchase. Otherwise, that seems so incredibly unfair.
May 26th, 2006 at 7:10 am
The family that was denied has been logged in since July 05. They thought they would be getting their referral sometime “soon”. (Yes, I know soon is a relative term right now.) A few weeks ago they were asked to resubmit new medical info, financial info. The poster also said she is very overweight. I don’t know what that means, and certainly am not going to ask.
Being overweight here, I am a little more comfortable with this because our agency sent out the 300 lbs/250 lbs info several months ago. DH and I do not fall in to that range, thankfully.
May 26th, 2006 at 8:11 am
didn’t think mitchitakem’s comments were rude at all. True…but not rude. It’s a proven fact that us yanks generally are ‘larger’ than average…larger than what we should be. the US has the highest ratio of people considered overweight. And if you compare the average person from the US to the average person from the asian region…there’s a noticable difference in size anyways. period.
I think if one looks at or researches the eating habits, food and type of food intake along with general lifestyles and stress levels of the American people compared with Asian and even European people…we need some help here. I know I’m guilty of eating the ‘bad’ foods and having higher levels of stress on occasion. I don’t think that makes us any worse parents or potential parents, but I think China is looking at things alittle closer (like perhaps Korea and other countries has been) in the risk factors and risk levels involved with very very overweight people being able to care for their precious infants. Is it judgemental? yes. Is it necessarily wrong for them to take that stance? no.
May 26th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Someone on a previous post put a link to a BMI calculator and I went to it yesterday and got a huge surprise. Even though I am fine, 5′4″ and 130 lbs it said that DH is obese. If you saw him in person, you would be shocked that the calculator came up with this. He is 6′6″ and 280 lbs and the only weight thing you might notice on him from a “thinner” person is that he has a smallish “pregnancy” looking belly, certainly not a “beer belly” type look at all. For him to be normal, he would have to weigh 200 lbs which would actually make him look almost ill. If CCAA looks at these types of calculators it would certainly think he has a weight problem but they can see from our pictures that he isn’t. I just don’t want anyone out there that has gone to this BMI link to panic like I almost did when it calculates a “category” that you know doesn’t really apply in your case. Michele
May 26th, 2006 at 9:21 am
I will agree with tgredthread and say that I didn’t think mitchitakem was being rude at all. He (? I think) didn’t say that being over 200 lbs was bad, just that other countries consider that to be a potential problem. He was explaining how other countries view weight, and food, differently. As far as discussing American diets–let’s face it. Most of us DO eat bad food. In Europe, for example, people don’t usually snack between meals. Portions are much smaller. I’m Danish, and in Denmark the portions are miniscule compared to what they are in America. I am guilty of eating bad-for-me food recently, and I’ve gained weight for it. I don’t believe mitchitakem was passing judgement on anyone. In fact, I think he said that he thought it was wrong to mislead anyone the way this woman was misleaded.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Um, misled ;) (And I call myself an English teacher!!!)
May 26th, 2006 at 9:28 am
red thread and michitakem ~
I agree and do not think the comments were made to offend anyone. The obesity problem in the US is not new and let’s face it China, Korea and all the other countries can do whatever they want to - even if it isn’t up to our “politically correct” US standards.
We are also from the agency that sent the e-mail regarding weight - if one parent weighs 300 than the other needs to weigh less than 250… I also remember being told that as long as one parent is in excellent health than the other parent’s health issues shouldn’t be a problem. As the Redthread said (I’m paraphrasing), they want to make sure that the prospective parents are healthy enough to parent these children into adulthood. As there are no guarantees that thinner people will live longer or necessarily healthier lives, they seem to be making a generalization.
The most problematic part of this situation is the woman who was denied was blind-sided. If we are truly getting all of the info, than there were many opportunities over the last 10 months to clue her in.
Is this discrimination? In our country it would be considered so but we are dealing with an entire different country, one that doesn’t have to play by our rules.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Of more concern to me than weight is the health issues. We’ve worried from the beginning if we would be accepted, because I am one of those with multiple health issues. I’m totally in control and was approved by my doctor and social worker as being able to parent a child. But one of my meds. is for a seizure disorder. And that’s one thing a lady was rejected for. My very large and experienced agency told me I would be fine. And I’m sure I would have–unless new restrictions were put in place. But I’m pretty sure we’re in jeopardy now. We’re supposed to be DTC in 2 weeks. It makes me sad, but as I said, I knew from the beginning it might be a problem.
Also–re. weight restrictions. I think the idea behind Korea’s weight restriction is that being significantly overweight increases the possibility of future health problems and early death. I don’t think such a rule is meant to be discriminatory–but is seen as a barometer of future health.
May 26th, 2006 at 10:21 am
At the risk of upsetting anyone (not my intention — I, myself, have about 40 lbs. to lose any my DH is 270 at 6′5″), has it occurred to anyone that this may be yet another way of the CCAA “weeding out” a significant number of Int’l Adoptive parents? Unfortunately, it is true that do typically perceive Americans as victims of excess - be it weight or material items. This could be a way, in their minds, to successfully deter potential adoptive parents (in process or about to be) in lieu of instituting a quota. (combined with the increasing wait times and push for special needs).
Just my .02
May 26th, 2006 at 10:39 am
This weight issue is getting ugly. For all of those who are tough on the over weight people, It has been Medically proven that having an extra 20 pounds on you is beneficial if you do become ill. For all of those who are very over weight it can lead to health issues. This is just facts and no one should condemn someone if they are thin or heavy. I know plenty of heavy people who have lived until 90 and thin people who lived until 40 and it goes the other way too! Most health issues are in our genes! Some obese people can’t lose weight, they are just born that way. So lets all be kind to each other!
May 26th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Craftie -
Thank you. I knew there was a good reason I was carrying around those extra 20 - I just never knew why!
May 26th, 2006 at 10:56 am
the wife and I both thought that same thing about the “weeding out” meghan. It’s quite possible. It may be intentional, or it may be a chance for them to structure things alittle more compared to other countries. I think this influx of IA applications from all the participating countries may have forced the CCAA and Chinese gov’t to look at what their policies and requirements are compared to what other countries are doing. History has shown that China is very good at adapting other ideas and ideals to suit their needs.
Oh, and what several of you have said about not only the weight issue but other medical (and potential medical) issues…sounds like most of us agree that our respective agencies have coached and helped us out in these regards. We all know that regardless of what size, shape, or background we are there can be health issues. I would like to believe that there is enough common sense and logic going into the decisions being made by the CCAA when it comes to our different quirks, etc whether we think they’re right or not. But it is a shame that some have been ‘blind-sided’ by these decisions. I think we all should not let these few events make us even more paranoid about ourselves and this wait. In the end, our soon to be children will not love us any less because of who we are, what we look like, or what’s going on in our lives. :)
May 26th, 2006 at 11:04 am
To Craftie,
It sounds like your agency does need more staff and should have communicated something to you. I don’t think they’re under any obligation to explain everything to you but they should have at least given you some general explanation - you’re paying for as much.
To all,
Weight is such a touchy subject to all of us. Even if we’re not overweight or obese, we all know someone or lots of people who are. I just remember that I had a friend who lived in Bejiing for a few years and she always received comments from the Chinese about how amazingly fat Americans are. As a couple of posters said, this may be a way to reduce the number of applicants or China may be following the lead of South Korea or is it Vietnam with its strict weight restrictions. We’ll just have to see, I guess.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I had a little to say on the expunged record thing. I know for a fact- someone who had a misdmeanor drug charge from about 10 years ago, was expunged about 5 years ago, never showed up on any clearence checks! They got the 171-H w/ out any problem or delays. This was not disclosed in homestudy or on anything else for that matter. Yes- hoesty is the best policy. But- they just want a child more than anything, and were not willing to let something from years ago take that away from them. My point is- some expunged records, are truly expunged!
May 26th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Craftie, I am confused. (Honestly.) I don’t see the weight issue getting ugly, and I think everyone IS being really nice to each other.
All I see is people trying to explain why this might have happened. Everyone seems pretty upset that it happened at all; no one is saying it’s right. In fact, I was going to say how well I thought this discussion was going. :) But that’s only my perception, I know that. I’m sorry you feel the discussion was getting ugly.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:58 am
justwaiting:
That is interesting. I am wondering how that worked, since in the cases I am thinking of the charges were also misdemeanors but probably even less serious than drug charges. What was expunged by the state or city (don’t recall at the moment) stayed on the FBI file and came up during the background check for the I171h. At that time the explanation was that nothing is ever truly expunged at the FBI level, they always have your record. What would have caused problems in that case was 1) if the person hadn’t been up front and therefore there was a discrepancy between the FBI check and the homestudy, or 2) if the person whose record was expunged did not retain information on what specifically happened, since the FBI information was not explicit.
Our SW also told us a horror story of someone (she personally worked with) who had literally forgotten about a minor past transgression and therefore had a discrepancy btwn the homestudy and his record (though not an expunged record, so a different issue really). It took awhile for the SW to convince the gov’t to issue the I171h because the FBI rationale at that time was apparently “if someone lies about something, no matter how small, who knows what else they will lie about?”
But now I’m curious if anyone else has successfully withheld information on what was an expunged incident. Anybody who has, I would love to hear about it.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
tgredthread,
Your post makes sense, I think I was letting myself get a little paranoid about the weight thing. And I also don’t think michitakem comments were offensive, just observant.
Now, back to my coffee and apple fritter :o)
May 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
The rumor of weight restrictions is not a new thing. In 2004, when we were paperchasing for our first daughter, there were “rumors” and concerns on the APC. Before we submitted our paperwork we had a heart to heart with our China coordinator and she assured us that we would be fine. Although we both have chronic medical conditions, they are not life threatening and we are both in good health, and have the conditions under control. Several times during our wait for our first daughter, there were instances of folks being asked about weight and health issues. Because of this, back in 2004, my dh and I started a yahoo group for “large” parents adopting from China. As you can imagine, over the past few days, this group has been very active.
I, in no way, want to minimize the current issue. However, in the end, it will be important to remember that we cannot know all of the details in this case. While I think we should keep our ear to ground on this one, we also need to realize that if China were “weeding out” us fat people (I have no problem with the word fat, sorry if it offends anyone else). We would be seeing LOTS of files being rejected. When we were in China in 2005, both my dh and I commented on the high number of “hefty” moms and dads. It didn’t bother us then, as the vast majority seemed healthy and spry, as we are. The only thing that sort of bothered me was sitting in the buffet area of the Dolton Hotel one morning and watching a couple who had obviously just received their daughter. The mom was a little larger, and the dad must have weighed 500 lbs or more. He literally had to sit on two chairs. He could not move through the buffet. He walked with a cane. I felt very sorry for him, because his weight obviously effected his interaction with his new daughter.
In March of this year, our agency sent a representative with a group of new parents to Beijing. The rep met with a CCAA spokesperson and the rep asked him “point blank” if the CCAA were going to impose weight restrictions. He told the rep that they are very concerned about very obese persons, over 400 pounds. He could have been telling the rep a bunch of hooey, but the rep believed him and passed this info on to me.
I am not passing judgment on who should be able to adopt and who shouldn’t and at what weight there should be a “cut off”. I just think that if they were truly turning people down just on the weight issue, we’d be seeing a whole lot more of it by now. Let’s face it, we’ve all followed the blogs and websites of those adopting this past year and there are some very generously sized people adopting.
I could be totally wrong about this, but I have to have something to hang my hopes upon.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
mmm apple fritter.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Novary:
May 26th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
For those who are saying it is not fair that China is beginning to look at weight, please realize that we have no right to adopt from China. They set the rules. A few years ago, right after I sent in my dossier for my daughter, the rules changed on singles adopting. While I am saddened that China has limited how many single moms can adopt, I can understand that the CCAA would think it would be better for a child to have two parents instead of one.
China has a ton of would be parents who are applying right now. They can be more picky.
As to weight, I am sure that China is looking at the fact that obesity does shorten one life’s expectancy by a few years. ( go to http://www.moneycentral.com/investor/calcs/n_expect/main.asp to check your life expectancy at different weights). Plus there are many diseases connected to obesity. And obesity runs in families. If a parent is obese, then a child is more likely to be obese, some of it from genetics, but also because of the diet they are raised on. And yes, I know some overweight (not obese) adopted Chinese girls.
If the rule is really one parent over 300, then the other has to be under 250 we are talking about obesity. Not just overweight.
For those who are worried about weight, I would suggest start working on losing now. I know it is difficult. But it can be done. While I was waiting for my daughter (14 months) I lost 30 pounds through weight watchers (and recently went back on as I had gained back 10 and want to lose another 20, yes I am overweight, not obese).
Peace
May 26th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Novary:
I did read on this page some comments that did upset some people. I do not get upset over comments. I am one with extra 20 pounds and Medically the AMA considers anyone who is obese if they are 20% over. That makes alot of us obese! Also for people who have already been to China there were ALOT of rounded adults there too! My agency like most others is not going to be so fourth coming until they have the facts. All Agencies have to be concerned with their relations with China. Let’s face it folks Business is Business. We are all in the same boat waiting for our precious angels! I did e-mail my Agency about weight issue but what concerns me a little more is the stopping of Chest X-Rays. Since this is our second adoption and we are using a different Agency this time around, I truly do not find that much of a difference from the first one to this one. No one is going to say anything until CCAA is.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
RE: Police record
Deborah, I had an incident w/ the law over 20 years ago in my 20’s. I honestly could not recall the specifics as I had an attorney handle it all and was never even sure if I was actually “arrested” v. detained, convicted and expunged etc. When we did the local police conviction check it came up negative, but I was very worried that maybe there was an ‘arrest’ record seperate from the local police report. An arrest is different than a/the possible conviction, so I went to the FBI website and found that you can get your FBI arrest record by writing to them and sending in some fee. All the info is on their web site. When I got the FBI report it said I had no arrest record. YEAH for me! Regardless, I think that honesty is the best way to handle it cos you never know what may turn up later. I would hate to end up losing my chance for a child for something I had control over v. the poor woman who may not get her child for something she was not even really aware of. And now with my 2 official govt. documents I feel safe in saying that I have no arrest OR conviction record. I think this would also be a good course of action for anyone to verify that your records were actually expunged.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
I happen to agree with the CCAA putting weight restrictions on potential adoptive parents. There is a difference between being overweight and morbidly obese. An obese person is at imminent risk of sudden death. Also, the CCAA wants to make sure children are in healthy, safe environments. Morbid obesity is not a healthy lifestyle. Obesity is connected to infertility….natures way of saying you should not have a child if you are morbidly obese.
Lady
May 26th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
anything else out there going on? any other rumours/info?
I feel the ‘fat lady’ has sung on this issue by now. :) hehe
May 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I think the new rumor should be where is RQ? :)
May 26th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
tgredthread:
yes, agreed. Particularly now that the conversation has gone from respectful and supportive/informational to rude and judgmental.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
how many of us think the CCAA is only going to go to 6/23 next time? (as some speculations have it)
how many of us think the CCAA might squeak out the rest of June next month?
how many of us (like myself) would like to wake up around the end of next month and find they’ve done 3 weeks and it not be a dream? hehe.
or should I say wake up and find it’s time for referral and that all this wait non-sense was just a bad dream? :)
May 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Wow “Lady” maybe you should take your generalized phobic statements over to the Dr. Phil forum.
My home is in no way unhealthy or unsafe for my child. Morbidly obese does not equal inadequacy.
A child being raised in an environment which teaches stereotypes and judgements is much more of a threat to their well-being than some extra chunk on mommy or daddy.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I am not sure where I crossed the line to rude and judgemental. So many people think that there should be no discrimination in the adoption process. I don’t agree with this line of thinking. The primary goal of the CCAA should be to make sure they are placing the children in healthy environments. They can achieve this goal by ruling out obvious hazards. The good news for prospective parents that are morbidly obese is that they can change that risk factor. It is a matter of deciding what is more important: the chance to raise a child vs. the gallon of ice cream.
Lady
May 26th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
~Lady~ Do a little research on reasons for obesity. You may actually learn some things.
I do not think that nature is making a point by creating infertility in obese people, many times the reasons for obesity are created by the same things which caused the infertility.
What are you going to do when CCAA decides to judge by using IQ’s scores?
Oh, but then again, there are things that can be done for that too…. educate yourself while there is still time!
May 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Lady:
Gee . . . I would say you crossed the line at or about “Obesity is connected to infertility….natures way of saying you should not have a child if you are morbidly obese”.
And possibly again with “deciding what is more important: the chance to raise a child vs. the gallon of ice cream”.
Dang!!!
May 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I agree that obesity is a huge problem in this country and I agree that China should be able to impose whatever quotas or restrictions on its applicants for adoption - I may not agree with the restriction (i.e. singles quota,) but it is their prerogative to control the process as they see fit. However, my mother became very overweight as I was growing up (she lost it all later in life) and she was a wonderful parent! Now, morbid obesity is a different matter, alltogether. If China does impose weight restrictions, I hope that they are reasonable in light of the fact that weight should only be one small factor in so many other factors that shape us as parents.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
“Obesity is connected to infertility….natures way of saying you should not have a child if you are morbidly obeseâ€. Wow, sounds like something similar I heard from FERTILE people.
Basically they told me adoption was wrong, that I was “stealing a child from its mother” and that I was infertile because God decided I shouldn’t have children. Period.
I don’t believe that infertility is nature’s way of saying you shouldn’t have a child. If it were, then people of all sizes and shapes “shouldn’t have a child”.
BTW I am not obese, but I am teaching my children (both from China) a bit more tolerance than I’m reading here. After all, they are already coming across intolerant people at the tender ages of 5 and 3.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Ok, I agree with morbid obesity being unhealthy, but I think that infertility comes for a variety of reasons, including, I believe, things that are now present in our environment that are man made, etc. Lets try to support each other, I know that e-mail is difficult to realize a persons true meaning sometimes, but even though the moribdly obese statistically have a shorter life expectancy, I don’t think anyone can argue that good parents and good people are good people! Just because someone has a weight issue, doesn’t mean they are bad people or bad parents. I think we all have our own issues, and its too bad that for the morbidly obese, their issue is completely visible, I for one have many that are not visible! Anyway, lets quit this one, I think people don’t need to come here to get offended, and also people should just take it all with a grain of salt anyway! Diversity makes the world go round!
May 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
tgredthread ,
I say CCAA will match up the rest of June next month!!!
:o) I hope, I hope, I hope….
May 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Liz~I think you are on target. Yes, let’s hope.
Oscar~very well said, thank you.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
guess the fat lady is singing ‘madame butterfly’ today since the discussion still rages on. oh well. i tried. :)
we here (the DW and I) are torn about next month. we think it may say alot about the coming months of referrals. I personally feel there’s a good chance they’ll make it through the rest of June’s LIDs if not but stopping a day or two shy of the 30th but we might not see but two weeks at a time again after that. the wife feels they’ll only get to 6/23 and the CCAA will be doing only around 7 days each month for awhile.
I’d love to see 3-4weeks at a time, but not sure it’ll happen for awhile.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
The rest of June? NOT good enough. These people have some catching up to do! I say let’s get thru July!!! OK. Just lock me up now.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
O.K. … being logged in June 23rd … I like that person who said that they thought the cut off would at least go there. I am thinking optimistically these days and being bold in saying I AM NEXT! It’s time!
And as for the weight issue and China restrictions. I am very saddened to see that this issue is dividing a body of people who share one goal … to bring a baby girl or boy into their home. I have two bio children and I can tell you that the road to adoption has been a very emotional one for me and my family. We did not make this decision to adopt a child out of “infertility” but because we felt called to do so. I know that each of you have your own reasons why you chose this route but we do have one thing in common (even if it isn’t our size) … the desire to LOVE someone else. I think it’s time to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and think about what comments made must feel to someone’s heart, especially in a time when tensions are rising and anxiety is high with the unknowns of China restrictions. I pray that each of you will receive the child you have longed for … no matter what your scale says! You were made uniquely you! By the way … I’m about 5 feet 3 inches and weigh a 100 pounds wet. And guess what .. .being that little isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either … try finding clothes at that size too. Shopping in the children’s and juniors department at 32 is a little embarassing.
O.K. …. here’s to LOTS of LID’s in JUNE and seeing my baby girl’s face for the first time! Mommy’s coming Maliah … hold on!
May 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
dadtobe and deborah -
honestry is the best policy re arrest records, sobriety, illigitimate children and whatever other issue is in one’s past (or present)
my husband was arrested, maybe 15 years ago, when his house was raided…the cops were after his roomates so he was only booked for misdemeanor “under the influence” and was sentenced to drug diversion and AA….so, 15 years later, when we are doing local finerprint checks, they tell my husband that they are going to have to list his “alias” on our paperwork for China…WHAT ALIAS! turns out that 15 years ago the police had forgotten to clear the computer screen after his arrest and had attached the arrest record of the person processed after him to my husband’s social security number! oh my god - what a mess! we had to call DOJ and do a bunch of footwork over that one! Certainly, the fact that our agency knew about it all as we were dealing with it made it alot easier! As our agency warned us….anything that you could never imagine happen during this process probably will, and worse! At least we can laugh about it now! and, we did get out I 171H and passports!
May 26th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
maliahsmom,
Oh, my fingers are crossed for you for being in the next batch!! You must be so excited, how can you even stand it??
I’d be a mess, a happy mess, but a mess all the same!
:o)
May 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
frankieandsuzie-
no locking up needed. In my heart I’m with you for getting on into July…believe me with an 8.10 LID I’d love to be in to July and through July real quick.
just the head telling me it won’t happen next month. :(
May 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Oh my gosh-let us please change the subject!
Here is my positive spin on everything:(maybe wishful thinking?)
I think the BIG announcement is going to be that they are going to get to 12 months and keep it there, BUT they are going to impose stricter restrictions and quotas.
Just my fantasy. The 18 month announcement makes me very sad…
May 26th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
1.
over-wait… def: a deterioration in health and humour resulting from exposure to too much time and too little information for adoptive parents….
2.
Phooey on the 18 months!!!
3.
What is it with everybody and the Friday itchies? Twitches? Thrashes? Howabouta poll for which day of the week RQ readers are the crankiest?!
4.
You suuuurrre you want I-171 gov-folk reading these threads??? (Wouldn’t it be be funner to put them in a room with yous?)
5.
Late June / July folk… you’ve got my heart behind yous! (Heart comes non-attached and made with 0% transfats of course; the sentiment is genuine but we wouldn’t want a panic….. )
6.
Rumour has it the CCAA move to the North Pole is almost complete…. now who’s been naughty….
(Forgive me if this last one is irreverent…. !)
May 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
My social worker called today to ‘check’ in and see how we are doing with the wait. I asked her about the weight issue in addition to the wait issue. ;) She told me, quite vehmenantly, (sp?) that there is no weight maximum for China, only a max within specific agencies.
Now, niether my DH nor I are out of the normal BMI ratio, so wieght isn’t an issue for us, however I’d like to comment on the infertility issue. I had normal fertility until my mid 20’s, and then went through drastic menopause. We were lucky enough to concieve our daughter when we were 27, however the infertility has left us with a deep empathy for others going through the same thing.
Empathy for others, concern for others, love for others… these things are important for good parenting, and I think all of us here have those things, even on our bad days.
Regarding the wait issue…….. just shoot me. I want to bring my new daughter home yesterday.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
bravo boots!
;)
May 26th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
bravo again boots
Irreverent is good. It keeps me chuckling.
Now for some more anxiety. As we wait, we age…duh…really insightful I know. But is anyone else close to the cut-off for age? I’m not even LID yet, but a 24 month wait from now would throw me over the age limit for a baby. We would have to take a 2-5 year old.(2-3 OK with us. 4-5 not OK)When we started this several months ago my agency told me 8-10 months. Now they are officially saying 12…what is it really going to be? yikes who knows. just a thought on the age thing .
May 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
just a little funny. After reading today’s FAT comments and feeling a little pissy I went to the store and impulsively parked in the “expectant Mothers” spot… Yah I just dare anyone to tell me that Im 20 pounds overweight and not actually pregnant. Power to Pudge!
May 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I’m not going to do my weights today in honour of all of ya. :)
Have a great weekend and hope the rumours only get better in the coming weeks!
Xie xie! Zai Jian!
May 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
frankie:
Don’t sweat the age thing. 2-5 year olds are very rare these days in the NSN program. Last Spring we adopted our first daughter and we were both “over the age limit” for an infant. We were referred a 12 month old (who is perfect and perfect for our family I might add : ).
May 26th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Yes, if we are going to dream, let’s dream big. I would like to wake up tomorrow and find it is the end of October and our second daughter is in our arms–it’s ok to dream. 22 years ago today I had a son Bryan. 22 years ago tomorrow my son died. I am thankful for my DH that has loved me through this, for my dd adopted 8 years ago, and our daughter coming that will put another bright star in our life!!!! Life has a way of making you see what is truely important so we are spending this weekend with our family that comes in every shape and color.
May 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Frankieandsuzie: You are too funny. I am LMAO.
As to the rest of us. These rumors and speculations get everyones “hair up in a bundle”. I am sure, deep down, a lot of us feel (although don’t really mean it, but we are human and thoughts happen) that the CCAA should put restrictions on since there are SOOOO many of us that want children and the wait is unpredictable. Some of us may feel the “bigger” people don’t deserve a child. Some may feel the singles don’t. Some may feel the people with any infraction on their record shouldn’t get a child. Some may feel that people over 40 may not be deserving. Some people may feel anyone that has had a life threatening disease should not be able to adopt. Point is, we are all in this for the same reason…to give unconditional love to a little child. These rumors bring out the worst in us all. It may be hard during this speculation, but we should all try to support each other. We are all here for the same purpose. To love.
As far as the weight issue…..I was morbidly obese in 1999. 332 lbs, 33 years old, heavy all my life, fat parents, fat sibling, fat grandparents, unhealthy, diabetic, high blood pressure and the list goes on. I had a gastric bypass. And before anyone says anything negative like “that is the easy way out”, it is not easy to diet, nor easy to lose weight. Especially when you have 160 lbs to lose. Nor is it easy to maintain a healthier weight after surgery. It is all hard work. I compare it nothing short than that of a drug user or an alcoholic. In fact, it may be a bit harder obstacle to overcome as we NEED to eat to live. Can’t just give it up like cigarettes, alcohol or drugs. I am not saying, by any means, that addiction to drugs or alcohol is any less either. I like to eat. I don’t drink. As people looked bad on my eating habits, I also looked bad at those who NEEDED a glass of wine, or beer, or cocktail during the day/evening, as, they too have a problem. (yes, even if it’s just one a day) And don’t say a glass of red wine is good for you a day, it may be true, but so is DARK CHOCOLATE. :) I grew up with an alcoholic and am married to a recovering one (10 years).
Another point I am trying to convey…..we all have some idiosyncrasy, embarrassing past or shameful habit. Some of us choose to recognize them, some don’t. But they ARE there. None of us are any better than anyone else. We are all equals. And hey, our agencies all thought we were good people. We all went through the wringer to be here.
Love,
Your chubby, likes a cigarette and a good dirty joke once in awhile, hard-working, loyal, dependable, responsible, makes a good living, am a good mother, wife, friend and house keeper….laural
And I would love to be invited to that “chubby parents of China” club. Even at 170 some lbs, I am still considered overweight, but will never weigh the 136 lbs I should. And I look dang good too!
May 27th, 2006 at 2:14 am
I am sorry if I offeneded anyone with my post. I was not trying to say that obese people are not good people or could not be good parents.
The point of my post is that China gets to make the rules, and I was trying to explain what could be the logic behind the decision to exclude based on weight (if in fact they decide to do so).
Since I am not a person who can sit when there is something to do to fix a situation, I suggested working on weight loss.
And if they change it so that singles can’t adopt at all, maybe I will go find a husband. ;)
May 27th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Cynthia, I hope Bryan’s birthday was gentle for you. Enjoy your weekend.
May 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I think that an important consideration to keep in mind with all this talk of weight rerstrictions is China’s recent signing of the Hague convention. In relation to adoption, this treaty revolves around one single key point - THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. Now, in relation to weight, if you keep this key point in mind, you can see where the CCAA is coming from. Surely it is IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD to be cared for by parents who are not obese. Obesity is linked with many serious health issues, including the ever-present threat of sudden death through cardiac arrest. By keeping THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD uppermost in regard to assessing the suitability of prospective adoptive parents, you can see why the CCAA may be implementing not only weight restrictions, but also taking a closer look at parents with other medical issues (chronic disease, a history of cancer, etc.) Basically then, what I am trying to say (without offending anyone I hope) is that with the implementation of the Hague treaty, China is now viewing adoption as a process which is for the children - NOT for us prospective parents. It is all about these vulnerable children finding the best possible family, NOT about us becoming parents. Our needs are secondary to that of the child, and in this I applaud the CCAA for becoming a signatory to the treaty.
May 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
We called our agency (which RQ has classified as one of the “big” ones) yesterday to see if they had heard anything about the weight issue. Our agency had mentioned at our HS renewal a few months ago that there would be some change to the program. Our SW had not heard of the weight issue and is currently working with the head office to find out additional information.
She did mention that she thought the “change” was more along the lines of quotas.. hadn’t heard anything else. With a LID at the end of June and not a skinny minny…. I am on pins and needles.
All we can really do is wait… we are truly at their mercy and while we knew that “anything” could happen during this process… certainly didn’t imagine this and certainly not so close to our referral! : (
May 28th, 2006 at 1:49 am
Tassie girl, you must be skinny.
you must also have a crystal ball that let’s you see how these “obese” people you talk about are going to end up.
like the example of my “obese” grandmother ( a size 22-short her whole life) who died tragically young at the age of 96, after she slipped getting out of the tub. oh, and my other obese grandmother, a size 26 her whole life, who died at the tragically young age of 89, in her sleep.
there are many many people for whom weight is never an issue. and, although it can be generalized that excess weight is not healthy, i do not think it can be generalized that it is in the best interest of the child to deny someone the chance to have the most loving parents they can have based on a lifestyle issue.
no one on this website or this earth (including the woman some distance back in these comments who, apparently, is the only one fit to parent due to a herculian ability to be able to choose between infertility and ice cream… what a remarkable example for us all, by the way) is promised even one more day. no one is promised one more day, do you know that folks?
point in fact: a neighbor of mine who’s quite thin and 32 yrs. old and just gave birth to her first baby found she kept having trouble with her breast milk flow… her baby is now 6 months old and she is in the last stages of her life from breast cancer.
if restrictions are going to start coming in about lifestyle issues, like weight, where will they end? motorcycle riding? how about the couple cycling across the USA with their daughter from china, why their daughter could get side-swiped by a car or have heatstroke!
if a physical says a person is healthy, that should be enough.
i’ll repeat it.
if a physical says a person is healthy, that should be enough.
i know americans are VERY prejudiced about weight and think that it’s all a matter of overindulgence, which for some reason really rubs us the wrong way even as we overindulge ourselves in everything else, and so, when any type of weight issue arrives there are people who feel it’s ok to judge others.
but, it is never alright to judge others. again, i repeat, it is never alright to do it.
especially as, with the adoption of a child from china, many of us will become multi-racial families for the first time (if, that is, we “lump” white european heritage, for the sake of argument, into one group.)
your child and your family will bump up against “judgers” in life. it is inevitable. and what if your child grows up, despite your best efforts, to be one of those poor weak-willed people (like myself apparently) who cannot choose between ice cream and fertility? heaven forbid, she may find herself turned down by God and china too, poor thing. do you want to be one of the judgers she will encounter in her life too?
do you remember when AIDS was a plague sent by God to kill gays? i wonder how the african women and their children living with AIDS today feel about that “gay plague.”
so, once again, as i have seen 3 times now since i started the adoption process, the weight issue has cropped up, and some “judgers” still feel justified about people getting denied a baby.
someone else is in pain this week, has had their heart ripped out i’ll bet. she probably loathes herself right now. try to have some imagination in life. you can imagine yourself the parent of a child from another culture and race. what else can you imagine?
until you can see with another person’s eyes and feel with their skin, you shouldn’t presume to judge them, and after you do that, hopefully, you won’t be able to.
May 28th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Weight, quotas, whatever it takes China will find a way to reduce the number of children being adopted in the future. I am positive that the prolonged wait is man-made and for a couple of (good?) reasons. Wouldn´t it be nice to be able to say to the press in 2008: “Well, we have had problems with abandoned children, you have heard horrible stories of orphanages, one-child politics etc. But it is all turning around now. Just look at our statistics. In 2003 we adopted x number of children internationally. Now it has decreased to x!”. What Chinese government official would not be happy about bringing that message on to the world press?
May 28th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I agree with vanburen. I think that the whole issue is getting ia down. They want to have good face with the world and are really putting all that they have into 2008. They have spent millions and millions on the new buildings and teaching the staff that will interact with the world english. They are trying to change the image of China and the ia does not fit in with that image. You can say what you want about the outcomes of this but it is the way of the culture and future. My friend who is Chinese was here this weekend and her grandparents just returned from northern China after a 2 month stay. She said that they said the country is doing what I have said above and that non Chinese walking around with Chinese babies is not what they want the world to see because it interfears with the image. Why can they not solve the problem of caring for their children when they spent all of this money and effort of this project for 2008, will be the question that our media will ask that they do not want asked. It is very likly that our media in part will focus on this and this is shameful for the Chinese. I feel so lucky to be logged in and know we will get our child but really fear that the slow down is about them wanting to make progress and this does not fit in. I do think that when they do make enough progress that adoptions will become much less common from China. This is wonderful for them and the babies if they are able to care for them and keep them in China.
May 28th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I agree with amygum. If I remember correctly from reading “Wanting a Daughter Needing a Son”, by Kay Ann Johnson, an estimated 250,000 children are adopted annually within China, some formally, most informally, i.e. before they are registered in an orphanage.
So now that the CCAA is in charge of all orphanages in China and that China has ratified the Hague Convention which will make it easier for couples in China to adopt, I think that China will easily “absorb” the 10,000 to 14,000 adoptions that are done internationally every year.
HYPOTHESIS
I’m betting the CCAA will stop accepting new files in December 2006, claiming that have too many requests (deliberate slowdown), but then will start speeding up the matching process in order to match families and complete all adoption travel before the Olympics. I further think that ia will not resume after the Olympics or that they’ll quietly resume one or two years later.
Does anyone think along these same lines? I’m usually a very optimistic person, but the events and rumours of the past few months have got me thinking. I’m interested in knowing what you guys think of my theory.
May 28th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I don´tknow what to think really, it´s all só strange. every theory sounds plausible to me. I wander if I´m the only one that is afraid that we will never have a baby. I never hear anyone as pessimistic as me. I’m too afraid to buy any baby things, we have nothing in our house that shows we are adopting. we were logged in 6 months ago, but every day the fear of never having a baby consumes me.
Is there anyone out there that can cheer me up and tell me a plausible story that will convince me of the fact that everything will turn out okay?
I’m sorry if I sound deperate, don’t mean to depress anyone but it has been raining here for a week now, and that has been affected my mood considerably.
best wishes
May 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Dear dutchmomtobe, Of course you’ll get your baby! It’s going to take some time yet, but you WILL get your baby! You are logged in 6 months ago, so I sincerely believe you have nothing to worry about.
May 28th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Dutchmomtobe-
We will get our babies if we are logged in. The Chinese culture always wants to put the best face to the world and they are in the process of getting ready for the Summer 2008 games, which they are putting great effort into. What would happen if we did not get our babies? We would all go nuts and there would be negative press and relations with China. They would not do that now because they want to have the world see them in a good light. It think they will stop ia during the games and they may never start again or slow way down. I think that the games in 2008 are one of several reasons in this “perfect storm” that have caused things to slow so badly right now. I understand the feeling of never thinking you will get a child because it is something we all want so much and have NO control over. We will get ours if we are logged but I fear that my dreams of a sister from China for our daughter may be out. I think we are safe but I think we may be catching the last few years of this, at least in it’s current form.
May 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Dutchmomtobe, after all you have been through (4 years no?) I very much hope and I truely do believe that you will have your child. I doubt that China would stop those logged in, for the simple reason that they have been exceptionally correct and predictable during many years.
Tresordasie, in theory I would agree with you, that China would like IA to stop over tyhe olympics.
But what speaks against this is that they are reviewing specific things such as weight, and I read on another list that they might look at the number of children in the family, etc. Singles quota have been up for discussion as well. It does not make sense that they would review the criteria if they simply would like to stop IA.
I, for one, have been thinking about the number of children that foreign families can adopt. I am now logged in for number two and it just feels a bit strange that I as a non-Chinese would be able to, whereas many Chinese do not. I am also thinking about that old CCAA rule that the childless should be given priority. Perhaps the Chinese themselves would feel badly about foreign families adopting three or more from China if they knew more about IA. So it makes sense that they would review the numbers.
Please note that I have not heard any details on how many. And I am absolutely not saying that families should not be able to adopt as many as they like, as long as this is possible.
May 28th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
dutchmomtobe - i’m also a Nov log-in and am getting itchy with regards to wait times (rrreeal itchy… scratch…scratch!) I’m with the rest of the group here in thinking that there’s no way they’d cancel all logged-in dossiers… way too much international mess and poopy paperwork.
Watch for the upcoming CCAA announcement that some agencies talked about….. in what they say and don’t say, there will be some clarity there.
As for rain? Go splash in some puddles… get really mucky, and then make yourself some hete chocolade met kaneel and marshmallows. It works everytime!
May 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Waitbabywait, you’re awesome! Thank you for your post.
May 28th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
waitbabywait -you have completely missed the point of my post. I am definitely not skinny, and I am in no way judging people. I am simply stating cold hard facts - obesity is a MEDICAL ISSUE. You simply cannot deny that overweight people are more prone to illness, disease and early morbidity. Just read any medical journal and you will see that this is the case. Your grandmothers were obviously lucky in that they defied the statistics. All I was trying to put across in my post is that if the CCAA is following the Hague convention, and is therefore keeping the best interests of the child uppermost in their consideration of prospective adoptive parents, weight (along with other serious medical issues) may very well be used as a factor in deciding what is best for the child. I am sorry to think that you have believed me to be judging others - I am not. I am simply stating facts, not being in any way prejudiced or judgemental.
May 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I thought we had moved passed the weight thing today? No matter what is said positive/negative it is a no win conversation that hurts feelings and causes problems. We need to be supportive of each other not upsetting each other. I wish all of you the best but could we move on and just be supportive? Thanks Amy
May 28th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
amygum, what made you think we had moved past “the weight thing” when when folks are still saying the weight discrimination is ok? for me, being supportive isn’t just ignoring comments that hurt me to “make nice.” no offense. i feel the need to stick up for myself as i feel i have struggled to fit an “ideal” body image my whole life, and i have been judged by my looks unfairly. so i can’t just “make nice” when something threatens to take away my chance at a baby now for a superficial thing.
tassie girl…..
IF the doctor says someone’s weight is NOT a medical issue, why do you think it’s ok for china to make it one? why do you think that making a non-issue an issue is in anyway upholding the hague? it’s just reasoning i just don’t get.
not an issue is not an issue. what if they started looking for family trends, like breast cancer or heart disease, and said, “we know your doctor said you’re healthy, but your father had heart disease, so sorry. we’re just upholding the hague.”
it is stressfull to have to discussion continue, i agree amygum, but it’s more stressful to me to just let people drop these “bombs” of judgement and leave them sit there.
i don’t know who that poor woman is who lost her baby this week, but how she will survive this rejection i don’t know. i would think that most any woman that happened to would have her self-esteem drop immediately into the basement, where it would stay for a long long time.
on the flip side, i’m sure anorexic people have no trouble with the ccaa.
it’s a question of bias i feel.
luckily, with the current economic boom in china, they will soon be fat themselves. ;)
May 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
I have PCOS and am overweight too. RQ has asked us to be nice and move on from it and it her site. I think that sometimes that when you feed into the negativity of others you are draining the positive energy from yourself. I have found that for the most part that what you put out is what you get back. When you put out positive and get back negative it is time to move on. Just me, not trying to demand the same from others.
May 28th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
waitbabywait - I think it is OK for China to make weight an issue because of one huge factor - they are giving us their babies. We have got to get over this attitude of having a ‘right’ to adopt these children. We have no right at all - it is a privilege, and if China feels the need to impose restrictions on prospective adoptive parents of ANY kind, we simply have to accept it. And, might I say again, I am NOT being judgemental. How can I be when I am hardly the ideal body type myself???? I am simply trying to point out (again!!!) that we have to accept what China decides under the Hague protocol because THEY have all the rights with regard to their children, and we have none, only the privilege of being able to give them a home if we are fortunate enough to be chosen as adoptive parents.
May 28th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Unfortunately, Amygum, just because we are “logged in”, doesn’t mean we are safe. They can pull the plug whenever they want. :(
May 28th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
LOOK… can we just drop the weight thing??? It’s a loaded topic…. the Hague, family rights, perceived slights, medical studies, personal empowerment, rejection, panic, etc etc…. LET….IT….GO….. even the most articulate or sensitive posts are getting ripped / or are stepping on toes (oh wbwait, why start your so very sincere post with the ‘must be skinny’ line?).
Amygum is right… where’s the human element?
Let’s keep focused on what’s important - we’re all waiting, we would all love to adopt a child regardless of health, habits, or the bigness of our hearts. Eating each other up isn’t going to make the CCAA any less inscrutable / isn’t going to make our waits any easier.
Some peace, please?
May 28th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
It is posted on APC and LCC, but did anyone/does anyone understand the 3 new messages on the CCAA website, dated the 29th. Dont know if they are tranlsatable yet? Tried, but nothing came up but date.
May 29th, 2006 at 12:48 am
laural,
ccaa site updates from 5/29 translation out of google:
Children who, comrades :
“61″ International Children’s Day coming up, here, on behalf of the Ministry of Civil Affairs to the National Child welfare agencies care and militias and cordial greetings. To care for the child welfare agencies had worked hard for the national welfare agency staff and pay high tribute.
The party and government have always attached great importance to the cause of rescuing the welfare of children. Especially in recent years, at all levels of party and government leadership in the various departments strongly support, through increasing investments, and standardize management, welfare agencies and the number of service level have markedly improved, “three noes” of orphans and abandoned the parenting, education, treatment, rehabilitation further protection for orphans coverage gradually expanded security standards continue to improve, to safeguard the basic rights of orphans, and promote socialist construction played an important role in social harmony.
Recently, the Ministry of Civil Affairs jointly finance, education and health sectors 14,
Introduced the “orphans relief work on the strengthening of the views,” in a variety of forms, the proper placement of orphans, and basic living guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of orphans and mobilize social forces to help orphans and other aspects of care and provided detailed comments. Clear that the government should build leadership, the Home lead, with sector, social protection mechanisms in the rescue of orphans.
In the next few years, the Civil Affairs Ministry social welfare focuses on strengthening the “two isolated houses” building. Child welfare agencies to develop good building plan, conditional cities at prefectural level and above should be built child welfare agencies. We should actively improve orphans relief policies and take on the upbringing and help raise, the generation, domestic and international adoptions and foster the integration of orphans upbringing way, and strive to improve the care of orphans level.
Today, we are here to hold a brief ceremony to 15 provinces (autonomous regions) donated 62 infant incubators welfare agencies, clothing and rehabilitation equipment. These donations mostly from donations and charities. Their dedication to the care of children love, embodies love, on behalf of the Ministry of Civil Affairs to all units and individuals donated heartfelt thanks. Charitable developed a degree of social civilization and progress is the realization of the important elements of social security, but also a harmonious socialist society. At present, China’s overall welfare level of development lags the pace of socio-economic development, social integration and the use of charitable donations to mobilize resources is the development of welfare institution-building to improve the care of children living and quality of life important ways. In the future, I hope more people, more resources into child welfare donation for the healthy growth of children in care to create a good environment.
Children are the future and hope of the country and the nation, concerned about the welfare of children and support the cause is a glorious and noble donation. Let us care for the healthy growth of children, child welfare undertakings in China work hand in hand and work together.
I wish once again to the lonely child welfare agencies nationwide festive joy!
May 29th, 2006 at 12:56 am
the second one listed on ccaa:
At the donation ceremony, the Director Liu Ying’s speech
Issued Time : 2006-05-29 Source : Chinese adoption center
M