Conflicting Information
We have extremely reliable information that the last two months should be considered normal months and that they were in no way slowed down by the move or vacations. They insist that they matched every paper ready baby that came in, and that these months would have had the same number of matches even if they had not moved and if there hadn’t been any vacations.
However, one U.S. agency is telling their clients the opposite, that they expect that things will pick up now that the move and the vacations are over with.
I personally tend to believe the first source, even though I really hope the second is right. July and August did have a lot less matches than June had, so there is reason to hope. But, apparently not a big reason.
On another note, I’m aware of the post on the Special Needs list about possible procedural changes for SN’s and I’m working to try to get more information on it. If anyone happens to have more information please feel free to email or PM it to me.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:52 am
This is my first post to the site. I thought I would comment on the number of referrals in August. For what it is worth, I’ve been keeping track of the number of referrals to our large agency, and this past group was larger than the last one. It wasn’t a whole lot bigger, but there were more babies referred to our agency. I’m not sure counting the number of days is the way to go. I think it’s more the number of babies referred as a whole during the time period. This is just my two cents. Our LID is Aug. 9, and, trust me, I’d love to see this next round go through to at least August 9, but I’m not holding my breath. By the way, Rumor Queen, thank you for all your hard work and caring :-)
August 30th, 2006 at 8:58 am
I don’t doubt that they matched all the paper-ready babies who had come in. But that doesn’t necessarily mean things couldn’t still pick up, if for whatever reason CCAA decides to request more baby dossiers from the SWI. Just trying to be optimistic!
LID 9/29
August 30th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I completely agree, number of matches seems to be what we need to be looking at.
If you look at the polls you will see that July and August were actually very close to each other in terms of number of matches made. The June referral batch was about 1.7 times the number of matches made in the August batch that we just received. I keep hoping we will see another month that is as big as the June batch was.
Looking at a single agency just tells you what that agency has, and in most cases a single agency’s numbers don’t really give the same information as the polls. Some of the super big agencies have numbers that are similar ratios to our polls, but even they will tend to have a month here and there that deviates from what the polls show.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:18 am
The NovDTC group had a post from Brian Stuy reminding us about his post I believe on 5/30/06 that in the fall more children should become available after the Hunan situation.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Just a comment on Mr. Stuy’s post (a link was provided in a different thread I believe). His theory does nothing to explain the significant drop in referrals in July and August compared to June so I wouldn’t put too much stock in his theory…I know RQ sure won’t be.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:37 am
I am beginning to think that because china is now promoting domestic adoptions, there are less babies available for IA.
Could this be the cause for the slowdown?
Also here’s hoping they update the review room part of their website soon!!
August 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Well, then. I will look forward to waiting 5 years to get our kid!
August 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am
RQ, I can’t find the post you are talking about concerning SN program. Is it on your site?
Also, I’m still REAL confused about the children in the orphanges available for adoption. I’m not trying to be mean…but, if there really are that few children then why is there such a need for half the sky and Love without boundaries..I don’t get it? Is there a need for us t continue donating or not? I’m confused!
August 30th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I tend to believe the first source too, but there are still so many questions.
Why they would move into a bigger building and employ more people, (that’s correct, isn’t it?), if they were expecting adoption to slow so much. Or perhaps adoption to other countries is slowing and domestic adoption is picking up and that’s their rationale for spending more money on a building/employees?
Just trying to make sense of it all.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:57 am
3ts - “paper ready” children and abandoned children are two very different things. Your agency can explain in more detail, but what they don’t have enough of are “paper ready” infants. There are FAR more children that are available then there are “paper ready” kiddos. That is why there is so much frustration among adoptive parents. For example, a family with our agency recently returned from China and visited her daughter’s SWI. There were 75 healthy infants at the SMALL SWI her daughter came from. She spoke to the director and they said that none of those infants were currently in the process of being matched….they weren’t paper ready. So the kids are there, they just aren’t being made available for IA (whatever the reason).
August 30th, 2006 at 10:08 am
IRL, Thanks for the explanation. I get it. It is just mentally challenging to grasp. I guess we need to figure out why the slowdown in paper ready babies. Or, we may go insane trying to figure out why the slowdown in paper ready children.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:09 am
lrl makes a good point. And add to this the recent Wall Street Journal article marking the re-opening of the (I forget the name) River in China following a massive sewage/pollution clean-up. The WSJ writer noted that only a week earlier 2 dead babies had been found in the river in one village. My point being that while China’s economy is improving, China is a massive country and the parts outside the city are suffering still. Add to this the continued “need” for boys. Unfortunately and sadly, there are many hoops these babies must go through just to get to a point where they’re paper ready. What I’ve been told by my SW is that there’s still an incredibly high rate of infanticide in China. I’m guessing some Human Rights Watch orgs have some numbers…
August 30th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Brian Stuy also made a comment to the Dec DTC group about the same article. I think he is just sending links to the DTC groups to promote himself (someone I have ZERO intrest in hearing from!)
RQ rules!
August 30th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Sorry if this is a dumb question - but who is responsible or who makes the babies “paper-ready”? The orphanages? The CCAA ? I would think it has to be the orphanages who do the paperwork ???? Thanks.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I took real offense to his site. He often gives insights into the situation in China, but lately he is very negative to people in the IA community making it seem that we are preventing the Chinese from adopting in their own country.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Interesting point Katri — doesnt he have at least one daughter from China? It wouldnt be the first time that someone with a few daughters from China through IA ‘changed their tune’ about the ethics of IA after they were safely home. Convenient timing!
August 30th, 2006 at 11:18 am
After the Hunan scandal it came out that they worked to change some of the guidelines in place that made a child eligible for IA. Something about the “chain of custody†from the child being found until they arrived at the orphanage and there being a proper police report showing the entire chain of custody. Some babies that previously had been planned (and had finding ads etc already placed) to be in the IA program no longer fit into the new requirements. This isn’t just Hunan babies, but all babies. The CCAA wanted to make sure this didn’t happen again, so they put new rules in place to try to keep it from happening again, and the rules were for all of China, not just Hunan.
So, one theory is that fewer babies fit into these new (tougher) requirements. I believe they settled on the new guidelines somewhere between late January and March, and there was a big meeting where they called one representative from every orphanage to Beijing for training in (I think) April. Someone else may remember times for that meeting better.
Anyway, if that theory is correct then the April babies will be 6 months old in October and we may see a lot more matches at that point because there will be more paper ready babies.
I have no way of knowing how much of this is accurate. It’s a nice theory, but that’s really all it is, a theory. And, for the record, I first posted this a while back in the comments to this post.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Back in December we attend a “get ready for travel” meeting at our agency. At the end of the meeting the director spoke about the delays and she mentioned something about eligibility requirements of abandoned babies. She stated that a new rule is that a baby must be left at a accepted spot (such as a police station, municipal building, etc) in order to be eligible for IA. This was implemented (she thought) because of the Hunan scandal and may effect/affect heh our timeline.
Sparky LID 9/14
(who will probably need a refresher on that travel meeting)
August 30th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Wow, this all makes A LOT of sense as to why there are suddenly less paper ready babies and could contribute greatly to the slowdown. Thanks RQ and Sparky for your insight.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Thanks RQ for your informative post. On the one hand it’s sad to think of babies that have truly been abandoned not being eligible for IA b/c of tougher restrictions. However, on the other hand, as much as I want a baby, I certainly don’t want one that wasn’t truly abandoned or orphaned due to death of parents/caregivers, which is one of the reasons why I feel more comfortable with China’s program than other countries.
As for Brian Stuy, as others have mentioned, his site is a bit offensive. As an adoptive parent himself, I’m not sure why he is so negative on the IA community. He recently made a post last week stating that single women in the IA program are all widely believed to be homosexual. As a member of the single IA community, I take serious offense to that. I don’t know of any single IA adopters in the China program who are homosexual (and that is not a judgment on whether I think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt - merely a statement that there isn’t a wide held belief that what Mr. Stuy states is true). All I can say is I certainly hope no one takes his site seriously with the false accusations he spews.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:59 am
One of my many problems with the way Brian Stuy handles info. is that he makes sweeping statements off the top of his head without regard to how these may affect other adoptive parents. For him to spout off a claim like “single women in the IA program are all widely believed to be homosexual” is just plain unconscionable. I have to believe that IF the CCAA or other Chinese government officials are unfortunate enough to stumble upon the poorly researched pontifications on his blog they will quickly realize his info. is unreliable and should be disregarded. I’ve seen his ramblings a couple of times and he has zero credibility.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Don’t know if my first post went through - hoping this isn’t a duplicate.
eli & Katri,
I initially felt the same way about Brian. Really though, if he hadn’t already adopted he would not be looking into these issues. I imagine few people look that deeply before they start the paperchase. I know I didn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t want to have read his stuff at that point. After traveling to China and returning with our daughter my interests have changed and I find myself wanting to know why her (heartbroken) foster parents that cared for her for 18 months could not keep her, or why we’re hearing reports that people are not able to adopt domestically in China. I want to know and I’m guessing my daughter will be asking the same questions in the years to come.
I’m not defending him and I’m not saying I believe in or agree with everything he writes, but I don’t think I want to dismiss his “research” just because it’s unpleasant.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Personally I don’t dismiss Brian Stuy’s “research” because it’s unpleasant, I dismiss it because it doesn’t hold up to standards that one would expect from true research. Brian seems to have an agenda that his research then suppports.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
I agree that the questions he is asking need to be asked.
However, he appears to already have the answers and then he does research with the intent on proving what he thinks is the right answer. I’m not sure what his agenda is, but as I’ve said before, this post made him lose all credibility with me.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Just my two cents, don’t know a whole lot about Brian Stuy (but I do recall some issue of a magazine article he claimed was being published when in fact it wasn’t). It might just be me who thinks this (and if so, sorry, don’t mean to ruffle anyone’s feathers) but is there a chat area on his site to debate what he provides or disrupts to the IA community? To me, this just doesn’t seem the place. As I said, I don’t know him, don’t care to know him etc etc — just seems the conversation can happen on his site and then he can at least choose to defend himself or not…
August 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
He is a member here.
And I have asked before that we not point to his stuff from here, but people keep doing it. And when they do, a conversation is always had about how we feel about what he has to say.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
archer,
He does and you’re right. I’m sorry for going off-topic.
thanks!
August 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Further on Brian Stuy, there’s a difference between something said being “unpleasant” and outright “untrue”. RQ does on occasion state things that are unpleasant, but she always backs it up with sources, even if it’s stating the sources in general terms b/c they need to be kept anonymous. I do think there is a very big difference between RQ’s site and Mr. Stuy’s.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
No feathers ruffled here, I just have no intention of spending my time not only reading Brian Stuy’s material but then trying to educate him regarding why his “research” isn’t credible or why he should perhaps not attempt to pass off his off-the-cuff opinions as fact. Got better things to do, such as waiting for rumors… and oh, yeah, gainful employment. ;o)
August 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Understood, CWS. That’s sort of what I was trying to say w/o saying it. LOL. Essentially, any bad review still becomes good advertising for someone. So why give him the free publicity? Especially if many of us feel the way we do. And… I don’t know… seems more appropriate, or fair, or whatever, to criticize someone on their own site (regardless if he’s a member here). Again, just my lazy-day, rumor-hungry opines.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I may believe the first rumor. I personaly think they were short babies and that is why they changed my LID. I know I was the 18th and there wasn’t some mistake on my agencies part because I looked at my journal to see when we got the call about my LID. I got the call before the “new date” had even happened.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
That’s very interesting, sweetAnna. I’m sorry this happened to you. It does start to further point to the first rumor.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
going a bit off subject…….when DH and I submitted our paperwork for a 3-5 year old, we were told that requests for older children were processed faster (faster was not our motivation). However, during the paperchase phase, the rules supposedly changed and we went into the queue with everyone else. Does anyone know if in the past older children were processed faster and if so why did China decide to change their policy? Anyone heard of this? LID 12/1
August 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
browneyes - we too are requesting an older child (4-7). I believe in the past an older child was expedited only if the requesting parents qualify for an infant (30-45 or whatever it may be). I don’t know if this is still true.
km98 - LID 11/05
August 30th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Brian found our daughter’s finding-ad for us, and for that I am eternally grateful.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I believe there are “Rules for Commenting”
I don’t comment mostly a lurker- but it seems there are those who have forgotten the “Rules”
1. Be Nice
5. No personal attacks
I believe that these few comments with opinions against people take away from the real reason this site is here.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
When someone tries to set themselves up as “the contact person for the China adoption community” for the media then I believe the China Adoption Community has a right to publicly state how they feel about that person.
And that has been done both here and on APC and on several other groups and forums and blogs.
This is not about a personal attack. When someone is making the kind of statements that this person is making I believe the adoption community is obligated to say that we don’t feel this person speaks for all of us.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
browneyes and km98- any child 6 and older is considered an expidited referral. If they are 6 or older, they are in the waiting child program, even if they are healthy. km98-it’s not too late to change your adoption petition and get into the waiting child program. Since you have an 11/05 LID (me too), you might just want to wait. With my agency, large China only, they said I could change my adoption petition up until the time I’m in the match room for referral. You could put yourself into the WC program, and if your NSN referral comes before, you’ll get a referral from that program.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I stopped reading anything that Brian Stuy writes since the statement recently that his research was going to be published. I read the article and he may have had some points, but I saw no real research done - it seemed like opinion. Now, I am disgusted to see that he is now stating that most singles who are adopting are homosexuals (I did not read his posting making this statement, just the comment on this board). I was not part of his “sample group†(I’m single, not homosexual) that he used to make this statement. I wonder who was in this “sample group†– with his research techniques, I wouldn’t be surprised that he came to this conclusion before his friend’s cousin’s mother told him! Thank you RQ for your recent post – I don’t like him speaking for me or criticizing IA – I’m concerned that his “research†will do much more damage to IA than a rumor site (that is, if he ever gains any real credibility). I just cannot figure out what his motives are.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Sorry, I noticed a mistake in my posting above the sentence was supposed to say: I wouldn’t be surprised that he came to this conclusion because his friend’s cousin’s mother told him!
Sorry, I was a little angry and typed too quickly and forgot to proofread!
August 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I’m not a fan of Brian Stuy, either, but just to be fair to him, he does not in fact state that most singles who are adopting are homosexuals. He says that it is widely believed that gay parents continue to apply for adoption, which is a very different statement, and, I suspect, an accurate one.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
somewhereoverinchina - thanks for the info! My agency does receive SN lists and I have been watching for older kiddos.
If it were me I would put the paper-ready older kids in one pile and match them with the parents requesting them. Basically separating them from the regular referrals who request AYAP. I figure we can all come up with a scheme to get our referral quicker! One can only dream…..
August 30th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I would only hope that Brian Stuy does not truly believe that all singles are homosexuals. Going through this process of course, being single, I had to write the letter and state that I am not gay. I, like so many of the women on my Singles adoption site, have unfortunately (or fortunately ) however you want to look at it, never got married (up until now) for many reasons. But for all of us, the common thoughts were we were not going to let that stop us from being a mom. Most of us have incredible support systems and feel we are very capable of raising a child. I like most have not discounted that one day “our Mr. Right” will walk into our lives and I always thought that’s probably when I will meet someone. And thank God that most people realize this to be the truth!
August 30th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Has anyone read the “New Family Values” article in the June edition of adoptive families? I was quite taken aback when I read it because it talks about gay and lesbian couples becoming parents via adoption and they gave names of a couple and had pictures of their daughters. Not that I have an opinion one way or the other, but knowing that China did not allow that and also knowing about the state department message about how to behave if you will regarding international adoptions … I was just very suprised a magazine that is focused on adoption would do that.
Anyway, I thought of that article when I saw the posts regarding Brian Stuy and the comment he made.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Not all countries exclude gay and lesbian couples from adopting. I haven’t seen the article, did they specifically say that such couples had adopted from China?
Also, if the girls are older then it is very possible that the parent(s) adopted from China without breaking the rules. Back in the mid to late 90’s the current restrictions for singles were not in place. I don’t remember exactly when China put the “no homosexuals” rule in place, but many adoptions did happen before it was put into place.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
ckhunter2002 - I haven’t read the article - were the children in the article adopted from China? Some countries do not care about sexual orientation. China does - which is why I had to make a statement that I was not homosexual in my dossier. I believe that we do have to be respectful of China’s wishes which is why I would have adopted elsewhere if I were homosexual. If the children were from countries that don’t have opinions on sexual orientation, then I don’t see a problem.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Sorry RQ, we must have been writing our responses at the same time.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
The article included a picture of the two ladies & their two daughters who do look like they are from China. In all fairness though, they could be from Vietnam or Korea too though.
There is one paragraph that discusses the problems around creating family tree projects in school that refers to the “family consisting of the mother, two fathers who are gay, and two children from China”. Like you said though, they could certainly have been adopted before the new restrictions. I didn’t realize those restrictions were new.
I have two friends that are both single and have adopted from China and one of those friends said she has been asked point blank if she is homosexual. It’s so sad that in today’s time someone would make that assumption or ask that question just because a single person has adopted. Crazy world we live in …
August 30th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
They aren’t exactly new restrictions anymore, I would guess the kids would need to be at least 9 or 10 for their parents to have adopted before the rules kicked in. Though they could only be five’ish if they were adopted before the actual statement started being required.
Back in the early 90’s I really don’t think that China had considered that a homosexual might want to adopt a child. In China it is considered a mental illness, and they would never approve a person with what they considered a mental illness to be a parent, and by all accounts they just assumed no one else would, either.
However, at some point (mid 90’s if I remember correctly, but it could have been later) they realized this was happening and made a law against it.
I don’t believe the actual statement saying you are not a homosexual was required for singles until December of 2001, though. So it didn’t really almost completely stop until then.
I’m sure if I’m wrong on something that someone will correct me. I’m not single and don’t remember exact timeframes, and I’m not promising my memory is right on this.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Waiting for Celia,
If Mr. Stuy states that it is “widely believed” (by whom, pretell???) that homosexuals are applying for adoption (his site is strictly about adoption from China so he can’t be referring to International Adoption in general) when Chinese law prohibits this and requires that singles attest they are not homosexual in order to adopt, then yes, he is making the statement that it is widely believed homosexuals are adopting from China. Homosexuals cannot apply for adoption from China without lying in their dossier (and to the sw and adoption agency). I really don’t think you can make the distinction that he was only talking about applications. It is simply not true that this is happening and is nothing more than Mr. Stuy’s personal prejudice. I’m very sorry I even brought his comment up as I am now guilty of perpetuating this falsehood. I need to follow RQ’s advice and stay silent on the topic of Mr. Stuy.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Was the article about international adoption? The U.S. is quite the melting pot and does allow adoption by homosexuals. The children might have been domesticaly adopted.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
You know, I have to say if there are any negative connotations as to single women adopting, I can honestly say I haven’t experienced any of it. People have been very positive and think it is wonderful that I am doing this.Maybe where you live has something to do with people being more open minded and I do think that it is so common now, that it doesn’t come with the same stigma as before. It is sad if people automatically assume that just because your single and have adopted a child that you are gay. I have several friends who have and that couldn’t be further from the truth.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Oh, I totally agree. I remember being dumbfounded when my one friend said that. I truly admire anyone (female or male) that can raise a child on their own! We have two children, an 8 year old son and a 2 year old daughter that we adopted last year from China. There’s absolutely no way I could do all that work by myself!!!
One of my single friends has adopted twice from China and she is an excellent Mother.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I’m not sure when the notarized “single statement” actually became required. I was LID 8/01 for my first adoption and did have to include such a letter and my social worker indicated that I was a heterosexual in my homestudy. I firmly believe that at this point the vast majority of singles adopting from China are heterosexual.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Thanks Pam, then that means it was a requirement before the December 1, 2001 rules went into effect.
I also agree that the vast majority of singles adopting from China are heterosexual.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
When we were in China we were at the consulate with a couple who were openly gay. She and her partner were on their 4th adoption from China. They each were technically parents of two of the children. At the time, (04). I did not know it was against the rules. Our China co-ordinater was very upset and made several comments about it, thus how I came to know it was not allowed. Never even thought about it again until this came up, but it does happen sometimes. I’m not sure how widespread it is. This is one way that some who lie to get their way may end up hurting others behind them. It is no different from someone being dishonest on a physical or financial statement, in the end it can hurt others with new restrictions.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
We received the following email from our angency today. We have a LID of 7-26-05 so expect to be in the next batch of referals:
“I just received an e-mail from our China coordinator stating that many of our families 171 H’s will expire before the end of the year, including yours which is the end of October. They are requesting they be redone. Which unfortunately requires completing the I600 A again, but it is necessary to have current approval. The coordinator does not predict travel before November (keep in mind this is a prediction). The I 600 A can be downloaded off of the internet and completed like you completed the first one; however, I will want to have you mail your home study update with the I 600 and your initial study. If you would like to prepare the form, I can do a cover letter and mail it off or like I said I will make sure you receive a copy of your update, if you decide to mail it to BCIS.”
Does this make sense? We’re very concerned at this point that we’ve missed something and not clear on this expiration… we recently had our fingerprints redone and confirmed by new date on the 171. Appreciate any info… we’ve basically approached this whole process by doing exactly what our agency tells us… nothing more, nothing less. Bottomline, this latest email is confusing to us and we’re a little concerned.
Thanks inadvance… God Bless
August 30th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Lpapet- fingerprints are valid for 15 months, everything else is valid for 18 months, homestudy, physicals, financial info etc… so it needs to be valid for your consulate appt. which is at the end of your trip, we’re going through the same thing with a LID of 7/25/05, call your agency with any questions.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Thanks Gretchen… that’s reassuring… still not sure why our agency didn’t alert us about this until became an issue in China. Guess this is all due to the changes in wait times. We probably are being overly concerned… just now that we are this close we don’t want any glitches. Again, thanks!
August 30th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I’d be interested in what others are doing about renewing the I171. We are LID 7/28 and our I171H expires 1/7/07. Our agency recommends that we renew, but this just torques me to no end. Chances are our counsulate appt will be late November/early December - about 1 month before the expiration date of 1/7/07. I’m so undecided about whether to renew knowing how long the first one took, but also not wanting to spend this extra money. Any advice????
August 30th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Khansen,
We did get through to our agency counselor tonight and they were holding out having us renew the I600A because they thought we’d slip in under the expiration date… it was only when we didn’t get the referral (LID 7/26) when they told us to go ahead and renew… cost had gone up since we did first time… original was $500… we just wrote out the check for the renewal @ $545. Guess I’m kind of surprised your agency is suggesting you renew… Since yours doesn’t expire until Jan 07, given your LID I’d say ya’ll should be fine with the orginal… assuming you get your referral in the next batch.