Details
The same general guidelines from my original post seem to be sticking. As more agencies make their announcement we are seeing a variety of details emerge. I will stress again that I don’t think we should get too attached to any of the details coming out until we see the CCAA’s official announcement. I’m seeing some variations in the details, which as I’ve said before is to be expected since people are operating off of the notes they took in the meeting.
So, with that being said, here are more details:
The marriage part seems pretty cut and dried with the exception of whether “two prior marriages” means two per person or two total within the couple. A few agencies are stipulating that there can only be two total (so one person twice or both people once), one agency has said it as two per parent, but most agencies are leaving it up in the air when they word it. Also, at least one agency has worded it to be clear that annulled marriages count in this total.
The age thing seems to be falling out as between 30 and 50 for NSN and between 30 and 55 for SN. Everyone seems to agree both parents must fall into this and you can no longer have only one parent fall within the acceptable age range.
The income thing seems to be pretty cut and dried as well. $10,000 in income per year for each person in the household, and a net worth of at least $80,000. The new part of this is that families must work for their money, families who are living off of disability or some kind of insurance settlement or even retirement income will not be eligible - the $10,000 per person must be income derived from working.
Education seems to be agreed on as well - both parents must have graduated from high school.
Number of children is also widely agreed on - no more than 5 children in the house including the child to be adopted, youngest must be at least a year old. Exceptions can be made in the waiting child program.
We have more information on the criminal history. No history of domestic violence, no history of any criminal activity. No history of child abuse whether you were arrested or not. No history of using recreational drugs. No history of excessive drinking. Some agencies say no DUI’s, some say none within the past ten years. And some just say “no criminal record, period”.
We also have more information on health. Besides the BMI of 40 we hear that there can be no infectious diseases, no mental issues, no blindness, no hearing loss, no “defects” which seem to be defined as deformity of limbs or missing limbs or paralysis, also no facial deformity, no disease or illness that requires permanent medical treatment or that will shorten a normal life span, no organ transplants within the past ten years, no depression or mania or anxiety that has required medicine in the past two years. Basically, if you’ve had any major health issues in your past then ten years should have passed since then. If you’ve been on medication for depression or anxiety then at least two years must have passed.
So there you have it. I will again say that I don’t think we should get too attached to the specifics until we see the official statement from the CCAA. However, the general points are agreed upon by most agencies, so those do seem to be pretty much a sure thing.
Again, please do not email me asking me what I think about your individual situation. You should be calling your agency for that advice.
And finally, I can see nothing constructive to be gained by debating whether these rules are fair or not. The CCAA has deemed that these will be the rules, and like them or not we have no choice in the matter. if you have an opinion about a rule that should or should not be in place, please do not share it with us here. People who are in the process right now are hurting because they realize that will not be able to adopt this child’s younger sibling from China, the last thing they need is for someone to pour salt in their wounds by agreeing that they should not be able to adopt.
Please remember Rule Number One: Be Nice.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“The age thing seems to be falling out as between 30 and 50 for NSN and between 30 and 55 for NSN. ”
Did you mean SN for one of those? Or that some agencies are reporting 30-50 and others 30-55?
December 11th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Thanks RQ.
I really feel for everyone that is affected by these rules.
I understood that the rules for singles started May 1, 2007, but do the rest of the rules start then too or can we expect them to start rolling these out sooner? If so, do you have any sense of the ‘when’. Sorry if I missed this point.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Thanks Stillhoping, I fixed it.
It’s 30-55 for SN, 30-50 for NSN.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Most agencies seem to be saying the fees take affect January 1st and all of the new rules take affect May 1st.
A few agencies aren’t clear when the new rules take affect.
Everyone agrees that singles have until May 1st.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Is there a pretty clear consensus with the various agencies reporting information that those already logged in at the CCAA will not be held to these new rules?
December 11th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
thank you rq for keeping us all informed. i feel like i should be sending those agency fees to you instead of my agency! :)
December 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
The “no recreational drugs” put a real scare into me. So the DH experimented when he was a teenager and candidly has admitted this in our home study. This was over two decades ago and he’s clean since and never had a criminal record. As a matter of fact, he’s worked with mentoring at-risk youth. Now I’m scared that if we want to adopt little sister, this may hold us up. Since we were so open and honest this time, it would be hard to not disclose next time. Maybe they mean just no criminal history involving recreational drugs? I know no one knows the answer but I just wanted to throw it out here anyway.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
I spoke to my agency today, and they said they are 98% positive that anyone who is logged in will not be effected by the new rules. We are LID 11/24/06 and we should have a 18-24 month waiting period.
Hope that helps!
On another point I wanted to say THANK YOU to everyone in this group! You make everyday a little easier! Thanks RQ!!
December 11th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
RQ,
We hope to be DTC Feb 07. We started this process Jan 05. Can you tell me if both parents have to be under 50 at the time of LID or when the adoption is finalised as my dh will be 50 next April?
Many thanks.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I’m curious how many of us would be e/a/u/ffected. Too sensitive a topic and/or too fresh to do a general poll of some sort? Maybe. I’m absolutely not interested in who or why, I’m wondering about what percentage of the waiting this list would exclude.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
I’m pretty sure all agencies are saying those already logged in are fine under the old rules.
No one has said when you have to be 50, but these rules usually mean the age you are when you are logged in. Again, no one is stipulating it that I’ve seen, so we’ll have to wait and see.
vtmama - I’ve been playing around with doing a simple poll, one selection for “I will not be effected by new rules” and one for “I will be affected by the new rules”. However, since it sounds like many agencies are expecting the CCAA’s statement pretty soon I thought I’d wait to put it up so people will know for sure whether they will be affected or not. Right now there are a lot of people who are just on the edge and it depends on the details, and we don’t know details yet.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Thanks, RQ.
Actually dh will be 51 next April but hopefully we will be LID Feb 07 and will not be affected! We will wait and see, hopefuly we will know the details soon.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
we got an email that said that the new fees effect those that are NOW sending their dossiers over, as in the last week of Dec. Also we should be ok as the new rules should apply to the new lids….so much for dd#2 from China… :(
December 11th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Wow!! Well, we have two issues that are in the grey area but should be DTC in January or February so I’m praying they’re not “issues” at all. However, I’m questioning staying in the program at all - yes we’ve already made quite an investment (monetarily and emotionally) in China but the idea of two plus years, updating all of the paperwork, more money and the unknowns (what will happen with the program in two years time???) has me rethinking China. Add to that a DH who’s in his early forties and an eight-year-old that has her heart set on a sibling :(
Does anyone know if I can contract the Social Worker (who was assigned by my agency and paid through my agency) to prepare our home study for another country/program or is that unethical?
So many things to think about… congrats to all of you sooo close… Kicking myself that we didn’t start the process sooner.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I feel for all of you the new rules will affect and saddened by the idea that DD # 2 may not be possible ):
December 11th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Thanks RQ for all the info. I haven’t had a “monthly update” from our agency since October. This site keeps me sane.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Will the “clock stop” on these new rules when you are LID?
For example, right now CCAA has no policy that prevents parents who get pregnant or have a baby while waiting from still completing their adoption (I know some agencies have rules). So if you are LID and then get pregnant, have the baby and have an infant at the time of referral would you be out?
Or if you have $80K in assets, then while you wait, pay for your daughter’s wedding or have a bunch of medical bills or send a kid to college. So, at the time of referral you only have $40K in assets?
I am just curious because it seems that with the 18+ month wait times the circumstances are likely to change. I know we don’t knwo the answers but I hope that there is clarification!!
December 11th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I don’t post a lot but wanted to throw this out there for those in the same situation. After 7 years of infertility heartache and a history of mild depression and anxiety in my family I’m been taking Zoloft for the last two years. I was assured that this wasn’t an issue and it wasn’t to my doctor, counselor or social worker. Obviously, now it is but our LID is 3/1/06 so I pray we’re safe. I see it now as I have two options. I either stop my medication for the next two years or I choose not to adopt a sibling for my daughter. Neither option is especially pretty since I’m sure having a baby/toddler will stir up feelings of anxiety and or depression. I know we’re not here to debate whether or not the rules are right or wrong but I for one will feel far safer as a parent being in a good state of mind. I guess then, my choice is for my child to have the best Mom she can possibly have and perhaps that means we won’t be able to have a sibling from China for her after all. :(
December 11th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Hi RQ,
I have read twice today on the APC boards that agencies have used the phrasing that “priority” will be given to families that meet the new criteria and that the changed will begin to slowly be implemented right away. Has anyone heard this phrasing? Does this mean that they will disregard LID and go for who meets the new criteria best?
Hopefully we will be LID Jan 07. But I will never feel secure that I am getting my daughter until she is home.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
First time posting. It’s sort of hard to believe that I finally got my referral and pictures of my amazing baby girl, which I am truly over the moon about, only to find out a week later that singles can no longer adopt from China. Does anyone know if the singles rule applies to SN adoptions as well? Ever since I started the process, I’ve had it in the back of my mind that she would have a little sister from China. Now I just hope that one day I will just know what country is home to her little sister (or brother) the same way that I absolutely knew she was in China. Thanks, RQ. It’s really comforting to know that I am not the only one struggling with this right now.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
RQ-thanks.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Wow… my heart goes out to anyone who is affected by this. We’re LID Oct 11, 2006, so hopefully we’re safe, but we would not be able to adopt if we were LID after the May 1 cut off. Our daughter JUST turned one this week, so that would have excluded us for our LID as it is had the rules been in place. Also, I’ve been on meds for PPD twice in the past three years (from my second and third pgcies), and I highly doubt we’re $80K in the black.
To whomever is affected: I wish you the best of luck finding the path you need to take to have your children whether it’s rushing through to DTC or finding another country with less restrictions.
N
December 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Thanks RQ. Makes sense.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Our agency just sent us a letter about the CCAA meeting. They were in attendance and were passing on the info to us. The letter said about everything I knew already.
They are raising their wire fee about $500.00 to cover China’s price increase and to pay for the information needed from the CCAA.
The first paragraph of the letter said CCAA told them “the wait will stay at 15-16 months for the next two years….”
Now how can that be?
December 11th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
RQ
would you consider in your poll making a distinction in the “this would effect me” classification for the one item that can be changed, ie net worth. I’m wondering how many people who don’t make the $80,000 would beg and borrow from family to fill the gap. They wouldn’t really be locked out of applying for adoption as would the others. I just checked our paperwork out of curiosity. So suprised to see we fall short. My first thought was, “Mom and Dad would give us that much money if we needed it.”
December 11th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Well, we are LID 6/06 for dd#1 but we are definitely out for dd #2. Been a pretty disappointing weekend as we had our heart set on a sibling for our first child. My heart goes out to everyone in the same boat. Thanks, RQ, for all you do.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
I am a lurker. My absolute sympathy to those who are not going to be able to make the May 1 log in and do not meet the new regulations. Wow, under new regulations a huge percent of the general population would not qualify for one reason or another.
To those who have to give up the China dream. Please explore all your options, select another path. Adoption builds beautiful families. It is not always easy but the end result is always worth it.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
I’m also kicking myself for not doing this sooner! We are ok now - LID any day now! A second child will be difficult though because of the age thing. But you never know - in 2 years it may change back a bit.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Curious as to what people make of the 80k number. Would this include the equity in your home? or is this a money in the bank type of thing?
December 11th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Sarah123,
We’re not in exactly the same situation but a similar one–my DH takes a permanent medication for an illness which is a total non-issue as long as he is on the medication. We are planning to be DTC for our second child by May of ‘07, but you never know how things are going to go between now and then. If we don’t make it, my plan (hopefully my DH will be OK with this) is to immediately check out Vietnam and Korea programs. My first choice is to have my children share their heritage, but if China won’t let that happen, I’d prefer my daughter have a sibling from a different country than no sibling at all.
DH thinks it is possible for him to be weaned off the medication, but I am really afraid of that, since he’s doing so well and I hate to mess with a good thing.
So that’s how I’ve dealt with it. We already got notification from our agency about the fee increase, and it takes effect Jan 1, and with our stuff at immigration right now, we know we won’t make that deadline. Oh well.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Your net worth includes the value in your home, retirement/investment accounts, mutual funds, etc. balanced against your debt (mortgage, car loans, student/other kinds of loans). You add your bank account balances to that, but it isn’t just your cash on hand. I can’t imagine that it won’t mean the same in the future, but that is how we’ve calculated it for the 3 dossiers we’ve compiled over the years.
LID 4-25
December 11th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Fuzzleandfuzzlet–
The $80K is the equity in your home, and money in the bank, investments, stocks, retirement accounts, etc.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Just had to post that ______ called me today and I HAVE A SLOT!!!!!!!! I am over the moon, I worked with them for a full year when I was married on the first adoption (cancelled due to divorce). With the new changes, they decided to start giving the slots to those who qualify without waiting for the lottery next Monday. They seem to have a lot still open.
Here’s to the mad race for Macey!
Kris
http://www.krisandlily.blogspot.com
December 11th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Hi, I have been a lurker for the last few months and finally signed up.
I was wondering if Singles are still allowed to do the Waiting child program? Or are they completely excluded? I was hoping to be able to adopt in the next couple of years, but have wanted to do the WC program anyway. I was still contemplating the NSN route though, and now that option is gone. There is also no way I would qualify by May 2007 to make it before the deadline.
~Amy
December 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Hmmm…..I wonder what happens if your medical history changes after you are LID? Especially with wait times projected to be what they are…..
December 11th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
blondiegirl,
Regarding switching countries. We switched from Russia to China. If you have already submitted your homestudy to the CIS, then you would need to submit a homestudy update. If you haven’t submitted anything, then I don’t see why your social worker couldn’t amend your homestudy for a different country. They will most likely charge you for this but is should be nominal compared to the homestudy itself. Also, the update should be much, much less. All they have to do is use all of your information but include or omit any information that the particular country you would adopt from requests. Hope this helps.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
The net worth rule is interesting to me and it seems it will have very irregular results.
Example 1: a professional couple who have recently purchased a “starter” home in expensive california a year ago for $500K. They put the minimum down so now owe $475k. Real estate market has gone down a little in many areas so let’s say house is worth $490k. They each make a good living $100k and $120k per year. This gives them an annual salary of $220k. They have student loans (education ain’t cheap) of say $150k btwn the two of them but they make payments of $1000 per month. They have $10k in savings. They drive new cars and have plenty of expendible cash, at least $5k per month after paying all their bills –they do not have $80k in net worth –the student loans and the family home did them in even though they are very much financially able to provide for a child.
Example 2: one parent to be is a full time worker but earns minimum wage, about $20k per year. Parent to be #2 has a better paying job and earns $30k per year. Annual family income $50k. Neither parent went to college or has any student loans. They live in a less expensive area and/or purchased their home some time ago. They owe $200k on a home now worth $300k. They have no savings and monthly after paying their bills including $10k in credit card debt, have about $300 in expendible cash. They can afford to adopt and care for their child but it will be tough. Financially, they make the cut.
I’m not saying either family is better or worse (a person doesn’t have to make lots of money to be a good parent, that’s obvious) –but it would appear clear that the family/couple who would make the cut is in worse shape financially than the couple who wouldn’t.
If the goal of the rule is to make sure adopting parents are in good shape financially, it might not work. If the goal is just to get rid of some potential families to reduce dossier numbers it will absolutely do the trick.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
What was the net worth requirment before the 80k??
December 11th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
RQ…. Do you know if you can start paperwork for baby #2 before you have baby #1? I e-mailed my agency to see about the new rules and they said I should wait until we have confirmation from the CCAA.
I am positive that everything you have said about singles is true and I have always wanted a sister for Cate. I was going to call around tomorrow and see if there are any agencies with slots available but I wasn’t sure if you can go through the process while waiting for referral on the 1st one. Any thoughts…
LID 11/18/05
December 11th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
meetingcate,
I thought the rule was ‘home with baby for 12 months before re-applying’ — but perhaps that’s a regional or national thing, not a CCAA requirement.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
meeting cate, i am afraid its a ccaa requirement: 12 months home with baby before LID for #2. I have heard a few stories of people who have cheated by a few weeks, but that’s not the norm. I believe ccaa is pretty strict about it. Not that my opinion counts, but i think this rule ‘may’ have made some sense when the wait times were 6 months, but now that its 2-3 years, the extra 12 month wait just seems nuts.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I am thinking with all this time on my hands waiting and waiting, I may blow through $80K on a trip to Hawaii and some cute baby mu-mu’s
December 11th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
meeting cate: you can’t submit your paperwork to CCAA until you’ve been home 12 months, but I think some people start the paperchase in advance of that day. So when their 12-month anniversary arrives, their dossier is ready to go to China.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
This bites. sorry. We’re “iffy” now for #1 if prospective parents who fit the new criteria are “preferred” regardless of rules in place at time of lid (for us 06/05/06), and sayonara to any chance of a #2. Not that we were even discussing #2 at this point, since #1 is so uncertain still, but really, that just got closed down without even being able to think about it. I’m really concerned about the “soft” implementation of these guidelines in the meantime…..and Sarah123, I’m standing with you on the medication issue. Who among us would not be anxious and depressed with all this going on, anyway? Phooey.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
krj…you CAN do it by May 1st! I got my slot Dec 23, 05 and was LID 5/16/06. Looking back if I had know the wait ect..I am certain I could have easliy shaved a few weeks off and been LID sooner. Good Luck!! Rooting for you and Macey!!!
December 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
I’m with you mlschot. This isn’t fun with these new rules. There’s no way we’ll be able to get #2 now. Unless, that is, these rules are only strictly applied to NSN. Mr. U and I have already decided that we want SN for #2.
Praying…
His,
Mrs. U
LID 9-12-05- NEXT!!!!
http://www.makingahouseahome.blogspot.com
December 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Wow…I’m really saddened that this information is now being confirmed. I am even more saddened by the fact that our agency will probably never confirm this kind of information for us. Here’s hoping we get a referral for twins since we are so obviously ruled out for a sibling by the new requirements.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
LinPatton,
Our agency policy ( not sure if it was China’s or just our agency) was we just had to have a positive net worth. They seemed to not be concerned with the amount as long as it was in the black and not in the red.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I am new to this site but not to adoption. We came home in April,2006 with our daughter. I recently read on another site that an agency was saying they expected the wait to go to 36 months as in 3 YEARS from DTC to referral. Any thoughts?!
December 11th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
mykidsmommy, yup, that sounds about right. Sadly.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
This is sooo hard. I am surprised about the epilepsi thing because if it is mild and controlled it shouldn’t shorten life. And the deformity thing if someone has a missing finger does that count?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
tantoria2~
Thanks for the answer…I thought that our agency was the same…we just had to have a positive amount…but nothing really set…I am having a hard time finding it in my stuff…my homestudy report just says how much we have not what the requirment was…
I was just curious how different it was….I guess we are fine regardless for this adoption…but baby number 2….guess I need to get that extra job and start building my finacial portfolio…which really isn’t a bad thing.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
RQ, do you have any opinion on the hearing loss? My husband has partial hearing loss in one ear due to a surgery several years ago. We are currently lid 2/22/06 but it has been our plan to go back to China for a 2nd adoption and now I am wondering if that will be possible.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
RQ, do you have any opinion on the hearing loss? My husband has partial hearing loss in one ear due to a surgery several years ago. We are currently lid 2/22/06 but it has been our plan to go back to China for a 2nd adoption and now I am wondering if that will be possible.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Our balance sheet included everything - home equity, retirement accounts, bank accounts, cars, household goods (who doesn’t have several thousand dollars of those, and if you are married, you may even have jewelry, china, etc.)…More people than you think may be able to squeeze by this one. Hopefully.
PJM
LID 10/26. Approximately 2 months and 20 days from referral???
December 11th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Make that 10/26/05
December 11th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
slcalllah: you need to ask your agency about this; only they can tell you with any degree of certainty. however I read a post from FCC that specifically referred to hearing loss in both ears. I guess that means a loss in only one ear would be ok.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Just wanted to add that I have seen people post on the WC boards that they did not have to wait the 12 mos after the first child to submit a dossier for a SN child. I have no idea if this will change in the future, and I think it was done on a “case by case” basis anyways. But it was definitely not set in stone.
Sorry to everyone these rules have affected. It really is heartbreaking.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:24 am
?
My agency said you cannot start paperchasing early for # 2 anymore because your documents cannot be older than 6 months . I’m assuming it’s correct?
Anyone else heard this?
wBw
December 12th, 2006 at 2:46 am
I tried to post this earlier but it didn’t go through. Sorry in advance if it duplicates.
The problem with the net worth is that it can/will end up with uneven results.
Example 1: professional couple earning $220k between them, recently purchased so cal. starter home at $500K and only put minimum down so they owe $475K. They have student loans (school ain’t free) of $150K and about $15k in savings. At the end of each month after paying all bills they have about $4k in expendible cash. They don’t make the cut, they don’t have the net worth because of the student loans and the recent purchase of the family home.
Example 2: another couple who works full time and earns $50k per year between them. They bought their house 2 yrs ago for $300k and because of market increase its now worth $500K. They have $1000 in savings, $20k in credit card debt and at the end of the month after paying all their bills have about $150 in expendible cash. They make the cut.
Now, I’m not making a judgment call on who should be the parents here (money does not make a person a better parent–that’s obvious) but its quite clear that couple 1 is in better financial shape than couple two and could more easily afford to parent a child.
Point is this: if CCAA’s rule about positive net worth was put into place to ensure that children were placed with families who can best afford to raise them, they may be missing the mark. But, if the rule is merely to reduce the number of eligible families it would certainly do the trick. Far be it from me to understand the workings of the CCAA.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:09 am
I have been thinking that at least half of the families would be effected by these new rules. I do feel bad for them but most people probably could switch to another country. Personally I don’t think I have the steam to go through the paper chase and wait again.
The ones I really feel the worst for are the children who could will miss out on having a family and a life outside an orphanage. I bet if they had a say they would be all for relaxing the rules.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:52 am
I think that the whole “priority” thing is just an artifact of the translation process. I believe that the way it is worded just means that those with priority will be accepted into the program and those who do not get priority will not be accepted into the program. I realize it’s an odd way of putting it, but I think that’s just the way it’s being worded.
Of course, I could be wrong on that one. Only time will tell.
As for the hearing loss and blindness thing - one agency has it detailed out that there cannot be hearing loss in both ears or blindness in both eyes. But only one agency that I have seen has it worded that way, so we’ll again just have to wait and see how the CCAA words things in their statement.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Hi RQ- As always thanks for keeping us up to date and providing a great source of strength and comfort during this crazy, crazy time.
On the issue of income, I noticed during our paperchase that no one questioned our balance sheet. We simply filled in a bunch of numbers and had it notarized. I have no knowledge of anyone at my agency or anywhere else ever verifying the numbers. If this is true, perhaps this is one less thing that prospective parents need to worry about.
Your thoughts?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:56 am
momwannabe ~ We had to fill out a balance sheet too but we had to provide an employer letter that validated the income that we stated. We didn’t have to provide “proof” of any of our other accounts though.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:06 am
I still can’t believe that anyone would consider telling a lie about something this important in order to adopt. Why would you want to taint something this important by starting it out with a lie?
If you don’t qualify for this program then find one you do qualify for.
There are only so many children that China is going to allow out of the country and every one of those children will find a family because there are plenty of people who do qualify for the program. There are other programs out there where there aren’t as many prospective parents as there are kids who need families, so don’t give me the crap about how your lie is “choosing life for a child”. It’s not. A lie is a lie is a lie. Don’t try to sugarcoat it. Bringing a child into your family is one of the most important things you will do in your life… I just can’t imagine that anyone would want to start that process out by telling a lie.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:09 am
One more point - just because some of the rules may seem really arbitrary and we may not agree with them, it doesn’t give us a license to lie our way around them. It just doesn’t.
The CCAA is giving enough time so that those already in process should be okay. Everyone who has started paperchasing should be okay (except for singles who are now battling to make sure they have a slot)
For those who can’t go back to China for a sibling it really, really, sucks. I get that. But I still don’t think that falsifying documents, or giving false statements on documents, is a solution.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:10 am
My agency used the “priority” wording and as RQ mentioned, they did say that if you met priority you were accepted and if you did not, you were not. I don’t think that you were just put on the top of the list if you met priority…it was the only way to make it ON the list!
December 12th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I’m wondering if “priority” is a way of wording it so that if applications were to ever drop below the number of children they wish to refer they would accept applications from those who don’t fit the criteria. Right now there is obviously no shortage of applicants, so only those given priority can apply. Just speculation.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Hi RQ,
I read somewhere where they don’t want limbs to be disformed does that mean fingers as well? My DH has One finger that is smaller and webbed. Does that count?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Chongqingbaby: I was not at the meeting. Your agency was. They are the ones who will have to answer that question for you - I am only putting down what is out there.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:34 am
My agency specifies the marriage/divorce requirement as follows:
You must be married for at least two years. If you have divorced and re-married, you must be married for five years and have no more than two marriages from either parent
This makes sense to me. Each parent can have one previous marriage. DH and I have only been married 2 years and DH has a previous marriage. We were LID 6/09/06, so hopefully this 5 year requirement will not impact us.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Thanks for the information.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:51 am
For those concerned about not being able to adopt a second time from China, here’s another perspective on it.
Our son is Guatemalan. We always assumed that when it was time to adopt again that we would go back there. However, their program has been enduring numerous issues the past few years, and our agency no longer does Guatemalan adoptions. Because the overwhelmingly positive experience we had with our agency, we trust them explicitely and decided that we would not switch agencies. That meant thinking about adopting from a different country. At first, it made me sad to think that my son wouldn’t have a sibling from his birth country, but then I started thinking about the positive aspects of having a sibling from somewhere else. Since we started the process with China, he has become very interested in all things Chinese. I think having a sibling of a different nationality will really drive home the idea that we are all different and special in our own way, but at the same time we are all loved. Kind of like, hey, I look this way, mom looks that way, dad is like this, and my little sister looks different too, but that’s not as important as the fact that we all love each other. The one thing our son wants is for his sister to have black hair like him. He is looking forward to going to China and to having a baby, and that is what is important to him. So, I guess my advice is to take some time to be sad about the possibility of not having a Chinese sibling, and then start contemplating the possibilities and how wonderful they can be. I love the idea that we are going to have children from 2 different countries, and maybe someday we’ll have one from a 3rd. What a family picture we will make!
Good luck to all of you.
clem LID 09feb06
December 12th, 2006 at 8:55 am
momwannabe:
On the issue of income, I noticed during our paperchase that no one questioned our balance sheet. We simply filled in a bunch of numbers and had it notarized. I have no knowledge of anyone at my agency or anywhere else ever verifying the numbers. If this is true, perhaps this is one less thing that prospective parents need to worry about.
Your thoughts?
My thoughts are that if you are implying that it’s OK to lie just so you can adopt a child, then that’s a horrible lesson to pass on to your children.
Character is defined by what you do when you think no one is watching.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:57 am
I know this is totally off the subject, but I wasn’t sure where to post it, but is there any new rumors about this months cut off date? With a LID of 9/27/05 I’m getting very anxious to hear any news. Thanks
December 12th, 2006 at 9:14 am
My DH (45) has high blood pressure, which is fully controlled by medication. That’s his only medical issue. I wonder if this will be enough to disqualify us from adopting from China? Our DS came home in 2002 and I’d love to bring home a sibling. But if high blood pressure is enough to boot us out, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Sigh…
December 12th, 2006 at 9:22 am
I don’t think anyone really knows for sure how smaller issues like blood pressure are going to be handled.
For most people it’s not a major health issue, and yet it requires ongoing medication in order to keep it at bay. My instinct tells me that surely the CCAA is not going to disqualify people for being treated for high blood pressure. But when I read through what the various agencies are saying it seems that they might. Or maybe they might not. There’s just not a clear answer on this one, either. Again, I think talking to your agency would be the best advice I can give you, since they sat in on the meeting maybe they have a better idea of how this will be handled.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
My large china only agency has revised its post from yesterday about the CCAA mtg. Have inserted the words in bold-”non-retroactive”- as relating to the new requirements. As a single this gives me some comfort with a LID of 6-5-06. But, the small print still says not 100 % reliable until the written documents comes from CCAA.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:29 am
One thing I haven’t seen addressed (unless I missed it?) is at the meeting, did CCAA state WHY they are implementing the changes? I think we’re all under the impression that it is to reduce the number of applicants apparently now competing for a limited number of children. But is that the official line from CCAA?
Also, just a thought for those concerned they won’t be able to adopt a sibling for their child…you might want to consider the Taiwan adoption program. Our friends had a wonderful experience adopting their infant son from Taiwan. Your children would then share a Chinese heritage. As far as I know, Taiwan is open–please correct me if I’m wrong.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Rumorslave -
I don’t post much on what people say here, but I found your post offensive. Just because someone makes $220K a year and has a “professional” career does not make them more capable of parenting a child more than a couple that makes $50K, $100K or whatever a year. If a couple makes less money and still knows how to manage it to bring a child into their home, they are perfectly capable of having that child and giving it a good life.
It doesn’t matter how much a person makes a year or how expensive your home is, you can still not have “net worth” based on your decisions on how to spend/invest your money.
I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes here, and I don’t want to start anything and sorry, but that was a little offensive.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:40 am
wait4hannah - you shouldn’t get offended unless you actually read what was written. Rumorslave is saying exactly what you are saying, I think. She’s just pointing out that the rule is arbitrary and doesn’t seem to be doing what the CCAA thinks it is going to do.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:42 am
One thing we haven’t discussed… what is magic about May 1??? Did the CCAA set this date to give paperchasing families enough time to complete their paperwork? Or is it possible that the CCAA feels they can get close to “catching up” by May and can then keep the referral rate fairly stable? It seems to me that if the CCAA continues its pace of referrals until the May 1 rules change, the wait will extend to well over two years. If the CCAA wanted to reduce the wait time why didn’t they implement new rules before the they got this far “behind?” And another thought… why did the CCAA favor a rules change over a quota??
December 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
If I misunderstood something, sorry - I just didn’t read it that way.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:49 am
The CCAA is trying to give everyone currently paperchasing time to get their paperwork in before the rules change happens. However, they don’t want people to be able to get started right now and still be sure of being able to make it. This gives families about 3.5 months to get their paperwork to China by April 1 order to be logged in by May 1. Enough time to finish up but not really enough time to start from scratch (unless you happen to be in an area where you get the I-171H in a week or two).
And yes, a few agencies have stated that they are doing this to reduce the number of applicants in an effort to get things under control. They were not happy with the effect of the quota last time and do not want to do that again.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:49 am
My agency let us start our paper work as soon as we came home. We came home with DD May 2002 Started our paper work for DD #2 June 2002. We were home with our second daughter only a year and 5 month later. Then again as soon as we came home with dd #2 we started paper work for daughter # 3. We were doing post placement visits with our sw at the same time doing a newhomestudy. We are still waiting for DD # 3. I have already talked to our large multi country agency about number 4. Again they said we can start paper work as soon as we come home.
I know there is a lot of confusion with this topic but we have already done it two time with our agency.
When we went back to china our second time I could not believe how many people recognized us. When we went to the health clinic one of the ladies that worked their said “back already!” Anyway all I can say is we did it! We will have our third daughter within four years. My oldest dd just turned 4 and then I have a two year old and I have been logged in for a year.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:55 am
I’m wondering if anyone can guess about the anxiety medication if you should be off it for 2 years before applying or 2 years before referral. I have in my dossier documents that I’m going off it so I’ll be off it 2 years before referral with an LID of 10/06. I guess really I’m safe b/c I’m logged in but just nervous about all of this. My agency kept saying it was okay that I was on zoloft and now I wish I’d gone off it years ago. But I’ve been having miscarriages and thought it would help deal with these terrible losses in my life. Any insight would be helpful.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:57 am
RQ, thank you for answering the WHY question. But what was “the effect of the quota?” All those QBQ November families (Quick Before Quota) logging in at the last minute and then slowing down referrals?
Also, any comments about why CCAA is saying families will wait a month from DTC to being logged in?
December 12th, 2006 at 10:14 am
I spoke to my large agency who said that things like high blood pressure and Type II diabetes that are “Well Controlled” should not be an issue. I know that with my DH our MD put “Well Controlled” next to both.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Apparently the CCAA thought that if the agencies could only send a set number of applicants that they would screen through the ones that applied and pick the ones they deemed would be the best parents. But that’s not what the agencies did, they did it on a first come first served basis as long as you fit the criteria.
And all the quota did was move the wait around. So if you had to wait a year for your agency to have a slot for you then you waited six months to get started paperchasing, and then after you were DTC you waited another 8 months, your total wait was still 14 months, you just had 6 months of it on the front end.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Zengirl: I emailed my big China-only agencythey got back to me today regarding whether singles will be able to adopt through the SN program after May 1, 2007. “Unfortunately, no.” is their response. Sorry to pass on this news. Saddens me too.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:51 am
LadyBug4 and Zengirl;That is just plain sad. I am sorry.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:52 am
RQ,
I realized I started off rocky here…but I wanted to add my gratitude for you and this site.
Being first time parents, and first time IA adoption and the way things have unfolded in this process I just don’t know where we would be right now without this site.
Everyday I am understanding more and more the importance of the “rumors” as well as the disucussion of information that is coming through….and the support from everyone involved.
I realize you get thanked quite often on here…but RQ my appreiciation is way beyond a thank you…You are doing all of us a major service here whether the news is good or bad.
I just wanted you to know that you are priceless in the work you are doing for everyone…and how you are directly and indirectly affecting the lives of a lot of people and children!
With much respect,
~Linda
December 12th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Just a quick comment on assets. My wife and I are both elementary teachers. Our salaries allow for modest living with a keen sense of debt ratios. If one of us should lose our job, we would make it just fine. We have saved, completed and paid for two adoptions. We have no credit card debt and have taken financial planning very seriously. The new asset guidelines are well within what is possible…..
December 12th, 2006 at 10:58 am
RQ~thanks for coming to the aid of a loyal subject. :-)
wait4hannah~I almost didn’t respond to your claim of offense because I figure people are scared and hurt right now– but then felt compelled. I am constantly amazed at how people don’t read these posts carefully and then twist them or misinterpret the information on this site. Please read my post again, paticularly:
“Now, I’m not making a judgment call on who should be the parents here (money does not make a person a better parent–that’s obvious)”
~my point was exactly as RQ stated, that these two examples (which are pretty extreme actually but clearly represent two families I actually know–both of which would make fine adopting families IMO) would not place the child with the family that was financially more stable. I was questioning CCAA’s PURPOSE for setting the rule.
All rules are somewhat arbitrary. The rule setting organization usually establishes a goal and then they draw a line somewhere in hopes of achieving that goal ie. they don’t want blind people adopting anymore so they make a rule, no blind people. Whether you or I like the rule or agree with it is not important, it does achieve the desired result. The problem with this list of rules as I see it, is that the rules don’t necessarily achieve what I perceive to be the CCAA’s desired results. That caused me to question their true purpose.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:00 am
westwing - that is the point i was getting at - well put :)
December 12th, 2006 at 11:02 am
does anyone know what CCAA’s “old rule” was about criminal convictions –if there was one?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I’m not here to argue, I just felt compelled like you to post my feelings. I was not aiming a bullet at anyone.
Westwing summed up what I was trying to say.
With what we have all be going through with this wait, think we all could question the CCAA’s true purpose lately.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I wasn’t trying to aim a bullet at anyone and am not here to argue about anything. I just felt compelled like you to say how I felt
Westwing summed up what I was trying to say.
With what we all have been going through with this wait, think we could all question the CCAA’s true purpose.
I understand your point Rumorslave and see where you are coming from.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I understand what you are trying to point out Rumorslave, and it is a good point. I’m not here to aim a bullet at anyone, I was just as compelled to post a response as you were.
Westwing summed up what I was trying to say.
I think with this wait and turmoil we have all expierenced lately, we could all question the CCAA’s true purpose not only now, but for the past year.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Sorry guys - MY BROWSER WENT NUTS!!!
SORRY!!
December 12th, 2006 at 11:19 am
I’m curious, historically how often has the CCAA changed the requirements for adoptive parents? I know there were quotas implemented in the past. I’m just wondering if changes of this scope have happened in the past and if so how often.
TJ
10.18.05
December 12th, 2006 at 11:36 am
cmc
Just following up on seeingrid to the effect that the wait time may stabalize at 15-16 months. Has anyone heard something similar or could comment on that? As well as how this stabalization may dovetail with the fact that new restrictions are being proposed. For instance, for those who have seen restrictions or quotas imposed in the past, did that seem to stabalize the wait time? It is sad about the restrictions and if stabalization in applications and/or wait times occur, perhaps those restrictions will be relaxed.
Just wondering how restrtictions in the past affected wait times or stabalization of those wait times which could then lead to a relaxation ….
thanks
cmc
December 12th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Most agencies are saying that the CCAA says the wait will continue to grow.
I would not count on things stabilizing anytime soon.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Thank you RQ
I believe, and cannot remember for sure, that there was discussion about how many applications ccaa received in 2006. I believe that the number was put at 10,000? Am I remembering correctly? Or was that for 2005? And what are the months that define a year of applications according to ccaa?
thanks
cmc
December 12th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Wow. I remember how I felt before I got my referral. Each month would bring a major letdown and my heart would sink as I saw how few days were filled for that month. I can’t even imagine how all of you must feel who are still waiting because now you have to deal with all these new requirements! I’m so sorry! I am leaving this Friday for China to pick up my little girl. It’s been an incredible, grueling, difficult process, but when you finally get there, it’s truly amazing. Having worked so hard to get to this point also makes the end result that much sweeter. Again, my heart goes out to all of you, and I truly hope that anyone who is now affected by the new requirements finds that it is ultimately a blessing in disguise…meaning you find another path that brings you to your child.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
What’s the NEW post on the CCAA site (2006-12-12) ? About the new rules ?
RDT xxx.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Is there a place on the CCAA website to see how many dossiers have been submitted for each month? I am wondering how it can be said that certain months are lighter than others? Is there data somewhere to dessiminate that?
December 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
RayRDT,
It’s about training that took place at the end of October.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
waiting for siobahn. RQ has results of polls that she has done previously for the different LID’s. Have a look under Poll results. The results of these give us all a pretty good idea of what to expect for LID’s for each month.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
RumorQueen: A question that I yet haven’t seen here, is this:
Aren’t these CCAA rules exactly those we heard rumors about earlier this fall? And then the Chinese government didn’t approve of them after all (or so we thought). So we all wehre relieved.
Now the rules come anyway. Why did the Chinese government say first no, and then yes? Or was it just the timing?
Do you know anything about this, RQ?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
RQ, can you, or can anyone else, tell me which agenices are saying “by May 1st”? I am with a small agency and they are telling me that if I can pull together a dossier so they can get it to China by February 20th then I’m in (as a single… ). There is no way I can get UCIS clearance by then. So if I can put them in touch with other (big?) agencies that are saying by May - or even by April 1 - then I maybe I can get in as one of the last singles…
December 12th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Most agencies are saying the dossiers have to be in China by April 1st in order to be logged in by May 1st. Each agency has a different date that the dossier has to be to them in order for them to have it reviewed and ready to go in order to be there in time.
February 20th does seem like a long time for them to need in order to review it.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I looked through the “old” requirements on the CCAA page. I don’t understand this. it seems like this priority to couples over singles, has been there all along?? But they haven’t followed this, have they?
“Date of Post：October 12, 2005 Source: CCAA
A single foreign adoption applicant meeting the adoptive conditions as set forth in China’s Adoption Law, can adopt in China. But proceeding from the principle that “adoption shall be in the interest of the upbringing and growth of the adopted minorsâ€, it would be best for the adopted children to live in a healthy perfect adoptive family with both parents. Therefore, the CCAA shall give priority arrangement to both foreign parents to adopt in China. We shall neither propose nor encourage adoption of children in China by single foreign adoption applicants.”
December 13th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
RQ -
Thanks so much for all that you do to get the info out there - straightforward and to the point.
Two things - 1) can anyone comment on what thirdtimearound wrote about paperchasing as soon as she returned home from China three times in a row? I understood that the required wait of 12 months after return was non-negotiable. We returned home 9/9/06.
Is there any way for me to contact thirdtimearound?
2) Like so many writing, we are also out for a second child and for us it is because of age. Nothing else. DH is 54 now. Are there ANY thoughts on whether something like that might be waived for someone adopting a second child from China? Our agency’s wording was “parents should be between 30-50″ which, frankly, sounded a little grey to me.
Thanks
L