Interesting story
China Daily has a story about the new “criteria” for foreign adoptions.
Let’s remember that we heard a while back that the Ministry of Civil Affairs turned the CCAA down on the new rules/laws they wanted. It seems that the CCAA just called them preferences and put them through anyway.
It is interesting to me that the MoCA is being quoted here as well as the CCAA. And that they are being clear that the new guidelines just give preference to more suitable applicants but do not mean that others can not submit an application.
They are clear that the current law allows single foreigners to adopt, but that they are going to give preference to couples. It really does just seem to be their way of getting around the law.
They say the same thing about the number of children requirement - that the current law does not specify this, but that it’s going to be put in place anyway. Basically.
But the most important thing in here to me is this part:
“We will continue to deal with foreign adoption according to law,” he told China Daily, referring to the Law of Adoption and a Registration Regulation on Foreign Adoption.
“The priority criteria are meant to protect children’s interests and shorten the waiting time for more qualified applicants,” Xing said. “It does not mean we are prejudiced against less qualified applicants, who can still apply.”
What does this mean for us? I’m not sure. I wonder if perhaps the higher ups were unhappy that the CCAA’s actions brought the eyes of the world onto them? Or, maybe they are happy about it since the misconception is now out there that China doesn’t have an abandonment problem anymore.
I don’t know, but it does seem that they are scrambling to try to point out that they didn’t change the laws.
December 25th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Thanks again RQ. Have a happy holiday and I am keeping my fingers crossed for SOB next week, especially for you!!
Take care.
December 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Thank you for sharing that. I am leaning toward a two track program in my head. Or maybe we will get two thumbs up if we fully qualify with these new rules and only one thumb up if we dont fully. They could do a star system like the movies.
This sounds like saving face after trying to save face.
December 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
hmmmm….
December 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Ummmmm…. so now the new rules are temporary guidelines?
How do you shorten the waiting time for more qualified applicants without applying these rules/guidelines for those who are already LID?
Alot of emphasis on the weight issue too. DH has a “weight issue”, although not enough to reach a BMI of 40. He has no health issues - probably due to the 15 miles a week that he runs :) I’ll probably have a shorter life expectancy, since I can’t run more than a mile without gasping for air!! I guess the point is that they have to do something to reduce the number of future applicants, since they no longer have an abandonment problem :) :) ROFL
Thanks again, RQ. Merry Christmas, and enjoy the holiday!
December 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
I am very curious how they would process under the concept of a “preffered” parent program.
Would they start a 2 line system with 80 percent of referrals to preferred and 20 percent to those with potential flaws in their dossiers?
This is just a thought but I don’t know how they could keep it even remotely fair unless there was a “line” of some type.
The thought of those with issues on their dossiers just hanging out in a black hole until the time comes that CCAA catches up on dossiers does not seem to work very well at all.
If they started the 2 line system with percentages applied they could start enforcing their guidelines immediately becuase there would not be a huge impact to the slower lien until the line grew a bit and that might not actually affect wait times for the slower line until after 5-01-2007 in a significant way.
Just thinking out loud here.
The whole “guideline” concept rather than hard and fast rule will definately not reduce anxieties during this transition. That is for sure.
December 25th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
When they say “We will continue to deal with foreign adoption according to law,†he told China Daily, referring to the Law of Adoption and a Registration Regulation on Foreign Adoption”.
Are they talking about what has been listed on CCAA web site under ADOPTION LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA since I started the paperchase. I have seen conversations about this section of their web site specifically refering to the part that says any couple adopting must have no children, which always scares people. They already list no medical issues etc. I have just always heard that they have never gone by these laws. Could it be they are going to start following them now. The part about being able to provide an education could be used for the income requirement. It would be a way for them to get around it, in a sense they would not even be doing anything but following the laws they already had. I could be wrong I really have never heard a good explanation of why those laws meant nothing before. I am glad they didn’t and am so sad for all of us for the future. J
December 25th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I am a bit confused…to say the least. Does this mean that these guidlines are meant to “shorten” the wait by letting, quote, “more qualified” people adopt, and then once the slowdown is “resolved” the rules are lifted to have the wait start accumulating all over again??? Has this kind of thing hapened before? I am feeling angry at the CCAA for not just clarifying these questions….would it kill us if we actually knew what was going on so we could better prepare oursleves?
Zoe
9/19/05
December 25th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
The part talking about couples having no children refers to people in China adopting, not foreigners. There is somewhere in the laws that it says that. Someone has pointed it out to me in the past when we talked about it. A quick look didn’t show it right away, but I have seen it in the past so I know it is there.
December 25th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
On the CCAA site bottom left hand side under “Policies & Regulations” then ADOPTION LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. Your explanation does make sense thank you so much for all you do.
Michele
December 25th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Just read a copy of the official CCAA letter that was sent to a client via its agency. In the letter, the agency is asked to screen families and give priority to those meeting the new rules-guidelines-criteria, submitting only documents for them.
In a way, agencies have always been asked to do this, but it seems so muddled now with the “prioritization” clause.
Perhaps it’s a nice way of saying “we won’t exclude you, but the wait will be so long that you won’t choose our program”?
It also states that CCAA first accepts and REVIEWS applications from those who meet the new criteria from the day of May 1, 2007. Those that don’t will be considered for adoption after all the newly “qualified” people have been matched. This wording still makes me uncomfortable because the accepting (log-in) and reviewing occur at two different times. And many of us that are logged in have a long way to go before review. I know that CCAA has typically grandfathered changes in, but it seems like there is a heaping lot of vagueness in this whole new rule/guideline/priority thingie.
I can deal with the wait better than the uncertainty.
December 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I honestly think only time will tell. I am also not sure if CCAA feels that the stability of their international program is a priority. In my humble opinion, I think if they did a two tiered program now- moving some LIDS up further in the line because they are “near perfect”- a lot of waiting families would start looking towards other countries. I think the anxiety of it all would scare away a good chunk! I do hope they wait until May 1st to apply these rules, I would hate to see so many families worry and some end up being hurt.
December 25th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
The “priority criteria” statement has me curious. To me, this could mean many things. Example, we are going to find the most qualified parents first, and then the “others” (meaning not as qualified parents) may be able to adopt a child after we place the children with the more qualified adopters first. Is this what they are saying? Or am I getting this wrong?
December 25th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
That is what it sounds like to me, the worry is when do they start applying this guideline.
December 25th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
It seems to me that they are calling them “preferences” rather than “rules” for two reasons.
First, if someone with enough money or clout wants to adopt, but doesn’t meet the requirements, they can still let them adopt without the whole world saying that the rules were broken (such as what happened with Madonna.)
Second, at the moment, there are many more applicants than babies so the waiting time has grown from 6 to 15 months in only 2 years. But if it ever gets to a point where applications are way down from people who meet the new requirements, then China can then let the other applicants have the children, without doing a a complete change of the rules.
But I read the situation that once the new rules go in effect, then for all applicants after May 1 China will only give children to those people who meet all the new requirements.
December 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
I do not think they will ever allow an adoption to a celebrity that doesn’t fit the new criteria. It’s not the CCAA’s style.
I agree with your last paragraph - for those logged in after May 1, if they don’t meet the requirements then they won’t get a referral, that is the way it reads to me, too.
And since they’ve apparently just gotten rid of 40% of the people who would be adopting, even when they reach the May group (several years from now) things may still not completely stabilize, which means that those who aren’t “preferred” would likely never get a referral. Unless they increase the number of babies they allow out of the country, of course.
I don’t see a two tiered system at all, I just see a system of either you hit the preferred line and get a referral or you hit the not-preferred line and wait until the day comes that there are no more preferred people in line, which will likely not ever happen.
My point here is just that in China the news stories often say something “between the lines” that isn’t obvious when you would first read the story. And, to me, this story is screaming out that they didn’t change the law and want to make sure that they aren’t accused of not following the law so they are explaining the “preferred” system and being clear that the law was not changed and people are still welcome to submit an application if they fit the requirements of the law but not the new preferred criteria (even though it isn’t likely they will get a referral).
December 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I don’t mind the weight requirement although I need to lose in order to get under 40 BMI. I do take great issue with the exclusion of people that have missing/disfigured limbs or facial deformities. I know several people that suffered great tragedies and yet went on to build successful careers and/or businesses and far exceed all the other criteria listed.
I also take issue with the fact that if the CCAA truly has the best interest of the children at heart, they would exclude smokers and those with a history of smoking since smoking related illnesses surpass weight related illnesses as leading cause of death.
I wish the media would touch on these issues rather than obsessing about the weight requirement. I know my daughter is kicking my butt because I’m overweight and I’ve lost weight just keeping up with her. So I can see that losing weight would make me a better mom and I’m doing something about it.
But a person can’t grow a limb. Even when they are worth a good amount, have a graduate-level degree, have an established marriage (first one), solid support network, career with the same company for the past 23 years…you get the point. It really makes me sad.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Well, I am more confused than ever. I think what people always appreciated about China as an adoption option was the straight-forwardness, relative predictability, and trustworthiness of the whole experience. From what I can tell, all of that has been turned upside down.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
HEAR HEAR lovepumpkin- that is EXACTLY what I was just thinking. And I’m wondering if I just flushed 4500K down the drain in first agency/homestudy/USCIS fee to fight to get in before May- and 2 years later will I just get passed up anyway because I’m sinlge…. this is KILLING me, the lack of clarity. I can wait two years, NO problem, but I would like SOME assurance that I’m not wasting my time and money on another huge disappointment (especially in light of a recent divorce and incompletion of the first adoption from China). I can be LID before the end of April, but will I really get a referral????
December 25th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Another interesting article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209640/
What I find especially interesting is : “There will be a great experiment this year in China. For the first time, the communist government will allow journalists to roam the country and gather news — without permission from government officials. It may not sound like much, but it will give reporters for the first time the freedom to cover stories both good and bad and report them without being detained or expelled.”
This seems to be a great opportunity for a reporter to go into China and report the actual situation in the SWIs. Is there really a shortage of babies OR rather a shortage of ‘paper ready babies?’ Perhaps one of the reporters that recently posted in all of our local and world news reports should look into this further and report the actual situation? Perhaps additional attention would push China to make these babies ‘paper ready’ and get them out of the SWIs and into our loving homes?
I urge anyone who has any media connections to pass this on!
Julie
December 25th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
krj-
I’m right there with you. If I have to wait, fine. I am Nov. DTC and don’t want to sit back and find out later next year that I finally reached the review room and have been placed on the back burner until the “preferred” parents have their children (which seems like us singles will never stand a chance). The uncertainty is killing me!
December 25th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
“lesser qualified”, wow, what a way to think of us singles. I spent Christmas with 15 immediate family members who can’t wait for Cate to arrive, there were presents for her under the tree, tears at mass because she wasn’t here yet. I know a few couples who have adopted and within a year were divorced, not sure I see the difference! I am happy to see this whole thing may not be permanent, although my hopes are still small that she will have a sister from the same country.
I understand they are looking for the “more” qualified parents, but there is no such thing as a perfect situation. I think a child placed in a loving environment is in the best place regardless.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
OK…just because China Daily makes a comment do we belive it? Isn’t it the CCAA that just published new criteria for people who wish to adopt after 04/30/07?? Do you really think that our agencies will submit dossiers for people that don’t match this criteria? I just read in the NY Post that children from China are the new “designer” children to adopt for ”
Wall Street” families. The NY Post just said that some Wall Street family with a LID of 10/06 was expecting a referral in
December 2007. ROFL!!!! Just because it’s in the paper do we believe it????
December 25th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Hello Everyone,
Have any of you read the 5 comments posted to the China Daily article/story?
Interesting to say the least.
RQ, thanks for all you do.
LID 10/11/05
December 25th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
It’s all interesting. It’ll be interesting to see how things change in another year or two. I don’t think the new guidelines are here forever.
LID 10/17/06
December 25th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
>This seems to be a great opportunity for a reporter to go into China >and report the actual situation in the SWIs. Is there really a shortage of >babies OR rather a shortage of ‘paper ready babies?’ Perhaps one of >the reporters that recently posted in all of our local and world news >reports should look into this further and report the actual situation? >Perhaps additional attention would push China to make these babies >‘paper ready’ and get them out of the SWIs and into our loving homes?
>I urge anyone who has any media connections to pass this on!
Given China’s history, I would expect such action to cause China to shut even more doors - perhaps even ending international adoption. Trying to force them to “give us the babies we KNOW they have” will NOT have the desired affect - the loss of face would be so bad, they’d more likely clam up altogether, no explanation… and we’d all be left staring at the gates of the orphanages (figuratively) going, “But… what’d we do? We just want our babies.”
Only, see, they are not OUR babies, but China’s. No matter how much we love and will care for and be the best parents to these kids… we don’t have the RIGHT to demand China to give her kids to us. In adoption from China, we are REQUESTING them to allow us to adopt one of their children. It’s in all of our adoption petitions…. No matter how upset any of us are or how unfair we feel the rules are, attempts to force China to comply as we’d attempt to force American governmental agencies to comply are not going to have the same result.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:50 am
Sherry, I do share your point that we don’t have a right to demand any of those children, but that tey are a chance and a gift for many of us.
But I’ve been wondering about these “full” orphanages for some time now and hope somebody here might know. Wouldn’t the babies have to wait somewhere while they are made paperready? And wouldn’t that place most like be the orphanage? Every month some leave - they’ve been referred to someone (chinese or foreign parents) while others arrive, newly found on the streets or somewhere and eventually making their way into the adoption process which again takes at least about half a year. All those waiting babies would be at the orphanages, clearly to see for anybody who’s visiting. But they wouldn’t automatically be available because they already are in the process or getting there soon.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:10 am
A similar story — containing the same puzzling quotes — starting moving yesterday through Reuters. News sites in New Zealand, Australia, and the UK have already picked it up. It’s not only a China Daily story.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:10 am
You can’t just walk into an orphanage.
For parents who have adopted a child from the orphanage, they must go through the local provincial authority and pay a fee in order to just ask permission to visit. And then once permission is given there is another fee that must be paid to visit.
For a short time some of the local provincial authorities were asking outlandish fees, but then I believe the CCAA took charge and dictated what the fees should be.
Anyway, it’s my understanding that most of the time parents get permission to bring their child back to the orphanage, but not all of the time. I’m just guessing that a reporter would never be given permission.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Carolina - China Daily is quoting people from the MoCA and the CCAA. So we are hearing what the spokesmen from the MoCA and the CCAA are saying. So, yes, I do see this as very important.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Bliss - those orphanages that are full of babies only have a handful being made paper ready. There is one story of over 1,000 children in a single orphanage and only three or four that were in the process of being made paper ready.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:23 am
RQ - then I understand. But paper ready means not just for IA, right? Paper ready means for any adoption, also nationally? So those children aren’t going to be adopted at all?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Some orphanages are having a good amount of domestic adoption. But this agency was not doing very many domestic adoptions - so at least in this one orphanage, yes, most of those children will likely never be adopted.
And that’s the thing - there are orphanages that are almost empty with few babies coming in and a list of people in China that wish to adopt.
And there are orphanages that are packed beyond what they can handle that aren’t being allowed to send paperwork to the CCAA for more than a half dozen to a dozen babies a year, and who also do not have any locals asking to adopt any of them.
China is a big country - you can’t just go to one area and investigate and think you have the answer.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Very interesting article.
But I agree that it sounds like the officials are “saving face”. They are probably reacting a little defensively to some of the US media bylines akin to “Fat and ugly need not apply…”. Go figure.
I guess the prioritization of families meeting the new guidelines will be done at the agency level- so, by May, China will probably only be receiving dossiers of the so-called “more qualified” families (their words, not mine).
But who knows what the story will be this time next year? All you can depend on when it comes to international adoption, it seems, is that things can change on a dime. Keeps things interesting, right?
I hope those referrals get here soon! We’re waiting for a “proposal” from the WCP via their new process (DTC *after* accepting a direct proposal), and we’ve been told we could get it as soon as January- or not. But after being in this process since Feb 2005, what’s a few more months? Yikes!
Carolyn
http://china-calling.blogspot.com
December 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Forgot to mention that the CCAA letter made specific mention that they were not prejudiced against the less qualified applicants.
A Chinese newspaper ran an article yesterday that was obviously based on the CCAA letter. It begins by saying that China is imposing stricter criteria on foreignors who want to adopt Chinese children. The Xinhua story again stresses the Ministry’s position that overweight people are more likely to suffer from diseases and might have a shorter life expectancy.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
All these rules are really creating a stir. I wonder if China knows that? I just feel so bad for everyone. So what if someone is obese just because your obese doesn’t mean that your unhealthy. Granted obesity could lead to health problems but they are really picking apart things now. As for anxiety/depression issues most women who have been through IF have it some people like myself it is genetic but successfully treated. And as far as singles we know single parents and they are excellant parents. I have a cousin who is married with one child by a fling and her two boys may or may not be by her hubby now and she could care less about them. It is her hubby that tends to the kids it isn’t a couple raising the kids together it is ONE parent in that relationship doing the child rearing. So China may feel they are doing the best interests of children but that don’t mean squat really. Sadly so many good people are gonna be knocked out and it just stinks. We thought we would have had our daughter home by now. We should get our referral soon heck May ‘07 will be two years since we started this process. I can only imagine how bad wait times are gonna be in the future. I am dying as is our family with this wait. Good thing I have warmed up to the fact…..after spending x-mas with in-laws who have only children………..that my daughter will be an only. I just don’t know if I can do this again. I did talk to a well known agency about adoption #2 possibly being from Guatemala and she told me there will be many changes to IA in the years to come many more stricter guidelines and Guatemala will be an uncertain country too. She told me China’s readjustment is the just the beginning :( My agency said the same:( Oh I am depressed need to go eat an x-mas cookie…………
December 26th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
RQ, just a clarification. I’ve visited orphanages 3 times in China and never had to pay a fee or request provincial permission. At one visit, we just showed up on our own, expecting to take only exterior pictures, but we were invited in and given a tour. The other 2 times, we called the director and asked if we could visit. Again, they welcomed us with open arms and no fees were mentioned. We were allowed to take pictures and video and even hold babies. So that might be a provincial policy, but not all directors follow it.
I do think they would be far more hesitant to allow reporters inside though.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Ok, I read the article. As a single I do not have priority.
However if they were to tell me that my dossier could be matched after May 1 but it would be 3-4 years, I would do that. I’d just choose an agency that wants the bulk of it’s fees closer to the travel time instead at dossier submission. DD#2 might end up being DD#3 instead.
Kim
December 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
postfarm - these rules went into place sometime in 2006, I can’t remember exactly when without looking, but it seems like it was later winter or early spring. When they first went into place some of the provinces were charging horribly outlandish fees and the tour companies I think complained to the CCAA and then the CCAA (I think) decided on the amount that the fees should be.
Have you been back to an orphanage since then? I’d be interested in hearing if you have, as it may mean that the rules have been relaxed a good bit.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
RQ, that makes sense then, as our visits were in 10/03 and 3/05. I know families who have visited these same orphanages since then and will ask if they were charged fees.