Hague Permanent Bureau
There are some pdf’s on the Hague Permanent Bureau’s site that detail their Work in Progress. If you’d like to read through them, it’s the first two PDF’s here.
One of the things that jumped out was a concern about undue pressure on States of origin. One of the things mentioned was that this pressure can come from “excessive numbers of applications”.
Then later, we see:
And, most importantly, there is this:
Remember, this is all, basically, “notes from the meetings” (from September of 2005) that they are apparently going to use to put together the next changes to the main body of documents that make up the intercountry adoption portion of The Hague Conference on International Law. (If I’ve got the wrong, I’m sure the attorney’s and government people out there will let me know). They are talking about what is working and what is not working, and how to make changes to make the system better.
It sounds like there has at least been discussion that having too many applicants is bad (puts undue pressure) and ways to keep that from happening (let other countries know how many babies are available in a public way so you don’t get too many applicants). But then they end with something that says that knowing the numbers could be seen as encouraging international adoptions, and that could be inappropriate. I don’t really agree with that last part, if there are children available without families then how could it be inappropriate to let prospective families know? And if there are not children available, again, how would it be inappropriate to let families know?
Also, this meeting happened just before the brakes were put on the NSN program in China and the huge back log became apparent. I don’t believe they were specifically talking about China in this meeting, unless maybe China had complained about the pressure of all of these applicants? I don’t know – were any other countries being flooded with applicants during that time period?
I will be very interested in seeing how this plays out. It sounds like the beginnings of something that could obligate the CCAA to notify receiving countries of an approximate number of babies that will be allowed into their IA program.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Thanks, RQ! It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Gosh, if we were given the data from CCAA, what would we have to talk about?? :)
October 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I have an idea about the concern about how openness about the numbers might encourage IA. I suspect what some policymakers want to avoid is parents being encouraged to abandon their children or surrender them for adoption because they want them to be adopted internationally. When we were in China our guide suggested that one reason the Chinese govt. isn’t very keen to publicize their IA program within the country is that they worry that it could lead to an increase in abandonments. That is, if parents can rest assured that their child will be adopted into a wealthier country with better opportunities for education, etc. then they don’t have to feel so bad about abandoning them.
Generally I think it is a good thing that the Hague folks are talking about these problems. I think it might be a mistake to read too much into minutes though.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
If in fact China did complain about the quantity of applicants…………then it would seem they are incapable of declining one.
I have sat here for 18 months wondering why on EARTH China would accept dossiers and bury themselves in them for years.
I assumed it was the money.
maybe it is the agencies that didn’t bother to disclose info when they should have and could have. Someone knew this was coming
and didn’t find it necessary to disclose.
utterly pathetic.
Agencies claim to have no info… China won’t release the info…
perfect scenarion IMO for agencies to continue signing people on….. they can just blame China.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Wonder how much is simple ineffectual communication in goverment? M
October 12th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I would like to think that the Hague will work not only in the best interests of the countries involved but also the APs. I have gotten the impression that the Hague rules are not be sympathetic to waiting parents.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am
While I am very glad that The Hague conference is looking at these issues I resent the line that they (or a rep from one of the countries) put in there about parent’s feeling “entitled” to children.
Of course we feel entitled! We followed all the rules and regulations, gave thousands of dollars to our adoption agencies, were told that the process would take under a year and then had our hearts broken. Of course we feel we are “owed” something from China. Are we supposed to just walk away and say “oh well..there was really no guarentee anyway..time to go away now and get back to what we were doing before we decided to adopt.”
Grrrr. Somehow that really struck a chord with me. Sorry.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
But these minutes are from a meeting that took place 2 years ago. Is that right? So, they’ve been discussing this for two YEARS and we still don’t have any more info that we did before. I mean, I realize that it’s probably not easy to get everyone to agree to the same things, but if it’s been 2 years already, I don’t think any of us should hold our breath to get any more info or numbers than we currently have. How come there isn’t more recent info on what they are talking about now? For all we know, they could have tabled this and moved on to something else by now. ugh.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am
While I think this was interesting information, my guess is that it will be years before anything comes of it. The meeting was already two years ago.
It was also interesting that one of the responses to providing more info was that some countries of origin do not have the financial resources or the computer infrastructure to better track their numbers. My guess was China, with its hundreds of SWIs, was one of those without the necessary infrastructure.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Oh, no, I’m not thinking we’re going to see any results any time soon. I just thought that this window into their discussions was pretty interesting. The idea that they know that having too many potential parents flocking to one program that can’t handle that many potential parents is a bad thing. It’s the first I’ve seen of anyone saying anything like this. So far people have seemed to have the opinion of “why should China care how many people are waiting, their job is to find families for the babies, not find babies for waiting families”.
So, when I saw this discussion about an how having an excess of applicants would be a bad thing, I thought I’d talk about it.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
RQ: I am glad you did a blog on this topic. And I agree that there are some interesting insights to be gained.
I just want to remind people that these things take a long time to negotiate. Just look at the timeline involved for the original Hague Convention.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
If they perceive an overabundance of petioners to be an unwanted stress on the system, then they have no option but to either 1. Disclose the number of children available or 2. State a ceiling or quota, thereby allowing them to not give the official number.
And I dont buy for one minute that China couldn’t communicate the numbers. Don’t even need a computer – it’s called a phone.
And I don’t think disclosing that # would push people towards abandoning their children – nothing says that the population of the country would know that number, and no matter how big that number would be, only a small percentage of the children in any country ever end up in an IA program.
Just my 2 cents
October 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
RQ: I am in my 21st month in this wait. This will be my final. I won’t do this one again. Russia was already Hague when we did them and it was a much easier program for all four of my children. I am waiting with 2 friends who recieved their guatemalean referrals. One 9 months ago, she visited him and is still waiting, another one on pins and needles because she is in fear of never recieving the daughter she now knows. I will never understand why countries want to continue to spend revenue they don’t have to take care of children in an orphanage when these children could be in homes with love. It feels like a power trip. They would not be so back logged if they would treat it like an act of humanity instead of a job.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The line on entitlement resonated with me as well. To me, it’s a harsh reminder that no matter the cost and the length of the wait, I’m not entitled to one of China’s children. China allows me, through an agency, to apply to the program, and that’s it.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Re RQs quote on too many applications being a bad thing: “So far people have seemed to have the opinion of “why should China care how many people are waiting, their job is to find families for the babies, not find babies for waiting familiesâ€.
This was almost the same language that the CCAA put in its response to the FCC letter. I think that now China is not interested in the long line or what that might mean to anyone or any country. I also think it will take a lot of time for China to embrace these concepts (instead of just lip service). But I hope that through time and a lot of conversation and more experience over the next 10 years or so China will not feel threatened by releasing information that may in the end help their program run more smoothly.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The line about “inappropriately encourage IA” bothered me too. It almost suggests that those of us wishing to adopt internationally are wishing to do something shameful. I don’t appreciate that.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I’m trying to understand the motivations for some of the statements in the document. First and foremost is the perception that “prospective adoptive parents mistakenly feel they have a right or entitlement to a child”. Where does this come from? Is it that before the adoption is complete, we buy things for the children, or talk about them as if they are our children? Of course we do. We are preparing ourselves to be parents and are investing ourselves emotionally into the process just as any parent-to-be would. Are they saying it is better to NOT do so? To me, that borders on neglect.
Another issue that seemed misguided was the discussion of how to enable the poorer countries to run successful IA programs. The suggestion was made that “richer” countries should foot the bill for the necessary equipment and training. How would this happen? Would the funds come from adoptive parents? Would there be oversight (to insure the funds and equipment weren’t misused or redirected)? It seems as if the underlying intent is to turn this into a one-way street.
Finally, the suggestion that it is somehow bad that children NOT be raise by the state causes all kinds of reactions in the Libertarian section of my brain. Their point (if I understand correctly) is that the abundance of IA applications to the states of origin might lead to more abandonment as parents might see this as a viable “out” for the problem of a(nother) child. This begs the question of what are they doing now? We know what they are doing, but these “notes” do not seem to take that into account. Worse still, they totally ignore the greater socio-political-economic reasons that lead to societies that cannot support their own children. Do they honestly believe that if IA did not exist, there would be no need for the abandonment of these children?
Sorry about runnin on.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I’m trying to understand the motivations for some of the statements in the document. First and foremost is the perception that “prospective adoptive parents mistakenly feel they have a right or entitlement to a child”. Where does this come from? Is it that before the adoption is complete, we buy things for the children, or talk about them as if they are our children? Of course we do. We are preparing ourselves to be parents and are investing ourselves emotionally into the process just as any parent-to-be would. Are they saying it is better to NOT do so? To me, that borders on neglect.
Another issue that seemed misguided was the discussion of how to enable the poorer countries to run successful IA programs. The suggestion was made that “richer” countries should foot the bill for the necessary equipment and training. How would this happen? Would the funds come from adoptive parents? Would there be oversight (to insure the funds and equipment weren’t misused or redirected)? It seems as if the underlying intent is to turn this into a one-way street.
Finally, the suggestion that it is somehow bad that children NOT be raise by the state causes all kinds of reactions in the Libertarian section of my brain. Their point (if I understand correctly) is that the abundance of IA applications to the states of origin might lead to more abandonment as parents might see this as a viable “out” for the problem of a(nother) child. This begs the question of what are they doing now? We know what they are doing, but these “notes” do not seem to take that into account. Worse still, they totally ignore the greater socio-political-economic reasons that lead to societies that cannot support their own children. Do they honestly believe that if IA did not exist, there would be no need for the abandonment of these children?
Sorry about running on.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I was around in 2001 when China announced the 1 year quota to reduce the number of dossiers coming in because they couldn’t keep up. If I remember correctly (RQ or others who were keeping up with things then), the agencies complained A LOT to CCAA about putting a quota in place. They complained so much that CCAA said fine – you can police yourselves – but please do not start sending in a ton of dossiers. But a dossier means $$ to an agency and they sure didn’t want to tell a potential client that they’d have to wait if other agencies were taking the dossiers and there was no official quota – and so the number of dossiers heading to China skyrocketed again. So CCAA gets yelled out when they impose a quota, they get yelled at by us when they don’t have a quota and cause parents to be put in this ever lengthening wait, they get yelled at when they put in new regulations that limit who can adopt (knocking out myself along with many, many others). We complain about our agencies not being communicative enough, giving us accurate wait times, etc. What we really need to complain about is the fact that our agencies refused to limit the number of applicants, to tell us honestly that they were requested by CCAA to monitor themselves and obviously didn’t and that we are the ones that pay. I’m sorry that agencies didn’t like the quota in 2002. In hindsight – it should have remained in some shape or form because THIS is most definitely worse.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
>>those of us wishing to adopt internationally are wishing to do something shameful
October 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
OPPS….
“those of us wishing to adopt internationally are wishing to do something shameful”
That’s the overall feeling that I get. I also get that feeling from some posters online. Like we should gladly, for the sake of political correctness, wait in perpetuity. Shut up and wait until they are good and ready to refer us a child, and if they close the doors in our face, we should say “well good for them, it’s in the best interest of the kids to stay in the country anyway.â€
October 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I believe the “entitlement” statement probably had a lot to do with the need for agencies (or governing bodies) to be clear with parents about the types of children available in a program, and about the time it would take for a child to be available for them to adopt. I have seen parents who feel that if they’ve waited this long they deserve a younger baby, or a perfect baby. Not saying everyone does, but there are parents who fit that description. Babies don’t come from a factory all made to order – so parents should have a realistic view of what kind of child (age, health, etc) they are likely to be referred and about how long it will take.
October 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Very interesting info.
And RQ, I have also heard the same kind of comments from people waiting to adopt.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
waitingfor2 – I think it was silly to expect the agencies to curtail the number of applicants. If 80% of them had limited their numbers and the other 20% had not, then that other 20% would have just gotten all of the business. It wouldn’t have made there be less applicants to China, it would have just made a few agencies very, very, rich.
When you are in charge the people not in charge are often not going to like what you do. I have lots of people here who don’t like some of my rules (and others who thank me for having them). And, when I tell GG no candy before bed, she gets pretty upset about that as well. But, I’m responsible for keeping this place a civil place to hang out, and I’m responsible for my child’s health, so I do the unpopular thing, because I’m responsible.
Someone has to be in charge, and when it comes to China IA, that is the CCAA. It was (and is) their job to keep the program running smoothly. They have the responsibility.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
mtonkinson….hear hear……….I totally agree. There might not be a need for orphanages if there are enough potential AP. Cut the paper, cut the time, cut the crap……match children with families. That is the bottom line. Don’t make children wait for obviously qualified families. None of them. SN or NSN. Its not just necessary and in my opinion its inhumane and cruel.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Could this be a saving “face” thing with China. Heaven knows the children are there and CCAA is there to help place these children.
However, is the thought of providing numbers to receiving countries, that would show just how many children are abandoned in China, shameful to them, so they wish to give a false impression of the number of children available, by limiting the amount of referrals given out, thereby saving face?
Just a thought running thru my brain……
October 12th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
China is not going to refer all the children in her orphanages out. Right now, IA is a teensy fraction of the children in orphanages available for adoption – and that number is going DOWN, not up.
China is not saying that they haven’t the staff/time/money to refer out all the children, they are saying they are NOT going to refer so many out internationally. And that’s what the Hague means – take care of your own, find them homes in country, and as an absolute last resort, let them be adopted internationally.
The CCAA is NOT there to place all the children internationally – I believe their job is to ensure placement of those children referred to them by the orphanages into the best homes for the children. According to the Hague, that is domestically first, then to Chinese families, then families not Chinese or in China – we’re dead last on that list, and I don’t think insisting they prove to the world how many kids are in orphanages is going to change that.
Regardless of how many are in orphanages, China doesn’t want to refer out more than the amount they are referring – which ain’t much, and is going down every month as far as I have seen the past 2 years.
Saving face is taking responsibility for their own orphans – not handing them over to the rest of the world.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Sherry, if they were finding homes for them I would agree with you. But they aren’t.
Hague says we are the last choice. Hague does NOT say to leave them in orphanages when you have all of these applicants who are willing to parent them.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
But keeping them in-house IS taking responsibility for them, isn’t it? Even if the care isn’t what a family will be… what about CCAA always talking about Blue Skies and other “improve orphanages and conditions” – why improve them at all if they plan to eliminate the need for them?
It seems to me that China is acknowledging and putting money towards orphans MUCH more now than 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago… all points to them keeping kids in house.
I agree families are best for kids, especially when we ARE lined up for years in hopes of being those families – but it does not appear that CHINA thinks international families are best for their kids, or they’d be just sending them out of country as fast as they could draw up the paperwork, no? I mean, the problem is not lack of families, but lack of babies… and they give several reasons why – and none of those reasons point to “more babies coming soon”.
The reasons point to finding ways to care for their kids in country… not to increase international adoption. :(
October 12th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I never said that CCAA is there to place children internationally. I also never said that China shouldn’t take care of their own.
If China did not think loving families, even those over seas, were not better over orphanages, why allow IA adoptions at all, that certainly wouldnt be in the best interest of the children. I definately do not agree with you, there. Not to refer babies out, because orphanage life is better than IA adoption, to me is just silly, I am sorry, but that is they way I feel. I have a hard time feeling that is what CCAA wants too.
I also really think that right now, CCAA is trying to find more homes for SN children.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Sherry in Vermont, I don’t really understand your post. If you really feel that way, why are you on an IA list at all?
October 13th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Sherry.
China signed the Hague Convention, which meens they agreed that the last choice is to adopt abandoned children internationally. The Convention does not say that the last choice is to let children grow up in orphanages, be it in country or in any other way. IF there are children in orphanages who could have been adopted internationally, then they are making a wrong choice according to the Convention. It doesn’t really matter if that choice is a better choice according to China, it doesn’t matter if they can claim they take care of their own in country, they still don’t follow what they signed.
It is of course very naive to think that the Hague would make China make sure every abandoned child gets the chance to grow up in a family if that option is available. But to defend their choice and still claiming they are following the Hague Convention the way you do seems very very strange to me.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Whether any of us like it or not, politically country by country, both countries Immigation departments, has the final say for IA. And in most cases there is always a limit to the numbers going out against those coming in. Whether Hague or no Hague the numbers are governed, and unfortunately the children of which we all want and need to call our own, for them to have a loving family, a forever family, many miles from the original country of origin, are part of controlled international immigration movement. Have a look at where the last payment of adoption fees goes to in this long process. In many countries it is the Immigration department.
I don’t however feel that China’s govt signing the Hague ( not the CCAA) are keeping true to what they signed.
Spam word : family …ironic
October 13th, 2007 at 7:36 am
The terminology of finding families for children is common terminology as per the Hague convention. Those of us from Hague countries have been told about that one from day dot of intercountry education. That is China simply following the set guidelines they have signed to.
As per not referring out all the children, that can also come back to the position that China is at re its development. Traditionally the masses have been employed by State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) producing masses of goods, that are not necessarily of great value. The State used to run everything – this is where they are coming from. If they clear out the SWIs that will leave a lot of people without a job including SWI/CWI directors.
There is also the face. Often the cleft children have at least their lip repaired before adoption when in reality we would be just as happy to take them unrepaired and younger really.
At the end of the day we have to be thankful that things are improving so rapidly for so many children in China living in SWIs/CWIs. You only have to look back 4 or 5 years ago that most institutions there did not even feed their children nutritious milk or food. And seemingly there are still plenty being trained up about that now.
Taking a child away from China was the MOST humble gift I could have ever asked of anyone. If China is able to do it again we will be again totally humbled. It is a total priveledge to adopt and parent these beautiful children, not a right.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
No one here ever said it was a “right” to adopt and parent these children, including myself. If it finally happens for us (and I am feeling like it will be “if,” not “when,” we will feel incredibly blessed and humbled.
But wanting to adopt a child internationally and give one of these children a home is not something to be ashamed of, either, and some of this conversation sort of suggests that.
When it comes to “rights,” I believe the children do have the right to be raised in loving families. The “rights” all belong to the children here–not to the agencies or institutions or governmental entities. They should be operating in the best interests of the children, as should we. Period. And those of us who desire to give these children loving homes should not be put down for that.