Problems with the Special Needs List
Here’s how the Special Needs shared list should work, in theory:
Here’s how the shared list has been working:
Here’s how it worked this time:
And, even worse, another agency has been locking files without a name at all, and then has been advertising those files, trying to get new clients with them. (Or perhaps they’ve found a way to lock it in with one name and switch the name out later? No one is really sure how they are doing it.)
There are also questions about an agency who is wording things to make it sound as if they have multiple people locking files at the same time. And from what I understand, each agency should only be able to be logged into the list one time. But, a few agencies have one person logged in and another person at their side doing “helping” type things, so just because an agency says “we”, it doesn’t mean more than one person is locking files. Still, there are questions about a few agencies who seem to be trying to make people think they have an advantage over other agencies because they have more than one person able to lock files in at a time.
I am positive that two agencies are working outside of what the rules are supposed to be – and it appears there is a possible third agency also involved. One agency is offering multiple files to a family, and another agency is advertising files for children they have locked (and giving a time limit that is 48 hours after they locked the file for a family to make a decision and commit themselves). A third agency seems to be offering a file turned down by one of their families to their other families, but I haven’t been able to get multiple confirmation of that, so I won’t say it’s a for sure three agencies, just a for sure two agencies.
Here’s what I think needs to happen:
Next, the CCAA needs to try to equalize things so that all agencies must follow the same rules. If an agency (or agencies) have found ways around the software then I’m sure the CCAA will find a way to secure their software so it doesn’t happen again. If a few agencies have been given special privileges then they need to be honest about that, and then give the rest of the agencies criteria for how they might earn those special privileges as well. Preferably though, they’ll make everyone follow the same rules. And if they can’t find a way to make the shared list more equitable then perhaps they need to go back to agency lists for the easier to place children and just put the harder to place children on the shared list.
One of the great things about China adoption in the past was that it was fair across the board. Your LID tied you into when you would get your referral, and the ability to pay more money would not get you a referral faster. However, with the SN program, I’m beginning to hear whispers of people paying extra to get moved to the front of an agency’s list, and I’m beginning to hear how “this agency costs a lot more, but they are able to lock in a lot more files than that agency, so it’s worth it if you can bring a child home faster”. Words cannot describe how sick that makes me feel, that more money can pay to get a child faster. That should never happen in an ethical program.
I understand that an agency that charges a little more might be better staffed, that’s not what I’m talking about here. I know there are some agencies out there that manage to lock in a lot of babies while following all of the rules. They do it because they have people who stay up at night, with one of them hitting refresh over and over and over, and then locking a file as quickly as possible. They may only lock one out of every ten files they try for, and they may only try for a small percentage of the files (there are many files they’ll never see, since they’ll be locked while the agency is locking a different file). The person logged into “the list” has a support staff behind her and with all of them working in concert they manage to lock a lot of files. And an agency that charges a little more can afford to pay employees to stay up at night and do this. And I’m fine with that. Our adoption fees are supposed to pay people for their services. Our adoption fees are not supposed to be able to get us to the front of the line, though.
It is my belief that the CCAA wants to be known for doing things the right way. They are figuring this out as they go along, and I have every confidence that they will move to fix these issues.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:17 am
My DH and I submitted our SN application the other night. I had a long talk with our family coordinator about the issues of agencies locking files. They have a conference call scheduled with CCAA this week, I believe, and they will let us know what they find out.
Cindi
January 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I agree 100% I know that both myself and others that have been logged in with a larger agency since 2006 and have pursued SN are waiting while those who have not even compiled a dossier somehow are able to get referrals ahead of time.
I’ve spoken with my SW about this and she’s confirmed to me that some agencies will apparently go ahead and lock the files knowing they can find a parent later.
Unfortunately because of the slowdown and the money crunch at agencies, I can totally see how some agencies would exploit the way the current SN system works to stay afloat. They already have the money of those that have been waiting, so pushing short wait times for SN children to new PAP’s is their new business model.
It irritates me beyond words how the agencies that got us into this mess by creating an unsustainable backlog continue to do unethical things just to meet their bottom line while many families who have been waiting are not able to pursue their dream.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:23 am
I know that our agency just went to the option where you can say that you will allow them to “lock” a file for you without your review first as long as the child falls into a specific criteria (ie. SN, gender, age). I feel that they had to go to this avenue due to the agencies that are using “unethical” behavior to lock files. If you have an agency that doesn’t have the ability to lock a file without first showing it to the family…your screwed at this point! My agency (thankfully) pays staff to work all night!
MBS
January 30th, 2010 at 9:41 am
My DH and I received a referral from the shared list last October. I am happy to see that my agency works exactly the way RQ describes the shared list should be used. I believe all agencies in our country work correctly. Our agency only works with people who are LID, so no issue there either. However, an agency in our European country just started keeping the paperwork of paperready clients in their offices until the family submits LOI. The reason being that CC** would then not have to search for the file when they get LOI. It is suggested (rumor?) but not really clear to me that this would be something CC** wished for. That wouldn’t be a good way to work though if the first couple of days files could only be locked for people with LID. Could well be that they will try this way for a while and go back to submitting papers as soon as they are ready if it doesn’t work out for them I think.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:42 am
This is so upsetting. After 4 years of waiting, we recently submitted our application to move to the SN list. Now this. Sometimes I feel like we are climbing a huge mountain and the closer we get to the top, the more “stuff” is piled on for us to carry. I am no longer shocked or surprised by the additional baggage.
I hope enough agencies address this with the CCAA so they take action.
Thoroughly disgusted :(
January 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
All the agencies should play by the same rules,it’s not fair to be able to lock 3 to 4 files for a family to decide from. It’s not like going to the supermarket or buying a car,This is a little person’s life here,and the proper respect should be given to them.I guess for some agencies it’s just about the money,isn’t it? That’s no way to run a business like this,they should be outed and made to explain themselves and there unethical practices.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I could not agree more to your solution RQ! I think it really is the only way that keeps the interests of the children first. It has been SO frustrating watching families brand new to the “idea” of adoption get matched with a child and then need to begin & complete paperwork, while the child sits in an orphanage without a family. A family that is already logged in (and through review) would have that child home months and months earlier!! I so hope that the CCAA will address this issue in a timely manner. What a shame that agencies are doing this in the name of $$$ at the expense of the children they say that they are advocating for. GRR.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:08 am
I’m thinking that the way the SN system works might also be a reason why I hear in my country that only more complicated SN (multiple SN and so on) are available. If agencies elsewhere are locking files within minutes after a child without more complicated SN appears on the list, then yes, this might be a reason.
I also think this because I still hear from the US that a lot of SNs are easy (not the right word but you know what I mean).
January 30th, 2010 at 10:44 am
RQ, you said:
“The CCAA should require that only a family with a LID can be eligible to adopt a child for the first three or four days that they are on the list.”
I think this is a great idea. People with LID should ABSOLUTELY be matched first. Period. Our agency places a HIGH PRIORITY on families already LID and this criteria is the most important factor in their matching of SN children to their waiting families.
When we were matched with our DD, we had been logged in for 5 months, and at the time our agency was not even locking files for people NOT logged in. Now I believe they will IF you have I800a approval, which is virtually the last step before DTC.
So glad you were able to speak to this on your blog.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Rumor Queen said:
“And if they can’t find a way to make the shared list more equitable then perhaps they need to go back to agency lists for the easier to place children and just put the harder to place children on the shared list.”
EXACTLY. This would make certain that agencies are able to give priority to their families already logged in. Why are they even putting the AYAP girls with minor needs on the shared list??? That to me is the big question. If they sent them to agency individual files, all of the “frenzy” nonsense would cease.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:55 am
My agency is actually more conservative with locking than in your first scenario at the top of the page. Although they occasionally lock files on their own if they how for sure that the child meet’s the PAPs criteria, they usually prefer not to lock a file until PAPs have not only read the files themselves but also consulted with a medical professional about the file. Now, if a parents wants to lock a file before they have spoken with a doctor they can, but the agency stresses that they like to avoid situations where a a client locks and then unlocks a files, as that means they won’t have access to it for another 15 days.
They feel that this is the most ethical way of doing things, but when it comes to the shared list–especially during the initial rush–I’m not how effective it is. But I’m not sure how pro-active they really want to be with the shared list, anyway.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Couldn’t agree more, RQ. It’s critical that these agencies monitor themselves, act ethically and responsibly, and play by CC**’s rules. We certainly do not want to give CC** a reason to shut the door on IA entirely. While I think the shared list (as it is supposed to work) is more fair to more people. Today, I’m very grateful for my agency’s designated list. Finding our DS was the least stressful part of our journey to date. My heart goes out to those who are open to adopting SN, but who are still having to wait because of this nonsense.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:36 am
RQ – Bravo!
You have said what many have thought but have been too afraid to say.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Totally agree with RQ and Hopingfor08 on this one and am so glad that this is finally being addressed out in the open!
Thank you!!!
Steph
January 30th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
RQ, thank you for this insightful post. It also highlights the reason why NSN parents get so incredibly frustrated when people on the forum say they should just switch to the SN program and they’ll bring their child home faster, and that there are plenty of minor AYAP children on the shared list and they just need to tell their agency that they’re open to that, and that they should “just switch agencies” if their current agency isn’t working to match them. I think it’s really important for people who had an easy time getting a SN referral to understand that others in the NSN line likely won’t have such an easy time and it’s frustrating to be constantly told that we should just switch to the SN program.
Additionally, some agencies like mine find the shared list to be unethical and so they don’t participate in it. That means that they get very few minor SN’s on their designated list, which for many people is all they can handle. However, if your agency has a SN program of any kind, you cannot switch to an agency who does participate in the shared list program, even if you learn through the grapevine who those magic agencies are. The only way to switch to an agency just to participate in their shared list program is to completely close your file and completely open a new one. That is both costly and impossible for people who don’t meet the post-May 07 requirements.
Honestly I think the most fair system would be to have the CCAA do the SN matching. More work for them? Sure, but it’s not like they’re matching hundreds and hundreds of NSN files anymore. The fact is, as long as the agencies are making the decision, there will always be the possibility of CCAA favoritism as far as which children go to which agencies, and will always be instances of existing families being overlooked in favor of bringing in new money. That will always happen as long as it’s the agencies who do the matching. I just don’t think it could ever possibly be fair for everyone when the agencies are in control of matching.
January 30th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Great point Zgirl on the locking. Our agency works this way as well (or they did back in May 08 when we locked our DD’s file). In fact, we had to email them a signed statement by us that we had spoken to doctors who were prepared to tell us what to realistically expect with our DD’s listed SNs. Our agency would NOT allow us to place her file on lock until we did this.
I don’t know how they handled minor SN locks, but our DD’s needs were not minor (unrepaired heart and unrepaired CL/CP). I think our agency requiring us to do that was very responsible on their part, not just for our sake but for our DD’s sake as well.
January 30th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I am so glad to see this being addressed!! I am tired and frustrated with families getting kids while they have not even began the paper chasing process- It is not fair.
Those of us waiting, with DTC/LID in place should be given priority- I hate to be that way, but it is how it should be.
January 30th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Most of you already know how I feel. I do believe change is a coming.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
LouiseMe, I agree with you. In fact it used to be an option to have the C*C* match you directly with your child–just as in an NSN referral, but expedited–way way back 100 years ago in 2005. And probably for a couple of years more than that. This is how we were matched with our daughter Kathryn. We were already LID NSN and simply did an addendum to our HS approving us for SN and wrote a new letter to C*C*letting them know which needs we were comfortable with, age range, and yes, gender, etc. They could not have made a more perfect match for us!!!
With Sarah, she was on our agency-designated list and we sent LOI and then paperchased for her. Of course, I do agree that with the Shared List, they should NOT be skipping over those LID already to attract new clients. That is just wrong on so many levels, imo.
Ah for the good old days of the SN program…
Ash2008,I hope that you are right and that change for the better is coming!
Steph
January 30th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I agree with the VAST majority of what you said. However, I do take issue with the idea that you have to be logged in before a referral or that people who have much earlier LID’s should be given priority over you. The reason I say this is that my husband and I have adopted 2 SN children from China. We knew that we wanted an SN child, we committed to parenting a SN child, and we never looked for anything other than a SN child from the very beginning. We showed our enthusiasm for the SN program from the moment that we signed our first piece of paperwork. We never intended to or wanted to login as NSN.
So, why then should we be bumped to the back of the line in favor of people who have been logged in for 3+ years and could have accepted a SN referral at any time? That just does not sound fair to me. Say, for instance, we joined our agency in October and then in November & December 20 of their NSN families decided to switch… should that make us 21st on the list to get a referral? I don’t think that sounds quite right.
I agree with the theory that old NSN LID’s should be referred SN children in order of their LID dates. But, I think that repect should be paid to those parents who committed to SN children from the beginning.
(As a note we adopted our children from agency lists and we were not LID either time before we accepted our referral. Both of our children would have been passed over had they been on the shared list and we could have gotten referred to them easily. So, this argument really does not apply to me. But, I can see other families like us- people who have adopted SN multiple times- getting pretty screwed over by an LID date rule and I think that is wrong)
January 30th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
We started this whole adoption process 2 years ago. We joined the SN list last year and have been waiting for our little one ever since. Yes, we too are very frustrated. We have read the stories of the people that just joined the SN list and then three days later they were matched. We had to keep saying to ourself what is going on here, how are these people getting matched so quickly? Something doesn’t seem right…
I have been given information on children with SN from the shared list before and told by our agency that they could not lock a file until we were READY to move forward, even though the child matched our specifications to our special needs check list. It’s like well okay…but what about having the medical file checked out, having time to discuss it with your spouse etc…etc…you are almost expected to run around like a chicken without a head and see if you can round up doctors to get the all clear on their medical and also from the time they lock the file you have 48 hours to submit your LOI to the CCAA for that child. Imagine what you would go through if it was on a weekend, where on earth would you find a physician then (unless you have one in the family or a friend)?
I was advised by our agency that this is the only way they can do this and that agencies out there are not following the CCAA guidelines, but our agency will NOT lock a file until the family is ready to commit, so of course that means that you can get a call on a child and an hour later they can be gone. I thought this was crazy myself and why can’t you lock the file to give us time to think on it and get our doctors approval. Again, they reiterated the fact that the CCAA will NOT allow them to lock the file until the family is ready to commit and move forward. Then again we only know what we are told…
In response to agencies locking multiple files with the same family name…don’t you think the CCAA would see this and question it? Things just don’t add up,but who knows…nothing in this whole adoption process has made sense to me so far.
I am hoping that this pays off with a great reward in the end, the day we finally have OUR daughter and are meeting her for the first time on gotcha day!
For all of us that are still waiting..I guess we just have to have faith and someday it will be our turn. In the mean time I will keep thinking of the Miley Cyrus song…”The Climb”. Life’s a climb you learn as you go….
January 30th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Hi,
I don’t think that change will ever happen, mild and moderate SN’s and AYAP babies will always be in the shared list too, because many countries do not have agencies, their intercountry adoption services do the matchings and they only have access to the shared list.
It would be very unfair if all the younger easier to match children would end up in agency only lists, who by the way no way would accept to release a file for a family overseas.
I think the answer is having a lock in the shared list where files only get locked with the family surname and LID, and the database recuses to lock another file when that name/LID is being used, and after matchings the CCAA would retrieve that family data from the DB and families not LID couldn’t even think of trying to be matched.
The efford should be in having all families LID before giving them access to matching, children should not have to wait ridiculous amounts of time when it is not absolutely necessary.
CookieM.
January 30th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Or the CCAA would bring the matchings into their own hands, just like they do with NSN’s children.
CookieM.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I wonder if the JCICS knows what these agencies are doing. It’s so unethical. I heard from my agency the last time something like this happened that CCAA closed those agencies down for doing that. The fact that more money is being offered to speed up their process, I think a lot of us would be willing to do that since we’ve been waiting 3+ years for our children if it meant we wouldn’t have to wait much longer. But the fact that people are getting their children, especially the much younger children before even being logged in is completely and totally unfair and these agencies should be ashamed of themselves. These poor children who keep waiting and waiting.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Also, I read on their web site JCICS that you can file a complaint with them about an agency who is doing unethical things regarding adoptions. I hope someone has done this.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
This is so frustrating to read as it stirs many emotions that I’ve had to battle for many, many months. LouiseMe, I couldn’t agree more. It is very frustrating and I hate hearing that comment/question from others about “just switching” to SN. We inquired about it awhile back with our agency and concluded, for other reason, not just time-frame, that we’re where we should be (NSN). I certainly don’t agree with the whole rush-rush of it all either or that it could be….it’s almost become a competition. No thanks. As far as timing, we would probably get our referral sooner than we would in SN and we’re still probably three years away!! With our agency, there are families that have been on the SN list for over two years still waiting. After 3-1/2 years, it’s hard to see over and over again so many go ahead of us….and yet they wait close to a year or more to even bring their child home. Our battle isn’t accepting or not accepting “SN”, it’s the system behind it, so yes, it’s frustrating when we hear the “plea” to switch….
RQ, I agree about things being figured out as they go and trust improvements will be made. Thanks for this great post and for all that you do to keep me hanging on.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Thank you so much for highlighting this issue in such clear & in depth detail RQ.
IMO, CCAA will likely be looking at ways to continually upgrade & streamline the SN program as more countries start to participate. Making the list an equal as possible to all countries is something many of us not living in America hope for big time.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I agree with the idea of requiring an LID for a specific period of time, perhaps 4 – 7 days, then making the files available to those with out an LID. This supports getting the children in a home faster.
Requiring an LID doesn’t have to mean in LID order, and I don’t think it should either. Why should someone in the NSN program with an earlier LID be higher on the list than someone who has been waiting in the SN program already. I agree with the way my agency does it. Your order on the SN list is the order in which you “sign-up” for the program. They ask that people not review files until they have completed their dossier. However, if there are children that haven’t been locked or are on their agency list and haven’t been matched with someone with an LID, then they open up to those still paperchasing. If there is no one who is currently a client who wants to submit an LOI, then they can allow new clients to consider agency list files.
It is very fair to me.
The CCAA should be able to fix the “workarounds” some have found for the system. I hope they address this issue soon. It is truly disgusting that an agency has locked files without even having the clients when other agencies have families waiting and ready to go.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
WaitingforKatie,
Our agency is brand new to the SN program and they echo what your agency says. They were told directly by the CCAA that they were not to lock a file unless a family was committed to that child. Not just a child that meets their specifications, etc. They have also stated that they realize that this means any other agency can lock a file prior to a family being ready, but they are committed to following the directions and rules as were told to them by the CCAA.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
bailey, well said and I think a very fair way for all.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I would also like to add, that I don’t think the CCAA should do the matching. They can make the system fair with some rules and by improving their software system. It shouldn’t be that hard to do. I worry that if the CCAA does the matching fewer families will participate because they won’t have the opportunity to say no to a file. At least with a more fair but similar system families can feel comfortable reviewing a file knowing it isn’t their only chance. For some it is a process. We reviewed a few files (no pictures) at different times – unlocked. We locked one and got a doctor’s review and decided not to submit an LOI. We submitted and LOI for the second one we locked about a month later. We were much more confident after being able to do this. I don’t know if we would go back for a second child if the CCAA does the matching.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Bailey, your agency may be doing things fairly, but as this blog post abundantly shows, not all agencies are doing things fairly. It can only be fair when the agencies are not in control of the matching.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I have a real problem with comments that bring words like “ethical” and “fair” into discussions like this.
When I hear words like these, my instinct is to scratch beneath the surface to see what is motivating those comments. Often I find that creative, innovative and smart people have figured out something that would work better for them, and then the people who were left behind because they were not creative, innovative and smart, use words like “ethical” and “fair” to argue against the use of these new techniques.
We can talk about “fairness” and “ethics” all we want, but the objective of the program is, and should be, to find the best possible home and environment for the children to grow up in. To that end, CCAA has implemented a set of rules and guidelines. Apparently there are some agencies that are creative, innovative and/or smart, and are therefore able to provide service to their clients in a way that is better and/or faster than some other agencies.
Should someone be able to move up in the line faster because they have more money? I think the people whose automatic reflex is to say “no” and then cite “fairness” and “ethics” should step down from their soapbox for a minute to think of the children. The objective of the program is not to help “western” couples build their families. The objective is to find the best homes for the children. Therefore, what may or may not be “fair” to the prospective parents is irrelevant.
The minimum income required to adopt from China is $10,000 per person in the household. Can a family with an income of $300,000 provide better for a child than one with an income of $30,000? All other things being equal, the answer unquestionably is yes. Of course all other things are not necessarily equal, but the balance of probabilities seem obvious to me.
Come on people…stop creating false arguments based upon false premises. If someone can make an argument about why the SN children in the orphanages would be better off if CCAA were to change their policies about locking files, I would be interested to read about it. But I am not interested in hearing arguments about why the rules should be this way or that way on the basis of which group of parents the change might give advantage to.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I should re-word my last post. What I meant to say was that my agency has stated they realize other agencies ARE locking files prior to a commitment from a family. It is their understanding, that this goes against CCAA procedure as it was told to them. They will not lock a file for a family until that family has reviewed the file, and was committed to adopting that child.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
There are plenty of families committed up front to the SN program, still waiting due to agencies unfairly *locking* files on kids, while not having paper ready families. This practice is unethical on every level.
Children that are not *paper ready* are not allowed to be internationally adopted- why should parents not *paper ready* be allowed referrals?
I am glad that my agency sticks by the rules. I hope that the CCAA does take a good look at this!
January 30th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
ndirish, I get what you’re saying totally. For us, we too went SN from the beginning back in 2007. Here’s the thing though: A LOT has changed since then with many more PAPs with 2006/2007 LIDs coming to the SN program. And I think that is a GOOD, GODD thing, and I would hate for them to all be discouraged and think negatively of the SN program b/c of the way it is going right now.
We waited 8 MONTHS from joining our agency’s SN family list, 5 MONTHS from LID for our DD. Now, we would not wait at all to be matched to a child listed with the needs she was listed with. That is how many more children CCAA is referring and that is a good thing too.
FYI: DD has heart defects and CL/CP, and both were unrepaired at referral and when she came home.
THERE ARE MANY children with these needs JUST WAITING for their families. These needs ARE VERY MANAGEABLE. PLEASE PM me if you have any questions.
I still think there needs to be changes and that priority should be given to those with earlier LIDs. Just my 2 cents. I thought that when we got in line in 2007 and I still think it is the way to go now. It just makes the most sense and seems most fair. I have said this before, but b/c of the wait we knew SN was the way for us to go in 2007. Had we logged in 2006 or before, I doubt we would have taken a second glance at it. I am not proud of that, but it is the truth. So I feel those who did log in 2006/2007 should still be first in line.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I agree that agencies no matter who they are or where they are located need to follow the CCAA rules. If they don’t adhere and the CCAA gets wind of it when the agencies that are following the rules start to complain they will crack down on the protocol. They have to right to change things at any given time. These agencies that aren’t doing the right thing could end up causing a problem and ruining the SN program that is in place. If they don’t change their ways then the CCAA may take over.
WNCwait..I agree..it should be parents that are paper ready for these kiddos should be able to apply for them. The SN families should not be able to view the SN list or have anything available to them until their dossier is registered in China. That way things are ready to start rolling..if someone is just starting their process it could be 7 months before they even get their approval from the government for the I 800A and then the whole wait after they put in their LOI and everything……all I can say is ..what a mess!!!!
January 30th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I know there are a lot of variables that will determine your wait time with the sn program like what type of sn you are open to (the more severe sn you are open to, the quicker you are likely to get matched). But it seems like some folks wait over a year in the sn line and others are matched in a week. I can’t believe it when I read things like, “I signed up for the sn program last Tuesday and we were matched today!” Something seemed “off” and I guess this may explain it. Although it could be due to a family being open to a severe sn as I understand there are many kids sitting on the list who have been waiting for a long time because they have a more severe sn. And if you are open to one of these kids the match would indeed be immediate versus someone who is only open to a very minor sn. Thanks RQ for explaining this process.
January 30th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I saw a blog yesterday of a family who applied to adopt for the first time and the day they applied and had not even had their paperwork completed were already called and told about a young baby that they had available so the day they got a referral of a SN child that very next day they sent their LOI and they don’t even have a LID. So someone who has been waiting for 3+ years with a 2006/2007 LID should be able to have first pick, not people who are not even paper ready. THAT IS NOT RIGHT.
January 30th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
We are in process for our 3rd SN adoption. We went SN from the beginning on each adoption and wouldn’t change a thing. All three children were on designated lists and all 3 had been waiting for some time. We did not have a LID at the time we found any of the three of our youngest children. I agree with those who say that families who choose SN from the beginning should not be put behind those who have had LID’s for a long time. There have been children waiting during that time that could have been considered. HOWEVER, there has to be consistency of some kind for those parents who have been waiting SOOOOO long in the NSN line if they decide to pursue SN.
The SN program is such a wonderful way to build a family and I absolutely HATE seeing agencies disregard the rules that have been clearly stated. I think their disregard for the rules really damages the SN program. I do wish there was an easier way to get info to PAP’s about the way the SN process works. I don’t think a lot of agencies do a very good job explaining all the possibilities because, at times, it could mean less “business” for them.
Please don’t be discouraged if you have switched to SN or are thinking about it. Come on over to the SN discussion room and you can bet that there are plenty of us willing to answer any questions…I can promise you that our answers will be more truthful and more informative than many answers you get from agencies! :)
I did see it reported by someone in the SN forum that there are currently close to 900 children on the shared list right now. There just has to be a better way to find homes for these children.
January 30th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
NumberCruncherSays, I’d hardly say that those agencies who have found “creative, innovative and/or smart” ways to hit Enter on the keyboard faster equals having found “the best possible home and environment for the child”.
No other words….but I know it’s time to step away from all of this. Off to date night, have a great weekend everyone and congrats to all the soon-to-be-referred!
January 30th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
it used to be agency-only dedicated lists. agencies would have three months to place the child. if they couldn’t place the files were returned and set to another agency and so on. this did not work well for the children because a limited number of families at a time could view them. thus the idea for the multiple agency listings.
IMO, they should go back to agency-dedicated lists but the agencies have ONE WEEK (instead of three months) to place a child and then rather than going to another agency the child gets place on the MA list. that way agencies fairly have a week to place the children then can. every child would start out on an agency dedicated list and if an LOI was not submitted for them within a week they automatically moved to the multiple-agency list.
as far as why is it fair when you’ve wanted SN all along and NSN people are switching. do you realize that some people have been in the NSN/SN program from the beginning? our agency doesn’t have one or the other. we have been in the SN program for close to three years without a match. children are matched ALL THE TIME that meet our criteria. to people who are not DTC.
i don’t see how anyone who is not lid yet would even WANT to be matched? why wouldn’t you want to wait until you were lid? why would you want to be matched and then have that child wait months and months more for you? how is that fair? there are delays and circumstances out of a families control that can cause delays. i have seen families matched who are not lid for another YEAR. that’s an extra YEAR that that child waited for a family. how on earth is that fair to that child?
January 30th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
That’s why I think when JCICS finds out this practice is occurring among a couple agencies I think those agencies are going to have a problem. I agree with you that those families who aren’t LID and LOI for a child those children have to wait months and months when a family already with a LID can go within a few months or less to get their child. Why should those children have to wait any longer than they already have to.
January 30th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
We’ve adopted three times from China, all SN. We were not LID when we were matched for any of our adoptions. l must say, I marvel when I look at the shared lists, and see many children who do have minor special needs. For the most part though, they are boys or older children. I always think it odd that westerners criticize China for not wanting girls when apparently so many of us don’t want boys. For out first adoption, we did adopt a “minor” SN child. For the next two, we looked at the lists and fell in love with children with “major” SNs – SNs we never thought we could handle. We did the research, and committed to those children. We had not been planning to adopt so soon when we did. I didn’t really think bringing home 3 children in 2 years was possible, but I guess it is. If we had not had access to the list without an LID, we would never have started paperchasing for numbers 2 and 3. People without an LID should definitely have access to the SN lists. I know if we go to adopt again, we will be matched before we are LID, b/c we are willing to deal with a “major”, common, SN that has multiple children waiting on every list.
January 30th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Noendinsight-I understand what you are saying, but consider this situation. There is a child who has been waiting and does not have anyone considering her file, or those who have considered it have not been able to commit to that child. Then someone is looking at the lists, or actually in our case, see this child featured in the Rainbow Kids newsletter as a hard to place child. The family is not planning to adopt again at the time, but sees that child. They are drawn to the child and find out that they think their family is a wonderful fit for that child. The family is willing to commit to this child, but was not actively searching for a child, so does not want, and cannot really afford, to take a chance on getting all the paperwork done without knowing they have pre-approval for the child. It is then necessary to start the paperwork from scratch. I think this is a situation that happens more than one would think. There just can’t be a blanket statement saying a family must be LID before sending in a letter-of-intent. Lots of children would be left without their families if that were the case—how is that fair?
January 30th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Please, try to read what I wrote.
I’m suggesting that children only be open to those already with a LID for three or four days, and then be opened up so those without a LID may commit to them.
Think about it – if a child needs surgery, is it better for someone to commit to the child if they can be in China in three or four months… or if they aren’t going to be able to get to China for a year? Even if the child has already had surgery and “only” needs the rehab to go with the surgery – the sooner they start getting whatever they need medically, the better. Are we really arguing about that? Seriously?
January 30th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
I agree with what Rumor Queen is saying.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
hoping44 – you make a good point. i can see being matched prior to being LID if you aren’t planning on adopting and finding the right child.
however, i completely agree with RQ – the child should have the opportunity to find a family with a LID family FIRST. and a reasonable amount to do that.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Our agency did not do who was LID first but rather went by when you signed up for SN and if you were LID. So if you had a later LID but had already signed up for SN then you were in line before someone with an older LID but who had just signed up for SN. Of course it also depended on what you were open to as far as SN and age and gender etc. I thought the way they did it was very fair!!! I haven’t liked what I have seen the past few weeks and I hope it changes!!!
January 30th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
If a child is featured on the Rainbow Kids newsletter, they have had multiple chances for their family to find them and it hasn’t happened. That’s why they are featured.
RQ-I agree with what you are saying completely. The sooner kids can be home with a family the better. But I don’t agree as some have suggested that a family shouldn’t be able to send in an LOI without a LID…period. There are some agencies who require that a family have a LID before an LOI can be submitted. I know of one that I can look at right now who has part of the shared list posted and a dedicated list with children who have been waiting a loooooong time. Families without a LID should be able to send in an LOI for those children.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
NumberCruncher – words fail me. The rules are put in place for a reason. “Creatively” getting around them is wrong, and it leads to accusations of “baby buying”, and other really nasty terms. You may have convinced yourself with those arguments, but you won’t convince anyone else.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I’ve only commented in the forum before this, but I felt I had to reply to this one. We are LID 9/27/09. We sent our SN checklist into our agency on 1/15/10. We were open to SN from the start, but felt it would be best to complete our dossier FIRST. Apparently, trying to be prepared and organized was the wrong bet. We were told by our agency that 250 waiting families were ahead of us, and that it would be 18-24 months to be matched. Families are in line based on when their medical checklist is received with no consideration to dossier completion. What if there is a hold up on the completion of a family’s dossier even if they are LOI? Is that child hung out to dry? We could leave for China at a moment’s notice, giving a child minimal wait time as opposed to causing them to wait longer for paperwork. It took us 7 months to complete our dossier. I would hate to make any child wait that additional amount of time. I believe priority should be given to LID families first.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Number Cruncher, Are you kidding me??? Do you really think that jsut because soemone makes 300.000 dollars they would be better able to take care of their child than the one who makes 30,000? That comment is totally offensive to me and I am sure others. we make not much more than the 30,000 needed yet because we live within our means and our over head is affordable I have been able to take a 2 year unpaid leave of absence from my job to stay home with our DD. I know many people whose income is a lot more than ours who can not, by their own words, not work. We have an excellent insurance plan which will pay ANY of her medical problems. She has a house over her head which we are NOT in danger of losing and although both my husband and my jobs are not that high paying they are secure. So yes you have to make enough money to provide the basics, but anything over that….does not make a person a better parent!!!
January 30th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
wow…I’m always amazed at how heated these discussions get and how “fair” is a word that is alway tossed around….there is no “fair” when it comes to international adoption. Face it people, you can not create enough rules or legislate this process enough to please people…ever! There will always been someone out there breaking the rules (name me one rule in this world that hasn’t been broken). I feel that people who desperately want children suddenly decide that it should be a fair process….yeah ask the woman who has infertility issues how “fair” it is that her 17 year old neighbor is pregnant with child #3…there is no fair. If you are concerned about your agency and how the special needs are being placed….talk to them, report them or move to another agency…..what more can be said. No amount of rules or layers to the process will ever make it “fair.”
MBS
January 30th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
hoping44 – that’s part of the problem – that’s not true if a child is featured in RK they have had chances to find a family. Martha who runs it works very hard at making sure that’s the case, but one agency in particular has managed to lock files of children BEFORE any other agency sees them and posts them on RK. they have been removed, but it’s happening. that’s part of the issue RQ is posting about.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
No one ever said life was fair. That’s not the point. What we’re trying to talk about is ethical adoption. Don’t confuse the issues. When more money makes a big difference in where you are in line, it’s not an ethical adoption. When agencies are allowing families who have not had a single home study to commit to a child but they are skipping over the dozens of clients who are paper ready who could be in China ASAP, then the children are no longer the focus.
Why is this concept so difficult for some of you to understand?
January 30th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
NumberCruncher – words fail me too. you can’t possibly be serious.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
rumorqueen asks: “Why is this concept so difficult for some of you to understand?”
it’s difficult to understand to the people that are okay with unethical practices while refusing to admit they are unethical. it’s a difficult concept to understand, with people who break the rules or have had the rules broken for for them. after all they’ve benefited at the expense of others…including the children.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Well.. yeah.. when you put it that way, I guess it makes a little more sense.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
We wanted a boy and SN’s. This was back in 2005. At that time if you were LID for SN’s, then you were given first preference. We were not LID, but there weren’t any families interested in a 41/2 year old boy. Lucky for us though.
However, just after 2006 they changed everything. They picked the best families for the children on the WC list.
You petitioned. It was terrible. On their forum there was so much competition for the YAP girls with minor needs, which they did receive as part of the WC list. There were hurt feelings, jealousies etc. I found out that the person responible for SN’s decisions was actually giving preference to friends and family members. It was a total mess.
The agency has since closed.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Noendinsight is right with regards to this part of his/her post:
“i don’t see how anyone who is not lid yet would even WANT to be matched? why wouldn’t you want to wait until you were lid? why would you want to be matched and then have that child wait months and months more for you? how is that fair? there are delays and circumstances out of a families control that can cause delays. i have seen families matched who are not lid for another YEAR. that’s an extra YEAR that that child waited for a family. how on earth is that fair to that child?”
Speaking from personal experience, NEIS is right…it is extremely hard knowing that your child is waiting for YOU to become ready to come and get them. We were matched off of an agency list before we were DTC and though we hurried as fast as we could, our paperwork got caught up in the worst USCIS office in the country and there wasn’t a stinking thing we could do about it. So our daughter sat and waited and waited while we waited for the stupid USCIC office worker to get to our file. We ended up having a congressman get involved and got our I71H the very next day. All told, it took us 9 months from seeing our daughter’s face on the agency list to holding her in our arms. That 9 month wait was excruciating for us and many times we questioned whether it was the best thing for our daughter to have to wait for us. She’s been home with us for over 19 months now and is an incredible addition to our family, but I wouldn’t do it the same way again if we were going to adopt again.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
This is my 1st time to comment here, but it was one that I couldn’t stay away from. We have been home for 6 months now with our daughter who we received through the SN list from a very ethical agency.
I have seen this trend of locking multiple children for one family more lately and it hasn’t sat well with me either. As I read the posts here, everyone seems to be attacking the agencies participating in this practice. This is going to hack some people off, but there are good people going to those agencies out of desperation and its time that they place their moral compass above their fears. The people who go to those agencies are as accountable for their actions as the agencies themselves. Perhaps if their business ran dry, they would change their practices. My hope is that waiting parents could hold themselves to a higher standard and not hide behind the practices of their agency.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:24 am
numbercruncher..REALLY??? I can’t believe your comment, you also offended me as well as others…..you are missing the whole point here and bringing money into play. You have to fill out the application before even being accepted into the adoption program (or at least that is how our agency started our process) then the process starts from that point once you get the approval. As long as the family meets the standard requirements for China’s income policy that is all that matters.
I think the whole point is being missed…What is happening here is that the CCAA has rules in place and guidelines they want followed. It seems that some agencies are not following the rules that are set. The agencies should adhere to the specific guidelines, and the other issue is that the families who are not even DTC or LID are getting referrals and this makes the child wait longer.
I have to agree with RQ on this one, if your child that you are matched with is sick and needs surgery and/or follow up care that little child will be waiting two to three times longer for their family to come and get them than a family who is already has a LID and all paperwork is current.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:31 am
Noendinsight said:
“i don’t see how anyone who is not lid yet would even WANT to be matched? why wouldn’t you want to wait until you were lid? why would you want to be matched and then have that child wait months and months more for you? how is that fair?”
Well I can answer that one. For DD, we were LID before we were matched with her. Her file had been locked an unlocked NUMEROUS times on the shared listing. Her file was placed in April 08; we did not get called until May 08, and her file had been there waiting for 6 weeks!!! So, not ALL families are open to children with “severe” needs, which is how many people classify children with the same needs as our DD (heart defects and CL/CP, both unrepaired at referral and adoption)
As for our waiting son, his file had sat at our agency for 6 MONTHS, and NOT ONE FAMILY had looked until us. Our agency is very conservative, RULE FOLLOWERS to a T but they allowed us to look at 6 months post-placement for DD b/c of the lack of interest. Also, he has heart disease and so they felt we would be a good match since we already have a great relationship with a peds. cardiologist. Having said all of that, our agency DID NOT allow us to submit LOI until we had a completed HS that had been sent to USCIS. We were LID within 6 weeks of our LOI. Not all agencies do the LOI months to a year before DTC; ours won’t allow this at all.
noend also said: “i have seen families matched who are not lid for another YEAR. that’s an extra YEAR that that child waited for a family. how on earth is that fair to that child?”
Well, I think it is better for a child to be matched with their family than to not be matched at all. Is that fair? No one was standing in a line to adopt children like our DD or our waiting son. Both fall into the harder-to-place category which simply blows my mind. But to each his or her own.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:41 am
hopingfor08 – no one is speaking to your situation. They are speaking of children who have plenty of people already logged in who would be thrilled to commit to that child. They are speaking of situations where there is a choice between logged in and not-yet-logged-in.
I think we all agree that once a child has been on a list for a while with no one committing to them then they should be open for someone who may still be working towards becoming paper ready.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:54 am
Rumor Queen is right about once a child has been on a list for awhile with no one committing to them then they should be open for someone who still maybe working on becoming paper ready. But the people with LID should be given first preference or first pick since they would be able to get to the child faster than a family who is not paper ready.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:28 am
But you all missed my point I think.
I talk to people off-line all the time who have no idea the various needs of the children just WAITING. They also have many misperceptions about what the reality is for those children.
I totally agree people with LID should be given priority and said that earlier in the thread. At our agency, that is exactly how it works. I went back and read the SN booklet sent out to clients and this CLEARLY stated. They take LID into consideration first when matching, and I think this is the way it should be done. They also make it clear that other factors determine waits such as SNs of children made available, families’ personal checklists and those of the other families waiting with them, and application date to SN family list of agency.
I just think the face of the SN program is changing too b/c many of the families now switching with 2006/2007 LIDs are the ones most likely to only be open to AYAP girls with only minor needs. No flames please; just stating what I think. May or may not be a fact, but based on the recent threads about why boys of 8 months of age sit on the shared listing with only need of CL/CP while a girl of same age and Sn would be in a “frenzy” … like I said, just what I think that majority of those just now switching are open to AYAP girl with minor needs.
The frenzy everyone talks about is only for a SMALL, SMALL NUMBER of the actual available children.
January 31st, 2010 at 8:55 am
NumberCruncher – the comment about about those making $300 vs $30 making better parents just blows my mind. Of course you did say “provide” (rather than parent) which I can assume to mean buy more, which is true. However, buying more does not make better parents. I can certainly say that the things my son has needed most since coming home from China have had nothing to do with money. As a matter of fact, we try to view the effect of the economy on my husband’s business (screeching halt) as a blessing in disguise. As hard as the it has been to tighten our belts, the amount of time DH and DS had together the first year was absolutely priceless. DH already looks back on it and is so thankful that he had that time.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
hopingfor08,
You are saying exactly what I was trying to say, except that I evidently was not making myself very clear.
The absolutely beautiful, precious little one who reached out from the Rainbow Kids newsletter and grabbed our hearts had been waiting for some time. There is not a frenzy for kids who will most likely need bilateral amputations at the knee once they are home.
I’m not saying that anyone should take on a need that they are not prepared to handle. I’m not saying that it’s ok for agencies to do unethical things. I’m not even saying that everything can or should be “fair”. My point is that this “frenzy” is over just a VERY FEW of the wonderful children who need homes.
There doesn’t have to be this competition, or LID discussions, or any of the so called frenzy. As a very blessed mom of 3 of the kids who were not a part of the competition, it just seems that some people are saying, “I want so badly to have a child” and there are hundreds of children on the shared list saying “Here I am, consider me”, and most people are looking at them saying, “Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean you, I meant the ones who don’t really seem like they have a special need”.
My intent is not to offend anyone. I’m just speaking from my own perspective.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
***
it just seems that some people are saying, “I want so badly to have a child” and there are hundreds of children on the shared list saying “Here I am, consider me”, and most people are looking at them saying, “Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean you, I meant the ones who don’t really seem like they have a special need”.
***
many of the families now switching with 2006/2007 LIDs are the ones most likely to only be open to AYAP girls with only minor needs.
***
I totally agree with this !!! It’s a sad thing this is happening and in that way I can understand that some people think the shared list is unethical.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Sounds like some agencies are treating the list more like a puppy mill than a list of children who are waiting for forever families. Corruption takes many forms.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:05 am
2qts4me… I so agree about the “Petition Process”. I sent in a petition – not having a clue that I was “competing against” other families as I was “out of the loop”. I look back and see that picking our petition was strictly a “business decision” for my agency. IT was/is a horrid process.
In fact, I agree that the entire SN program is flawed. I don’t have the answer, I just know what I experienced and what I witnessed speaks volumes to a very flawed system.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
numbercruncher— absolutely unbelievable. I cannot believe anyone actually thinks that someone should be able to fork over more money to gain an advantage of any kind in adoption. Do I think someone making way more money per year as a parenting advantage- ABSOLUTELY NOT. That’s just a horribly offensive thought. Someone who would pay more money to gain an advantage has some serious character flaws. I never cease to be surprised by some people.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:05 am
Dear RQ, thanks for this most insightful post !!!!!
I must say all of it makes me terribly sick.
In our country, the only agency that does SN has been working on dedicated lists for years. They refused to participate in the shared list.
Anyway, I hope for the program’ sake, that CCAA will adress these dramatic issues very quicky.
RQ, you say “either CCAA is playing favorites again and allowing special privileges for a few agencies”.
Has CCAA played favorites in the past?? Could you be more precise?
Thanks
Best regards