Tag Archives: China program updates

The Price of the Orphanage “Donation”

In December 2017, the CCCWA issued an official statement regarding the customary orphanage donation. It stated that the donation should be voluntary, that parents can designate how it is used, they could “come to an agreement” with the orphanage on the donation, and that agencies should not interfere or influence parents regarding the donation. You can read the statement here.

Although I have been meaning to put up a specific post on the donation that could be shared, I didn’t immediately do so. One reason is that it’s always important to see how these things play out rather than to jump to conclusions. I was hoping that it would be followed up by the CCCWA instating a standard fee for orphanage support that would be paid to a centralized entity to distribute. Another reason is that I have strong feelings on the subject but I strive to write as neutrally as possible so I wanted to give myself time to reflect a bit.

However, yesterday an agency notified families that the Tianjin SWI has informed them that they will no longer prepare files for international adoption because so many families have not made any donation when adopting. This has set off widespread online discussion which revealed a lot of misunderstandings about the orphanage donation. I want this post to try to answer as many questions as possible so that people will feel confident they are doing the right thing by continuing to donate the customary amount.

 

If China said we don’t have to pay the donation anymore, why would they be mad if we chose not to pay it?

The CCCWA is the central authority governing adoption in China. However, orphanages are individually run. It is a similar set up to how the US Department of Education oversees all of education but your local school is run by your state by tax dollars you pay in your city or county. Orphanages in large cities typically are better off than those in impoverished rural areas. It is the CCCWA which made this decision without consulting the local orphanages, or even giving them advance notice of it. Orphanages plan on having a set amount being donated per adoption. That rug was suddenly pulled out from under them.

 

But why would orphanages stop preparing files even if people don’t donate. We’re saving them money by taking these kids off their hands!

Meredith Toering, who runs Morning Star, a charitable organization which works with orphanages in China, gave a wonderful response to this question. She explains exactly what is involved in file preparation. I have received her permission to post her words on my blog. I spelled out a few words she abbreviated for clarity.

I run Morning Star, a foster home in Beijing, and this topic has been devastating me. I was at this specific SWI [orphanage] last week checking on a child, and have been in the middle of discussions with several SWIs that I currently have children in my home from right now. I have been asking them to please start to prepare the paperwork for these kids, because I realized the orphanages had stopped reaching out to ME about paperwork needed to complete files for most of the kids.

In at least 3 specific cases with separate orphanages that I have spoken to, they have told me that they no longer want to prepare files for international adoption because “the cost and the time is no longer worth it”. There are hundreds, if not thousands of babies in orphanages. The government pays a stipend depending on how many children are in the orphanage at any given time. Quite simply: many orphanages are struggling for funds, and financially — they need that stipend for EVERY child. They lose money when they lose a child to adoption. It’s a broken scenario, but that’s the deal.

Second: it costs a substantial amount for a child’s file to be created. It is so much more than just the little check off box. There are notary fees and document shipping fees and authentication fees, and on and on and on. NOT TO MENTION ANYTHING MEDICAL. Every echocardiogram, every test, every CT or MRI or scrap of medical info that we are all so desperately looking for in those files? That all comes out of pocket from the SWI paying hospitals for those tests for the kids. Things are cheaper in China, yes. But that can easily be hundreds of dollars.

Third: it is a ridiculous, genuine hassle for orphanages to prepare this paperwork. I know because I/we have to do just a small part of it when the orphanages ask us for information and paperwork for the children we are fostering to include in their files. There is schlepping all over town to get the pictures that you need… the right documents… finding the right person who can give the right signature at the right time. Scheduling all the appointments and taking the time to fill out all those forms. It is an entire job… and they are trying to do it for child after child after child, and now seeing that the result is NOT worth all their effort.

Maybe your child didn’t receive the best care in the orphanage… maybe you think the director is going to misuse and mishandle the money. Maybe so. As with any charitable donation, once the funds are out of your hands — given — it is technically out of your control. What I have seen, more times than not, is that the orphanages are trying the very best they can with the resources that they have.

Many times, people have donated here on the other side to fund OUR adoptions, and they don’t get to specify where the money goes, how it will be used… whether or not you choose to upgrade to economy plus or tack on a trip to HK Disney or eat the nice Western meal while in China or whatever it may be. Those choices aren’t questioned and we aren’t called out by the adoption community to give a detailed account of how each and every dollar that was donated to us was spent because of the gift of the benefit of the doubt, trusting that we hold the best interest of bringing our child home at heart 💛.

That same child is the most important thing we bring home from this trip, and thanking their first home for the care they were given (whatever that standard of care may have been) by means of financial donation is, quite honestly, the most important donation you will make throughout this entire process.

Could we not extend that same grace and gift we so easily give to adoptive families working to bring their children home… to these SWIs in China, most of whom are doing the absolute BEST they can with the very little that they have… and trust that regardless of how our donation issued dollar for dollar, we are continuing to pave the road for families to come behind us… as those who came before us did for us? Sorry for the novel. Just my two cents from someone on this side of the ocean working closely in this space.

 

But my child is in foster care/a charity-run foster home so the orphanage hasn’t spent any money on them. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for me to pay that money to the organization that provided care for my child?

People have this question a lot. It’s wonderful that so many children are benefitting from foster care or given the additional specialized care they need for their condition. But please keep in mind that the orphanage paid to have your child’s file created. The orphanage gave permission for him or her to be moved to a medical foster care home or be included in a foster care program. Your child has *greatly* benefited from the orphanage because of that. Orphanages move children to medical foster homes because they need more care than the orphanage can provide. The fewer donations the orphanage receives, the harder it will be for them to pay for the additional staff they need to give children better care. From my view, the point of the donation isn’t to pay back some of what the orphanage spent on my specific child. It is to pay it forward so that all of the children who will never have a file prepared will get better care. When we visited our son’s orphanage, most of the children we saw there did not and would not have a file prepared. Those who have a file prepared and find an adoptive family are truly the fortunate few. Paying the full customary amount of the orphanage donation is about showing your gratitude for the opportunity your child has been given, to make sure other children are given that opportunity, and to care for those who will never be given that opportunity.

Another thing I think people forget is that you can make a donation to the charity which cared for your child at any time, not just at the time of adoption. Scrounge up to pay the full donation, then next year when you have a little more money make a donation or sponsor a child through the specific charity which cared for your child.

 

Has anyone not donated the full amount recently? How did that go? I’m worried if we don’t give the full amount they’ll try to guilt us into paying more. I think these kids are just money to them!

I think if you choose not to donate the full amount you should be prepared to face negative reactions to that decision. As I said, orphanages had no involvement in this decision and they are suddenly faced in a significant drop of funds they had depended on. Tammy Wombles, who works in a Chinese orphanage, has written an excellent post discussing cultural differences between the Chinese and Americans as regards the orphanage donation.

When the director of an orphanage makes a plea on behalf of the needs of the children in her care, she is doing so out of concern for those children. If the official “asks the guide to ask you for more money,” this is not the time to treat the officials in a condescending way by ignoring those requests and immediately going into a spiel about, for example, how generous your family plans to be in donating to other (wealthy) Americans who are adopting. At that point in the conversation, the orphanage officials aren’t interested in your charitable donations to others, and your talking about it is only adding fuel to the fire. If you don’t want to give more, then simply don’t give more. But be polite. And, maybe…just stop talking.

And remember, just because a family considers an amount to be “a substantial donation,” orphanage officials might actually feel quite the opposite and construe that donation as a slap in the face.

(This is a perfect time to bring up ‘face’ in Chinese culture. Things can go south pretty quickly if you cause an orphanage official (or anyone in China) to lose face. Everyone coming to China should research Chinese culture and have a general knowledge of how important ‘face’ is and how you can avoid causing someone to ‘lose face.’)

You can read her full post here.

 

If this money is so important, why didn’t China just change it from a “donation” to a “fee”? Problem solved. 

That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? I wonder the same thing. However, we can’t control how China decides to handle the situation, only our response to that situation.

 

Look, we’d love to pay the full donation. We had planned to make the full donation. But now we’re traveling in a month but the money just isn’t there.

Here are options that our family would choose before donating less to the orphanage:

  • Have only the two parents travel, no siblings.
  • Choose to take zero tours, no stops at Hong Kong Disney, no “economy plus” airfare, no “executive benefits” at the hotel.
  • Have only one parent travel. That pays for the donation right there. That would be a big sacrifice, but one we would happily make rather than to donate less.
  • Put all of the travel expenses on a credit card so we have funds on hand to pay the donation. We can pay the travel expenses off over time, but we need to pay the donation now.
  • As a very last resort, ask my agency if there is a way they could wire an additional donation on our behalf after we return home so that we could eventually pay the full amount.

 

Most of the time orphanage officials just pocket that donation so it’s not even going to the kids. I’m not going to encourage corruption by lining their pockets now that I don’t have to!

It is true that there will always be some corruption in the system. Both of my sons were well cared for, so I am perhaps overly optimistic in hoping that corruption is the exception rather than the rule. But the reality is that you are already participating in this system by adopting through the China program. If you are right that the particular orphanage you would have donated to is corrupt, they will likely cease to make children available for international adoption once the revenue dries up. If the orphanage is not corrupt, they now have even less money to spend on food, clothing, staff, and medical care for the children they care for. Either way, it’s the children who suffer from your decision not to donate rather than the officials.

I have no control over that money once I hand it over, but I know that I’ve done what I can to care for the children left behind. I encourage you all to continue to make the full customary orphanage donation when you adopt.

State Department policy on “soft referrals”

At the end of the day on Friday, the US Department of State (DoS) posted their clarification regarding practices related to “soft referrals.” You can read the entire message here. I am going to summarize the main points of the document as I read it. It might not be entirely correct. We will see how agency practices change over the next week to see what the effects will be.

What is a soft referral?

The DoS begins by defining a soft referral as matching a family with a child before either the child is legally eligible to be adopted or the family is legally eligible to adopt. Or sometimes both, in the instance where an agency matches a family who hasn’t started their home study yet with a “pre-file” they anticipate receiving from a partnership orphanage.

Why does the child need to be eligible if you know they’re going to end up being eligible?

The DoS explains that this is prohibited by the Hague convention for several good reasons. The biggest is that you want to make sure parents are not coerced into relinquishing their rights if they do not want their child to be adopted. It also protects the potential family from heartbreak if the child turns out not to be eligible. In the China program the most common instance of this would be if the child was adopted domestically before the international file was completed.

Why do the parents have to have a completed home study to be matched? Agencies pre-screen to make sure the family will be eligible.

The DoS gives a couple of reasons for this being problematic. The first is because it prevents other families from being considered for the child. If a child is matched with a family who hasn’t started on their home study they will wait longer to come home than if they were matched with a family who has a completed home study or even a dossier already in China. It is especially detrimental to the child to be tied up with a family if it turns out they will not be eligible to adopt. The child has lost time that they would have been available for consideration for other families.

The other reason is because if a family is matched with a child before their home study has been completed, the placing agency could put pressure on the home study agency to approve the family. The DoS says home study agencies have reported being pressured to approve families, but even if this didn’t happen a social worker might feel an unconscious pressure to approve the family so that the child is able to be adopted.

Remember that you can still be matched with a special focus file after your home study but before your dossier is logged in at the CCCWA.

Well, what’s the difference in holding a child’s file for a specific family and an agency holding a specific file because it was designated to them?

The DoS says there’s not a difference. They want files to be available to families with any agency in a centralized system like the shared list. The DoS says they asked China about this, and the CCCWA said that if a family is interested in a designated file with a different agency, they can request the file be transferred so the match can take place. The DoS says an agency cannot reserve a file for their only clients if a suitable family with another agency is ready to move forward. They say families absolutely should not be required to switch agencies for a file. 

But if China allows special focus children to be matched with families before a home study is completed how can the State Department say it isn’t allowed? How would they even know?

The DoS effectively says ‘China can make their own rules, but US agencies have to abide by our guidelines.’ They say that the accrediting agency can and will check agency records for evidence of soft matching. They could be suspended or lose their accreditation for doing so.

Are photolistings going to be prohibited now?

There was a lot of buzz before this clarification was issued that photolistings were going to be banned altogether. I was doubtful that would be the case because photolistings are used for children in the US system as long as the parental rights have been terminated so the child is eligible for adoption. At least one agency said that families without an approved home study would no longer be able to view a child’s complete file.

What the DoS actually says is that agencies must abide by the sending country’s regulations for photolistings. In China’s case, that means they are allowed for special focus children. The DoS mentions that in the US domestic system, only home study ready families can have complete access to a child’s information but does not make it a requirement by my reading of it. It says that some countries may allow “additional information” to be shared with prospective families who do not have a completed home study. They do underscore that agencies cannot manipulate a photolisting to limit eligible families from seeing available children such as by designating a child as “on hold.”

In summary, the best news out of this clarification is that file transfers should be much less of an issue than they have been. However, I somehow think agencies will still find ways to circumvent this. It is also good news that photolistings will not be prohibited.

The biggest change is that a completed home study will now be required before matching. This is the norm in domestic adoption and in other countries. But many people did not consider adoption at all or considering adopting again until they saw a specific child that motivated them to start the home study process. Without a way to hold a child, will families be willing to pay for a home study and compile all the paperwork? This will definitely have an impact on how many waiting children are able to find families at a time when international adoption rates are plummeting.

One important thing to keep in mind is that the DoS is making these changes because they feel it will keep international adoption as an option for US citizens. In the 2016 report on intercountry adoption (released May 15, 2017), it is reported that representatives traveled to 30 countries and hosted delegations from 26 countries to discuss barriers to intercountry adoption. These countries reported serious concerns with the actions of US placing agencies and lack of oversight of the conduct of placing agencies. Presumably matching children with families who haven’t yet been found qualified to adopt is a practice that countries reported finding problematic. I know that when I have encountered families from other countries who have adopted from China, they have expressed that they think Americans should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. While this is a big change, we have to move forward and be grateful that intercountry adoption is still an option.

Potential upcoming changes on the US side

One big occurrence which I haven’t written much about yet is that the US entity overseeing intercountry adoption is changing from the Council on Accreditation to a newly formed organization called Intercountry Adoption Accreditation and Maintenance Entity (IAAME). The US State Department has posted FAQs about this change on their website. Until now, adoptive parents and adoption advocacy groups have focused on the new fee structure. The Save Adoptions group is warning that new fees will shut down intercountry adoption altogether while adoption ethics advocates sensibly point out that having a paid team of employees who travel to sending countries to inspect agency offices is going to cost more than four volunteers who who monitor from stateside.

Earlier this week, new controversy broke out when an agency representative announced that IAAME will begin requiring all families to be home study approved before they are allowed to view files or be matched with children. We’ve all been trying to backtrack to figure out where this came from since other agencies said it was news to them. Apparently, it began with this footnote on the IAAME FAQ posted on the State Dept website:

An ASP is “adoption service provider.” Adverse action means any adoption agency who does this could lose their accreditation. This was the clarification given:

While the law referenced hasn’t changed, IAAME is apparently interpreting it differently than was the previous practice. This will have a significant impact on the China program, because China allows children with special focus designated files to be matched with families who have not even begun the home study process. This was allowed previously because there was technically no referral given until the LOA/LSC. The Letter Seeking Confirmation says, in effect, this is the child we have matched you with. Do you accept the referral?” All of the “matching” prior to that was more like “We have a family that is interested in this child. Could you hold the file and IF the family is qualified and IF you think they’d be a good match, THEN you could officially refer that specific child to this specific family?” Adoption agencies, China, and the potential family knew that it was a matter of being able to jump through hoops, but it wasn’t an official referral.

A significant amount of families choose the China program because they can choose a child first. It is no exaggeration to say that hundreds of families had no thought at all of adopting until they saw their child’s face. The concern of agencies and adoption advocates is that many people will simply decide not to adopt at all if they don’t have the motivation of a specific child’s face. The Save Adoptions perspective is that anything which puts up a barrier to children being adopted is bad. The top priority is to get these kids home to families, which a laudable goal.

However, the point of the Hague treaty and changes in regulations is to make sure adoptions are handled in an ethical manner. Lots of babies came home to families in the 80’s and 90’s that turned out to be children which were bought or stolen. We want to make sure that doesn’t happen again. We also need to preserve the rights of the children. One of those rights is the right to privacy. Many countries prohibit photolistings altogether. Here in the US, you will only find children whose parental rights have been terminated on photolistings, not children in foster care who are not yet available for adoption. One of the concerns about the partnership system in China is that agencies could pressure orphanage officials to prepare files for children who might be able to be placed domestically, or even to unethically obtain young children with minor needs to fulfill a quota.

What we are talking about is a requirement that agencies make sure potential families are actually qualified to adopt before they start matching them with children. Is that really an extreme requirement to have? Before now most of the requirements have focused on the sending country side. However, the US has always been outside the norm in the way we do things. Other countries require families be approved to adopt and have a dossier sent before they are matched with a child. Of course, other countries also adopt only a handful of children a year compared to the US.

There are some valid concerns when you “soft match” a child with a family who has not been home study approved. One of them is that you tie of the child from consideration of other families. Children have been soft matched to a family for months, sometimes close to two years in a few cases, only to have the family not complete the process in the end. Having a home study already completed shows a level of commitment.

Another serious concern is that if a family is already soft matched to a child, the social worker is going to be under pressure to approve the family. Yes, most families will pass a home study. However, would the social worker have normally approved them for an older child or a child with serious medical needs if they hadn’t already been matched? It is not unusual for people to be motivated to adopt an aging out child when they had previously never considered adopting an older child. If a family is already matched, will they give real consideration to the challenges that adopting an older child will bring? Older children are at high risk of disruption or dissolution for this reason. When I pointed this out in an online discussion, someone said essentially that if we ruled out the people who decided to adopt an older child on the spur of the moment because of an advocacy post, no older child would be adopted. How many people start out by saying “I’d like to adopt a teenager”? Very few. And very few set out to adopt children with major medical needs.

While no one is sure at this time how this will play out, I hope that we will all remember that both sides want vulnerable children to find families. We all want to make sure that the adoptions which take place are ethical adoptions leading to a secure family bond rather than disruption or dissolution. It is very difficult to balance setting regulations to ensure ethical adoptions while not completely eliminating practices which are effective at finding families for children.

Five Reasons to (Still) Adopt from China

Last November for National Adoption Month, I gave five reasons to choose China to adopt from. Since then, two of those reasons are no longer part of the China program. I thought I should update it this year to let you know that despite recent program changes, the China program is *still* a great option.
74927_3530786484950_18238779_n

November is National Adoption Month! I thought I would kick off the celebration by giving some reasons why China’s adoption program might be a good fit for your family.

1. The process is streamlined and predictable. Unlike adopting from foster care, domestic infant adoption, or programs from some (but not all) other countries, the China program has a clearly defined timeline of steps. Most families will bring home a child 12-18 months after they begin the process. Many people switch to the China program after a failed attempt at adopting through another program, so the stability is appealing.

2. You have the ability to choose your child’s age, gender, and the special needs you are comfortable with. You will not be assigned a child, nor will you be penalized for declining a file which you do not feel is a good fit for your family.

3.Travel is a single two week trip and only one parent is required to travel. Some countries require multiple trips or a lengthy stay in country to complete the adoption. While this gradual approach is undoubtedly better for the child or children being adopted, the fact is that many families could not adopt if that were a requirement. China’s travel requirement is one which most families can meet.

4. The China program still has generous eligibility guidelines. While the guidelines are now more restrictive than previously, the upper age limit is 5-10 years higher than many programs. Allowing five children in the home is more than other programs such as Thailand, South Korea, or India. China’s criteria for single parents or couples with a single divorce in their marital history are more generous than the former guidelines.

5. The China program is well established and stable. Some people have been concerned that the recent changes might indicate an upcoming closure of the program. On the contrary, China has regularly made updates to their program every 3-5 years. This is one of the aspects of the program which has helped it to continue going strong for more than 20 years. Nearly 80,000 children have been adopted to the US from China, far more than any other placing country. Of the other four top placing countries, only the Korean program remains open to American parents now that Russia, Guatemala, and Ethiopia have closed.

If you are just beginning your adoption journey and found this post helpful, you might consider buying my book which has all of this information and more, including several chapters on travel.

File distribution in the China program

People who are considering or starting out in the China program right now are beginning at a time when the program is in transition. At the beginning of 2017, China stopped granting waivers, which had allowed families who did not quite meet all of China’s criteria to adopt. China made changes to their parent eligibility guidelines over the summer, as well as announced that the partnership system would be ending as of January 1st, 2018. I hope this post will help to explain these changes to those who aren’t sure what they mean.

Does this mean the China program is ending?

No. China’s international adoption program has been active for over 20 years. During that time they have made changes in parent eligibility as well as how the files are designated and distributed. The partnership program was a relatively new innovation in China’s program. Families will still be able to adopt from China without the partnership program.

What was the partnership program and why would they end it?

The One-to-One program, more commonly known as “partnerships” involved adoption agencies signing a contract with a specific orphanage in China. In return for providing material, medical, and/or educational support for the orphanage, all files prepared by that orphanage would be designated to that agency first for a period of time. Larger agencies might have 15-20 partnerships while small agencies might only have one or two. China’s ending of the partnership program, is likely a side effect of the law governing Non- Governmental Agencies (NGO) which went into effect January 1, 2017. You can learn more about the NGO law in this post.

If there are no partnerships, how will agencies get files?

Prior to the partnership program, all new files were added to the shared list once a month. Agencies will continue to receive files from their active partnerships through the end of the year, but on January 1st, 2018 all newly created files will presumably be added to the shared list. Files which reach Civil Affairs by the last day of December will still be sent to partner agencies when they are finalized, so partnership files will continue to trickle in for the first few months of 2018.

I don’t want to wait a long time to be matched. How do I know which agency will be able to match me fastest after January?

That’s a question no one can answer. Agencies are still giving match time estimates, but we really don’t know how things are going to go. Some agencies are experienced at matching off of the shared list while others relied almost exclusively on their partnerships for matching. Theoretically an agency with a long list of waiting families with you at the bottom of the list would take longer to match you than an agency with few waiting families, but until we’ve been on the system long enough for agencies to know what their average number of matches per month are, we won’t know for certain.

Will files still be designated LID only or Special Focus?

I would assume that these designations will remain. Losing the LID designation would only slow down the process for young children with minor needs because they could be locked by families without a dossier in China. Similarly, the Special Focus designation allows a greater amount of potential families to commit to a child that might be more difficult to place. Being able to lock a file without a dossier in China is a relatively new option, and it is only done in America. However, some families respond much better to an actual child that they have seen in a photo so this is a very effective way to place children. Hopefully this aspect of the program will remain unchanged. If you don’t know what LID and Special Focus files are, read this post.

Does this mean there won’t be any more agency photolisting so I can find my child first?

Possibly, but I doubt it. China has always had the ability to designate files to a particular agency for a period of time. I think it is likely that children who have been unmatched on the shared list for a few weeks or months will be designated to a specific agency so that the agency can advocate for the child. The “former shared list” program shows that China understands this is an effective way of helping overlooked files to be seen.

Isn’t it a bad thing if partnerships end?

There were certainly positive aspects to the partnership program. Agencies were able to improve orphanage conditions by providing material aid and training to their partner orphanages. CCAI and Holt, as the two agencies with NGO recognition, might be uniquely placed to continue to provide aid to particular orphanages or meet children in the orphanages. Holt announced that they have received consultative status on the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations. While CCAI does not have quite the same international presence for humanitarian aid, both agencies have a high reputation with the CCCWA and been involved in child welfare in China for a long time. We can hope that they continue their work in China alongside NGOs such as Love Without Boundaries or OneSky, in addition to the many China based organizations which exist.

A good aspect of the partnership program was that often agency personnel would advocate for files to be created for particular children they met, so children got the opportunity to be adopted who had been considered unadoptable by the orphanage director. Moving to the partnership ended the “feeding frenzy” for the most desired files because agencies knew that they would be receiving files from their partner orphanages to match. It’s possible that agencies might feel a certain amount of reluctance to invest advocacy resources into files which could disappear from the shared list at any moment. However, if designated file continue as I speculated above, that would help with this negative aspect.

The partnership system also gave families more time to have a file evaluated and come to a decision with less pressure. Shared list files can only be locked for 72 hours. It can be difficult to get a file review in that amount of time, particularly over weekends or holidays. Sending questions for a file update would presumably be out of the question.

Can you give me any good side to moving back to an all shared list system?

The partnership program was not without its downsides. Partnerships were an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Most other countries could not enter into a partnership contract because of their governing laws or interpretation of the Hague agreement. This made it very difficult for families in other countries to be matched with a child, particularly those in countries with restrictions on the age or special needs of the child to be adopted. The partnership system always carried the risk of encouraging corruption. Would orphanages feel pressure, implied or actual, to provide a certain amount of files for young children with minor needs to justify the agency’s “investment” at their orphanage. Moving back to an all shared list system will level the playing field in that case. Regardless of country or size of agency, all will have the same access to new files.

It will also make it easier for people who have identified a particular file to use their preferred agency to lock the file and complete the adoption. However, since people often identified files through the advocacy efforts of agencies who had the file designation, this might happen less often.

 

I know that any changes in the China program cause people to feel uneasy. We like consistency and predictability. Be assured that families were matched through the shared list for many years. People like myself continued to be matched from the shared list even when most agencies had partnerships. While there were many advantages from the partnership system for families, the China program will continue to be a wonderful program for families even without agency partnerships.

 

China Program Changes July 2017

The CCCWA released an announcement yesterday making official changes which have been expected for some time. The statement was posted on the SuperKids blog but it is short so I will reproduce it below.

Relevant government departments and adoption agencies in receiving countries,
Following the enactment of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Activities of Overseas Non-Governmental Organizations within the Territory of China (hereinafter referred to as Administration Law) since January 1, we would like to notify as follows on relevant issues about the programs carried out by adoption agencies such as the One-to-One Assistance Program, Journey of Hope Program, and Summer/Winter Hosting Program based on the regulations of the Administrative law and conclusions of competent authorities:

  • All activities concerning the One-to-One program, Journey of Hope Program, and Summer/Winter Hosting Program will be terminated. For children who have been assessed by adoption agencies through the One-to-One program before the enactment of the Administrative Law and whose reports have not been submitted to CCCWA, if their reports are submitted through the provincial department of civil affairs to CCCWA before December 31, 2017 (subjected to the approval date of the provincial department), CCCWA will post these files to the specific list of the original adoption agency. Agencies are requested to look for children within required deadline, otherwise the files will be withdrawn by CCCWA when the deadline is closing.
  • Foreign adoption agencies should abide by the business scope specified in the registration when working in China. No activities with inter-country adoption as the purpose are allowed when agencies work in welfare and charity related activities.
  • Adoption agencies should look for adoptive families according to the requirements outlines in the Review Points for Decision on the Eligibility of Foreigners Adopting from China and avoid hasty placements without discretion within the deadline.

What this means is that all partnerships (One-to-One program) will be terminated as of January 1, 2018. If files currently in process through a partnership program are submitted to the CCCWA by December 31st, the partner agency will still receive the file. That means that if you are currently pre-matched to a file, you will be able to complete the adoption. Agencies will probably (or should) begin tapering off from pre-matching as it will become increasingly unlikely that the pre-files they receive will be completed in time.

While this announcement did not specify how files will be disseminated without the partnership program, presumably they will all be added to the shared list. You can read more about what this means and what it might look like in this post.

Hosting programs will also cease. Many hosting programs were already canceled this year, so this is making changes already in place official.

The second point reads to me as if the NGO law is causing a separation between adoption agencies and charitable activities which they engage in. If an agency is not listed as an NGO, trips to visit orphanages will no longer occur. Does this mean that aid programs which took place under the partnership system will also stop? Probably, but we will see how it plays out.

The final point seems to be indicating that waivers will continue to not be granted. The CCCWA seems to feel that agencies should be more selective in the matches they make and not jump at any family for a file.

 

I will continue to update on the blog as information comes available.

June 2017 China program guideline changes

The CCCWA has released the new parent eligibility guidelines, effective immediately June 30, 2017. These guidelines were published yesterday in several locations such as Rainbow Kids, No Hands But Ours, and RedThread Advocates. I waited a day to report because I knew there would be many questions as to how to interpret the new guidelines. Agencies have now had clarification, so what is in the post reflects how agencies have been told the guidelines will be interpreted. Please note that some of these clarifications might change over the next few weeks as agencies figure out the nuances. I will update as things become more definite.

Here are the guidelines:

  • Age– Parents must be at least 30. No more than 50 years age difference between the child and the youngest parent. This is the same as the previous requirement.
  • Length of marriage– Couples need to be married for 2 years for a first marriage or only 1 divorce. If there are two divorces in the history, the couple needs to be married for 5 years. Years cohabiting can count toward the marriage. This is actually more generous than the previous guideline which required 5 years of marriage for any history of divorce and did not officially say that time cohabiting counted.
  • Health– (1) Use of medication for “mental disorder” such as anxiety or depression is still allowed under the new guidelines. It is now explicitly stated that a psychological exam is required. (2) History of cancer has again appeared in the guidelines. You must be cancer free for 3 years for skin, breast, testicular, or thyroid cancer. Other types of cancer require 5 years cancer free. (3) Adoptive parents who have dwarfism themselves can only adopt from China if they adopt a child with the same condition, making official the previously unofficial policy.
  • BMI– The BMI requirement remains under 40 in order to be eligible to adopt.
  • Financial requirements– This remains a net worth of $80,000 for families plus an income of $10,000 per household member including the adopted child. The net worth is $100,000 for single parents, plus an additional $10,000 per household member above married parents. The 12/2014 guideline included a mention of “relaxing” in the case where the family did not meet the net worth requirement but were above the “local average living standards” which has now been omitted. The new guidelines say that the requirements could be relaxed for foreigners living in China. Many families were only able to qualify because they were given a cost of living waiver, so the loss of this will have a significant impact.
  • Number of children in the home– Perhaps the most significant change is that families must not have more than 5 minors (under 18) in the home or only 2 for single parents. In addition, the youngest child in the home should be at least 3 years old at time of LID. The age of the 3 year old or a minor turning 18 is determined by what age they are at the time of LOI or LID, whichever is first.
  • Frequency of adoption– There should be a year from the adoption date of the first adoption until “current adoption application date” to begin a second adoption. The current application date is submitting LOI. This means reusing a dossier is no longer an option.
  • Adopting multiple children– Previously China allowed families to adopt two unrelated children at the same time, sometimes more depending on the circumstances. The guideline says “In principle, [parents] should adopt 1 child from China at a time.” It does make an exception for twins or siblings. Adopting two unrelated children at once was a very popular option for many families. The loss of this option will also have a significant impact.
  • Singles– Two requirements regarding singles adopting were removed from the previous guidelines. One was that the age difference between a single parent and the child they are adopting cannot be greater than 45 years. The other stated that the single parent must not have children younger than age 6 in the home. Presumably this means that the requirements are now the same as married families in those areas, so this is an improvement.
  • Expatriates– American citizens residing outside of the US must live in a country which is part of the Hague agreement or has an inter-country adoption program with China.

If you are currently in process to adopt from China but no longer qualify, here is how this will effect you:

  • If you have LOA and are working towards travel—> Your process will continue normally
  • If you have a LID, PA, and are waiting for LOA—->Your process will continue normally
  • If you have PA but do not yet have a dossier logged in—->Your PA will be honored and you can continue the process
  • If you have a dossier logged in but do not yet have a match—–>You will still be able to be matched because you qualified at the time your dossier was logged in.
  • If you had started the process but are not matched nor have a dossier logged in—->You are no longer eligible for the China program
  • If your agency has you matched to a “pre-release” file but you do not have a dossier logged in—–>I have not heard this clarified specifically, but since you cannot send a LOI until the file has officially been released, I think you will not be allowed to adopt because this falls under no PA, no LID

Will the CCCWA start granting waivers again for the harder to place kids?

We will have to wait and see on that. We can hope that with the stricter guidelines, there will be some leeway as there was previously.

What about the partnerships? 

This document only contained adoptive parent eligibility requirements. Agencies are expecting information on the future of partnerships to be released separately, at some time in the near future.

Why did China make these changes? So many kids won’t get families now that you can’t adopt two at once, reuse your dossier, or adopt if you are a large family!

At the beginning of the document, China stated that this criteria is “in order to further promote the scientific and standardized level of inter-country adoption, and implement our working principle “everything for the children.” As far as I’m aware, adopting two at once was only an option in the US so they might see eliminating that as standardizing the level of inter-country adoption. This could also refer to bringing their requirements in alignment with those of other countries. If you look at the requirements of other country programs you will find that most say you can adopt a single child, specify a maximum number of children in the home, do not allow you to adopt with a baby or toddler in the home, and say that you must wait 1 or 2 years between adoptions.

These are common requirements because they are in alignment with what is considered best social work practices. Adopting a single child at a time and having over a year between adoptions allows the parents to focus on the physical and emotional needs of their new child. The same goes for not allowing an adoption with a child under age three in the home. The requirements state that “Parents should have enough time and energy to take care of the minors in the home, including the prospective adoptee.” Babies and toddlers require a lot of focused attention, the same as newly adopted children. A family who has six in the home who are spread out over a large age range will qualify sooner than a family with six under the age of five, which I have seen happen when families with young children adopt multiple children at once and have back to back adoptions.

It is very difficult to realize that you are no longer eligible to adopt from China. These new guidelines mean that our own family is no longer eligible. Even though we had no plans to adopt again, choosing not to adopt feels different from China saying you do not have the option. For many families it feels as if China is saying their family is no longer good enough, even though prior to this week you were good enough. People are looking at the children who would not be in their family if these policies had been in place previously and wondering why China now feels it isn’t in their child’s interest to be there. I understand all of these feeling. This is really hard for those families who love China and who love the children there who need families.

However, we have to keep in mind that China does not have to have an international adoption program at all. We do not have any entitlement to their children. The new rules are much closer to the rules they have had in place for the majority of the program. We have heard that China is very concerned about the amount of disruptions and dissolutions. Every single week, there are families who travel to China but decide not to adopt the child they were in process for. Perhaps China has concluded that the experiment in looser guidelines did not have good outcomes. That view might be oversimplified (certainly the special needs of the children now are greater than they were seven years ago), but even so, they are making this decision because they feel it is in the best interest of the children they place. I know many wonderful adoptive families who have more than six children, have young children, or who have adopted multiple unrelated children at once who disagree, but in the end, we have to choose to be thankful for the great number of children who were able to find families before China decided to restrict the parent criteria.

If you would like to consider another country’s adoption program, I would suggest you check program requirements at the US State Department website. Be sure to see how many adoptions occur from that country per year. A very low number indicates it is difficult to adopt from, even if an agency might say it is a good option. You can check program eligibility requirements and find agencies who have a program with that country at Rainbow Kids. For example, if you are no longer eligible to adopt from China because of family size, you might want to look at Poland, Hong Kong, Colombia, or Bulgaria.