[joyfulme3x]

Katia, I agree that the family definitely needs emotional support. It sounds like they have wonderful loving extended families who are offering that.
If we as strangers were just reading about this situation, uninvited, on someone's blog, and gossiping about it, I would agree that we don't have a right to ask the tough questions.
However, the family purposefully offered their website, actively contacted the media in hopes of generating a groundswell of support, and in other ways asked for help from the public. I don't feel comfortable advocating for the family unless I have a sense of what actually happened, so I feel it's fair that we ask about the true circumstances.

[JPDakota]

Well, in my experience there are lots of kinds of support. A sharp curve ahead sign on the road is not particularly warm and fuzzy, but it can be fairly helpful, especially if you're traveling down an unfamiliar road.

[MissyAmomChina]

Hi,

I think everyone here has been respectfull in sharing their difference of opinions. I also think that as an IA community, when we are asked to support a family *and* send money, it's reasonable to ask questions.

I've been reading this thread, the article and the blog. I, like many others, have an emotional response. Of course, I'd love to see Mia not go through any more losses and to be able to come to the US.

On another level, I have concerns about this situation. To me, it's pretty clear that the family opted to not disclose the DUI to the CCAA. I think that is not ethical. I understand others may not feel the same as I do and I respect a difference of opinon. However, I've been around the China adoption scene long enough to know that DUI's were always an issue under old and new guidelines. I feel the family was/is morally obligated to let the CCAA know fo the DUI. Sadly, it probably would have cost them their adoption.

However, I think we are in a dangerous zone. If we start asking people to apply the rules to everyone else but them, to bend the rules, to lie by omission.........then it's a slippery slope. It's a heartwrenching siuation for sure. However, I think as a-parents we have to really strive for ethics in adoption.

Take care,
Melissa

[twoinblue]

Great post, Melissa.

I don't see anyone here beating this family up or berating this man for getting a DUI. I see a lot of people asking, "How did this happen?"

[emj36]

I think there are a lot of people in the wait that want to understand the circumstances. Maybe some have been through review and are now facing their fingerprints expiring or renewing the I-171H. I've read on several forums that USCIS is asking more questions the second time around so I'm sure people would like to know exactly what went wrong here so they can prevent similar problems down the road.

I think this is why this story has so many people asking questions. I even saw one person post that she didn't realize USCIS has any say in the matter.

One thing I would like to point out. You can submit your I-600 application without having an agency. We did because we were going to search several agencies for our SN child so we left that blank. In other words, you don't need an agency to tell the CIS you are a good parent. They decide that based on the home study and the other stuff you send them.

[Katia555]

Perhaps this family didn't know that they were supposed to tell the CCAA about the DUI? Isn't this ultimately the responsibility of the agency? There has to be exceptions to every rule if such an exception serves to protect the biggest victim -- in this case the child. In this tragic case, the adoption was completed in China, and a mother and daughter are now stuck there,
because of "rules." From the baby's perspective, the best thing that could happen would be for her to go home to the United States. Can you imagine if she can't go home? Or if she loses a mom once again? It would simply be inhumane. And a system has to remain humane to function. I am sure we could all live with a rule being overturned this once, if it means that a child can finally go home and live a normal life with her family.

[KarenInCa]

Although I would like to see this family united, quite honestly, there does not have to be exceptions to every rule. What if any of us were up next, and that person did something that was against the rules before traveling, and what they did was not pardoned by CCAA or by USCIS? How could you find justice with this family's situation being the exception but not yours? You couldn't. And where is the line drawn, if the boarder is continually moved and swayed?
I'm not sure, really, where the responsibility falls in a case like this. I think it falls on both the family and the agency. I don't think anyone here is hoping for an alternate outcome, other than ultimately coming home. But I do think that some people are responding with realistic questions in weighing both the facts and the possibilities due to the circumstances.
I think a lot of us are also concerned on a personal level, wanting to know how such an oversight can happen, because we don't want it to happen to ourselves.

[Katia555]

Hi,

I actually did not say that there has to be exceptions to every rule. I said there has to be exceptions to every rule if such an exception serves to protect the biggest victim -- in this case the child.

We are not talking about a case were a couple can no longer finalize the adoption process because of a DUI conviction. We are talking about a child that has been matched with, and adopted by, a US family. She has spent almost two months with her mom and has bonded with her. To pull that child away from her parents would be inherently cruel at this point. On this forum we talk so much about how perfect these matches appear to be, how each and every one of us feels in our heart that we were matched with the child that was "meant to be." I am sure that this family, too, feels this way.

I think it is important to remember that this situation is unique. The lawyer describes it as "an isolated incident," and former Children's Home Society Executive Director Roger Toogood, an expert in international adoptions, is quoted as saying, "I've never heard of such a case in 27 years." It's not as if this kind of thing happens every day. In other words, letting mother and child enter the US to unite with the rest of their family, despite a DUI conviction, is not going to have much, if any, effect on the adoption process in the future. It would, or should, be seen by most as an exception made for humanitarian reasons. For the first time in her life, this baby girl has a chance at a new life, surrounded by people who can give her the kind of love that only a family can.

I would see it as a significant and very sad sign of insecurity on the part of the international adoption community if we could not accept that an exception was made for the sake of a child who has already been traumatized enough in her short life.

[MissyAmomChina]

Hi,

I don't see how a person who broke a law and failed to report it to *all* the necessary parties should be an "exception." What other laws are PAPs allowed to break and not disclose?




Take care,
Melissa

[Katia555]

I think an exception should be made in order to prevent this child, who is completely innocent and at this very moment thinks she has found her forever family, from undergoing any more trauma.... She has her new parents. I don't think she should be taken away from them. I also don't think we are all going to be able to agree on this, it's the kind of sitauation that sparks a lot of different views and emotions, and that's OK....

[pgruodis]

What a sad situation.
Honestly though, I can't support this without full disclosure:
- How recent was the DUI?
- How drunk was he? ...or was it Drugs?
- Were his children in the car with him at the time?
- What were the circumstances?
(all these things can be fact checked by the public record)
Yes, they are very personal questions...but he is asking for support, so it is only fair. Some have supported the adoption going-through for the sake of the child...but without actually knowing the facts, how do you know the situation the child will be sent to is actually in her best benefit.

[KarenInCa]

Andrew has not commented lately, so I'm assuming he is getting ready to go to China. Here is what he has already told us;
- How recent was the DUI?
January 07, and according to the reports, he did not do the 15 month follow up fingerprinting till after his wife was in China.
- How drunk was he? ...or was it Drugs?
Andrew has stated more than once that it was a DUI. Not sure of the amount, I don't think that's been disclosed.
- Were his children in the car with him at the time?
I don't think the children were in the car. He stated that it was a DUI he got on the way home from work.
- What were the circumstances?
::shrug:: I don't know if he has really said, except that he understands now, that it was wrong.
It would be interesting to know if CCAA did not know about the DUI because no one informed them-If that's the case, then the responsibility would be with the agency, but as the prospective parent, I would take responsibility to question my agency as to whether the agency needed to inform CCAA. Or possibly CCAA knew, and accepted it as an exception in his character, with the communication from their agency. If CCAA knew, and accepted their application, that should make a big difference to overturning the CIS decision.

The Pandora's box here, is that either the child will not be allowed to come home; or CIS will make an exception in this case, with the probability that they will not make exceptions for others that have similar occurrences, on their first or second fingerprinting, which would have (coincidentally) been completed before finalizing the adoption, for most of us.
The advantage that this case has, is that the agency gave the go-ahead without insisting on the (apparently not yet outdated) 15 month fingerprinting first. But then, the fact that his fingerprints were not renewed until after his wife traveled to China, is the exact same thing that makes it a disadvantage for this case.
I have to admit, that I've often wondered "what if things change..." with our wait time being so long. But our agency insists on everything being doubled and/or updated beyond required. This is one time that I'm glad our agency is such a pain.

[KarenInCa]

Originally Posted by BrandyHagz

I've been following this thread - and I have a question.

It is illegal to place a child for adoption in China (which is why their children are abandoned often times) - so doesn't this family face the potential issue of having criminal charges brought against them if, at this juncture, they elect to give the child back?

I know that many parents have 'disrupted' an adoption within a few days for whatever reason - but we're talking months here...and I can't help but wonder if this would be treated differently.

Does this family face potential legal issues? I know that its commonly called 'disruption' - but the reality of it is, the child’s legal parents are placing the child for adoption and they must go through the motions of terminating their parental rights and are often (at least here in the states) treated just like birth parents are when they place a child.

Anyway - just wondering about that aspect of it all. Any thoughts?

Brandy- Your post made me go "hmmmmm" at the time that I read it, but didn't bother responding to it, because I thought someone else would be able to better.
Very interesting thoughts. I'm not sure anyone would know the answers, because I have never heard of someone adopting their child before CIS fingerprints were needed to be redone, and actually have something of a criminal nature happen between time. I've wondered about it, but never heard of it happening, so this might be new for everyone involved.
I don't think they would face criminal charges by giving the child back, in essence, placing the child up for adoption again, because at that juncture they would have been forced to surrender the child back to the SWI, by the US government, and most likely unwillingly. However, it does seem to have potential for criminal charges back here in the states, due to the fact of withholding pertinent information before the adoption. As to who would be legally held accountable, the agency or the parents, it seems to be a toss-up.

[stayjay]

My heart goes out to this family. This must be incredibly stressful for everyone involved.

My question is how on earth did this happen???? I know with our agency, we HAD to have everything updated, all ducks in a row, all approvals approved all of our "T's" crossed and "I's" dotted etc. long before we travelled. If we were even close to having something expire we were told in no uncertain terms would we travel until everything was done, signed, sealed and delivered.

How could they have traveled so close to the fingerprints expiring? Our agency would have made us update long before anything expired.

My best to the family involved and especially their daughter.

[emj36]

stayjay,

I agree this is very confusing. We did two SN in a row and both agencies we used would not have allowed us to travel while our fingerprints were being run. I'm surprised this agency allowed it.

I'm also confused that the CCAA went ahead and approved the adoption since their rules state that charges have to be over 10 years old.

In my last agency someone just posted that they were just refused on Friday for a SN girl they were matched to in May. This was their second SN adoption. The reason given was that he had a misdemeanor drug charge from 1978. He was absolutely honest and says he has never had another charge in 30 years. It's the reason given for the refusal. So what makes the CCAA approve one family and not another?

I don't think anyone is judging this family but this story has a lot of waiting families really concerned about their fate. I wish we had a better idea of the timeline and who did what when. I would especially like to understand when the prints were run and when the first denial happened. Before or after departure for China? Also, when Andrew said he disclosed everything to CIS, what made them think things would be OK? Who disclosed it, was it the agency or Andrew himself?