[specialk4b]

An interesting perspective on Chinese adoption from Macleans:

Bursting the Chinese baby bubble | Macleans.ca - Culture - Lifestyle

[KarenInCa]

Maybe I'm just too full of promise, I don't really know. But a lot of what the author brings up is his own interpretation. Instead of writing the article with unbiased journalism, he has drawn his own opinions and written it as a college essay, in a way that sounds like journalism. A good journalist will present data from different angles and perspectives, and let the reader come to his own conclusions based on facts. If I were just now learning about China adoption, he would have me convinced that his opinions are facts, not speculation. Sorry, but I have to say this is just poorly presented, and in some parts, offensive.

1-"[The May rules were] the clearest sign yet that the door was closing,"

(I don't think this is an indication that the doors are closing, as much as an indication that China wants to ensure that it's children will be given a higher percentage of "insurance" that their Aparents will be healthy and long lived, if they are going to send the children out of China.)

2.Earlier this year, reports of staff reductions at the CCAA led to widespread panic amongst waiting parents on message boards, many of whom interpreted the alleged layoffs as another sign that the program was shutting down completely.

(I've always assumed it was just a sign that China was needing more resources (Government workers) to bring the Olympics to China, as there has been a LOT of preparation in the time given. I never assumed it meant that the CCAA program was closing it's doors.)

3.The latest indication that things are getting harder for adoptive parents is word from several recently returned families that donations — the portion of the fee that goes directly to the orphanage, usually in American cash are rising in some orphanages from $3,000 to $5,000. All of these hints make China sound like the bad boyfriend who doesn't have the conviction to break up, but makes the relationship so unappealing he hopes his lover will get the message and take off first.

(The rise in fees really goes hand in hand with less adoptions. If anything, I've viewed the higher fees as a sign that they WANT TO stay open to IA. Otherwise they would have just closed the doors without considering either the same fees or higher fees.)

4.If the split does occur, China gets to look like the self-sufficient superpower it clearly wants to be.

(They can do this with or without IA taking place. And actually, they already have accomplished this for the most part)

5. With the Beijing Summer Olympics approaching, many in the adoption community speculate that the slowdown will turn to a trickle. Not only is it possible that the Olympics may halt activity at the CCAA through October, but with all eyes on China, it may be a good moment for the government to erase any lingering notion, no matter how incorrect, of China as a country that sells its kids to white Westerners.

(Hello?!? It's already out of the bag that there are APs and PAPs to children in orphanages in China. This is not breaking news. I really do not think media has much to do with it. Media would not be allowed in the orphanages anyway. Many times, APs aren't even allowed to do an orphanage tour, so I seriously doubt that media would get an orphanage entrance ticket to write a "dying room" type of story during the Olympics. I still think it's a simple matter of wanting human resources to build up China's image for the Olympics.)

6. For years, despite its well-oiled parts, the reputation of the Chinese adoption program has been faintly tarnished by the hint that this much money changing hands creates, if not corruption, at least the conditions for corruption. In 2005 in Hunan province, 50 people were arrested for trafficking babies for sale to orphanages. The Chinese government dealt with the PR disaster swiftly, shutting down orphanages and sentencing 10 people.

(The latter sentence speaks volumes. I have never assumed that the SWI donation is high enough to create (widespread) corruption. The fact that there has only been one area of people found and prosecuted for corruption speaks for itself)

As a sideline, this quote might be true about UNICEF:
"UNICEF's policy puts international adoption just above institutional care in its list of preferred options for orphaned children"

But I find it highly offensive of UNICEF to make this kind of judgement of my created family.

And another statement that I find offensive:"I think of them as battered women," says Stephanie Hodnett. "Most of them have been through so much to get to the point of adoption, years of infertility treatments, all the social stigma of adoption. And then the process itself is so awful. They've internalized it to such a degree that they feel like they deserve to be treated badly."

(I realize that the author is quoting someone else, but really, this statement is soo flawed that I can't even respond to it)

The only thing that absolutely rings true in this article is this quote, which is contrary to the rest of his entire entry:
"Speculation abounds as to why this is happening, but getting solid information out of China is as difficult on the adoption issue as any other."

I wish the author would have presented the article with a more balanced viewpoint that leads to the sentence above. Otherwise, why make such a statement as his conclusion?

The whole article is (IMO) full of statements that are geared to bring the reader toward his own preclusions, but masked as journalism. There are so many reasons for the different causes that he shares in his essay, but only suggests one for each cause, all leading in the same direction. No wonder people get discouraged, with everything else, it could become easy to read essays like this, call it journalism, and then come to accept HIS preclusions as their own conclusions.

Do what you think you need to do. No one knows the outcomes in a year or two...Sheesh! No one knows the outcomes of anything in a year or two. But try to keep a balanced viewpoint of what everyone else thinks. And then think for yourself. And do what feels best for your own family.

[amyfk]

Thanks very much for sharing this article. It was long, but well worth the read. I do feel sorry for the PAPS. I agree with the article, folks dont know where to turn, and it seems like the different countries are "drying up" in terms of options for adoptive families. I do hope we see turnaround in the next few years with more adoption options for families who are interested.
Amy K, NJ