[amyfk]

Hi,

I was talking to a lady today who adopted from Russia. So I dont know how she knows about Vietnam.
Anyway, she told me that there is a holdup in Vietnam and currently 19 American families are stuck in Vietnam overseas at the American Embassy and are unable to leave, bring their children home, whatever.
Is this fact or fiction? I really dont know the credibility/credentials of the gal who told me this information.
TIA,
Amy K, NJ

[sak9645]

This sort of thing happened a lot the last time Vietnam was open and led to the shutdown of the country. The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam alleged, back then, that unethical providers were falsifying records of children who were not "eligible orphans" to make it seem as if they should get visas, giving financial inducements to birthmothers, switching babies so that one child would travel on another's paperwork, etc.

Some of the families who were initially denied visas for their children back then were able to appeal their denials and bring their children home that way. In those cases, review of the evidence made it clear that there was no evidence of visa fraud or other illegal or unethical acts. Other families had "humanitarian parole" granted to their children, since it was clear to the U.S. government that the parents were unaware that their agencies and facilitators were engaging in questionable practices. But still other families were unable to bring home the children they adopted in good faith.

The U.S. government is concerned that some of the same providers who were alleged to have been involved previously are active again, and that some of the same abuses seem to be occurring. It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear that Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) are being given to some families who apply for visas for their children. Many families involved with Vietnam adoption worry that history could repeat itself, and that the country could close again.

If you are planning to adopt from Vietnam, it is vitally important that you work with an agency with an impeccable reputation. The agency should also be known for exercising great care in selecting in-country staff who identify children in need of parents, since -- during the last round of adoptions -- several very good agencies working in Vietnam and Cambodia unwittingly worked with faciliators who were less than honest and wound up with families getting visa denials.

Before selecting an agency, you might want to contact the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam and check whether the agency has had any recent problems with NOIDs, or whether it is using any facilitators that are under special scrutiny at this time. The Embassy can't tell you to choose or avoid a particular agency, but you may well be able to get some facts that help you to make up your own mind.

Also, talk to families who have adopted using the agency since Vietnam reopened, and see what their experience has been like. You can get a list of families directly from the agency, though they will most likely give you the names of only their most satisfied families. So also contact families you meet in your local adoption support group or on-line.

Beyond that, follow the Vietnam boards closely, read reliable websites like that of the U.S. State Department, and talk to agencies, to see how current discussions between the U.S. and Vietnam are going, with regard to renewing the agreement that the two countries signed when Vietnam reopened. Right now, I don't believe that closure is imminent; however, be aware of the possibility and keep well-informed about what is going on.

Sharon

[amyfk]

Thanks Sharon. I do appreciate your letter and your interest.
The gal who informed me of this told me it was happening because of unethical practices again in Vietnam. However, I dont know if folks were actually denied visas or not. I figured if they were Id hear about it on this forum firsthand.
I still want to adopt again, my husband is iffy. I will give him more time. If we were to move ahead, Vietnam would be a country we'd consider. That's why the conversation came up today.
Happy Holidays and thanks,
Amy K, NJ

[brendanod]

Your friend was telling you the truth.

Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity » Blog Archive » Our continuing conversation with the embassay

Brendan

[babyzoner]

Yes, this is true, a friend of mine is in Vietnam right now with her new daughter, waiting to come home and being told she's unlikely to get a visa and would have to live in Vietnam for two years or go home without her one-year-old. Harsh. Anyway, I'm encouraging her to share her story here, because apparently if we all can pressure our representatives or Senators, we may have some luck in influencing officials over there to look more carefully at the specifics of the cases... But in short, yes, she did say this NOID was being given to about 20 families.

[amyfk]

Thank you guys very much for responding to my letter.
I want to adopt again and Vietnam was a consideration.
My heart goes out to the folks who are stuck incountry right now and are now in jeopardy of bringing home their long-awaited for kids.
If you need me to sign a petition, I'd be glad to do so.
Amy K, NJ

[brendanod]

Hi Amy,

We are just a group of PAP's who are trying to direct you in the right way, Usually there is no problem with Vietnamese adoptions, NOID's have been issued because a couple of licensed agencies are operating in an unethical way, most of the agencies are not. If you wish to adopt let me know, and I will point you in the right direction.

Brendan

[natalieandbill]

How can you find out which specific agencies have the questionable practices that have lead to the NOID's?

[ksquilter72]

Brendan is absolutely correct. There is a small contingent of agencies who are not operating ethically and the U.S. Embassy is investigating the legality of those adoptions. That's why families are 'stuck' in Vietnam. Petitioning the U.S. Government to allow unethical adoptions to continue is not the answer. Yes, it's horribly sad that some of these families are in Vietnam and may not be able to bring their children home. But if a NOID is issued, it is NOT issued lightly. There are concerns about the legality of that adoption.

The web site that Brendan referenced earlier is a good place to start in a search for good agencies. I believe there's a past post referencing questions to ask when interviewing agencies. There are also a couple of Yahoo groups that I would highly recommend - search for adoption agency research and vietnam adoption.

[amyfk]

Wow! what a rough situation! I feel for the birthfamilies who may have been coerced or otherwise to give up their babies, and I feel for the adoptive parents who may unwittingly have known what was befalling them. Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for your help Brendan. I do appreciate it. I am going to wait until the new year arrives. I want to adopt again and my husband is "thinking it over." I hope he acts in the affirmative after the new year.
Best of luck to everybody.
Amy K, NJ

[Goingfor5]

I'm responding to ksquilter72's comments. I have a little first hand experience about what is going on in Vietnam because I just got back in October and 2 (maybe 3) of the families I traveled with were given NOID's. I believe it was all 3 of the families that were adopting 2 children at once.
Now first of all, I find it very coincidental that the 3 babies that were not given visa's were adopted by families that were adopting more than 1 child.

Secondly, I would like to copy and paste what one of the families I traveled with wrote on their webpage ( bringedenhome.com ).

"As you know we received the NOID from USCIS on October 15. The inconsistencies stated in the NOID by USCIS were:

1) A “statement” by the baby finder did not match the abandonment report; this evidence is UNSIGNED in the NOID

2) The location of Eden in the 4 day period after her abandonment is unknown

3) The timing of the meeting of the officials to write the minutes about the abandonment was too quick

The largest and most reputable law firm in Vietnam, VILAF, was hired to do an independent investigation of Eden’s abandonment. They did an extensive 3 day investigation of her abandonment compared to a questionable, rushed, one-person interview done by the US officials who failed to identify themselves on October 1, 2007. The VILAF investigation concluded that everything in the original abandonment report is correct and that the allegations in the NOID are unsubstantiated.

The VILAF investigation discovered that the US officials identified themselves as charity workers to the baby finder. When they asked about her finding a baby, she asked them if they got permission from the hospital director to speak with her, they said, not yet. So she did not give them full or accurate answers after this, granting them none of her attention.

As a note, based on the bilateral adoption agreement between the US and VN govts the US officials did not follow proper diplomacy or the Vietnamese law as to consular practices.

1) No one sought permission of local govt officials to conduct an investigation (required by Vietnam);

2) No one introduced themselves as to who they were and the reason for the investigation (another Vietnamese requirement);

3) No one sought the permission and assistance of the Vietnamese International Adoption Authorities (DIA) who according to the regulations of the bilateral agreement are required to accompany US govt officials launching an investigation.

Next, all of the Vietnamese officials attested to the transfer of Eden to the orphanage the night she was found, after the minutes were processed regarding her abandonment. The driver that drove the nurse and Eden to the orphanage even confirmed this. The appropriate documentation was found that stated Eden was accepted into the orphanage that night.

Finally, there was concern that the meeting to establish the minutes of Eden’s abandonment was too quick. Upon questioning the 2 hospital officials, which were not at the hospital at the time she was found, live only 5 minutes walking distance from the hospital. They both took motorbikes the short distance to the hospital, so it is conceivable that the meeting did take place rather quickly…within a half hour. "

If this is true, I don't believe that the US is "operating ethically" or even legally. It seems to me that they wanted the Vietnam government to rush some changes and they decided to go on a witch hunt to speed it up. Ethical?
While I was there the US Embassy sent field investigators to 1 of the provinces. I was held up in Vietnam an extra week and every time I called I was told it would be a while because "we are investigating all of the adoptions from Thai Nguyen" . I repeatedly (day after day) explained that my son was not from Thai Nguyen. After a 4 phone calls to the embassy in 1 morning and 2 to the consulate, they suddenly had my son's approval (a week after it should have been back according to the US officer.) Now, I could be wrong but I suspect they just "messed up" and stuck my son's file in the stack with the Thai Nguyen babies and FINALLY listened to me.
My only point to all this is that HUMANS do all of this paperwork. And even worse, translators with limited English! Could there be a mistake on the Vietnam side? Sure. Are there likely mistakes on the American side? Absolutely. Does this mean the baby in question is not a true orphan? Probably NOT!

The bottom line is that I watched a family carry a baby in a sling for 3 weeks. She had skin issues and an upper respiratory infection. She had lived in an orphanage for 5months (this is uncontested by the US Embassy). She was bonding to her new family. And now she is living with a foster family in Vietnam while the rest of her family is in the US.

As far as your statement "Petitioning the U.S. Government to allow unethical adoptions to continue is not the answer"...... I agree! I petitioned the US government to act ethically and legally themselves. I petitioned and wrote letters to senators because I believe the Noids were issued after a shabby and less than complete investigation on the US side. I want a COMPLETE investigation done legally and if the alligations are unfounded, these children should be allowed to come home!

[amyfk]

Thank you Goingfor5 for letting me know what's going on overseas.
I do appreciate it.
Amy K, NJ

[brendanod]

Hi Goingfor 5,

Thank you for your very informative and emotional post. I do not live in the US, I am not going to critise USCIS because we had asked them to enquire into Thai Nguyen. We know that the orphanage director was paid for every adoption, we know that child finders were also paid to supply children ro the orphanage. This fact has been confirmed by the embassy.

Birth mothers were told that their babies were being adopted by Vietnamese people, and that they would be able to meet their babies at a later stage. This fact was not correct, the children were adopted internationally without the consent of the birth mothers.

There was also a severe problem to do with the papers that pertained to these abandoned children, were they abandoned or were they economic abandonements. I think that is what the USCIS were looking into.

As an adoptive parent, I hope that they were ordinary relinquishments, that money was not involved, that nobody had their pocket lined, I suspect that USCIS had other information and that they were quite rightly acting on that information.

I am sorry that you were wrongly included in this investigation, but I am quite sure that you will be be able to look your adopted child in the face and say I was ethical.

Brendan

[sak9645]

As I mentioned above, during the time immediately before the closure of Vietnam and Cambodia, there were NOIDs given that were subsequently overturned. I believe it is very true that, in some cases, the Embassy was so concerned about the fact that corruption was occurring that it became hypersensitive, and began seeing visa fraud and baby-selling even where these crimes did not exist.

Some of the stories would have been amusing, if they had not involved the lives of parentless children and the families who sought to adopt them. I remember one case in which an Embassy investigation concluded that a child was not eligible for an orphan visa because his birthmother was living with a man named Y....., who was the child's father. In fact, it was subsequently shown that the birthmother was living with a WOMAN whose name, D....., rhymed with the supposed man's name. Being female, obviously, this woman could not have fathered the child! The boy WAS an orphan, but I believe he eventually had to come home under humanitarian parole, rather than on a standard orphan visa. And the family went through a great deal, emotionally and financially, in order to prevent the return of the child to the orphanage.

I do believe that the U.S. needs to take decisive action to root out unethical agencies and facilitators, and to protect children so that they do not fall into the hands of traffickers. I believe that there ARE plenty of people working in Vietnam, as well as in many other countries from which Americans adopt, who seek to profit from the misfortunes of children and their birthparents. No one should tolerate the actions of such people, and the U.S. should work closely with the government of Vietnam to put them out of business.

If they happen to be Americans, they should be brought to trial in an American court. American courts have already shown that they will not tolerate adoption fraud and similar acts. As an example, two American adoption professionals working in Cambodia before the shutdown were convicted, in American courts, of serious federal crimes including visa fraud and money laundering. Evidence was presented that the women had been paying birthmothers, misrepresenting orphan status, allowing one child to come home on another child's paperwork, and so on.

But I also believe that the Embassy needs to be given enough well-trained and adoption-sensitive staff, as well as other resources, to ensure that investigations and adjudications are conducted in a manner befitting an organization that is supposed to reflect our country's historical commitment to justice. Investigations that are done clumsily and insensitively harm birthparents, and investigations that lead to faulty conclusions harm children and their adoptive families. And all poorly done investigations harm the image of the U.S. as a country whose laws and institutions promote "liberty and justice for all".

I also believe that the time is right for changes to be made in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. There are provisions in the law -- as well as in its interpretation -- that, I believe, are archaic and do not serve the purpose of ensuring that overseas children who cannot remain with their birthparents or with families in their own country can find permanent, loving homes with American citizens.

As just one example, I think that the "orphan definition" needs to be revised, especially if direct relinquishments are going to be allowed to continue -- and since we allow direct relinquishments in domestic adoptions, it may be fitting to do so in international ones, with appropriate safeguards, if the foreign country permits such relinquishments. (Direct relinquishments are those in which a child goes from birthparent to adoptive parent without a long stay in an orphanage or similar setting as a prerequisite.)

Under the current orphan definition, children can be considered eligible for adoption if they have been living with single parents who cannot support them at a level considered appropriate in their birth country. They can also be considered eligible if they lost parents to death, if they were abandoned, if they were removed from parents by a legitimate court for reasons such as abuse and neglect, and if they were totally relinquished to an orphanage or other setting, with no ongoing contact for a substantial period of time.

The children cannot, however, be considered adoptable if they have recently been living with married parents, or with parents in a common-law arrangement recognized by the foreign country, and this makes little sense in today's environment. Why should a child be considered adoptable if a single parent cannot support him or her at a level considered normal in the foreign country (note: NOT at a level considered acceptable by U.S. standards), but not adoptable if a married couple cannot support him/her at such a level?

The USCIS says that the orphan definition is needed to avoid adoption fraud. The government says that there have been too many cases where birthparents relinquished a child to a relative or other person, taking advantage of the possibility of acquiring an adoption visa for the child, but having no intent of making the relinquishment permanent. They point out that the adoption visa process is intended to apply only in cases where parental rights have been unconditionally severed, not where the birthparents simply want the child to be educated in the U.S. or to be raised in the U.S. until they, themselves, can get a visa under the normal, difficult immigration process.

It seems to me that there has to be a better way of ensuring the absence of visa fraud, than simply making a blanket prohibition against the adoption of children who have been living with married parents. There are plenty of desperately poor married couples in the countries from which Americans adopt. There are many married couples where a parent is living with AIDS, cannot work due to a disability, and so on. Why should the children of these people be considered unadoptable unless their parents abandon them or leave them in an orphanage for long periods of time? And can't single people make fraudulent adoption plans, too?

If the U.S. is going to pursue fraud aggressively, it needs to look at ALL adoptions, unless there is some clear and compelling reason to go after only adoptions based on relinquishments by married couples. In fact, I believe that the U.S. will find that visa fraud of the sort I just mentioned occurs mostly in relative adoptions, not in adoptions by non-related persons, and that marital status is not an issue. And. of course, the government needs to use common sense in doing fraud investigations, so that it does not bring shame upon birthparents who made an adoption plan in secret, and so that it does not spend months and months pursuing a case where the evidence is not compelling.

Vietnam doesn't allow direct relinquishment to foreigners, as far as I know. But the U.S. treats children who have been relinquished to orphanages or even abandoned as if they were directly relinquished. The U.S. will not issue a visa to a child who lived with married parents before a fairly recent relinquishment or abandonment, for fear that the action was simply a subterfuge, a way of getting around the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This is the basis of some of the NOIDs that have been issued, both when Vietnam was originally open and nowadays. If married and single birthparents were both permitted to relinquish children, these NOIDs would never have been issued unless it could be proved that they -- single OR married -- had the intent of committing visa fraud, especially in terms of maintaining a parental relationship with the children, or that they were complicit in baby-selling.

While the U.S. ratification of Hague Convention #33 may improve the handling of orphan issues to some extent, it will NOT address such issues unless a sending country has also ratified the Hague. I believe that looking at the INA needs to be done, REGARDLESS of when the Hague actually enters into force in the U.S.; implementation is expected in the Spring of 2008.

As a separate matter, unrelated to today's NOIDs, I'd also like to see a change in the current IR-3/IR-4 definitions, which are also part of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Today, the IR-3 visa is issued to children adopted by both single and married parents, as long as all relevant parents traveled and saw the child before the issuance of a final decree of adoption overseas. A child coming home on an IR-3 is considered to have had a full and final adoption overseas. He/she becomes a U.S. citizen immediately upon entry into our country, and readoption or state "recognition" of the adoption is not required unless the parents' state of residence requires it.

If, however, one or both adoptive parents did NOT travel and see the child before an adoption decree was issued overseas, the child comes home on an IR-4 visa. He/she does not become a U.S. citizen upon arrival in the U.S. Rather, the parents must either readopt him or obtain recognition of the adoption in their home state, before automatic citizenship kicks in, and the parents must also pay for the issuance of a citizenship certificate. An IR-4 visa is also issued to children who are not actually adopted overseas, but who come home under a decree of guardianship, for adoption in the parents' home state.

I have no problem with an IR-4 being given to a child who is not adopted overseas, but comes home under a decree of guardianship for adoption in the U.S. Legally, the adoptive parents are not the parents of the child, in this case, and cannot confer citizenship upon him/her, until there is a final adoption.

My concern, however, is with children who have had a final decree of adoption issued abroad, but who have not been seen by all relevant parents before the adoption order was signed. I simply do not see why the adoption of these children should not be considered final, if the decree was issued by a lawful authority in the foreign country.

It seems to me that, whether or not they see a child before a final decree was issued overseas, adoptive parents have made a commitment to accept that child. They have undergone the same preadoptive preparation and "vetting", they have accepted a referral in the same manner, and so on. They should be aware of the risks of adopting a child whom they have not met.

In most cases, if one or both parents won't be seeing a child before a foreign adoption is finalized, they have signed and notarized various documents authorizing the finalization of, and issuance of a visa to, the child.

So why should the government consider the adoptions of such children as NOT "full and final"? Does the government have statistics showing that such adoptions are more likely to fail? I have never seen any such statistics, and do not believe that there is any evidence to support a claim that such adoptions are more likely to disrupt. And I certainly don't believe that any adoptive parent comes to adoption thinking, "If I don't travel, and the child comes home on an IR-4 visa, I can simply walk away from the adoption if I decide I don't like him/her."

And even if there were statistics showing that IR-4 adoptions were more likely to disrupt, so what? Whether the overseas adoption was or was not considered full and final, the relinquishment of a child by adoptive parents is still a traumatic event for all. The parents still have legal and financial obligations, and the event is likely to have an impact on the child for the rest of his/her life.

If adoptive parents finalize an adoption overseas, but decide while overseas not to accept the child, they still have legal and financial obligations to him/her. In most cases, they will need to have a legitimate authority in the foreign country rescind the adoption, so that the child can be returned to the orphanage or other setting where he/she has been living, and placed with a new family. If they fail to go through the process, but simply return the child to the orphanage, he/she may not be eligible for adoption because he/she technically has parents, and the parents could be expected to pay for his/her care.

Once parents have received an IR-3 or IR-4 visa for a child with a foreign decree of adoption, and bring him/her to the U.S., they also have legal and financial obligations to that child. If they are unable to parent that child, they must still make both legal and practical arrangements for him/her. In many cases, they will wind up working with an agency to find a new family for the child. Occasionally, they will wind up relinquishing the child to the state, especially if the child has serious special needs and new parents cannot be found.

It really doesn't matter all that much whether the child whose adoption is disrupting has come home on an IR-3 or IR-4 visa. The effect is the same. The foreign adoption needs to be considered null and void, and the child needs either to be adopted by a new family or given over to the custody of the state. The family simply cannot put the child on a plane and send him/her back to his/her home country.

All in all, it really makes sense for the government to take a new look at the Immigration and Nationality Act and the way it has been interpreted over the years.

And it really makes sense for the government to do more study of the process of issuing adoption visas, to ensure that the rules are clear, that investigations are conducted properly and sensitively, and that there is a presumption of innocence unless there is well-documented evidence of improprieties.

After the shutdown of Cambodia and Vietnam, the USCIS put into place a "demonstration program" that it called "Adjudicate Orphan Status First". In certain countries, the U.S. decided to allow the processing of I-600s IN THE U.S., BEFORE A FAMILY TRAVELED, if the family agreed to be part of the program.

The USCIS realized that, in too many cases, families were traveling and completing adoptions. They then were going to the U.S. Embassy to obtain adoption visas for their children, only to learn that the children did not qualify for visas. At that point, they had already bonded with their children for days or weeks, and had already taken on the legal and financial responsibility for them. It was hard for the parents to relinquish the children, and hard for the children to leave their parents, and the government was sensitive to this fact.

The demonstration program was intended to determine whether doing the orphan investigation in the U.S., before families actually completed adoptions, would prevent delays and heartbreaking situations later. While the adoption documents would still be scrutinized at the foreign embassies, once the parents arrived there after their adoptions, the full "orphan investigation" would not be needed in most cases.

I am not aware of the results of the demonstration project. I remember that, while thinking that the project was very, very good conceptually, I was worried that it could result in LESS, rather than more, thorough investigations, since responsibility for the process was in the U.S., not in the foreign country where there would, presumably, be greater familiarity with and sensitivity to cultural issues. I was also worried about whether it might unduly lengthen the wait between referral and travel, even if it somewhat shortened the in-country stay. And I was also worried that the U.S. Embassy in the foreign country might still insist on revisiting the entire investigation once the family arrived with a child.

I would be interested in hearing from people who have familiarity with the program, about how it turned out. If it turned out well, I wonder why the program has not been implemented in more countries. That way, a family could know, BEFORE going to a Giving and Receiving ceremony in Vietnam, that a child's status as an eligible orphan was accepted by the U.S.

If the program was a failure, then perhaps the USCIS should think about creating a better one. The realization that thousands of families are completing international adoptions every year, with no guarantee that the children will be able to come to the U.S., is scary, to say the least.

The fact that families are willing to take the risk speaks volumes about their love of children and commitment to parenting. But the risk probably COULD be reduced, at least to some degree, by a well-designed program that allows a child's paperwork to be reviewed BEFORE finalization of the adoption, especially in non-Hague countries and countries where visa fraud is rampant.

Ah well, I'll climb down from my soapbox now...

Sharon

[ksquilter72]

Going for Five -

Congratulations on your new son or daughter! I was in Vietnam in November, so we just missed running into each other. I truly do not want to be argumentative, but there are so many people looking to adopt from Vietnam and I think it's important that they understand that the U.S. Govt is not on a witch-hunt, hoping to deny adoption cases based on flimsy reasoning.

I had conversations with US officials while I was in Vietnam about some of the issues causing the issuance of NOIDs. One of the major concerns seemed to be agencies who were referring 'healthy' infants who were, in fact, very very ill. The Consulate official told me about issues such as deafness, cancer, and even one baby who only had 1/2 a brain. The adoptive parents had no idea that their children were not 100 percent healthy until they arrived in Vietnam. Brendan also touched on some of the issues in certain provinces that are paperwork-related.

It is heartbreaking that some adoptive parents are forced to wait through an investigation and that some are not allowed to bring the children to the U.S. And it sounds like your paperwork was, as you said, caught up in a case of 'people error'. But the majority of these cases are being investigated for very legitimate reasons. And when you see a post on a family's blog or web site, it only contains 1/2 of the story. I follow that family's story as well, and hope that they have a good resolution to their case. But I refuse to put pressure on the U.S. Govt to push ANY case through the system. If they are incorrect in their initial issuance of a NOID, I hope they investigate and issue approval quickly, with an apology to the family. But I think we all would want to know that our child was legally available for adoption and that the process was ethical.

Dianna