Regarding the China Adoption trafficking story, since Robin mentioned that adopting from the US might be something these parents who are considering international adoption, and specifically China adoption should consider, I wish that the reasons families chose International adoptions over domestic ones might have been cited, even briefly. Otherwise, people with very little actual knowledge about domestic adoption tend to fall back into an “it serves you right, you should adopt (“buy”) American” mindset without knowing how hard it really is for families with finite resources who want a relatively healthy infant. When I looked into adoption from the foster care system, the average age of a child who was available for adoption was 7 years old. In the much more expensive private adoptions, the chances of a domestic adoption falling through are very high – about 50% of birth mothers change their mind and decide to keep the baby. That is their right, of course, but the family has usually already spent thousand of dollars on legal fees, medical fees, and possibly living expenses, and that money is gone and cannot be recovered. I am not rich, and I wanted a baby, not a 7 year old. I knew that if I started an international adoption from China, that the chances were tremendous that I would have a baby when the process was finished. And I was right – my daughter was 13 months when she came home, and is 5 now, and a wonderful child! I am waiting in the long line for her little sister now, and even though it is a much changed environment than it was four years ago, I am confident that I will have a baby sister for my daughter at the end of the process.

Re: Iranians Abroad

A rare disappointment… So I listened to a second streamed broadcast to make sure I got my point of criticism right.

It would have been much harder for your guest to evade the question of precedent had Robin actually used the word “SAVAK,” the acronym for Iran’s secret police/intelligence agency, which was reputed to exert substantial influence abroad (including coercive measures against expatriates’ families) under the previous regime of the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

The means of detecting dissidents within the diaspora may be different, but there is no reason to believe SAVAK’s behavior died with the organization and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution took charge of inflicting popular terror.

Re: China Child Trafficking.
I listened to this report. Wanting to give your child a sense of history or roots is a good thing. Part of the interview came accross as self serving. In a twisted way the adopting parent is getting her 15 minutes of fame by trying to track down the birth parents. ‘Isn’t she wonderful’. ‘I could never be that un-selfish’. But here is another issue to think about. These adopting parents are so blessed to have these children in their lives. In more cases than not, the birth parents were forced by political rules to close their hearts and give up their child. Some took their child to an orphanage, other children by abandoment. These birth parents took a chance by not killing that child. Now the adopting parents may be putting the birth parents in major harms why. I think many little girls will be killed rather than risk having the adopting parents expose them. Are there children who in fact were stolen, yes. Will more good come from tracking down birth parents, NO.

At first I appreciated your story on adoption and the tragic reports of instances of adoption-related child trafficking in China. I was pleased this very serious issue was getting more coverage and was impressed your story included multiple voices including those of an adoptive mom, a well-respected reporter (who also happens to be an adoptive mom) and even references to the internationally known and respected adoption educator Jane Brown. My positive feelings about the report were shattered in an instant when Robin Young issued her editorial comment that the “lesson” here is that families should adopt domestically. This blanket condemnation of international adoption was unwarranted and unnecessary. While I agree cases of possible trafficking in China and anywhere else in the world are serious and deserving of investigation, I wonder what Robin’s comment says to the thousands and thousands of families formed by legitimate international adoptions? To the thousands of children who are legally and legitimately in institutions in hopes of them finding a forever family? What does it say to the many families in Canada and Europe who have adopted American-born children? (Read more about this here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html) Yes, there are likely to be families who adopted internationally in good faith who may now find that their children came into the system through inappropriate channels. Those situations should be addressed, but NO ONE is saying those situations constitute the majority of international adoptions. Should all of those adoptive families have taken the short-sighted “keep it within your own borders” route Robin’s closing comment seems to advocate? I think not. I think the real lesson of this story is NOT found in Robin’s comment and conclusion. Instead, it is that there are thousands of children around the world in need of homes–some available through domestic channels and some in far-flung corners of the world and that ALL of them, ALL their birth families, and ALL adoptive families deserve a legal, ethical adoption system. The Hague Convention on International Adoption (which is not mentioned in the story) is a far-reaching international effort and set of guidelines designed to ensure a clear legal, ethical, responsible world-wide system. Such a thing is the only way to ensure that children, birth families and adoptive families are free to move forward in love, so the children involved will have the best possible chance of becoming the healthy, productive adults they DESERVE to be!

The interviews were fairly well done, but I’d have to agree with the listener who commented on the “take-home” message. Why on earth, Robin Young, would you think that domestic adoptions wouldn’t be subject to the same potential for corruption as international adoption? Why is domestic adoption morally superior to international adoption? Those of us who have chosen to adopt internationally really wish that people wouldn’t rush to judgment until they’ve taken the time to understand all the complicated factors driving such a decision. It isn’t as simple as it may appear to the casual observer.

There should be no “lesson” for prospective adoptive parents derived from this. Adoptive parents who later learn their children were trafficked are also victims, not perpetrators of injustices of which they knew nothing when they adopted their children in good faith. And indeed, the implicit rebukes contained in many of these discussions are a good part of the reason many adoptive parents choose to put their heads in the sand.

As the adoptive mother of two girls from China, one of whom we learned subsequently was almost certainly trafficked, I’ve followed this story closely. It strikes me that many of these stories (the LA Times piece, the Washington Post magazine piece from a couple of years ago and the Dutch television documentary) are rehashing the same story repeatedly, namely one centered on the removal, over several years, of children from Guangdong province to a group of orphanages in Hunan province. The perpetrators of the scheme were tried in late 2005/early 2006 and several of them were imprisoned. The NPR reporter who attended the trial (Anthony Kuhn) has written that there was evidence presented at the trial that all of the children who were trafficked were relinquished by their parents, not abducted.

One of the hazards of being an interviewer is not keeping quiet and just listening, but blurting out some well intentioned, but dumb, comment. That’s how I view Robin Young’s remark about domestic adoption.
What bothered me about the report was that the adoptive parent seemed to think that everyone should do as she says she will do. Nothing’s that easy, and who’s to say what’s right for anyone involved in this very complicated situation.