China probes child trafficking, adoption link

May 10, 2011 / freemalasiatoday.com

BEIJING: China has launched a probe into the abduction of children allegedly born in violation of population control policies then trafficked by officials into adoptions worldwide, an official said Tuesday.

The investigation comes after Caixin magazine reported this week that family planning officials in central China’s Hunan province had abducted children and sold them into adoption — some in the United States and the Netherlands.

The case, which is not the first to accuse Chinese family planning officials of abusing population control policies for profit, sheds further light on the uneven implementation of the country’s “one-child” population control policy.

A government spokeswoman surnamed Tang in Longhui county — an impoverished region where many of the alleged abductions took place — confirmed to AFP that the investigation began on Monday.

According to Caixin, about 20 children were forcefully taken away from families who were allegedly in violation of the “one-child” policy, and put up for adoption overseas.

One family claimed they had not broken the law, as the child was their first, but family planning “enforcers” nonetheless took the baby away.

“They mistook my daughter for being illegal when my wife and I were working in Shenzhen (in south China),” migrant worker Yang Libing told the magazine.

Yang said he had tracked down his daughter, now seven years old and living in the United States.

Family planning officials in Longhui county allegedly received 1,000 yuan (US$155) for each child handed over to welfare agencies, which in turn received up to US$3,000 for each child put up for adoption overseas, it said.

The abductions peaked in the middle of the last decade but had been occurring for 10 years, the magazine said.

Trafficking of women and children remains a serious problem in China, with many sociologists blaming its “one-child” policy for fuelling the crime.

Under the policy, aimed at controlling China’s world-leading population of more than 1.3 billion, people who live in urban areas are generally allowed one child, while rural families can have two if the first is a girl.

This has put a premium on baby boys, while baby girls are often sold off, abandoned or put up for adoption.

Official penalties for violating the “one-child” policy vary based on location, but usually include a fine. Rights groups however allege that much more draconian measures are often taken.

In a report released in December, the Hong Kong-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders cited widespread abuse including forced abortions, sterilisations, insertions of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and coerced testing for pregnancy.

Both men and women found to have violated the policy have been beaten, detained, or fined. Others have lost their jobs, or been denied household registration permits for their children, CHRD alleged.

China is battling a severe gender imbalance. A census recently completed in the country found 118.06 males were born in China to every 100 baby girls over the past 10 years.

Up to 80,000 Chinese children have reportedly been adopted by overseas families in recent decades, with most finding homes in the United States.

0

Stolen...but protected by DOS

It is devastating to read about this horrific trend of kidnapping children, then selling them for a profit into adoption.

Sadly those children may never be returned to their families, unless the adoptive parent is the one to do so.

You see, The Department of State (DOS) sees the children as "US citizens", so thus they must protect them and not return them to their country of origin nor assist in finding the whereabouts of the kidnapped child in the US.

Even though being returned would actually mean being REUNITED with their families. For the DOS, they will not participate in that.

What if the child has been

What if the child has been living in a different country for 5 to 10 years? Should they be uprooted and sent back to a country where they know nothing of the language and away from the parents who have raised them. Use some common sense here! It's not in the best interest of the child to send them back to a place they dont know, with people they dont know. How is that being reunited? The best interests of the child is what needs to be considered, not similar DNA.

Returned, and unwanted

Oh PAHLESE, as if adoptees are not returned, dropped-off, or sent to live somewhere else after the ill-prepared AP realizes the adoption honeymoon is over and the adopted child is not adapting to the new life-style/role adoption had gifted the poor confused bastard.  There are far too many moronic AP's out there basing their adoption-plan on a website, book or brochure.  As a result, the vast majority of adopters do NOT know what a child's best interest is.  Period.

I blame the adoption agencies and rabid adoption advocates for this ever growing problem.  Of course, it just so happens a great number of international adoption agencies are run and owned by..... yep... APs.  [It's disgusting how many of these people use "orphans" and poverty-stricken people/regions to their own money-making thrill-seeking advantages!!!]

Not sure exactly what that

Not sure exactly what that rambling reply meant, but it's nonsense to suggest that "a vast majority of adopters do not know what a child's best interest is." I'm not talking about someone who has a child for a few months and decides the honeymoon is over. If you are a responsible parent, you do know what's in the child's best interest. If you raise a child for 5-10 years, sending them back to a foreign country, taking them away from the only family they know, is not beneficial to them or anyone else. That's really a no brainer. I agree that these abuses must be stopped going forward, but tearing apart a family for the second time accomplishes nothing--at least nothing positive for any of the parties involved.

Um... speaking of no-brainer...

If you are a responsible parent, you do know what's in the child's best interest. If you raise a child for 5-10 years, sending them back to a foreign country, taking them away from the only family they know, is not beneficial to them or anyone else. That's really a no brainier

You are correct.... if you are a responsible parent, you will find a way to gradually introduce your adopted child to his/her real parents.  The reasonable and responsible AP/second parent would also try to work-out a family-plan that involves ALL family members touched by the hideous crime called kidnapping for adoption.

That's the ultimate no-brainer, isn't it?   S-l-o-w-l-y 're-birth' the child back into his/her original family, making sure the child's emotional and physcial needs are being met.

Duh.

What heartless moron would send the adopted child back to a foreign land, like a pair of shoes?

I agree it would take "a

I agree it would take "a heartless moron" (add in a good deal of other expletives here as well) to send your child baith like a pair of shoes, yet on the few blogs I've been on, there's a fair amount of people who say the child should essentially be on a plane in a few hours back China. I would also say that the child should have some say on whether there should be any involvement with the birth parents, assuming they are of an age to make such decisions. I'm not convinced, in the least, that having birth parents who have been separated from the child for a period of years would be of any benefit to ANYONE involved; it may, in fact, be to all parties a detriment. Thus, a plan that involves "all parents" as suggested above, couldn't conceivably be called a no-brainer. One this is for certain; others will always be compelled to comment on what another should do with issues within their family, whether it's any of their business or not.

A pair of shoes

I agree it would take "a heartless moron" (add in a good deal of other expletives here as well) to send your child baith like a pair of shoes,

And yet, it happens. "Like a pair of shoes" is more than just a saying. Sometimes, it actually makes the news.

yet on the few blogs I've been on, there's a fair amount of people who say the child should essentially be on a plane in a few hours back China.

Which blogs have said that?

One this is for certain; others will always be compelled to comment on what another should do with issues within their family, whether it's any of their business or not.

Won't they, though.

Ironically, it's most often the morality police shoving the state into every other taxpayer's homes and bedrooms, who believe it's nobody's business when they steal somebody else's child.

We live in an upside-down world.

Groan...THAT shopworn old phrase, again.

in the best interest of the child

Does that mean you aren't

Does that mean you aren't concerned with the child's well being? It's more than just a saying, quite obviously. If that is your position, hopefully you don't--and never will--have children.

Kidnapping okay???

Anon--Are you saying that it IS in the best interest of a kidnapped child NOT to be returned to their families?

How is that in the "best interest of the child". Please explain.

To Anon...best interest of the child?

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying? So please forgive me ahead of time for any confusion.

Don't APs take children who have been living in a foreign country with their foster families, some for years, being the only family they have known?
How is that ok...but not returning a kidnapped child? It seems that the you justify taking a child from the foster family because the child is being adopted but it is not ok to take a child from a wrongfully placed adoption when the real family has been looking for their kidnapped child.

From what I have read in the links in PPL, these families have not just found out the child was wrongfully placed but have known since the child arrived in the US that the child was kidnapped when the authorities contacted them. Forget best interest, how is that even ethical or moral?

I was raised a Christian and I am proud to be a Christian, those that think that kidnapped children should not be returned to their families searching for them...are not Christians.

A vast majority of the

A vast majority of the children in the recent stories were not foster care at all. Most, if not all, were in state run orphanages for a few 3-10 months. I don't know if you've visited a Chinese orpahnage--I have. There is absolutely nothing that you consider family-like in these places. The child in the story I quoted has lived with her adoptive parents since 9 months old, and is nine years old now. Can you honsetly say the best thing for her would be to be sent back to people she has never known, to a country where she doesn't speak the language, where she doesn't understand the culture? Imagine someone coming to your home, going to your nine year old child, and saying: "Well, say goodbye, were taking you back to China to live on a farm with your migrant farming biological parents whom you have ever known." She'd be thrilled, I'm sure. That the child was ever taken in the manner she was is nothing short of an abhorant crime, but sending her back to China after nine years with a loving family wouldn't in any way remedy the situation.

Another scenario

I don't see anyone claiming a child who has been with an adoptive family for years should be sent back, so why do you keep attacking this straw men?

There are also other situations than the one you describe, where the adoptive parents learn soon after the adoption, when the child has barely settled in the new family, if at all, that the child was stolen.

Several adoptive parents faced with such situations refused to cooperate, some even went into hiding. How is that in the best interest of the child?

Try to imagine what it is like growing up and learning you were stolen and the people whom adopted you did everything in their power to keep you from being returned to your original family.

Look at the post above where

Look at the post above where someone say the child should undergo
"rebirth" slowly and be returned to their original family. That's what I'm referring to. I dont know where the timeframe break off should be. I agree that how long the child has been with the adopting family would be and issue, so i see your point. By the way, what does straw man mean in your post?

resolution

The post you refer to doesn't even mention return other than the statement: "What heartless moron would send the adopted child back to a foreign land, like a pair of shoes?"

In fact, the central statement, as far as I am concerned is: "if you are a responsible parent, you will find a way to gradually introduce your adopted child to his/her real parents. The reasonable and responsible AP/second parent would also try to work-out a family-plan that involves ALL family members touched by the hideous crime called kidnapping for adoption."

The term straw man, refers to this phenomenon, meaning in this context, that you attack a position that no one has taken here. There are already enough disruptions in adoption where adopted children are dumped when things go wrong, for any of us here to advocate for a sudden and abrupt return to the family of origin. However, I believe, it's the duty of adoptive parents faced with a situation like this to reintroduce the family of origin into the life of the child.

The end result may differ on a case by case situations. Despite being faced with the devestating loss of having a child stolen, it is likely that once the original family learns the whereabouts of their child, that they accept the situation as is. Just read the comments written by Jurol in this thread.

Resolving the problem, however, is necessary. If not, the child may end up believing there is no one to trust.

Straw man

By the way, what does straw man mean in your post?

I can't tell whether there are two Anons posting or one. One says they are an attorney, while the other seems to kind of struggle to express themselves.

A lawyer of any sort would know what a straw man is and would probably know better than to try and use it on an internet forum. So I will assume there are at least two Anons posting right now.

That said, straw man fallacy is making up an opponent's argument, i.e. putting words in their mouth, and then purporting to argue against it.

For instance, the statement was made, "yet on the few blogs I've been on, there's a fair amount of people who say the child should essentially be on a plane in a few hours back China."

Who says this? If the person doesn't have an answer, they are engaging in straw man tactics.

No, there's just one of me.

No, there's just one of me. The reason I questioned you on this was because the posting have been full of people claiming that the children should be reunited with their bio families, yet you failed to recognized the obvious. Read more carefully and you'll see. At no time in the posting did I revert to such a tactic; quite simply there was no need to. I did, however, think that you were using the term improperly, but, in the end, you defined it quite well. Regretably, however, your assumptions were wrong, on both accounts.

Worst. Lawyer. Ever.

Pay attention, pls. It wasn't me who first used the term "straw man", that was Niels. I merely answered your post asking what it was.

The reason I questioned you on this was because the posting have been full of people claiming that the children should be reunited with their bio families, yet you failed to recognized the obvious.

Moving the goalposts, another logical fallacy. Even a big dummy like me can spot it when it occurs.

Your claim is that people on blogs you've been on say the kids should essentially be on a plane back to China. WHICH blogs, where, and when.

TMK, none of the the regulars on this site have said kids that have been with a family for years should be sent back, bio, or otherwise. So let us know where you get that impression, or stop arguing against straw men.

Well, Marion, I wasn't

Well, Marion, I wasn't resonding to you. Rather I was responding to Niels statement. By simply stating based on my comments here that I'm the worst lawyer period, you're showing how quick you are to jump to conclusions without any evidence, somehing this web site seems prone to do. So, I implore YOU to pay attention. I already am.

In the case I read last

In the case I read last night, the child was adopted at eight months old. She is now 9 years old. The only family she has ever know is her adoptive parents. There are no circumstances under which I would advocate for return of this child to people she has never known. DNA aside, they have nothing in common and no bond. And let's face it DNA isn't that important in a parent/child relationship.

sarcasm?

I must assume, your last remark was sarcastic.

Not sarcastic in the least.

Not sarcastic in the least. There's lots of idiots spreading their DNA all over, and never taking the responsibility to be a parent. Being a parent is being there for the child, caring for the child, teaching the child, most importantly...loving the child. It has nothing to do with biological connection. Nothing!!! Please don't think for a second I was being sarcastic. There are thousands upon thousands of step-moms and step dads that are much more of a parent than the sperm or egg donor who took off and left the responsibility of being a parent behind.

Parents, Schmarents

Being a parent is being there for the child, caring for the child, teaching the child, most importantly...loving the child.

Well, that leaves out all the APs who fill up the case archives of PPL now doesn't it.

Just because someone has convinced themselves they have "chosen" somebody else's kid to be their own posession doesn't make them any better or worse than the people whose DNA is so breezily commodified.

Only DNA and no bond?

Your quote: "DNA aside, they have nothing in common and no bond." HAHAHAAAA! Really?

Oh my my my, how foolish and naive is that. Sorry...hate to break your adoption bliss bubble, but adoptees DO have more in common with their first families than you think, more than just DNA. You cannot break that connection to the first family however much you try. It is that DNA only connection myth repeated by folks like you that keep so many APs in a fog. For those APs that don't know that yet, just wait.

uuummm, just wait for what?

uuummm, just wait for what?

I don't have any blissful

I don't have any blissful adoption bubble myself (it's almost aliteration however, and therefore somewhat entertaining) but could you give perhaps one example of what exists other than DNA between two people who have been separated since birth? Also, I like the HAAAAAAAHHHAAaa part.

Adoption Advocates : advocates for whom?

The only family she has ever know is her adoptive parents.

And if the AMother is like so many others, that worried (insecure?) Amother  will make sure that child stays on a very short leash, for as long as the adopted child can be kept tame and without an interest in bio-family, origins, and the story that starts with the question, "How did I get here?".

<loading, then re-loading....loading, then re-loading>

Newsflash.  We (the domestic/foreign exchange kid) find out.  One way or another, the truth always comes out.  Even if we have to wait until dear ol Amom and Adad are both dead, we find out.  I'll spare the suspsense... there's not enough pills, or drugs to drown or soothe that pain an adult adoptee feels when he/she learns his/her life was founded on a stack of lies -- especially if that adoptee was abused post adoption.

Nevertheless, modern AP's are going to insist they know what's the truth and what is best based, on their own experience, and what they have been told by adoption-industry puppets.  If they choose not to learn from those with no strings,so be it. I guess in very simple blunt English, American AP's, who pay the fees, have the right to choose how they will deal with their adoption-plan. 

Personally, I would not want to be known as a foreign adopter these days.  There's a big ugly stink cloud mushrooming around all that is ICA, add to this the reputation Americans already have!  Give countries a few more years to see how abusive American Adopters can be (without any type of post-placement monitoring), and we'll see how the PTB in foreign child trade respond.  I bet more and more sending countries will be saying NO (and closing doors) to the unratified American treaty adoption-plan and YES to those countries in the EU who not only update their UNCRC treaties, but have the extra euros to spend on a good exotic adoption plan! 

In any case, it has been my own personal experience that 'adoption advocates' advocate the interests of adopters, adoption agency owners, and adoption lawyers, alike.  They tend to support and defend the actions of those who benefit most from a heroic adoption story, whether or not that chosen "poor orphan" story is true, or not.

Rarely, if ever, have I witnessed a rabid adoption supporter/advocate act as a child advocate, as well.  Go figure.

I for one know first-hand what happens to the 'adoptable' child left in care as a foreign adoption plan gets fixed and finalized.  [Some of these doctors, lawyers, and 'chiefs' ought to be ashamed of themselves!]  I strongly oppose any action that puts a child in-care at risk and in danger.  Period.  SOMEONE needs to defend the rights of a child put in-care.  (Does a child not have a right to safety these days?) 

I wish those great defenders of an APs inaction took a portion of their day to defend the rights of children in Adoptionland.  If they did, I am certain they would NOT be calling more to adopt by the freakin boat and plane-full... not until radical adoption reform was law, that is.

Just thought of something

Personally, I would not want to be known as a foreign adopter these days.  There's a big ugly stink cloud mushrooming around all that is ICA, add to this the reputation Americans already have!  Give countries a few more years to see how abusive American Adopters can be (without any type of post-placement monitoring), and we'll see how the PTB in foreign child trade respond.  I bet more and more sending countries will be saying NO (and closing doors) to the unratified American treaty adoption-plan and YES to those countries in the EU who not only update their UNCRC treaties, but have the extra euros to spend on a good exotic adoption plan!

Just thought of something I've been working on over the past couple weeks.

Now this is a real long shot, but there could be some merit to it.

People on my side of the political aisle sometimes wonder aloud with me just WHY so many of these groups, like the Evangelical nutballs who run the religious adoption agencies, never consider that at the rate they exploit people, there won't be anyone left to exploit, soon.

Many believe in the rapture/return of Jesus, so the feeling is, oh well, the Lord is coming soon anyway, so might as well get while the gettin is good. It also explains, in part, their HASTE in acquiring or placing a kid. In short, I bet some don't give two craps that reckless actions now may result in a country closing down ICA to the US in the long term. This is not to slam theological beliefs, (even coming from me.) It's more a tool to help determine the level of ruthlessness one is dealing with.

Like I said, it's perhaps far-fetched. But the church backgrounds of some of these organizations can yield a lot of clues about specific ethical concerns.

Blinded by faith and promises

Really good thought-provoking question, as I see a faith-based side that you may not see very clearly.

People on my side of the political aisle sometimes wonder aloud with me just WHY so many of these groups, like the Evangelical nutballs who run the religious adoption agencies, never consider that at the rate they exploit people, there won't be anyone left to exploit, soon.

I think many people see the removal of children in a "God-less nation" and placing them in a "God - Blessed country" as a service that pleases God.... earning fast-track rides to God's Kingdom, or something just as spectacular.  But if one is a true-blue Christian, are any more sacrifices really needed to "win"/earn God's Favor?

In my mind, the answer is "no".... the price to pay has already been paid. (No more human sacrifices are needed, TY!)  [This is why I try to stay away from nut-ball religious groups focused on the wrong teachings; I do my own independent thinking, and on occasion, discuss with others.]

Personally, I think helping your fellow man by giving, not taking, is more in keeping with many Holy Books, including the one I read for inspiration.

In addition, I must add, I also think some people are so blinded by their own faith and wishful thinking, they forget/fail to realize there are great deceivers among them, waiting to take advantage of the weak and naive.  (In some cases, I really don't think some of these eager-beaver faith-based people think or know others are being exploited.)

Adoption issues are all the more complex once one tries to mix politics with religion.

Anyhoo.... one of my all-time favorite books to read is The Screwtape Letters (by C.S.Lewis).

Its a brilliant example how the most (seemingly) righteous can be bad, amoral, and wrong.  I think PAP's could learn from such a book.

Looking Back...

Kerry stated:

"I think many people see the removal of children in a "God-less nation" and placing them in a "God - Blessed country" as a service that pleases God.... earning fast-track rides to God's Kingdom, or something just as spectacular."

Many religions teach "earning your way into Heaven."  I don't happen to come from one of those...

But, I can see where so called "Christians" might get a goose pimple or two as they slither through the adoption process.  (slither: crawling through the illegal process so as not to be seen)

In hind sight, every one of my adoptions was laced (as in hidden bad stuff) with enough slick-willy propaganda to cause a glaze to form on my eyes.

And here is where the agencies KNOW they will catch their suckers every time... add on the "religious" perks each PAP is seeking.  We don't know we are seeking it until it is brought to our attention in one of the "adoption support groups" we all love to join.  Just LOOK at all those darling little faces; and you KNOW they would have become a beggar on the street if we hadn't adopted them.  THIS is what we hear.  THIS is where agencies get their next sucker hooked.

Adoption agencies help organize AND fill the memberships of Adoption Support Groups!  Adding "Christian" (like Holt) brought in every form of "religious" wanna adopt-er from around the country. 

Was I lied to?  I think I wanted to BE lied to...  I wanted to belong.  I wanted a family.  I wanted God to be pleased with me.  And it was WRONG!  My religion states that NO ONE can earn their way to Heaven.  I was RAISED in that religion.  So why did I and thousands of others "fall" for the Let's Please God and Adopt?  Because satan is sly; the father of all liars... and he whispered lies into the ears of every would-be "Christian" in order to, as Kerry put it,  " I also think some people are so blinded by their own faith and wishful thinking, they forget/fail to realize there are great deceivers among them, waiting to take advantage of the weak and naive."

Kerry also stated: "Adoption issues are all the more complex once one tries to mix politics with religion."  It's not the PAP's who bring politics and religion into adoption, it's the agencies!  But we fall for it, and so, we are seen as to blame.

I'm not the enemy of PPL.  I understand where you are coming from... I just hope there will come a time when healing takes hold and the pain will stop for all abused adoptees.  I hope adoption as we now know it will stop.  I want the best for ALL adoptees.  After all, I only want the best for my own adopted children...

Teddy is about worn out... 

Twisted xians

But if one is a true-blue Christian, are any more sacrifices really needed to "win"/earn God's Favor?

Eh, well that all depends on which of the true blue ones you ask. Ask 20 of them and you'll get 25 different, conflicting, competing, contradictory answers, all screaming at you they and only they are the one true way.

well-played

EXACTLY.

SMH

Does that mean you aren't concerned with the child's well being?

It only means that I've grown weary of this old repeated line being constantly forwarded as independent thought. The "best interest of the child" types have reduced it far beyond "more than just a saying", into a mindless, thought-stopper cliché. You've misread my position, but since you mention it, unless the stork drops someone on my doorstep with my name on it, no I do not ever intend to parent.

I already know I would make a lousy parent, which, unlike so many "best interest of the child" types, is a decision based in careful consideration. As opposed to feckless, validation-seeking, me-first child-acquisition cloaked in phony martyrdom. So, you needn't worry.

Nope, not worried, but

Nope, not worried, but somewhat relieved. "Best interest of the child "is a legal definition and consideration, not merely a statement--shopworn or otherwise. As an attorney specializing in family law, I have an appreciation for the neccesity of this definition in sensitive issues related to custody. It's not presented as independent thought, but simply thought itself, in the legal sense. I would say that chosing to be a parent is based on careful consideration among most who chose to adopt, without the validation-seeking and martyrdom you mentioned. You seem to have some underlying issues with people who adopt in general. Have you thought about why?

Rights of a parent....

Anon- Help me to understand why you think that a parent whose child was stolen and they went immediately to authorities to make a police report that their child was stolen has no right to their child? Just because a child has been x amount of years with another family, is no fault of the real parent who is searching for their child. The family in who has the child has made the choice not to return the child or go into hiding. These children were not relinquished into adoption in the first place, they are clear cut cases of kidnappings. In some other countries these cases have created a similar Amber Alert system as the US's.

Are you saying that the next time a child is kidnapped in the US, that there should be no Amber Alert? That no one should look for them and that they should stay with their kidnappers and thus never be returned to their parents? Would that be in the best interest of the child? Seriously.

Rank pulling will get you nowhere

I would say that chosing to be a parent is based on careful consideration among most who chose to adopt

Not nearly enough. If I must consider why I supposedly have underlying issues with people who adopt, have you thought about why you might be prone to overdefensiveness of people who think they are entitled to other people's children, simply because they want them?

Isn't it fun to play Presumptuous Pretensions on the internet?

One can repeat "best interests of the child" over and over till they are blue in the face. Doesn't mean they actually posess any.

Nor does it mean that they

Nor does it mean that they do not have such interests in mind. (to speak of presumptiousness) I can not see how one could state that the adoptive parents feel that they are entitled to "other peoples children". The have adopted the child, had her for nine years; therefore it is now their child. That being said, I would never, ever, defend the practice of stealing the child for profit or otherwise. The adoption I cited took place after the child spent more than seven months in an orphanage. I simply do not see how anyone could honestly say it would be better for the child to be sent--after nine years--back to people she has never known, just so the DNA in the household is similar. Also, some of my posts have not been published as of yet, and I've addressed a few of these specific issues in those posts.

Wrong argument

I simply do not see how anyone could honestly say it would be better for the child to be sent--after nine years--back to people she has never known, just so the DNA in the household is similar.

No one here has said any such thing, so there is no reason to fret.

Great, then we agree.

Great, then we agree.

By the way, what rank was

By the way, what rank was pulled?

We are talking about

We are talking about kidnapped kids here, aren't we? I just want to make sure I get what you all are talking about. Thxs.

To answer your question

To answer your questions...yes. Yes we are talking about kidnapped children here. Yes we are talking about children whose mothers did not relinquish them. Yes we are talking about children who were kidnapped from their parents front yards or taken while their babies slept. Yes we are talking about children whose mothers went inside to get a drink of water and their child was kidnapped.

The first post is about a child in China that was taken illegally from their parents and placed for adoption. But the story replays in many other countries where ICA is a money maker for kidnappers.

Yes the posters in this thread are also talking about other cases.

Yes some feel that a child should not be returned to the family searching for them because the child has lived with another family for years.

Yes families know that the child they call their own, is really a kidnapped child.

Yes the documents are fake.

Yes the paperwork was obtained illegally.

Yes the child was declared abandoned when in reality the child was kidnapped.

Yes the adoption is a fraud.

Yes the adoption is then not legal.

Any other questions?

Pound Pup Legacy