Chinese family planning official caught trafficking in children

A government official in South China responsible for applying the one-child policy has been found trafficking in children.

January 4, 2013 / telegraph.co.uk

Wang Yiping is the head of the village family planning committee in Anxi county, Fujian, and a mother of four, according to the China Youth Daily newspaper.

The police said she is suspected of assisting in the illegal sale of four babies, including the recent sale of a baby boy from Yunnan province for 52,000 yuan (£5,200).

The buyer of the baby said she wanted a second child because her 19-year-old son is in poor health.

Child trafficking remains a major problem in China. Last July, Chinese police said 10,000 officers had swooped on child-trafficking gangs, freeing 181 children and making 802 arrests.

In December, 12 family planning officials in Hunan were suspected of selling orphans abroad, and were found to have "seriously violated regulations", but were later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, a housing official in Zhengzhou, Henan, was also placed under investigation on Friday after it emerged his daughter, who is in her 20s, was the listed owner of eleven flats. The Chinese media found that the family has flipped a total of 308 flats so far, amassing 60 million yuan in profit.

China's new leader, Xi Jinping, has promised to stamp out corruption. He underlined the seriousness of his intention at a Politburo meeting to mark the end of the year, according to the state-run China Daily newspaper.

On Wednesday, the Chinese state media wrote that officials would continue to be exposed by internet sleuths, and that a new law designed to force internet users to register using their real names would not harm their freedom of speech and ability to accuse officials of wrongdoing.

 

0

confiscation, or forced relinquishment--is there a difference?

Hapless PAP here, in Russia but pushed out of Russian adoption by V.V. Putin, now thinking about adopting a special needs child from China...and thinking we probably shouldn't do that either. After all, where do the children come from?
1. They might be kidnapped, by corrupt family planning officials as in the news item above;
2. Their parents might be forced by officials to relinquish them as they are unable to withstand the dual pressures of large fines for violating the one-child policy, and blandishments of "lucky money" for handing them over to finders who are then paid by orphanages(see extensive reporting here: http://research-china.blogspot.it/)--in other words, trafficking;
3. In the case of SN kids, their parents, lacking proper health insurance or a lot of cash, might be forced to relinquish them by a state which refuses to pay for extensive operations for kids in families but is happy to do so for those in state custody...in order to send them abroad for adoption.

How could you possibly explain to your future child "yes, if your mom and dad just had a thousand bucks or so they could have kept you," and not expect him/her to look at you with horror and ask you why you didn't give it to them?!

And all of this gets the Hague stamp of approval with the children deemed "properly certified as 'abandoned' and available for international adoption."

No, the system is probably not going anywhere if our family doesn't participate in it. But it still doesn't make it right to do so.

Indeed, HOW?

I really appreciate your candor and ability to recognize the many wrongs taking place, all so the international adoption industry can continue to thrive.... and serve those "desperate to adopt".

You ask an excellent question... one many of us more angry adoptees think, to ourselves, as we look at our APs who love telling the story about how they "saved" us from the horrible foreign orphanages, or the wretched foster-care system that moves kids from place to place, and provides the worst in health-care:

How could you possibly explain to your [future] child "yes, if your mom and dad just had a thousand bucks or so they could have kept you," and not expect him/her to look at you with horror and ask you why you didn't give it to them?!

It's a very sobering moment when you, the adoptee realize:  had my mother... my dad... my (insert family member name) only been given the break -- the donations -- so many APs are given through so many appeals found on blogs or church announcements begging for money to afford adoption fees, then later, surgeries... or therapy.... <trailing thought leads to this final conclusion...>   Maybe if my (real/first) parents got the help they needed, way-back-when, I would not be as messed-up as I am today, thanks to a not so great adoption plan. 

Keep in mind, I apply this mind set to those first-parents who did not neglect or abuse their child.  [Many of us come from those whose only crime was they had sex, and they lacked the money and social-standing to keep the child, themselves.]

Cassandra, with that question you asked, you help illustrate why so many foreign adoptees - from countries like China or S. Korea... Guatemala...-  fail to see the "altruism" and "humanitarian effort" that comes from APs, the adoption movement, and the ever-favored /"orphan crusade", pushed by those on a religious crusade/political agenda.

However, not many APs want to see just how selfish and self-serving family-planning through infant adoption really is... or can be. 

Money and status--the magic words

The more I examine it, the more adoption, whether international or domestic, looks like a giant social engineering scheme to shift the children of the poor to the (marginally, at times) better off.

Brian Stuy, the researcher I linked to in the previous post, whose wife is Chinese and who has adopted Chinese children, writes about Chinese officials stating this openly. In the Russian setting, the state has created an enormous orphanage industry from which officials themselves profit, when an investment of half the money involved into providing for birth family needs in many cases (not all) would prevent any such "orphans" from coming into being. But "problem families" there are scorned. It's a kind of social Darwinism on steroids.

I'm being very honest in acknowledging that it is a purely selfish desire that brought me/us to this place--we want(ed) to add to our family, and, at the beginning, we bought the line that serendipitously, our desire could help provide for the "needs" of an "orphan," so it was a win-win situation. Now I see how orphans are manufactured to meet demand, we are having misgivings, serious ones. At the same time, though it is still self-serving, we think that if the "orphans" are there, and our meager efforts at birth-mother/family charity are not going to change these monstrous structures that produce them, maybe we can do it anyway? At any rate, isn't it better than the child growing up in an orphanage since the birth family option has been mooted?

I understand that your answer would be "hey, not necessarily!" And that's where we are right now.

No easy answers

There are plenty of manufactured orphans in the world.... there are also many of children who cannot be raised in their family of origin....

We need to spend far more in family preservation efforts, but even with that, there will be families who are unable to care for children due to physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental illness, and addiction.

The key is to step up family preservation (including extended family), and prevent manufacturing of orphans.
There will still be children who need permanent homes.

I do a lot of work with the abuse files here on PPL. While we document abuse of adopted/foster children... I also see MANY cases of unredeemable abuse in bio families as well. Certainly the Michael and Debi Pearl people are not just whipping adopted children, they are whipping bio children as well. (looking for information on this type of spare-the-rod abuse turns up many, many biological children who consider themselves survivors).

And Extended family needs to be the next step, but that is sometimes just as dysfunctional, see this case:

  • Girls in care of Don and Beverly Copley  - 1 of 3 sisters was raped by Dad, so the girls were moved to bio Uncle and Aunt's house. Uncle raped all 3 with the knowledge of Aunt, and possibly knowledge of more extended family, and the only reason he got turned in is that h started to rape the next generation too....... 
    You can find similar cases linked here:

I believe it is an incredibly complicated issue. I'd rather see people educated about the various issues adopt/foster than people who close their eyes.....

And MOST CERTAINLY, when a child needs a new home, we need to properly screen, prepare, and support adoptive/foster parents as well.

Have you considered...

... domestic adoption from US foster care?  I'm just wondering why you've chosen ICA over domestic adoption.

Dad

Domestic vs. ICA

Hi Dad,
Yes, we have. When we lived in NYC I was in touch with local, state and regional social service agencies, who told us that we could expect to be referred a child of 8 years old and up. We have young children in the home and are committed to preserving birth order, so that wouldn't work for us--though I would have liked it to.
Cassandra

Preserving Birth Order

Preserving birth order is one of the most important considerations when adopting a child (foreign or domestic).  Before she came to our family, our daughter had a disrupted placement primarily for that very same reason.  For obvious reasons, it's bad practice to place a child with a history of physical and/or sexual abuse in a home with younger (vulnerable) children.  The social worker who placed my daughter with that prospective adoptive family definitely dropped the ball.

I'm disappointed to hear of your experience with the state agencies in and around NYC.  We worked with a private Pennsylvania agency who was subcontracted by the state and specialized in adoptive placements out of foster care.  They did not facilitate infant adoptions.  They had an ICA program, but disbanded that almost a decade ago for some of the same reasons often exposed here on PPL.  Now, older child adoption from domestic foster care is all that they do.

Our son came to us at age 5 in 1995.  Our daughter was also placed at age 5 in 1998.  I have heard from many adoptive parents over the years about similar frustrations when working directly with the state.  Perhaps our private agency experience was the exception - not the rule.  I honestly don't know.  But just the same, I'm hopeful that things are changing for the better.

There's just so many reasons to consider domestic older adoption first, both for the child and the family.

Dad

More info on china

Research China  has lots of good information.
You can find more information on China child trafficking here:

http://poundpuplegacy.org/child_trafficking_cases

Then scroll down to read the 5 or 6 "cases" we have built here at PPL>

Pricing policy

I notice that the price paid in the article above is essentially the same as the orphanage "donation" paid by international adopters in China: 5,600 USD.

Photolisting of Kidnapped and Missing Children from China

The below link is to the Chinese Photolisting of Kidnapped and Missing Children from China.
Keep in mind that this is a partial listing, as many families do not have photos of their children.
Some are suspected to have been kidnapped and sold into ICA. The older children/young teens into the sex trade/slavery.

This organization has reunited some families.
Link: http://www.baobeihuijia.com

Yes, how about Guatemala....

Yes, how about Guatemala. Kerry excellent points you make. What are your thoughts on the Guatemalan kids who were relinquished yet the biomom kept the other siblings, IS married to the biofather and lives with a wonderful extended family, and have had OTHER children AFTER the adoptee was relinquished...as so many "heritage/search for biofamily" trips back to Guatemala" are proving and shared on so many blogs and forums.

The point has to be noted that some biofamilies are not living in dire poverty either, as were initially reported on Social Workers reports. The biofamilies also have cell phones, computers and are on Facebook. Many siblings attend school and have access to medical care.
The question that bears asking is:
Why were these kids relinquished in the first place???

*Please note that now Guatemala does have more social services for families in need. This came about after Guatemala closed to ICA.
Domestic adoption is preferred and less children are made available for adoption, although all attempts are made to keep the child with his/her extended family. Only dire cases of abuse and neglect are children removed from families, when no member of the extended family is suitable.

State and large private orphanages still are in operation, but those children were never destined for ICA in the first place, as family are still involved in their lives. Interesting that neither allowed are the 3 day mission tours from American Christians. Only YEAR long commitments are allowed so that children form bonds with those around them. Areas of expertise are requested: medical or education.

Keep in mind that hogares/small orphanages were set up by adoption attorneys for the sole purpose of ICA and since the Guatemala ICA shut down, most have closed. Others do continue to care for needy children and others have become day care centers.

Like Korea, ICA happened in Guatemala after its Civil War and continued DECADES after the Civil War ended. Same story.

Reasons for adoption

What are your thoughts on the Guatemalan kids who were relinquished yet the biomom kept the other siblings, IS married to the biofather and lives with a wonderful extended family, and have had OTHER children AFTER the adoptee was relinquished...as so many "heritage/search for biofamily" trips back to Guatemala" are proving and shared on so many blogs and forums.

I have heard about these cases, and two thoughts come to mind.  First, these cases read like the sort of situations where the birth-families are seeking money through adoption services/adoptive parents.  Second, these adopters read like the sort of people who have no real concept what adoption is supposed to be for, or about. [Hint: better care and placement for those with NO family, or those with families so bad, they'd be better-off with an entirely new family-group.]

If a child already has a family, and that family is intact and not abusive, then why is that child being traded?  [Hint: for money]

So why are Americans participating in this type of arrangement?  If they want to donate, then donate; do not require a child before donations are given.  And if you want to care for a child, and maybe adopt, aren't there enough children in domestic care who would benefit from the "generosity" and patience that comes from a well-prepared AP?

Pound Pup Legacy