For the sake of the child, or the adoption agency?

This morning I read a very disturbing ad, brought to readers through Oregon Faith Report and the fine folks at Holt, Int.

Ian (name changed) entered institutional care when he was 4 years old, in May of 2002. A healthy boy with a “sunny” disposition, Ian was also rather quiet upon admission and tended to stand back and observe his surroundings. At the institute, caregivers quickly enrolled him in a program to help him adjust to his new environment. Here, he got along well with his classmates, and quickly became more talkative and active in the group. The following year, he began primary school near his home at the child welfare institute. He became a diligent student who listened well, eagerly answered questions in class, and regularly completed his homework after school. His teachers all liked him a great deal.

Keep in mind, "Ian", is in China... land of the One Child Policy, and where males carry more worth and value than females, especially when it comes to domestic adoption.

After five years in the institute, Ian went to live with a foster family in July of 2007. Then 9, Ian developed a loving bond with this family, in whose care he continued to grow strong and healthy. He developed a taste for spicy food, honed his basketball skills, and became interested in computer games and remote control toys, as well as drawing and playing the guitar. Described as bright and extroverted, Ian has many friends. His foster mom describes him as “sensible and good.”

So far "Ian" represents a success story:  he has bonded with those acting as his parents and appears to have a few workable talents. 

Now 13, Ian is in junior high school. He is a serious student with grades that always put him at the head of the class.

"Ian" is smart, too... not a bad quality to have, especially if you're a male in China. So what's the problem?  What is missing?

Although close to his foster family, Ian understands that his situation is not permanent.

Who made this "understanding" possible?  The great foster parents?  A social worker?  An employee working for an adoption agency?  Don't case-workers know in Adoptionland, distruption exists, making the Forever Home, gifted through an adoption agency, not so happy and great and.... uh... "permanant"?

 Initially, he felt fearful of going to a new place – of feeling lonely, and missing his foster family and friends – but he has grown to understand what it means to join an adoptive family, and now embraces the idea of international adoption.

If "Ian" is doing nearly as well as reported, why on earth does "Ian" have to be displaced, and sent to live in a foreign country?  Is an ICA plan really needed - and in the best interest - for "Ian"?

And last, but not least, WHY, in God's Name, does Holt have to post an adoption ad for Americans to read, complete with the ominous words and suggestion:  "New Year means adoption door closing for many kids"?   The article gives no indication that "Ian" will be in grave danger, if not adopted by an American, within the next four months... and yet look at the sad sad story they're selling.

I know Holt is known for breaking family relationships, all to make an American adoption-plan possible, but this potential displacement sounds ridiculous.

Is Holt really that desperate for business?

Does Holt even know what's in "Ian's" best interest?