Chinese Boy "Aging Out" of International Adoption Possibility

By on 1-04-2012 in China, Corruption, Hague Convention, Holt, International Adoption

Chinese Boy "Aging Out" of International Adoption Possibility

The following is a photolisting and ad for Holt adoption agency and their China program:

New Year means adoption door closing for many kids  [Oregon Faith report 1/2/12]

It is disguised as a Violinnews article. The child will soon turn 14. In China, age 14 is the oldest age that international adoption is allowed.

After a detailed description, it goes on to say “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.”

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.”

So, he has bonded for well over four years with his foster family and he is a good student. Why does he so desperately need an international placement?

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

So, someone convinced him to “understand what it means to join an adoptive family.” I wonder who that was?

He “has less than four months before he turns 14, at which time he will become ineligible for adoption.”

So Holt has turned this child’s life into an emergency now. Why is this being allowed at all?

Crabbina adds: How many post-adoption services is Holt willing to pay for? Language immersion, other tutoring, Chinese mentors, psychological counseling etc.?

REFORM Puzzle pieces:


When an organization provides BOTH local foster care/family preservation AND intercountry adoption, a conflict of interest occurs. If Holt in this case provides foster care for 4 more years, they don’t get an international adoption fee, but if they convince the boy to be internationally adopted and get a client to adopt, it is money in their pocket. The UK-based organization Care For Children seems to figure out how to get foster care and “good, local” placement for kids up to age 18, so don’t tell me that it can’t be done.

I dare anyone to explain how having the same people decide on foster placement and international adoption is NOT a conflict of interest. These placements also need to be understood in the context that for every 5 older or special needs children placed, the agency will net 1 healthy child placement. Conflict of interest–this needs reform.


From US State Department website

“The Hague Adoption Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) is an international agreement to safeguard intercountry adoptions.”[emphasis Rally]
It is a shame that it does not say to safeguard children. That needs to be reformed.

That link also states: “It recognizes intercountry adoption as a means of offering the advantage of a permanent home to a child when a suitable family has not been found in the child’s country of origin. It enables intercountry adoption to take place when:

The child has been deemed eligible for adoption by the child’s country of birth; and

Proper effort has been given to the child’s adoption in its country of origin.

Has this child really been given a”proper effort”? How can a “proper” effort ever be applied when a 5-harder-placement-for 1-healthy-infant-referral situation occurs and the same group of foreign people decide which kids get foster care and which kids get international placement.

Why are bonded foster children being targeted for foreign placements? How is creating another broken attachment “protecting” the child? Why isn’t a future being created in China for this child that is already under good, bonded care?