The Beating of a Butterfly's Wings

Some common misunderstood facts about the Zhenyuan story:

1. It is amazing that the Chinese government allowed this story to be published. Does that not show that they want this kind of corruption revealed?
A: The Chinese government did not allow this story to be published. In mid-June the South City News was told by the government to not publish ANY articles dealing with orphanages, family planning offices, or baby-buying. After two weeks of internal discussion, the newspaper, against the prohibitions of the government, published the story anyway (their account of the decision to rebuke the government by publishing the story can be read here). There is in fact NO evidence that the government is allowing stories about orphanages to be published. In Hunan, the government stopped all reporting shortly after the story broke.

2. How is this story being treated inside China?
A: The original article has been redacted and republished broadly across China, both in print and on TV (as of this writing a Baidu search returns over 250 "hits" on the story). The focus is largely on the abuse by Family Planning officials, although some mention that the story resulted from inquiries by an American adoptive mother. Comments by Chinese residents to these articles range from anger that this story was published, making China lose face, to outrage at the government that allows these perverse policies to continue.

3. Weren't Family Planning officials just doing their jobs?
A: That is certainly how they look at it. The one-child policy is just that, a policy, a goal. There are no stated penalties given for having more than one's quota of children. Thus, Family Planning officials are free to do whatever they want to families -- a dinner at a fancy restaurant, a pig, a hefty fine, the destruction of one's home, the taking of one's child. If any good comes from this story, it will be the formalization of penalties for over-quota children.

4. Did the orphanage director know this was happening, or was he innocent in this story?
The China Daily account indicates that the orphanage "authorities forged documents stating the babies were orphans and adoption fees were split between the orphanage and officials."

5. How common are these stories?
A: In our research of different orphanages across China, we see many blogs of angry citizens like the one that wrote about Zhenyuan. They are found in every Province, in many, many orphanage cities.

UPDATE: The blame-game is starting in Guizhou. The China Daily reports that Provincial Civil Affairs official of Zhenyuan County Luo Qiong Zhen stated: "100% of the kids sent out for adoption are abandoned babies or orphans. If the kids' birth parents report that this is not true, they can complete the forms to retrieve their children."

This statement is contradicted by Tang Jian, officer in the Zhenyuan County Family Planning Control Bureau, who stated: "Were kids taken by force and sent to the orphanage to be adopted internationally? This is totally true."

One of the birth mothers (Yang Shui Ying) reported in the China Daily (that article contains additional information) recounted that as Shi Guang Ying, the Family Planning official, was leaving with her daughter, he turned to her and said, "Don't worry. When your girl is a little bit older the orphanage will send her outside China for adoption." This was meant to placate the birth mother. It didn't.

It appears that the method used by Family Planning was to target the most vulnerable in Zhenyuan -- families whose husbands were away from home working, or who had little money with which to pay the fines. Additionally, they seem to have targeted families with female children rather than male. One of the fathers, Li Ze Ji, whose child was taken by Family Planning while he was in working in Zhejiang Province, angrily responded, "If I had been home when they took my daughter away, I would have killed them!"

July 3, 2009 UPDATE: The South City News has published the story of the Chinese Government's attempted suppression of this story. On June 13, 2009 the paper was ready to run with the story and was told by the Government they were prohibited from publishing any story that deals with orphanages, family planning offices, or baby-buying. After two weeks of deliberation, they modified the story slightly and published it despite this prohibition.

July 4, 2009 UPDATE: Netwerk TV in the Netherlands last night broadcast a segment detailing China's reaction to the investigation last year of the Gaoping Family Planning confiscations. After the Dutch delegation returned from China (where they met with the CCAA) Dutch Justice Minister Levenkamp received a letter from CCAA Director Lu Ying telling them "it is best not to pursue, expand or elaborate on this issue further and to keep [this] secret for related families in order not to interrupt the bond established between the adoptive parents and the children and impose any unnecessary pressure on them." The actual letter will here available soon.

___________________________

A corruption story is building in Guizhou Province, and it started with one adoptive mother asking all the right questions.

Wendy was one of the first adoptive parents to purchase our new birth family reports. Her daughter is from the Zhenyuan SWI in Guizhou Province, a small orphanage by IA standards. Wendy ordered one of our Birth Parent Analysis for her daughter. In this report we alerted Wendy to aggressive family planning tactics being used in Zhenyuan, and pointed her to a Chinese blog that recounted the confiscations of three children found to have been internationally adopted.

Wendy contacted this blogger and began to share information with this individual. This resulted in additional interest from Chinese media, and yesterday a long and in-depth account of the Family Planning abductions was published in Guangzhou. Abbreviated versions have since been picked up by other Chinese and English outlets, including the China.Org, Shanghai Daily, and the South China Morning Post. None of these secondary articles displays the anger and resentment manifested in the original article, and I am hopeful that an English version of the original piece will be published.

The Zhenyuan orphanage has adopted a little over 40 children since 2003, almost all of them apparently brought to the orphanage through Family Planning confiscations. What is peculiar about Zhenyuan is that the orphanage made no attempt to disguise the origin of these children -- the adoption paperwork lists the finding location as the birth parent's home. Thus many of Zhenyuan's adoptive parents have been given a direct line to their child's birth family.

This story is exploding inside China, for one simple reason -- these actions are viewed as a tremendous abuse of power. Families are of course aware that they must register their children, but the law says NOTHING about the government seizing the children of those who violate Family Planning policy. To then learn that their children were "sold" (the Chinese understanding) to foreigners for adoption, and that they would never see them again, has resulted in a fire-storm of controversy.

The circumstances in Zhenyuan are hardly unique. As we analyze the finding ads from all over China we see patterns that indicate this type of practice is taking place in many, many areas. Bloggers in small towns lament the brutal actions of their Family Planning officials. They beg for someone to listen, to do something to make a change. These local citizens have largely been ignored and unseen by anyone.

Until now.

Inside China:
China-wide: http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2009-07-02/080218137623.shtml
http://www.mitbbs.cn/article_t/USANews/31230645.html
http://club.chinaren.com/0/149592969

http://bbs.asuro.cn/read-htm-tid-292443.html
Guangdong: http://gcontent.nddaily.com/d/fb/dfb84a11f431c624/Blog/c79/662656.html#comment_tabs (Original Article)

http://www.mitbbs.cn/article_t/USANews/31230645.html

http://bbs.0668.com/viewthread.php?tid=305065

Sichuan: http://press.idoican.com.cn/detail/articles/20090702141059/

Chongqing: http://www.cqautofan.com/thread-168938-1-1.html

Hong Kong: http://news.ifeng.com/society/5/200907/0701_2579_1228343_1.shtml

In English: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-07/03/content_8350349.htm

Outside China:
Spain: http://www.adn.es/sociedad/20090702/NWS-0114-Denuncian-extranjeros-adopcion-familias-darlas.html

England: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8130900.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5732679/Chinese-babies-sold-for-adoption-to-US-and-Europe-report-claims.html

United States: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124656106407087613.html

Netherlands: http://www.nrcnext.nl/blog/2009/07/03/2200-voor-een-chinese-wees-die-nog-ouders-heeft/
http://www.netwerk.tv/uitzending/2009-07-03/weer-adoptieschandaal-china
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/4314006/_%20_Gedwongen_%20adoptie_naar_%20Nederland_%20_.html?p=%2036,2
http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/nederland/article2805888.ece/_Illegale_Chinese_adoptiekinderen_in_Nederland_.html#mailfriend
http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/nederland/article2806655.ece/De_meeste_adoptiekinderen__zijn__vondeling___maar_niet_allemaal_.html#mailfriend
http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/3341970/Adoptievereniging_trekt_kinderhandel_na.html

Forecast: Increasing Wait Times, Frequent Boys

In August 2008, in the midst of the Beijing Olympic Games, I collected data from the six largest adopting Provinces in China to look at the near-term prospects for a referral speed-up. At that time, faced with ever declining submission rates, I predicted that referrals would continue to decrease, and wait times increase over the foreseeable future. On August 11, 2008 the CCAA finished January 2006 applications. Seven months later, the CCAA is just beginning the referral of families that have applied in early March 2006. Since August 2008, the wait time has increased six months.

While some families speculated that after the Olympics referrals would pick up, this has failed to happen. In fact, a look at the "supply-side" of the equation provides evidence that there will probably not be any significant speed-up in referrals until the last half of 2009, if at all. The China program continues to labor under an increasing demand trend, and a declining supply of children to fill that demand.

Looking a the top six Provinces, 2008 saw the continuation of a declining trend. In 2006, total submissions for Guangdong, Jiangxi, Hunan, Chongqing, Guangxi and Jiangsu were 7,427, a number that fell to 5,750 in 2007, and which fell further last year, to 4,958. Thus, since 2006, submissions for the six largest Provinces have declined 33%.



In the last year, trackers of referrals have noticed an uptick in the number of male children being referred. Most of the data is anecdotal -- agency announcements, Yahoo DTC groups, etc. Looking at the six largest Provinces lends substantiation of this conclusion. In 2006, 611 boys were submitted by our study Provinces. This number increased to 879 in 2007, and increased further in 2008 to 1098. In fact, the percentage of boys referred has increased from 8% in 2006 to 15% in 2007 to over 22% in 2008.

The increase is not consistent across China. The largest increase in male referrals was seen in Guangdong Province, which saw male referrals more than double from 2006-2008, increasing 129%. Whereas Guangdong's referrals were 8% male in 2006, in 2008 that percentage climbed to nearly 24%.

Jiangsu Province also saw a large increase, more than doubling between 2006 and 2008. Hunan Province saw their male referrals increase 80%, while Chongqing's male referrals increased 61%. Jiangxi Province increased 45%. while Guangxi increased the least, increasing only 22.5%. Clearly things are changing in China. As the real numbers of female referrals drops sharply, the real number of male referrals is increasing. This is turning preconceived notions of China on its head.

One probable explanation for the increased number of boys being submitted is the changing attitudes towards girls in general, and increased pre-marital sex among China's youth. A single woman is just as likely to abandon a boy child as a girl, so as sexual mores change among China's youth, one would expect the sex-ratios of abandoned children to equalize. I believe this largely explains the increased number of boys being found.

However, total submissions across China have continued to decline, mostly the result of fewer abandonments. This decline can be attributed to several factors -- ultra-sound technology, changing attitudes towards girls -- but the largest factor, I believe, is that the black market for children results in fewer children from being abandoned. The Chinese are nothing is not practical.

One can see the problem orphanages face by analyzing the "wholesale" prices (paid by traffickers for healthy infants) of trafficked children over the past five years. In 2001, for example, traffickers in one story received 200 yuan for each child. This number had risen to 1,200 - 2,000 yuan per child by 2003. By early 2009, reports indicate that the wholesale price has risen to 7,000 yuan for girls in some cases.

As the market for black-market children has increased, fewer Chinese families simply abandon their child on the street. Thus, orphanages have seen their numbers of foundlings decrease. This is true even in the orphanages involved in baby-buying programs such as Fuzhou (Jiangxi), which have seen their numbers decline even as "rewards" have been increased for children. Clearly the market has moved away from the orphanages.

It will be interesting to watch what impact the increased donation will have on submission rates. The increase from $3,000 to $5,000 was ostensibly made by the CCAA to help offset the declining revenues resulting from fewer adoptions. But as we move into 2009, it will be interesting to watch if any orphanages see significant increases in the number of children "found". Preliminary surveys of January and February 2009 submissions indicate that the number of children being "found" is increasing. In July we will look to see if these increases are concentrated in any specific areas or orphanages.

If there is an increase in submissions, will it be children that were "held back" (found before 2009)? Or will the increase come from new "foundlings" (children found after the increase)? Or will the increase raise the financial bar for domestic families, resulting in even fewer orphanage children being adopted domestically? Supporters of the international Hague agreement on adoption will want to watch these trends as they develop.

At this point, there is little reason to believe that referral rates will increase significantly in the near-term. As of the end of 2008, submission rates were overall in decline, but with the sex ratio of the children submitted increasing.

The CCAA's Tacit Approval of Trafficking

The publication of Patricia J. Meier and Xiaole Zhang's "Sold into Adoption: The Hunan Baby Trafficking Scandal Exposes Vulnerabilities in Chinese Adoptions to the United States" presents an in-depth treatment of the China adoption program, and brings additional attention to the weaknesses and abuses found in China's international adoption program specifically, and all international programs in general. The Dutch took a preliminary version of this study with them to China, using it as a foundation for their discussions with the CCAA. It is an important article, and should be read carefully by anyone interested in understanding the problems found in China's program.

Using the Hunan scandal as a backdrop, Meier and Zhang attempt to contextualize the problem and offer suggestions for improvement. Their article represents a good summary of recent data from China.

On page 114, the authors present China's legal prohibitions against trafficking children for adoption.

China’s Adoption Law clearly precludes trafficking for adoption:
“[i]t is strictly forbidden to buy or sell a child or to do so under the cloak of adoption.”247 Chapter V provides notice that such activity could lead to criminal charges: “[w]hoever abducts and trafficks in a child under the cloak of adoption shall be investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with law.”

The conventional wisdom among adoptive families is that the Chinese government is proactively working to reduce or eliminate the trafficking of children in China. In recent years there have been some high-profile arrests and convictions, many with stiff jail time for those involved. But when it comes to the trafficking of children into the orphanages, very little, if anything, is done. In fact, usually it is just the opposite -- orphanages that traffic are protected from any prosecution.

We saw this demonstrated with the Hunan orphanages that were indicted for baby-buying. Although initial press reports also implicated other orphanages in Hunan (Changsha City) and Guangdong Provinces, press attention and prosecution was directed against six small orphanages in a limited area of Qidong. The case was limited to a small number of children (those currently in the orphanages), in order to not reveal that thousands of trafficked children had been adopted to the U.S., Canada and other countries. The Hunan trail was a show-case example of damage control, and would never have occurred had the world's attention not been alerted to the trafficking in the first place.

Many cases of orphanage trafficking exist, but nothing has been done by the CCAA to resolve these problems. A witness in the Xiushan District of Chongqing, for example, reported that the Xiushan orphanage had an aggressive baby-buying program in place, paying 2,500 yuan for each child. This baby-buying program was credited by the Xiushan orphanage with the increase in adoptions, which increased from 20 in 2003 to 153 in 2006. Based on assurances I was given in the Summer of 2008, I was optimistic that evidence I had collected about Xiushan had resulted in some change. Finding ads, for example, stopped in September, something that had not occurred in Xiushan before. However, after a pause in submissions, Xiushan's production began again in December. Nothing changed.

The same situation exists in another orphanage that was caught purchasing babies. In May 2008 ABC News reported that the Fuzhou, Jiangxi orphanage, the largest internationally adopting orphanage in China, freely acknowledges buying babies. "Mr. Zhou, the deputy director of the Fuzhou Welfare orphanage, told a caller over the phone, without hesitation, that the orphanage pays around $300 for baby girls" (ABC News Report). Conversations I have had with residents of Fuzhou confirm the amount, and add that the buying program was needed to increase the number of children coming into the orphanage, given the success of the Family Planning programs in the area. Since May 2008 Fuzhou has submitted 92 files for adoption, for a total of 135 for 2008. Obviously no action was taken in Fuzhou either.

ABC also reported that Changde orphanage in Hunan Province was purchasing babies. This orphanage has one of the most aggressive programs I have personally witnessed. When ABC News went to Changde, Ms. Jie, the orphanage gatekeeper, "told us that she speaks on behalf of the orphanage and that it offers money for healthy baby boys and girls younger than 5, but does not pay if the child is disabled. She said the orphanage currently only has disabled children available for adoption, so the demand for healthy children is high."

A friend of mine had an experience with Ms. Jie of Changde. While walking in front of the orphanage shopping, she was approached by Ms. Jie. After some pleasantries, Ms. Jie asked my friend if she was from the area and if she knew of anyone that had babies they didn't want. Ms. Jie told my friend that the orphanage would pay 2,500 yuan plus travel expenses for any child brought to them. She also told my friend that the orphanage had been receiving fewer children in recent years.

Ms. Jie's assertions are correct. After submitting 137 children for adoption in 2005, Changde's adoptions cratered in 2006 following the publicity of the Hunan scandal, submitting only fourteen children, a majority of them boys. Changde's submissions fell even further in 2007 with only three children submitted, only one of whom was non-special need.

But 2008 saw a turnaround for Changde, and they were able to submit 25 children for adoption. This pattern can be seen in many other orphanages -- after an initial shock following the Hunan scandal, numbers in 2008 are beginning to increase again (I will be doing a deeper analysis of 2008 submissions in my next blog article).

It is impossible to know if Changde's director was reprimanded by the CCAA for so freely admitting to buying babies, but this disclosure wasn't the first time Changde was revealed to be buying babies. Police reports reveal that in early 2000, for example, Mr. Wei, a resident of Qianjiang (Chongqing), heard that the Changde orphanage was buying babies. He spread the word around Qianjiang, and made contact with Ms. Xiang, another resident of Qianjiang, who was able to sell him three infant girls for 300 yuan. He then turned around and transported these three children to Changde and was paid $1,500 yuan. At that time it was an "open secret" that Changde was paying between 500 and 1,000 yuan as "reimbursement" monies for children. It is clear that the six directors involved in the Hunan scandal did not devise their baby-buying program themselves, but copied it from other orphanages. Changde's program, already known in surrounding Provinces in early 2000, had no doubt already been used years earlier.

In 2001 another individual, a Mr. Yang, also from Qianjiang, brought two babies to Changde and received 1,600 yuan from the orphanage for them. In 2002, a third trafficker brought two babies to Changde from Qianjiang, and was paid 2,800 yuan for them.

In July 2003 all three traffickers were caught and tried. Their defense lawyers asserted that no one was harmed by the trafficking, and that the traffickers "had done good deeds for maintaining little lives’ interests on the aspect of preserving the continuance of the abandoned baby girls’ lives and preventing from the risk of their death by lacking care." The judge in the trial accepted their rational, and acquitted them of all charges, with the traffickers even receiving compensation from the State after getting out of jail (The full text of the Police reports for these cases, including official recommendations for improvement, can be found at the conclusion of this essay).

What is noticeably lacking from the Changde trial and analysis is any discussion concerning the orphanage's role in the trafficking. No recommendation to discipline the director, no suggestion to abolish the baby-buying program. In this "inside-China" story it is clear that no one felt Changde's baby-buying program, so well-known that villagers in another Province were aware of it, was in anyway unethical or illegal, even in light of laws making it "strictly forbidden to buy or sell a child or to do so under the cloak of adoption."

It is obvious from the Changde, Fuzhou and Hunan trials that the CCAA does not take trafficking by orphanages seriously. In fact, it is probable that the CCAA feels that baby-buying is a good thing, since it helps in "maintaining little lives’ interests on the aspect of preserving the continuance of the abandoned baby girls’ lives". They maintain this even in the face of the evidence that such baby-buying contributes to the kidnapping problem plaguing China. While most of the children trafficked are no doubt purchased from anxious birth families (most trafficked children are newborns, many with afterbirth still on them), it is impossible to predict how this program will be taken advantage of. Will directors, as one adoptive family was told by their guide, tell birth families that their children will return to China when they are grown to take care of them? Do unscrupulous individuals take advantage of the program by kidnapping children to sell to the orphanages as was seen in Dianjiang (Chongqing)? Will rural women take advantage of the money-making opportunities of an orphanage baby-buying program and have children simply to sell, as was seen in Yunnan Province?

The CCAA's "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards orphanages feeds a growing epidemic in China. But when faced with publicity from outside China concerning this program, offending directors receive a slap on the wrist, and business goes on as usual. Recent meetings by the CCAA with orphanage directors were spent emphasizing the need for directors to submit as many files as they could for adoption, with no "education" taking place about baby-buying. It is obviously not a big concern inside the China program.

When I first began seeing evidence of China's baby-buying program, I assumed that if brought to light the CCAA would take steps to stop the practice. I worked hard to get information into the hands of Dutch and Australian government officials, investigative reporters, etc. in an effort to bring the incentive programs in China, as well as other examples of corruption, to light. But those that asked the CCAA for "clarification" were lied to by the CCAA, as when they denied to the Dutch government that the girl stolen from her birth family in Gaoping and adopted to a U.S. family was still in the orphanage. It is clear that the CCAA cannot be trusted to bring a change to its own program -- they are truly the fox in the hen house.

However, problems exist on this side of the ocean as well. When governments discover impropriety in adoption programs, as the U.S. Government recently did in Guatemala and Vietnam, the reaction from the adoption community is often to run to the defense of the corrupt programs. Efforts by adoption "professionals" are usually directed to minimizing the problems or discouraging adoptive families from investigating. Evidence of corruption is downplayed by discounting its importance, calling it a "dead horse" or "old news". Thus, families are discouraged from investigating, reducing any chance that further evidence will come to light.

The Hague Agreement, which to this point has been only effective in creating additional bureaucracies for receiver countries to contend with, has had little impact on sender countries such as China. While some adoptive families speculate that the recent slow-down is a result of orphanages becoming "Hague Compliant", there is no evidence that any changes were instituted by the CCAA as a result of China's signing the Hague Agreement. Thus, the net affect of Hague implementation has been the closure of small adoption agencies in the U.S. due to new and burdensome regulations, but continued violation on the part of sending countries such as China. Hague is only effective when the rule of law is respected and enforced -- it is in the West, but is not in China.

Given the strong adoption lobby in the U.S., Canada, and around the world, governments are reluctant to hold China, Vietnam, Guatemala and other sending countries accountable. Many of these advocacy groups are backed by religious organizations, which have large membership bases and significant financial resources. These organizations often express the sentiment that any illegality should be overlooked in an adoption program in order to "save the children."

"SOLD INTO ADOPTION: THE HUNAN BABY TRAFFICKING SCANDAL EXPOSES VULNERABILITIES IN CHINESE ADOPTIONS TO THE UNITED STATES" presents excellent recommendations that in a perfect world would solve many of the issues facing China's program. But any change requires the sincerity and commitment of the Chinese government in solving the problems of trafficking and laundering of children for adoption. As is becoming increasingly clear, China lacks the will and desire to forcefully change the program to end these problems.

_______________________

http://www.qjsfxz.gov.cn/E_ReadNews.asp?NewsID=289
I. Summaries of Cases

Case 1: Defendant Wei Guangcai(Male, Miao Nationality, born in Pengshui County, Chongqing) resides in Group 1, Nanmu Village, Danzhou Town, Wulong District, Changde, Hunan Province. Defendant Xiang Lanxiang(Female,Miao Nationality, born in Qianjiang District) resides in Group 5, Datang Village, Shuitian Town, Qianjiang District and is a farmer.

In the beginning of 2000, Defendant Wei Guangcai passed the message to defendant Xiang Lanxiang that he and his friend wanted to adopt abandoned babies. She would be paid RMB 100 Yuan for finding one abandoned baby. After hearing this, Defendant Xiang Lanxiang found three abandoned baby girls on the road of Baojia Village, Qianjiang, Nanhaicheng vegetable market and Nangou gas station successively and gave them to Wei Guancai with a acquisition of RMB 300 Yuan. After receiving the three abandoned baby girls, Wei Guangcai sent them to Changde Social Welfare House of Hunan Province one by one and was paid RMB 1500 Yuan. Changde Social Welfare House is a public institution that is established by Changde Civil Affairs Bureau. Its business scope includes “adoption of orphan and abandoned baby”. For adopting an abandoned baby, the social welfare house will pay the finder RMB 500 to 1000 Yuan according to situations for the expenses happened during the process of finding and sending the baby to the house including living, traffic and working hour lost etc.

Case 2: Defendant Liao Yuming(Male, Miao Nationality, born in Lianhu Town, Pengshui County, Chongqing) is a farmer and resides in Group 1, Huilongsi Village, Lianhu Town. Defendant Yang Zhong(Male, Miao Nationality, born in Pengshui County, Chongqing) is a farmer and resides in Group 1, Tongmu Village, Tonglou Town, Pengshui County.

In 2002, Defendant Liao Yuming acknowledged that a villager in Zhusha Town of his county wanted to abandon or give a baby girl who was born against the regulations to others for the purpose of avoiding the punishment of disobeying Family Planning. He then contacted the villager and sent that baby girl to be adopted by Changde Social Welfare House of Hunan Province and was paid RMB 800 Yuan. Not long after that, Defendant Liao Yuming found an abandoned baby girl in Western Bus Sation of Qianjiang and under a “Ficus virens” in Zhusha Village, Pengshui County respectively and sent them to be adopted by Changde Social Welfare House successively and acquired RMB2800 Yuan.

In 2001, defendant Yan Zhong sent 2 babies to Changde Social Welfare House with the same methods like the above defendants after knowing the message that the welfare house adopts abandoned babies. He received a total payment of RMB 1600 Yuan.

In July 2003, the public prosecution authority prosecuted defendants Wei Guangcai and Xiang Lanxiang as well as Defendants Liao Yuming and Yang Zhong respectively with the crime of trafficking children. After receiving the consignment of criminal defense for the above two cases, the lawyers of our office including Zhang Yujin, Pang Junchao and Li Dejiang etc. started from the human rights and legal consciousness of “People the first and life the toppest”, proposing that the defendants’ actions caused no serious effects that would harm the society, on the contrary, they had done good deeds for maintaining little lives’ interests on the aspect of preserving the continuance of the abandoned baby girls’ lives and preventing from the risk of their death by lacking care, though they have actions of making use of finding abandoned babies for benefits objectively. Being analyzed from the subjective and objective components forming a crime, their crimes of trafficking children cannot be convicted. After hearing these two cases, the court completely accepted the lawyers’ defenses. The four defendants were acquitted and received the compensation from the state after getting out of jail.

II. Analysis of Causes
In the foregoing two cases of children trafficking, the abandoned eight babies are all baby girls who are born for only several days or 2-3 months. Changde Social Welfare House adopts about 20 abandoned babies every year and most of them are girls. The fact indicates that the thought of valuing boys more than girls with the tradition of carrying on the family line is still very popular in Wuling Mountain areas where are underdeveloped in transportation, culture and economy and are most resided by minority nationalities like Tujia and Miao. With a comprehensive analysis, other reasons causing the abandonment of baby girls are as follows:
1. Lacking of legal consciousness, especially on criminal laws. They don’t know such deeds are against laws.
2. Incomplete social security system in rural areas. Due to the low income and the strong labor intensity, they still have the traditional thoughts of “having a boy for taking care of them when they are old” and “girls are inferior to boys”.
3. The propaganda and service of family planning are not thoughtful and complete. Local authorities emphasize more on punishment instead of award and when birth control measures are not effective, people tend to abandon the babies especially girls to get away from punishment.

III. Solutions and suggestions
1. Making effective propaganda of “boys and girls are the same” and “girls are the hope and future of the human beings” by various forms and methods.
2. Accelerating the establishment of social security mechanism to eliminate the worries of people in mountain areas.
3. The government shall emphasize on reward instead of punishment and build up an all-process monitoring system of birth control.
4. Further enhancing the education on legal knowledge, especially on criminal laws. Enabling the people to be aware that abandoning baby girls are illegal acts and those serious acts will form the crime of abandonment, which will be sentenced up to 5 years’ imprisonment, detention or surveillance.
5. Law authorities shall reinforce the attacks against illegal acts related to abandoned baby girls. For preventing the “trafficking”, the source of eliminating and reducing the “abandonment of babies” must be stopped.

Birth Parent Analysis

I am frequently asked how likely it is that a birth parent search would be successful, or how reliable a child's finding information might be, or if a particular orphanage is involved in trafficking. Over the years I have accumulated a huge amount of data concerning China's orphanages -- press reports, finding ads, and personal experiences in many of the cities. This data allows one to place the finding of a particular child against the forest of every other internationally-adopted child found in that area.

A few years ago I was asked to locate the finding ad of a Guangdong Province girl. After locating her ad, we detected another child, whose ad was published in a different newspaper, but who was found a few yards from the first child on the same day, and who had an identical birth date. We alerted the adoptive family of this second child, and told them there was a distinct possibility that she was a sibling.

A year later we performed a research project to the orphanage that this child came from, and the adoptive family of the second child joined the project also. We put both families in touch with each other, and subsequent DNA testing determined a probable relationship between the two girls.

This is one example of how looking at the "forest" from which our children come can allow us to make exciting discoveries.

The Birth Parent Analysis reports will look at several data sets. First, we look at the overall orphanage statistics from 2000-2008. How many children were adopted? How many of those were boys and girls, healthy and Special Needs? We then look at the finding location distribution. Against this background we look at the finding location of your child -- were other children found at this location? If so, when? How many were found in the general area? Are there local press reports that shed light on these patterns?

Combining all of this analysis will allow adoptive families a clearer picture concerning birth-parent search probabilities and finding location accuracy. Armed with this information families can decide if searching for more information will be fruitful.

___________________

More information on Research-China.Org's Birth Parent Search Analysis can be found here. Data is available from 2000 forward in most cases. There is no charge if we are not confident that our data is complete for your child's orphanage.