Some new info, maybe
Someone emailed me some info they got from their agency (described as one of the smaller agencies)
This letter tells is that there are no waiting babies, they will be referring them as they become available. (I'm assuming this means paper ready babies, we pretty much already knew this).
It also states that the CCAA is very unhappy about the Hunan scandal and that it would be best to back off for a while and let the CCAA settle it and get past it. (back off? not sure how we can be any more backed off... unless this was a way for the agency to let their people know it's not the right climate for them to be asking questions)
And, the most important thing that I think this letter tells us, is that there will be a meeting with reps of all of the orphanages in early April, and that there is hope we will know more after this meeting.
posted by RumorQueen at 3/24/2006 07:59:00 PM
8 Comments:
This is very interesting, RQ.
Why is it that so many people do not want to name their agency? I figure, if the agency put it in writing it should be information that they could discuss openly, no? I'm probably overlooking something here.
Sounds like your thoughts on the problem in Hunan were dead on.
I'm actually okay with people not wanting their agency named. Some people tell me the agency but ask that I not post it, and I will always honor that. It helps me to know the agency, because then I can better figure out if more than one agency is saying something. Some people just tell me the state their agency is in, which also helps me sometimes figure out if it's one agency or three agencies giving out the same info.
So, please feel free to either post something or email me any information you have, however much of it you feel comfortable divulging. That's what this is all about - trying to consolidate what we're all being told.. trying to connect the dots and find a picture in there somewhere.
I will probably have periods of anon posting, as we do find out a lot of information that way.. but right now I think it's best we keep it turned off.
Shana--Some agencies have specific stuff on their websites, in their agreements, and in their emails that say the information is confidential and proprietary. In addition, they don't want to get huge amounts of calls from people who aren't their clients, asking "Where'd you hear this?! Why isn't my agency saying this?!"--which has happened in the past.
Bummer, it was pretty liberating. But probably best, I don't think I've ever seen anons work well. There's always a gaggle of jerks who ruin the party.
"it also states that ccaa is very unhappy...." this is why i thought the apc post asking everyone to write letters to their agencies about the "scandal" was so dangerous. of course, the woman posting already had her children, so she didn't care, or see the point in caution.
but, as our state dept. says:
PLEASE NOTE: Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive about the operation of foreign entities in China. Moreover, adoption is also a sensitive subject in China.It is therefore advisable for any person interested in adopting a child from China to act with discretion and decorum. High-profile attention to adoption in China could curtail or eliminate altogether adoption of Chinese children by persons from countries, including the United States, that have caused adoption to become the subject of public attention.
best~
dianne
Dianne, you are so right.
We gotta lay off them about Hunan and try to move on from it. That letter writing campaign from APC makes me cringe. What are they, crazy?
Should we not contact our agencies about questions and concerns we have? The letter writing campaign was not aimed at the CCAA, it was aimed at agencies, who are supposed to be our liaisons and advocate for both us and for the children. The assumption that was made was that, if people don't let their agencies know that possible baby-trafficking concerns them, how are their agencies going to know that it worries potential adoptive parents? Given the long history that many of the agencies have with the CCAA and China, I'm sure they know how to express concerns the "right way".
yes kate, but the concern is that #1 china would find out about that campaign on APC, and #2 that the agencies would feel pressured by us to pressure the ccaa, which is exactly what the state dept. says not to do. that is the concern you see.
i'm not speaking to you directly here kate when i say the following though, but i do just wonder why folks think they know more than the us state department or their agencices....
dianne
Post a Comment
<< Home