Adoption Cambodia ?

As you may be aware, Americans are not permitted to adopt from Cambodia at this time. Be very careful if you disregard your government's requirements. While you may be able to complete an adoption while living in Cambodia, you will need your government's permission to bring your child home to France, and that may not be possible if you have violated your government's rules. Also, one reason that Cambodia is closed to Americans relates to the amount of corruption that was present in the adoption system. France is probably trying to minimize the possibility of corruption by limiting adoptions to a single agency. If you try to adopt independently, you could well wind up in a bad situation, because you won't necessarily know who is ethical and who is not. Sharon

You are right. But I just can't figure out how (back home in France) the French government can denial a legal adoption in Cambodia, with all the papers done by the Cambodian autorities. So I have two problems to figure out, the most important is how to do an ethic adoption in Cambodia, and how to deal with the french requirements about adoption. I can't imagine NOBODY has adopted from Cambodia this year by bending a little the laws from their country...

Remember that it is NOT an ethical adoption if: a) You circumvent the adoption laws of the child's country. b) You circumvent the adoption laws of your own country. c) You circumvent the immigration laws of your own country. Sharon

I'm sorry, but we do have rules on the forums. Discussions about law bending and whatnot will have to stop. There are legal ways to adopt. Those are the only avenues open for discussion on Adoption.com

THANK YOU! Sharon

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do not speak very well english and it's hard to translate concepts and words when they are to be use with caution. When I said "bend" I didn't mean breaking laws or doing things clearly against the laws of a country. But ethic and laws are not the same things, laws are not always ethical and that's why they change years after years. Torture doesn't seems like ethical to me, but I've being told it's kind of legal in USA. Prostitution and slavery are legal in some countries but who can say they are ethical and it's ok to have a slave in theses countries because you respect the law? But sorry again, I have not in mind to break any laws. But respecting the adoptions laws of the child country, your country and immigration laws doesn't always make an ethical adoption. It's the case of HAITI by example, and a few other countries. So the problem is that I do not know what to do. Your a) b) c) is not a real help, but I agree with you that laws are important to respect, and they are important guidelines.

Personally, when the U.S. declared Cambodia closed to American adoptive families, I had some concerns that the U.S. government's investigations of visa applications were flawed and that some adoption visa applications were being denied inappropriately, meaning that families could not bring home the children whom they thought they had adopted, and probably did adopt, in a legal and ethical manner. In fact, some denials were subsequently overturned on appeal, and some "humanitarian paroles" were granted to kids in situations where families and agencies may have been misled by While I may have disagreed with the way that some visa investigations were handled, and felt very sorry for families who were being denied the right to bring home children that they had already adopted, I would never have dreamed of advising anyone to try illegal methods either to bring home already adopted children or to continue adopting after the shutdown. I recommended ethical, experienced immigration/adoption attorneys to some people caught up in the mess, and talked to others about getting their Senators and members of Congress involved in trying to intervene with the U.S. State Department and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (now the USCIS). I also talked to families about other countries from which ethical adoption was still possible. And, professionally, I became involved in efforts to support Hague Convention #33 on intercountry adoption. If you do not approve of the way your government or the Cambodian government handles adoptions, by all means, become an advocate for responsible change. Join adoption advocacy organizations, sign petitions created by reputable and well-informed groups, and so on. For yourself, personally, resolve to either wait out the delays or to change your adoption focus to another country that works with France and for which you qualify. Consult with a qualified attorney if you think that there might be a little-used, but legal, alternative to going through AFA, but be prepared to hear that there isn't. The only other alternative will be to break the law, either directly or by working with an agency or facilitator that engages in illegal acts. Remember, if you do so, three important facts. The first is that, while you may have the noblest of intentions, adoption laws have a purpose -- the protection of children, birthparents, and adoptive families from exploitation. Sovereign nations have the legal and moral right to enact any laws they choose to protect their citizens, and especially their most vulnerable citizens, such as orphans. A particular law may be inconvenient for you, but you do not have an implicit or explicit right to adopt a child. Your government and the government of the country where a particular child lives have the right to decide who may adopt, what children may be adopted, and what procedures must be followed to limit the possibility of corruption, child trafficking, baby-buying/baby-stealing, and so on. The second is that international adoption is, increasingly, being regulated by sending countries, receiving countries, and international treaties. And violations of adoption laws are being taken very seriously -- not like jaywalking or littering. People are recognizing that these violations can do serious harm to vulnerable children, as well as to birthparents and adoptive families. In the U.S., there are federal crimes, such as visa fraud, that carry serious criminal penalties including prison time. Back when Cambodia first closed, two American women, who happened to be sisters, were prosecuted on a variety of federal charges, including visa fraud and money laundering, for their roles in facilitating questionable Asian adoptions. They received stiff penalties for their improper actions, which included things like having one child travel on another child's paperwork and misrepresenting children as orphans, when they were not. I do not know anything about the French legal system, but I suspect that it has similar protections for kids, birthparents, and adoptive parents. I know that there was a case a while back, in which a French organization came under intense scrutiny because of the way it brought some African children to France for adoption. There were allegations that the children were not legally free for adoption. So if you do violate French law, there is a strong likelihood that you will be caught, that you will face stiff penalties, and that you may never be able to complete an adoption because people who are convicted of serious crimes are usually barred from adopting. The third thing is that what you do can affect not only your own situation, but also thousands of other people. If you act in an improper manner, it could cause a foreign government to decide not to place children with French families, and it can also cause your own government to suspend adoptions until laws are tightened up. This can hurt children, who will not find homes, and also prospective parents, who want children. Sharon

Thank you sak9645 for your long answer. I really have to take English lessons because more I write here, more people thinks Im a kind of dangerous immoral law breaker. So let me be more clear about my thoughts: 1) Imagine you decide to live in Cambodia. Nothing wrong with that. 2) After a few months, you decide to adopt an orphan, a real orphan in an orphanage, and you do it legally with the Cambodian laws. And there is no tricks as back in your country you have already all your papers done to be adoptive parents (in France itҒs called an agreementӔ and it takes 9 months of interviews with social services and psychiatrists). So again at this point all you have done is ethical and respecting the law of the country of the child which is the country where you live, Cambodia. So my question is: Is this adoption unethical? Against the laws? The funny stuff: After a few years, well, why not after a few months, you decide to move back in France, or why not move in an other country in Africa or South America or even USA (Actually Im not living in France but in Australia, so itҒs not just like it cant happens). How can your adoptive child not be considered as your child ? ItҒs a real question; I dont think I found a correct answer yet. And about: ғI know that there was a case a while back, in which a French organization came under intense scrutiny because of the way it brought some African children to France for adoption. There were allegations that the children were not legally free for adoption You are talking about lԒArche de Zoe. The people of Arche de Zoe tried to save orphans from Darfur. They were caught by the Tchadian army and convicted to 8 years of slave labor and 5 millions $US penalties in a parody of justice. Arche de Zoe was media bashed in France also. It was a political matter, and all the 103 children were sent back in their family by Tchad and/or Unicef in Darfur. The thing is, the 103 children were orphans and their tutor (village chief or uncle) asked Arche of Zoe to save them by taking them away. Now, you can be sure most of them will die. You can find here the list of the children: [url=http://www.archedezoe.fr/les103enfants.htm]Les 103 enfants[/url] with their name and when their parents died (mostly Janjawids gunshots). I dont know if they broke the law in Darfur, (is there any kind of law there?) they just tried to save orphans that villages couldnҒt afford to look after. As Darfur villages were forced to move into Tchad, the Tchad government told they were Tchad chidren and it was kidnapping. So, what do you think? Villages gave up this orphans and asked Arche de Zoe to save them, and Unicef says they have family and they must return in Darfur. Arche de Zoe says they dont have parents and ғchief of village is not family! And Unicef says mind your business. Before a reply, just google ԓDarfur and check pictures, there is no tricks, have a look: [url=http://images.google.com/images?hl=fr&q=darfur&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi]darfur - Google Recherche d'images[/url]

As far as the situation of adopting while living overseas and then returning to your home country, do remember that most countries have immigration laws, and not just adoption laws. Immigration laws govern the conditions under which a person who is not a citizen of your country may enter your country. I am not at all familiar with French immigration law. As a result, I do not know whether a child you adopt outside of the traditional French adoption process -- or the children of Arche de Zoe -- would have the legal right to enter France. In the U.S., however, we have a federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act. This law governs the issuance of all sorts of visas -- immigrant, vistor, work, etc. -- for people wishing to come into the country. Basically, the INA creates two main categories of adoption visas, called IR-3 and IR-4, and sets forth the terms under which they can be granted. As an example, these visas can be granted only if at least one member of a couple (or a person adopting as a single parent) is a U.S. citizen; they cannot be granted in cases where parents are legal permanent residents or on any other sort of visa. The parents must go through a specific process to determine their eligibility to adopt, including a homestudy in their state and approval by the USCIS. The children for whom IR-3 or IR-4 visas are requested may NOT have been living with two parents prior to their adoption. They can have been living with a single parent only if he/she is unable to provide care for them at a level considered normal in the foreign country (NOT the U.S.) They may also have lost both parents to death, been abandoned, been legally relinquished with no further contact by the bio parents, or been removed from the family home by action of a legitimate court for reasons such as abuse or neglect. If a person adopts a child overseas and either he/she or the child does not meet all the requirements, the child cannot come home unless the adoptive parents live overseas with the child in their custody for at least two years. At that time, the family can apply for a normal dependent visa for the child. I believe that the INA needs a good bit of revision. As an example, I think that the rule about a child not being eligible for an adoption visa if he/she has been living with two parents is no longer appropriate. The law was originally promulgated because of a belief that adoptions of children who had two parents were often fraudulent -- just a convenient way of getting the child to the U.S., with no intent of changing the child's relationship to his/her bio parents. I am not sure that this is true, and I believe that if an investigation of ALL visa applications is made, as required by law, fraud will be minimized. I also think that some of the distinctions between IR-3 and IR-4 make little sense. For example, if both parents in a married couple see a child overseas before the issuance of an adoption decree in the foreign country, the child gets an IR-3 and can become a U.S. citizen the minute he/she enters the country; however, if only one spouse in a couple sees the child overseas before the adoption is decree is issued, the adoption is not considered "full and final" and the child must be readopted in the U.S. before he/she becomes eligible for citizenship. Still, the INA is the law of the land right now, and I observed it when I adopted my daughter I qualified to adopt as a single Mom, and my child (from China) qualified as an eligible orphan (abandoned child). Therefore, I was able to bring her home on an IR-3 visa, right after I adopted her. With regard to the children of Arche de Zoe, I read their stories on the site you mentioned. I read French fairly well, and their stories were truly heartbreaking. I am also not a fan of UNICEF. I believe that UNICEF, despite the good it has done in helping children overseas get an education and so on, has done a great deal to prevent orphans from finding permanent, loving families. UNICEF tends to support the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the U.S. does not. This Convention says that foster care in a child's home country is preferable to international adoption. I simply cannot accept this, since I believe -- as most responsible adoption professionals and physicians do -- that children need PERMANENCE. Foster care, by its very nature, is impermanent. And foster care, even in the prosperous United States, is often fraught with problems. It is difficult to recruit, train, and monitor foster families, and, unfortunately, some people wind up becoming foster parents for financial reasons. In economically depressed countries, it is even more difficult to recruit, train, and monitor foster families who will raise children with love and responsibility. I support the principles of Hague Convention #33, which says that, if a child cannot remain with his/her own parents, or in a permanent family in his/her own country, then international adoption is preferable to impermanent foster care. Although I believe that the way the Convention was implemented in the U.S. needs some work, I am pleased that my country's government participated in the design of the Convention and recently ratified it. But do be aware that neither the Hague Convention nor the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child supports the adoption of children whose countries are in the midst of civil war or natural disaster.In such situations, it is often difficult to know for sure who is an orphan. It is also difficult to be sure that a child does not have relatives or community members who would be willing to adopt him/her, if they could return home from hiding out across the border or living in a refugee camp, rebuild their homes, reopen their shops, and get their lives in order. Moreover, adoption is a legal process. It involves having a legitimate government terminate the rights of a child's birthparents and create a new legal relationship with the adoptive family. If there is no legitimate government in a child's country -- or if the legitimate government cannot carry out its functions because of natural or manmade disasters -- there can be no legal adoption. In general, most responsible adoption professionals recommend that children affected by natural or manmade disaster should be kept safe until such time as the situation settles down, a determination of their status can be made, relatives and community members can determine whether they can support additional children, and a legitimate government can sign off on a decision based on the children's best interests. It's a delicate balance. Permanence may be sacrificed for a time, but it is generally believed that it would be a terrible tragedy to place a child for international adoption, only to learn, later, that a Mom, aunt, or neighbor was looking for that child and wanted to parent him/her. So while I sympathize with the plight of the children of Arche de Zoe, I must say that I have some concerns about the tactics the organization used. There was NO legitimate government representing the interests of those children, and with the country in turmoil, there was much that even village chiefs and elders could not possibly know about their circumstances. Taking the children across the sea to another land and placing them for adoption may NOT have been the most moral and ethical choice. Sharon