Our Response To The Response

We have been overwhelmed by the flood of thanks and support that has stemmed from our letter. We did not expect that! We did expect some concerns to be raised; we have just been surprised at how far the gratitude has outweighed the displeasure. Thank you to everyone who has weighed in on this. We are so, so thankful that so many of you received our letter in the spirit with which we intended. Even among those who were disconcerted, the vast majority were gracious in their correspondence. While this is not a fun discussion, we are grateful to be having it in the company of fellow Believers who genuinely seek the best for the children of Liberia. We are happy this dialogue has begun.

We took this week to listen to the feedback from those who read our letter. We mostly heard from adoptive families who have, or are, or are/were considering, working with AOHL. We also heard from a missionary couple who works closely with AOHL, a former volunteer/Adoptive Parent, and one staff member. We probably heard from about 50 people in all. After we posted our letter on Monday, AOHL said on its Yahoo Group that they were working to formulate an Official Response to the concerns (not just ours) that have been surfacing recently. We were hoping to have that response prior to this posting, but are not willing to wait any longer. We did receive a private e-mail from one staff member, as we mentioned above. In essence, that e-mail offered apology if anything said by him was offensive or slanderous, said that he does not have good communication skills, requested a list of things from our letter that pertained to him specifically, asked us to re-list our concerns with the operation in Liberia, and then spent the bulk of the message describing his personal confidence in the agency and its Executive Director. After reading all of the posts and e-mails we were privy to, we have decided to provide one more post with further detail on the common questions that were raised by our letter:

Government Involvement:
1. Some have asked exactly who we plan to contact. When we posted our letter, we also sent it to AOHL Board Members* and several AOHL Staff Members, as well as the Consular and the State Department. The response, or lack thereof, from AOHL’s leadership, the Consular, and the State Department will determine whether we forward our letter to additional adoption authorities. (As a side note: A couple of you asked us to reconsider contacting government officials, which we obviously can’t. For what it’s worth, we know that other families have already sent letters detailing their concerns with AOHL, and many others have told us they are planning to do the same. Most of those families simply haven’t made it public.) We will explain a little further how we came to the decision to send our letter to the Consular and the State Department: In August, AOHL asked us to send a letter to the Consular and her superiors, as well as our Senator. They gave us the information to include in our letter, and we later realized that we had been provided false information. (For example: AOHL posted on their Yahoo Group that their Executive Director had met with the new Consular, and that the Consular was very impressed with AOHL. They went so far as to say that the new Consular would be looking to AOHL’s Executive Director to set the standard for adoptions in Liberia, and to help her establish new procedures. They said that every other agency in Liberia was corrupt, causing problems, and disliked by the new Consular, and that the restrictions in Embassy Appointments for all agencies was simply a result of the poor practices of all the other agencies. If all that is true, then why did the Consular tell us she could not recommend any adoption agency in Liberia? At first, we weren’t sure whether she was saying she thought they all conducted themselves poorly, or if she was just saying she wasn’t allowed to make a recommendation like that. But after she said, “I can’t recommend any of them,” she pointed to our Home Study and said, “Now, I could whole heartedly recommend this agency! I have worked with them before, and they are wonderful! But unfortunately they’re not doing adoptions in Liberia.” (Our first adoption, and Home Study, was done by Bethany Christian Services. For the record, we asked her that question because we have friends who plan to adopt from Liberia, and are considering which agency to use.) Even though we were careful in our original letter to the Consular et al to say, “We have been told by our agency…” we still felt obligated to right the wrong, since we had chosen to write that letter. So we asked the Consular what was necessary to remedy the situation, and she requested that we follow up with the State Department. None of that would have ever happened had not AOHL asked us to send that letter, because we would never have gone outside of our contract that stated we were not to contact foreign authorities without AOHL’s permission/instruction. Once we had sent the letter, though, and later found out that some of the “facts” we had related pursuant to the information provided by AOHL were not true, we felt compelled to remedy the situation per the Consular’s instructions, since the Consular was the one who was portrayed incorrectly. As much as we have heard negative things about the Consular from AOHL, we began to realize that nearly every Adoptive Parent who had actually been to Liberia and met with her sang her praises. That incongruence was one of many red flags along the way for us.
2. Some people expressed fears to us that involving government officials can bring no good.
a. As we have said and can not say enough, we are not perfect, but we really are striving to handle this in a principled, Godly manner. One of the scripture passages that informed our decision is Romans 13:1-5. Verse 3 reads, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.” Why is there so much concern regarding the fact that we have shared our experiences with government officials? If AOHL is above reproach, then any sort of inquiry/investigation should only serve to prove what a stellar organization it is!
b. Yes, we were not as outspoken prior to our child being home, and we absolutely understand the anger some Adoptive Parents might feel who are still in process, as it is obviously easier for us to voice these concerns when there’s no chance of them jeopardizing our adoption. Please let us apologize again. We are sorry. We are so sorry. We were wrong. Our awareness of our selfishness in this regard was a strong motivator against writing our letter. But two wrongs don’t make a right. For what it’s worth, as our concerns mounted, we did begin to mention them, particularly on this very blog, but also with the staff. Feel free to scroll back through and see for yourself. We saw key staff and potential fund-raisers leaving, and we knew the communication/professionalism issues were bad, but there wasn’t a lot to put into writing until we arrived in Liberia and saw the paperwork. Although we definitely tried. One example: When we began to suspect our son’s adoption had not been finalized, and his passport submitted for, in June as we were told, we tried to pin AOHL down regarding the exact date his passport was submitted for. Between August and November, we asked the staff in Wisconsin (spanning both the new and former contacts), and even the Executive Director, via phone calls and e-mails, in the neighborhood of 10 times, “What is the date Micah’s passport was submitted for?” We were told, “we expect it by the end of the week,” , “we expect it any moment” , “it’s likely already issued, we just haven’t heard from the staff in Liberia yet”, etc. throughout that time. It was not until we got to Liberia and saw the paperwork for ourselves that we knew we had not been told the truth. His passport could not have been submitted for before August 17 at the earliest, since that was when the adoption was actually finalized. Obviously, we were not as bold then as we are being now. And practically speaking, if you re-read our letter, you will see that most of our concerns were realized when we visited Liberia, finally saw the paperwork, etc., so there wasn’t a lot we could have addressed prior to traveling.
c. We did not make this decision lightly. We thought through the worst case scenario. What if AOHL is shut down? What about the children waiting to come home? It seems likely to us that AOHL would be permitted to process the pending cases. If not, we have seen the precedent that another agency would be likely to take on the pending cases. Even without an agency, we feel confident adoptions could be completed independently. Of course, no one who chooses to work with an agency wants to go it alone, and we hope no one has to do that as a result of our letter. But we were prepared to do just that ourselves, when it became unclear shortly before we traveled what kind of support we may or may not have from AOHL upon our arrival in Liberia. We have extensive information on hand about how to complete a Liberian adoption independently, and we will gladly provide it to anyone who should need that kind of help in a worst-case-scenario situation.
d. Some said that government involvement could never lead to bettering the agency, but could only lead to it being shut down. Nothing held us back more from posting this letter than the thought of the kids we saw in the orphanages, and thinking about their families waiting here in the U.S. But we are responsible to be obedient, and to bear witness to things we've seen first hand. We are not responsible for outcomes. That's God's department. It’s tempting to tell God, "Just show us Your game plan, and we’re in! Show us how things will play out, and we'll be all over it! 110%!!" And He says, "Wrong. You get in. You be all over it. 110%. And THEN you can sit back and watch what I choose to do." As much as we have wrestled through this letter and response, we are not worrying about what will come of it. God is sovereign. He may choose to work through things as they are. He may choose to restore by tearing down the organization and starting anew. He may choose any number of outcomes, but HE will choose. That's not our job. And when we start to think, "Oh, man... What about all the kids that are caught in the middle?" we remind ourselves that God loves them more than we do, just as we reminded ourselves throughout our bumpy journey of being united with our son.

The Infant/Toddler Orphanage:
We have received reports from other Adoptive Families who had a very different experience/reaction at the Infant/Toddler Orphanage than we did. Of course, there are many possibilities as to why we have seen it differently. It could simply be a case of different people seeing the same thing and having two different responses to it, or there could be any number of other explanations. We are wondering if the discrepancy might be due to when we traveled. As memory serves, everyone who reported a positive experience visited before us. From what we know, the Missionary who was in charge of the Infant/Toddler Orphanage left AOHL at the end of September. The Missionary who was in charge of the Big Kids’ Orphanage, the same one who gave us the tour of the Infant/Toddler Orphanage, said she found herself in the position of trying to cover both of those orphanages, but told us she rarely made it to the Infant/Toddler Orphanage. Perhaps the situation had deteriorated by the time we got there? We don’t know. Also, please remember we are specifically addressing concerns about the Infant/Toddler Orphanage, not the other two. Most of the stellar reports we have heard from other families have been in relation to children who lived at the Special Needs or Big Kids’ Orphanage.
1. Two major theories were put forth regarding the silence at the Infant/Toddler Orphanage we mentioned in our letter:
a. It has been said that we were there at nap time. Actually, we were there around 11:30. We remember distinctly, because the Missionary who had spoken with us (Corey and Jamie) said we would leave the Guest Compound to head to the Orphanages at 11:00. When the other families in the Guest Compound asked us what time we would all be heading out for the Orphanages, we said, “Well, probably 11:30, because we’re on Liberian time, right?” (If you haven’t yet been/heard, it seems that everything tends to run a bit behind schedule.) And we shared a little laugh with the other families when in fact we departed around 11:30. (It is just a few minutes’ drive to the Orphanages.) All of the children were awake. The Infant/Toddler Orphanage Daily Routine that was posted on AOHL’s Yahoo Group says that naps are at 1:00, after lunch. We’re guessing that Routine probably pertains more so to the toddlers, since the infants are probably napping twice a day. Micah’s Orphan Report said he, in fact, was taking two naps a day, as of September. It said he napped from about 9-11 and 1-3.
b. It has been said that the silence is due to Liberian Culture regarding the care of babies. The former moderator of AOHL’s Yahoo Group, who is also on staff with AOHL and has been a missionary in Africa, including Liberia, posted in response to our letter that African babies do not cry. She went to great length to prove her point, saying that Liberians will do what it takes to quiet babies, no matter what, citing examples like Moms allowing their babies to rip up their Bibles in church just to keep them quiet. We were ridiculed for our lack of knowledge in this area. Well, evidently we are in good company, because in the e-mail we received from the wife of the missionary couple, who has served in Liberia for more than two decades, she said, “I am in a position to know truth since the orphanage baby nursery rented space in my house for months…. And the fact the babies weren't crying when you were there? They certainly have cried while they lived at our house!” This contradiction from two seasoned missionaries to Africa is a perfect example of precisely why we said in our letter that it had to be lengthy, because we felt ill-equipped to draw conclusions. We relayed only our experiences, observations, and information we were given by AOHL Staff. And yes, we shared some of the questions we have. But no, we did not draw conclusions. Some have expressed their concern over us accusing AOHL of neglect and bribery. Read our letter again! We never used those words.
2. Some wanted to know more about our Pediatrician.
a. It was inferred that she must not know enough about internationally adopted children to have said there were times Micah didn’t have enough to eat. Does she have other internationally adopted children that she cares for? Yes. Many. That is exactly why we chose her. We feel that our children’s health concerns are private, but we will say that our Pediatrician has proved to be very, very well informed and capable with the many issues we have worked, and are working through, with her, with both of our children. (Our daughter, whom we also adopted, was conceived in Congo-Kinshasa.)
b. On the other hand, it was inferred that she must know too much about internationally adopted children to have said there were times Micah didn’t have enough to eat. Does her knowledge of the state of foreign orphanages predispose her to arriving at certain conclusions? Maybe! We’re not doctors. That’s why we have one. That’s why we shared what she told us. Nothing more. Nothing less. And in keeping with Proverbs 25:9, “If you argue your case with a neighbor, do not betray another man's confidence”, we will not divulge names, but will tell you that a few other families contacted us and told us their Pediatricians told them the same thing. Their children were in AOHL custody for about 9 to 18 months.**
c. Some have said that it might just be that the feeding is a cultural problem; that maybe the Nannies don’t understand about proper feeding. Another Adoptive Mom said she had a conversation with one of the head Nannies who made comments that lead her to believe this might be the case. That would be great! We’re confident AOHL could simply provide the appropriate training, and oversight if necessary, to remedy the situation if this is the case.

Why we have done this the way we have done this:

Some have questioned why we haven’t handled this in the brother-to-brother conflict resolution model presented in Matthew 18:15-17. We do not have a grievance with a brother. We have concerns about an organization. By definition, a business operates in the public arena. We do not think the Matthew 18 model applies in this situation. We don’t know who might be willing/able to affect positive change, so we cast a broad net. We are not in a position to say the issues stem from the Executive Director, the Board, the staff in the U.S., the staff in Liberia, or ??? We do not feel it is our place to draw conclusions. We simply believe we needed to put information in the hands of those who do know what needs to be done, and will be willing and able to make it so.

Even if the brother-to-brother model were applicable here, we would certainly be within its constructs in how we have conducted ourselves:
1. As is outlined in verse 15, we spoke directly with AOHL and pointed out their faults. The pattern of unwillingness to address our concerns has been more than sufficiently established. (See our example below, regarding the submission for passport, and remember it is just that: one example! This response is already way too long without providing other examples!) Some of the concerns we presented in our letter had already been expressed to AOHL, and some had not. We do not have confidence in the likelihood of receiving clear, honest answers, and we are not willing to keep knocking on a closed door. It wastes our time, and theirs. They would not listen, so we
2. Contacted other Adoptive Families, who expressed their concerns to AOHL to no avail as well, which satisfies verse 16’s direction.
3. That brings us to verse 17. AOHL has not listened, and the equivelant of the church in this situation would be the Adoptive Parents, who we are supposed to bring the issue before. The only potential non-believers we sent our letter to are the Consular and her supervisor at the State Department. We have no knowledge of whether those two people are Believers, but regardless, we had an obligation to follow-up with them as we explained above.

We are not perfect, but our goal in Biblical Communication (that is God honoring, and not gossip or slander) is to always say the same thing about someone that we would say to their face, and in the same way. That is why we wrote one letter, and sent the same one to everyone; so we would all be literally on the same page.

General Clarifications:
1. Why didn’t we just ask a staff person when we saw something we questioned, instead of coming to the wrong conclusions and putting those wrong conclusions in our letter? We DID ask a staff person when we had a question! As was demonstrated in the example regarding whether African babies cry (above), even those working with AOHL can have very different answers to things. In our effort to not single anyone out by naming names and quoting them, it may have appeared that we were drawing our own conclusions at times in our letter. We were not. For example, as we left the new orphanage site, Jamie said, “I hate to ask an awkward question, but I'd rather ask now than go home and speculate... Why is the Missionary Compound/Personal Residence/Guest Facility being prioritized over the orphanage? Why isn't anyone here working on this?" The AOHL staff person giving us the tour said that the staff in Liberia really wants/needs Patty to live in country to get things straightened out and on track, and that she can't come and move her family there until her home is ready. So from what we were told by an AOHL staff member, we understood that the new orphanage is not the priority. That is why we said what we did at the close of our letter.
2. Why are we so upset about the nannies playing rap music? We’re not! Read the letter! We said, “The rap music wasn’t so much an issue for us, as was the false image we had been given.”
3. Why are we so upset about the photo album issue? We’re not! Read the letter! In regard to the album we said, “We felt like a false image had been presented.” We didn’t say we were worried our son didn’t know us because he hadn’t been looking at it or anything, simply that we felt like a false image had been presented. The former moderator for AOHL’s Yahoo Group said the photo albums are sent more for the parents’ sake than for the kids, in the case of the infants. She suggested that perhaps they should cease having photo albums sent over for the infants. We think that might not be a bad idea, in the interest of painting a more realistic picture.
4. AOH vs. AOHL: We have mostly just used “AOHL” in these posts, because that is how the agency has been identifying itself on its Yahoo Group. We’ve asked, and had different explanations for how the money flows through the non-profit AOH to the for-profit AOHL, but we’re left unsure of exactly how it works, so we didn’t try to use the different names in instances where they would apply, except for in our reference to the 990s below.

It bears repeating: While we are doing our best to handle this in a Godly manner, we know we are not perfect! Some want us to share more; naming names, quoting more e-mails, and such. Of course, some think we’ve already shared too much. We decided to post this follow-up due mainly to the questions we received from Adoptive Families in process, and we will leave it in God’s hands from here. If AOHL leaders (such as a non-relative, or non-employee board member) or Adoption Authorities ask us to provide further detail, we will do so privately. To the families who are contemplating which agency to use: We recommend you e-mail several families who have recently come home with their children, and consider their experiences.

We have not even said anywhere that we do not recommend AOHL. As we have stated over and over, we know we are not experts in all of this. We do not have all the pieces to the puzzle. We did experience enough that we knew we had to bring it to light so that those who are qualified can draw their own conclusions/take their own actions. We have no intention of suing AOHL, or of belaboring the relation of our experience any further. We have said what we felt prompted to say, and we are at peace. We pray that God will use this for His glory.

* We gathered Board Members’ names from AOH’s 990s, which may be viewed for free at guidestar.org. No 990s were listed for 2004 or 2005, but we noticed that none of the Board Members from 2003 were listed for 2006, other than the Executive Director, who is listed as President.

** One suggestion we would like to put forth is that AOHL implement an Evaluation Process. When we did our first adoption, with another agency, we received an “exit interview” type survey once the adoption was completed. Not everyone is willing to share as openly as we have, and we completely understand that. However, it would be invaluable for AOHL to have access to the type of feedback we have received from so many who are privately supporting us in this endeavor. In Jamie’s work with the non-profit pregnancy center, she has been responsible for the evaluation of its nationwide abstinence program. That program received a multi-million dollar federal grant, which Jamie helped write. As a requirement of the grant, the program had to conduct extensive evaluation. Not only does such evaluation provide a wealth of information for bettering practices and sharing about the agency with prospective Adoptive Parents and financial supporters, but it also positions a non-profit to be more likely to be awarded grants, since they can prove how great they are! At best, AOHL would hire an independent evaluator to conduct and publish evaluation. This can be costly, yes, but can also pay off in terms of grants, as mentioned. If not independent evaluation, AOHL could set up something simple, such as a surveymonkey.com evaluation. It only takes about an hour, and costs nothing to set up a basic survey. Once it’s set up, Adoptive Parents can provide feedback anonymously, and their responses are automatically totaled. It is also possible to set up more comprehensive evaluations for $19.99 per month.