Who Is Ray Wigdal? Contrasting Views Emerge of Missing American Foster Father

TBJ, any updates on what's happening with the children involved in this case? Any news about whether Phoebe's body has been released from the hospital?

lao ye wrote:

But speaking of the child welfare system as one big blob is as absurd as any "all Chinese people..." statements, heh.

Very, very true. It's very difficult to speak of generalities in a country with such vast variety. Same as the "all you foreigners..." statements that can be so very amusing. Or not.

I do wish there was research available to see the state of the welfare system here. I know, though, that such information would never be made available to outsiders. This is definitely seen as a "one does not air one's dirty laundry in public" issue.

britomart wrote:

qmmayer wrote:

It certainly did not appear that the children were being kept out of the system, and they had little trouble finding adoptive families.

Laoye and qmmayer, have you had much experience visiting state-run orphanages, outside Beijing, in other provinces?

My experience is primarily outside Beijing, across two provinces in south-central China. I've spent a few months here and there in Beijing and other northerly areas, but while the capital is certainly the capital, it is not currently the most groundbreaking in its child welfare approach. There are some areas that are known for corruption, some known for abuse, some known for caring... Reputations are what they are. But speaking of the child welfare system as one big blob is as absurd as any "all Chinese people..." statements, heh.

qmmayer wrote:

It certainly did not appear that the children were being kept out of the system, and they had little trouble finding adoptive families.

Laoye and qmmayer, have you had much experience visiting state-run orphanages, outside Beijing, in other provinces?

My -- admittedly limited -- experience as an adoptive parent matches Laoye's. We adopted a girl with a minor heart defect from a Social Welfare Institute around eight years ago. We have visited the SWI three times in total, and there have always been many children with "special needs," ceft palate being one of the more common. It certainly did not appear that the children were being kept out of the system, and they had little trouble finding adoptive families. Obviously, international adoption has its drawbacks, but it would seem like for the most part adoptees would fare better than these kids, who as noted, don't speak Mandarin fluently, lack proper legal status, and don't appear to be getting formal schooling. This sounds like a misguided effort at charity, but to the detriment of the kids.

here's the latest we have, our report from yesterday that outlines a news report that was broadcast late Tuesday:

http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/12/10/ray-speaks-cctv-13-airs-phone-intervew-missing-american-foster-parent

-------------------

In other portions of the newscast, reporters talked to experts about what is next for the ten other children, who range in age from several months to 17 years old.

Tong Lihua, Director of Beijing Children’s Legal Aid and Research Center, was quoted as saying: “Generally speaking there are three steps to have the children resettled. The first step is to have them sent to a temporary protection center [where they are now]. However, local children protection centers can only provide temporary shelter.

“The second step is, if we can’t find any of the children’s parents, relatives or legal guardians, the children should be sent to state-sponsored children welfare agencies, In legal terms, the state now takes custody of the children, and this can be a long term settlement.

“The third step is that the children welfare agency will look for adoptive parents for the kids after they are sent there.”

-------------------

lao ye wrote:

I have worked for a number of years in the children's welfare sector for the Chinese government, originally in collaboration with a foreign nonprofit and then working directly for the bureau itself.

What Ray did was good, at first. In some ways. But in raising the children outside the system, he guaranteed their later failure in life.

lao ye wrote:

I do think he had good intentions at heart, and I think that very firmly. But he made short-sighted decisions based on what made him look good, or worked for him, rather than what worked for the children. When these kids turn 18, what hope do they have, if they were with Ray the whole time?

I'm glad that someone with knowledge of the welfare system here is finally able to contribute. You're absolutely right--I know China's welfare system only from the outside, based on discussions with friends who used to work in the system years ago and from my own observations working inside China's public education system for the past 16 years.

I do absolutely agree that Ray's choices were shortsighted. I have seen a number of other children--not orphans--raised by their parents outside the system. The parents had the best of intentions, but when their children reached 18, they found that they did not fit anywhere, either in the country they belonged to or in the country whose educational system they were using (the result of many of the many small so-called "international schools" that use curriculum from abroad).

lao ye wrote:

There is a right way to do things. Ray was not doing things the right way. Ignore the tragedy of Phoebe - he was being unfair to these kids, and other people in similar situations are the same.

Beijinger Staff - I'd be perfectly willing to expand this into an editorial, if you so desire. :)

Again, I agree that Ray and the grannies were not acting in the wisest way as far as the long-term welfare of the children. Yes, the children are alive and breathing right now, but the manner of the rescue may result in tremendous struggles for the children once they're grown. I wonder if we can track down any of the children who Ray has cared for who are now grown and on their own. The one time I met him, over ten years ago, he had brought a few of the orphans he'd rescued to a Thanksgiving celebration at a mutual friend's home. I think one of boys was around 9 or 10 years old at the time, if I remember correctly, so he would be in his 20s now. Of course I can't remember his name, so I have no idea how to track him down and see how he's doing.

Lao Ye, I'd love to hear more about this in an expanded editorial, with facts on the current situation of China's welfare system. TBJ, is this possible?

I have worked for a number of years in the children's welfare sector for the Chinese government, originally in collaboration with a foreign nonprofit and then working directly for the bureau itself.

What Ray did was good, at first. In some ways. But in raising the children outside the system, he guaranteed their later failure in life. Raising a child in China who is not equipped to live in China - from not getting their temp hukou, an easy process at any children's welfare institution, to not even teaching them fluent Mandarin. A child with their legal status has no hope of ever being legally adopted or fostered, especially as most of them march down on the 14 year cut-off for international and 16 year cut-off for domestic fostering.

I do think he had good intentions at heart, and I think that very firmly. But he made short-sighted decisions based on what made him look good, or worked for him, rather than what worked for the children. When these kids turn 18, what hope do they have, if they were with Ray the whole time? As illegal, unfostered, invisible children? Intake for children with disabilities, from minor to major, is a simple process and no kids get 'turned away' from the years I have personally seen kids dropped off at the gates to an institution. 'britomart' has a few good points, but they are based on an antiquated understanding of the system, from the outside. As someone 100% speaking from the inside, of modern China's child welfare system, I hope my opinion is at least somewhat more weighty...

The shutting down of private institutions is well-known, but that's not based on 'face', at least not any more. In many places it is based on them simply doing things illegally - much like Ray. Taking in abandonments without registering them, failing to maintain proper safety (see the horrible tragedy outside Xiamen for a perfect example - non-foreigner, still done illegally and resulting in the deaths of children), etc.

I am not an apologist. I've seen good people get removed by the government, I've seen good programs shut down. But I've also seen bad people taken care of and bad programs shut down.

There is a right way to do things. Ray was not doing things the right way. Ignore the tragedy of Phoebe - he was being unfair to these kids, and other people in similar situations are the same.

Beijinger Staff - I'd be perfectly willing to expand this into an editorial, if you so desire. :)

Steven Schwankert wrote:

... while the kids are described in far-ranging terms from happy and playful to hungry and unkempt.

This wide-ranging description could apply to any of my nephews or friends' kids, depending on what time of day it is, whether they're in a good mood that day, whether they've eaten lunch yet, etc.

Steven Schwankert wrote:

Several of the kids inexplicably claimed to be students at a nearby international school, which the source could verify was not true (previous news reports indicate the students were all home schooled and had received no formal education beyond that).

There are a number of small private so-called "international schools" which will accept children regardless of hukou--some video-based, some with semi-qualified teachers... all serving kids who would "fall through the cracks" otherwise. These orphans that Ray was caring for could have never been accepted into the formal public school system without hukou, not to mention the other barrier to admittance: the very real prejudice in the society here against those with physical defects. Without a mom or dad to fight for them every step of the way, kids like these would never be able to take part in China's formal education system.

Steven Schwankert wrote:

Some who have had encounters with the children suspect that Wigdal had ceased to be able to offer adequate care to the children as his flock of foster children grew beyond his means.

Yes, well. How do you say no when a granny brings you yet another abandoned baby? Either baby is welcomed into a home with a less-than-adequate budget, or it's back on the trash heap?

Steven Schwankert wrote:

Some or all of the 11 children were brought to Wigdal over the years from origins unknown. Media reports quoting volunteers said the children had all been abandoned at birth, presumably due to birth defects.

I imagine this all started when the gov't here started its push years ago to shut down many of the then-numerous private orphanages, since those private institutions were deemed to be a loss of face for the gov't. According to friends who work in that field, the gov't started moving children with birth defects or illnesses out of the state-run orphanages and into the private ones. Then those children would inevitably die, due to the private places receiving the unexpected overload of children in need of critical care. The statistics of the private orphanages then showed the public that those places were unsafe, unsanitary, and should be shut down. Current state-run orphanages have been known to refuse admittance to children with birth defects, since it would damage their statistics and cause a loss of face for the gov't.

Steven Schwankert wrote:

Authorities now caring for the children are attempting to establish their identities via DNA testing.

And once their identities are established, then the parents will, with rejoicing flock, to reclaim their lost little ones.

Oh, wait. This isn't a Disney movie.