Guatadopt readers, you've probably figured it out already but in case you haven't, there is a war being waged. I've posted this to my writer's corner, as it is strictly opinion and analysis. While this will discuss what has transpired with Casa Quivira and now La Primavera, I will do my best to use those only as case examples without getting into the particulars. In part, this is because I don't have the particulars. In part, it is because this is intended to explore the larger issues of the battle underway in regard to intercountry adoption (ICA) from Guatemala
First off, the “why”. I’ll start with the valid reasons for scrutiny on Guatemalan adoptions. There are and have been real problems with the adoption system. If only ethical people operated, Guatemala has a wonderful system. But because of a number of factors, unethical practitioners have run wild. As country after country has closed for ICA, it has placed a greater demand on the Guatemalan system. As this has happened, opportunists have run amok. We’ve seen the few examples of RAI, Mary Bonn, and Waiting Angels. But these have all been on the American side of the equation. And in reality, neither the US Embassy nor Guatemalan officials have done anything to stop the problems. Even when the US Embassy has banned people, they have continued to operate with impunity. Thanasis and Blanca Martinez are two great examples. The US Embassy was told who Thanasis was working with. And both the Guatemalan officials and the US Embassy knew that Blanca continued to work under two aliases (Rosalina Garcia and Luz Maria Guerra). Yet both are free today, not facing prosecution or any repercussions of any sort. In short, in any system where you combine money and lax enforcement of laws, things will run wild. This environment in my opinion was tolerated either because no one had any cajones to stop it, or because it helped bring things to where they are today.
Focus on the Guatemalan side. UNICEF has for a long time had large sums of money on the table for Bienestar if adoptions are halted. But time is running out for Pres. Berger to get his hands on that money as he leaves office in January. If we look at what the last president, Oscar Portillo, did as he left office, stealing oodles of cash, we can see that Central America has not recovered from what years of wars to “fight communism” did. Why should Berger be any different? Doesn’t he have the right to leave office with millions of dollars in his coffers like every other leader?
My point in all of this is that while there may be some justified reasons to clamp down on Guatemalan adoptions, there are definitely some other political, and possibly capitalistic, motives in play.
With all this said as background, what is it that is happening right now? Basically, the executive branch of the Guatemalan government is attempting to dominate control over the adoption process. This is apparently being done at the expense of the rule of the law, the Guatemalan Constitution, and the separation of powers between the branches of government.
Guatemala’s government very much mirrors that of the United States. In fact, the only difference I know of is that they have a unicameral, rather than bicameral, congress. But there is an executive branch with a president. That branch sets policy, signs off on laws, and sets regulation in accordance with the law. The legislative branch writes laws and approves them and has the ability to override a presidential veto (as Guatemala did recently on a family planning bill). And then there is a judicial branch to determine what those laws actually say.
In our US government and Guatemala’s, the judicial branch is really the end all. Just as the US Supreme Court got the final say in the Bush-Gore election debacle, the judicial branch of Guatemala’s government should be the most powerful. What is happening right now is that the Executive branch, headed by the President, which includes the PGN, is attempting to break the balance of powers in order to reinterpret the law to its desires.
Before I go into this, let me point out that this happens in the US as well. All of the recent court cases regarding wiretapping, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and more point to this being a pattern. In some cases, the courts have sided with the executive branch. In others they have not. My point is that ultimately the usurping of authority ends up in the courts who make a decision, but it can take time to right wrongs when the executive branch has overreached its authority.
In Guatemala right now, the executive branch is attempting to apply the PINA law to adoptions. Most every legal expert I have spoken to agrees that this is not an appropriate application of PINA. I have my ideas on how the executive branch might try to defend this, but what is clear is that their case is without doubt against the spirit and intent of PINA. Thus far, the courts have ruled that PINA does not apply to adoptions. Nonetheless, actions taken by the executive branch in regard to adoption are based on PINA.
The issue of notaries taking the judicial adoption route is an interesting one. Under Guatemalan law, as has been posted on this site, if PGN is overstepping its bounds notaries have the right to go before a judge and override PGN. This is no different than the prisoners at Guantanamo fighting the US executive branch for their rights to legal representation and to know the charges brought against them. I am not trying to be political, just trying to use a US case example to make a point. As I stated earlier, the judicial branch is usually the end all in legal debates. That is its role. In Guatemala, the courts can decide that PGN was overstepping its edicts, override PGN’s determinations, and approve the adoption. This is what has been happening and it is completely legal. With that said, judges are appointed by the executive branch. And just as we have seen in the political nature of US Supreme Court nominees, even judges can be political.
What is fascinating about this latest attack on adoptions if that for years Guatemala’s system has been criticized because judges are not involved in approving adoptions. Now that some judges have been brought into the equation, rather than just the executive branch/PGN, that is no longer a positive thing.
So where is the US government in all of this? Well folks, in my opinion they are sitting by and watching with a certain amount of satisfaction. My view is that the DOS wants adoptions ended because they are a pain in the neck. The US Embassy has had to become more involved in adoptions from Guatemala than in other countries due to the pathetic incompetence of Guatemala’s infrastructure to manage itself (blame which lies largely on its executive branch though that can not be blamed on Pres. Berger solely). The US government issued its warnings and now they are doing a bit of “I told you so”. They have supported any move by the Guatemalans to restrict adoptions. They have publicly thrown their support behind law proposals like Ortega that would end adoptions and the Protocol of Good Practices. So now they are letting people feel the pain.
For the record, officially the US has no say in what Guatemala does with its adoption system. Guatemala is a sovereign nation. And to their credit, the US has gone to bat for families with adoptions completed. But, it is ridiculous to believe that the diplomatic channels available to the DOS could not be more involved because the fact is that the US has a tremendous amount of influence over the actions of the Guatemalan executive branch. To imply otherwise is what my daughter would call “poopie”.
So this is where we find ourselves - in the midst of a multifaceted political struggle. What is truly sad is that innocent children are caught in the middle of it and these bureaucrats don’t seem to give a damn about it. So I will be the voice of reason.
Stop the bullshit attacks on legitimate hogars that provide excellent care. Stop the ridiculous, impossible to satisfy requests of PGN. If there is any evidence of children being placed for adoption that were kidnapped or not intentionally relinquished by their biological mothers than give those kids back to their biofamilies and throw the people who perpetrated the crimes in jail. Why is Blanca Martinez not behind bars? If Guatemala wants to adapt its system then that is its right. But to do so it must pass a new law and implement it in an organized manner that does not leave children stuck in the middle.
The government of the United States needs to defend its citizens who entered into a legal system in good faith. If they believe the system is so bad then they have the right to shut it down as they did in Cambodia. Instead they are choosing to make innocent American citizens and Guatemalan citizens victims in a game of emotional terrorism.
I am not here defending the current system. It needs reform. But I am here saying it is the law of Guatemala. So far, I have not seen that any of these media sensationalized attacks involve any illegal activity. Instead, they are centering on interpretation and stretches of the law that do not really involve the thing of fundamental importance – whether the children were intentionally relinquished.
I am an advocate for children and adoptive parents and what I see happening is a horrible injustice to both. This is wrong and needs to stop. So I end this tirade, this radical rant coming from someone who has tried to be calm and balanced and now finds himself pretty pissed off with a final thought. Whether it is a good, bad, or indifferent thing there are thousands of adoptions in process. There are real, living children who have no families and there are real, living parents who want nothing more than to provide them with a loving family environment. The line in the sand has been drawn by the US DOS. If Guatemala does not pass and implement Hague compliant legislation before the US ratifies The Hague early in 2008 then adoptions to the US, which make up over 90% of all Guatemalan adoptions, will end. Tens of thousands of families have been created through Guatemalan adoption. So don’t penalize children and good, honest adults wishing to give them families. Look for true breaches of ethical behavior and throw the perpetrators in jail. But let the rest continue even if they don’t exactly mirror the world community’s vision of what ICA should be just as they have for years. Stop this witch-hunt and if that means Pres. Berger leaves office with only his huge cattle farming operation to support him, so be it. Because this has all become ridiculous! Children should not be pawns in politics!
Well said Kevin!! I agree 100%!!
Posted by: CC at September 6, 2007 04:16 PMThanks, Kevin. It was really helpful to have many of the government actions and personal opinions written up in one place. And I think many of your opinions on where things stand now and what has happened are well taken. I disagree that US should use their diplomatic (read, military and economic) muscle to influence Guatemala in adoption law, but then, I don't think the US should use their power to influence any country's internal affairs. We have a pretty bad record in that regard, even if you only look at what benefits accrued to us. So, 'nuf said.
One other point you made that concerned me. You stated in your last paragraph that "[t]here are real, living children who have no families...." I am troubled by this because the large majority of children adopted from Guatemala are relinquished, not abandoned, and so do in fact have families, though they are, presumably, unable to care for the child as adequately as they want.
This is no news to you, of course, or to most of the families adopting those children. I point it out for two reasons.
First, the fact that most children are relinquished is, from what I can tell, the main sticking point for all the international, and much of the domestic, opposition to Guatemalan adoptions. Relinquishment is viewed as the breaking up of families, and from there, the arguments of coercion emerge. So, to state that these children "have no families" might be viewed as side-stepping the issue that most bothers those opposed to Guatemala's adoption process.
I have no problem with relinquishment. I think a mother has the right to make her own decision to give up her child for the good of herself, the child and the rest of her family. Yes, it is abdicating responsibility, but it also making a responsible decision for the life of child who would otherwise, in the mother's view, be subject to extreme poverty and its consequences. I see it as a self-less act, and maybe a selfish act, but it is one that she should have the right to make, and does under Guatemalan law. So, let's be accurate in our statements about what is occurring.
Second, I am very uncomfortable with the attitude some families take that the child they have accepted a referral suddenly becomes "theirs," and fostering the perception that all children have no family seems to encourage that.
Thanks again for your comments, and I'm sorry for all the spouting on one small phrase probably written in the wee hours! It brought up some thoughts I have held about this whole process for some time.
Posted by: Nick B. at September 6, 2007 05:21 PMRight on Radical Rant Kevin! I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm one of those adults wishing to give a little girl a home and feeling totally powerless and frustrated by this emotional terrorism.
Nick,
No offense taken.
First off, I did not advocate for the US trying to dictate what Guatemala's adoption SHOULD be. I agree that US intervention in the affairs of sovereign countries is a scary thing. But what I was saying is that Guatemala does have a law in place currently and thousands of families have been created under it. My point is that families have entered into that legal system in good faith and that the US should advocate for those citizens. We have the right to influence Guatemala not to change the rules midstream as appears to be happening. But my statement was not saying that we should dictate a new law to Guatemala, I believe quite the contrary.
In saying these children don't have families I mean because they have been relinquished by their biological families. So to me, they are either stuck in a life of institutionalization, without a family, or they can join one in the US.
Let me just ask that everyone separate two issues. One is how the system should be reformed. The other is attacks on in-process cases. Two very different debates.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Well put Kevin. Somehow we need to get the world pissed off and ready for this fight. Guatemala ia a beautiful country in many ways and very ugly in many others. Their track record of well though out actions is very poor and very self serving for many. We are fortunate to know a notary involved in adoptions and he is leaving the country due to the mismanagement of its affairs. There is a reason Guatemala is considered third world....Shame on the US for nottaking better action to insure a smooth transition. Just the fact that they continue to approve I600A puts them in the area of responsibility to help its citizens through this process. At least they can help those in process, announce its staopping of the I600A approvals, and flow smoothly into the next system.
Posted by: Bob at September 6, 2007 05:34 PMAwesome Kevin!!! Very well said, thank you for your continued support. You have you children home and you could walk away from all of this, or turn your head like others have, but you are one of the good guys! I have to also say thank you to the guatadopt team and those parents who are supportive to those of us that are stuck in this fight. You are all wonderful!!!
Posted by: Jaimee at September 6, 2007 06:33 PMI hope that all in-process families get their kids home really soon.
As for the wonderful foster care system that Guatemala has, I was a true beneficiary, because my daughter was obviously loved.
That said, the system is beyond corrupt; the fact that attorneys making so much money are fighting the executive branch isn't surprising. They are making a lot of money. My daughter was cared by a foster mother and I have a fairly good idea of how much the foster mothers make. It sure doesn't come close to the country fee charged by the attorneys. So where does all of the extra money go? Ah...But there are people to pay. Some attorneys/facilitators have dozens of cases that they can't even keep track of.
The attorneys are therefore not blameless in this mess. If the attorneys really had the best interests of the children at heart they wouldn't fight the government but rather find a cooperative solution that may leave a lot of subpar attorneys looking for different work.
It is not unheard of for two branches of government to find a way to cooperate, but it would certainly take some attorneys who are not about "the money", who are clearheaded and apolitical, who have other means of support besides their foreign fees, etc....Those are the attorneys who would have to join together with the executive branch to find a solution.
Well said, Kevin! I am struggling with the decision to wait until after Hague is implemented because of the possibility that single parent adoptions will cease. Being part of this forum and reading other opinions has helped me tremendously!
I'd also like to emphasize that Kevin's last comment about separating the issues is important. The attacks on in-process cases and licensed homes must stop!
Preparing my faxes to send today & tomorrow.
Lu
PAP and only God & Universe knows when/how
Kevin
Thanks for all of your efforts, I know I truly appreciate being kept in the loop! I have already emailed all pertinent parties regarding the raid at CQ, and I would hope all of us doing the same would prove to be a solution to get OUR government involved.
My question is twofold; with PGN playing their games, and Notaries going to judges in order to bypass PGN,
1). have any cases been successful going this route? (wth the children placed with their forever families)Since I know PGN is trying to overrule this Judical process
2). If the Judical route is sucessful would you reccommned going that route after resubmit, as Barrios tends to let files sit for about 8 weeks before releasing them?
Thanks again for you input
Posted by: s mama at September 6, 2007 07:00 PMKevin,
RIGHT ON!!!
Nick,
As a "mother" that has been in the long process of adoption for OVER two years now, let me respond to your opposition of the term, "children w/o families." Yes, these children are relinquished and yes, they do have families. We all do. But if a mother or father is no longer able to care for their child, (for whatever reason), then realistically, these children are without families. Please don't try to make an opposition when there really is none. The same system works here in the states. As a country, we have implemented the standard of a "no questions asked" policy. That means if a mother is no longer able or wants to care for their child, they have the freedom to give the child to authorities without fear of retribution. So, that means they do not have to worry with the idea of big brother grabbing them as they are leaving their child at the door and telling them they have to keep their children. This gives someone the freedom to accept that they are not the best candidate to parent their child and to choose a hopefully better future. We implemented this idea in the hopes that it would reduce the amount of violence and neglect committed against children, (including no longer leaving unwanted babies in garbage cans or trying to flush them down the toilet). The same idea is suppose to work in Guatemala. So, this would mean that even though every child starts with a biological family, they may not have a family that can care for them..i.e. children without families! And as for my considering a referral, MY CHILD from the first day I set eyes on him...you betcha' red rider!!! He is my son in the truest sense of the term. Same holds true for every biological parent out there. The first second you see that face, they instantly become yours. You just can't help it. Possession is a part of the human psyche. We all want to belong and that includes being able to possess something that is our own. Our car, our house, our family, faith, work, shoes, etc. etc. All of these can precede "my". Which shows we are taking responsibilty and possession for those things. Adoption and parenting are not clear, cut and dry. Neither are they as simple as black and white. So even though legally a Pap is not really a parent of that child yet, we still feel that way from the get go.
Careful assuming that you know where the money goes. I know an attorney there and they do not pcoket the in-country fee. Typically they may make $5000 per adoption. That is more than reasonable compared to what the US attorneys make for domestic adoptions.
Posted by: Bob at September 6, 2007 08:08 PMNick,
I can only speak for my daughter's case. She was a relinquishment, as most cases are. However, I would never say that she had a birth family that she could have potentially been a part of.
Her birth mom stated in the family court interview that had it not been for the ability to place the child for adoption, that she would have had an abortion. Without adoption, my daughter would not have had life much less a family to love her.
Rosemary
Posted by: Rosemary at September 6, 2007 08:18 PMKevin,
This should be written in an Op/Ed style and submitted to key US-based publications. Your points were well-made and well-written. Thanks for taking the time to sum it all up.
Posted by: Margaret Campagna at September 6, 2007 08:26 PMIt is just sad that everyone involved is in it for the money and not the children. It is just sad that it all boils down to money. If that was not the case then it would not cost $40,000 for our adoption. So the money is going somewhere. The only ones losing out are the children. It's just plain sad!
Posted by: Dave at September 6, 2007 10:59 PMBeautiful post Kevin. I could not agree more. Also strangely reassuring to know someone else feels the same way.
A little humor.. can we get a script to automatically insert the following line with my name on it whenever someone brings up the attorneys and cost because I feel I am repeating it or its Groundhogs day "the attorneys cost pretty much the same worldwide except Guatemalan attorneys also pay for foster care where other countries attorneys do not.. if anyone can find us attorneys to get through a very big legal process pro-bono and provide foster care for free we've love it otherwise please quit mentioning how much the attorneys make thanks!"
Our love, thoughts, and support to other families and a huge thank you to Kevin and Susana for providing support, comfort, and sanity in an insane world.
Posted by: mom at September 6, 2007 11:51 PMKevin,
Thanks for explaining the relationship between Juidical court and the PGN. Do you think at this point, PGN will revoke any of the adoptions approved by the Juidical court? Do you think there a chance that Primavera will be raided?
What should a parent do in this situation?
Thanks
Both of my sons, thankfully peacefully sleeping in the next room, were mine from the moment I said yes to their sweet faces. My head knew anything could go wrong and I wouldn't be able to bring them home, but then my heart would still hold those first pictures in memory and prayer forever. Nothing I could do about that - it's just the way I am.
As for the money? Yea, it's probably too much, but too much for whom? Until there is a clear accounting of where they money is going we'll never know. I do know my both my sons were very well cared for during the 9 months for the 1st and 7 months for the second. And actually my 2nd son had been waiting in foster care for 5 months prior to our accepting his referral. There are expenses to raising babies as I'm sure we are all aware. Anyway, I think a clear accounting of where the funds go, $XX for court fees, $XX for fostercare, $XX for medical, food, clothing, would go a long way to helping the system obtain some credibility. Is that really asking too much?
Posted by: Darcy at September 7, 2007 04:06 AMKevin,
Thank you for writing this, and thank you for all that you and Kelly do to help us keep informed.
Lizzie
Kevin and Guatadopt staff, you guys do an incredible amount of great work in sifting through information and in helping to keep us all in the information loop. Thank you very much.
I spoke with an adoptive parent, while in
Guatemala City, who brought home her first daughter from Guatemala in 2006, having completed her case bypassing PGN and using a judge's decision. Apparently the parent used a clause of "PGN abusing the case", in part regarding prolonged time spent in PGN processing the case. Has anyone in the past few months completed a case such as this and if so at what time should this be implemented? I have been wondering if this is being considered by PAPs of CQ?
I'm afraid that I have no advice to anyone in the process of a judicial adoption. I think the days or weeks to come will clear up the situation. I am confident that PGN has no ability to revoke an adoption that was completed judicially.
And yes, they have been done in the past and childen have joined their forever families.
I would not advise anyone to start one right now. I would wait until the courts resolve this.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
A clear accounting of $ isn't asking too much but you won't get it out of Hague countries either. Its an average of $20k for the attorney fee everywhere.. everywhere. In Moldova it was $20k plus 1500 in case officials want to travel with no foster care. I have an acquantaince that adopted from Russia.. again $20 with no foster care. I assume this goes to the orphanages but I don't know who looks at their accounting records so who knows. Or maybe it goes only to the lawyers in which case they are making more than the Guatemalan attorneys since they don't pay foster care. Attorneys are expensive regardless of what you need them for. So are doctors. It would be great if we could get them to work for less or for free. Anyway, I think a lot of people are on the bandwagon about cost which is expensive but they think Guatemala is significantly more expensive based on what? Certainly not experience or research because we were in another country and I can tell you, ask any of the families that switched to Guatemala, that its not significantly more. Most people are not getting home loans for 1500. It's the 20k chunk that gets to many especially if completing more than one adoption and that $20k chunk is the average cost everywhere including our precious Hague countries.
Posted by: mom at September 7, 2007 12:40 PMTo address the concept of calling these children "ours" before the decree is final:
Legally, of course, you are right. We are not parents until the final PGN document is signed. HOWEVER, I believe part of the adoption process on the PAP's end is that time we are "expectant moms and dads". I could not feel my children kick in my womb, but I did think about them and pray for them and dream about them every day. We prepared our home and our hearts. We prepared our families. I prepared my office for family leave. And all the while, you know in your head that something could happen and it could all fall apart. In some ways, it's like a high risk pregnancy.
But PLEASE understand that time of preparation and emotionally bonding with the child that we only know through photos is a healthy, normal part of the process that prepares us for the life long change of becoming a parent and for the face to face bonding with our children.
Some people delay preparing the nursery, sharing with family, and having baby showers to limit this. Some people even use a pet name like "little peanut". But to think that we don't bond with this child or have some relationship with him/her is unrealistic and maybe even ridiculous. We are expecting moms and dads!
My second pet peeve is the perception that the moment we become expectant parents, we become stupid and irrational. Just because we are in the process of emotionally bonding with and preparing for this child, does not mean that we stop holding our agencies accountable or become infinately gullable.
Jennifer
mom of two wonderful Guatemalan 2 year olds.
Kevin,
I liked your post! Although, I feel that the government of Guatemala is doing this becuase they feel powerless to stop the corruption in the adoption process. I do wish Pres. Berger and Co. would pay attention to the other issues effecting the people of Guatemala-crime against women and children being center stage, increasing literacy. etc.
I do not like US intervention in Latin America (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), we seem to make a bigger mess when we inject ourselves. The biggest issue that bothers me about the US intervention is that the US is helping bring Guatemalan children to the US, but is cracking down on immigration.Now with CAFTA being implimented we may see a jump in immigration like we did with NAFTA.
NICK- I have a feeling you do not understand adoption. When you say that we (adoptive parents) feel the children are "ours", of course we feel this way, because they are now apart of our family. Recognition of the first family is important as well. In almost every country relinquishment of children is apart of the adoption process. You need to educate yourself on families and adoption before you speak of it.
Posted by: reinadearepa at September 7, 2007 06:21 PMLet's talk for a minute about your question, Why is Blanca Martinez not behind bars? Why is the embassy continuing to "allow" her and Thanasis to stay in business and ABUSE their ban? The embassy knows who these people are working with, and the ban clearly said adoptions processed by these individuals will be rejected. (I do want all the babies to come home to their families, and it's possible / probable that families don't even know these two are involved in their case.) Why isn't the embassy looking a little closer at these agencies? Have any of the people who filed complaints against these agencies with known ties to Thanasis and Blanca been contacted? Will these agencies get accredited, or will COA continue to drop the ball like the embassy did?
While I agree the children are the ultimate pawns in this Guatemalan political game, I think the US has a responsibility to their citizens to protect us from the agencies with known ties to these criminals. Blanca and Thanasis are doing the things that CQ and the other reputable hogars are doing, yet the reputable hogars are running into problems with the Guat government while we all sit back and watch the criminals run free. It's a complete shame!
What can we do? It's almost like we should go with the crooks because they aren't getting punished anyway BUT the good ones are getting shut down. It's HORRIBLE!
Posted by: angry pap at September 7, 2007 10:32 PMKevin,
Thanks for expressing your opinion on these rather complex issues. Those of us who are involved in the Guatemalan adoption process are frankly mystified by the process and the allegations passed back and forth, and it helps to have you summarize your informed views for us.
I'd like to second the idea that you submit your (laundered a bit) views to the NY Times and other mass media publications as a letter to the editor. It's obvious and reasonable that our media are not well informed on this arcane subject, and tend to take the pronouncements and irresponsible rumor mongering of the DOS and UNICEF at face value. We need to make some attempt to bring balance to the media coverage, and you could provide it.
My wife is currently working as a consultant on international child welfare projects organized by UNICEF. So I have met some of these people and had a chance to chat with them about issues related to international adoption. They seem sincere enough, but they are not inclined to question the wisdom of the current attempts to implement the Hague agreement or some of the unhelpful articles in the UN Rights of the Child charter that stands behind it. There are several fallacies in the premises behind these guidelines, but one I would question in particular is the idea of applying refugee models of action to non-refugee adoptive situations.
The anti-western, anti-colonial animosity left-over from 1980s cold war politics colors the rhetoric of these old agreements, and reflects a time when the UNICEF organization and the UN in general were at odds with the United States on issues related to third world problems. The fundamental premise that child welfare is first and foremost a responsibility of the, preferably socialist, state is a passe vision that is not helping those who are seriously trying to help destitute, abandoned and abused children all over the world. The out-dated concept that adoption is a form of cultural genocide is another premise that motivates some of the blind, child-abusive, short sighted actions of agencies we might otherwise expect to be firm advocates of Child welfare.
UNICEF folks argue that international adoption could never play much of an important role in dealing with Child welfare issues. Like our DOS, they seem to feel that adoption is at best an OK, but distracting activity that inhibits effective treatment of the fundamental problems faced by third world mothers. I think they are wrong. International adoptive parents are a standing army of concerned citizens for the welfare of all of the children in the country their children are adopted from. They are both a financial and political resource that could be mobilized to solve many other problems related to child welfare.
It will soon be too late to change the course of events in Guatemala, or anywhere else for that matter. UNICEF and Hague agreement inspired anti-INA regulatory thickets have been erected in Africa, the Indian sub-continent, southeast asia and Latin America. Millions of children in these regions are abandoned, or malnourished, or abused and poorly cared for. Whether UNICEF likes it or not, a properly regulated private sector can play as important a role in dealing with this problem as the public sector. International adoption is not part of the problem, but it can and should be a large part of the solution.
Posted by: Bob at September 8, 2007 12:25 AMHas it ever been stated what Thanasis actually did? My research has not turned anything up, but maybe I'm missing something. He told me himself why he was banned from the embassy and if it is true then I can tell you it was not deserved. I can tell you that I have met with the man numerous times during my 6 trips to Guate over the last year. He has been nothing short of wonderful to us. I've seen him interact with the children enough to know that he cares for them. I just brought home the first of 2 adoptions with Thanasis. I started out adopting a healthy infant, but things went bad fast. I saw the tears running down Thanasis's cheeks when he looked throught the ICU window at my 3 week old son's amputated leg. I felt the compassionate hugs he has given me along the way. I'm sure he has made quite a bit of money in adoptions, but he did not make any off of mine. In fact, I'm sure he lost quite a bit since my son was in the private hospital's ICU for 2 weeks and in a regular room another 2 weeks. All of those fees came out of his pocket and he reduced my fees in half. When I read these posts it sounds like he is the devil and that has not at all been my experience with him.
reinadearepa,
I adopted my son from Guatemala and am in the process of adopting a girl right now. I held my son at three weeks old, and was immediately in love with him. I am full of love for the girl who will be my daughter, and respect and love for her mother. I am not saying that there isn't a connection to the child, or that loving the child doesn't occur or isn't right. Respectfully, I do understand adoption and the emotions involved, at least from my perspective. I have had those same emotions, but I have expressed them differently than some.
I believe that I stated how I feel about the possessiveness of some parents, not that they are bad people or should change themselves. I see that attitude create a great deal of pain in some people, and I feel badly about that, but that is the extent of it. It is their choice how they go through their adoption, and I am not telling them what to do or how to do it. As to my comment to Kevin, I objected to the phrase that the children have no families, because, as I see it, this is the crux of the matter for those against Guatemalan adoptions and that that should be acknowledged, and that the possessiveness expressed by many people exacerbates the debate.
How I see the process is that often the mother makes a choice out of love for her child (I know that is true in the case of my son), or decides it will be a burden she and her family can't handle, which means that that the child is not abandoned or has no family except the one adopting him/her. I think it means that mutually loving people made an agreement about who would raise that child, so that he/she would have a better life, and that one family will come to *the* family to that child.
I have a hard time hearing the possessiveness. That's just me. If you don't, that's OK by me. And if you feel that way AND feel equally as loving toward the birth mother, I don't see any problem with that, and I am sorry for any offense caused.
Posted by: Nick B. at September 8, 2007 08:05 PMNick,
I just don't understand what you mean by possessiveness? My husband and I are in the process of adopting our second daughter and I am currently living with her in a hogar. I have been here since January while my husband is single-parenting our almost 8 year-old. Our baby was relinquished and then abandoned by her birthmother during our adoption a year ago. We had spent a week with her in August and completely fell in love. When we heard about her mother´s disappearance, we were heartsick and absolutely committed to this child, no matter what. We have been working on an abondonment adoption since, and I couldn´t stay in the states and wait for her to grow up in an orphanage without her family. Yes, we became her family last August. Believe me, we are suffering terribly being separated, but we are committed that both of our daughters have loving constant care and that is why I am here. The workers are loving, but there are not enough of them and because of the current delays, too many babies and toddlers are waiting and growing up without enough holding, cuddling and intellectual stimulation. You say you know a lot about adoption, so I am sure you also know a lot about the potential for lifelong problems related to institutionalization. I wasn´t willing to risk that with my daughter. My husband and are going broke waiting for the embassy to give us a preapproval to adopt her, and my older daughter will be without her mommy for her 8th birthday. Even though there is a risk that the embassy not grant us preapproval and she will not officially be my daughter until this is all over, and I have no idea when that will be,if her adoption were disrupted today, I would grieve the loss the rest of my life. She is my beloved almost 2 year-old and I will remain committed to her the rest of my life. I also am eternally grateful to my daughters' birthmothers for giving me the opportunity to parent their amazing offspring. I want to meet them someday and I want my daughters to be able to have a relationship, if they want it. I am not even angry at Marisol´s birthmother for running off with her new boyfriend and causing this process to take an extra year. I am only angry at my government for not doing a better job of addressing the problems before they got to this critical point. I am also angry because the embassy here is terrible. I went to talk to someone there several weeks ago, which is no small feat since I have no car and am living in town near Antigua. It was as if I did not exist. I had to walk around and ask people at different windows if there was someone I could talk to about a current adoption. I just wanted some information about where our case was. There was absolutely no one to help me. After asking 5 people for help, I got the information that I could return late that afternoon and maybe someone would be able to talk to me. I asked about making an appointment for another day, as my ride was not going to stay in the city late enough. There are no appointments and no phone number for people with questions. The email response they sent basically said the state department is not recommending adoptions from Guatemala right now. Gee thanks, I am starting or thinking about starting an adoption right now. I am way into one. I can´t leave her now, and yet I can´t get any information on when I might be able to return to my older daughter and husband. I realize that everyone´s perspective is different, but I am possessively these 2 girls' mommy, forever and ever. My perspective is possibly stronger than some parents because we are constantly questioned by strangers about our relatedness. I am blond and they are not. I have gotten, "Is she yours?," "She doesn´t look anything like you." and, "You must be married to a mexican." Our society has long way to go in accepting multicultural families and adoption. We all need to be clear that families are made by love, not genetics and birthfamilies are an important piece of the puzzle. We all need to be equally respected for the authenticity of the roles that we play. We are unique families.
Kevin,
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your article and would appreciate reading anything else that you can contribute to my understanding of what is happening here. I am feeling very abandoned myself in this abyss. I feel quite let down by my government and feel that there is so much more that they could be doing to support people like me in this process. I am just unsure what to do next. Visiting the embassy was obviously not helpful. Thanks for all that you do. I have certainly not found any helpful information on the state department website.
My comment concerned raising of adopted child, and how difficult it gets when others are involved
Posted by: Johnny at September 28, 2007 07:26 PMkevin,
Is there still $$ on the table that Unicef is offering to the Bergers? I have so thought about this thru the months..... they seem so out to close adoptions down -- and I just can't get my head around the idea that they are doing so because of ethics..... historically speaking , Outgoing presidents in latin american countries love to "cash in" before they leave office..... robbing $$ from the national pocket book...... is this what is still going on? Is there anything on record that states the amount, if there is any, for UNICEF paying off the Bergers? Just something that I have thought about thru the months......
Gloria
Posted by: gloria at October 26, 2007 05:12 AM