(Posted with permission from Susana Luarca, Attorney at Law).
Dear Friends,
The ruling of the Constitutional Court is something that changes dramatically the situation of adoptions in Guatemala. To reverse the detrimental effects of the Hague Convention in a country of origin is a huge breakthrough. But there are some people who do not see it that way. I will analyze their allegations as follows:
UNICEF
This United Nations entity, is not only one of the most respected and venerable institutions for the help of the children, but also the strongest opponent to international adoptions. Under the pretense of “respecting the rights of the children”, UNICEF tries very hard to limit adoptions of poor children of underdeveloped countries, by citizens of countries of the First World. We fail to see how the rights of the children are respected by denying them the family that will help them to develop to their full potential.
In these times of global movements, to prevent a child to cross the territorial limits of a country to go to another country where the child will find love, family and a better life is not only cruel, but opposite to all what UNICEF should stand for. However, UNICEF has succeeded in doing so in many countries and has many supporters. We defeated UNICEF in Guatemala, which sets an example to the other countries that have yielded to its pressure, to stand up and fight back.
MINUGUA
When Guatemala signed the peace with the guerrilla, the United Nations appointed a UN commission to verify the fulfillment of the Peace Agreements signed between the Government of Guatemala and the URNG (Unión Revolucionaria Nacional de Guatemala, the leftist guerrilla movement that caused the bloody conflict during 36 years). Its name is MINUGUA. That was in l996. We are in peace now and MINUGUA is still here, although there is hope that this year its mandate will be terminated.
On August 26, MINUGUA hosted a seven hour seminar at a hotel in Guatemala City, to discuss a new project of adoption law. As we reported before, the Valladares Law does not follow the Hague Convention to the letter, because it eliminates the PGN as Central Authority and therefore, the PGN opposes it. Not a single adoption lawyer was invited.
MINUGUA and the anti-adoption organizations praised highly the new proposed law, but the congressmen of the other political parties thought that it was not serious to present a different project of law, after they have been studying the Valladares Law. The conclusion was that the adoption law should be addressed by the new Congress, next year. The newpapers reported that the seminar lasted only four hours.
At the seminar, the FRG Congressmen (do not forget that both, the Attorney General and the director do the PGN, are also FRG Congressmen) expressed their concern for the situation of the adoptions, which made them to approve the Hague Convention last year, said Congressman Jorge Arévalo Valdés. He also stated that “the subject of adoptions in Guatemala, legally and legislatively has collapsed; for the last ten years the international community has called the attention over the necessity to update the laws regarding that institution. In May of 2002, the FRG supported the approval of the Hague Convention” . “ However, - added the congressman Arevalo Valdés -, groups of interest filed motions against the new legislation about adoptions and filed legal actions, to the degree that currently, the Constitutional Court suspended the international treaty about adoptions.” He also expressed that “to pass a new Law of Adoptions is binding for the State of Guatemala, as
it is stated in the Peace Agreements, to give protection to the childhood.”
MINUGUA has spread the false information that adoptions fall within the scope of their mandate and that a new Adoptions Law must be passed by Congress, in order to fulfill the Peace Agreements.
Nothing farther from the truth. The Peace Agreements regarding children, established provisions for the welfare of the children, for education, belated birth recording and justice for the children. Nothing in the Peace Agreements mentions “adoptions” .
PROCURADURIA GENERAL DE LA NACION (PGN)
The PGN had ample time to implement the Hague Convention. When the Central Authority stated that the adoption files should be presented to the CA, many lawyers did it, and even presented the birth mothers to humiliating interviews conducted by heartless social workers and psychologists. Yes, we insist that the PGN had a fair chance to implement the Hague Convention and to make it work. If it did not, it was not for lack of opportunity.
Now, with the lack of maturity of a toddler with a tantrum, the PGN lawyers are refusing to obey the orders of the Court of Amparo, risking their jobs, their professions and their freedom. The adoption lawyers have warned them that if they do not process the cases, criminal complaints will be presented. The PGN people is set in disregarding the law and the court orders. It will be their loss, because justice and the law are on our side. It is just a matter of time before they fully comprehend that what they are doing is illegal and unfair, and that the big losers will be them.
THE DOOMSAYERS
Some people expressed their concern that the success against the Hague Convention is only temporary. That another law will be passed, worse and more restrictive than the Hague Convention and then, the lawyers will not be able to fight it. That it would have been better to try to live with the Hague, no to oppose it.
In a way they are right, anything can happen. Congress may pass that feared law, or the lawyers could find that it is actually more rewarding to defend criminals than handling adoptions, or the lawyers could give in to the pressure of UNICEF to eliminate adoptions. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not a chance! Because we know that what we are doing is the right thing to do for the children. And that will keep us going.
WHAT WE LEARNED
What we learned of the anti-adoption forces is that they are like the waves of the sea. We cannot stop them from coming, but we can learn how to handle them. With the Hague Convention we learned that the State is not to be trusted to handle adoptions and also, that no matter how strong our opponent is, we can fight it and win.
But most of all, we learned that we need support from everybody. Without planning it, we formed a network that went beyond frontiers and languages, and bound us together to fight for the same goal: to keep adoptions open in Guatemala.
WHAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE
We will emerge of this catastrophe, not only victorious but stronger. As soon as we get the PGN to admit that their role is not the “ringleader of adoptions”, but the entity of the State that oversees the legality of the notarial process of adoption, we will deal with the Family Court part. There is a rumor that some social workers do not release the home studies unless the DNA test results are presented to them. That rumor was not confirmed, but we do have information that some social workers delay for months the home studies, arguing that the Judge orders them to give immediate attention to the child support cases. We will file the proper legal actions to streamline the Family Court part.
The US Embassy has expressed that as soon as they see in writing the ruling of the Constitutional Court, they will start accepting new cases. The last information is that the Court is still gathering signatures. The CC is formed by five magistrates who have permanent offices at the Court and five who do not. For Constitutional challenges, the Court needs seven magistrates. It takes longer to get the signatures of the ones who do not have offices at the CC. We expect to have all the signatures in place very soon. After that, the publication will depend on the space availability on the official newspaper, which is limited. But the important thing is that the Hague will no longer be an obstacle for Guatemalan adoptions.
The embassies of other countries may require a personal visit and more information. We are working on an information packet for those Hague countries that objected to Guatemala being Hague, but will not deal with Guatemala unless it becomes Hague, - as confusing as it may sound - to present to them as soon as the ruling is published.
We wish we could give an explanation to each of you of why is that your Pre March 5th case is still in PGN. But we cannot do that. The amparos for the post March 5th, will have no impact on such cases. Ask your lawyers and discuss with them the different legal actions to move your cases ahead.
Last year we had a difficult situation with the passports. Parents who adopted then could tell you how frustrating it was to be the parents to their child and not to be able to bring him/her home. Back then, it took three or more months to get the passports, because one bureaucrat decided that the way to prevent illegal adoptions was to delay them for as long as possible. A constitutional challenge took care of that. Now, you take for granted that if the birth certificate is obtained in the morning, in the afternoon your child will have a passport. The same will happen with the PGN. What now is taking months, in the future will take days. Hang in there. It will not take long before that is a reality.
Best regards,
Susana Luarca
Attorney at Law, Asociación Defensores de la Adopción
Posted by Kelly at August 28, 2003 09:10 AMWhat does all of this mean??
Posted by: stuck in pgn at August 28, 2003 09:45 AMSounds like we won a battle and now we have to wait for reconstruction. This is going to be one of those never-ending wars that each of us will serve our time in. Some longer than others...
Posted by: jwood at August 28, 2003 09:50 AMWe so appreciate all your hard work and diligent efforts on behalf of the children of Gautemala and their future famlies;-)
Please continue your fight!
F. Grant
Posted by: Francina Grant at August 28, 2003 01:26 PMSusana,
Thanks for the updates. In the Aug 28th update you mentioned "There is a rumor that some social workers do not release the home studies unless the DNA test results are presented to them." We are in that exact situation. Our case worker will not release the files until DNA is complete despite multiple attempts by our lawyer to retrieve them. Please contact us if you need more info. We will be leaving for a visit to Guatemala 9/1.
Thanks Paul and Karen
Posted by: Paul/Karen Krajewski at August 28, 2003 02:04 PMHi! This is the first time that I am writing a comment but I read your web site frequently. We are in the process of adopting a baby girl (born in May).Do you know when DNA testing will start up again? Do we still need to have it completed or was that part of the Hague Treaty? We are still praying that we will be able to celebrate the holiday's with her but do you think there is a chance in that happening? Thanks again for your hard work.
Lori Fisher
DNA wasn't a Hague issue. The reports look like the US will start authorizing them when the Hague defeat becomes official.
Posted by: JW at August 28, 2003 02:25 PMFirst off let me share with you that I work at LabCorp. We appreciate the news from Susana, since we get daily calls from parents and agencies wanting to know if we have any information about Guatemala and the DNA testing. Please be assured that as soon as the embassy begins processing DNA authorizations we will expedite our testing and reporting proceses as guickly as possible.
Posted by: Diane at August 28, 2003 03:19 PMThank you Diane @ LabCorp. As you can imagine, all of us adoptive parents are somewhat in the dark about the fate of our adoptions proceding in a timely manner. Because I have been through one adoption with Guatemala, I know the waiting game can be an emotional rollercoaster (that was before this fiasco began). But,we are all anxious for things to procede, and appreciate your attention and care in the future of those precious babies.
Posted by: Beyrl at August 28, 2003 03:33 PMSusan
Thank you so much for your weekly updates, they have been the best information that we have received. We were a post march 5th case in family court but our birth mother changed her mind after 12 weeks. So now we are waiting for another assignment, what is the climate for birth mother's now? Are they still being harrassed and scared to change their minds?
Again, thank you for the updates, they have been our life line. Kim W
It's mentioned you expect to have all the magistrate signatures "soon", and that it will be officially published shortly after when there is room in the newspaper.That sounds very vague and not very reassuring. Yes I agree it's important that the hague has been defeated, but the way I understand it that has no bearing on DNA testing anyway. There are so many of us stuck waiting for our DNA. Isn't there any way we can expedite this aspect of the process? I worry that something could happen to the birth mother while we are waiting and our case would be jeprodized.
Thank you for your insight.
Gail
Susana,
Can I contact you directly? My case has been in PGN since May 26th. I am pre-3/5 and my lawyer is one of those who filed Amparos. I am being told by friends that you are trying to get a list together of pre-3/5 cases so you can file criminal actions. Please let me know.
Thank you,
Debi
I need to know who is considered to be the expert on the controversial aspects of UNICEF, in addition to how UNICEF's policies and objectives negatively effect intercountry adoptions. We're trying to research this for a possible news story. (My husband works in broadcast media.) Any information will be very helpful and appreciated and will be held in the highest of confidence.
Thanks,
Denise Fein
Moorestown, NJ
waiting for Daniel and Lucus
Susan, I applaud all your efforts! Keep up the hard work. I feel that you are a voice of reason in all this political mess. It's such a shame to think that UNICEF could have such an adverse reaction toward providing these children with permanent and loving homes. It really makes no sense.
We are anxiously awaiting our son, Dylan
Tim and Kathy Rooney
Susana,
You are fighting hard - thank you. I want to bring to your attention a horrible comment in National Geographic magazine this month. The article by Lynne Warren is titled Inhuman Profit and she states Guatemalan babies can be stolen or sold for adoption by some Guatemalan attorneys. She make no mention of legal adoptions and the numerous safeguards in place. I have written the magazine to inform them of DNA testing and the other numerous safeguards in Guatemalan adoptions. I also asked for clarification of the author's research but have not yet received an informative response. Because this magazine has such a wide audience, I thought that you and other adoption attorneys in Guatemala may want to know so that you could write the editor in response to this misleading and stigmatizing report.
Susana,
First of all, we want to thank you for all your efforts in trying to help the children and the adoptive parents. More than two years ago, my wife and I began the process to adopt a little boy who at the time was 1 year old. His mother had died soon after giving birth to him, and neither his father nor any of his family wanted him. We fell in love with him and began the adoption process then, his case was not released from the family court untill just two months ago. The DNA was finished and he already had recieved the pre approval from the U.S. embassy, and as soon as the family court released his paper work our lawyer went ahead and turned all paper work into the PGN, and they accepted it around three weeks ago. Our lawyer has not filed an amparo, but he said that he would if he had to, don't you think that he should file an amparo regardless? Thank You!
I always appreciate Susana's perspective in her updates. In this case, however, I must disagree a bit. She states that UNICEF has been defeated in Guatemala. Although the challenge that was upheld by the Constitutional Court was a great victory, and certainly a blow to UNICEF which has been pushing the Hague Convention to be enacted all countries, I honestly don't think that it equals defeat. The Hague Convention, in my opinion, is just a tool that UNICEF has been using, but it is not the only tool. I hope that this does not put me into the "doomsayers" category! It is my suspicion that UNICEF will keep fighting to impose its views on intercountry adoption on Guatemala using other tools, and we need to be aware of that and ready to fight. The battle might be won, but I don't believe the war is yet over.
Posted by: Maura at August 29, 2003 03:36 PMThanks Maura. I, too, think we must stay active in letting UNICEF know that we support intercountry adoption. Here is an unbelievable quote from Sang Nyugen at UNICEF in response to my request for info on its intercountry adoption policies:
"UNICEF is not involved in any campaigns to put an end to inter-country adoptions in Guatemala or elsewhere."
Anyone have access to factual evidence that UNICEF may be involved in Guatemalan adoptions? Maybe this quote at least indicates discomfort with any such policies.... We may have to fight hard to get past the rhetoric.
Posted by: Lauren at August 29, 2003 04:19 PMSounds like things are getting ever more politicized. Worse, not better? Seems easy for a bureacracy to delay as long as it wants with one hold up after another. Is the legal system such that PGN officials will actually consider themselves in threat of imprisonment for failure to take action?
Posted by: Rich at August 29, 2003 04:41 PMSusana, Thanks so much for your continued support of the children, the families and those of us who work to bring them together. I feel honored to have met you at the JCICS conference in April and to hear you speak. When I asked you if I should continue to refer children to waiting families you said, " never stop, the children need homes and if we stop they will die" Those words have helped me to continue and your reports to us all have kept us going in a very trying time. You are in our prayers and we are in your debt. Thank you, Sandi Russell
Posted by: Sandi Russell at August 29, 2003 04:49 PMMany thanks to Susana, Kelly and Maura! You have been keeping me informed with the status of the Guat adoption program. I can't express what this means to my husband and myself.
Is there anyway we could get the news paper to make room to post the official notice?
It makes me sick to think of all the years that I raised money for UNICEF....all those years of collecting money as a child during Halloween.
You are truly angels and I thank God for you!!!
Posted by: Dawn at August 29, 2003 11:08 PMHello! I really do want to say thank you to Susana for all the information that she gives! My mom usually keeps me posted on what all is going on. My husband and I have two children from Guatemala and would love to adopt a third. I know that many agencies have started giving referals again. Is it safe to accept one now? Will there be even longer timelines do you think than before? I know that most of have already asked these questions, but I don't get on here much so I would really love some advice please. God Bless!
Jenny
Oosp! I forgot to thank Hannah too!
Posted by: Dawn at August 29, 2003 11:23 PMhello susanna; thanks thanks thanks for all the info.I 'm a post 3/5 and a pre 6/30 case. Our case is to the Pgn since june. My lawyer one of the "amparo pool".
The most recent info is that instead of applying the "amparo" the Pgn are making a lot of difficulties.
Do you think the threat of criminality will really work?
graziella
My husband and I would like to add our voices to those of you who are requesting that UNICEF not be "demonized" on this website, and on other such websites, which are accessible to anyone. It is not in our best interests, as we wait for our children to come home, to be viewed as hostile to an organization that is held in great esteem around the world. It IS in our best interests, however, to continue to provide UNICEF with specific information about how the pre-Hague procedures protected the rights of children. And to continue to urge them to change their views.
Posted by: Audrey Ruth at August 30, 2003 01:43 PMHi we are so thankfull for this site that we can come to for info! Thanks for working so hard to get us the information we need! No one can thank you enough!!!!!!! My question is and maybe you have no answer but I can only try and see. We are adopting a baby bay from Guatemala and he was born in May. OUr Dna has been completed and our case is in family court I'm not sure how long it has been their but was wondering can you say at all if you think we will have him here by christmas? Carrie
Posted by: carrie at September 1, 2003 11:07 AMAudrey Ruth,
I empathize with your position regarding UNICEF but we should NOT "run scared" because of them.
I've read too many posts on various boards from people who are afraid to draw attention to this situation and to UNICEF for fear that that same attention may "backfire" on all of us. We must do the opposite: we must stay STRONG, positive and convicted to our objectives and not allow UNICEF to intimidate us or make us cower. I'm certain the "powers" at UNICEF are fully aware of the safeguards already in place for US/Guatemalan adoptions and need not be educated. We need to let them know that we're NOT going away and that there IS strength in numbers. They need to know that we're going to give them the fight of their life.....that we TRULY are working on the behalf of children....and that we'll win this "battle" and (in time) hopefully the "war" in regard to the Hague in other countries. All I can say is we MUST stay stong, focused and supportive and not fear UNICEF!!
Denise Fein,
To clarify my earlier post, what I am suggesting is not that we "run scared" from Unicef on this matter -- just that we don't "demonize" them. Unicef should not be presented as absolutely evil, just because we feel very strongly that their view on this issue is (wittingly or unwittingly) extremely detrimental to the well-being of our children. As we all know, in other areas, they have, for many years, been of great service to children around the world. We are not in any way suggesting that we not remain strong or resolute as we "battle" to bring our children home. These are two separate issues. If Unicef already knows our numbers, and they already know the issues -- it is still in our best interests to continue to educate them. In addition -- if educating them and showing our numbers aren't strong enough, perhaps there are other strategies to be employed (let's hope so!!!), but virulently, generalized "anti-Unicef" postings on public message boards may not be among them. What, beyond petitions, and letters, and meetings with politicians, etc., is being suggested as the strategy for "the fight of their life?"
Posted by: Audrey Ruth at September 2, 2003 07:44 AMSusana,
I am eternally grateful to you and your wonderful work and for the heart that you have for these children. We have been going thru this nitmare and you have been a lite at the end of the tunnel as far as what is really happening in Guatemala.Thankyou truely for everything you do. Also, thankyou to Hannah Wallace. We are post 3/5 and have our DNA complete. Just went into PGN as of last week...Have you heard of any cases that have been approved that are post 3/5 (our case was filed with an amparo)...I hear alot of doom in regards to the post 3/5 folks...what is your thoughts? Also, another note of worry. It is rumored that the courts have some holidays coming up and that this could also considerably slow things down. Just curious!
Thankyou again,
Johnna Dick (waiting for Isabella Gracelyn 12/16/02
Posted by: Susana at September 2, 2003 04:00 PMSusana,
Thanks for your info. As Dutchmen we appreciate any information on adoptions from Guatemala as we don't have a proper site on this.
We already started the procedure last year, got out of family court in june and our now awaiting to be filed with PGN (we're still on our attorney's desk)
To us you seem quite hopeful on ending procedures very soon once publication has started. But with a backlog of at least 1400 cases we think we are still not save for Christmas. What do you reckon?
Keep up the good work, we appreciate it very much.
Nancy
Posted by: Nancy at September 3, 2003 09:22 AMHow about an update....site might as well be down again...nothing posted in a week! There has to be something to report.
Posted by: TOM at September 4, 2003 01:25 PMI will remind Tom and others that this site is voluntary. Nobody pays Maura nor myself to update it. I have a fulltime job and a one year old baby. I started the site as a curtosy, not as a second job. Maura and I are not affiliated nor paid by any adoption agency nor organization. As it is, I pay the monthly fee and do the best I can with the site. We do work on OTHER things outside of creating updates on the site believe it or not. If this is not enough, then so sorry....you need to look elsewhere. Afterall, if it becomes too much FOR ME...I can always shut the site down.
Posted by: Kelly (webmaster) at September 4, 2003 02:07 PMkelly,
You are the best thing going in the whole mess don't get stressed out by people like that this is the best site. Everyone is upset but Tom needs to take the chill pill and pray that this gets fixed so we all can get our baby's Again Kelly you are the best
rjv
Posted by: rv at September 4, 2003 02:19 PMAudrey Ruth,
Your last posting did serve to better clarify your position regarding UNICEF. I, too, believe that the organization does serve a purpose (or many, actually) but it can also be viewed as a "self serving" organization, especially in this instance.
Furthermore, to expand upon my previous comment about "giving them the fight of their life" means we must strive to educate general public about ALL aspects of UNICEF: the good, the bad and possibly) the ugly. My husband works in broadcast media and we've already discussed this situation with several of his network news contacts NYC. At this point, there is some interest in developing this story.
I've also been in touch with others (i.e. adoptive parents-in-waiting) who are actively working on educating corporate sponsors of UNICEF etc. It's not a cure-all nor a quick process, but it's a start.
Denise Fein
Posted by: Denise Fein at September 4, 2003 02:55 PMAudrey Ruth,
Your last posting did serve to better clarify your position regarding UNICEF. I, too, believe that the organization does serve a purpose (or many, actually) but it can also be viewed as a "self serving" organization, especially in this instance.
Furthermore, to expand upon my previous comment about "giving them the fight of their life" means we must strive to educate the general public about ALL aspects of UNICEF: the good, the bad and possibly the ugly. My husband works in broadcast media and we've already discussed this situation with several of his network news contacts in NYC. At this point, there is some interest in developing this story.
I've also been in touch with others (i.e. adoptive parents-in-waiting) who are actively working on educating corporate sponsors of UNICEF etc. It's not a cure-all nor a quick process, but it's a start.
Denise Fein
Posted by: Denise Fein at September 4, 2003 02:57 PMIdon't usually post, but I just need to tell Kelly (the webmaster) and Maura and anyone else that works on this site - Thank you! This has been the best place to get the most comprehensive, practical, optimistic and "nongossipy" information online. I really appreciate everything you all have done. I look at this site daily. It helps me to get through this very rough time. Thanks again and please keep up the good work. Many people like me are reading and not posting, and are very appreciative.
Posted by: Patty Martz at September 4, 2003 05:48 PMKelly, This site is the greatest source of information for those of us trying to figure out what is going on in Guatemala! Perhaps those who are critical of the easy access to this important information should get out and source information on their own. We know it is not easy for your team to pull together this information and take the time to post it to the site, but we are supremely grateful to you, Maura and Susana for all of your efforts! Don't let one negative comment bring you down. You have many more people cheering you on!
Posted by: Lee Anne at September 4, 2003 09:11 PMI have to take exception to some of this information- while factually it may be correct, the slant it is given is unfair. The issue is not to halt foreign adoptions but to ensure the child is truly free and clear to adopt, and relinquished by the real mother and not some "puppet mother" in baby trafficking. I know it's hard to wait when you want a child but don't lose site of doing this decently. You don't want a stolen child, or have to tell them something shady was done to get them. You want to be able to look your child in the eye and know they are truly yours the rightful way.
Posted by: Shana at September 10, 2003 02:42 PMShana, we're all trying to do this decently. That's why it was adoption advocates, not UNICEF, who insisted on universal DNA testing under the notarial process. UNICEF claims they're about stopping "baby trafficking," etc., and no doubt there is plenty of that going on in plenty of countries, possibly including Guatemala. (And no doubt plenty in domestic U.S. adoptions too.) But unless Hannah, Susana, et al., are consistently lying to us, the safeguards that were already in place in Guatemala (DNA, and repeated birthmother interviews) seem to me a much more effective way of protecting everyone involved than anything that has taken place anywhere under the Hague Treaty.
UNICEF claims they're not against international adoption, but the fact remains that international adoption has disappeared in country after country that adopted the "procedures" they have pushed. Were some of the adoptions from those countries previously "crooked"? Probably. Were all of them? I don't think so. So who is promoting the more effective way of helping these children?
I have not heard one suggested change by PGN or UNICEF that would ensure that the child was not trafficked...instead, each new procedure seems to be redtape for the adoptive family or birth mother and threatens the wellbeing of the child or birthmother. How does it help to require that children be turned into 1 of 4 orphanages? How does it help to keep children in limbo for months and months while PGN tries to find shortcuts in meeting the Hague? How does it help for a child to be forced to live with his/her birthmother for 6 months when the mother has no way to support the child (UNICEF)? Or in Costa Rica's implementation of the Hague....how are you ensuring a legal adoption by requiring the children adopted by foreigners be over 4 years old with siblings (now the children must wait in severely underfunded orphanages until they are at least 4...and must wait in line)?
What I have witnessed is country after country restricting foreign adoptions to extinction in the name of *preventing trafficking*. Its like removing the engine to prevent it from knocking.
It is not the theory that we are slanted against....it is the REALITY of the proposed implementation!!!!!!
Posted by: Kelly at September 10, 2003 05:08 PM