One thing that has frustrated me article after article is that it is completely fine for Bruce Harris to *adjust* the truth and accuse others of improper influence. However, it amazes me that a man thats livelihood is dependent on the poor remaining poor and powerless...may lie, invent statistics and misrepresent the actions of others VERY publically ALL in the name of Human Rights. Forget that the women of Guatemala may be stripped of their rights, forget that the children that we take into our home could be abandoned on the streets or left in orphanages, forget that all the supposed Hague-compliant processes were unreasonable, underfunded, poorly thought out and resembling government bribes rather than representing the people it claimed to help.

With the apparent indifference to logic, UNICEF and Casa Alianza could go on a killing spree and as long as they spouted off that it was in the name of Human Rights....the press would believe them. I guess its freedom of speech to accuse someone else while they are at it.

Sad...sad....sad.

Kelly
(someone who does not make 6 figures from the exploitation of children)

I have to say that before we embarked on this wonderful journey of ICA, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that I would come to "know" (via the net, mostly!) so many amazing and courageous professionals! Not since college have I been so challenged to really think through complex issues such as these. What I have found is that my brain and my heart are compelled to applaud and embrace those people like Hannah Wallace and Susana Luarca who stand strong despite the numerous winds that blow against them in the world of ICA. I try to educate myself as much as possible, yet even a newcomer to these issues can tell that they speak the TRUTH. The kind of defamation and lies spread by the anti-ICA forces will ultimately appeal only to the self-righteous and ignorant and I do believe in my heart that the vast majority of ordinary citizens think that international adoption is a very POSITIVE thing! Thank you so much Susana, Hannah, Caroline, Kelly and all the others who continue to do your good work on behalf of these children; rest assured that my Guatemalan-born son will know one day the selfless and downright heroic efforts that were made on his behalf to allow him and so many others the benefit of a family and a happy healthy future. In doing so, ICA advocates have also helped his birth family and all birth families continue to have the chance to choose adoption for their child. Let the "human rights" activists tell U.S. women that their chance to choose adoption for their child is about to end and see what happens!

Susana, you will be in my prayers this week during the trial of Mr. Harris.

Colleen

To the supporters of Susana Luarca:

SHAME of you for bringing your support to one of the persons who only bring down the beutiful country the Guatemala is. You defenetely need to pick the right battles, but being that people like yourselves WILL NEVER understand the frustation that people like Guatemalas feel when you are forced to shut up simply because you lack education or more importantly MONEY to pass for a decent person. Believe me when I say that persons like this woman will take advantage of her position and higher economic level to make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor stays or becomes bigger to keep taking advange for her own greediness. If you want to show support please support the children by questioning and realizing that these accusations MIGHT NOT be in vain.

Lourdes Flores-Saravia

Yo no se que es lo que intentan ustedes, a quien estan tratando de engañar mostrando al señor Harris como si fuera un delincuente cuando en realidad lo que esta haciendo es defendiendo a los ciudadanos Guatemaltecos frente al uso y abuso de una constitucion manipulada por los parientes del poder para un lucro personal de ladrones escudados por los vacios de la justicia, que aunque aparentemente legal esta bastante lejos de ser moral. Que Dios los vendiga ya que en su corte no podran a nadie manipular.

Aprecio la voluntad de servir y amor mostrado por ciudadanos americanos que viajan a Guatemala en busca de ayudar a un niño dandole un nivel economico que las circunstancias de la vida les ha negado. Es claro que quien "les ayude" sera para ellos como un angel. Es claro que el dinero no sera problema, sin duda es mas barato que todo un proceso de embarazo y parto en los Estados Unidos. Es claro que todo aquel que se oponga a su sincero y sano deseo de adopcion sera visto como un enemigo que no entiende ni sentimientos ni necesidades. Pero lo que no saben es que si trataran de adoptaron un niño en cualquier otro lugar del mundo utilizando los mismos metodos y procedimientos, nunca lo podrian hacer.

En Guatemala debe cambiar y reglamentarse el proceso de adopcion. Ademas de quitarle el polvo a la constitucion, deseo que estoy seguro tienen los que la escibrieron y firmaron, quienes estaban consientes que era una primera piedra para un futuro y que nadie la estancaria para sacar provecho economico de ella frente al nacimiento de problemas sociales que en sus tiempos estaban lejanos de existir.

Jorge Arturo Sarria

Please, can someone translate so that I may know what Jorge Sarria said?

Thanks.

Me causa un poco de pena ver como el señor Bruce Harris es presentado como un defensor de los derechos de los guatemaltecos.

En dónde se encontraba ese señor cuando se planteó el problema de la falta de instituciones adecuadas para implementar la Convención de la Haya? Su espíritu de justicia, ese que le representa dividendos tan jugosos, no le impulsó a preocuparse por el destino de esos niños que iban a quedar en manos de esas terribles instituciones que crea el gobierno guatemalteco. En dónde se quedó ese "justo" ardor que le ha llevado a demonizar las adopciones internacionales?

Sin duda, muchos de esos niños que están perdiendo la oportunidad de un hogar que los acoja formarán parte de ese contingente de niños de la calle que Casa Alianza ayuda...Claro, después de descontar los gastos de su burocracia.

I feel very sorry when Bruce Harris is presented as an advocate of the rights of Guatemalans.

Where was this person when Guatemala faced the problem of the lack of a network of institutions able to implement the Hague Convention?
His spirit of justice, that spirit that represents such a good income for him, was not enough for worrying him about the fate of those children that were going to suffer to those horrible institutions that the Guatemalan government is prone to create. Where was that just ardor that led him to demonize the institution of international adoptions?

Doubtless, many of those children who are losing the opportunity of having a loving family will be included in that legion of street children who are being helped by Casa Alianza...after deducting the cost of its bureaucracy.

With pleasure I will translate the Spanish comments on this website - but it angers me that so few of you claiming to show solidarity and compassion for children in Guatemala can even speak Spanish, never mind the Indian languages that their families speak. Are you not ashamed of your ignorance? How many of those that are happily criticising the work of Bruce Harris, have seen the work that Casa Alianza do, or even been to Guatemala?

Larissa,

Almost ALL of us adoptive parents have been to Guatemala, some for lengthy periods of time, and many of us do also speak Spanish or seek to learn it for the sake of our adopted children. Clearly there are many Spanish-speaking Guatemalans who do not speak the Mayan tongues either, so that is not a valid criticism. I personally have devoted myself and the rest of my life to learning as much as I can about our son's birth heritage so that he may have a life that is rich in his native culture. We, among many others also have given extensively to many Guatemalan charities, which have nothing to do with or benefit adoption. My sincerest hope is that our son might one day want to return to his birth country and work there to help bring change. Please do not judge adoptive parents. We are not the enemy here. Focus your anger instead on ways that YOU can help the children of Guatemala.

Colleen

The goodness of an action - helping street children- does not warrant the morality of persons like Bruce Harris. Attacking this person does not mean to be against helping those people in a vulnerable position.

Precisely, the very morality of certain actions should provide the yardstick to measure the attitudes of those claiming to have those actions as their main concern. And here is when Bruce Harris' attitudes, and those of other people engaged in the same area, are so questionable. We can mention here self-adjudicated privileges, much talk and few actions, arrogance, and a really ruthless authoritarianism.

I think nobody is against regulating international adoptions in order to increase their transparence. But it is one thing to agree on an adequate regulation and another to insist on their elimination. Precisely, how are we going to regulate adoptions to make them an accesible solution for children in need is something that can be subjected to discussion. Nevertheless, Bruce Harris has distorted deliberately the subject matter, up to the point that in the mind of many people -mainly of those who think only through slogans- international adoptions have become a dirty business.

In the middle of this manipulation, those children whose life are really at stake are losing a possibility of having a human future. Here and there we can see examples of the the authoritarianism, the arrogance and the manipulation of Harris. No, the institution of adoption should not be left in the hands of people like this!

Jorge Rodríguez

Here is my translation of Jorge Sarria's post. NB I do not know Jorge, and am translating his words in a desire to give a voice to someone who otherwise would be heard by only the Spanish-speakers amongst you. These are MY words - Jorge can only be held responsible for the Spanish.

'I do not know what you are trying to do and who you are trying to decieve by portraying Mr Harris as a common criminal. In fact, what he is doing is defending the citizens of Guatemala against the use and abuse of a Constitution manipulated by the elites of power for the personal fortune of ‘thieves’ who are shielded by the holes in justice system, which despite having a legal face, is far from being moral. God have mercy on you since in His court, you will not be able to manipulate anyone.
I appreciate the desire to help and love shown by American citizens that travel to Guatemala hoping to help a child by giving it an economic standard of living that circumstances of life have denied him or her so far. Clearly, whomever ‘helps’ such a child will be their guardian angel. Clearly, money presents no problem since the costs incurred in pregnancy and childbirth in the US are no doubt higher (than those of adoption). Clearly, anyone who opposes your sincere, honest desire to adopt will be seen as an enemy, understanding neither feelings nor needs. But what you do not know is that if you tried to adopt a child in any other country of the world using the same methods and processes, you would never be able to do so.
In Guatemala the process of adoption needs to be improved and better regulated. Furthermore, the Constitution also needs to be cleaned up, something that I am sure those who wrote and signed it would support. For they knew that the Constitution was one of the first building blocks of the future, and that nobody should hold it back so as to gain economic advantage in the face of the birth of social problems that in their times were impossible to envisage.'

In response to Colleen's post, I would like to clarify that my anger was not directed indiscriminately at all adoptive parents of Guatemalan chidlren. Despite the readiness with which proponents of ICA label people like me as spoilers, my views on this subject have grown from extensive investigation and a long period of research and discussion in Guatemala. I salute your efforts to learn the language and embrace Guatemalan culture. I also know from my own experience that yours is an exception rather than the rule. Finally, in your hastiness to discount my comments, please do not judge me. I am dedicating my life to helping children such as those in Guatemala. But I do not choose the same methods as yours - please respect that.

I have only a short comment. It concerns me that I have seen on several websites posts which indicate that some Guatemalan people think that adoption is a financially easy thing for Americans. Jorge Sarria stated that it is less costly than pregnancy and child birth and, therefore, money must not be an issue for Americans who adopt. I think it's important to make clear that most Americans who adopt go through GREAT financial hardship to do so. Pregnancy and child birth are usually paid for by insurance. Adoption comes out of our pockets. If people like Jorge Sarria realized this, they might see Americans who adopt in a different light.

WOW is all I have to say with the recent comments. The money issue is signigicant to most adoptive families. My wife and I had to scrap money up and asked are families to assist us. My wife and I are in PGN waiting to get the call that we are approved and then travel to get our son. This is our first child and most likely only child. We are opening up our home to our son and provide a loving home to him. I would think the Guatemalen people would welcome that and not think us Americans are evil people trying to steal babies. I think it gets lost on people that we should do what is best for the children. I mean our son's birthmother has signed 3 times to give him up for adoption and will sign one more time before the adoption is complete. We have been in the process for over a year and are pretty sure she doesn't have the means to care for him. What do the Guatemalen people what to happen if adoption is so wrong, have all the children in orphanages. What good would that do? I was born to a 16 year old girl in Indiana and ended up in foster care in Indianapolis. After being in several different foster homes I was one of the lucky ones to be adopted at age 6. That was in 1970. I realize what questions my son will have and would never deny him his hertiage. I just think this is all sad that people will continue to oppose each other on this. I hope that both sides try to work on an acceptable system. I know we will be blessed when our son comes home and hope that other people will get that chance also. I applaud people like Susana who work to better the lives of children. It sounds like we need more of them. I hope everyone in the process good luck and quick approvals.

I find this interaction amusing. I have only been to Guatemala 3 times and plan to make it a regular trip. I have been to Costa Rica more times than I can count and am familiar with Mr. Bruce Harris and his self-righteous campaign for quite awhile.

I consider myself a Human Rights advocate. I am currently trying to find ways to help the poor of Guatemala get on their own two feet. Funny, I don't make a 6 figure income from donations. Matter of fact, I don't make a dime over my expenses. My income (which is decent) comes from a product that I create which is the basis for ANY HUMAN CIVILIZATION to thrive. My volunteer work is strictly volunteer. Mr. Harris's definition of Human Rights is the right to a lawyer paid by Casa Alianza.

As for Mr. Harris...I would have more respect for the man if he could actually tell the truth in a single statement. But time after time...and I have seen the extent of this in Costa Rica....he has an issue with the truth. If he spent half as much time helping the children of Costa Rica and Guatemala as he does trying to obliterate any competing alternative to poverty...the countries would be in MUCH better shape.

Interesting that Lourdes Flores-Saravia claims that Susana wants to keep a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Yet, adoption challenges this concept and threatens those that prosper from the oppression....ie: Bruce Harris.

My daughter (at 16 months) has already started learning English and Spanish. By all means, she will have a solid education, she will probably attend college and many more options will be open to her than if she had been forced to live on the street. If she returns to Guatemala, she will be a threat to the "rich"....as will a large percentage of the indiginous children adopted. Thats what YOU are afraid of, Lourdes Flores-Saravia.

Shame on me? Come on....

I think it's important to not label people as either saints or demons. We are all human beings. The motivation my husband and I have to bring a third child into our family by adoption is not a humanitarian gesture. We simply want to be parents again, and we believe that the child we wait for is meant to be in our family. She has waited a long time for a family and desires to be part of our family. As human beings, we all make decisions that we hope will turn out to good ones. Let's not judge each other's decisions.

Is character assassination really a useful contribution to this debate? The irony of so many self-righteous Americans calling one man self-righteous is delightful. But seriously, I would love to hear some substance to your case against Bruce Harris. Trying to hold him culpable for the 'shape' of Costa Rica and Guatemala is risible. And why so much interest in the size of his salary when you are quite prepared to defend the costs incurred by ICA lawyers as good and proper?

The biggest shame of all is that most of these birthmothers in Guatemala are not literate or able to access the internet so as to share their OWN opinions here and elsewhere instead of everyone, on both sides of the issue, constantly speaking "for" them. Now that would be something I really need and want to hear.... If you are out there, please do share your thoughts!

The deliberate misrepresentation of international adoptions as a genuine possibility for Guatemalan children is a contribution for which Harris deserves to be praised? Do we need to give more substance to our objections to Bruce Harris?

Again, if he is so worried about Guatemalan children, why does he remain silent about the fate of those children that now face a future in the tragic Guatemalan orphanages? Does not that man take a minute to reflect upon the hell being lived by those parents who, having met personally their children, have been caught in the middle of a formless and stupid bureaucratic process? Literally, that is like taking away a child from his mother's lap!

Why does he ignore that several countries like Germany and Spain have objected the access of Guatemala to the Hague Convention under the argument that this country is not prepared to implement the respective obligations?

The concern with Harris' income is not for free. Since a long time ago, many people around the world (and not only conservatives)have questioned the inconsistency of spending the money directed to humanitarian and charitable assistance in high salaries. Since the non-profit sector is dependent to a large extent upon the good will of people around the world, they are to be held morally accountable for the use of the money poured into their institutions.

Jorge Rodríguez

Larissa -

It seems that your assumption is that I am self righteous JUST because I am American.... I am not. I did not adopt my child to *save* her....I did it for very selfish reasons...like so many that conceive children themselves.

Putting that aside, I do something called RESEARCH. Its quite simple actually. Just look at the Casa Alianza site. Then do a search on Google news on Casa Alianza. For each "statement" that he makes, YOU try and support that statement with FACTS...no, not news hype...FACTS! oh, like the published number visas issued or like the required adoption process. OH wow....they don't match?!?! How can that be? According to Mr. Harris [in one prominent statement made], birth mothers are paid MORE than the total cost of my adoption Well gee, if that were the case, then the lawyers are actually LOSING money!!!!!

As for my continued defense of the attorneys fees...I mentioned Mr. Harris's income BECAUSE I find it very hypocritical for someone that is receiving a 6 figure salary from donations to condemn lawyers (who make money from adoption fees paid to them for the incredible hastle of completing a Guatemalan adoption). Spend a week with an adoption attorney....I have! I'm not sure why people get so upset at attorneys making any money from such a complicated process that can sometimes take 6 months to a YEAR.

Though some may call my comments a character assasination on poor ole Bruce Harris, that is AS DELIGHTFULLY funny since he is the king of character assasinations. What goes around comes around.....

There seems to be a lot of animosity toward U.S. adopting parents by a few posting on this thread. The U.S. has a terrible track record of involvment in Central America. Maybe if you knew the best of who we are rather than how the media protrays us, you would feel differently.

I am an average adoptive mom. I am married and have two kids. My husband and I both have college degrees. Through the hard work of our parents, through our hard work and with a lot of good fortune of circumstance we have a comfortable lifestyle. I thank God everyday that for a million reasons, I have the luxury of worrying whether or not my kids remembered their homework rather than whether or not can I feed them, or what will happen if one of them gets sick. I teach them to care for others, and to share our good fortune with others. We attend church and my kids attend good schools. I shelter them from the violence celebrated and utilized by the media. My family is surrounded in our neighborhood by dozens who share the same goal: raising happy, healthy, good kids.

Why adopt? I would love to hear the laughter of another child in our home. I would feel selfish trying to conceive another child when so many others wait for homes. Giving birth in the U.S. is very inexpensive, adoption is not. We have saved for this for years. I realize that it may be difficult for others who have not adopted to realize what a miracle adoption is. A child adopted into a family is as seamless as a child born into a family. I have lived it, yet I cannot explain it.

Why Guatemala? The caution of the government and the aid agencies is a main reason. We want to adopt a child that is freely relinquished by his/her mother. Birthmothers sign a relinquishment four times before a child is placed. DNA tests are done to confirm that parties are all who they claim they are. Another reason is our interest and love of the country and its culture. My husband I both attended a Jesuit university. We learned about the culture and the challenges in Latin America. I took my first Spanish class there. Guatemala values it's children as does our culture though this does not make good media stories so you will not see this portrayed on TV or in movies. We speak the language and will feel comfortable traveling to visit as our children grow.

Most of us realize that it would be difficult for Guatemalan society to accept that at this point in time it cannot care for all her children. This has happened to all countries at in their development. Change happens slowly. You and your new president will take steps in the right direction to build a safety net of social services.

But there are children now without homes, without families. There are families here in the U.S. that would love to have another child. I teach my children that America is all of us, from Canada to Chile. It is a very big neighborhood. Long ago in this country it was common for neighbors to raise eachothers children when families fell on hard times. My grandmother was orphaned as a young girl and raised by a neighbor. Though our country has a history of being a poor neighbor, things are hopefully changing. It does not make good press, but the world is becoming a better place.

My child, born in Guatemala will have three mothers: his country, his birthmom and me. We will all be proud.

Thanks for listening. Peace,
Jill

Yes, Larissa all Americans are self-righteous and rich. I mean, isn't that what is shown on television?
Larissa, you obviously have not met many Americans. I am not talking about the wealthy Americans who can afford to travel all over the world. I am talking about average Americans like myself who get up every morning and work and save our money so that we can go on vacation maybe once a year. Most Americans I know have big hearts and would help anyone in need. Americans on average our very generous people. Yes, my husband and I are adopting but we are far from rich. Luckily we have saved money, we were able to get a home equity loan, and we have very generous parents who are helping us as well. I agree that adoption reform may be needed in Guatemala as well as the US but I don't believe that spreading lies and misinformation about adoptive parents, and adoption professionals is the way to go about it. But I don't believe that people like Bruce Harris are really interested in adoption reform. I believe those people want adoptions to stop completely. That would definitely ensure job security and possibly a raise for Mr. Harris.

If Susana is doing such a great favor by giving the children a "chance at having a great life" by being adopted why does she receive so much money for it? El problema con Guatemala es que todo esta tan corrupto - ojala se llegue hasta la verdad - the only reason the charges against her were "dismissed" is because of who she's married to - Wake up and smell the cofee people- money talks - especially in such a corrupt place that is my beautiful country. Children are NOT merchandise and should not be SOLD to the highest bidder - when in the majority of these cases the "licensiados" are the ones making out like bandits; children are not a business they are human beings. Susana is an opportunist and a heartless "businesswoman". I support Bruce Harris 100% and hopefully for once justice will prevail over "who you know" in Guatemala.

Larissa,

First, thanks for the translation.

Second, you asked not to be attacked or judged, but isn't that what you did to me?

This list is for imformation gathering and support. People come to this list for the purpose of learning more about your country, or we would not be here.

I was asking for a favor of translation so I can continue to learn and for that, you attacked me. I did not deserve that.

You made many assumptions of all Americans as you also made assumptions of my knowledge when you attacked me.

How do personal attacks on me or on Americans help? Except to release your anger?

Larissa, you do not know me, what I believe or do not believe, what I do or what I do not do.

I will tell just a little, and ask that you stop judging all Americans the same. Many Americans are good and caring (and financially struggling).

I would love nothing more than to have enough money to travel to Guatemala to make visits to the baby that I am adopting. It is so emotionally difficult not to be able to. I do not have the financial means to do so. Someone else said that many Americans save all year to take a vacation once per year . . . I am never able to take vacations or to travel.

I have taken out loans to pay for the adoption of my baby. It will take me many, many years to pay these off, but I will still do everything that I can to provide a loving home and a great education for my child. Why should I have a baby when there are already so many all around the world that don't have homes? If that makes me self rightous--then so be it. If that makes me selfish, then I guess it is so. If I don't have the money to take Spanish lessons right now, then I guess that I am ignorant. But all the names and bad thoughts that you can have about me and about other loving adoptive American families will not change the love in my heart or the loving home that I intend to provide. I also intend to help my child to know about the birthcountry, the culture and to attend a bilingual school. There are many in my area. I am already saving for future trips to Guatemala.

It is easy to view all Americans to be as glamorous as we appear on TV or in the movies---and easy to judge us, be angry with us but I invite you to come to my city, or at least come to America and know us first, if your are going to judge us.

Come to my small house and eat macaroni and cheese several days a week and see my struggle to fulfill my selfish, self-rightous, ignorant desire to become a mother and to provide a loving home for a child who needs one.

You know what is so funny here. The people that are saying they are from Guatemala are speaking and writing English sooooooo well. I can assure you our baby will learn spanish and english. And we thank God for sending her to us, Not the ones that will be going to trial. I do thank Susana for all that she has done. And if she has helped one child not to be off the street without anyone to raise them, then God will Bless her with many crowns. If not then judgement will prevail. Just like it is going to do with all the ones that have kept the children from having homes. God Help them all.

This message is in Spanish and English.

Para Jorge Sarria, quizas usted no lo sepa, pero los servicios para una adopción internacional son mucho, mucho mas caro para nosotros que el proceso de embarazo y parto aqui en los Estados Unidos. Esto es por que el seguro paga por el embarazo y parto, pero nosotros pagamos casi todo por los servicios de adopción. De nuestros propios fondos pagamos 10 veces mas, o aun mas, para la adopción.

Otra cosa, es que los padres adoptivos no estan en la corte denunciando a Bruce Harris, ni trantandolo "como si fuera un delincuente". Susana Luarca lo hace, y eso es su causa -- no nuestra. De mi parte, no me gusta que esta es el método que la ley le da para resolver la disputa. Denunciar a alguien en la corte por la difamación es parte del sistema legal, pero pienso que debe ser un asunto civil, no criminal.

De todas maneras, a la mayoria de nosotros no nos gusta a Bruce Harris, por que ha dicho mentira tras mentira sobre la adopción. Quizas para el no sean mentiras, por que el verdaderamente los cree. Y esta desinformación está usado en una campaña con metas que por lo menos suenan bien.

Pero me parece que no le importa nada la manera que usa para distribuir sus ideas en el mundo. El y sus compañeros de UNICEF, GHRC, y otros echan muchas denunciaciones, sin datos ni mas que uno o dos ejemplos viejos. Al la vez, estan estigmatizando a miles de niños y familias, y lo mas importante es que parece que no les importa que pasaria con los niños que un proceso que cumpliera con sus ideas dejaria para atras.

El uso de "desinformación", acusaciones y critica fuerte sin datos, y otros métodos de la propaganda que torcen la verdad, supuestamente en servicio de una causa buena (los niños), le hace daño a la causa, y a el que cuenta cosas asi.

Si el señor Harris quisiera, podria construir alianzas con familias adoptivas, por que ambos quieren una vida mejor para los niños guatemaltecos, y supongo que tengan otras metas en comun. Pero como puedo hacer una alianza con alguien quien está tersivergando la verdad de mi propia familia, y quien parece mas interesada en promover una cuasa que en hacer un sistema que funciona en el mundo real.

No voy a descutir de sus logros, el ha hecho muy buen trabajo en varios areas. Pero su manera de hablar, de torcer la verdad, de engañar la prensa, y de usar su fama y prestigio para luchar contra la adopción, es muy dificil desculpar. El piensa que está trabajando para los niños, y de muchas maneras es la verdad, pero con adopción está trabajando contra los niños, si lo sabe o no.

Estoy de acuerdo con su descripción de como funcionan las cosas en Guatemala. Los que tienen los ojos abiertos lo han visto por que es muy obvio, y ustedes que viven ahi tienen que tratar con esto cada día. Pero Bruce Harris no es un puro guerrero contra eso y para la verdad y la justicia. En el caso de adopción, no dice la verdad, y no actua para beneficiar a los niños, aunque piense que lo haga. (Y por su parte, Susana Luarca, a pesar de su presunta riqueza, su posición, y su manera entitulada de hablar, no es un diablo!)

*** En Guatemala debe cambiar y reglamentarse el proceso de adopcion. ***

Como? Bruce Harris y UNICEF quieren un proceso centralizado y judicial, aunque en el mismisimo momento estan fuertamente criticando la corupción y problemas grandes en el sistema de justicia en Guatemala. En cada país de centroamerica donde han hecho esto, la adopción ha mas o menos cesado de funcionar, por que el gobierno no le da recursos suficientes y el "proceso reglamentado" vuelve a ser un proceso burocrático que no sirve a nadie, ni los niños, ni las madres biologicas, ni las familias adoptivas. Pero UNICEF dice que esto no importa, si se reglamenta el proceso para cumplir con su idea de la ley internacional, eso es suficiente. Pero la ley no cuida a los niños.

*******************************************

For Jorge Sarria, maybe you are not aware of this, but international adoption services are much, much more expensive for us that the process of pregnancy and birth here in the US. That's because pregnancy and birth are covered by insurance, but we pay almost all the costs of adoption services from our own money. The cost for adoption services is 10 times as much, or even more.

Another thing is that adoptive parents are not in court making charges against Bruce Harris, nor treating him "as if he were a common criminal". Susana Luarca is doing this, and it is her cause -- not ours. Personally, I don't like that this is the way the law gives her to handle the dispute. Charging someone with defamation in court is part of the legal system, but I think it should be a civil matter, not a criminal one.

It's true that most of us don't like Bruce Harris, because he has put forward lie after lie about adoption. Maybe to him they aren't lies, because he truly believes them. And the misinformation is used for a campaign with goals that at least sound good.

But it seems to me like he doesn't care how he gets his ideas out into the world. He and his friends at UNICEF, GHRC, and others toss out so many charges, without data and with no more than one or two ancient examples. At the same time they are stigmatizing thousands of children and families, and more important, it appears that they don't care what would happen to the children who would be left behind by a process that would be OK with them.

The use of "disinformation", fierce accusations and critiques without data, and other propaganda methods that twist the truth, supposedly in the service of a good cause (the children), damages the cause, and at the same time damages the person who makes such statements.

If Mr. Harris wanted he could build alliances with adoptive families, because both want a better life for Guatemalan children, and I imagine we have other goals in common as well. But how can I build alliances with someone who is distorting the truth about my own family, and seems more interested in publicizing a cause than in creating a system that actually works in the real world?

I have no argument with his accomplishments, he's done very good work in several areas. But his way of talking, of twisting the truth, of fooling the press, and of using his fame and prestige against adoption, is very difficult to excuse. He thinks he is working for the children, but in the case of adoption he is workingagainst them, whether he knows it or not.

I agree with your description of how things work in Guatemala. Those with their eyes open have seen it because it is so obvious, and you who live there have to deal with it every day. But Bruce Harris is not a pure fighter against that and for truth and justice. Regarding adoption, he does not tell the truth, and he does not act to benefit children, even though he thinks he is. (And for her part, Susana Luarca, despite her alleged wealth, her position, and her entitled way of speaking, is not the devil!)

*** In Guatemala the adoption process should be changed and regulated.***

How? Bruce Harris and UNICEF want a centralized judicial process, even though at the exact same time they are fiercely criticizing the corruption and major problems in the Guatemalan judicial system. In every Central American country where this has been done adoption has more or less ceased to function because the government does not give it enough resources, and the "regulated process" becomes a bureaucratic process that serves no one -- not the children, not the birth families, and not the adoptive families. But UNICEF says that that doesn't matter, as long as the process is regualted to comply with their ideas of international law that is sufficient. But the law does not care for children.

**** it angers me that so few of you claiming to show solidarity and compassion for children in Guatemala can even speak Spanish, never mind the Indian languages that their families speak. ****

Apparently you are not too familiar with the children placed for adoption. Almost all birthmothers of adopted children are Spanish-speaking. I have been told that children in Maya families are more likely to be cared for within their own communities. I don't know if that is true but I do know that it is very rare for the birthmother to speak a Maya language. Many many have Maya genetic roots and physical features but as you know that is not the same as being part of an indigenous community.

**** How many of those that are happily criticising the work of Bruce Harris, have seen the work that Casa Alianza do, or even been to Guatemala? ****

I have not seen anyone criticising Bruce Harris's work in general. Most of the adoptive parents I know think it is good work. What I have seen people criticising are his irresponsible and largely unfounded charges against adoptions.

**** Is character assassination really a useful contribution to this debate? ****

I agree. It is not helpful.

**** But seriously, I would love to hear some substance to your case against Bruce Harris. ****

Oh, this is so easy. The main issue is the constant incredible distortions and prejudicial language about adoption. Here are some examples from his group's web site:

*** Casa Alianza: A recent report by UNICEF stated that between 1,000 and 1,500 babies and children are trafficked under this guise every year. ****

What report? The UN Special Rapporteur's report in which she said "the majority" of adoptions were illegal, but later said she was not in the country long enough to gather real data? Or another report citing that one? I will guess that there is no data at all to back up this claim, and that if it were investigated you would find that the definition of "illegal" was not the usual one, but instead was "does not comply with what the UN believes the law should be".

**** Casa Alianza: The fact that international adoptions make up around 95 percent of all adoptions in Guatemala demonstrates the lawyers' purpose is profit: as internal adoptions make only xxx. ****

In fact the lawyers offered FREE adoptions to Guatemalan citizens for something like two years, but no families came forward. Why? Maybe racism. Maybe there were some small costs like court costs that poorer families could not pay. I don't know. But that is what happened.

**** Casa Alianza: Lawyers enjoy relative freedom in private adoption procedures and can avoid delays that state-run procedures often encounter; in fact, the actual paperwork they process is completely legal. It is their means of finding babies to sell for adoption that violates children's rights. ****

Babies are placed for adoption not sold for adoption. There is no evidence that babies are being sold and Casa Alianza has never presented anything but a few ancient cases, and even some of those fall apart on closer examination. I am sure that in fact babies are sometimes sold as happens in every country including the US, and it is wrong and should never happen. But the charge that it is widespread in Guatemala so far is just a lot of noise with no real data.

**** Casa Alianza: ... mothers are drugged and then their babies stolen. ****

And how does this work with universal DNA testing?

I may sound like there are no problems but that is not what I really think. Many adoptive parents say all is well in the system. I don't agree, I think we need to know where the money goes, I don't like the way intermediaries are used, and in general the transparency could be improved a lot.

But I get just as upset at the distortions put out by UNICEF, Casa Alianza, etc. If their views were followed the whole system would shut down just like it has in other CA countries. It would look clean but the children and the birthmothers would be the losers.

I am on the left politically and usually agree with Bruce Harris's view of the world. But he is wrong, wrong, wrong about adoption. You cannot impose idealistic solutions in a messy situation and ignore the realities -- like the kids waiting for families who won't be served while a nice system that complies with what the UN thinks the law should be is put in place -- without someone getting seriously hurt.

**** And why so much interest in the size of his salary when you are quite prepared to defend the costs incurred by ICA lawyers as good and proper? ****

Only because he complains that the lawyers salaries are not proper. It looks quite hypocritical. The criticism is not that heshould not be making moeny but that he should not be attacking others for doing so when he earns quite a bit himself.

WOW this is a mess. I do not understand the problem with people adopting babies we are all gods children. My husband and I are not rich, we had to get a loan to adopt our daughter, but she is the best thing we have ever done. I will never let her forget her heritage, but I also want her to know we adopted her because we wanted a child to love and care for. What is so wrong with this. We all need to be a little less judgemental we do not know why parents choose to adopt. What would happen to all these babies, if they were not adopted? I have visited Guatemala several times found it to be a beautiful country, but with many poor people, in which there government does little to help them. So don't judge me for adopting until you look at there own government that pockets moneys instead of helping the poor. Lets all focus on the lives of the beautiful children that just want to have stable loving homes. Praise to Susana she does care about children. Madison's mommy

Larrissa wrote: "but it angers me that so few of you claiming to show solidarity and compassion for children in Guatemala can even speak Spanish, never mind the Indian languages that their families speak. Are you not ashamed of your ignorance?"

Larrissa: I am *NOT* ignorant. Since when did spoken language take preference over LOVE, FOOD AND SHELTER?

(just two days ago, I was reading a newspaper editorial complaining about all the Spanish speaking immigrants, mostly illegal, who refuse to learn English and are benefiting from this country. I do not agree with that writer's opinions, but it is ironic to hear how you think we should be ashamed not to know Spanish).

Regarding the feelings about Bruce Harris - alot of us have heard his 'lies' before - he worked here in the States first. I really don't care to get into that whole mess except to say that I told my mother why I wanted to watch Univision last night (to hear about the trial) and all I said was that it was about a man who works for Casa Alianza/Covenant House and she cut me off and said, "I never trust any man who works in religious/charity positions with boys". I never said that he worked with boys, but it made me think about his CA newsletters and I can't remember any stories about the girls he helps.

To you others: If I do adopt from Guatemala, it will not be a matter of me 'buying' a child. I will have to take out a loan to afford the fees. I have excellent health insurance, it will cover every single penny of a pregnancy should I chose that route (no co-pays, no fees for medications, doctor fees, hospital fees, even an infertility work-up and treatment if I needed it, which I don't. They will also pay 100% of any invitro inseminations, should I wish to do that).

I HAVE CHOSEN TO OPEN MY HEART AND MY HOME TO A CHILD WHO TRULY NEEDS ONE and I do not appreciate anyone questioning my motives.

FYI . . . I would prefer a child from Guatemala as it is a poor nation and I am also a Native American.

I truly resent all the hatred.

Many of you will find my comments here very interesting. I have been watching Bruce Harris
of Casa Alianza for the last 7 years. I met the directors of Casa Alianza Honduras in Tegucigalpa
in 1987. (Peter and Kelli Racine) They were sent to Honduras to build the shelter by Fr. Bruce Ritter, the founder of Covenant House New York.

First of all, you all must read the book "Broken Covenant" by Charles M. Sennott to know just what Covenant House is about! Ritter, eventually was forced to resign due to relations with several young men. Sound familiar? There was a slush fund of money too for Ritter that was in question.

I never knew who Bruce Harris was until 1995 or 1996 when I saw him on the NBC program dateline. I guess he joined Covent House in the late 80's but one socialist website I saw went so far as to wrongly say that "..he (Harris) founded Casa Alianza and this is so wrong..." Anyway, Harris,
was attacking the Fuller glue company of Minnesota
trying to get them to change the chemical additives so that street kids in Central America
would not be able to get addicted to sniffing the glue. At that time, I thought that Mr. Harris was doing very good. In 1997, however, when I bought my computer, my thoughts began to change.

As I found the Casa Alianza website, I had to ask myself why Mr. Harris lived and still lives in San Jose, Costa Rica where, Casa Alianza has no shelter for street kids whatsoever! I had been to all of the Central American countries and had spent 6 weeks in San Jose in 1994 and you just did not see street kids in San Jose. Compared to Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador,
Costa Rica is a diamond in the rough when you talk about Latin American poverty. Costa Rica has very little poverty so why would you live there where again, they have no shelter for street kids of any kind! Why do donated funds from America and Europe go to Costa Rica! The arguement sort of goes that Harris had to get out of Guatemala because they tried to kill him for speaking out yet why Costa Rica? Casa Alianza has shelters in Mexico City, Tegucigalpa, and Managua so why does he and his family not live there instead of Guatemala? Harris goes to Guatemala to talk to reporters like Bruce Simon of "60 Minutes" If his life is so in danger why go there? Because this is all a part of the image he wants to portray forhimself! Intrigue indeed!

Yes, Bruce Harris is paid $129,000 a year in salary and benefits! This information is available at www.covenathouse.org and you click on "Financial Statements" and then you let ADOBE ACROBAT download the information then you wait and then you have to go to page 30 or so of a 44 page report. This is an IRS form 990 that many so called "not for profits" have to fill out to get government exemption as a not for profit group! Covenant House has it on its site but you could also contact the IRS in Ogeden, Utah to get more recent reports. Could be Harris is now making $150,000 and the nun they had running Covenant House was being given $161,000 a year as was a second director! Let me tell you all something,
the groups like CARE, SAVE THE CHILDREN, WORLD VISION et al are all paying their directors salaries from $187,000 to $300,000 a year. www.give.org The head of World Vision got a "..one time moving expense of some $200,000 ..a few years ago! It was in the report at www.give.org People just see "MARIA" in a Guatemala City dump on television and they give but they have no clue of these salaries.

Anyway, over the past 6 years I have seen Mr. Harris on television in both English and Spanish.
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant from Colombia not ILLEGAL let us be clear on that! Almost every few months we see Harris shooting off his mouth about this or that as it relates to children in Latin America but here is the problem in my opinion. Covenant House was founded to get street kids off of the streets so why is Harris even talking about illegal adoptions or any adoptions what so ever? He invited reporters to San Jose in December of 1999 to point out the child prostitution in Costa Rica but again, Harris has built no shelter that I know of to get these young, poor girls off of the streets!

What Harris has done is that he has changed Casa Alianza from one of giving aid to street children to one of "social advocacy". With all of the corruption in Latin America there is some merit to this but it has its limits and I think Harris
really wants to be a politician instead of a provider of aid for poor dirty shirtless, shoeless street kids in Latin America. Costa Ricans were peeved when Dateline did that piece on the prostitution in San Jose because the nation
is heavly dependant on tourism. Adult prostitution is legal in Costa Rica although I don't condone it. However, in a place like Costa Rica you are going to get some poor minors into it but again what kind of shelter or rehab program does Harris have there? None that I can see on his website www.casa-alianza.org

I also e-mailed Bruce Harris several years ago asking if he wanted to donate $600 to my wif'e neice in Colombia. They are very poor and she needed the money to study. I am paying it which is fine but here is what Bruce Harris said to me
"....firstly, we don't work in Colombia..and tell your government to stop sending arms to Colombia..." NOW what did that last comment have to do with my poor wife's neice in Colombia?
Harris did not care who she was or is or anything and why this political comment? Because Harris is more interested in politics and lawyers and social activism then he is in directly helping street kids!

Right now, Casa Alianza has shelters in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico City but, they closed a shelter in Panama City in 1993 that was never re-opened. Why? Did those street kids just disappear overnight?

Another comment I got from Harris a few years ago was that he "...refused a donation from the Somoza
family."when they built the shelter in Nicaragua.

The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua with an iron fist for almost 70 years but the last dictator was killed in Paraguay in the early 80's. So, why would you refuse a donation to help street kids if you really cared about street kids? Because Harris wants to make political statements.
However, when the shelter in Nicaragua opened in 1987, President Arnoldo Aleman was there in a picture with Harris and this Catholic nun director. Aleman was just given a 20 year sentence for robbing the Nicaraguan trasury of some $100 million!

I guess you get my point! My correspondence with Harris has been very brief, nasty and harsh. I have written many reporters at CBS, NEWSWEEK, TELEMUNDO, and othe media groups asking them to stop dealing with him but I know they read my letters but they seldom respond. The press is very liberal and Harris makes for a good story on a slow newsday!

My advice for this Susanna Luarca would be to have a news conference on Monday and to drop this case as I readwhere Harris refused to apologize publicly yesterday in order to end the case. Harris will not apologize because he wants this publicity! Susana Luarca is not on trial here but Bruce Harris has Guatemala society on trial.
Do you see it? Harris is all mixed up with Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch and probably Greenpeace too! So, if she drops the case and proclaims her innocence then Harris has to return to Costa Rica and their will be no more press conferences or reporters or anything else which is exactly what he wants! THE PUBLICITY!

I detest Bruce Harris because he was sent to Central America to get kids off of the streets and he has turned Casa Alianza into a political charade and it is a sorry excuse to live in Costa Rica on a six figure salary where he has no shelter! This is the truth and Harris wants to earn himself a Nobel Prize or something!

I invite all of you to examine the Casa Alianza website. www.casa-alianza.org

Look at all the political commentary and news reports of kids being killed and Bruce Harris this and Bruce Harris that! You would think that
there is nobody else working at Casa Alianza.
What you will find very little of at this website
is what exactly they are doing to help rehablitate
any street kids for the long term. It is all about socail concern and finger pointing at politicians. Harris has been in Central America for more than 10 years and why has he not opened more shelters in places like San Salvador, San Pedro Sula, Guadalajara or even farther south in Bogota or Caracas. He mentions the socialist wife of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez on his site and he talks of violence towards kids in places where he has no shelter like Caracas or San Pedro Sula! This is all dramatics for fundraising purposes and all the not for profits do it! They lie in some cases or exaggerate the truth! Harris said that there are 30 million street kids in Latin America! WRONG! 30 million in poverty yes but actually living on the streets? No way!

Well, here you have it! Harris, in responce to comments above just writes me and says "...you need professional help..." If Harris would stay off of Spanish television I would not care who he is or what he does but I think people deserve the truth!

BTW IF this Susana Luarca is involved in something illegal I think they should hang her! Like if she knows babies were kidnapped? Does Harris have any real proof however so that he can shoot off his big mouth? He is all wrapped up in lawyers and social justice while kids suffer on the streets! That to me is shameful for I have seen the poverty in Latin America and this is why I write what I write above about this Bruce Harris! Harris needs to get Casa Alianza back to getting kids off of the streets which is why it was founded!

I also had read on the Covenant House website in one of those financial statements that for one of the years...98,99, or 2000 that the headquarters in New York had sent more money to the office in Costa Rica than it had to the countries where they had shelters. Harris wrote me and told me that was a lie but I did see it although it did not say for what purpose the money was spent! You see, they spend more on donated funds on expenses and lawyers then they do on kids directly!

Bruce Harris has done nothing illegal and I don't accuse him of doing anything illegal but again, he is a sorry excuse for a self proclaimed advocate of street kids in my mind!

Write him and ask him of my concerns?

I think that Brian Tatarka is right in his attitute towards Casa Alianza.

If he keeps asking questions about the actions of this institution, and receives such stupid anwers, why is he going to be considered as a person in need of professional help? Do many of the members of this list need that kind of assistance? Many people in my country (Guatemala) need urgently such a professional help too!

Do any bells ring in your ears? I think I remember that one of the resources of authoritarian governments and intollerant people is precisely qualifying as insane those persons not sharing their enlightened opinions.

I think that with Bruce Harris if you send him a donation, which I would never do, and you write him and tell him how wonderful he is then he would write you back in a decent manner but if you question him like I did all you will get are quick short snappy letters like I said telling you that you need professional help. My passport is loaded with entry and exit stamps to most of the Spanish speaking countries on the planet and I did volunteer work in Honduras so I am well versed into Latin America and I never saw any street kids
in San Jose but I did see a picture of two street kids in the Tico Times newspaper about a year ago.
Bruce Harris, again, has no shelter in San Jose.
It just doesn't make any sense when there is so much need in the other Central American nations!

Write the new Catholic nun at www.covenanthouse.org or Bruce Harris himself at

bruce@casa-alianza.org

and ask them why the politics? The six figure salary? The lack of a shelter in Costa Rica and why only an office there? Ask if Fr. Bruce Ritter
founded Covenant House in the 1970's to get kids off of the streets or was it designed to get into adoptions and prostitution and other things such as kiddie porn? I don't like these things either but was not Bruce Harris given the position to get kids off of the streets primarily? If you cannot get them off of the streets 24/7 then yes they are going to be abused and probably beaten by bad cops who in places like Guatemala have probably only a six grade education themselves.

I asked Mr. Harris a few years ago if he sends his own two children to the same PRIVATE expensive schools that the same politicians in Costa Rica sends their children to? He wrote back angrily saying "...you have attacked my family...I don't have to answer you..." (In Latin America if you have any wealth you do not send your kids to PUBLIC SCHOOLS!) So Harris was telling me that yes his kids are in some private school but more so he was saying do not question me or my motives. Do people who donate to Covenant House know of these things? They think there donation goes to street children but does it really? I don't know but the question is valid. I don't write Harris anymore for it is a waste of time!

I just read an interesting aticle from a NEWSWEEK International addition and it deals with Susana Luarca and Bruce Harris and you can read it at

http://www.oggham.com/cambodia/archives/000511.html

Now, here is a brief piece from the article below!

"...By that time, however, Flor’s case had been taken up by a respected child-rights group led by Englishman Bruce Harris. A mailman turned activist who landed in Latin America in the 1980s, Harris has made himself a leading voice on child-trafficking issues."

It says that Harris was a "mailman" turned activist? Interesting! In my internet research of Harris including information from the same Casa Alianza website, Harris studied at a private school in Vermont and later recived a MBA
from THUNDERBIRD UNIVERSITY in Arizona. This school is considered one of the best for business
studies of Latin American Intl business. He also supposedly was a member of Up With People and worked for CARE in Bolivia and claims he was in Chiapis, Mexico. Anoter great place for the leftist activists in Latin America? But, a mailman? How do you go from England to a private school in Vermont then to Thunderbird and you are a former mailman? You see, the spin, things just don't add up with Bruce Harris? Also this "...has made himself a leading voice..."

OK I will not post anymore about Bruce Harris for I have said enough. I just get tired of seeing him on television every several months. Last time he was sitting next to the singer Ricky Martin on Spanish television. He is a glory seeker and I will continue to question his commitment to really wanting to help dirty abandoned street kids in Latin America?

I've read most of your threads. I just feel very down and very doubtful when I think about these comments. What can WE parents do to know the truth???

I live in Switzerland and went to Guatemala just to pick up our son and love that country. I realize I cannot know how that country works unless I would live in it. Guatemala is unfortunately known to be a country covered by corruption. Who's going to tell us the truth about all this happening?? Susana or Bruce, I "know" them via Internet. That's all and I guess that this is the case for most of us here.

Surely Guatemala is the ONLY country on the world were you can adopt children this way. Why? Of course I'm for adoption because we are willing to adopt a second child in Guatemala and waiting for referral right now. We surely know that there is huge poverty and misery. I cannot judge anything about Susana and Bruce. I really pray for justice in the name of the children living in a great poverty and wish a suitable adoption law in Guatemala. I know Columbia did it: they signed the Hague Convention and children are still being adopted from ther. Even though my heart would preferr that things stay like they are today in Guatemala, to bring our second child home, I really cannot bear this unclearliness anymore. Our country signed The Hague Convention this year. I just know what that stopped in our adoption process. But I start to believe that this Convention would at least put things in order. Don't get me wrong please. I just think about the children first!! If there is so much to talk about this, it's also sure that there is a HUGE problem somewere.
Let's pray for justice.

Obviously, there are very strong opinions on all sides of this topic. I think what everyone needs is a little bit of pragmatism. There are people who believe intercountry is basically wrong. They believe it is wrong for the child because they are removed from the culture of their birth. They also believe that if anyone is making money in the process that it is a sign of corruption.

I do not agree with this position but I will not characterize those who have it as evil. I'm an american and I don;t agree with just about anything my country does nowadays, but I don't characterize all republicans as evil. But what I will characterize as evil is the tendency of people to go to unethical extremes in order to promote their agendas. Bush did so with Iraq as an example and Burce Harris has consistently done so in regard to ICA. To quote Malcolm X, Harris wants to end ICA "by any means necessary". I try very hard to believe that he is just following an ends justifies the means philosophy toward a goal that I disagree with rather than thinking that he is really allowing politics to imact the best interests of children. NOnetheless, he has spread malicious and untrue stories to the media. Without fail, every recent story I have read quoting Harris has in some way been misleading or false.

The Hague Convention and the CRC were established to try to ensure the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, they both leave much to interpretation. So much so that I can quote them both in my defense of ICA while the other side can do the same. Ultimately, the problem is not with these conventions but rather with the idealistic, reactionary implementation of them that has left countless children without a family.

I wish that Guatemala had a social system in place that could care for its citizens and make ICA unnecessary. I would gladly adopt somewhere else if that were the case. But it is not the case due to the corruption of its government and social strata. And as an american, I feel horribly ashamed for the role that my government played in creating that situation. Poor countries can provide basic care for their people - just look at Cuba who has a lower rate of infant mortality and higher rates of literacy than the U.S. and Canada. And I am not defending Castro! I guess what I am saying is that all these people who fight so hard and at times unscrupulously against ICA need to start spending their time trying to remove the root socioeconomic causes of ICA.

The current system in Guatemala is not perfect and many of the crticisms posted on this site about the rigid class structure and how it impacts power are correct. There are many improvements that could be made to create better transparency. But most of these can be achieved through stricter regulation and enforcement of the current laws, not by creating new laws.

Women deserve the right to choose what happens when they become pregnant - especially in places where there is no access to family planning, blatant sexism (one on ten crimes in Guat is sexually related), and no access to contraception. And I can say that no good would come from handing control of this over to a governement like that in Guatemala - for the exact reasons that have been stated about the power elite. It takes the government about 7 years to issue an abandonment decree for wards of the state - this is a UNICEF figure. I can not see why ANYONE would want to automatically inflict this upon children whose birthmother have made the difficult decision of relinquishing that child for adoption.

So everyone, forget your opinions, forget your idealism, and put yourself into the realities of today. There are children who have no future in thier home country. There are GOOD families for these children in other countries. Don't sacrifice these children in the name of some higher ideal and aspiration of what "could be". Every life is precious and deserving of a future!

Peace!

Manuela,

To tell you the truth, I am in favor of regulating international adoption in order to give more transparence to them. But I am really doubtful that the Hague Convention, at least as it is articulated right now, is the most adequate instrument for regulating this modality of adoption.

There are many things to discuss and I will not deal with all of them here. After all, the thread is going and, at the end, we are getting our conclusions and constructing a more complete picture of the issues at stake. However, let me mention at least some thoughts that come to my mind while reading your post. I apologize if scattered through my writing a number of digressions appear.

I am a Guatemalan and I know by first-hand experience how things work in my country. Corruption is so deeply entrenched in Guatemala (and in many countries like this) that you can hardly live any day without seeing a questionable practice. Doubtless, the suspicions about the institution of international adoptions have this world of corruption as background. If you ask opponents of adoptions why Bruce Harris and other activists have not provided concrete evidences to back up their claims, they will tell you something that, fortunately, is becoming less and less true: corrupt practices do not leave traces, especially in a country like Guatemala!

Because of this reason, I believe that international adoptions need to be permanently revised in order to increase their transparence. And, in fact, we can see how a number of regulations have been implemented in order to achieve goals in this direction. The results of DNA tests, for example, rule out in practice the possibility of stolen children being given in adoption. In addition, there are studies, reports, interviews, etc., not only involving Guatemalan authorities, but also professionals and agencies of other countries. I think these procedures clearly go against the possibility of corruption in international adoptions.

Last but not the least, I believe that many people involved in processing adoptions do not see the children as simple merchandise. A corrupt country does not make all their people cruel and heartless. There are many areas of our everyday life that are filled with kindness and altruism. And I can tell you that many people working in the institution of international adoptions really care about those children. Against Guatemalan vox populi, those people genuinely believe they are contributing to save the life of many children.

The overall result of all the aspects mentioned above makes very unlikely the accusations that some adoption’s opponents like to throw into the resonance box of public rumor. Children are not sold like merchandise; they are not going to the US to be sexually exploited or to have their organs removed. Those irrational beliefs have turned the inhabitants of otherwise pacific villages violent mobs that have killed innocent tourists that were in the middle of the most casual chain of circumstances.

Is it not difficult in this context to perform the illicit activities that the opponents of international adoptions tend to spread all over the world? It is not rare, in this regard, that Bruce Harris and other activists refer constantly to certain ancient cases. And when you read the article published in Newsweek you will see how the case presented there could be deliberately misconstrued. We can question if the biological parents would we allowed to have that child in a country other than Guatemala. We can see here the pettiness so peculiar to Bruce Harris and other people of his kind.

Of course, the opponents of adoptions could mention aspects such as manipulation…but cannot this be reduced again through regulations not involving the creation of huge inefficient bureaucratic institutions? Are there significant amounts of money involved? Ok, let us regulate the honoraries of the professionals and other people involved. Actually, we could take the salaries of certain anti-adoption activists as yardsticks to construct a range of decent fees. I think they would not oppose such a criterion given that they work with institutions that justify their salaries under the argument that they need to attract the best professionals. Why are we going to want the less qualified people to work in such an important field?

Believe me, it is not exceptional to find people in my country ready to give up their children in order to find them a genuine home. It is hardest thing to see, but it is not impossible to understand why people are proceeding that way. And we can think now…is the Hague Convention the best avenue of solution for those children who are in risk of losing their only and irreplaceable life?

Jorge,

I have enjoyed reading all of your posts but your last statement really caught my eye:

"Believe me, it is not exceptional to find people in my country ready to give up their children in order to find them a genuine home."

It is my opinion that it is quite easy to understand why so many Guatemalan women would willingly choose adoption for their children and that is one main reason why I think the constant accusations of birthmother coercion are such a stretch. My goodness, in the U.S. we have legal abortion, free or next to nothing birth control, tons of sex education and there are STILL thousands of kids who are given for adoption each year and still more languishing in the foster system. And this is in a country where no matter where you live there are federal and state-funded programs like WIC and Medicaid that a poor mother might qualify for...

And so why is it so far-fetched to imagine a few thousand women each year in Guatemala (with virtually NO resources like this) freely making the adoption choice for their children? And do I think that SOME are pressured to choose adoption? You bet! It happens in the U.S. all the time, usually by the woman's family. But I don't think that in the vast majority of Guatemalan cases the pressure is from some unethical "baby broker." I believe that often due to the circumstances of the child's conception or the family's situation, the child would simply not be welcome at that time OR the family has genuine concern for the child's future well-being and therefore advises the mother that adoption is the best choice.

Adoption is a very happy event for many but we are told from the minute we start the process to realize that inherent in adoption is a definite sadness too. Please let us not misinterpret the sadness that every birthmother must experience as the result of a "crime" against her.

It is very helpful to have Guatemalans on this board to give different perpectives.

Jorge Rodríguez and Brian Tatarka,

Thanks so much for your posts, all of the information, and your own perspective that you offer. It is helpful to me. I look forward to your posts in the furure.

Jorge,

Muchas gracias por su palabras!

It was good to me to read your message coming from Guatemala.

I totally agree with your first sentence. I know that the Convention may not be ideal for Guatemala. I probably mentioned the Convention because it's an "international" Convention spread in many countries and once it is signed, there is no more questioning coming up! That's what I'm probably dreaming about: no more doubts and questions. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I surely agree with the fact that not every Guatemalteco is a thief or a corrupted person!!! That would be awful to think this and not realistic at all. I actually say this often to people even involved in adoption.
I'm also sure that most people involved in adoption are honest and looking for the interest of the child.

Here you get often the american view. I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity to tell you how it's looked at from an European country.
Our social workers just can't stand the amount that is asked for an adoption. I've spent a whole lot of time in explaining that it's expensive because it's different than everywere else (having a private lawyer, having the child at a foster family, paying DNA tests and so on). But is this amount really realistic? I've asked myself this question since the beginning. My husband and I travelled for 6 months in South America and it's quite clear that the amount paid for an adoption is disproportioned. What do you think about this Jorge? Even for us swiss (everybody thinks we all own banks!!) it's really a very important amount. Of course our social workers would love to see an invoice providing all the positions with each amount. They've asked one to our lawyer but he dind't want to provide it. I've also heard this sentence many times: the problem is that Guatemala is too near from the States... Apparently the great american influence upon Latin American countries is not looked at it in a good light. Again, I did not say those words myself. This is just a view from European countries.

Surely in this case there are two main problems: the activists, as Mr. Bruce mentioned here, and the media. Since the media know how to spread negative news, the only way to shut those voices is to show proofs! As you said, DNA and the 4 visits of the birthmother are surely an "insurance" that the mother was not pushed to give her child. But it seems that these proofs are not enough. Most European countries are closed and won't allow adoptions from Guatemala until there is a change in the law.

I truly believe that of all the adoptions there might be only a little pourcent of doubtful adoptions that cause all these discussions. As a parent, I would just like to be reassured that I cannot fall in one of those doubtful adoptions and to look in the eyes of my son and be sure that he doesn't come from a traffic.

Sorry that I went a bit out of the discussion over the trial. But finally this is the reason of such trials.

Thanks again Jorge, I really enjoy your view as an inhabitant of that country that I love so much.

Hasta luego.

I applaud both Hanna Wallace's and Kelly's arguments. I am a native Central American, I believe in Human Rights, I believe in international adoptions and I tremble at the thought of having egotistic people like Mr Harris falaciously manipulate media and authorities alike. I see with regret that some of the forum writers have unfortunately bitten the bait of First World vs. Third World, rich people vs. poor people argument with which Casa Alianza, UNICEF and several other NGOs like to feed the public. Please! Mr Harris is exporting his profitable defamation techniques to other countries and now history is repeating itself with Costa Rican attorneys (namely, the IAR case, about which Sir Bruce has published a myriad of grossly inaccurate articles in his related sites). Now the burden of proof is finally on Sir Bruce's court. Now Justice has a clear shot at him in Guatemala. For the sake of true Freedom of Speach, I hope they don't miss.

First, thank you for your references to my former posts.

I really think that the Hague Convention, in its current formulation, is not the adequate instrument to regulate international adoptions. Of course, we can find many good elements in its text but it simply fails in addressing the complexity of the situations experienced by the people involved in the adoption process. As the thread goes on, we can recall some of the shortcomings of that document. They often exemplify the paradoxes that arise from the attempt to give simple solutions to very complex issues: they can be subjected to many interpretations whose specific regulations tend to go wrong when considering the real interests of the children whose lives are at stake.

Let us mention something that really bothers me. The issue of the immense suffering associated to poverty, a situation that goes far beyond financial deprivation.

As a ex-member of the Guatemalan Congress, Alfonso Bauer, himself a respected member of the Latin American left, recognized, the Hague Convention is not suited to Guatemalan circumstances given the fact that it rules out poverty as a justification for adoption. He claims that the Hague Convention seems to refer basically to the life-world of rich countries and does not reflect the urgent needs burdening the poorest societies.

I hope nobody is going to take my argument as an example of the ad-hominem fallacy but I need to speak out my concern about the morality of the Hague Convention. For me, this institution should be reformed before being implemented. We, plain citizens of many countries of the world, should involve much more in the elaboration of documents like that and not leaving such important matters in the hands of that famous cast of “experts” that recognize the problems of their models after a huge number of meetings and conferences, and quite frequently, after many human lives have been lost due to situations that we, the non-experts, have identified with due anticipation.

I wonder why those foreseeable problems do not burden the conscience of many human rights activists…Obviously, the legal character of the Hague Convention does not warrant its morality. And is it not an irony that the moral problems of this instrument seem to hide from the eyes of the well-paid guardians of our official morality?

I think we need to point out our long-term concern toward problems like this. Meanwhile, we need to reform and regulate the practice of international adoptions in order to guarantee that this institution will be a real possibility for those children whose future is at risk. In this sense, I do not oppose the regulation of the costs of international adoptions. After all, this goal can be discussed and agreed upon without distorting the nature of the institution. We are going to salute any effort to give more credibility to one of the noblest practices that we still have in our world.

As a mother of four two adopted and as a volunteer for an international asoption agency and as a women who has been on Guate lists and forums. I find the adoptive families involved with the process in Guatemala to be the MOST self centered spoiled people in the adoption arena. IF Guatemala does close THOSE families all of the ones who have been complaining and whining for the last year about all who have kept THIER babies from THEM. Lets face it people anyone on any forum who agrees with an agency or a guatemalan attorny gets bashed..Its all about them and why they cant have a baby, Most of them should never have been aproved by a home study agency in the forst place. IF i was a mother thinking of placing my child for adoption in americaa, one look at the list serv and I would run and never look back. I pray for so so many kids who are in the hands of those un stable folks and they are all posting on guatemala adoption boards. Many have gone down to Guatemala to complain and make demands of their lawyers. Not too worry people these families are all helping put the negative spin on Guatemalan adoptions. Soon there will be no boards to complain or whine on..Then what??
Celeste

What was THAT??? If you want your message to come across clearly, I recommend you learn how to write and spell before posting..... and while you certainly have a right to your opinion, as one who is equally well-acquainted with Guatemalan adoption forums I find your broad-based assessment of adoptive parents utterly ridiculous and insulting.

Celeste -
I find your comments to be unfair. Yes, you are right that some parents whine over anything. I would dare say that many complaints have been quite valid. But over the last year, all of our waiting parents have wondered whether their children would even come home. This is not about a "car" that has been purchased, it is about a child who has stolen their hearts. For them, it is not a transaction...it is a very emotional process.

The best phrase (from my agency) that I have heard describing the adoptive parent: 'Some of the nicest people turn into the most annoying people during an adoption'. In the last year, I have met many, many adoptive families in person or on the phone....I can safely say that they are some of the most remarkable, caring individuals. It has taught me to step back and realize that a simple email or post does not give me a fair picture of an individual.

I do recommend that families become as versed in the Guatemala adoption process before pursuing one. But lets face it, we do not hire a doctor and then are expected to diagnose and treat our own illnesses. We do not hire an attorney and then have to do MOST of the research ourselves. Yet, we hire an agency and God help us, we had better be an expert in adoption.

I have talked to a number of parents and have found most of their complaints to be valid. Those few that have not been realistic, have needed an objective eye OR a lesson in Guatemala adoptions BEFORE the Hague attempt.

As for the agencies: If a Guatemalan lawyer is not doing their job (gosh knows, I can look around the US and see PLENTY of people wasting my money by NOT doing their job)...then US agencies should refuse to work with them. Unfortunately, North Americans are typically so scared to even give feedback on an agency that is unfairly threatening their referral OR has not done a good job BECAUSE of the ease and frequency of lawsuits. It matters not that these statements are TRUE!!!!

You are right, they do not help the public image of Guatemalan adoptions. But if the same standards were applied to any of our government organizations, I think we would have to shut them ALL down;-)

Another note: It is a slip that I make often as well as parents responding to posts. A Guatemalan is ALSO an American (a Central American). So, use the word North American or US citizen or Canadian citizen, etc.

Coleen,
Please escuse my poor grammer and or spelling. I have not lived in this country for long and I am Guatemalan. My english is not perfect for sure nor my spelling. I will rest my case as it is my opinion. Your respponse is understood. May I suggest that all who have an opinion on what it is like to give your child up because you cannot afford to feed him or her, that you spend a month at least in guatemala in the home of a person whom is in this situation before you judge. There is good and bad to every story. Collen your post is very telling and nothing more needs to be posted on this subject, again I apologize for my spelling and did not realize it would encourage such an angry reponse, please forgive me.

Celeste

Celeste,

I do apologize for my comment on the spelling, but if you think for one moment that your post to a site frequented and cherished by many wonderful adoptive parents, would not "encourage such an angry response" then perhaps you do not know us as well as you think you do. We are not a homogenous group, but most of us will not sit idle while we are insulted by those who do not know us and our motives. I love my child with all my heart and not once have I ever judged his birth family in Guatemala who made such a difficult choice. I hope to some day be able to meet them, in fact. If you take the time to read my other posts or the many posts on this site from adoptive parents, I think you will realize that we are a thoughtful group of people who are committed to our children and their heritage for the rest of our lives. Why on earth would Kelly start this site and why on earth would I and so many others who have long since brought their babies home even BOTHER to visit these sites if we didn't care?

This is not intended just to Celeste, but some days I have to wonder if much of this is anti-*U.S.* sentiment more-so than anti-ICA sentiment. There seem to be some folks out there who would rather ANYTHING than see a Guatemalan child end up in a U.S. home. Just a thought...

Getting back to the original thread: are there some news about the trial? Do you know when the verdict will be given?

Thanks in advance.

PS: I'm amazed how people can become agressive on a board. Bad side of the Internet anonymity. Respect is precious and most of us are parents!!

I checked the Casa Alianza website and they said that this tribunal has three days in which to find Bruce Harris guilty and supposedly he could go to jail for up to 8 years or something.

Knowing what I know of Bruce Harris this is all a charade because if they find him innocent he will
just say look I told you so and if he is guilty and spends sometime in jail be it two days or two years then he can become another Nelson Mandela type martyr and his friends at Amnesty International and Human Rights can cry and scream.

Whatever? If you go to the www.casa-alianza.org
website you can click on the part where they encourage people to write the Guatemalan press etc. You see? More media attention and this is exactly what Bruce Harris wants.

As I said before, COVENANT HOUSE was founded to give aid to street kids and youths and to get them off of the streets! It really is a sad shame that Mr. Harris cannot dedicate himself to that purpose and again, why he even is involved in adoptions in beyond my realm of comprehension.
There are street kids out there who need his help while he sits there in a courtroom, or at a press conference, as he has done for years, pointing his fingers at people. This makes for good fund raisin but does this build more shelters? If Mr. Harris was such a success he would have built at least 5 more shelters in Latin America starting in El Salvador. It is easier to point your fingers at others and blame them for not doing that which you have been sent to do! Yes, there is corruption in Central America but criticsm has its limits!

I have no doubt that there are some good local Casa Alianza employees where they have shelters but Bruce Harris could really do a lot more good
if he would get away from this media circus.

Again, go to the Casa Alianza website www.casa-alianza.org and look at all the horror stories of what they(police and politicans)do to street kids?Does Casa Alianza get them off of the streets for good? There are very few stories about that in that website! Read the book by Charles M. Sennott called "Broken Covenant" to read about Covenant House and its founder. It is interesting! Study the "Financial Staements" at www.covenanthouse.org The 10 employees including a Catholic NUN who all make more than $100,000 will surprise you I would bet!

The last time I was in Honduras in 1993 I saw a dirty, shirtless, shoeless street kid playing with a 12inch dead rat the way a kid plays with a kitten. So, when I think of Bruce Harris dedicating his time to pres conferences and liberal activism I get sick because I think of that kid and I know that Bruce Harris is nowhere around when he is off in Costa Rica living on a six figure salary where his organization has NO SHELTER OF ANY KIND! SHAMEFUL!!

I don't much about your Guatemala adoptions. I do know that it is not cheap to adopt but should it be? I mean, is adopting a child worth $50?
Lawyers are rich everywhere. Maybe someone should explain to me what Mr. Harris is all mad about with Guatemala adoptions. I don't think it is his concern really but what does he mean to accomplish by all of this?

I find many of the comments posted on this website deeply disturbing and offensive. True, there are some interesting, insightful and eloquent points of view, notably those shown by Jorge Rodriguez and Manuela. Despite fundamentally disagreeing with their standpoint, I still find their comments a useful and meaningful contribution to the debate. But the vast majority of what is posted on this site suggests to me that most people do not want to hear any view that is contrary to their own. I find this enormously depressing.

I have started many times to respond to some of the outrageous assertions on this page. But what is the point? I admit I do not know why this website was originally set up, but quite obviously, it was not to exchange different views on international adoption, for any view that does not follow the orthodoxy is immediately shot down.

P.S. Please do not infer from my earlier comment about 'self-righteous Americans' to which Kelly/Laura took such offence, that I am prejudiced against all Americans or the idea of Americans adopting Guatemalan children. That is not at all the case. I do find many of the positions stated here self-righteous but they are probably not all expressed by Americans. In fact the only reason I referred to Americans at all was because (i) in Guatemala's case, most adopting parents are from the US and (ii) I have frequently read comments in which you refer to yourselves as Americans.

I have many American friends and work colleagues amongst my acquaintance whose views, even if they are contrary to mine, I find interesting and thought-provoking. I am responding directly to what has been posted on this site, not on whom I think you are. I am judging you by your words not by your person (which I do not know). So just to emphasise, it is your words that I find self-righteous, inflexible and obstructive to debate.

In the last 6 months I have had reason to become aquatinted with Mr. Harris. I had been very grateful for his selfless and unrelenting devotion to the rights and welfare of children; all children.
I am not well versed on the issues of international adoption. It doesn’t take an expert to see the potential for corruption and abuse. If even One mother has her child stolen; or is manipulated into giving her baby up; that is one to many. I suspect rather than being rare, it is fairly common. I know there are people of wealth and means who would not concern themselves with how ethical the adoption is. I once worked with one such lady. She was childless; and made the comment one day during a conversation about a baby knapping; that if she had the opportunity to 'buy' a baby, she would, and wouldn't ask any questions. I rather expect her feelings to be common; though not normally spoken of out loud. In light of this possibility; isn't it important to have individuals like Mr. Harris, and organizations like Casa Alanza, keeping watch and speaking out, when they notice what looks to be troublesome?
And in light of the possibility of such abuses; is it a good idea to allow those who speak out to be threatened with prison; or even civil suit?
Can any just and reasonable person think it acceptable to imprison a man for speaking his mind on these issues?
I think not.

Larissa -

The purpose of the website is on the top of the page: for parents, professionals, adoption advocates...Adoption Advocates being the key word here. I think there are plenty of sites that support Bruce Harris. This was not set up as a FORUM site, but I do allow comments and rarely restrict them unless the posts become abusive or irrelavent (non-adoption).

In fact, the creation of the website was intended to be a central place for information about Guatemalan adoptions. When the Hague stalled ALL adoptions, it became a place for the news (from OUR perspective). It also became a place where parents vented about the stalls.

But most of our attitude has been in response to classic anti-adoption propaganda. We *LOVE* our children and we adopted them because we
#1 - Wanted children
#2 - Felt like adoption was a good way to give a good home to a child who needs it (Our definition of *need* is basically made up of two qualifications: a child whose biological mother may not have the means to support this child with basic needs OR a child who has been abandoned OR a child whose biological parent feels that it is in the best interest of the child to put the child up for adoption). We do not call a press conference everytime we give a donation. We are often challenged for being self-righteous for thinking that we are offering a better life....but *if* you challenge that statement (and I don't know if YOU do, Larissa), I want to know the alternatives for the CHILDREN and how it can be put in place NOW.

I would dare say that most visitors to this site are adopting (or have adopted) a child for the ABOVE reasons....NOT to make some political statement.

Our attitude (or MY attitude) is in response to the things that *I* feel are NOT debatable (since it is either not supported or is offensive language)! The press bombards us with negative language when talking about Guatemalan adoptions. Our children are human beings (as much deserving human rights as anybody else). We do not *import* them like cattle (yet that is the lingo of the news). We do NOT *buy* children like TV sets. We pay for the services of the agency, DNA labs, lawyers, facilitators, etc....to do what is required to complete a legal adoption. Just as biological parents would be offended at the use of the word *breeding*. In fact, do biological parents *buy* their babies since the delivering doctors are paid quite nicely for facilitating the birth (here in the US)? I doubt anyone would DARE use that word to describe a biological birth. Then there is Child Traffiking? This is a term originally used for human slavery, for heavens sake!!! The press (and Bruce Harris) use these terms time and time again in regards to adoption...Would ANYONE like their children being referred to as a product? Mr. Harris may believe that these children are just products, but WE do not!

Then there is the anti-adoption fluff that we challenge quite often. There are many statements from Bruce Harris that are simply absurd. 'Over 3000 suspect adoptions from Guatemala'. If they were suspect, how did they get through the DNA, Guatemalan government, 4 signoffs and approved by the US Embassy? Who suspects them?

As for statements (not comments) made on this site, everyone is welcome to pinpoint things that they disagree with....Just as when I respond to the comments, I respond to the exact comments. If we refused to listen to the view of others, your comments would be removed. As it is, you have been welcome to post your comments.

However, Larissa....I would appreciate it if you would challenge direct statements instead of making broad-generalized comments about the readers. Afterall, you are a visitor on OUR site. If you would like to present your view or challenge particular statements, that is preferable to just calling everyone self-centered and ignorant. If you would like to talk about what Bruce Harris HAS done, you are welcome to do so (though, our criticism has been focused on a particular issue that we feel he is grossly misrepresenting and regardless, should cease....just as ANYBODY that so publically misrepresents anything as fact SHOULD be called down!).

As for things that personally offend you, you may also pinpoint those items too....but keep in mind, if YOU post comments CLEARLY intended to offend, you should not act STUNNED that someone is actually offended and responds.

{BTW: My comment about the way *we* use the term Americans was simply a note. In fact, I feel that it may be offensive to Guatemalans to use the term Americans for ourselves as if it excludes Central and South America.}

Karen - I respectfully disagree. I am not sure what I would define as a fair punishment, but Mr. Harris has publically misrepresented information.

If I accuse you publically for stealing and I have no substantial proof (I just *feel* like you stole something)....I should be accountable for those statements. At the very least, I should be able to back them up. This is NOT free speach in the US either (though, I agree it is a civil matter here).

Blanket statements to the press with outragious fabricated statistics are NOT in the best interest of ANY child. Eliminating ALL adoptions because there is a chance of corruption or because Mr. Harris *says* there is corruption is NOT in the best interest of the child.

I am an adoptive parent and I would NEVER support an adoption that I knew was unethical. I doubt many other families would either. I carefully followed our case and the hoops that our lawyer and birthmother were put through to safeguard the adoption. Before assuming that our claims are false, I would hope that you would do a little research on what it takes to adopt from Guatemala (from the US) and SEE just how difficult and absurd it would be to circumvent the many safeguards. I would venture to say that the current process catches the majority of suspect cases (I know many cases that are investigated by PGN and the Embassy).

This site (and I would guess most of the readers) support ethical adoptions. We support improved safeguards *IF* they are really safeguards and not just ways to add hardship to the biological mothers.

Karen, if a child is stolen and given up for adoption....that child will not pass a DNA test and will not have 4 sign-offs from the birth mother. If the courts have declared the child abandoned, that means the biological mother and/or father has not been a part of that childs life and the child has been living in an orphanage for some time (while searching for the closest relative).

I encourage you to do your own research and understand the complexity of a Guatemalan adoption....its not as easy as Mr. Harris wants you to believe.

I have read all the posts here. It is with a very sad heart that I do so. I am a parent adopting through IAR, which I am sure you are all aware is the reason for much of the bad publicity on adoptions. I feel the need to respond to many of the comments here. I have to say these are all my own opinions, and do not feel I can represent all IAR families or any other "American" point of views. Just my own humble thoughts.

1. I don't think any of us choosing to adopt do so without thinking through the process. It is a very BIG decision that we are making. So to say we are doing it to be political, because we are smug, or ethnocentric is quite judgmental. I doubt many of us know each other well enough to make judgments of character.

2. Covenant House was founded to help kids. What a tremendous thing! I have even volunteered for them in New York City. I truly believe in their mission. I would love to be able to afford an orphanage in which I could provide love, compassion and guidance to children left out or abandoned. Yet I can't afford to do that. However, I can afford to adopt a child. I am doing the same thing Covenant House is doing. Providing shelter, love and guidance to a child that might otherwise be left on the fringe of society. Not by choice, or even out of malice, but due to the vast poverty experienced in many families (even here in the USA).

3. I would NEVER support buying a child, taking a child by force, or in any way breaking up a family. I would support providing a loving home to children in need of one. Unfortunately, that costs money. Lawyers, agencies, and Fedex all take money to run. However, my paying for their fees does not mean I would support any unethical action.

4. I DO support the implementation of a central authority to oversee adoptions in the respective country. If this was in place then the mess in Guatemala would not be as it is now. Mr. Harris would have to find another soapbox by which he could earn $130,000 a year.

5. I realize that many developing countries cannot support a central authority. I challenge the UN (UNICEF) and Casa Alianza to begin raising funds that can be put to use in developing a well run central authority in each country. The fees earned by lawyers (which are high compared to the standard of living of most other Guatemalans) could instead be paid to the country. This could fund the orphanages (if the country insists on orphanages). However, why can't private foster mothers continue to care for children and be licensed by a central authority that actually pays a decent wage to them? Wouldn't most of us be willing to pay a foster mother or father $450 a month to care for our children? That would mean they are making four times the average salary in Guatemala.

6. Now, IAR, ..... Don't judge any parent adopting through this organization. We all checked references, Better Business Bureau, and every other website. We were unfortunately caught in a mess. However, until people are proven guilty none of us should assume the worst. Granted, it has been hell dealing with the problems since Florida began their investigation into our agency.... but I am not ready to judge until proof is presented. I DO NOT want a child that was taken under any suspicion. I want to wake up every day knowing my child is where they are meant to be. If anything is found to be wrong and my referral was taken from a birth family that wants to raise them, then that family deserves the right to have their child. As of yet, I see no proof that that is what occurred.

Please remember, all the great prophets of our world have taught love, compassion and peace. Let us all remember we are citizens of this one planet. Whether we are form the United States, Guatemala, or Azerbaijan, we all want to have a happy family filled with love. To those of you opposed to adoption I ask you to examine what is important in this entire debate. That is the wellbeing of our planet's children. What difference does it make if that means a child from one country grows up in a loving family of another. Borders are just arbitrary lines drawn by humans to divide us and provide power and wealth to those drawing them. My "American" blood is as red as that of the most beautiful indigenous child in Guatemala. Most important of all, our hearts (spiritual ones not the beating kind) all desire to be loved and cared for. And what difference does it make who is doing the loving?!

Sorry I rambled, but I felt the need to vent. I am so tired of listening to all the bickering and feel so much of this energy can be used to do something positive for the suffering children. Don't we all realize that in the time we are typing these posts that several dozen children are dying of starvation? Think about it. Larissa, do I does a child deserve to be left in the streets begging for money if I can provide them a stable and loving home? I think God (Allah, or whatever other name to describe the force of love in the world) would hope we would all open our hearts to those that need us (and that is not meaning US citizens only, I think all citizens of world that have the means to provide have a mandate to do so).

People finallly get that babies that they have waited so long to love. We just picked up our daughter two days ago. I hold all my hope in her. We adoptitve parents know there is nothing more we can do to show our worthiness but just love the child and we do. Life changes -- OK, we are prepard to prove our love to anyone who might challenge this bond. We paid a lot physically and emotionally. (ALL WORTH IT)

A travesty of justice is happening in Guatemala today in Guatemala vs. Bruce Harris. Bruce Harris, Director of Casa Alianza, human rights child advocate and defender of street children throughout Latin America faces eight years in prison, whose only crime was speaking out against the illegal trafficking of infants

I am writing this unsolicited letter on behalf of Bruce Harris. The Criminal Sentencing Court of Guatemala will read their verdict today, Friday January 30, 2004, for having exercised his right to freedom of expression when denouncing the corrupt practices of the child adoption business in Guatemala. In Guatemala defamation is considered a criminal offense rather than a civil offence as under international law. Mr. Harris could receive a sentence of up to eight years in a Guatemalan jail if found guilty.

Mr. Harris has been the leading advocate of street children in Latin America for over 13 years. Since becoming director of Casa Alianza in 1989, Harris has initiated over 800 judicial cases against Latin American governments, police officers and civilians for torturing and brutally murdering street children. In addition, Casa Alianza shelters hundreds of street children that have been prostituted out, raped or badly tortured. Mr. Harris receives death-threats on a regular basis. He gladly puts his life on the line everyday for these helpless children.

I have had the fortunate opportunity of working for Casa Alianza and with Mr. Harris these past two summers in Latin America as a legal intern. I am a public school teacher and evening law school student.

Please find below a brief summary of the fraudulent case against Mr. Bruce Harris:

The Twelfth Tribunal of the Criminal Sentencing Court notified its decision this week to proceed with the charges brought against Harris by the ex-wife of Guatemalan’s former President of the Supreme Court, Susana Maria Luaraca Saracho, brought criminal charges against Mr. Harris after a press conference by the Guatemalan Attorney General and Casa Alianza on September 11th, 1997. The press conference highlighted evidence of a group of Guatemalan lawyers and other individuals involved in a series of irregular international adoptions of Guatemalan children, a business now generating millions of dollars. Luarca Saracho de Umaña brought defamation, perjury and calumny charges against Harris.

Numerous Guatemalan legal instances, including the Constitutional Court, have rejected Mr. Harris’ argument of freedom of expression, ruling that he did not have freedom of expression as he was not a “member of the press”.

In August 2002, then United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson, expressed her concern over the cases in Guatemala. She stated that the “proceedings against Mr. Harris appear to be the result of an overly restrictive interpretation of the right to freedom of expression in the country.”

As a result of the press conference by Casa Alianza, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography visited Guatemala in 1999. In her final report, the Special Rapporteur stated, “the majority of adoptions from Guatemala are illegal.”

In 1999, Casa Alianza presented the case before the Inter American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, accusing the State of Guatemala of violating Harris’ right to freedom of expression and equality under the law as protected under the American Convention on

As a law student and volunteer for Casa Alianza this is nothing less than an attempt to silence a decent human being who has given his entire life to protecting the innocent and helpless.

If he is sentenced to jail on this false charge he will become nothing less than a martyr and hero for the people of Latin America and inflame the road to an already turbulent record of human rights violation throughout Latin America.

May God hear our prayers, the prayers of Bruce’s family, the prayers of his love-ones, the prayers of his friends and the prayers of ALL the children in Latin America, that Bruce is NOT sentenced and that goodness and righteousness triumphs and that this diabolic injustice has NO standing.

I feel as if Bruce Harris should be set free. Under the circumstances he was just trying to do his job! Children being sold for money is wrong! He was doing the right thing! Regardless, God will punish those who are in the wrong. Therefore, I feel that he doesn't deserve to be put away!

To all whom are concerned,
This is my