Good post and positive article, but I have one concern. The article states, "Four years ago, Delahunt was a lead sponsor of the Intercountry Adoption Act, legislation to implement the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption."

Is Delahunt's intent to push for restarting the Hague efforts in Guatemala? Could this lead to upcoming impacts to adoptive families currently in process? We just received our referral in January and are unsure about the positive/negative impacts of this trip on our son.

I read Susana Luarca's post on the St. John's list tonight, and it sounds like this delegation may not be as pro-adoption as they make it sound. Has anybody else heard any news about this visit???? I am getting chills thinking about it.

The new Guatemalan government has stated that they will push for a new adoption law in Guatemala that will include the articles contained in the Hague Convention on international adoptions, thereby overcoming the purely technical reasons for the Constitutional Court having revoked the applicability of the Hague Convention in Guatemala.

One thing Casa Alianza is pushing for is that there be a maximum period of time allowed for a court to complete an adoption or abandonment precisely so that children are not spending extended periods of time in anorphanage.

Mr. Harris,
Did you really believe that this was the right arena for you to express your views on Guatemalan adoptions?????
Cathy

Bruce,

Your post sounds amazingly objective, this is not like you. I will have to request that you cut the nice jargon and show yourself for who you are and what you believe. So while what what you wrote sounds great, and something certainly does need to be done to speed up abandonments, please answer some of the tough questions regarding relinquishments.

1.) Given the infant mortality, malnutrition, extreme poverty, and fertility rates in Guatemala, why do find it so hard to accept that a few thousand birthmothers a year would decide that it is in the child's best interst to grow up abroad where they will be guaranteed a loving, capable family?

2.) How is it that you believe the Guatemalan government will be capable of providing adequate care for these children, the ones who would otherwise live in foster care or hogares funded by adoption? How many hogares are funded by the Guatemalan government?

3.) Where do you believe the resources and determination will come from to provide an efficient system that avoids a child a single extra second away from their forever families?

4.) Do you believe that children have been adopted from Guatemala for the purpose of using their organs for transplants? Have you or Casa Alianza ever made this claim to the media?

5.) Do you believe that a birthmother has any rights to privacy in regard to an adoption? Do you realize that there are sociocultural reasons why a woman might rightly wish/need to keep relinquishing a child a secret from her family? DO you believe that if a woman does not wish for a certain member of her family to care for her child that she the right to make that decision?

6.) How long do you believe a child should have to wait for a theoretical domestic family to adopt them before they can join a family abroad?

7.) Why do you not believe that the most realistic first step in trying to improve the Guatemalan adoption system is enforcement of current laws? How will new laws stop those who may already break them?

8.) What is your opinion on the liklihood that a centralized system will do little more than open the doors to centralized corruption?

9.) How do you explain the stories in the media that tell stories which could never have resulted in a legal adoption from Guatemala? You or your organization always seem to be quoted in these stories.

I have many more question but my beautiful, precious Guatemalan daughter needs her daddy. And her happiness and that of others like her are more important than pointing out the hypocracy between your idealistic b.s. and what it is you lobby for. Focus on helping the children of the street, and let adoption help in reducing the need for those services!

-Kevin

Mr. Harris-

You say in the best of interest of children....What about all of us who are currently in the process of adopting our children? Those of us who have made several trips and begun the bonding process with them...You say you don't want children to spend longer than they should in an orphanage. Yet, if the current law is approved, adoptions would suspended and all of us in the process who have bonded with out children will have their children placed in limbo for months while the law is worked out......

Mr. Harris
I do not understand why anyone would want a child to live in an hogar or orphange, when there are families that are willing to Love and take care of the babies. No doubt all you have is a heart that beats and not one that cares about the Children of Guatemala. Can you explain why you feel like that people that cannot have children should not be able to adopt a child from Guatemala. Are you going to feed the children and take them to the doctor. Better yet can you take each child and put them in your arms and love each child that does not have parents. Do you think your children didnt need your love and care. Did they not need you to be there to be that simple little band-aid on the smallest scratch. A kiss and a hug made them all well. Just think if your children had never had that, what would have become of them. My prayer is that all of the people that want to stop the children from having all of these things will find God in there heart before it's to late.

Mr. Harris,
I would be more then interested in your response to Kevin's questions. I have no doubt you believe you are working in the best interest of the children of Guatemala but if you took a moment to talk with BM's, Adoptive parents, and children adopted from Guatemala and Truely LISTENED you would see how mis-guided you are and how the adoption triad is a positive thing for all involved. Stick with your strength and help the street children, you are not an adoption expert and I don't believe you have any personal experience with adoption so you should not try to speak to or influence something that has never touched your life.

I await patiently for your response to Kevin's questions.

A proud mother of two adopted children from Guatemala,Cousin to 1 adult cousin adopted from Korean ... 1 adult cousin from China and cousin 2 mixed raced teenagers domestically adopted.

Mr. Harris,
If you truly care about adoption, then take that horrible photo of an infant wearing a barcode off of your website. Adoption has NEVER been about money. Adoption is love. Adoption is family.

Bruce,

thereby overcoming the purely technical reasons for the Constitutional Court having revoked the applicability of the Hague Convention in Guatemala.

"Purely Technical Reasons??" You mean the part where it was ruled to be "ILLEGAL" that part?? You always claim that adoptions are illegal, if the Hague was NOT ruled Illegal then would't ANY adoption from Guatemala under Hague Regulations be deemed ILLEGAL??

can't have it both ways dude

janette

test

So what do we do now? We brought home our daughter in December on an IR4 visa and are in the process of re-adoption, this is a joke, let me forewarn those out there that have not started this yet. so when do I send in the INS paperwork, and what do I send in? We are not changing our daughters name so we got the SS card. I really want this to be all done, I have been doing paperwork for 2 years and now I just want to be a mommy and enjoy the greatest thing that ever happened to my husband and I. For those who say its all about the money, you are so wrong, money means nothing, but love is what its all about. We fell in love with our daughter from the first picture and our love for her grows daily. Please let all unparented babies have mommies and daddies. What are we put on this earth for if not to love. Thanks for any help on the paperwork stuff. Terri
Mom to Madison

Wow. Talk about sharing the love. It's hard to sit and read the vitriol and anger spewed forth from so-called adoption experts. Whatever your opinions of Mr. Harris' opinions are, when you attack without thinking you give up your moral authority.

Two points for the 'experts;' 1) The Hague was overturned for technical reasons. 2) It's nice to think that it's not about the money. But, to many, it is about nothing but money. Who has the most to lose? Those with the most to lose generally have the loudest voices and are most defensive.

Is this issue really so black and white that we cannot keep open minds?

Rosa - There are a couple of things that I don't understand. Why do you and others that disagree with our comments EVER put forth content (WITH PROOF) to support your statements?

Unverified statements caused this clash to begin with. Saying that the the Hague was Unconstitutional for technical reasons is like me just making a blanket statement that all birthmothers live in extreme poverty...I have no proof and therefore, I cannot make that claim. I *do* have proof of what my birth mother did to relinquish this child. It is a standard procedure required by the Guatemalan authorities and the US Embassy which makes it near impossible to circumvent. Moreover, we have presented time and time again WHY/HOW the anti-adoption statements are inaccurate to this process....But so far, the response from those that disagree is to make the statement again. If the Hague being thrown out is a technicality HOW SO? Was there a typo that caused it to be thrown out??

As for "Who has the most to lose?" I guess anybody that is adopting, the birthmothers, the children, the foster families that take care of the children and anybody that is not receiving a grant or HR money.

Sorry. Here's content:
1) The Hague was declared unconstitutional because Guatemala was not a signee at its inception. With this logic, most of Guatemala's international agreements could be declared unconstitutional, in one fell swoop, should anyone decide to challenge them. The essential content of the Hague could still be locked in with the passage of implementing legislation. That's what I meant by technicality; sorry I wasn't clearer.

2) I'm really sorry I wasn't clearer: Of course eveyone has something precious to lose. I meant--and should have said--who has the most money to lose.

I still stand by my comments about keeping an open mind. This is a complex issue--far too complex for you to make the blanket claim that I disagree with your comments. Often I agree; but I do try to see things from all sides.

Rosa - I do apologize for making any assumption about your position or your intent. Furthermore, I THANK you for clarifying your opinion. At least, I can see where you are coming from whether or not I agree with you (on this issue).

I think the definition of technicality is going to be purely subjective in this context. To be honest, I am not concerned whether it is a technicality or not....I disagree with HOW the Hague would have been implemented and therefore, am happy that it was challenged and ruled unconstitutional. However, there are several things here in the US that have not necessarily been challenged, but they are unconstitutional (in my opinion)...I won't start a debate since it has nothing to do with Guatemala. The strength of a Constitution is whether it is upheld when challenged. If this technicality was unconstitutional and ignored, then either something is wrong with the Constitution OR it significantly weakens it. So, in my opinion, it is imperative to follow the Constitution (or change) it when enacting major international agreements.

If the resources were available to implement the Hague in a manner that is not intrusive or destructive to the birthmother and the children, I would probably support it.

As for who has the most money to lose? I know you are referring to the lawyers. But my point was they are NOT the ones that have the most to lose. I am not socialist (and I am not accusing you of being one either). However, I have worked extremely hard in my own profession and make a decent living. So, I do not subscribe to the notion that because lawyers will lose this income, they are automatically evil or corrupt.

I am NOT automatically against any reform. But what has been neglected by OUR politicians, the Human Rights organizations and the Guatemalan politicians is aftermath of the reform...ie: did it really help to reduce the chance of neglect in the system? If so, is it reasonable to the birthmothers, to the adopting parents, to the children...and yes, to the lawyers?

Furthermore, I would be THRILLED to see these same organizations WORK with the adoption community to understand the current process instead of making *FEEL GOOD* decisions that ultimately hurt the children and families of Guatemala.

Rosa
I tell you who has the most to lose. It is the children, the babies that are starving and dying from diseases. Why cant all of you get over yourself and realize this is not about YOU, US, or anyone else. It is about giving the Babies a Home forever. I think all of you need to look deep into your hearts and seek God. That will give you all the true answers you need.

Amen, Lanell!! AMEN!!!

Wow...the debate continues. :)

I personally think adoption reform does need to take place in Guatemala. I DO think the lawyers are making way too much money. Is it reasonable to pay $16,000 to a lawyer that only pays the foster mother $100 a month (and she has to use this money to buy diapers and formula). That is absurd (and while I am not religious I do think the lawyers need to seek God's heart if anyone does...they are the ones making money...and I am not a socialist either, but I don't believe in taking advantage of a situation.

Reform can include lawyers. Why can't PGN be the central authority, still allowing foster mothers that earn a salary set by the state? Why can’t there still be private lawyers in the process, paid at a government regulated fair wage?
Isn't it possible to regulate without ending a process? I don't understand the mutual exclusivity of this process.

I also believe that greed is what is causing such a problem in Guatemala. The following sounds reasonable:

a. Lawyers make $5,000 after expenses
b. Foster mothers paid by the adopting parents
c. The Guatemalan government collects a fee for their court costs

If all costs were stated up front, and it was all out in the open there would be much less name calling on both sides.

I am a potential adoptive parent, but I am also able to see the possibility of abuse of the current system. However, adoptions need to continue in order to meet the needs of the thousands of children that are currently suffering because of forces well beyond their control!

Mr. Harris, Rosa, and all others that want to see The Hague implemented, are you willing to discuss options that do not stop the process? Are you willing to stop using sensationalistic approaches (the bar code on the baby) to raise money for your organizations? Are you willing to concede that there are other views that may be as valid as your own? And please, stop referring to adoption as selling children. These children and their families deserve more respect than that. I mean, it can't be an easy choice to watch your child be taken from your arms. Really, think about the hurt caused to these humans each time you portray them as criminals. They have the same emotions as any of us, and deserve the most respect of all of us. For they have made the most difficult choice of a lifetime, and that choice was made in the best interest of THEIR child.

I'm not coming to put any big comment here. Much was said already. I just have two points:

1) Are you really sure that Mr. Bruce Harris himself has written that message here? I don't know why, I found it hard to believe.

2) Talking about The Hague Treaty. Surely for Guatemala the Treaty has been declared unconstitutional. I was personnally touched by this matter since I'm in Europe and most of the countries here have signed the Hague Treaty = adoption from Guatemala is closed. Please don't forget that Guatemala HAS NOT retrieved his signature from The Hague Treaty. It's crazy but true. I know that the highest % of guatemalan adoptions go to the States but still, all the children that are not coming to Europe are staying and dying or fininishing in an orphanages. I'm really concerned about this and wonder how this will finish one day.

Regards,

I am a social worker who has 10+ years of experience. Also, I have worked in Guatemala in the peace movement--not adoption work. I must say that Bruce Harris is one of our heros and the lack of respect for his commitment to Guatemalan children is astounding! You may not agree with him and you may be experiencing grief and anxiety about your own situation, but this discussion is so indicative of the oppressive attitudes of middle class Americans who are more concerned about their own needs and rights than the world around them! How would you feel if your child was stolen from you and placed for adoption--the evidence is clear that this has happened throughout the 36 year war and beyond. Justice must prevail--human rights must be honored--and a system must be built!