Thank you Kelly, even though this is giving me a huge stomach ache!!

Thank you for all you do for us here!!

Sincerely,

Is this the end of adoptations in Guatemala?

BRUCE
YOU SPOKE OF HOW OUT OF 16 ADOPTOINS ONLY 2 GAVE CORRECT ADDRESSES. WHAT I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IS THAT, AT LEAST THEY WERE ABLE TO GET ANY INFO AT ALL EVEN HAVING THE MOTHERS NAME IS MORE THAN THEY GET IN MOST COUNTRIES. MY SISTER HAS ADOPTED 3 BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRLS FROM CHINA, WHERE SHE HAD TO WITNESS THE ORPHANAGES HER LITTLE GIRLS LIVED IN CRAMPED SPACES SOMETIMES SHARING CRIBS WITH 3 BABIES OR MORE FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES CAUSED BY THE HAGUE.GUATEMALA IS SO POPULAR BECAUSE 1)THE CHILDREN ARE BORN IN HOSPITALS 2)FOSTER CARE INSTEAD OF ORPHANAGES 3)YOU RECEIVE YOUR CHILD SO MUCH QUICKER WITHOUT THE EXTRA SCRUTINY AND TIME THE HAGUE IMPOSES,AND AS ANY ADOPTIVE PARENT KNOWS TIME IS A VERY BIG DEAL WHEN YOUVE TRIED EVERY METHOD KNOWN TO MAN TO PRODUCE YOUR OWN CHILDREN AND NOW YOU ARE CLOSER TO 40 THEN TO 30 AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO BE ABLE TO DO ALL THE THINGS YOU DREAM ABOUT DOING AS PARENTS.

SO I GUESS WHAT IAM TRYING TO SAY IS ALL YOU ARE DOING IS WASTING PRECIOUS TIME FOR A CHILD AND A PERSON WAITING TO BE A PARENT WHO WOULD GIVE ANYTHING,FOR A CHILD WHOM THEY LOVE WITH ALL THIER HEART FROM NOTHING BUT A MERE PICTURE. I KNOW THIS FIRST HAND BECAUSE AT FIRST SIGHT OF MY SON DYLAN I LOVED MORE THAN I EVER LOVED ANYTHING IN MY LIFE, AND MY WIFE SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. IF YOUVE NEVER BEEN IN THIS SITUATION YOU COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND THE PAIN OF KNOWING YOU CAN NEVER HAVE YOUR OWN CHILD NOR THE HAPPINESS THAT FIRST PICTURE BRINGS. SO THINK OF THE CHILDREN YOU ARE TRYING TO NEGLECT THIS KIND OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. BEFORE YOU WORRY ABOUT WHOSE MAKING THE MOST MONEY.

United States Embassy Guatemala City, Guatemala

Statement by Representatives David Camp
and Bill Delahunt During their Visit to Guatemala
February 5, 2004

Presione aquí para ver la Versión en Español

We would like to thank the officials and Congress members as well as the people of Guatemala for receiving us with such hospitality.

Our delegation is here to highlight the issue of adoptions. We have mutual interests in an open and transparent adoption process that is fair to all parties involved -- the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents. We look forward to discussing this issue with the Government of Guatemala and Congress in a constructive dialogue.

We know this is an issue of utmost importance to both governments and both peoples. The concept of family is dear to the Guatemalans and the Americans.

Our governments are working together to ensure that the best interests of children continues to be the top priority, and that the system is transparent, humane and orderly.

Joined by active representatives from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, we represent a body of 170 of our colleagues made up of both Senate and House members from both political parties. While we have professional differences on many issues, adoption is an issue on which we are unified.---

I´m on my second visit to see my son. I´ve had three rejections from Fernando de Paz, at the PGN. My baby is 12 months old. I´ve met others who have babies that are 20 months old or older & have been waiting since a few weeks after birth. This is hard on those waiting & the foster families. It´s very hard to watch people leaving with much younger children. I know there were amparos filed against PGN Director, but what is being done? Seems like the process has not gotten better. I feel so disheartened with seeing posts from people like Bruce, who pretend to care about these children. Bruce, I dare you to come & watch these children, who have bonded with foster families, leave with their forever families. This is not healthy for anyone. What can be done to make adoptions happen more timely. My son´s birth mother has already consented. The DNA was completed. She wants him to be adopted. Why the run-around. This system doesn´t value the children, the birth mother´s choice, the foster families, or the forever families waiting endlessly.
Janet

Janet - Anytime an adoption drags on and on, it is not good for the child (and obviously, not the parents). But I did want to mention a couple of things.

When a child has bonded strongly to the foster families, it should be reassuring. It means that they are *capable* of bonding to you! In many other countries, there is no foster care and the orphanages are unable to provide the necessary attention for these children. Too often, these children suffer from some kind of attachment disorder and even serious cases of RAD as early as 2 years old (and I am talking mainly about cases where the children need extensive psychiatric help). Guatemala's system of foster care and the *nurturing* provided by Guatemala's orphanages has nearly eliminated the instances of children with severe RAD.

So, while it would be better if the child could bond with their new parents earlier...it is a good sign when a child is VERY attached to their foster family.

One of my concerns has always been whether proposed laws would alter this by putting undue stress on the birthmothers, the orphanages and the children.

A note: To put things in perspective...there were a lot of cases that dragged out BEFORE the Hague. Yes, I think the number of families with older cases is higher now (and the occurrances are more frequent)....but it was not unheard of to have an extremely long case (for no apparent reason) PRE-HAGUE.

Regardless, my heart goes out to the long-time waiters.

Hi all,

For me, the Valladares' law enter into contradiction with the avowed spirit of the Hague Convention, that is, the defense of the best interest of children. I think of a child going through the entire process as stated by this law: months and months of uncertainty about the child future, problems with malnutrition, illnesses, etc. Let us imagine the negative consequences brought about by this scenario...How is the Valladares' law understanding the expression "the best interests of children?"

Jorge Rodríguez

HAS THIS LAW BEEN PASTED? IF SO, IS THIS THE END FOR GUATEMALA ADOPTIONS??

Kelly, don`t misunderstand my post. I`m frustrated with the wait, but very very grateful for my child`s foster family. He is healthy and on target developmentally. That is why I chose Guatemala over other countries, because of the foster system being much better than the orphanage option. Unfortunately, as a psychologist, I see the effects of RAD. I only hate that the PGN can create such hardship and not have to account to anyone. This is the system I wish could change, not the foster care. But the endless wait does make it hard on all parties. My heart goes out to all waiting & the foster families caring for the children. I wrote my original post after witnessing a heart wrenching goodbye yesterday.
Janet

Janet - Oh no, I did not mean to sound like I was scolding you. You are probably one of the few that understand the *good signs* in a heartwrenching goodbye. I just wanted to make sure that they were mentioned. Having talked to a few adoptive parents with children with severe RAD (limited understanding, I know), I felt the need to mention this.

However, seeing such a goodbye does remind you that these children will need more *home style* attachment therapy than a child coming home at 4 - 6 months of age. With this proposed law, I am very nervous that we will see more children that HAVE significant attachment issues.

Senseless stalls do not help...never have, never will.

I WAS NOT ABLE TO READ THIS NEW LAW.FOR SOME REASON I WAS UNABLE TO OPEN IT.COULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS NEW LAW.THANKS!!

If this law will stop the unethical behavior of the adoption attorneys who are getting rich then I am all for it. There are far too many people who are blind to the fact that US adoption agencies are making money hand over fist by arranging Guatemalan adoptions - and the guatemalan attorneys are even worse. They charge $25,000 to do an adoption. I would love to see what their profit margin is. I would guess, judging from the car and clothing our attorney had that she is living a bazillion times better than the majority of people. Guatemalan attorneys fought the Hague and will continue to fight any change to status quo not to preserve the rights of the child but to preserve their rich lifestyles and six figure incomes.

Your comment eludes me. Strange, I would think that a law was intended to help the children (which this does not). Why would you support a law *JUST* because it puts the lawyers' salary at what YOU think they ought to make?

Kelly,
In order to help the children, you first have to weed out the unethical attorneys. I know you and others don't want to hear that attorneys do the foul things that they do, but your inability to remove the blinders does not make the fact go away. WHY are Bruce Harris and UNICEF so positive that attorneys steal children? Because attorneys make TONS of money arranging adoptions. The more children they place the more money they make. It is pretty obvious to see the motivation to place as many children as possible.

If the attorneys want people to believe they truly have the best interests of the children, let them put their money where their mouths are and lower their fees to a reasonable level so that MORE people could afford to adopt. Wouldn't that help the children as well?

I think you need to actually read the law. I, apparently, am not the one with blinders. I would love to see more transparency in adoptions...but I do not make blanket statements about all the adoption attorneys.

As for Bruce Harris, I have never understood his reasoning except that he certainly does not have to worry about his income and he certainly has a history for anti-adoption propaganda (you can even trace several documentaries including The Organ Business...which was later denounced by DOS since there was absolutely no evidence....yet the fear did result in the death of inocent US tourists. I don't expect to understand THAT angelic motive either).

Your reasoning is illogical. Yes, lowering adoption fees would encourage more adoptions. But not in the context of this law...which is what I am against. I will be posting comments about the law soon. I hope that you will read them if you don't bother to read and analyze the law yourself.

Isn't it possible for us to oppose the Valladeres law, advocate for adoption, and oppose the outrageous attorney fees all at the same time? It seems as though everyone only wants to see black and white on either side.

Adoption is a very emotional issue. We all need to step back and take stock of what is important. That is helping the children.

I agree with Kelly on each point, but also with Adoptive Mom about attorney fees. I paid the equivalent of 1/3 of my yearly salary to my attorney (and I am classified as upper middle class in the USA). My attorney did over 50 adoptions last year. I am sorry, but that is a vulgar amount of money in the USA, but for Guatemala it is diabolical. Think of the number of children that could eat and recieve medical care with eaven half the profits.

Guatemalan adoptions will not leave the public scrutiny until something is done about the "business" side of it.

I would just like to point out a huge fallacy that some seem to be supoprting. Someone earning a good living does not make them unethical. The fact is lawyers are professionals, educated, and earn a good living no matter what type of law it is they practice. Does my six figure income make me unethical in what I do for a living?

I happen to envy the fact that those in the adoption profession get to earn a living doing something wonderful and meaningful.

The bad lawyers need to be weeded out. And this could be done through enforcement of current laws. It is also possibble through tools like the internet where families can research and opt not to work with the bad apples.

Once you have a centralized system you accomplish little more than centralizing corruption. Why is it somehow better if a government employee earns a large salary that has zero accountability to the adoptive family?

I wish all dollars could be removed from adoption. But that is not realistic no matter what system you have. I believe there ought not be "profits" in many industries -- medicine, education, public utilities, the penal system, etc etc etc. Really, money has no part in any service that is essential to the well being of society. But until I am suddenly granted the power to rule the universe from my utopian ideals, I'm going to take the pragmatic approach and not justify threatening children so that maybe someday there will be no bad lawyers in the process. To me, that is shameful.

Kevin,

I too made six figures last year. I guarantee you that I am not unethical. Yet, I did earn that amount of money in the USA, where the cost of living is quite a bit higher than in Guatemala.

I DO NOT think all Guatemalan lawyers are unethical. I do think making an ungodly amount of money while insisting that a young baby drinks milk instead of formula is a sin. That does happen, and happens often.

I am opposed to people becoming wealthy through the adoption process. The birth mothers are generally destitute and the lawyers become wealthy from the adoption of the children of these poor birthmothers. That is horrible.

I think the lawyers deserve to make a fair living, but I think the costs should be regulated by the government. And why shouldn't the government get some of the money? They desperately need it!

Again, everyone deserves to live comfortably. Lawyers, foster mothers, birth mothers, and the children. But no one should be becoming wealthy from the process.

And let's not kid ourselves, the birthmoms are not poor because they want to be poor. They are poor because of a society that limits upward mobilization. It happens in the USA, and is entrenched in Latin America.

Let's really help the children by backing a true reform of the process. Not the "reform" instituted by the March 5 stoppage, but we should be using our energy to come up with real solutions to a bad situation.

Doug & Everyone -

I'm wondering (and I say that carefully, as not to make a blanket statement of fact)....if those of us who have had good adoption experiences tend to question the amount LESS than those that have had a difficult time.

My child was on Enfamil, by the way. This was my lawyer's choice. I am also aware of several attorneys that are supporting children with medical conditions, abandonment cases not yet ready for referral, etc. I know of several cases where the children's foster care was paid months and months in advance of the referral or where the child had some major doctor bills. These were not extra expenses to the parents, they were expenses to the attorneys. I do not want to see these funds become unavailable.

I'll also make it clear...I did NOT see any signs that our attorney's family was living high off the hog. I cannot begrudge his family living as well as MY family (who probably makes less than Kevin or Doug;-). Yes, there are probably others that take advantage of the situation. I think transparency in the process WHICH IS what FOA and ADA support, would be the first step.

Interestingly enough, it is only my Latin American friends that live HERE in the US that understand that you cannot compare dollar to dollar. If you add up ALL the taxes (federal, local, state, property, corporate pass through) that we pay, we are paying well over 50% of our income towards taxes (and I bet someone will even argue that point though I can prove it). Another 10% of my income goes to health insurance...and it always amazes me to see someone post that a biological birth is free (considering the amount paid for pregnancy insurance). If ours is so drastic, shouldn't we wait to see their breakdown? Again, I am SURE it is different from attorney to attorney. But wouldn't that make a difference in which attorney or agency you chose?

With any new proposal, we need to evaluate the effects on EVERYONE in terms of Guatemala....NOT the US. It is not good enough to say "Well, I didn't know that would happen.." So, we have to be careful that any law is effective, fair yet does not put an undue burden on anyone. I don't want a law that makes the Human Rights people *feel good* but in practice hurts those it boasts to help.