Word Play, The Hague, Protocolo of Good Practices and effects on Guatemala Adoption

Today is a good day to talk about "word play". Yesterday, we broke the news of the Executive Order that was threatening adoptions. Then, DOS used the words "unfounded rumors" and has repeatedly used phrases like "would not halt adoptions". But with every entity whether it is DOS, ADA, Guatadopt, Agencies, Families or the Guatemalan Government...the meaning of a phrase can be deceiving and you should be careful how they are being interpreted.

"Halting Adoptions" - There are several programs around the world that TECHNICALLY open for international adoption. But the procedures, the stalls and the restrictions have "effectively" closed the programs to the US (IMO) because very few parents successfully adopt children there. DOS and the First Lady would say that "NO, adoptions would not been halted" from their perspective. Yet, many of these changes proposed in their Executive Orders and so called "Protocols of Adoption" would cause many of you to lose your referrals or indefinately stall your adoption because your children would no longer be eligible for immediate adoption. So, technically, adoptions have not halted per DOS....but they have broken the hearts of many families and threatened the welfare of the children in process. Significant stalls in the process would not even register on the State Department's radar since they are pressuring Guatemala to become Hague compliant.

As a personal example, we tried to adopt from Costa Rica in 2001. Clearly, DOS and the Costa Rican government would have responded that adoptions were technically open....but the restrictions blocked us from adopting two little girls. The Embassy in Costa Rica (and I am grateful for their candor) said "I don't think it will ever happen" and "you may be able to adopt older siblings through PANI but the political atmosphere will most likely stall even that adoption". Technically, adoptions were open...but the chance of us completing an adoption of these girls was slim to none. When the Hague was so poorly implemented in Costa Rica and in other countries, DOS did not pressure these countries to review their implementation and the children have suffered...there simply was not enough of an uproar for them to be "shamed" by the outcome.

So, if a new process prevents all but 40 adoptions per year from Guatemala, would a familiy who lost their referral feel that it had been halted? Why yes, I think they would. Would DOS or the First Lady's Office admit they were "halted"....I sincerely doubt it.

Onward: All the terms about the Hague, Protocol of Good Practices, Laws and Executive Orders....I'll try to give newbies the down and dirty...but this is just a very high-level introduction....

HAGUE
We could write a book about the Hague, so it might be hard to summarize here. The Hague is a Treaty and a portion of that Treaty is "intended" to eliminate child trafficking and unethical adoption practices. The intent is good, however, several countries have been unable to implement the treaty without harming the children. Unfortunately, many of these countries do not value these children as we do...and therefore, there simple goal is to appease the Hague without adequately providing for the children. While it is certainly possible to implement the Hague while protecting the children, it has not been historically very successful. In My opinion, governments have simply responded to pressure from outside sources (like the Hague committee, DOS or UNICEF) . That is my concern when we discuss the Hague or Hague compliant laws. You will notice that I tend to be rather pessimistic about this and Kevin may seem more optimistic. The Hague is like a set of standards...it is not a law, so to speak. So, we may talk about proposed laws that are "Hague Compliant" without really discussing the merits of the Hague. Instead we should focus on denouncing the side effects of the proposed law. The devil is in the detail, so to speak...

The Hague in Guatemala
There is also different perspectives about whether Guatemala is a Hague Country. According to DOS, Guatemala falls under the Hague. However, because of constitutional issues in Guatemala, they do not consider themselves Hague. In 2003, many parents suffered the obviously poor attempt to become Hague compliant. One thing was painfully obvious, Guatemala did not have the funding nor the resources to implement the Hague in the sloppily thrown together procedures they tried to enact. Since that time, UNICEF has been pressuring Guatemala and offering them bribes (in my opinion) to become Hague compliant. Several proposed laws influenced by UNICEF and Wendy Berger (the First Lady) have been proposed to Congress and have failed to pass. There have been no strings attached to the financial offerings of UNICEF requiring that it is spent only on the affected children, as far as I know. Furthermore, even if the funds were dedicated to providing adoption related services and shelter, it is not sufficient to handle long term services (services that were previously funded through adoptive parents but become a burden of the state). But the monetary donations are QUITE attractive when the government can use it on whatever they like during the last year of office!

Recently Proposed Laws unrelated to the recent Executive Order (Past-Tense)
Since 2002, there have been several proposed laws on the table in Guatemala. They have failed to pass since many of them were unconstitutional and the government could not implement them effectively. Some of the line items in these proposals have been aimed at punishing the adoption industry and the birth mothers (again, this is my opinion only). Examples of past line items in some of these proposals: Requiring the child live with the birthmother for an extended period of time before relinquishment. Those of us who have children, know that this makes it extremely difficult emotionally. But beyond that, the birth mother may not be able to take care of the child, they may lose their job, they may be exposing the child to abuse...etc, etc. Another example: Requring all children are in state custody (restricting private adoptions)...since the Government does not even have a child welfare system in place, how would you think that they would support and care for these children? As it is, the government relies on many private organizations to care for children...no compensation is given to these orphanages. These line items in the proposed laws are what we are concerned about....not the so called "intent" of the law. It is not easy to draft a law that is Hague compliant, is constitutional and is also in the best interest of the child. We need to fight to make sure the child or birth family is not the unrepresented/devalued entity in the equation. It is our value of every child that encompasses the US Adoptive Spirit...which is not always understood in other countries.

Executive Order vs. Laws vs. Hague
The Executive Order was based on a previously proposed law of Wendy Bergers. This law failed to pass Congress and she is not happy about it. The Executive Order was not merely a threat, it was narrowly avoided possibly when President Oscar Berger was reminded that enacting such a legislative order was a felony. But with millions of dollars at stake...to use however they see fit, it was quite tempting to do whatever it took to get the UNICEF/Wendy Berger law in place. I am sure that DOS realizes that their position is weakened by these failed attempts and the information we are exposing about it. If they could convince every family that they only have the children's best interest at heart...then they don't have to face a rebellion from adoptive families. That is why I believe they use terms like "unfounded rumor" which is intended to discredit what we publish. Technically, they are right in saying there was no threat to halting adoptions...as long as families are content with THEiR interpretation (ie: many families lose their referral but the "program" is open for all intensive purposes).

Ongoing: There is still a version of a proposed Law that is not child-friendly coming from the First Lady's Office. This is different from the Executive Order and we will discuss that more shortly. Don't assume that nothing is being done because it is not outlined publically. There has been numerous attempts by organizations to reach an agreement on a Hague compliant law. I am hopeful that whatever is decided does not hurt the children and is reasonable and fair.

FYI: We do have the Spanish versions of these proposals and the Executive Order....but they are only as good as the date at the top of the page. We are in the process of getting translations. This entry was somewhat thrown together to bring folks up to speed...so I apologize if it not perfectly worded...I hope it helps some of the newer folks understand the politics behind the scenes.

Additional Note:
I believe the EO is a dead issue now. It sounds like a failed power-play. So, it does not affect adoptions at this time. Even at this time, *I* would not hesitate to start an adoption....but then, my focus is being an advocate for a child....not a completed adoption. I can't answer what may happen in the future.

What I can tell you is that we can expect versions of UNICEF/Bergers' adoption ideas being proposed in new laws. DOS/UNICEF are exerted very heavy pressure on Guatemala and the attorneys...each with their own agenda. We will update you periodically with the versions that are presented.