Kelly

Way off topic....it's Halloween time and perhaps 're-introducing' the anti-unicef fliers may be a good idea. I know I have mine out and ready to go.

Thanks for this wonderful site. My daughter has been home over 2 years and I went thru the first 'Hague mess' so all who are still going through these processes and hurdles are always in my prayers.

Sharon
Mom (to the love of my life) Natalie

If the First Lady is so concerned about the welfare of the babies/children, she should let them be adopted by the loving couples that are waiting for them. Does she not realize what she is doing to them emotionaly by having them wait for so long to be adopted. The welfare of the children/babies should come first not the money that they may get from outside organizations. Please let the babies/children go don't let this drag on for so long. You are dealing with human lives do you not care if you did you would not be slow in your processing of their adoptions............

What is an "anti-Unicef" flier and where do I get them?

What is an "anti-Unicef" flier and where do I get them?

Aside from the fact that it would add LOTS of time to the process of adopting from Guatemala (meaning, of course, that the babies would be considerably older when they come home), what’s in the suggested Protocol that’s objectionable to anybody but the lawyers that are making so much money under the current rules? Clearly it is in the best interests of a child to remain with family, providing that family can lovingly and adequately care for the child. Barring that, adoption by a Guatemalan family ensures that the child will grow up in his/her own national (though not necessarily ethnic) culture. The truth is that most Guatemalan families of modest means who are interested in building their families, do so with “informal” adoptions. Most all of those wealthy enough to go the other route are fair-skinned, and probably not interested in adopting a darker-skinned child (e.g. Guatemala's first lady, Wendy Berger, has a daughter who adopted from Romania.)

No, it is not "clearly in the best interests of the child" for the government to place the child into a family member's home when the mother chooses to relinquish her child for adoption. She may have good reason NOT to place the child with relatives. In the United States, women have the freedom and right to choose adoption for their children without the government forcing the children into family members' homes. Shouldn't every woman, regardless of her place of origin, have this same right? Goodness. Perhaps some people do not properly respect the ability of Guatemalan women to make difficult but wise choices "in the best interests" of their children.

K
Well said. Thank you.

In response to “k” and her/his post of October 13:

First of all, I must state for the record that my wife and I have profited from the current notarial system in Guatemala, inasmuch as we recently brought home a healthy and beautiful baby daughter. With any luck, we hope to have the opportunity to adopt from Guatemala again.

Secondly, while I concur with your observation about women in the United States, the brutal economic reality in Guatemala nourishes a decidedly different system that sometimes preys on the desperation of impoverished women who see relinquishment of their children for adoption as a way to help support themselves. Please do not misquote my earlier post, as I opined that “it is in the best interests of a child to remain with family, PROVIDING THAT FAMILY CAN LOVINGLY AND ADEQUATELY CARE FOR THE CHILD.” (emphasis added.) What constitutes loving and adequate care is open to interpretation, but as a veteran of more than 20 visits to Guatemala in the last 10 years --- and with a ton of Guatemalan in-laws, I am not about to try to impose my interpretation upon the Guatemalan people.

It is currently estimated that 1 of every 100 children born in Guatemala will be relinquished for adoption. If this were the case in the United States we would rightly consider it a national scandal. When we see and hear of so many Guatemalan women who have gotten pregnant two, three, or more times only to relinquish their children, can we really bury our heads in the sand and talk about “difficult but wise choices”?

Because it is largely a matter of supply and demand, Guatemala has become the first choice for many adoptive families wishing to build their families --- me and my family included. When we first explored adoption, we met on several occasions with the director of a large orphanage in Guatemala City, run by a community of Catholic sisters. So that we would understand what we were getting into, she told us the sad truth as to how long it would take to adopt a child from the facility. Like many others, we wanted a quick referral, a (relatively) short wait, and a healthy baby --- and the younger, the better. We eventually chose to work with a local agency that could provide us what we wanted. The current system in Guatemala provided for this, and we are very thankful. Not to be crude, but in essence they supplied our demand. (And, of course, it certainly didn’t hurt that our baby bears a strong resemblance to my lovely Guatemalan wife.)

But we are not so naïve as to ignore the fact that the adoption “industry” in Guatemala is highly profitable for certain parties, many of whom are motivated by less than altruistic reasons. Keep in mind that, again, I am referring primarily to relinquishment, rather than abandonment cases, when I say that there is a real need for reform in the current system. The DNA requirement was a very good first step in a series of needed reforms. I have read that the government of Guatemala is interested (officially, that is) in finding families for adoptable children. It is supposedly NOT interested in finding children for adoptive families, and there is a distinct difference in the two points of view.

Gregg - I'm using your comments as an "opening" to discussion and not as a "response" to you necessarily but to the situation.

My first contention is that adoption today is not the cause of social ills in Guatemala. Whether it is 1 out of 100 that are adopted outside of Guatemala...or 1 out of 100 who are subject to life-threatening poverty. How many children die of malnutritian? How many babies are left in dumpsters or abandoned in not so lovely places? Just listening to the stories from orphanages (and visiting some) who receive these children or from the missionaries who try to provide some relief, the numbers are staggering and the stories are heartbreaking. The desperation that pushes people to such extremes is certainly a social illness. Unfortunately, it is a social illness that is exposed by international adoptions, but can't be cured by them.

Yes, I think the desperation in Guatemala can encourage *some* to give up their children for something in return...albiet, I still think that the pregnancy in a large percentage of those cases was accidental (its not exactly socially acceptable to give your child in adoption and can cause these birthmothers a great deal of trouble!). For those who might be in it for attention (of feeling important or being taken care of) or financial gain, there is certainly the opening for accepting some compensation. But how do we address this without taking the decision completely away from the birthmother? How do we make sure that the proposals are really in the best interest of the child and not as a way to discourage the "demand" from foreigners? I would be angry if my own government took the choice away from me...While I am very close to my family, I know many circumstances where there would not be a "loving" choice for the child in the immediate or extended family. It would be hard to gauge without the input of the birthmother.

It appears to me that historically Hague compliant laws regarding adoption have been aimed to reduce the number of adoptions...not to solve the social ills that are exposed by adoption. If thousands of children are adopted outside of Guatemala, it is embarrassing. But neither side should consider adoption or restrictions on adoption a "cure" for the social ills of a country. Therein lies the downfall of many systems....in my opinion.

My concerns with any new proposal NO MATTER WHO is initiating it are as follows:
1) Is the wellbeing of the child. Hopefully, not compromised simply for stalling the process (or even trying to speed it up!)?
2) Is there adequate transparency and oversight for the proposed processes imposed? (Can we improve whats out there instead of throwing away the advantages of the curernt system?)
3) Is there adequate funding for the proposed process?
4) Is the proposed system about whats right for the child or what looks good on paper? Less adoptions does not equate to the children being provided for...
5) Will these children be treated with the dignity afforded to the upperclass in Guatemala? IE: Are their lives valued?
6) What kind of checks and balances can we put in place to make sure that the "power of corruption" issue doesn't simply shift back to the government? (HISTORY...folks!)

Unfortunately, my experience with the non-existent adoption system in Costa Rica has me a little skeptical about Hague compliant laws. Nobody looks at the underfunded PANI (the child welfare system in the richest Central American country)...The children are somewhat lost. While it was intended to give Costa Rican citizens "first dibs"....it has managed to keep children institutionalized indefinately. I don't think THAT was the intent of the law...but it certainly was the result of it.

Gregg, Thank you for your post. I have said similar things in smaller ways. I know personally that there are people who are in the "business" of adoption and couldn't care less about the children. I feel less alone, due to your post...I, too, value the Guatemalan culture and adopted a beautiful little girl from there. I want families to come together, for children to have loving homes...including outside of their country of origin. But the system down there has some serious flaws in it right now!!!

Perhaps you were lucky to adopt from Guatemala because your wife is from there. I do agree with you about the amount of money that the lawyers get for this procedure, but it is a fact of life if you want something so bad you don't care what their fees are you will give and be happy to do so. What kind of life does a child have when it is placed with a family member that can hardly support it self. If the government is so concerned about women giving up their babies for the little amount of money they receive, maybe they sould issue birth control pills to the women of their country and then they won't have an issue with this. But if they don't want to give the women the pill, because its a Catholic Country then try to educate them and give them the tools to be able to support them selves and their children. It seems to me that the money always filters to the top of the heap and nothing goes to the bottom and to my sorrow that is where the babies/children come from the bottom of the heap. So please let the children be adopted by the families that are waiting for them. The birth mother will have given the greatest gift of all to another couple that will love and cherish her baby and always be thankful to her for her unselfish love for her child. Please let the children/babies go..............

Can anyone tell me if the agency that processes the PGN has improved in recent months? Our family has been in the process for over 8 weeks and the waiting is a killer. Is there any way to speed up the process? The baby is with a foster family that seems to love her and she is well cared for, but she's reaching the age where fear of new people is a common developmental step which will make attachment and adjustment more difficult.

The last posting told of not enough staff to facilitate the PGN process. Has this been addressed?