Thanks Kevin. I read the article and as a proud parent to a Guatemalan boy, I was totally offended by it. It was very ill-researched and failed to acknowledge all the check-points, etc that go into the adoption process. I smell UNICEF all over it.

I just have to say that articles like this one make me furious. It shows how ignorant the author is in regards to Guatemala adoptions.
As a mom of 2 Guatemalan children I am appauled that the NYT would allow such a sterotypical article such as this one. It is no wonder that parents of Guatemalan children are bombared with crazy questions. It is sad that the public is only allowed one view point and just like this one most of the time it is incorrect. How about focusing on the positive side of adoptions for a change? I think that if you are a parent of an adopted child from Guatemala you need to express your feelings regarding this article to the NYT--if one man is allowed to speak and be heard like this--then all parents should be allowed to inform him of how wrong he is.

This article literally made me nauseous, as we just learned yesterday of our 2nd PGN previo - same reviewer, same issue questioning validity of birthmother's birth certificate. Agency is going "over-the-top" (their words) to have a judge/court in bmom's home region declare the birth certificate valid. Agency says this could take months. Does anyone have any experience with this same issue and have a clue what the timing might be? our baby is 6 months old this week, and we are losing hope of ever bringing him home.

Has anyone bothered to inform NYT of their information being wrong?? The public has to know the true story not the slanted version. I can't believe that anyone with 1/2 a brain could actually believe that a baby/child would be better off being left in a situation that they live in. What is wrong with this world and the people that run UNICEF, their not even functioning with a 1/2 a brain. PLEASE LETS NOT LET THIS GET OUT OF HAND, OR EVERYONE INVOLVED WILL LOSE MOST OF ALL THE BABIES/CHILDREN. Can't the attorneys in the US and Guatemala band together to put a stop to all of this mis-information???????

Our paperwork has been in and out of the PGN since January. Our son is now 13 months old and because of an issue with the birth mom's birth record we have been set back many months. We feel as if this will never come to an end, especially since the holiday's are nearing. Nobody can seem to give us any idea of the length of time that anything will take. VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hadyn, I am sorry to hear about the issue of your son's bm's birth certificate. We have had a similar problem...in brief: entered PGN, k/o for pre-approval and something minor, back in PGN (4/21), Case put into minor's section for investigation (sometime btwn reentry and early July), investigation completed (mid-late August), back in PGN(late Aug-early Sept), k/o again (~Oct 11).

Turns out the investigation was in part about the bm's birth certificate being legit. The investigation ended and said it was legit THEN we were k/o again for the same issue. The PGN attorney wants a new copy of the birth certificate anyway. GRRRR. Our agency says this could take 1-2 months then back to PGN. It is VERY frustrating. Our daughter turns one on Thanksgiving day...
Amy

I am so saddened to read this article and the misrepresentations it contains. As the mother of an almost 2 yr old daughter from Guatemala, it pains me to think she might read something of this sort when she's older and think we "bought" her from her birth mother....nothing could be farther from the truth! We went thru a stringent legal process that it seems only those of us who have been there understand! I wonder how many "anti-adoption" folks would change their mind if they were unable to have biological children of their own and had ANY true notion of what the adoption process REALLY entails!

Kevin,

You are right - its not ill-intentioned, but its also not unbiased coverage. The incident in Nahuala that Lacey talks about seems very unusual and not a representative way of introducing the public to adoption politics in Guatemala. The onus seems to be on the adoptive parents, rather than the government in either the United States or Guatemala.

I wrote a response, but I am sure it will get lost in the shuffle. Too bad more informed sources can not provide better mainstream coverage.

Thanks Kevin. I was very disheartened by the NYT article and it upset me to the point of tears. My husband & I are just about to go into PGN and will be first time parents to a baby boy in Guatemala. It disgusts me to read things like the country has become a "baby factory" for the US. It also seemed to trivialize the beautiful encounters parents have with seeing their babies for the first time at the Marriot. Thanks for pointing out the facts.

I am offended also, they should really know the suituation in Guatemala. Do they realize or even care about the children. I know in my case the sperm donor/ beater wanted my son's courageous wonderful birth mother to have an abortion. I hope to one day bring my son back to Guatemala to meet his birth mother who made a choice at giving him life. These ignorant people or animals we should say write these mean offensive things and think that there word is the only one that should be heard. I feel like calling a news program myself and let the world know how many people love these children and how many families have been brought together in celebration of love and life. This makes me sick. Maybe Oprah would have us on her show.
Proud parent of a loving little Angel.
Rita

There is so much misinformation or half-information in this article, I don't know where to start.
I do think we, as an adoption community, need to act as our children's and our families' advocates and send letters to the NYTimes regarding this lopsided article. As Melissa stated in her comment, articles such as this are what people are thinking about when they confront us with those awful baby-buying comments.
Susana Luarca, thank you for representing the adoption community. I'm sure you gave the reporter much more information than was quoted in the article, and I appreciate the effort.

Regarding the article written in the Sunday New York Times with respect to Guatemalan adoptions, I would like to offer my perspective. What is the difference between compensating a birth mother from the United States for "living expenses" as opposed to compensating a birth mother in a third world country? Does that mean we are selling our children in the U.S. too? Does it mean that these women are being financially coerced into putting their children up for adoption? Regardless, whoever gets compensated, be it a birth mother from the U.S. or a birth mother in Guatemala either has the right to rescind an adoption if they choose not to go through with it.

With respect to UNICEF, if they are so concerned with the state of affairs in Guatemala, why don't they take the $28 million they were going to "donate" to the President of Guatemala and put it to good use by offering family planning services and educational programs? Poverty begets poverty when there is nothing to break the cycle. Why doesn't UNICEF realize that by allowing Americans to adopt these children from Guatemala it might benefit the country's future? There will be less children living in the streets involved with gangs, children inhaling spray paint to get high due to their dire circumstances, children stealing from vagrants or the prostituting of young girls. Instead, these children will be raised in loving, stable and safe environments, have an opportunity to get an education, and if they choose when of age, be active in helping their fellow Guatemalans' futures.

If the laws in the United States governing domestic adoptions were not so risky, I am sure more Americans would opt for domestic adoption.

In a perfect world no child should ever be separated from its birth parents and be put up for adoption, but unfortunately UNICEF, this is not a perfect world.

Thank You for writing in our behalf. Your letter was factual and to the point. Lets hope that it gets noticed and perhaps put into print by the NYT. God Bless You and keep up the good work that you are doing for the Babies/Children of Guatemala.

I am also disheartened to hear the rhetoric which is meant to de-personalize the children and families involved in a Guatemala adoption. The audio interview was also conducted with Mr. Lacey which was rather offensive.

Bill (Biglist) posted these statistics from the CIA World Factbook. I think they speak volumes to what is really going on in Guatemala.

1 out of 100 children are adopted to US families.
5 will not make it to their 5th birthday
16 will be born with low birth weight
22 will never see the inside of a school
28 will never learn how to read and write
54 will grow up in extreme poverty and malnourished
74 will never make it to the 7th grade
84 will need to travel over an hour to reach a health care facility

I would also add....
0 receive government sponsored assistance
0 receive grants from UNICEF for education
0 will be benefit from Government adoption programs
A nearly unnoticeable fraction will be adopted domestically by middle and upperclass families. This will not change despite how many children are prevented from leaving the country.

The focus for several years has been to shame the Guatemalan government for the number of children leaving the country. So the changes proposed by adoption critics have been aimed primarily at limiting the number of adoptions of children who will leave the country not solving the statistics above! The primary reasons for birth mother's choosing an adoption plan are poverty related. So if poverty was more of a priority, then the adoption "market" would diminish. Its hard for me to believe that birth mothers are so cavalier with accepting money for their children when the shame and the consequences are so extreme in Guatemala. If it is happening, then it is sheer desperation.

During the attempted Hague implementation of 2003, adoptions came to a grinding halt. The government was not accountable to the children's welfare...Thousands of cases were delayed casually for no decernable reason. It was not in an effort to improve or crack down on unethical activity; it was CLEARLY to STALL adoptions. Workable reform recognizes the child's welfare in the process...and this has not been addressed in current nor previous proposals supported by so called Human Rights organizations like UNICEF.

The use of offensive wording like "Baby Factory" is typical lingo used by organizations like UNICEF, press organizations and government organizations to de-personalize each child and the circumstances surrounding their adoption (who remembers Bruce Harris and the baby with the barcode?). It is unnecessary and degrading. I will go a step further and say that it is borderline racist...Why? Because, folks that use this terminology to describe children have not acknowledged their rights as human beings. Adoptive parents do not view their children as exports from Guatemala...they are human beings that need to be fed, loved and cared for. Furthermore, several large "human rights" organizations believe that a child is better off dying in their country than being adopted into a loving home. I wonder how many of the poor would agree...(Yes, I recently saw a commercial which insinuated this on none-other than Cartoon Network...a station that my daughter USED to watch).

The "Hague" does not address the welfare of the child. It does not mandate that a child is given a family nor whether the child is fed and taken care of. Those little facts are swept under the rug once restrictions keep the children from leaving the country. It neglects the birthmother's opinion for the child's best interest...and it does not condemn prolonged institutionalization which is clearly damaging to children and their chances of growing up in loving families.

Adoptive Parents -
The last sentence of Mr. Lacey's article read: “I hope she has a nice family and lives a happy life,” said the 17-year-old mother, who would not give her name. Fidgeting as she spoke, she said she hoped that her daughter, Antonietta, would return one day to visit her and that the adoptive parents would keep the newborn’s name.
Both prospects, those involved in the process say, are unlikely."
What about the FIRST wish (a nice family and lives a happy life). I couldn't resolve if the last sentence was ignoring this wish or if he was intentionally insinuating that our children would not be happy. Having just completed a calendar with over 350 smiling children, I would speculate that a large percentage of our children are VERY happy with the normal ups and downs of any child living in the states (and no way to compare what they might have felt if they had stayed in Guatemala...and survived).
Furthermore, many, many adoptive families I have spoken to have:
1 - Take their children back to Guatemala to see the country of their birth
2 - Send periodic updates of their children to foster families and attorneys with the hopes that the birthmother may be reassured that her child is thriving.
3 - Educate their children in the culture of Guatemala.
4 - Seek special Spanish lessons for their children and family.
5 - Sponsor other children/families in Guatemala....a long term commitment.
6 - Reserve money for charities in Guatemala
7 - Participate on mission trips BACK to Guatemala

But as mentioned before, happy endings do not make news....Unfortunately, our children will continue to be bombarded with a new type of discrimination that is propogated by the very people who say they advocate for them...

Oh, Kelly. You couldn't have said that any better. You echo my thoughts in so many ways. I have been on the Big List for years and am active in other Guatemala and adoption related groups. Many people say its the adoptive parents who need to be the voice, and I have often wondered this -

If we challenged every family that adopts a Guatemalan child to give back something - either as a family or as a part of a group - to the children and country of Guatemala, wouldn't that speak volumes as to not only our intentions as adoptive parents but to our concern for the poverty and other issues in the birth country of our children? I know we are out there. I spent my vacation this summer with my son and other families with "Returning to Guatemala", my son and I and other families support children through Child International, others are a part of stove projects, there is Moms on a Mission, Teens on a Mission - I could go on and on.

I guess my point is this. If even more families became involved with giving back to the country and maybe if we had a central point(s) who kept track of this, could we have a louder voice in part of this debate??

All of this rhetoric makes me very sad, but it's nothing compared to what those who live in poverty must feel.

I just sent the below letter to Mr Lacy at the New York Times. Much like the rest of you I cannot believe "again" how the press tends to slant things, in regards to Guatemalan adoption, namely from the "negative" side of the house. If the press is going to cover this issue,they need to make the public also aware of the positive sides too! For what it is worth, here's what I wrote (sorry for the length):

- Mr Lacey,

OK. Just as some other reporters have done, you've written an article on Guatemalan adoption that discusses it predominantly from the “negative” side of the house. Let me ask you a question, “Are you for a "fair and balanced" press?” If so, then you and other reporters should take the opportunity to sit down and talk with the numerous families and children who have been adopted from Guatemala. I’m not talking about chatting with the families who are currently staying at the Guatemala City Marriott, but those who are here in the US or in other nations around the globe. Why not get insights from adopted Guatemalan children who are now elementary, middle, high school or college students? Now that would truly be an interesting and insightful article!

I think the biggest offense that I take with your article is stating that Guatemala is a "baby farm." So basically you are stating that I and other families chose our sons and daughters like we would choose a head of cabbage or an ear of corn out of a garden? You are stating that these children are just some kind of commodity? Why don't you come over for dinner some night, to my home in DC, and cry with my wife and I as we look at pictures of our beautiful daughter and learn that our case has experienced yet another foolish setback due to a Guatemalan bureaucracy that seems to care more about "their system" then the welfare of the children! You talk about families being emotionally involved and you are correct! Why? Because we are talking about a human being, a child, and not some vegetable! Oh and do you have the guts to ask UNICEF if it is really better for a child to "maintain their culture and stay in their home country" even if the child is sitting in an orphanage somewhere or will die due to malnutrition or other needs? If UNICEF wants to halt international adoption and make children remain in their birth countries then why don’t they convince the UN to fund programs to care for less fortunate birth mothers and children around the world? Further more, if a program like this was implemented why don't you, the press, do a follow-up story a few years later and see if the program is a success or a failure and whether or not international adoption was the right way to go!

The bottom-line is this Mr Lacey, PLEASE get all the facts before you do a story…from both sides of the house! Oh and as a military officer who is going through an adoption from Guatemala and still having to remain focused on the Global War on Terrorism, the war in Iraq and other global hotspots, I really do not need for you and other reporters to add onto the million other things that I and other adoptive military families have to worry about before we go to sleep at night. Please feel free to e-mail me if you would like to discuss further, especially from an adopting parent’s perspective.

All the comments and information and feelings that have been sent in here are so true. However, we are all "preaching to the choir," I think we should ALL take our letters and send them TO THE NY TIMES and demand they be printed in the editorial section of the paper. Since I read the article over the Internet at newyorktimes. com, I assume we could send our letters to them that way. Let's be ACTIVE here!!!!

And I think those who know most about the bad side of UNICEF (which I don't know to quote) would do us all a huge favor by explaining this in an editorial to the Times. Most people look at me like I am lying when I say that UNICEF is the bad guy about children and has a racial purity agenda.

(Just as a side, the Seattle Times had a story about Guatemalan adoptions about a month ago and acused us of "taking the children" and not even helping their birth mothers by giving them any money!! Honestly, you can't have it both ways - we're damned if we give money to help the birth mother and damned if we don't.)Please lets all write!!!

I don't know if your aware of this but someone on yahoo board mentioned that she emailed the author of the article by clicking on his name. I'm sure that his email box will be flooded with letters setting him straight.

I read the article with great interest. The author hadn’t done much research – in the radio interview he, Marc Lacey, said that no one really knows the fate of the adoptees. I was very surprised by this since there have been many studies of adoptive outcomes (maybe not Guatemalan kids in particular).

Adoption does involve parties with vastly different resources (in education, institutional support, and money). The party that is most disadvantaged is the Guatemalan birth family and as such they need protection. As the mother of a five-year-old Guatemalan girl that has been with us only three months, I shudder to think that her birth mom could have been coerced. However, a couple of recent conversations make me aware that it isn’t uncommon for money to change hands. In one case a birth mom took her child back after she found out another birth mom “got more money”. In another case a prospective adoptive mom was told that the type of child she desired would be found for her within days by the “finders”. Cases like this, I hope, are the exceptions but I wish there was something that we could do to help protect and strengthen the birth families (especially since social services in Guat. are so lacking). We shouldn’t equate poverty, alone, with the inability to be a good parent. I feel we need to acknowledge the inequality of the parties involved in adoption – to ignore it would greatly disrespect the birth families of our kids, most of whom, under different circumstances would not have chosen relinquishment.

I read that article with horror. this so called journalist is completly unprofessional and inaccurate. I could write a book in response to her drival.
The birth mother has 5 opportunities during the course of the adoption process to change her mind up to the very last minute. There may be some sleazy people in the adoption arena, however they exist on every level in the world. This does not mean that innocent children should suffer. In a perfect world adoptions would be unnecesary. But we don't live in perfect.
I have a great deal of sympathy for any mother who must give up her child because of poverty, rape etc. I am a parent of an adopted Guatemalan child I honor the birth mother by giving my/her child a chance at a life that may someday give back to her and his culture.
To write such an article which may have terrible consequences for the children is stupid irresponsible and loathsome.

I am no longer going to read the NYT without wondering if anything they say is based on truth. This article makes me sad. The NYT has fallen far and low.
I feel sorry for this misguided writer. The pen is indeed mightier then the sword! Your pen has caused enormous damage.

People who adopt go through a very rigerous process , they are special people and they are not naive, no more/or less then anyone having a bio baby. They are often very good parents because they have had to think and declare thier intentions to parent and prove themselves in ways that no bio parent would have to.

I would get involved send me some information,I would go on mission trips to Guatemala. Thanks Tonja

I wrote a letter too. Grrr.
I have heard that Susana L. was interviewed, and has written a reply to Mr. Leach. Susana, are you on this list? Would you share your reply?
thanks,
Sue

I too was appalled and offended as I drank my orange juice on Sunday morning and was greeted by the front page article in the Sunday New York TImes on the current state of Guatemalan adoptions. This less than journalistic attempt paints a very slanted vision filled with erroneous facts and tidbits of rumors that have long plagued international adoptions. This article perpetuates this warped, one-sided rumor-milled argument. Was there really a need to publish the story on hair-chopping Mayans!?! Istead of portraying birthmothers making a choice and an adoption plan, they chose to portray a 12 year-old who says her father was paid so she had to give up her baby. If so, wouldn't this case be a good candidate to be stuck in the Minors Sction of PGN forever? Needless to say, numerous emails and phone calls were made to my home from caring friends wanting to know if we have read the story. Yesterday, in a store buying clothes for our baby, a curious person wanted to know "how we got such a beautiful baby" and "if we read the NYTimes on Sunday", also, when we went to get our electronic fingerprints done for our BCI check for our second child, the person administrating the process asked us how much we paid for the baby and how much we paid the mother. Of course, I gave everyone a crash course on the stringent process, from DNA to PGN. Articles like this only perpetuate the misinformation that so many people have regarding Guatemalan adoptions. It does a disservice to not only all the caring families, but to the birthfamilies who have made this decision, the foster families and especially to the children of Guatemala. I am in the process of writing a letter to the editor of the NYTimes and am stressing an apology. Including a brief synopsis of our own adoption journey, which includes the reason for our family choosing to adopt in Guatemala, due to being Latina and sharing cultural ties, language and food. We only speak Spanish at home. Growing up as a child, we only spoke Spanish at home and English is my second language. I too was born in a Latin country, so I know how important it is to maintain ties to your birth country. We are going on our upteenth trip to Guatemala to spend Christmas with our adopted son and his biolgical sister at their hogar, and her case should be out of PGN in January 07. Our agency and the hogar constantly keep in touch, so it is one big extended family. I have sent them pictures of our son and his life here in America to show his birth family. The University Medical School, where we teach, does a bi-yearly collection of medical supplies for Guatemalan orphanages, our local high school collects baby clothes for numerous orphanages, I am buying over 100 hand-made artifacts for this summer's culture camp, where over 100 adopted Guatemalan children attend during the summer to learn about their Guatemalan culture. You get the picture. I think it is also important to relate Unicef's actions in all of this, and their lack of in-action and involvement in children's welfare after adoptions cease, as is the case in Romania. I strongly encourage all of you to write to the editor, if just a few words to let him know of your feelings and the erroneous information that such a prestigious newspaper has published. Marie

Kelly, would you object to me sending to NYT the message you gave us in regards to the
CIA WORLD FACT BOOK. I think it speaks volumes and would let the people of the world know what is really going on. It might help the parents that are trying to adopt and the birth mothers also. There are so many adoptive parents that are now in PGN that are being thrown out for no apparent reasons, maybe for a word miss spelled or some other reason that is not really relevant to the adoption process. If these so called reviewers of the adoption papers worked in the US, they would be fired. It seems that they don't care who or how they work and how long it takes for them to complete the process. There shoud be a time limit on the amount of time they hold on to the paper work. I am sorry if I sound as if I am bashing the system, but it makes me so sad to hear how little they think of their babies/children and how they live..............

I actually don't think this column is as horrible as many do. I certainly don't agree with the overall tone. And I think the author didn't know the actual process well enough.

But on the other hand I have to say that he took the time to interview multiple sources. We can't expect someone from the NYT to interview both Susana and UNICEF and end up writing something that is completely from one of their perspectives.

This was one of the few articles that actually covered why birthmothers keep adoptions a secret. This is key in debating the Hague because it removes some their rights to privacy.

Nowhere did the article make claims about organ harvesting or kidnappings - something that commonly does occur.

The events that happened in the countryside did happen and are I think fair to cover as part of the current environment.

Once again, I have issues with it, I've posted my letter to the editor. I think more information is needed but really a story on Guat adoptions that really covers what needs to be discussed would need to be a 10 part series. But I also think that this article is much better than ones from the past.

Just my dos quetzles,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

After reading this article for about the 100th time, I'm still just mostly sad. When a so-called legitimate news source portrays adoptive parents as being so blinded by the pain of their infertility that they can't see the truth, it's no wonder the general population believes these articles. By the time most of us bring our children home, we've already developed a pretty thick skin. I'm a big girl, and I can take it. What makes me sad is that my daughters will have to grow up defending us, their birthfamiles and the system that brought us together from inaccurate articles such as this.

I agree with Kevin. It was neither a bad article, nor a good one. But it did lack important, critical information for the general public to know, along with inaccurate information that just perpetuates the inaccuracies of Guatemalan adoptions, which in turn, only strenghtens the position of proponents of those seeking to halt international adoptions.
Marie

Well, my comments to him went something like this: " ... it's insulting to me for people to say that I should have stayed in my country of origin and been neglected, starved, and mistreated just because the woman who gave birth to me was unfortunately unable to take care of me. It's just a shame. Because as a 30-year-old educated, successful professional, it's not a good feeling to have Americans like you or those from UNICEF say that I should have "stayed where I came from", regardless of whether I lived or died. That's what your article really says."

It's really as simple as that for me. I'm sure that money does exchange hands down there. But the bottom line is that I truly believe that I'd be dead had my parents not adopted me. And somehow I just can't support individuals and/or organizations that think that's okay, or who are willing to take that kind of chance with all of these kids who do not have homes.

Mr. Lacey is an excellent writer and paints a powerful emotional picture which is, unfortunately, anti-Guatemalan adoption. As a contrast to the story he chose to end the article with, I sent him an e-mail informing him that my husband and I did indeed keep the name our son's birth mother had chosen for him and are planning our 3rd trip back to Guatemala.

I also offered to travel to New York at his convenience to meet with him to discuss points of view that differ from those of UNICEF or the Guatemalan officials he interviewed. I ended my e-mail by inviting him to come to our home, meet our child and view the videos we have made of our family's adoption journey.

I wonder if I will hear back from him . . . or if a tale about a happy family formed by adoption is simply not front page news . . .

Anne Cralle

I think that dancingmyrtle has the most to say on this issue. She knows what she is talking about because she is what the process is all about - families, raising happy and successful and healthy world citizens. Thank you dear one, for speaking out for all the little children who are too young to speak out and be heard!!

As to being "blinded by infertility" - our daughter and son-in-law chose this way to have a family over birthing a baby, not because they were infertile, but because they wanted to give a home and love to a child who would have been at such high risk. And because they believe that our entire family is better from the lessons we are learning about diversity, social justice, a new culture - and love not blinded by color. Our wee Thomas is a gift in ways our biological grandchildren can never be - he is teaching our hearts lessons from our faith in goodness and love and and change and that we are all the same!!!

My husand and I are just beginning the adoption process and this article by the NYT was very disturbing and prompted me to surf the net at which time I feel fortunate to have found this site as it is interesting to understand the experience and insight of others.
I see that a few have had challenges with the process and was wondering, from those of you who are more "in the know", if you will, if you also read the article, "Rules Set to Change on Foreign Adoptions", in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, November 2? My husband and I were, and still are, excited about the opportunity to welcome a child in to our family and are saddened to hear that a Guatamalan child may not be a consideration based on the Hague regulations, etc.
I am very interrested to get any of your insight and/or recommendations as we begin to move forward in the process. We are currently partnering with the Datz Foundation, in Vienna, Virginia, and I certainly have a lot of questions to ask them based on the recent articles as well as some of your experiences.
Thank you to the webmasters for taking the time to put such a wonderful site of communication on line for those of us who are researching this opportunity as well as for those of you who have are in the process as well as those who have had the priviledge of welcoming a new daughter or son in to your family and home.

Did anybody notice that out of the 5 letters to the editor, 2 out of the 3 that supported the writer were WELL OVER 150 words? Might just be really petty and stupid of me to notice but I bet there were a lot of letters from parents in disagreement who wrote over 150 words but we're not seeing those letters . . . .

The article upset my husband and I as well. We have experienced the rigors of both international and domestic adoption and I can state with complete confidence that there were many times during our domestic adoption when we questioned the ethics of those involved. When my husband and I chose Guatemala we did not do it because it was a "baby factory" we chose Guat because we love the culture and wanted desperately to give a child there a home. We were shocked and devestated on our recent trip at the level of poverty and felt even more confident in our decision. We plan on honoring his birth mother throughout his youth and hope to visit Guatemala when he is old enough. I have made it my personal mission to inform each person that I meet about international adoption and the joys that are found in forming a family. Yes, this is a difficult and exhausting process, but it just makes it sweeter in the end. I thank Guatadopt for keeping us informed and engerized. We, the adoption community have loud voices and I am going to speculate that we also have thicker skin than most, so we must defend the children that we fight for and love!

Lee Anne Clark
Proud mom of my Guatemalan son, Joey

Does it seem to anyone else that we (parents of adopted Guatemalan children) have to 'defend' ourselves on what seems to be a regular basis? Do parents of other internationally adopted children have to do this also or am I just more sensative to my own childs country of origin?
Does the adoption system just
work so much differently in Guatemla than anywhere else that it lends itself to scrutiny? Just wondering out loud.

Sharon
Proud Mom to the amazing 3 year old Natalie who is proud of her heritage and lets everyone know!

This is kind of wierd!!! I got a call last night from a girl from the New York Times. She said they would be in my area this weekend( Virginia)and asked if I would be interested in receiving the NYT paper. I said NO!!!!!!!!!! The girl said can I ask why not. I said because I was unhappy with the article wirtten about Guatemalan adoptions. I think it was one-sided and they needed to report the other side of the story. I hope you tell the editor I am very unhappy and I can't support your newspaper. She said O.K, I'm sorry, and have a nice night!!! I wonder if it will get back. After I got off the phone, I realized I should have asked her how could I get in touch with the person who wrote the article, so he could get the adoptive parents side of the story.But I can't ever think of anything at the time. I just hope that's gets back too him!!! Lisa B.

Marc Lacey lives in Mexico City. His phone number is (removed to prevent harrasmant). Fax: (+52) 5553-0306.
His email is : lacey@nytimes.com

Susana Luarca

I was just wondering if this site is still functional? There hasn’t been a post in a few days…

It was refreshing reading all of your responses to the NY Times article. I was really looking for another side to this story. I am also really upset when people generalize and call Guatemala a ‘baby factory.’ But it also seems clear to me that there are many opportunities for corruption and for people without ethics to take advantage and make a profit on children in Guatemala if they so choose. This is not to say that every child that comes from Guatemala will be one who has been abducted or taken in some other unethical manner, however, there must be cases such as these that exist. For example, Guatemala is one of the only countries that require a DNA test to be administered to the mother and child precisely because there were cases where a woman claiming to be a child’s mother would put them up for adoption, but when tested it would be found that the woman was not the biological mother of the child. This seems suspicious to me. I have heard stories about how certain adoption agencies have been closed down because of unethical practices with regard to adoption from Guatemala. I want to know exactly why and how Guatemala has been shrouded in all of this negative media. Is there perhaps some truth to all of this, but it has simply been blown out of proportion? What happens in private adoptions? Is there a line that we have to draw here with regard to the ethics of adoption? In other words – it is true that many of these children are much better off being adopted into loving homes in the US, but with all the emotions that are involved in adopting a child, how closely should we look at each child’s background? Is it ok to overlook that one child who would have had a loving mother in Guatemala had her birth mother not been pressured or even threatened into giving up her child for adoption just because that child has a different kind of happiness here in the US?
I think that there are many complexities to this issue. I do not doubt that children adopted from Guatemala are living in beautiful, loving homes and are very happy and I support the institution of adoption 100% - in fact I think it is one of the most loving things a couple can do – but is there something that needs to be done in Guatemala? Where did this baby factory image come from and how can we put a stop to it? What about the Hague Convention – what it in store for Guatemala? I would hate to see them halt Guatemalan adoptions because of negative media and a bad rep because then what will happen to all of those children who really do need a loving home? So what are the issues/topics that really need to be discussed here in defending Guatemala?
As you can all probably see – I have a lot of thoughts on this subject and I’d really like some answers. I would appreciate anyone’s input.

-Hoping for answers.

I e-mailed the Marc guy also... told him to go somewhere else to grind his ax. Interestly, I googled the jerk who wrote the letter to the editor about what monsters we are. Here is his contact info. in case you feel you need to defend yourself. If you google him.. you will notice that he shoots his mouth off quite frequently.
Jack E Gordon (personal information removed to prevent harrasment)

While I agree we should fervently defend our families and educate about international adoption, I simply can't agree with posting personal phone numbers online so we can start a harassment campaign. It won't do any good to harass Marc Lacey or the authors of letters to the editor we may disagree with. In fact, it makes us look like a bunch of thugs who WOULD go out and bully our way through an adoption. Let's not get this started. Write letters to newspapers, or to public figures that publish their contact information, by all means. But lets not condone or to condone harassment.
Kelly, Kevin, and others at guatadopt.com: Should you really be allowing such posts?