By Susana Luarca, attorney at Law, Guatemala City.
Marc Lacey, who works for the New York Times, called me a couple of weeks ago, to talk about adoptions in Guatemala. He said that "everybody told him that he must talk to Susana Luarca". I have a soft spot for the New York Times, from the year that I lived in the Big Apple and read it every day, so - against my better judgment - I agreed and talked to him..
While talking to Marc, I could feel that something did not sound right about him, so I asked him if he was one of those journalists that come with an already written article, just looking for names to fill in the blanks. He assured me that he was "a serious journalist, of a serious newspaper". I almost believed him. It helped that he told me that he and his wife adopted their son in Kenya. From one adoptive parent to another, we talked over the phone for a long time. Marc asked me about the money that the birthmothers get for giving away their children. I told him that the people who oppose adoptions, tell the birth mothers that their children will be used for organ harvesting, to replace the organs of sick children of the adoptive parents, and by the same token, the adoptive parents are told that the birth mothers of their children sold them away, discrediting with those lies, the brave women who instead of aborting or abandoning their children, have the courage to make an adoption plan for them, and belittling the parents who adopt someone else’s child, to love him as their own flesh and blood. Marc insisted that money was the key factor in the relinquishments. I invited him to go to any street in Guatemala to look out for poor women with children and to offer them what he considered an attractive amount for their children, and see how many of them would accept. I am sure that even if he did, not a single mother would accept, because there is no amount of money that would make a woman * relinquish her child. Definitely, money is not the deciding factor. To say that all women sell their children into adoption, because Guatemala is a poor country, is the same as to say that all women in Guatemala get married to find someone to support them. Could be true in some cases, but it is certainly not the rule and should not be used as an argument to malign adoptions, because it stigmatizes all adopted children, which is totally unfair.
I told Marc that even though not everybody is entitled to raise a child, every child is entitled to be raised by a family, and that Guatemalans usually do not adopt, so it is a blessing that the Americans open their hearts and their homes to our children. Marc kept talking about the cost of an adoption. I told him that a successful adoption costs no more than a year of in vitro fertilization, and it is possible that in vitro may not produce the desired baby. I went on to say that the lawyers in Guatemala only collect if the adoption is successful, that if the mother changes her mind or the child dies, the lawyer gives the grieving family another child, and the lawyers take the losses and even pay the hospital bill or the funeral, if that is the case. In Guatemala, adoption professionals do not receive any help from the government, even though they provide the homes, the food, the health care and the daily care that keeps thousands of children sheltered, healthy and off the streets, regardless of the outcome or the duration of the adoption process. I invited Marc to visit an orphanage in zone ten, not far away from the American Embassy.
Some days later, Marc called me again, asking for an appointment. We met at my office, where we talked at length. I showed him an adoption process file, and all the documents that must be submitted to the American embassy to get DNA test authorization and if the result is positive, the visa pre approval document the consulate issues for the adoptive child. Marc was very impressed with the amount of paperwork needed for an adoption. I showed him the numerous times that the birthmother has to sign away her child during a period of some months and the groundless objections of the office of the State that has to give its approval to the adoption.
We also discussed at length the Hague Convention for Inter country adoptions. I informed Marc that Guatemala’s adoptions came to a halt during six months from March 2003 to September of the same year, until the Constitutional Court upheld the challenges against the approval by Congress and the accession by the President to such treaty. Without those challenges none of the children placed for adoption after March 5, 2003 would have been adopted. And many more would have died. It is not true – as Marc points out in his article - that “the Constitutional Court ruled definitely this year that the country must abide by it.” What is true is the Constitutional Court ruled that the Court cannot order the President to withdraw from or to denounce the Hague Convention, but internally, the judgment that ruled unconstitutional the approval by Congress is still valid and therefore, the Hague Convention cannot be enforced in Guatemala.
Now that the United States prepares to ratify the Hague Convention and have warned Guatemala that unless the laws of adoption comply with such treaty, it places our country at a crossroad. The adoption professionals and adoption advocates of Guatemala have expressed our desire to comply with the Hague Convention, to avoid compromising the lives of the thousands of children that if not adopted, will certainly face a very somber destiny. The arbitrary and abusive interpretation of the Hague Convention by the bureaucrats in charge of adoptions, has closed single handedly adoptions all over Latin American. We do not want that to happen in Guatemala. We trust that our legislators will find a way to take the good of the Hague Convention and the good of our legal system and merge it into an adoption law that would allow Guatemalan children to be adopted, by people who want to raise them with love and happiness.
After talking for a while at my office, Marc Lacey accepted to visit the orphanage around the corner of my office. He said he was very impressed with the orphanage. But I could not believe my ears when he asked me why the children were not moved to a less valuable property in the outskirts of the city, instead of having them in a house that should be very expensive. I told him that the generosity of many people is what made that house possible and that it is for the children, not for any other use. Its location is very convenient, because there are many doctors near by, also labs to run tests, and it is easy for the caregivers and other workers to go there. I mentioned to Marc that the children from 4 to 7 years old will receive at the orphanage, because of its convenient location, a Berlitz/Sesame Street English course, to ease their transition to their new families. Marc told me that the Berlitz method is the most expensive language teaching method in the world and for that reason, the orphanage should hire a regular English teacher familiar with the Berlitz method, and that it would save a lot of money. The impression it gave me is that he meant "why bother giving those adopted children the very best, when you can give them less.". I did not like that.
Today I read the article that Marc Lacey wrote and my worst fears were confirmed. He did not understand many things, or chose not to, like the process of adoption. If the adoptive parents do not need to be in Guatemala during the whole process, it is because a lawyer acts on their behalf, not because the system is less reliable or "handled in one visit" . Josefina Arellano is not the person in charge of the government department that signs off on all adoptions. She is instead, in charge of the office of the government that deals with abused, mistreated and abandoned children. Because of her personal perception that adoption is a "sale of the children" by the lawyers, not by the mothers, she and the lawyers of her section, make it as difficult as possible for children to be ruled abandoned by the courts, because they do not want those children to be adopted. Yesterday, a judge of minors told me that every time that she rules a child abandoned and orders that the child be placed for adoption to restore his right to have a family, Arellano files an appeal, demanding that the ruling be amended, stating that the child should be adopted "by a Guatemalan family", - knowing very well that it will not happen - "so the child would not be sold into foreign adoption". Because of people like Arellano, the new Adoption Law should be very clear and preclude the clouded perception of a bureaucrat, from causing much more harm than the proposed adoption professional abuses that it tries to stop.
According to the Guatemalan Constitution, it is the obligation of the State, to support orphans and abandoned children, and to provide them with health care, education, food, dress and home. That provision is ignored by every government, as well as the very existence of the needy children. They only are remembered in connection with adoption and "all the money that those who handle adoptions make". Nobody is stopping the government or anyone else from either supporting the children, or helping their illiterate mothers, teaching them a way to earn a decent salary to support their children, or to do cost-free adoptions. The explanation is very simple. The orphans and abandoned children, neither vote, nor have parents who vote, so why bother with them? So, "If it is not the Lawyers, who? And if it is not now, when? "
Even though I must admit that Marc Lacey treated me with respect in his article and did not distort any of my comments, I am appalled by the rest of his article. It is way below what I expected of a New York Times journalist and it was the last interview that I will give. Ever.
I read this the other day and I have to say she hot the nail on the head. One would think if he was actually there and saw these children that he would certainly garner a modecum of compassion and seek the truth (especially as the parent of an internationally adopted child).....obviously this was not the case. Very disappointing and quite sad.
Posted by: lynn at November 9, 2006 07:51 AMemail link on this page for Marc Lacey. Copy response and paste into comments section to ask for a response.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/marc_lacey/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Posted by: wgreen at November 9, 2006 08:31 AMSusan,
I just wanted to let you know that I am sorry that Marc Lacey did not accurately represent what you had conveyed to him. Thank you for being a spokesperson for the children in Guatemala who need forever families and homes.
I am sorry that, in this case, your hard work did not pay off. It is a shame that Marc only choose to write what he did.
Kelly,
Thank you for sharing this with us.
Jennifer Van Wieren
(In process 17 months to adopt Ana Gabriela almost 1 year in PGN and still going strong)
Susana,
I completely understand your position and your outrage at Marc Lacey's irresponsible journalism. I'm just sorry that the Guatemalan adoption community will lose your public voice over it. I know you will continue to work for the good of the children behind the scenes and I thank you for that.
Kris
Posted by: Kris at November 9, 2006 10:56 AMThank you for the clarification of the facts. It is nice to see it here, but not necessary for us. What would be better would be for the NYT to be presented with a letter from you. They would be hard pressed to refuse a L.T.Editor from someone quoted in an article printed in their paper. I wish you would consider this- and if they did not accept and publish your rebuttal, then you could offer it to a competitor.
Posted by: Emmy at November 9, 2006 02:30 PMSusana,
I am so sorry that Marc Lacey did that to you. I was disappointed after reading the article, but now I am OUTRAGED!
Your response is so articulate and well written, I hope the NYT will publish it as a response to his sloppy article!
Thank you for all that you do.
Erica
mom to two wonderful, healthy adopted children from Guatemala
You have written an eloquent complaint. Perhaps a shorter version addressed to the editors of the NY Times would get published. That's the best you can do. Unfortunately the press has a strong interest in sensationalizing or scadalizing situations that the reporter has little interest in understanding.
Posted by: Bob at November 9, 2006 04:06 PMWow. I am in complete shock at this article and how he paints adoptove couples as being so selfish and driven to adopt that they will do whatever they can to "get" a child. I think we should start a petition somehow and let him and the left-wing NYT know how much we disapprove. What a total jerk.
Debra
Posted by: debra at November 9, 2006 08:44 PMSusana -- My husband and I are the adoptive parents of a beautiful baby girl from Guatemala. We are both upset and outraged by this biased and insensitive article that makes us both look like criminals.
I hope you will consider what other people have suggested -- submitting your letter (or a shortened version of it) -- to the New York Times.
Thanks for all you do to keep Guatemalan adoptions going. Alicia is the best thing that ever happened to us. Allison
Dear Susana,
Thank you for this information, and more importantly thank you for all that you do each and every day for the Children of Guatemala. I echo what was said above. I too regret that we will lose you as such a knowledgeable and eloquent spokeswoman, but also know that you will always be a champion for the children and this comforts me.
Lizzie
Proud Mama to 3 year old Anarosa who has just begun sleeping in her "big girl bed"!
Hi Susana,
We met once, at the Marriott in 2002, I'm sure you don't remember but we were with a group of adoptive parents having dinner at the Marriott and you came over to the table to congratulate us.
My husband and I brought home a healthy baby girl. My daughter was diagnosed last year with leukemia. I am fully aware of the fact that had she stayed in Guatemala (even domestically adopted in Guatemala) she would be dead today. Her birthfamily did and does not have the resources to pay for treatment (which to date has cost more than $400,000.00). I doubt that the average Guatemalan family would have those types of resources available as well.
What bothered me the most about the NY Times article and similar ones I have read is that
they fail to mention that there are no social services in place, should a mother choose not to relinquish her child.
What would a 12 year old mother (such as the one pictured in the article) do should her child fall ill? There is no medicaid, no help for doctor visits or medicine. What about providing food? I don't think a 12 year old would have a lot of skills to be able to earn a lot of money. There is nothing like the food stamp program we have in place. No money = no food in Guatemala.
Things like this are not mentioned in this article. Furthermore, they fail to mention that there are less than 5 state run orphanages in
Guatemala. How will they handle an additional 3000+ children per year, should adoptions be shut down?
I find it incredulous that these issues aren't addressed.
Just as an aside, my daughter has returned to Guatemala twice since her adoption (and prior to her cancer diagnosis) and has been reunited with her birthmom as well. Guess situations like ours aren't worth reporting in the N.Y. Times.
Susana, I just want to thank you for tirelessly fighting for the children of Guatemala, the children who would have a dark future, were it not for champions like you fighting for them.
With great respect,
Marie
Dear Susan,
Marc Lacey severaly misrepresented the interview that you gave him. For that the NYT should set the record straight. Would you consider writing a letter to the Editor or even a guest Op Ed. piece to the NYT? They should publish this-it is only fair.
Sincerely,
Lori Bernstein
Dear Susan,
Thank you so much for responding to this article. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read what you wrote about Marc suggesting the children live in a less expensive home or have less expensive services. I am so grateful that you spoke up here with the truth.
A Mom waiting for My Jose Ariel 28 weeks in PGN, we'll be celebrating yet another birthday with him from afar as he turns 5 years old in two weeks. His mom died when he was 2 months old and he is still stuck in the system.
Really?
I find this explaination a confirmation of the article.
I don't think you were misrepresented at all now that I read your own explanation, maybe not presented in a light you liked, but not misrepresented.
Dear Susan,
Thank you so much for responding to this article. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read what you wrote about Marc suggesting the children live in a less expensive home or have less expensive services. I am so grateful that you spoke up here with the truth.
A Mom waiting for My Jose Ariel 28 weeks in PGN, we'll be celebrating yet another birthday with him from afar as he turns 5 years old in two weeks. His mom died when he was 2 months old and he is still stuck in the system.
Hi All-I've tried hard to forget this poorly written NY Times front page article, but it seems I am confronted by it daily, usually by people who have read it and seem to have become experts in Guatemalan adoptions because of it. Unfortunately, the inaccurate information provided in the article did a disservice to its readers. I am quick to point out the inncuracies. But it does leave room for discussion. After 20 years of being a child advocate, educator and multicultural studies professor I have yet to meet an adoptive parent of a child, let's say from China, Korea, Russia, or the ever popular former Soviet Union republics that have embraced their child's culture, as much as those from Guatemala. Have they learned or kept up their child's primary language, continued relationships with their foster families, have made numerous return trips to see their child, have contributed to orphanges, etc?
There doesn't seem to be a questioning of them to do so, but there does seem with Guatemalan adoptive families. Another point is the question of "how much birthmothers were paid?", that seems to be a well-established belief among many. When the information regarding that Guatemala is the only country to request a DNA test before the adoption is appoved surprises most people. Futhermore, the results that no unmatches have been found after the DNA tests were made mandatory is even more of an eye-opener. In regards to China, where most baby girls are "abandoned", it is widely known that there is a black market and girls are taken from their villages, as seen in a 60Minutes report a couple of years ago, but this doesn't seem to be remembered by many. Maybe there does seem to be a racist undercurrent in regards to Guatemalan adoptions. It seems to rub some people the wrong way that Latino babies are being adopted by Americans and becoming American citizens. Marie
Susana,
Thank you for speaking up on this issue. Thank you for being an advocate for the children. Thank you for giving the children and the families who care for them a voice. I have been amazed and saddened by the horrible, thoughtless, outspoken, nasty commentaries by those opposed to adoption. People who have the luxury of being protected and cared for and who have families who find it easy to condemn the actions of people who are willing to open the hearts and homes to children whose mothers lovingly tried to find a good home for them or children who were cast away. Where are these voices for the children who aren't being cared for? Why don't we see news articles about the children in Romania. A Hague country who shut down all international adoption due to same pressure. A country who has been repeatedly condemned by human rights groups on the care of their children. Abandonment has not gone down. Birth rate has not gone down. Trafficking is still a major issue (because adoptive couples are NOT the traffickers). And human rights groups cannot go into their orphanages without arranging a visit and no cameras allowed. Does this not have everyones warning bells going off? Where are the ten million articles on that topic? Orphanages around the world have horrible conditions and they wish to remove the children from foster care in Guatemala orphanages due to a uncited number of cases! I keep seeing all these articles including state department comments and no numbers. The best they can do on recent fraud is to mention the Mary Bonn case. They want to shut all adoptions down because one woman smuggled children into the country? If we are smuggling why are there so many families waiting on the latest paperwork to be approved by yet another party? The press and state department reported there is no regulation. Just what is the state department, USCIS, homeland security, consulate, embassy, family court, and the PGN? No regulation? These idiots cannot get it through their heads that children have been born for centuries who could not be cared for outside someone else taking them in. That is true in the United States as well. To turn it into a simple supply and demand issue means these people have IQ's below 70. This is all a PR campaign for the countries and meanwhile they do nothing to address the real issues. Romania shuts down and then hides their children so people cannot see what is happening to them. Then they put it in paper or tout in the press how they care for their children. It's a PR campaign. They care more how they look than about the children. In my eyes these others countries should be asking the Guatemalan lawyers for advice on how to care for children instead of criticizing over a subject they failed on.