Ever since the Mary Bonn arrest was initially posted, Guatadopt has been scrutinized for not being impartial. In reality, in official postings, we have not really stated much about the case, instead only posting the basic allegations. While admittedly we've had a very strong knowledge of what occurred in this case, we haven't revealed much about it. The one thing we did do, securely based on this knowledge, was not to allow the parents to be attacked despite what certainly appears to be an intentional PR campaign to demonize them as a way to justify what Mary has been accused of.
Over the course of the past almost two weeks, it is clear that “Mary’s side of the story” has been communicated and spread. Or to rephrase this, it is clear that people close to Mary have spoken to her and heard her version or explanation of events. In recent stories, this explanation successfully made its way into the free press. As a marketing professional who also handles public relations, admittedly I question the objective value of those stories. In one account, Mary and/or her attorney had the audacity to provide a picture of the child and the media outlet lacked the scruples not to respect the family’s privacy.
Out of the need to describe what I believe to be a more accurate description, it now seems inevitable to divulge more of the story. Keep in mind that there is an ongoing investigation and so there are some things I am not comfortable revealing. I assure you that there is more to it all and that it would only lead logical minds to further realize the wrong that occurred.
Before getting into what happened on the gotcha trip, it is important to know what happened before that. For months this family was receiving reports from Mary showing that the child had not gained any weight. The family kept asking for their child, at their expense, to be taken to a different doctor and observed – it is not normal for a child this age not to gain weight! Mary declined, telling the family that she had personally seen their child many times and that the child was fine. Month after month the same thing telling the parents the child is fine and offering excuses to the effect of “maybe she wiggled on the scale”, “the doctors don’t calibrate the scales” and other such explanations. The family had little recourse but to trust Mary, after all, she did say that she had personally seen the child. Mary has been seeing children for many years, surely she could tell if a child was not healthy. And surely if she knew something was wrong she wouldn’t ignore it and deceive the family.
Mary’s defense claims that the family went to Guatemala for the “gotcha trip” and decided they didn’t want their child because the child was just kind of small and not as developmentally advanced as they would have liked. As a starter, the adoptive father was not on the trip. The adoptive mom and her teenage daughter made the trip alone. This is relevant in understanding that the couple was not together to be able to go through this experience together. As you will read, this had implications at the embassy.
The mother was at the embassy. Like all of us who have completed an adoption, her file was presented and she waited the couple of hours for her interview. During this time, she could tell the child was tiny and did not have the physical or mental aptitude normal for an adoptive child. But she had no cold feet. She waited patiently for her turn. When she was called for her interview, when we swear under oath that we plan to parent this child, she was never given that chance. The embassy doctor had not approved the child. Had that not been the case, she would have brought her child home on that trip. She would have had no problem bringing home a small, delayed child! The staff at the embassy could clearly see that she had not been told of the child’s medical issues and they told her that her file was safe, she needed to understand what was wrong with her child. This was the advice that the US government gave her! The medical waiver a parent needs to sign can, as I understand things, only be accepted of the adoptive parents are aware of the child’s problems. The embassy person could tell that she had been told nothing.
I’ve been actively involved in Guatemalan adoptions for a number of years. I communicate with new adoptive families virtually every day. Never once have I heard of a child not passing the embassy doctor’s exam. I asked my daughter’s former foster mom, who cared wonderfully for children for about seven years, and it had never happened to her, despite the fact that she was the attorney’s choice to care for premature, challenged children. I don’t claim it never happens that the doctor doesn’t approve the visa, but it sure as heck is not common.
The adoptive mother went to the embassy doctor who told her that he could not diagnose the child’s problem, but that the child was literally off-the-charts tiny and developmentally delayed. He said it could be any one of a number of things – post natal care, neurological, genetic, etc. She then took the child to a doctor well known by the adoptive community who told her basically the same thing, stating that the child should see specialists. This doctor also added some other physical ailments to the list that were not really relevant to the parents. Nonetheless, they did not know what was wrong with their child..
At this point the adoptive mom was pressured by Mary to just bring the child to the US. It was suggested to her that she bring the child to the US with the intention to relinquish the child. Not only is this illegal (remember the statement under oath for the visa) and not only was it ludicrous considering the adoptive father works in law enforcement, but it also just seemed odd and concerning to someone who absolutely wanted her child.
She did leave Guatemala after being told the child could return to the foster mother. The family requested that the child be placed with a new foster mom because they didn’t know if the child’s problems were foster care related. They immediately began to consult an array of specialists in the US, attempting to have them be in discussion with specialists in Guatemala. That never really came to fruition.
According to people who have apparently spoken to Mary, right around this point in time Mary was caring for the child in her hotel room in Guatemala. Let me state that it does appear the child only suffered from malnutrition and neglect while in foster care. It sickens me to be using the term “only” in that sentence! But Mary does deserve credit in one thing -- she did nurture the child back to health, given that it now appears these were the health issues.
Nonetheless, at this time Mary had the child and yet the family could not get medical communication and analysis moving between countries. Mary even refused to provide them with a video of the child so that medical specialists could do an observation. Mary’s excuse was that she doesn’t provide videos once the adoption is complete. Yet she did manage to find the time to have the child’s ears pierced and hair cut during this period. Might she have already decided what course of action she was to take?
A few weeks passed and I think all parties knew enough was enough. The family was given a deadline to make a decision or else the child was apparently going to be placed in a non-private hogar. The family gave up on a diagnosis and made arrangements to pick up their child. They communicated this before the stated deadline. Initially they were told the child was already in a hogar but then that changed and they were told the child had been returned to the biological family. Yes, the family was going to bring their legal child home, even had bought plane tickets I believe. They were told their child had been returned to the biological family when in fact their child was with Mary. Shortly after is this the child was brought illegally to the US and lived for nine months in Mary’s home.
During this nine months, the family, skeptical to believe what they had been told, asked for proof that it was true. They wanted to know the child was okay and that they were no longer the legal parents. They would not want to adopt a child that had a home with the biological family. Because they could never be provided with ample proof, they did not give up on their child. They spoke to many people, including Guatadopt, and eventually had enough reason to suspect Mary might have their child to go to the extreme measure of hiring a private investigator in Florida. This investigator was able to gather enough evidence to get the Dept. of Homeland Security I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to look into it. The I.C.E. investigation led to a search warrant at which time Mary did not deny what had occurred. The child was placed in protective custody and is now home safe with the legal family.
The key thing here is that the family NEVER abandoned their child. They NEVER said they didn’t want their child. And any concerns they had were not because the child was “less than perfect”.
Click here for some commentary posted in my Writer's Corner as "There's Something About Mary".
Posted by Kevin at March 1, 2007 05:40 PMWow, thanks for putting this into perspective, Kevin! It's too bad that so many people will suffer because of the way Mary handled this situation. Not only has the family been traumatized but her unethical behavior has created a ripple effect that all adoptive families will have to endure.
Posted by: Rachel at March 1, 2007 06:02 PMKevin, Thank you for the explanation--it all makes a little more sense now. I can not fathom what that family endured throughout that process. Thankful to hear that the child is being loved and is in the hands of her/his family. The story seems like something out of a nightmare. I too am scared of what else the DOS will uncover.
I am so grateful you are around to guide us and provide us with an incredible amount of support! Thank you!!
Posted by: D at March 1, 2007 06:04 PMKevin,
Thanks for letting us in on what happened. It seems to me whatever good Mary might have done in her career as a adoption professional was erased with this really bizarre thing she did. I can't help but to wonder what her motivation was? Since the adoptive parents wanted this child despite any health problems, I wonder why she kidnapped the kid? Had she developed some kind of bond? Is the child now with its legal adoptive parents?
At any rate, Mary's actions will have a negative impact and cast a dark cloud on legitimate adoptions, which really saddens me. My hope is that justice will be served!
Posted by: Lea at March 1, 2007 06:59 PMWith so many varied stories of this situation going around, it's quite difficult to decide which one to trust.
I'll reserve my judgement on Mary until she's proven guilty in a court of law.
Until then, it's much speculation and heresay.
Let the authorities figure it out.
A
Posted by: A at March 1, 2007 07:33 PMA,
It is totally your right to wonder and everyone should always question things - especially in the e-world.
But let me say this. You have seen comments posted both in support of and critical of Mary. When has Guatadopt ever been known to post somehting innacurate?
The arrest report clearly states that the family sought out medical specialists after the mohter returned home. In addition, it clearly states that Mary confessed that she had deceived the family.
Yes, she deserves her day in court nad I have stated that repeatedly. But the facts do speak for themselves.
I also want to encourage folks to read the "There's Something About Mary" post in my writer's corner. I thin it gives a good baseline on which to understand Mary's true nature.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
I said this in the earlier thread and I'll say it again. No matter how many people want to jump to her defense because they had a good experience, how on earth can it not be seen that something is very wrong? There are apparently too many similar experiences with Mary being the common denominator(lies, deceipt, etc,etc as Kevin describes). Absolutely, 100% unacceptable in my books. EVER. Not once(and apparently, it's a lot more than once).
Posted by: ACS at March 1, 2007 08:59 PMThanks Kevin-
Having had our child "missing in Guatemala" for over a month- I can only imagine what this family went through for 9 long months. I truly appreciate guatadopt and the support you give families as well as the accurate information.
Kevin--According to the Criminal Complaint filed in the case US v. Mary Bonn, the victimized family had contracted not with Ms. Bonn, but rather with a with "A Field of Dreams," which apparently is an adoption agency licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The criminal complaint goes on to characterize Mary Bonn as a "facilitator" for that agency. This leads me to wonder why it is that ALL of the blame in this matter is focused on Mary Bonn (for whom I have no sympathy, at all, for her role in the apparent "k.....ping" of the child and her being smuggled into the United States), with not a negative word--literally--about the agency that presumably was ultimately responsible to the family for what happened to the infant that the agency had offered them in the first place.
The fact that Mary Bonn was apparently a very independent facilitator perhaps is irrelevant when one considers that she nevertheless was the agent of A Field of Dreams. In general, an agent is supposed to do the bidding of her principal, and the principal is responsible to third parties (such as the victimized family) for many kinds of negligence and malfeasance committed by its agent.
OK--perhaps at some point along the way, A Field of Dreams legally extricated itself from the case, and perhaps Mary Bonn and the victimized family then entered into their own contractural relationship. Perhaps. Who knows ? (If you know, Kevin, please tell us, if you are not barred from divulging that kind of information.)
But if such a change in the relationship among the three parties did not occur, then the world of adoption had better recognize that a case like this is certainly an indictment of the way the "profession" of licensed agencies conducts itself, farming out cases, as it were, to non-professionals, who then can run amok.
(And we all know that A Field of Dreams was not / is not the only licensed agency that ostensibly has had its own Guatemalan adoption program, whereas in fact it was really "networking" with an independent entity who was running the whole show not so much for them but in their stead; and Guatemala is not the only country where this abuse occurs--witness the Amrex scandal in Russia touching perhaps 20 licensed agencies which took the easy road to claiming they had their own programs there, when in fact Amrex was doing virtually everything for them.)
I know that Guatadopt has insisted that this was not a bad adoption, but rather just a bad immigration matter. I disagree.
For instance, it is clear the lack of proper supervision of the child's care and feeding and medical visits during the several months when the adoption was pending led to the malnutrition that led to the US Embassy's physician's negative recommendation on the case, which led to the family's resistance to Mary Bonn's insistence that they immigrate her into the USA on Mary Bonn's timetable and not their own.
Thus, I believe that it was no accident that the State Department (a strong supporter of the Hague "reforms") posted so early about Mary Bonn's arrest. Although Guatadopt has stated that this was not a bad adoption, some folks at the State Department realized that this is just the kind of bad adoption from which they could extract much mileage in condemning how Guatemalan adoptions are done today, thereby showing why the public should accept such changes as the Protocolo.
Indeed, in the State Department's most recent (Feb 26) general attack on current Guatemalan adoption practices, the first specific item mentioned is the Mary Bonn case, to wit:
"The arrest in the United States of a well-known adoption facilitator as well as concern about wrong and unethical behavior and practices by others involved with adoptions in Guatemala indicate that the adoption process in Guatemala is not adequately protecting all children."
May I just suggest that there is evidence (that I have actually seen) that suggests other than the story that is posted here. Evidence that includes letters from US Officers about this child being left in Guatemala. As much as this is presented as the only possible variation of the story, I personally have seen evidence that shows huge differences in the story.
Posted by: AS at March 1, 2007 10:02 PMOur agency director said that the parents "changed their minds" and abandoned the child. Supposedly, Mary "saved" the child from an orphanage/streets. I'm not surprised that there's more to the story. I wouldn't be surprised either, if our agency director is in a similar position to Mary in a year or two....
Posted by: MM at March 1, 2007 10:07 PMKevin,
You are of course entitled to your opinion about Mary and I know you are more than willing to share it here. However, your opinion of her "true nature" is in conflict with my personal experience. I am a happy client of Mary and I appreciate all she did for me. I'm going to have to agree with "A" and I'm going to reserve passing judgement on her based on this version of events.
Posted by: sara at March 1, 2007 10:17 PM
To reply to some comments:
Robert - I believe we are on exactly the same page. Agencies should have responsibility for those they contract with - absolutely. In the commentary in my writer's corner, I say as much. This case involved a legal adoption. I'm not saying it involved a good one. The poor care the child received is inexcusable. But I would also say that if we use that as a barometer for whether to allow ICA, China and Russia would be gone as well. All in all, Guatemala's care is second to none in the macro sense. I am afraid of what DOS may uncover as they fully investigate Mary's antics, but this case was a legal adoption.
Sara - if you read my commentary on my writer's corner you'll see that I don't attempt to disparage your experience. I believe and respect it. But I also can not ignore what I have heard from families and know about this case. IMHO, you should not judge this with blinded by only what your personal experience. That does not extend the same repsect to others that I have officially given to those like you.
AS - I don't really understand what you wrote. Yes, the child was left in Guatemala with everyone knowing where the child was. The family was seeking a medical diagnosis as that was what the embassy said they needed to do. Question that decision if you like. It doesn't mean that they had abandoned their child! Now if your evidence is some sworn testimony by Mary or those she's been speaking with, my opinion is that it is meaningless.
Lastly, this family went through extraordinary lengths for nine months desperately trying to find a child that they were told was returned to the biological family. How anyone can try for a single second to question whether they wanted to bring their child home is simply ludicrous!
Please read everything I wrote. I tried to keep commentary off of the news page but I am questioning that decision. It seems as though not everyone is using the link at the end of the post to read "There's Something About Mary". Obviously everyone is free to read what they like, but I think some of these things are addressed there and it gives some "beyond this case" perspective.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Kevin,
Thank you for sharing the (legal) parents' side of the story. But most of all THANK YOU for letting us know what happened to the little girl at the center of all this mess. I'm glad to hear that she is safe and home with her family.
Nobody knows what is going on in the mind of another person and what they BELIEVE to be true...but one thing is certain, and that is breaking the law is never the answer. If Ms. Bonn really believed that this little one was "abandoned" or in danger, someone as knowledgable and resourceful as she seems to be from reports about her should have been able to find a LEGAL way to deal with the situation. Breaking the law always brings with it terrible consequences sooner or later, not only for the guilty party but usually for innocent third parties as well.
I am also glad that this child is reunited with her rightful parents, and am very sorry for what they had to endure. I cannot imagine the agony of not knowing where your child was. Clearly, the fact that they went to the lengths of hiring a private investigator (which I am sure was NOT inexpensive) shows that not "wanting" the child was never an issue.
People who have done good work all their lives sometimes make terrible mistakes that seem out of line with the rest of their lives and careers. It happens. I posted in another thread about this situation about a local popular and respected middle school principal recently arrested for BUYING CRACK AT SCHOOL. It shocked the whole community! Everyone who knew him was flabbergasted! But there's no doubt he DID IT--he was caught by undercover officers.
The pressures of life, stress, human nature, etc all cause people to make mistakes and sometimes break the law--even otherwise good people. That's why criminal attorneys will NEVER go out of business.
Posted by: Wendy at March 2, 2007 10:48 AMHi-
Our child was "missing in Guatemala" too last year and is home now safe and sound with us, thank God.
I am surprised and shocked by all the incidents of missing children as I thought we were alone in the hell we went through. The US Embassy in Guat helped us, and infact were the only ones who helped us as our agency said for us to do nothing.Our agency told us NOT to got to Guatemala. NOT to contact the US Embassy in Guatemala and so on. I followed my instincts and did contact the Embassy, thank God. They are the ones who helped us and infact let us know that a search that we were told was going on, was not!
I would be so interested in comparing stories with others who have been through this to see if we had the same agency, attorney and so on.
I think reform needs to take place. I think a better watch on agencies and attorneys, etc is a must.
It saddens me when families go through such hell and the agencies are defended to the core by people with good experiences with them. Its like saying a child abuser did not abuse other children just because they didn't abuse you in particular!
My heart goes out to the family who went through this. I know firsthand what it feels like to have a missing child in Guatemala and the agency hearing your tears and anguish on the phone, but flat out lie to you about what is really going on.
My agency was not the one that Mary worked for(as far as I know?), but is a well known one that others praise to this day. Its truly sad!
Posted by: Alarmed at March 2, 2007 11:01 AMThank you Kevin. This is the side of the story I have heard and believe for months! I know this family- I know their pain and hurt. They have tried and tried to find their daughter. I wish them the best!
Posted by: Laura at March 2, 2007 11:09 AMKevin -
Thank you again for all of the work that you do on this website.
Our case is beginning to drag on - it's been almost 7 months since the referral and no DNA test. Our agency does not return my phone calls nor emails, and we get a different story each time they do talk to us. I don't think that the agency is trying to keep bad news from us; I think they pass on the information (or mis-information) from the lawyers/facilitators.
In your experience working with "problem cases", at what point should we start worrying that our facilitator may be neglecting her duties in our case? Is there a way to determine if there are many complaints against a certain facilitator?
-- Beginning to feel "taken"
Posted by: T at March 2, 2007 11:52 AMI have seen many potential aparents refer to the possible shutdown of Guatemala adoptions in not very good terms and accusing the president of leaving children in poor circumstances which they will not financially support.
But here we have parents, legal parents, who left their child in the "hell hole" of Guatemala in order to find an appropriate "diagnosis" in the United States!? A diagnosis is best given after a full physical examination of the patient, won't you agree?! I wonder what their reason was for insisting on finding a diagnosis in the U.S. while leaving the child in Guatemala? That would not do their child any good unless they planned on putting the child on a medical plan in Guatemala to improve her health before bringing her to the U.S. which I think is absurd! I would suspect that any loving parent would swoop that child up and bring her to the U.S. to get the diagnosis and emergency care necessary to bring the child to health. Unless....The plan was to leave the child in Guatemala permanently if the diagnosis was not one which they felt they could handle. THAT would shed a terrible light on ALL adoptive parents.
The child was already LEGALLY their own child. The adoption was approved and granted! And, they walked away. That is what I see. Mary Bonn would not have been in this situation to try to "rescue" the child if the LEGAL PARENTS had done so themselves!
Remember, the U.S. Embassy does not legalize the adoption with any oath. The PGN and the final birthmother signature is what legalizes the adoption.
Jackie
Posted by: Jackie at March 2, 2007 11:58 AMThey were not granted a visa by the US Embassy, they HAD to leave the child behind.
Posted by: Bennett at March 2, 2007 03:47 PMJackie,
In all due respect, I think you are missing the point with this. You are correct in saying the final approval of the PGN and birthmother's final signature is what the family the legal guardian. But, to my knowledge, a requirement of the US Embassy is to have a Embassy appointed doctor give an exam of the child. I believe this has to happen before they will issue you a visa for the child. So without the Embassy approval, even if the mother would have wanted to take HER child home with her she couldn't have because the Embassy would not have issued the visa. Thus there would have been no way for her to bring the child home.
I totally feel for this couple who have been through the ringer with this adoption and hope it will come to some sort of resolution. To condemn and say they did something wrong, would not help and as the old saying goes "Don't judge a person unless you walk a mile in there shoes."
Unfortunatly, the result of all of this is what most people would not openly admit and that is the are some major changes that need to be done for Guatemalan adoptions to protect the children, birthmothers and even the adoptive parents. Too bad is took something like this.
JMHO
Father to two wonderful blessings from Guatemala,
Tim
Jackie--
The US Embassy would not grant the (legal adoptive) parents of this child a visa to take the child from Guatemala to the US UNTIL they had a medical diagnosis.
Kevin wrote above: "The embassy doctor had not approved the child...The medical waiver a parent needs to sign can, as I understand things, only be accepted when the adoptive parents are aware of the child’s problems."
No opportunity for an oath, no medical waiver from the doctor, no visa from the embassy, and likely no passport. Thus the child COULD NOT immigrate.
Jennifer
Posted by: Jennifer at March 2, 2007 04:54 PMJackie - Perhaps you should re-read the information when you are calmer. It's quite clear that you aren't being objective. While I agree that feeling passionately about this sitation is normal, you didn't read the facts.
Kevin - thank you for providing an objective explanation. It has helped tremendously!
Posted by: Lu at March 2, 2007 05:53 PMKevin,
Is Mary in jail for "tampering?" Aren't there more recent court documents revoking her release because she has contacted witnesses to tell them to not mention certain children?? Aren't these public documents that can be commented on?
bg
Posted by: BG at March 2, 2007 07:05 PMThe poor parents couldn't get a visa from the US Embassy because of the lack of disclosure of the child's condition and so what does Mary do??? Illegally gets a visa and takes the child into the US.
Yeah, noble indeed.
Posted by: ACS at March 2, 2007 07:55 PMJackie, I sure hope you are not an adoptive parent of a child from Guatemala. To refer to our childrens' birthplace as a "hell hole" is an insult to Guatemala, as well as something that will undermine our childrens' pride in their heritage. You should be ashamed.
Posted by: Sarah J in NY at March 2, 2007 09:35 PMTo correct some misinformation - the child did not fail her embassy physical. A waiver form does not mean she failed. Also, the visa was NOT denied at the US Embassy. There is evidence to support these two facts. I just wanted to make sure that was cleared up.
Posted by: AS at March 3, 2007 12:25 AMTo "Alarmed" on March 2. Re: your missing child. Could you email us with advice based on your case? We had a problem with our first referral and are grasping at anything. Thank you so much.
Liz
To AS,
The child most certainly did fail the embassy doctor. When at the interview, the adoptive mom was told by the embassy that in order for them to sign a waiver, they had to be aware of what the problem was. The adoptive mom was told that the file was safe and she could return once she knew what was up.
Because the adoptive father was not there, I am not sure whether or not she could have done the waiver without him. I am not saying that she could not have. But I cna say that these are definitively law abiding citizens and their understanding was that legally, they needed to have a diagnosis or understanding of what the issues were before signing the waiver. I'd love to have acopy of what a waiver actually says, my guess is that it says that you know, understand, and accept the ailment.
Lastly, having spoken to the family many times, I strongly believe that if Mary had tried to work with the mom rather than scare and pressure her, a different outcome could have been reached.
Everyone has the right to second guess the fact that the mom did leave Guatemala, giving the child back to the foster mom, and telling Mary to get the child a new foster mom while they were seeking out medical specialists. I, for one, am not going to judge. But the fact that she did go home to consult medical specialists DOES NOT in any way mean that they didn't want the child because the child was a little small. Is that not what Mary is telling people? IS that not what she said on television?
And if they suppoesedly did not want the child, then why would Mary have had to lie to them telling them that the child had been returned to the bio-family? If the family didn't want the child, why would they have fought to get her home?
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Kevin
Jackie,
I think I may be able to explain why the parents sought a diagnosis in the United States, as opposed to Guatemala. The United States is blessed with many doctors and specialists who know how to and can treat problems that doctors in other countries simply are not equipped to handle. Because of my brother's job, he has lived in and visited numerous developing countries. He has told me there is a huge difference in the quality of care individuals can receive in the United States versus a developing country. Furthermore, my daycare provider is originally from Mexico. She and her husband came to the United States shortly after her daughter was born because they were told by the doctors in Mexico that their daughter would never walk or talk. The doctors in Mexico were wrong and after treatment here in the United States, her daughter is perfectly normal. Finally, as an individual who speaks only limited Spanish, I can tell you that when we were in Guatemala it was much easier for us when someone could speak English directly to us and we did not have to rely totally on the translator. Unfortunately, we did an encounter a problem in Guatemala and our translator did not translate everything for us. Instead, she had a 10 minute conversation with our attorney, and then turned and told me in 30 seconds what they had said. It made me very uncomfortable. I don't know if this is why the family acted as they did, but I certainly think it is a reasonable explanation.
Posted by: Kathy at March 3, 2007 11:28 AMI am a bit confused as to why there was no signature made about the diagnosis that was presented by the Embassy Doctor. The baby was underweight and behind on milestones. Without the child with you for a US doctor to physically exam how could there be further information gathered by returning home without the child?
I have been in this situation where several conditions were listed on the exit medical. My child was 14 pounds at the age of 2-obviously malnourished. She could not hold her head up, sit, crawl, walk, put weight on her legs/try to stand-you get my point. I had to sign that I was aware of these conditons to get the US Embassy to give her a visa. It was agreed by the Embassy approved doctor, myself and the US Embassy that getting my child to the US for medical care was the answer. It wasn't until we got to the International Adoption Clinic that we were given her CP, Ataxia, Sensory Defensiveness, Attachment Disorder, Severe Gross Motor and Speech delays and numerous more diagnosis. As Kathy just stated in her post the care in the US is better than developing countries and getting the children here for care will help tremendously. I think we can all agree on that.
My husband did not travel with me to get our daughter and I signed off on her "conditions", got her visa and brought her home.
I guess I must be missing something.
Angie
The DOS site used what seems to be the actions of a clearly messed-up woman (Mary Bonn) and made Guatemala seem like a cesspool of evil flesh peddlers, and I found it offensive.
The DOS should focus more upon the likelihood that their intervention will close adoptions when people have their life savings tied up in Guatemala.
Thier apparent support of the Protocal is another indication that we might rather have Ronald MacDonald making foreign policy.
Adam
Posted by: Adam Ward at March 3, 2007 08:50 PMAngie, why were you not jumping up and down screaming about the injustice of someone starving your child? Especially after paying the costly fees for a Guatemalan adoption that are supposed to asssure us of good care of our children. If what you stated is a truthful situation then God bless you for taking your child home without question but that does not mean it would be the right decision for everyone else. It is when we just sit back and accept whatever the facilitators, attorneys, agencies, and foster parents give us without question that we allow this to continue. Just maybe because these parents spoke up and refused to just accept without question the condition of their child, that others in the future will not have face these horrendous issues. Not all families are the same and not all situations are good fits for everyone involved. Taking in a special needs child can change the entire dynamics of a family and you should be prepare for it. It sounds like these people had at least one other child at home. If there were others maybe they were trying to make sure that they were not going to have a child with 24/7 special needs. When you have a biological child with special needs that is just the hand you are dealt and you make the best of the situation and give that child all the love and support that you can. You certainly wouldn't wish that your child was born with medical problems. I don't blame them for wanting to have more knowledge of the situation before they said yes. Especially after it sounds like they knew nothing right up to the point of the Embassy visit. Parents with no other children at home or empty nesters might be a better fit for that child. I can't blame them for at least trying to be prepared for what might lie ahead. I think they would be remiss if they didn't. It sounds like they did not get the information they tried to get but yet they took the child anyway. I personally don't fault them for what they did. Maybe if all of us stood up to these people and didn't just take everything without question, it would improve the quality of care that our children receive. I know there are many foster parents and agencies who really do take wonderful care of these children but from the posts I am reading it sounds like there are also many who don't and they should be made accountable.
Posted by: George at March 4, 2007 02:00 AMGeorge, the problem with your scenario is that the child was already their child, legally. They did not ethically have any right to say "yes" or "no" to the child at that point. It was a done deal. They are the child's parents.
Angie did the lovely thing and cared more about the child than about fighting and arguing over who is at fault. That fight can be fought later.
George, are you suggesting that parents who find their child in a medical condition that was not revealed to them, should just leave the child behind and take up a morality fight so that other parents won't ever have to bring home (note I didn't say adopt as that was a done deal) a sick child? ARe you suggesting that adoptive parents leave their adopted children behind?
Posted by: Jackie at March 4, 2007 09:36 AMGeorge,
My post was regarding the exit medical and how I find it so odd that this child could have failed. My daughter "passed" and was in far worse shape than this case so I am a bit confused as to the facts and honestly how parents could leave their child behind to seek medical advice. My child was being starved by the government, with whom we had a lawsuit. There were no updates given and they even went as far as to change her name. No one cared that they were starving her. I flew to UNICEF headquarters in NYC and met with their officials once I brought our daughter home. They did nothing, they told me that they "would be in touch on Monday", apparently they are still trying to figure out what Monday that may be. UNICEF themselves were funding the orphanage where my child ended up and children were dying daily. They choose to look the other way...
I did have another child at home while adopting my daughter and was pregnant. I had a full plate and could not imagine leaving her while I tried to figure out what to do. My post was to try and figure out how this child failed the exit medical. Just as Kevin stated, I was told that if I signed off and was aware of the medical conditions that the visa would be given and that is what happened.
And Kevin, I was not contacted by Mary to post on your site. I was made aware of your site by a friend that is in process. I posted because it broke my heart to read the horrible things that people were saying about a woman that brought my family together. I am also a firm believer that she should have a chance to tell her side of the story and her day in court. Again, I am fine that we can agree to disagree on these issues.
Angie
Posted by: Angie at March 4, 2007 12:07 PMJackie,
You are ignoring the fact that the United States Embassy did NOT grant this family a VISA to bring their child home. Thus if they wanted to keep their baby while waiting for the VISA, the only option that was available to them was to foster the child in Guatemala. I doubt very much that they had family, friends, or anyone with whom they could stay in Guatemala and foster the child. Furthermore, they may not have had the financial resources to stay in Guatemala and do this.
You indicated in a previous post that Mary Bonn was put in a situation where she had to "rescue" the child. I didn't take issue with it at the time but now I am going to make an issue out of it because I certainly don't believe this family deserves many of the posts on this website.
Do you know if Mary Bonn offered to make arrangements for the family to stay with someone in Guatemala and foster or offered to pay the costs and lost wages the family would have incurred by staying in Guatemala and fostering the child? Afterall, it was a direct result of her actions (not taking action as the child became malnourished and then lying about the child's medical status) that resulted in the family being unable to obtain a VISA to bring their child home. It seems to me that this is the very least she could have done for the family. Instead she stole their baby and committed a crime. That looks to me more like someone who is covering up their actions. I certainly don't think it would be good for Mary Bonn's business if people found out that not only does she not help out babies who are suffering but she prevents people from helping them by lying about their situation.
However, I will freely admit that what angers me the most about this situation is what this child endured. If Mary Bonn had paid attention to this child and told the family the truth, the child would not have had to suffer.
Posted by: Kathy at March 4, 2007 02:09 PMKathy,
they didn't get a visa because they didn't sign the medical waiver which Angie so skillfully discussed above.
Please read about Angie's experience with medical waivers and what needs to be done to take your child home and care for it.
Jackie
Posted by: Jackie at March 4, 2007 09:23 PMOne thing I haven't seen posted is, the girl is now with the adoptive family. Why would the government allow this without first knowing the whole situation and making the decision to let the family have her back. If they thought this wasn't a good home, I don't think they would have ever been able to bring her into their home. This of course doesn't mean Mary wasn't a good mom, but it does seem she was not a legal parent.
This situation could definitely affect me in some form and I just want to hear the whole story and the truth. So I'll just have to be patient and wait! Going through adoption is supposed to be teaching us patience right?!! At this point I should be a pro at it!! In PGN now over six months.
SS
I'm betting that none of us knows as much about this case as we think. Here is what matters so far - IMHO.
1) An adoption facilitator(Mary Bonn) smuggled a baby into the US from Guatemala.
2) She felt this was necessary for the health and safety of that child.
3) This child is now home safe with the real parents.
4) In some round-about way, Bonn was able to "save" this particular child.
5) In doing so, she may have contributed to jeopardizing the process of bringing hundreds or even thousands of families together.
At this point, I really don't care whether she was justified in smuggling a child. I really don't care whether she deceived the child's parents. In fact, I'm not really sure if I care what the embassy told those parents or whether their decision to leave was ethical. The case is important - don't get me wrong - just not my focus. It will all come out in the end somehow.
My concern is for all the other children waiting for families and all of the parents waiting for children. Of course, Mary Bonn is not the only person responsible for the most recent delays and uncertainty. But the DOS certainly believes she her actions are deplorable enough to use her case as a point of reference.
Again - just my opinion.
Posted by: GDS at March 5, 2007 09:41 AMI totally agree with GDS. Whatever the facts of the case are it really doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that Mary has put an even darker cloud over Guatemala adoptions. This adoption process has always had bad media, and before the media had a limited proof so we as adoptive parents could say, "that isn't true because of X,Y, and Z."
Now there is "proof" for the media to run with, and all we can say is that this is an isolated incident. An example of this already happening in the DOS statement - they are basically saying that "individuals" have forged visas and smuggled children into the US not just Mary. They may have more cases or they may not, but one thing is for sure they aren't going to tell us about the ethical adoptions that take place everyday.
I feel for the adoptive family and baby who's lives were turned upside down. I feel great sorrow for the children without famalies that this may affect because one woman made a very poor decision.
Posted by: Gwen at March 5, 2007 11:37 AMI know Mary, and her family. She is an amazing mother to all of her children. You are blaming her for saving a little girl's life; and that is exactly what she did. The baby was very happy in her home and got everything she could need/want.
Posted by: a friend at April 11, 2007 08:35 AMFirst of all, I have gone out of my way to say that Mary took excellent care of this child. She was happy in her home and did get everything she needed.
Guess what, she is happy in her home with her legal parents today and is still getting eveerything she needed.
Mary did not save this child! Mary stole this child. The child's legal parents wanted medical attention. The child's legal parents asked Mary to get the child into a proper foster home and help with a medical diagnosis. They offered to pay for all of that. The child's legal parents agreed to go get her and at that time Mary LIED to them and told them that the child was with her biological family when in fact Mary was busy setting up an elaborate scheme to illegally smuggle her into the US and raise her as her own.
If I went and kidnapped someone's child because I didn't like some things about the parents and proceeded to raise the child wondefully, it would still be a crime and 100% wrong! It was not Mary's right to play judge and jury. If she thought there was an issue with the parents then she should have let them being her home and called social services in their hometown!
Let's not confuse issues!
Kevin
Guatadopt