My continued thoughts and prayers go out to the children, and families affected by this. And in my opinion, 9:30 at night is a HORRIBLE time to move children! Where are their hearts?

Please, if anyone knows where these babies have been taken, I beg you, for the sake of the adoptive parents who are living through this nightmare, and for the sake of the babies whose lives are in upheaval, please, please, contact Casa Quivira.

My thoughts and prayers are with these children right now and all of the parents in the process of adopting them. May God wrap his hands around all of the children and protect them.

I am praying for all of you!!! Especially the babies and all innocent people who are caught in the middle.

I am so sorry to hear of this latest development. My prayers go out for these children and their adoptive familes. I brought our daughter home from Guatemala a few weeks ago and I have so much empathy for these families. I also pray that reform efforts and Hague compliance efforts continue. If this is how the 46 infants at Casa Quivira are being treated, multiply that number by 100 and you will have the potential number of orhaned or abandoned babies of whom the Guatemalan government will be providing oversight of "care" if adoptions to the USA are halted. CNN picked up the story of Casa Quivira a few days ago, let us continue to encourage press coverage of the status of these innocent children so that pressure is applied to the governing bodies.

My thoughts and prayers are with the children and families. May God give you strength.

Boston Globe
http://boston.com/news/globe/

if this can happen at CQ then no hogar or foster mother is safe - every referral could be 'taken' to unknown locations by bienestar - according to the logic of using PINA law

CQ parent

PRESS STATEMENT
24 August 2007

All 35 Children in Casa Quivira under the Intervention of the The
Guatemalan President's Office for Social Welfare (Secretaria de
Bienestar Social de la Presidencia, SBSP), have been removed from the
Casa Quivira Home.

Whereabouts and Wellbeing of Nine (9) Children earlier Removed from
Casa Quivira by the SBSP continues to be unknown.

Late in the night last night under pouring rain the remaining 35
children in the care of Casa Quivira in Antigua, Guatemala were
removed by The Guatemalan President's Office for Social Welfare
(Secretaria de Bienestar Social de la Presidencia, SBSP). Casa
Quivira attorneys will file motions today requesting that the judge
recently assigned the case, Roxana Mena confirm that her office
issued the order and indicate why the children were transferred and
to where. After the final vehicle transferring the children left
Casa Quivira late last night SBSP personnel with the assistance of
the National Police forced the CQ staff nannies and nurses out of the
home and into the late, raining night. Byron Alvarado, identifying
himself as an advisor to the SBSP, threatened CQ staff that if they
remained in the home he would see to it that they be linked to the
crimes committed by Casa Quivira. To date, no formal charges have
been leveled against CQ.

Attorneys for Casa Quivira were present and immediately appealed to
the Juzgado de Paz in Antigua only to be told that the judge of the
Juzgado de Paz was not available. Luis Quiroa, one of Casa Quivira's
attorneys who accompanied the nannies and nurses to the Juzgado de
Paz to give their declarations states that he was told by the officer
on duty "the Judge is in Guatemala City and is tired of hearing your
complaints." After closing the door in their face they were left
standing in the rain.

Casa Quivira attorneys will immediately file petitions this morning
in the appropriate courts insisting that they be informed of the
current whereabouts and wellbeing of each child removed last night
and the nine previously removed to an unnamed hospital, and that an
explanation be offered as to why the children were transferred last
night.

Clifford Phillips
Director
Casa Quivira

My heart breaks for these children and their families. I'm so sorry this is happening. Its hard to believe in this day and age, things like this can happen and it feels like the world turn its back. I wrote my Senator and Congressman today and urge others to do the same. They can not continue to ignore us all. God bless the children.~Melissa T.

I am praying for all involved in this mess. this is horrible for those babies and the families who have children at CQ. How can people be so mean and cruel to take babies out at night in puoring down rain and send them God only knows. Unbelievable....

supportingreform:

Congrats on bringing home your daughter; how was your experience and would you mind sharing your timeleins? We are anxiously waiting our PA; we leave at the end of September for a visit trip!!

In this awful situation it is so nice to still remember the babies are coming home to their forever families.......

Thanks CLP

david,
your unbelievable & not in a good way !! i have not read the postings here in a several days , but just to let you know, my baby is one of the 9 hospitalized. i was in Guatemala with her aug.3rd., she was a healthy bouncing baby girl just a short time ago. she has bad reflux & is lactose intolerant & was on soy formula. though shocking when i got the call confirming she was one of the 9 sent to the hospital i wasn't completely surprised. i knew that in a short period of time after being on whole milk she would dehydrate & develop intestinal problems. though i don't know to this day how sick she is & what exactly she was hospitalized for I have no doubt that was a leading contributor
as far as a PR firm. the people who are doing the PR are parents who currently have or have had kids at CQ & have PR background & have banded together to help get our word out.

you really need to focus your energy on something else in life, try putting all your energy to something good, instead of adding more grief to a horribly sad situation.
randi

I'm praying:

Praying first for the children of Guatemala

Praying second for ALL the families, in the United States, Guatemala, the adoptive families, the birth families - EVERYONE

Praying third for a solution

Praying that everyone can find a way to work together

Praying that ALL negative accusations towards ALL innocent people and parties will cease.

and praying that positive light will find a way to shine on all the people.

Love, Anj

If they want to continue this charade that CQ hs committed some heinous crime by taking care of these children who otherwise would not have a chance, that is ridiculous. But why are they so hell-bent on not talking care of these babies properly? Are they trying to make them sick so they can add fuel to the fire. It is just sick.

As a PAP with a child at CQ, or who knows where now, I ask that all who have expressed an interest in helping do so by contacting your Senators and Congressman and Ambassador Castillo and ask that the issues be addressed and this investigation carried out quickly. This Judge can drag this out indefinately if they are not pushed to resolve it quickly. 2 weeks have passed and there are still no real charges even filed. If the real issue is stealing and coercion then the Judge needs to interview the birthmothers (the only ones who can answer these questions) and get it over with!!!! Since it seems they are not doing this and making ANY PROGRESS, it leads one to believe these are not their true motives, nor are they concerned about the children's best interests as evidenced by playing games and delaying things and rediculous accusations. Most of all CONTINUE TO PRAY, God is our only hope for a quick resolution to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Annie

another small victory in this nightmare

CQ parent

PRESS STATEMENT
25 August 2007

Two US Families Granted Custody of Their Casa Quivira Children

On Friday, August 24th, the Juvenile Judge of the First Court in
Guatemala City ordered the Guatemalan President's Office for Social
Welfare (Secretaria de Bienestar Social de la Presidencia - SBSP) to
turn over custody of two children that had already been legally
approved for adoption through Casa Quivira by the Guatemalan
Solicitor General's Office (Procuradoría General de la Nación, PGN)
to their US families. Casa Quivira has confirmed that these families
have been united with their children and will now begin the remaining
steps in the adoption process, as per both Guatemalan and US law, to
complete the adoption and bring the children home to the US.

The whereabouts of the remaining 33 children in removed from the Casa
Quivira Home on Thursday, August 23rd remains unknown, as well as the
whereabouts and wellbeing of the nine children removed earlier from
Casa Quivira for health reasons. Casa Quivira attorneys continue to
request access and information on all the children.

Clifford Phillips
Director
Casa Quivira
www.casaquivira.com

As I said, the Guatemalan authorities are not the good guys here, and the children are the victims

As far as Cliff and CQ go, in the past he has worked with Tracey and Mary Bonn when the Bonn sisters had Summit adoptions. We all know about Mary Bonn here.

April Viola had a very rough adoption using Cliff as her facilitator and brought home her daughter in horrendous health. She was malnourished, had parasites and scabies.

This information can be checked on the attorney/agency bulletin board at www.lapa-nnj if you go to www.archives.org and use the WayBack Machine to look at that bulletin board in 1999 or 2000.

I've said on the big list that over the years, Cliff and CQ appear to have learned and improved.

Now Randi, tell me how stating facts and asking questions has added grief to this situation? And then tell me where else I should focus my energy in life besides teaching children, trying to help people avoid adoption nightmares and trying to fight for ethical adoption reforms? If the adoption industry cared a bit more about ethics and a bit less about money, then reforms would have been enacted years ago and this situation may have been avoided.

To those who clarified my misconceptions about the health of the children at CQ, thank you. I did not realize that CQ had children in poor health who had been referred to families. All the glowing reports of the excellent conditions at CQ made me think that most of their referrals would be healthy babies. It sounds like sending the nine children who were ill to the hospital was probably a good idea since they would get the necessary medical care there that the government took away when they took over CQ.

Now I do have a question. Is CQ a state licensed agency in the US? If not, then is it possible that they were targeted because Hague implementation requires agencies to be licensed?

David K
www.adoptionagencychecklist.com

As I said, the Guatemalan authorities are not the good guys here, and the children are the victims

As far as Cliff and CQ go, in the past he has worked with Tracey and Mary Bonn when the Bonn sisters had Summit adoptions. We all know about Mary Bonn here.

April Viola had a very rough adoption using Cliff as her facilitator and brought home her daughter in horrendous health. She was malnourished, had parasites and scabies.

This information can be checked on the attorney/agency bulletin board at www.lapa-nnj if you go to www.archives.org and use the WayBack Machine to look at that bulletin board in 1999 or 2000.

I've said on the big list that over the years, Cliff and CQ appear to have learned and improved.

Now Randi, tell me how stating facts and asking questions has added grief to this situation? And then tell me where else I should focus my energy in life besides teaching children, trying to help people avoid adoption nightmares and trying to fight for ethical adoption reforms? If the adoption industry cared a bit more about ethics and a bit less about money, then reforms would have been enacted years ago and this situation may have been avoided.

To those who clarified my misconceptions about the health of the children at CQ, thank you. I did not realize that CQ had children in poor health who had been referred to families. All the glowing reports of the excellent conditions at CQ made me think that most of their referrals would be healthy babies. It sounds like sending the nine children who were ill to the hospital was probably a good idea since they would get the necessary medical care there that the government took away when they took over CQ.

Now I do have a question. Is CQ a state licensed agency in the US? If not, then is it possible that they were targeted because Hague implementation requires agencies to be licensed?

David K
www.adoptionagencychecklist.com

David what in the world do Mary or Tracey Bonn have to do with CQ situation right now?

Just a note :

Having acid reflux and being lactose intolerant are both conditions that one may have and be in excellent health, with the proper care. Care it seems Casa Quivira was able to give and government social workers were not. The big question is whether children in this situation and similar ones are getting the proper care NOW. Since it is unknown if their medical records followed them, how long will it take for those caring for them to 'rediscover' these conditions? The end result will likely be that the children suffer.

Those of us who are not going through this anguish on a personal level can certainly afford to be gentle with those who are. Prayers with all the PAP's who wait......

David,

My son was at CQ. Children can be born healthy but still develop urgent problems along the way, at various stages in life. I know several families whose children were diagnosed with serious conditions, some requiring surgery, and CQ did an excellent job of helping these children recover in most cases. They were also quite proactive if they suspected there were any health problems and would take children to see specialists.

At the time of my visit trip, my son was on soy formula because he seemed to be having bad reactions to regular formula. It cleared up by the time I came to bring him home, but again, CQ was very proactive.

As for the attorneys CQ has worked with, I can't vouch for everything about them, but I can say that they all seem to work very hard at processing cases efficiently. Often, we've seen on the Big List that attorneys implicated in corruption etc. not only engaged in corrupt practices but also were notoriously slow in filing paperwork. CQ's attorneys really seem to be a hard-working bunch.

Respectfully,

Lee

Anonymous,
I did not say that the Bonn sisters had anything to do with the current situation. Do you think past associations of CQ with the Bonn's might have helped make CQ a target?

As I've said, there's a lot of politics being played here and the kids are the footballs.

David K

The "sick" and/or hospitalized children were sick while under the care of the CQ doctor BUT the conditions were under control. With proper nutrition, maintenance medications, and high standards of cleanliness/hygiene, the respiratory issues were under control. For some with digestive issues, the "conditions" are fine when the proper formula is used.

Casa Quivira is based in Antigua, Guatemala, so it cannot be an agency licensed in the US. There are some agenices that offer a Guatemalan program which is Casa Quivira but CQ itself isn't based in the US. I am not an expert by any means with the Hague details on licensing, etc., but I am under the impression that a direct placement, like Casa Quivira does, will be still permitted with the US implementation of the Hague. Again, I may be way off here.

I don't know the details of April Viola's adoption with Casa Quivira and so I cannot attest to that. I don't know of anyone, however, in the last 8 years that has adopted through CQ and has had such claims. I don't know how old April's daughter is, but if she is over 10 years of age (or right around there), it is entirely possible that she was in the care of a foster mother working with CQ as the CQ facility/nursery is only 10 years old. It is this possible lack of oversight which prompted Cliff and Sandra to create an hogar--they felt they could not oversee and control all of the variables in the individual homes of foster mothers and so they created the group home. I understand that the ultimate oversight should/would have come from Clifford, but I am just giving a possible explanation as I know it.

I continue to pray for the babies, the attorneys, the judges, the Guatemalan government, and the current caregivers of these children.

We adopted our daughter through CQ almost 8 years ago. She lived at CQ from 3 days old to 27 months. Cliff had received her abandonment decree when she was 23 months old and that is when we accepted her referral. When we brought her to the US, she did have 2 parasites but otherwise was in excellent health. When we brought her to an adoption clinic, they could not believe how healthy, happy, and advanced in her development she was. She attached to us immediately and when we left CQ, the nannies really cried. She was loved and well taken care of there. All the families w/children at CQ are in our prayers.
Joan

Good Hague Question about how CQ would be viewed under the US implementation of the Hague. CQs activities, being on such a large-scale (800 children processed), would be viewed as an adoption agency. As such, they would be required to be 'accredited' by their own central authority in Guatemala (not our central authority in the US). If a US agency were to be working with CQ and CQ was NOT ACCREDITED (post-Hague), that agency would be in violation of standards in the US and, within the Hague evaluation process, would be scruitinized and cited (potentially failing or losing accreditation). Another sticky area for providers in working foreign/sending nations--adoption facilitators will NOT be able to work on a cost-for-service basis (as contractors). As such, people like Bonn and others, will have direct and supervised relationships with US agencies--those US agencies being held accountable for the behaviors of their facilitators in foreign countries. In other words, agencies will not be able to distance themselves from facilitators when there is bad press about corruption/unethical practices. Because facilitators are the US agency link at greatest risk for Hague-related problems, this is significant. The workers at greatest risk for DIRECT unethical behaviors in Guate are the birth mother recruiters and lawyers. Under the Hague, the birth mother recruiters will not be able to act as free agents and thus they will be employees of an accredited agency and any relinquishment practice will be 'supervised' and regulated under the accreditation standards. Also, REASONABLE professional fees for all involved will be evaluated (and the attorney cost in Guatemala far exceeds 'reasonable'). Back to CQ--the Guatemala gov't (their Central Authority) will have oversight of their nation adoption providers that must be accredited per Hague standards. By the way, all of this ONLY applies to Hague countries. If the sending nation is NOT HAGUE, then these standards do not apply (i.e. Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.) even with US ratification. As for asking if this is within the licensing politics and the Hague--interesting question. Not sure of the answer, but I can tell you that licensing/accreditation is just now really taking place in the US, one agency at a time which requires an agency visit by a team for full accreditation. This is taking a fair amount of time to accomplish and is quite a task. However, in Guate, there is a significant contingent of people (politicians and ordinary citizens) who are unhappy with intercountry adoption. The tide has turned and the authorities are officially stepping in. Emotions aside, if there is evidence of corruption, the Guate government has every right to step into CQ either for criminal investigation or eventually(under the Hague) for agency accreditation/evaluation. That said, I don't condone HOW this has been done or the care of the children/"deteriorating situation". For us, in the US to view CQ as a private enterprise that is above the scruitany of Guate law enforcement is not realistic just because PAPs report good care. In the US substitute care of children is regulated by state social services with protocol. With Hague implementation, there will be a process by which to engage in agency evaulation--thereby theoretically avoiding law enforcement-style raids. The Central Authority would have oversight and trained evaluation teams with protocol for engagement. So, avoiding the Hague in Guate (constitutional challenges by Guate adoption lawyers) has consequences--mainly a delayed start-up for Hague implementation and thus no functional central authority/protocol. By the way, I am surprised that it took this long for the Guate anti-adoption contingent to make this move. I am surprised that they went after CQ with such glowing reports by so many, but it appears that someone associated with CQ has a SERIOUS enemy. Also, Clifford Phillips being an American is at risk for investigation of child trafficking by US Marshalls who have busted others for immigration violations and conspiracy (see the Cambodia adoption history).
--Submitted by a US Hague Agency Evaluator who have lived in worked in Guate off and on for the past 15 years.

Mr. Phillips

Here are some corrections on a few of your latest postings.

1.The 2 children that were released on Aug 24, was from a direct order from the First Court of Children and Adolescence, by Judge Rossanna Maribel Mena Guzman.

2.The order was issued DIRECTLY to the hogar that had acquired custody of the 2 children on Aug 23
by the same court mentioned above.

3.The court did not "order the Guatemalan President's Office of Social Welfare to turn over custody of the 2 children". The Office of SBSP was not contacted, consulted or notified of their release.

4.The same First Court had, on Aug 23, ordered the tranfer of all CQ children to various hogars. This order was addressed to SBSP, who had the responsibility of over sight of the CQ home at the time.

4.The LEGAL raid on the CQ home, was initiated by the Guatemalan government offices of:
PGN, Ministerio Publico,Dept of Human Rights, and the local Police Dept. It was a combined effort and the result of on-going investagations. The Social Welfare
Dept, SBSP, was simply the Government entity that was asked to assume the oversight of the home until the Children's Court system could find appropriate homes for the children.

5.All reports against the office of SBSP that they let the home become a "pig-pin" and the children were not given the proper formulas (whole milk) will be proven false by use of the closed circuit cameras throughout the home.
Every minute of the CQ home take over has been recorded through these cameras.

Karenms1 -

On what grounds do you think Cliff is "at risk for investigation of child trafficking by US Marshalls who have busted others for immigration violations and conspiracy"?

It sounds like you are suggesting that you know of reasons for such an investigation? Or are you just saying that IF there are immigration violations THEN Cliff would be at risk because he is an American?

Big difference!

Not that this has anything to do with the poor children and families that have been victimized here - I realize it does not but since it has been brought up . . .

I always wondered if CQ wasn't really a US adoption agency/facilitator that represented a Guatemala Hogar. I mean, where are the adoptive parent's files kept? The applications? Where is the office of the case manager for the parents located? Where did the parents send their dossiers? Their payments?

I do not know the answers to these questions, I am just asking sincerely. But if the answers to any of these questions are "in the U.S.," then it seems that there should be a U.S. State license and the agency should fall under U.S. regulations, be required to follow proper social work practices, etc.

Also, I always cringed at the fact that CQ had (last time I checked) 17 obviously homosexual couples on their "families" page. And this was not counting the single men. I always thought, why not put a big flashing neon sign on your head. It just seemed careless to advertise smiling photos of Bill and Bob and Jack and Charles and Susie and Sally on your parents page given the political climate in Guatemala and given that the best interest of all of the kids, and not just in CQ's program, should come first.

I am not saying that this is what made CQ a target nor do I believe that in a just world it should have, but I think it is a possibility.

I wonder if this could be playing into why no judge will touch the case?

I do not mean to be unsupportive. What has happened is wrong. I pray that the government is not sucesssful in using these children for its political purpose.

My hearts and prayers go out to all the waiting families and the babies. I brought my son home almost 1 year ago and I hope that each of them get to live that joy very soon.

Is there any chance that the elections in September will help this situation at all?

Gaby,

Since you seem to have so much insight into the particulars of the situation, can you please share with us VERY ANXIOUS adoptive parents what exactly the Guatemalan Government now plans to do with our children???? Will our adoption plans continue or will these children be left in orphanages to continue the cycle of poverty???? Tutorship of the children, I believe is an important issue here, will the government not have to file an abandonement case on every single child to obtain tutorship??? Where will that leave us as adoptive parents??? Have any birth mother's been involved in the investigation??? If this was an "ongong investigation" and PGN was involved why were cases approved in the time prior to the raid???

Mari:
I have no agenda here for or against Cliff Phillips. As a US citizen, if he is involved with falsified documents that are put forth to the US embassy for the purpose of orphan visas he is very much at risk for Federal investigation for visa fraud and possibly conspiracy. In the past, such cases (as in Cambodia) have resulted in such charges in addition to money laundering--a guilty plea by the two US citizens involved resulted in jail terms and fines. As I have said on previous posts, I know NOTHING about CQ specifically and it appears that many have come forward to say positive things. However, if there are irregularities the US officials can go after Mr. Phillips because he is a citizen, resides in FL, etc. These are the same investigators that intervened in the Mary Bonn case. I have long thought that the US government was going to prosecute someone...if you read between the lines of the Embassy warnings, it is pretty clear to me that they have evidence and investigations in process. Just my hunch...not based on any inside information. I know this is a serious assertion to put forth, but I won't be surprised...we'll have to wait and watch.

By the way, visa fraud in the case of orphan visas is being carried out pretty frequently because there it is HIGHLY unlikely that ALL of the children that are being relinquished by the birthmother are truly without a father (cases of abandonment or death). This is common misinformation that is used on orphan visas--if it is claimed and is an untruth, that's visa fraud. As such, the Federal Marshalls have grounds to investigate. As you can see, this is very dangerous water for anyone found to be involved in wrong-doing and it is only a matter of time before a US citizen is made an example of.

Margaret:
I don't know if CQ was officially registered in the US, in a state like FL, as an adoption agency. I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't--it had a virtual presence on the web and a physical location in Guatemala. However, if it were registered in a state--state laws would apply. All states manage adoption differently. However, under the Hague that will change in the case of a US agencys involvement with another agency in a Hague-signatory country. Those relationships will be regulated. Otherwise, it has been said that adoption is the largest unregulated industry in America worth over a billion dollars (with the states doing a mediocre to poor job regulating due to limited or poorly written laws). Most attempts to regulate are met with GREAT resistance--such as our own nations ratification of the Hague. I have always been surprised by PAP resistance to regulation because of the amount of fraud--whether domestic or international. However, the stakes are high for all and the government is not trusted when it comes to child welfare...

As for your questions about gay and lesbian adoptions. Guate has long been known for this dynamic which began quietly and reached a crescendo along with all the adoptions taking place there. If CQ was particularly 'open' about this practice (i.e. photos on the web, etc.), this situation may well be a backlash as Guatemala is an extremely homophobic country in which gays and lesbians suffer unsepeakable violence and suffering on a daily basis. If the families that were seen "coming and going" from CQ were frequently same-sex couples--that would get some people in Antigua pretty upset. I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS WAS THE CASE, I AM ONLY RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION (above).

Again, as I said before, I have no knowledge of CQ. I say these things based on my history of having lived in Antigua.

Karenms - Do adoptive parents really have "resistance to regulation", as you stated? A statement like that makes us sound like we are eager participants in a fraudulent system - that we prefer the system to remain corrupt so that we may benefit. Rich white Americans sweeping in to steal the babies of the poor, etc. It's an appealing viewpoint for many.
As for me (and, I imagine, basically all adoptive parents), I am horrified to hear about cases of coercion and corruption. I want it to end. However, when the media and the government and those in the ivory tower portray ALL Guatemalan adoptions as totally unregulated, fraught with corruption, costing $40,000 or more, child-trafficking, baby-stealing, unethical, suspicious, whatever inflammatory sensational adjective - it makes me mad, and it makes me doubt their motives, and it makes me wonder why they can't/won't present a balanced view and consider all aspects of the situation. Like, what's going on with UNICEF and these alleged huge sums of money going to the Guatemalan government? What are the genuine benefits that adoption provides, and what percentage of birth families are truly helped by the option of adoption? Is the Hague regulation the best way to help? Do we have to end adoptions in order to conform to the Hague? And so on...
Those are the things I want to know. I do WANT reform and regulation in adoption, but I'm not going to stand up and cheer for people who portray me as an unethical child-trafficker, or who publish papers and articles that label my child as an illegal "export".

Though this topic is derailing from the main posted storyline, nonetheless... This election season is probably one of the bloodiest to date, with over 30 candidates murdered and also their children. Election Day is scheduled for September 9, this stands to reason why some agencies would caution families from travelling during this time. The main Presidential candidates in the lead are Alvaro Colom, a left-wing party candidate who is currently in the lead and Perez-Molina, a US backed presidential candidate, also, Gammettei(sp?) who was head of the prison system under Rios-Montt. Rigoberta Menchu, a K'iche' activist now running, is viewed as a long-shot, though 40% of GT is of "Mayan" descent, she is not providing a strong position on issues and Chavez has distanced himself from her. All presidential candidates have publically stated that they will not allow homosexuals to adopt, no mention publically on further adoption issues, though there are speculations on who would advocate for abolishing international adoption. For further discussion on this topic and other topics, please
go to Guatadopt.com's Forum, scroll to the left of this screen, click on Forum and register to view.
Marie, Guatadopt.com

CQ's office is in Guatemala and that is where the paperwork is processed/kept -- period. It's not a US adoption agency, nor is it trying to get around any US laws.

thank God they will have a new law against gays adopting. it made my stomach turn when i saw the pics of sam and jack and sally and sara etc. those poor children !

Tina,

Let me say that Guatemala is a sovereign nation and can pass whatever law it desires. We in the US don't have any say in it. With that said, I find your comment extremely troubling and intolerant. For the record, I am a hapily married, extremely straight, heterosexual male. But I have marched and protested in favor of gay rights and would happily do so again. I wonder if I still have my shirt that read "honorary lesbian"?

Laws like those passed in Florida that try to dictate what makes a proper famiy have no place in our modern society. Gay and lesbian families thrive or fail like any others. Study after study shows that children of gay parents do just fine - it is not a problem.

Everyone has their own religious convictions and far be it for me to say anyone is wrong. But the judgement on those things is for the heavens. For the time being, EVERYONE deserves equality under the law.

There are many people bringing children into this world and adopting with morals and ethics that I don't agree with. But that's my problem and I would never condone discriminating against them.

To al our readers, PLEASE let's not turn this intoa debate over whtehr gays should be allowed to adopt. I can't stop that from happening and will not censor, but I'd prefer it to be avoided.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

I would like to second Kevin's comments and suggest that we all live peacefully with each other on this forum despite our political differences around sexual politics and adoption.

The bottom line is that everyone on this forum, whether gay, straight, single, or whatever, has the same goal: to give a child in need a loving home.

Let us transcend the ugliness of the "culture wars" for the sake of the children if not ourselves.

JA;

Your message embodies the dichotomy of the adoptive parents relating to Guatemala.

You state:

"... I do WANT reform and regulation in adoption..."

and:

"A statement like that makes us sound like we are eager participants in a fraudulent system"

Would you feel better if the word "eager" were removed? If you see the need for reform, you must see that there is fraud...and participating in the fraudulent system is exactly what is occuring.

Using words like "Eager", then that string of extreme modifiers:

"ALL Guatemalan adoptions as totally unregulated, fraught with corruption, costing $40,000 or more, child-trafficking, baby-stealing, unethical, suspicious"

Allows you to admit there are problems, ignore valid arguments to that effect by creating an extreme position, which no one, in fact holds.

Not all adoptions are fraudulent. But in principle, at what percentage would you agree that a moratorium is needed?

If the system is producing ANY inducement to abuse and coerce, and defraud, shouldn't that be enough?

Bit by bit, on this web site, facts of Quivira's less than sterling affiliations and activities are coming to light. And by all accounts of the PAP's, they are one of the best.

One must purposefully turn a blind eye, or be in denial (OK, or actually believe the Guatemalan baby brokers) to not see the resistance to regulation, and participation, eager or not.

The current situation in Guatemala has nothing to do with the types of families adopting these children. And for the record, I would rather a child go to a loving family...ANY family, than live on the streets or grow up in an orphanage. And I know many non-traditional families that are MUCH better off than traditional families. How families are made are none of our business, but rather we should be focusing on the conditions of these children and the adoption of those children in need of a permanent loving family. period.

JA:
When I stated that there has been a resistance to regulation I wasn't really thinking about Guate, to be honest. I was thinkingmore globally about the fact that 50-states do things fifty different ways and, as a result, domestic adoptions are incredibly difficult and problematic. When new regulations are put forth as proposals, they are often met with GREAT resistance (including highly organized and financed lobbying efforts). Since this is a multi-billion dollar industry that is largely unregulated, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a lobbying effort against systemic reform. I find that PAPs are often trying to get their adoption completed and are diligently focusing on that--and reform is macro and quite scarey while their adoption is in process. However,there are some families that have spoken out agressively and they often get shoot the messenger--including an academic by the name of Smoilin whose two daughters were stolen and sold into his family by an adoption agency (he was playing by the rules--the adoption suppliers were not). By the way, the idea of exporting children too disapoints me. However, supply-demand type language has been used on this site and is agreed by many as the dynamic that is taking place in intercountry adoption fraud problems. As for the ivory tower--well I guess I am guilty. I work as an educator and researcher who focuses on a variety of issues including Guatemala and adoption in general. However I have lived and worked in Guatemala off and on for the past 15 years so I don't think you can call me uninformed and I am catagorically not calling adoptive families eager to participate in corruption. In fact, I am quite sympathetic to the entire situation.

Sorry Kevin, can't honor your wishes. I must speak up on this one.

Tina, for the record, I too am "extremely straight, heterosexual" although female, and previously married for 23 years to an abusive man who would not allow me to have my life dream of having children. Had I stayed with him, I would not be the mom to a fantastic three year old that I have adopted from Guatemala.

My point? I always wanted to be that happily married woman with a ton of kids and the house with the white picket fence. But in this life, not all of us get all of what we want. I had the choice of continuing to honor my marriage committnment, continue to be abused, and remain unhappy and childless, or persue my life's dream. I tried WAY too long waiting and hoping for a change that was never going to happen. I was 19 when I started my committment with this man, 23 years was way too long to pay for that mistake!

Do I want to be single right now? No. That is just what the plan was for me at this point in time. The plan is different for all of us. If you are religious you already know that we do not always get to chose the plan. If you are not, then you know that we cannot control others in our environment and that everyone makes their own choices, and that often those choices can favorably or unfavorable change the lives of others nearby us. We are each individuals.

As a single mom, I am also sick of the assumptions that I am not as good of a parent, or the assumptions that I am not interested in an adult relationship, or the assumptions that I am a lesbian, both by the Guatemalan government and also by people here. I feel that I am a great parent who some day would love to get married again, and had I been born a lesbian, that would've been ok, but I was not.

Tina,
I agree with Kevin that your comments are intollerant and do not belong in modern society. There are many types of families, different from just Mom-Dad-Kids. Some of them heterosexual families, and some of them same sex parent families, some very large, some very small, some with extended relatives, some with friends who are not related by blood but whome are still part of the family. Really it is irrelevent (what the sexual orientation of the adults in the famiy is).

What is relevent? Is the family loving, encouraging, nurturing to the children helping them to be all that they are able to be? Does the family encourage its children to be good and caring and contributing members of the family, the neighborhood, the larger community and as an adult to be a good member of the world?

I too have marched for the rights of gays/lesbians in my community. I have also marched for the rights of immigrants, and I have marched in protest of police brutality in my city, and so has my daughter.

Why? Because we live in the greatest nation in the world, despite our many problems, we are free to speak up against those problems. Keeping some of our members at a lower status due to their economic status, their skin color (the police issue in my city), or their sexual orientation is not only intollerant, but immoral.

Sorry Kevin, but keeping quiet on this one would be unAmerican and immoral in my view--can't do it.

Lizzie
Proud Mama to Anarosa
home forever with Mama since 5-26-04
waiting for Migdalia

The US Embassy has released/forwarded a statement issued by Bienestar. Like the Embassy, I will not comment on its merits one way or the other. The statement is posted below and can be found at: http://guatemala.usembassy.gov/casaquiviragog.html

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Government of Guatemala Announcement about Casa Quivira
Bienestar Social issued this statement. It does not necessarily reflect U.S. government views but in the general interest we are posting it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Welfare Secretariat
Presidency of the Republic
Guatemala, August 20, 2007

With regard to the “Casa Quivira” home, informs that:

The Social Welfare Secretariat of the Presidency is governed by the Integral Protection Law for Children and Youth (Ley PINA) which obligates us to work under legal orders given by an appropriate Judge; and in this particular case, the instructions given by the Judges are being followed and executed according to the Guatemalan legislation.

The First Instance Court for Children and Youth of the Department of Chimaltenango, ordered on August 14th, 2007 with file number 381-2007 the intervention of “Casa Quivira”, located in Antigua Guatemala, Department of Sacatepéquez. The Judge designated the Deputy Secretary for Family Protection, Help and Rehabilitation of the Social Welfare Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic as intervener, authorizing her to take care of the children’s needs, in order to protect the health and physical integrity of the forty-six children located at that home. Therefore, the children who live at “Casa Quivira” are under the guardianship of the Protection and Help program of the Social Welfare Secretariat.

The Social Welfare Secretariat wants to clarify emphatically that the accusations related to the following topics are false:

Damage of the physical installation of the mentioned home.
This accusation is false, as it can be corroborated at any time.

That the children are given inappropriate food and whole milk.
This is not true. The Secretariat can, at any time prove it with the purchase invoices of the formula that the babies are consuming which was prescribed based on an evaluation made by a pediatrician and nutritionist. At the moment that the Secretariat took control of the home, no stocks of food for the babies or l materials for cleaning and hygiene were located; the necessary food and cleaning materials were provided by the Secretariat.

That the children have not received any medical care since Saturday, August 11th, 2007.
Since August 15th, 2007 medical specialists and personnel from the Social Welfare Secretariat are at the home taking care of the children and preparing files, since the previous administrators did not leave any documentation, and the files that were found are being kept by the Public Ministry, which is the entity in charge of the investigation.

That there has been an interruption of the medicine given to the children who need it.
This is not true; the same baby sitters hired by “Casa Quivira” are taking care of the children, under the guidance of the physician in charge.

That “Casa Quivira” is becoming a filthy place or “pig-sty” according to the words used by false accusers, due to the mud that the Social Welfare personnel bring in.
The above is ridiculous, since the Social Welfare Secretariat of the Presidency is the party most interested in protecting children who are under its responsibility and in keeping the place healthy for them. The constant judicial inquiries requested by attorneys at this home, which have been realized at all hours during the day and night, have interrupted the children’s schedule.

6. That Doctor Juárez has not been allowed to enter the Social Welfare Secretariat.
The Secretariat personnel has no information that the mentioned physician had presented himself at any time; and being that physician the responsible person for the children before the intervention, it would have been logical that he would have presented himself with the children’s files to show interest for their health.

The Social Welfare Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic is well qualified to have these children in a Protection and Help Center and to take care of them by professional personnel on programs for integral attention with an expert team formed by pediatricians, psychologists, nutritionists, nurses and baby sitters.

The Social Welfare Secretariat acts according to a legal court order and the corresponding reports are sent to that judge. On August 17th, 2007, in a press conference, the Social Welfare Secretariat informed the media about the measures taken on this issue.

Kevin,

I appreciate your wanting to allow Tina her freedom of speech on this, but frankly, I believe censorship on your part is warranted here. Such intolerance should not be accepted on this forum and I'm offended that you would even approve such a message.

Mamacita

We're really suprised that CQ publically put photos of gay and lesbian couples on their web site who adopted from Guatemala.

First, because it looks like they were trying to cash in on something that the majority of agencies did not or could not offer, that is homosexuals adopting Guatemalan babies.

"Cash in" Not selling babies!!! BUT, ADVERTISING to a specific group whom you know have very few other althernatives, so when they see your advertisment, they are likely to consider adoption, especially through you.

Second, we could be wrong, but we thought that Guatemala does not allow homosexual to adopt their children. Those who are single are required to provide a letter stating that they are not homosexual. Some singles are also required to have a letter from a psychologist.

So, our question is: Did CQ facilitate these adoptions by having their homosexual individuals lie on the statement? How did they get around this?

Could this have been one of the reason's for the raid?

Also, people may view things differently in the states but if Guatemala chooses to not have homosexuals adopt their children then their choice/decision/law? should also be respected.

Steve,

Quick question. You stated that bit by bit, CQ's less than sterling activities were coming to light. Which one's were those...sorry if I missed them.

Gaby Berger, thank you for posting on behalf of your parents. Tell your mom to have fun spending all her UNICEF $$.

Annie,
I do not wish to get caught up in any particulars with "VERY ANXIOUS"
adoptive parents.
The purpose of my posting was to bring truth about false accuations made against SBSP by CQ public relations.
Having family living in Guatemala and having spent extended time there has made me sympathetic to the on-going injustice with reguards to International Adoption.
Gaby

(sorry if this is a duplicate... I think I lost my first draft)

Karenms - Thanks for your post. I understand your position more clearly now.

Steve - I really would like to know the percentage of cases that the US Embassy considers to involve fraud. What are they doing in those situations - are those cases being approved anyway? Are they under pressure to approve known fraudulent adoptions or what? The State Dept did state at one point that previously approved adoptions are not in question, so I feel somewhat reassured by that statement.
Some may think it's unethical to participate in a system known to involve ANY corruption, but I personally feel like it's unethical to not offer a home to a child who needs one, or to attempt to shut down all adoptions, when I am not convinced that the corruption situation is widespread enough to avoid adoption at all costs. I researched thoroughly and selected a respected agency, and met the individuals who completed our adoption, and did my best to assure that we would be in the majority of families with an adoption "not in question". Of course, not everyone does that research, which is why I am happy that the Hague will require agencies to be accredited.

To Tina..

What if your child or family member was gay and wanted to adopt - what would you think then.

You should grow up!

Mamacita,
ALthough Tina's comments make me sick....I don't want her censored. People are entitled to their opinions, even when I think they are wrong ;) Intolerance is gross.....but if we censor that, what next? I'd rather see the ugly, and confront it, than pretend intolerance doesn't exist.

Everyone. This is just another person throwing out a venomous statement for attention. Let's try not to give her the attention she, for whatever reason desires. Erik

Mommy said:

"we should be focusing on the conditions of these children and the adoption of those children in need of a permanent loving family. period."

Lizzie said:

"What is relevent? Is the family loving, encouraging, nurturing to the children helping them to be all that they are able to be? Does the family encourage its children to be good and caring and contributing members of the family, the neighborhood, the larger community and as an adult to be a good member of the world?"

I appreciate your restraint in your editing, Kevin. For if you had censored Tina, you would have had to censor these righteous comments.

Because in making these statements, each is speaking morally, rather than pragmatically or from self interest, or scientifically. These are moral judgements, just like Tina's. They could offend some who feel that the poor conditions of the children in Guatemala do not constitute a right of Americans to come in and ignore the local culture, and imperialistically "rescue" the children.

Others feel pretty strongly that homosexuality is perverse, and so would be one of the things some feel a "good" family would protect its children from. And to suggest that all modern Americans are in agreement on this issue is a bit ... optimistic.

Morality is a funny animal...it really needs a basis other than feelings or a majority vote to be valid.

These comments also raise the issue you and I spoke about in a few posts back: Is adoption a vehicle for rescuing children, or a way for a childless couple or single adult to have a desired experience? It seems that a distinction, or clarification, between those two objectives might help.

Otherwise, we vindicate the complicity by saying it is the best for the children, as it just doesn't sound right to say, we adults are complicit with corruption to satisfy our desires.

It seems that this dual sense causes confusion, reflected in these comments.

Gaby,

Having family in Guatemala has made you sympathetic to the injustice of international adoptions there? How?!!!

The real injustice is the way that the Guatemalan middle and upper classes perpetuate the very social and economic conditions that lead some women to the desperate decision to place their children for international adoption.

The Guatemalan media in the past few days has been filled with stories about the town of La Union, where there are children starving to death and where mothers on some days only have water to give their children. On a good day, there might be ONE tortilla per day. The mayor has asked for the government's help but nothing has been forthcoming.

Or what about the very small children who are forced to work alongside their parents on farms, for pennies per day? The children who don't go to school. The children who often die of perfectly curable diseases -- but whose families have no access to healthcare and whose government makes sure that they remain mired in poverty.

Or what about the fact that Guatemalans refuse to adopt the very children that are adopted internationally? Because they're Maya/poor. Because the elites are racist toward the indigenous population.

A few years back when I was adopting (or a bit before), adoption attorneys offered FREE adoptions for Guatemalans and publciized this widely. There were no takers. Instead, the daughter of the First Lady and President of Guatemala goes and adopts a white baby from Ukraine.

These are the injustices in Guatemala, Gaby. I don't say that the current system is perfect but the government's actions against CQ, and how it has mistreated these children (removed them in the middle of the night in the pouring rain from the only caregivers they've ever known), are the real injustice here.

The question about WHAT EXACTLY the US Embassy has documented in terms of adoption fraud is a GREAT question. I am eager to see the documentation, but my guess is that nothing is being released due to a variety of factors including ongoing investigations. However, it seems like some freedom of information requests may well be in order here.

Mommy said:

"we should be focusing on the conditions of these children and the adoption of those children in need of a permanent loving family. period."

steve responded:

I appreciate your restraint in your editing, Kevin. For if you had censored Tina, you would have had to censor these righteous comments.

I reply back:

oh my god....I am totally laughing right now. First of all, even though I TOTALLY disagreed with Tina, I still defended her right to speak...as I defend your right to speak, even though I have disagreed with most of what has been written here by you. AND....Censored for saying that instead of focusing on WHO is adopting the children of Guatemala, that we should now be focused on THESE children formerly of CQ, and their needs for a family?? Thanks for the laugh. Second, it is "righteous"...and therefore censor-able for me to say I would rather a child be in a home with loving parent(s), than on the streets or in an orphanage. Wow. The last time I checked, children deserved a family. I'm sure most of us have to agree to disagree on this subject, but I am pretty sure it is not "righteous" of me to say kids should have a family. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks for the giggles :)

Here is a website to write to regarding feedback to the US Embassy in Guate; Please write to them re your experiences & how the process can be improved on our end;
write to: AskCI@state.gov.

CLP:
I would be happy to give a few details. Our daughter came into foster care approximately 2 weeks after birth and apparently had been receiving water and honey. I thank God that she was relinquished by a birthmother who obviously cared about her as she was not abandoned in what was obviously extremely difficult circumstances for a single mother with other children. Our process continued as outlined by our agency until we entered PGN. We were in PGN for 6 months with 2 "knock-outs" for what seemed like obscure reasons. The process from referral to bringing our daughter home was 13 months. It was obvious the foster Mom had a deep affection for our daughter and for that we our truly greatful. Our daughter is doing well and is a real joy. I pray that each child involved in the Casa Quivira raid will be joining their forever families soon.
Two thoughts for pondering:
1) I have heard nothing from families within Guatemala upset about ICA due to the fact that so many infants are being adopted abroad which would reduce their chances of adopting. Are there loving families waiting with open arms to redeive these children. Our daughter has lovely Mayan features visible to a trained eye, would that alter her adoption status in her own country?
2) Our daughter needed a loving and nurturing home. We wanted to extend our family through adoption. These are two sides of one beautiful coin.
I am aware that adoption fraud is an issue in Guatemala however let us continue to focus on implementing changes that will promote greater clarity and representation for children, birthmothers and adoptive parents.

PS: CLP may your process move steadily forward resulting in a forever family reunion.

Jane said,

"Gaby Berger, thank you for posting on behalf of your parents. Tell your mom to have fun spending all her UNICEF $$."

I think comments like yours do not help this debate very much. The only thing that comes through is the fact that you are not very informed and do not know that much about Guatemala. First, Jane, if you think there is only one Berger family in Guate...think again. A quick google search will reveal that is not true. Read about the Belgian community of the mid 1800 and you'll learn that several Berger migrated to Guatemala. BTW, the president doesn't have a daughter named Gaby. If either of the president's daughter were trying to conceal her identity on this site, she wouldn't change her first name but keep her last name, wouldn't she?

Accusing people of pocketing UNICEF money is a serious thing. Or do you actually think ALL Guatemalans are corrupt to feel confident that you are right?

and Lee said,

"A few years back when I was adopting (or a bit before), adoption attorneys offered FREE adoptions for Guatemalans and publciized this widely. There were no takers. Instead, the daughter of the First Lady and President of Guatemala goes and adopts a white baby from Ukraine."

As far as I know, domestic adoptions in Guatemala are done through attorneys other than the ones dealing with international adoptions. I think it's dangerous to generalize, particularly if your sources are limited. I've heard that story and the stuff about Ukraine several times already. What surprises me and saddens me is that you are very quick to judge a country by its first family. Would you think that it is fair to judge you and other commenters in this site by the actions of your own first family? and secondly, you had your own reasons for not adopting in the U.S., you adopted internationally, just like the Guate president's daughter did. Personal choices on both cases (Why didn't you adopt domestically then? what is wrong with American children?) You know what I mean? I'm sure you hope people will respect your choice for adopting from Guatemala.

As a Guatemalan, I really appreciate informed comments like karenms and guatadopt's hosts. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I also appreciate guatadopt for being so open to everyone's position on the issue. It is true that Guatemalans base some or many of their opinions on adoptions on rumors, but I also think that people commenting here are at fault of accepting rumors or one person's version as truth.

I am someone who hopes international adoptions remain open in my country but firmly believes that the system needs revamping. I also believe that part of the ill feelings of both sides come from misinformed ideas and blanket statements about both sides. Both sides.

Mariale,

Gracias por escribir y participar en este debate. It's valuable to hear Guatemalan perspectives in all of this.

My comment about the Bergers' daughter had nothing to do with "why didn't she adopt domestically?" Instead, it has everything to do with the Bergers' (and UNICEF's critique) of international adoption. The Bergers, and many others in Guatemala, along with UNICEF and many NGOs, contend that international adoption is 1) inherently corrupt; 2) never about the best interests of the child; and 3)damaging to children because they are removed from their birth culture -- I see all three of these arguments regularly in the Guatemalan press. In that respect, the position of the Berger family in all of this is quite hypocritical.

I know people who've adopted from Ukraine and the process is no cleaner (in many ways, it's worse) than in Guatemala. For example, in Ukraine, you do not get a referral, as you do in Guatemala. Instead, families travel to Ukraine and choose a child from vast books, or from looking around at orphanages -- talk about treating children as commodities!! Plus, you have to bring thousands of dollars in cash with you to pay various officials. This is the process in which the Berger family participated and yet, they condemn Guatemala's process -- which is much cleaner in many ways than Ukraine's!!

As for domestic adoption in Guatemala, the process is really no different than it is for international adoptions and the attorneys who handle international adoptions can, from what I understand, just as easily handle domestic ones -- it's a notarial process in most instances and has the same stages/requirements.

I've seen many reports/analyses making clear that Guatemalans are not interested, in many instances, in adopting these children -- because they're Maya.

Believe me -- I do not judge Guatemala by the actions of the Berger family. I know that Guatemala has many people who understand why so many children are placed for international adoption. My son is being raised bilingually and to love Guatemala.

At the same time, it seems that Mrs. Berger is very much behind the raid on Casa Quivira and she has made repeated inflammatory and inaccurate statements about international adoption -- even though she is a grandmother thanks to international adoption.

Respectfully,

Lee

Mariale,

I think you put it all very well. The truth seems to lie somewhere in the middle of both sides. Thank-you for posting your thoughts. I think that you made a number of really eye opening points!

Protect the Children:

FYI, I adopted as a single person and was not required to submit a statement of heterosexuality or a psychologist report. While I believe that certain agencies require these, my agency did not nor did the person who reviewed by file at PGN.

Steve,
You wrote:
"These comments also raise the issue you and I spoke about in a few posts back: Is adoption a vehicle for rescuing children, or a way for a childless couple or single adult to have a desired experience? It seems that a distinction, or clarification, between those two objectives might help."
I know the question was directed to Kevin, but I'm going to throw in my answer.
YES. Both.
That's the beauty of adoption.
I think your wording of "desired experience" for parenthood to be lacking however. I consider it a basic human need for most of us, but maybe that's because I'm speaking from the female point of view. My life simply wasn't complete until I became a mother. My children's lives were seriously lacking until they became part of a family. We all needed each other.

Mariale's misunderstanding of Jane's sarcastic comment about "Gaby Berger" illustrates the difference in our cultures. Jane did not literally think that a daughter of President Berger was posting on this forum. I am sure there are many things which are misconceived between the two cultures. Not a judgement, just an observation.

Mariale -

Pretty sure that Jane's comment was tongue and cheek - not to be taken literally but with some humor. We do that in the US, even when things are as serious as they are now. Don't take yourself too seriously, Mariale.

Mariale, it's called sarcasm. A quick Google search will define it for you.

And as for UNICEF's "donations" to the anti-adoption crusade? Maybe you could google that too while you're at it.

Lizzie wrote "Keeping some of our members at a lower status due to their economic status, their skin color (the police issue in my city), or their sexual orientation is not only intollerant, but immoral."

In response to Lizzie, I find it interesting that you consider anyone that disagrees with Tina's point of view as an immoral person. Although I do not believe Tina's comment was very well written, I do hold the same belief that homosexuality is immoral and believe that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. I am tollerant of homosexuals, but I do believe it is wrong based upon my Christian beliefs and I could never support adoption by homosexuals.

I firmly believe that no one should be judged on the basis of their race, their family, or the country of origin. Further, I don't think that a person's opinions should be discounted because of their race, their family or their country of origin.

We should evaluate a person's opinions on the basis of their merit, period.

Steve said:

Morality is a funny animal...it really needs a basis other than feelings or a majority vote to be valid.

My comment:

Your commentary paints a very bleak picture of mankind if viewed through your glasses. Try reading God's word if you need a basis for morality. Your concepts of truth are based on your own logical thinking which leaves no room for compassion. Every choice made in this life is an experience wether it is meant for good or evil. Lets suppose that a child was hungry and you had no food to give to save their life, but your neighbor had a garden filled with food, and lets suppose that the neighbor was gone, would you let your child starve or would you take food and give it to your child that they might live. This scenario illustrates one's self desire doesn't it! Count me as being complicit for your score card!

perplejo con tu

Paul

According to newspaper Siglo 21, the Judge of the First Court of the Childhood and Adolescence revoked the custody of the Secretaria de Bienestar Social, and that is why she transferred the children to other private institutions. The children were sent to Casa Aleluya,Amor del Nino, Vida Ilimitada, Divina Trinidad and Fundacion Protectora del Nino Huerfano, where the people of SBS have no access to them. The PGN will appeal the court's decision.The lawyer of Casa Quivira believes that the decision of the judge is fair, because the children were getting sick under the care of Bienestar Social.

Susana Luarca

Paul,

Try reading God's word if you need a basis for morality.

Why to we half to drag religion into this. It's unbelievable to me that Paul tries to rationalize the world's ills because someone is not in tune with God. Please explain to me why God is not saving every innocent child that dies every day in Guatemala because of starvation? I try to respect people religious beliefs until they are shoved down my throat and I'm made to feel bad because I don't follow religion the way you do. I realize that this is straying from the original content of this post. I just needed to say it. Erik

thank you, Susana, for the update. Now what: do these new hogares have the children's tutelas? will they return to CQ's custody as relinquishment cases? will they be adoptable as relinquishments or must they go through termination of parental rights? - are the answers to these questions known yet? Continuing to lift all in prayer,
Lisa

Thank you Susana for this update. I am sure everyone appreciates your hard work and dedication to the children of Guatemala. I know I do. I continue to pray for the Lord's will in this whole mess. And that the children will not be forgotten.
Nancy

Cheryl I agree that everyones opinion should be respected. I think you put it well.

Earlier I thanked Mariale for her comments-though I didn't agree with everything she said-I appreciate hearing the different prespective of those living in Guatemala. And I got a deeper understanding of that from her thoughts. It helps me to get a bigger picture of all the different feelings and beliefs from the various sides of this.

Erik I'm sure that Paul could further explain the whys...if you were really asking a question. Though this may require him sharing more of God's Word with you (I know it truely has helped me to find answers to some hard questions).

I believe that when ever certain topics come up that faith will too because for some people that it where their beliefs come from. But yes it would be great if everyone could share their comments in an unsarcastic manner.

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they'll know we are Christians by our love (except for the gays)...

I hope by the time our children are grown, the world thinks the same way about homophobia as it does today about racism. It's 100% unacceptable.

Can we please get back to the topic of Guatemalan adoption? Thank you, Mariale, for your thoughtful comments. I have learned a lot from your posts and our previous conversations.

Susana, thank you so much for keeping families informed. The children from CQ and their families are in our prayers.

Steve, my husband and I decided the world has a lot of children who deserve a loving home and if more people adopted maybe the world would be a better place. If a child needs a family and there is a family who wants to raise a child what could be more right than for them to be placed together? Too many children need more people who are open to this. What is wrong with this?! What are we teaching them? Unless your own family can take care of you you can forget getting love from anyone else? What kind of message is this? I've read from some I am selfish because we don't have our own and refuse to go the fertility path. A great irony is we have denied having children biologically but the adoption path has taken so longggg we would probably have go the fertility path if we'd never found our children or .. never have children. We always wanted to have children and ironically the adoption process was so difficult we actually thought we may just not ever raise a child. The part that made me saddest about this, I can hear the mocking and self righteousness now, I dreamed of the kids in orphanages who wonder why noone comes for them. And the reason why is there are people who do everything in their power to stop adoptions for the childrens "best interests". I don't know .. maybe you guys should tell the kids that. Go and meet them and explain to kids why noone loves them and tell them how they really shouldn't have been born and its for the better good and all. Whats selfish is having too many people in this world think DNA somehow matters more than love. It doesn't matter.

A woman tried to flush her child down the toilet in our city today. Repeatedly. He wasn't breathing but they revived him. Maybe all the people who attack us can go to the hospital and tell him how he has the right to be with his real mom or maybe tsk tsk that he should never have been born. Lets pray he isn't given up for adoption to some selfish people who would only do so for their own selfish reasons and not because they thought he deserved someone to love him. I couldn't believe it when I read it. I think of so many people who would open their hearts and walk through fire to care for him and she tries to flush him repeatedly down the toilet. We did not ask for any child to be born. We did not ask for children to be taken. We did not ask for someone to bribe or coerce or threaten anyone. We said there are children in the world who need a family and we will give them one and we were blessed and lucky to find our children and I thank God for them everyday.

I can tell my children their birth mother loved them and went through a LOT to try to ensure they found a good home. The DNA and 4 time mother signoff and all the authorities who have been examining our tonsils for the last year have me thinking we have done everything in our power to ensure the right thing. We did not walk in without scrutinizing this after all the allegations. To date I have seen NOTHING provided that didn't somehow boil down to an unethical US agency which news flash they have adoptions domestically and internationally so why does this become Guatemalas problem? So I know the no process and no oversight is garbage. The same people who say 97% or whatever it is of our adoptions are illegal are BLESSING US so if they are blessing illegal adoptions then they have a lot they should answer for don't you think?

Susana's comment would explain the strange comment I saw in an article where Josefina said she was surprised the children were removed.

I read somewhere the 2003 law was meant for abuse cases where the parents rights are legally terminated and was never meant to apply to relinquishments.

Ok, just a note, it is not anyone's business to define what a family is. Children deserve loving families, and I have a best friend who has 2 Moms, and guess what, they are JUST like straight people in every other way. Love is love, and your comments do not belong in this forum if they are not accepting of other people's lives. Keep to the subject. This is about the children, and the Government of Guatemala. Sign me Straight, but not narrow.

Lee and Jane,

In an attempt to "validate" my opinion here, this is OUR story:

I am as NORTH American as you two

My family in Guatemala ? -
missionaries
YEARS in childrens ministry working with abused and abandoned children of Guatemala through the Children's courts
(note THE difference) not with relinquishing moms

Reason for my Extended time spent in Guatemala ? -

Adoptive parents of 12 beautiful Guatemala children, 3 of which are VERY special needs, and most were-
ADOPTION INDUSTRY REJECTS.
BUT
NOT BY GOD AND NOT BY US

BTW
I would consider it a compliment to be named " Gaby Berger"
At least the First Lady has stepped up to the plate in an attempt to bring much needed reform to Guatemalan adoption.

All these discussions will of course, continue to go on and on without making ANY difference at all with reguards to what will actually happen with the children of CQ or the children of Guatemala at large.

Just as is the reality of LIFE:
full of love, beauty, dissapointments, and yes, evil.
So is GUATEMALAN ADOPTION.

I WANT TO REINERATE- GOOD HAS BEEN DONE

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND- EVIL HAS BEEN DONE

THE RUB-
As I feel as pertains to this forum

Adoptive Parents want to lay their head on their pillows at night and say-
"I know, not everything in Guatemala Adoption is right, and yes, reform is needed:
but, MY adoption (my child) was not a part of the "alleged" curruption
They want to feel PERSONALLY clean.

That is just not reality.

WAY WAY too many adoptions ARE and WERE corrupt, and many of you cannot lay your head on your pillow tonight in peace.

You can argue till you have no breath.......

It's just not reality.

Gaby

Does anyone know some good web sites to read up on the sides of those running for office in Guatemala?

Julie
Keeping the children and all the waiting parents in my prayers

Interesting how presenting a few facts from the Guate side generated some aggressive responses. I stand my ground Jane, about making generalizations. I understand sarcasm, but in Guate we have a saying

"Entre broma y broma, la verdad se asoma"

Lee, I meant that Guatemalan adoptive parents don't need to go through the attorneys that treat international cases. The 10-12 cases that I can think of, went through their "regular" attorneys, people who take care of other legal affairs and aren't necessarily working only on adoptions. I'm no expert in Guatemalan law, but I think this is quite possible.

Apologies for my English, I'd be happy to switch to Spanish if you feel comfortable in it :)

I'm with Erinberry, this should be more about Guate adoptions, how to improve the system, how to keep them open while reducing abuses.

I joined this site not to serve as "historical and fact watchdog" but because I am honestly interested in closing the communication and understanding gap between stakeholders involved in adoption. It is not only about speaking a language, it is also about interpreting and understanding cultures. I've learned a lot from reading the wide spectrum of opinions shared on this site. I also pay much attention to what Guatemalans think and interpret about the subject. I know there is some common ground, but I also think there is a lot to learn and understand, from all sides.

Anyway, it's good to get reactions.

The Law of Integral Protection of the Childhood and Adolescence (PINA Law) applies only to those cases where the rights of the children are being violated or at risk. According to a recent ruling of a judge, who denied to an orphange its petition to grant the temporary protection of a child who is being adopted, the scope of the PINA Law does not extend to children being adopted. As it is the case with the Casa Quivira children, we trust that the judge who had the courage to take away from Bienestar Social the children who were kept hostages by them, will return the children to Casa Quivira very soon, to continue their adoption processes.

Susana Luarca

Mariale - I don't know if it's true that the Berger's daughter adopted from Ukraine but if so, that is a far different situation than people from the U.S. adopting foreign children. There are plenty of orphans to adopt in Guatemala of all ages - children and babies who are in desperate need of a family. Unlike Guatemala, there are no orphanages in the U.S. and by the time children here are finally taken away from their abusive and/or neglectful parents, they are so filled with rage and psychological problems that it often takes a team of professionals to deal with the fallout, which many people are afraid or feel ill-equipped to do. When you go through foster care training here to try and foster with the goal of adopting, you are often told that having other children in the home or pets is probably not a good idea. We look to other countries to adopt because women in other countries aren't aborting their children in record numbers like they are in the U.S. and many children are available before they have had horrific experiences with their parents. I don't know how the Berger's can justify adopting from Ukraine and stripping that child of his "culture" and choose NOT to adopt the many thousands of children in their own country in desperate need where they could have "preserved" a child's culture. You can't have it both ways.

Dear sincere commenters:

I think we all agree ( you can see my comments on other postings) on two things:

1) Adoption is the best option for a child whose birth family cannot provide.

2) There is corruption in the system here. Those who asked for proofs can be directed to Kevin and Kelly, who have many times stated that fact on this site. I will not try to convince anyone there is an elephant in the room.

It is my care about those children in need, and the children following them that makes me frustrated with the complicity of well meaning and multi-motivated Americans. And I ascribe that complicity more to their incredible naeivity in believeing the salesmen than any badness on their part. And now my fears are becoming reality, in that in all likelihood, Guatemalan international adoptions will stop. THAT is the saddest part, and it wasn't from anything I said, or did. I am just telling you the emperor has not had clothes for some time now.

And people will find another country to adopt form. And the children here will have been no better off after the wave of American adoptions. Someone had asked what can be done? What if we all focused hte sincere adour expressed here, and changed laws for adoptions: first in the states, so we can lead by example...now there's a new concept! But make adoptions realistic for the families who have that need and desire, and for the children that have that need, by really showing fidelity wiht the next adoptive parents and children. Change the laws!

One more comment: in Guatemala, adoptions have often occured "informally", so that the social register would never reflect that. The stigma of adoptions in the last 10 years makes a populace who was already hesitant, completely averse to an open adoption.

The Mom who answered "both" was so right! That is why adoption should be a sacred institution, much like marriage, in a context of maybe both church and state.

Things maybe someone can address some of the random thoughts below if they want us to listen to the corruption and complete shutdown suggestion

1) Press says UN recommends shut down of adoption. UN reports mention very little of adoption but talks a lot about trafficking for brothels or child labor worldwide. This piece is not mentioned in the press. I would expect more adoption commentary. The human rights reports talk very little if ever about adoption but make a lot of other allegations about world problems nobody is going after. So it surprises me for people to supposedly read these statements and then determine adoption is the true evil. So how do people pull adoption as the concern from these reports?
2) Everyone talks about allegations. From what I can tell most of the allegations seem to originate from Josefina, surprise, or her office or Prensa Latina courtesy of Cuba. If the story is reprinted 100 times is that one allegation or 100 allegations? Who is doing the counting? They also state 97% of adoptions BLESSED BY BOTH GOVERNMENTS are illegal they just don't have any proof. If you don't have proof how do you come up with a percentage and why are the governments blessing it? There have also been leading statements in the press about PGN rejecting more cases than usual because of "discrepencies" followed by commentary on illegal adoptions, kidnapping, selling, etc. Exactly how does someones updated dog vaccinations, color of Ink on a document, or whether they included spanish format of their name on their name affadavit fall into the shady and illegal category?
3) Josefina states in the press we go to Guatemala for babies ala carte and we knowingly want shady adoptions else we would go to the orphanages which are "free". In another article she is quoted as saying she will do everything in her power to ensure no children in the orphanages ever get a COA. You think maybe the AP's know this and thats why very few people attempt this?
4) Everybody is in agreement the government cannot afford the care of the children. However some are pushing for a moratorium because we supposedly all "know" our adoptions are illegal and unethical. Know based on what? Rumor? Speculation? Allegations from the people who flip flop on statements (Josefina) and give us percentage points for illegal acts while admitting there is no proof? Allegations from people who say its sad but our children should not have been born. And we're supposed to trust they have the children interests at heart?
5) Some of the "proof" given for ethics issues is scam artists. We have scam artists in the US and nobody is arguing a complete shutdown or that the system is completely corrupt.
6) We keep seeing and hearing there is no oversight or process. Can someone who honestly believes this please explain how all the governments and departments we must go through dont count as oversight or process?
7) The press on CQ was immediately condemning. Its appearing more and more based on credible third parties they were unjustly targetted. Four children who were supposedly "stolen" were already given to their parents. Makes me wonder how many other damaging claims have been made with no followup, no proof, but the world is left with the impression the story was true.
8) Other countries have performed moratoriums with no cut down on child trafficking. Why no reduction in trafficking? Could it be this is not the main avenue criminals use?

The children and families of CQ continue to be in our thoughts and prayers and I wish people would leave the families alone and stop false allegations and persecution unless you have credible evidence.

In response to "how much do you need to agree to a moratorium" how many innocent people have to go to jail before we decide to not outlaw murder? Throwing out the entire process because its not perfect can do more harm than good. Why can't you keep the process in place and address the pieces that are broke instead of throwing the entire thing out altogether? People ask us to support moratoriums that impact childrens lives on the basis of speculation?

Adoptive Parents want to lay their head on their pillows at night and say-
"I know, not everything in Guatemala Adoption is right, and yes, reform is needed:
but, MY adoption (my child) was nota part of the "alleged" curruption
They want to feel PERSONALLY clean.

That is just not reality.

WAY WAY too many adoptions ARE and WERE corrupt, and many of you cannot lay your head on your pillow tonight in peace.

You can argue till you have no breath.......

It's just not reality.
---------------------------

Ok, for arguements sake, now that I , dirty American adoptive parent living in a fantasy world, have my baby home adopted through corruption, what would you suggest I do at night? Beat myself up every night until I am no longer a good parent? My child is already here.....long before any of this happend. Long before the DOS warning. I had NO idea what was going in Guatemala prior to his homecoming, so what now? Return him? How long do I have to pay penanace for my little bundle of corruption...I mean joy?

The bottom line is, his mother chose for him a life through adoption. And whether she was paid or not, she still had a choice to make. I feel sadly for any parent who would live in such poverty that they would make an adoption plan for money. But regardless of how much money it was, that parent still has to make an incredibly difficult decision to not parent a baby that has been a part of them for 40 weeks. And how much harder is that decision when you have to make it 4 times, once with the baby on your lap at dna? I have an incredible amount of respect, honor, and love for my son's mother. I could not imagine doing what she had to do. And because she made this choice, whether out of love for him, or love for her other children she needed money to care for, I will always hold her up as a woman of strength. My son will always know how much I think of her. And because I respect her so much, and I honor her decision, I will go to bed each night, loving my son, loving that he is with my family, and knowing that she, while sad he is not with her, would be happy to know that he is healthy and happy and loved. I will continue to live my life, as if he had been here all along, rather than beat myself up nightly over the unknowns. He is now my son. Any other arguement contradicting that comes too late.

I am all for reform, but let's not throw all the babies out with the bath water, most of them are already here, so what's your plan, now?
Because us just going to bed each night feeling guilty isn't going to fix the problem in Guatemala.

well said "mom"

I couldn't have said it better!

To Erik:
I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat. The laws that we live under for the most part are based on Judeo Christian beliefs i.e thou shall not commit murder, do you believe this to be valid, I'm sure you do. The fact that I base my belief on God's words tells me that you do not. The question is what does all the people and organizations in Guatemala base their belief on when it comes to saving the children, the worlds view or God's view. With truth comes clarity with conviction comes stability and with morality based on truth comes love and compassion no matter what the circumstance.

Dioses amor

Paul

Having adopted both domestically here in the US, and internationally from Guatemala I have some understanding of the complexities of issues involved. I wholeheartedly support adoption and realize that there are at least 3 entities who need careful representation: child, birthmother, and adoptive parents.
As I mentioned previously, I believe a separate legal representative for the birthmother in Guatemala would help to reduce the incidences of initial coercion. The multiple sign-offs already give opportunity for further consideration by the birthmother. The second DNA requirement assures everyone that no baby switch has occurred after the first DNA was completed. I certainly do not want the law changed so that birthmothers would have to relinquish children to the government as the only alternative to abandoning them. Many Guatemalan natives have reason to distrust some people in governmental authority over them.
I disagree with the statements that the system has no oversight. If it had no oversight I wasted an incredible amount of time and effort in this past year meeting the "suggestions" needed for our daughter's adoption. However by continuing to address the issues that do promote fraud, we are working to improve the system for everyone. It is no secret that there is potential by certain individuals to make a lot of money by fraud within the adoption systems, both domestically and internationally. We need regulation to close some of the loopholes that allow money to be made from those adoption practices. People legally and ethically provding adoption services should be well paid for the work they perform.
At our US Embassy appt a few weeks ago, the officer who signed our final papers was helpful and interested in the overall progression of our case. I was encouraged to address comments or concerns about the entire process via e-mail to a specific address. This type of feedback is necessary and helpful in implementing further change.
Steve, you wanted to know what difference will have been made in Guatemala if indeed ICA is halted. I can tell you one. Our daughter's adoption is finalized and I tuck her in every night knowing that a differnce was made for a brave birthmother, her daughter and our family.

Wow...

I've never posted to this site, yet I check it several times a day to check on news and information on Guat adoption. We brought our son home in December.

People tell me he's a lucky little boy to be here. I tell them I'm the one that's lucky. Blessed is more like it.

Something for a few of you to ponder.. ask yourself what you know about UNCONDITIONAL LOVE? Or how it would feel to find out that your parents only love you CONDITIONALLY? I hope for your child's sake 1)- you figure it out before it's too late or 2)they can measure to your "standard" and never have to be subjected to the pain of your rejection/judgement.

(As others have said, judgement is for a higher power, thankfully not left to us)

It is not for anyone else to tell me how to sleep tonight. Even with a smooth adoption process, without meeting our son's birthmom in person and being witness, how are we ever to REALLY know what went on in her situation? With all that is being said, how could I not be wondering?

I would like to know what, specifically is being asked of the adoptive parents who have their children home? (how many are there of US now?)

Are we being told we are no longer entitled to a peaceful nights sleep because we were not WITNESS to our birthmom's situation? Because that is the only way we could ever KNOW for sure the circumstances surrounding our child's relinquishment.

What are we to tell our children about this? Or should we independently find our birthmoms and correlate their stories now? A responsibility, we have in good faith passed on to our agencies/lawyers?

You are telling adoptive parents that they are NOT entitled to have any PEACE about the family they have created because, as we may NEVER know for sure, there MAY OR MAY NOT have been corruption ivolved in the process. ouch.

I now have a permanent tie to Guatemala, it will be a part of me as much as my son is. But I am thankful he is here with me and not there. I keep the faith that I was led down this road for a reason, and my son is where he was meant to be.

I have been witness to a BM placing her child for adoption.
I think of our guatemalan son's birthmom with that same pain, and the same heart-ripping feelings pass through me when I think of her loss. Now I have to add on that someone MAY OR MAY NOT have tricked her or coerced her?

I believed adoption was about finding families for children. Lucky for me, since I have always wanted a family. It doesn't seem logical that these families should ultimately be left holding the bag for any unethical actions surrounding the childs reliquishment.

Each case is so very different- I hate to read such generalizations.
It is completely unfair to dump that on adoptive parents.

Way to go mom! you can second that here!

Mariele -

Once again, dear, the point of posts responding to your comments went right over your head. How tall are you? (LOL -- that was meant as a joke - no need to ourse those lips!). Responses to your posts were not "agressive" - just stating an opinion different than yours. As you know, that is what this country and this website are all about. God bless.

Excellent points both
Mom and Momoto1. having 2 children from Guatemala, I worry about the negative impact, abut all the news of corrupt adoptions, at least we can be prepared now to deal with those issues when they come up. But apparently I will have a lot of time to think about these issues," because you cannot lay your head on your pillow tonight in peace"

A formal caution and a rule of sorts. We do not wish to censor any opinions, that is not "the Guatadopt way". But the tone in these comments is pushing the limit on our rule against personal attacks on other commenters.

Let me ask everyone, on all sides, to be more respectful of others. Stick to debating the substance of comments and not the person who posted them. Please avoid personal insults of any kind even if they are intended to be humorous and/or sarcastic. If this doesn't happen, we may have to not approve comments and I don't wish that to happen.

The e-world is a strange cross between verbal/informal and written/formal communications. If anyone remembers from school how message dissemination works, there is often dissonance between the intended message and how it is deciphered by the recipient. That can lead to bad blood, insults, and interpretations that are not intended.

So please, let's all stick to the substance of the comment without attacking the person who wrote it.

Thanks in advance y paz,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Well said, "Mom". Couldn't agree more!!!!!

Gaby wrote: "Adoptive Parents want to lay their head on their pillows at night and say- "I know, not everything in Guatemala Adoption is right, and yes, reform is needed: but, MY adoption (my child) was not a part of the "alleged" curruption. They want to feel PERSONALLY clean."

AMEN SISTER! The near-universal denial of ethcial problems among adoptive parents - who simply *do not know* one way or the other - astounds me.

I have two kids adopted from Guatemala - I sure can't sit here and tell you that either one let alone both adoptions were squeaky-clean! Of course I would like to think so - we all want to think that - but I have seen and heard too much from adoptive parents who *do* know that their kids' adoptions were tainted to be able to believe that.

I do lay my head down and sleep at night, but I am not denial about my or any other Guatemalan adoptions...and frankly I do not spend a lot of time thinking about my possible contributions to a corrupt system, because what is done is done and the only direction we can move from here is forward.

The saddest part to me is that these various forms of corruption have been going on for years, well known to many 'insiders' - and the situation has only gotten worse and worse as the numbers of adoptions have skyrocketed. And so here we are, about to watch the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. Would Jan. 2008 be looking different if these issues had been addressed years ago? We'll never know...

respectfully,

Lee (not the Lee who has posted before)

Mom: You laid out eight points/questions. I will offer you my understanding of these issues.
1. The UN has been calling for a moratorium since their 2000 report outlining some very serious allegations of adoption fraud, including forcible housing of pregnant sex workers with midwives. The report was alarming. Since then, others have document similar problems (people other than the Bergers and UN funded entities). So, the UNs call for a moratorium is not new but again making the press. It is important to note that the classical usage of the term trafficking is in regards to forced sex and hard labor. Child trafficking has been used to describe adoption fraud, for example in a 2005 US Government Accountability Office report in which Guatemala was one of the countries in which the term child trafficking was applied in terms of fraudulent adoptions. However, most reports about human trafficking focus on sex work and labor when people are moved across space and place for work that is exploitive and they suffer a loss of their human rights. So, fraudulent adoption is not typically found in the vast majority of human trafficking literature. If you'd like I can offer you some citations for some pieces that do focus on that issue, including the GAO report I mentioned.
2) There are VERY SERIOUS allegations in Guatemala that are so alarming that I don't even want to go into them. It is hard to document these things due to a variety of issues, including the fact that people are fearful to come forward to speak the truth. You need to understand, there is good reason to fear and reprisal is a REAL thing in Guatemala as violence is a daily reality there and organized crime is involved in most of the problems in the nation. Yes, some of the press comes out of Cuba and that is HIGHLY loaded and I don't pay attention to that propaganda machine. However, there are other very credible journalists that have written some very good expose type reports (i.e. I am thinking about a 2000 BBC report that interviews a woman whose child was stolen from her on the streets of Guatemala City).
3)In my opinion, for anyone to suggest that US PAPs want a 'shady adoption' is ridiculous. People want to build their family and Guatemala has been a good source of well-adjust children due to the (previosly) speedy process. However, as the system became more efficient and the nation was flooded with PAPs things got really wierd and unscrupulous people (who could care less about the good of adoption or family values) got involved into what had grown into a business--one which was making people millionaires many times over. Greed is an ugly thing and the US demand for babies led to some pretty serious violations of human rights.
4) The idea that the Guate government must be able to afford to take care of the children is the wrong way to approach this. Families take care of children, not governments (that is true in the US and around the world--any child that is taken care of by the government is being deprived of the most basic right to their family and governments are incredibly POOR substitutes). What Guatemala/Gov. is required to do is provide EVERYONE with economic opportunity, promote a civil society within their democratic framework, and provide basic services such as schools and health clinics for immunizations and the most basic health care. Unfortunately Guate has not been able to pull itself together and progress as it must develop socially to provide such a sturucture for families to florish and take care of themselves. Therein lies the problem as the Guate elites live like royalty and most of the rest of the county lives in serfdom. The latter are at risk for their children dying before they reach the age of 5, inadequate education systems, and almost no health care opportunities, etc. If the elitists really wanted to, they could redistribute the resources and begin to provide a baseline of care for everyone in the nation--however, that is at the heart of inequality and oppression in Guate.
5) Scam artists exist everywhere in the 'adoption world'. Where ever it exists it should be not only shut down, but the scammers (including child traffickers) must be driven out of the adoption community both in the US and abroad. They shoudl be driven out with absolute shame (they are the lowest of the low). To say that it takes place in the US and we are not suspending our domestic adoptions reminds me of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' idea. AND we can suspend adoptions because the US Dept of State (DOS) does NOT HAVE to process those orphan visas. In fact, the DOS can suspend adoptions at anytime (as in Cambodia)--and they have not, they have tried to put some controls in place and continue to plod along.
7) It is hard to know what the TRUTH is about CQ. I certainly am not interested in hearing from CQ and their press releases and I also am equally not impressed with Bienstar. There are too many agendas here. Since there are allegations of theft then impartial investigators need to get to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, this is so 'hot' and contentious that impartiality is a serious problem. People are TRYING to prove something here. That is ALWAYS the wrong way to approach things. However, where there is smoke...there is often fire. So, we have to wait and watch and hope for some impartial intervention that is humane.
8) If the US Department of State issues a moratorium then orphan visas are no longer available to 'transport'. As such, yes a moratorium makes a difference. That does not mean that child trafficking will stop. There will always be children who are exploited, unfortunately. Sadly, there will continue to be illegal movement of children across borders, but it will be different and most US families would not involve themselves in such a thing--children who have no meaningful identification papers, etc.
In close, I appreciate your exploration of these questions. I can't help but think that you are sugar-coating the allegations of human rights abuses. I can tell you without a doubt that VERY serious human rights abuses associated with adoption are taking place in Guatemala right now, at this very moment. And, the fact that there are US families paying $30,000+ for the implicated children does complicate the situation...no matter how you cut it. These are difficult times and we all have much to worry about in terms of the human pain and suffering taking place in Guate.

Hi Mariale,

You said "I also pay much attention to what Guatemalans think and interpret about the subject. I know there is some common ground, but I also think there is a lot to learn and understand, from all sides."

I have been under the impression the upper class tends to be anti-adoption yet is unwilling to make changes (ie, health care, birth control, living wages, education, improved living conditions, etc) to raise up the populous and decrease the need for adoptions. I understand the indigenous population has a distrust of its own government, and believes many of the rumors about Americans stealing babies. From my perspective, it seems that the Guatemalans who could help eliminate the need for adoptive families do the least for the Guatemalans who seem to have no choice but to relinquish a child they do not have the means to raise. So I am curious about your statement. What do Guatemalans think and interpret about the adoptions? While I was on my visit and my pick up trip, I encountered only positive responses. But I am aware that is only a quick snapshot of a complex issue.

As a proud CQ parent, the events of the past two weeks have been very difficult. I am very saddened with the thought that my son may not ever become a big brother. Others on this board have stated that Guatemala becomes a part of our family with our children, and I feel the same way. It would be hard to imagine adopting from anywhere else, or for me, to even consider using a different agency.

It seems that in all the criticism of private adoptions in Guatemala, and with the adoption of the Hague, "reform" will not necessarily equal "improvement" when it comes to fixing the problems with adoptions. As someone who jumped through all the hoops, filed papers and waited. Notarized, certified, and authenticated pages and pages of repetitive information and went through a state level and a federal level back ground check, and waited. Held my breath though each twist and turn in PGN, and waited, it is hard for me to believe after all of that that my adoption could be one of those with trouble. I see a lot of black and white here, maybe you do to. I don't believe every (or even most) Guatemalan adoptions are corrupt. But I am also not so naive as to think none of them are.

As a Guatemalan, can you tell me what changes you would want to see to make you feel comfortable that the corruption is extinguished? What, to your mind, would be the solution?

Thanks, Dawn

Steve,
I'm glad we can agree on something...its a start. Adoption is a sacred institution. I'm not a religious person, but I wholeheartedly agree.
Everyone else,
Obviously the comment about being able to sleep at night has touched a nerve. Why? Because everyone here worked their hineys off to complete an ethical adoption. So we're incredibly insulted at the suggestion we willingly participated in a scam. We're further insulted that you think we should be sentenced to a lifetime of guilt and remorse for adopting a child.
Here's where I think the problem lies....the very same people that are saying Guatemalan adoptions are suspect are the very same people us PAPs have relied upon to ensure our adoptions are ethically conducted -- USE and PGN! I am skeptical of just how much corruption there is and how unethical my specific cases may be because, quite frankly, we jumped through a lot of hoops, sweated while several government agencies reviewed our case, waited for social worker interviews, DNA tests, and worried not only about our case but also out the birthmom during each and every signature she had to give. Call me naive if you want (and already have), but I really think that if the system were corrupt that it would be so much easier. Wheels would be greased and adoptions would happen faster. If you are looking for a 'complicent' party to corruption, you are knocking on the wrong door. Knock on the door of the US Embassy or of PGN. If they approved corrupt adoption cases, point the finger at them for not enforcing the existing laws/regulations.
And yes, I do have trouble sleeping at night. I worry about my shy son's first day at school, my sick daughter's slightest stir rouses me, and my husband occasionally snorts in his sleep dolting me awake. But that's another topic entirely: its called motherhood and marriage. Guilt has nothing to do with it.

KarenMS,

Thank you for your post. I can't say that I disagree with everything you said but I would like to respond.

First off, what UN report are you referring to? I am not familiar with any report that documents the forcible housing of pregnant women. I don’t think it was the ILPEC report, which is not in my opinion a valid study. Please let me know what you are referring to as I’d like to read it.

Really, I want to address the fundamental question of a moratorium and why I oppose it. Things are not black and white and a moratorium is just that. What I struggle with is why no one has been pushing for some hard-core enforcement of current laws. And why no one has been proactive in closing the ways people circumvent the law until very recently. Any system that involves money will breed corruption if left unchecked.

If all these abuses occur then why don’t we see any arrests? Why don’t they raid these places where people are supposedly held against their will? Does money breed problems? Absolutely. But I also think that with poverty as it is in Guatemala, people wouldn’t need to go to those lengths. And we should be debating less serious allegations like payments to birtmothers.

The rule of law is what is essential. It may take time to complete adoptions. But every birth certificate and cedula can be verified. Multiple DNA tests can be had. Birthmothers can be interviewed and relinquish before a judge. I could go on. But most importantly, people could be arrested and thrown in jail. That would do more than anything else to prevent human rights abuses.

There are many absolutely wonderful things about Guatemalan adoption and I think of my family as testament to that. The system can be better than any other’s. All the human rights defenders out there can’t forget that!

Birthmothers can have a safe option should they become pregnant with a child they can’t raise. Children can spend their early days in private foster care (or good group homes) as a member of a family before joining their permanent family. My daughter tells me about how her foster mom used to give her pachas, sing to her, bathe her, love her and care of her. Granted it's not from memories but from video and her post adoption experiences with the women she now knows as her third grandmother. Her biological siblings in Guatemala are now going to school, the first ever for their family, because we have the ability to make that happen. Their biological mother receives pictures of the kids. And most of all, we know her children in Guatemala will now never starve to death. That’s not because we paid her for her for her/our kids. It’s because there was a way that we could make that connection in a system where healthy, well cared for children joined a forever family who wants to help break the cycle and struggle of poverty that no matter how WE look at it is the reason why we have our children at home and the family my wife and I dreamed of (how's that for a long sentence).

From a pure capitalistic point of view, based on a MBA level understanding of economics, consumer behavior, etc., it is moratoriums and country closures that cause the problems. We all agree that PAPs would never intend to enter into anything illegal or nefarious. Keep that in mind. If there was competition between countries, all with similar functioning systems, then PAPs would have more choice. And if one country was known for unethical activities, profiteering, etc. then parents would go elsewhere, the well would dry up, and the slimebags would disappear with it. If those of us who wanted to stay “close to home” could viably adopt from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, etc. then Guatemala wouldn’t have so much action. Hmmm, this sounds dangerously close to the spirit of the Hague in many ways… It’s just too bad Hague implementation has had the exact opposite effect.

I don’t see how a moratorium solves the problem. It hurts children, removes options for women, and perpetuates another sad example of the new world order. Bust the scumbags, open up options for children worldwide, and let’s see what happens.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Just a thought,
Could we posibly stick to the thread topic, which is the removal of the children from CQ. Many of these issues are discussed on diferent threads on guatadopt.com's forum. Thanks all.
Marie, Guatadopt.com

Hi Dawn,
I first need to clarify that I haven’t researched this systematically, so my opinions come from observations and conversations with people on the subject.
First, I agree with you in that most people are in favor of adoptions. Also, I don’t think the upper class is generally anti adoption. For one thing, people from the upper classes adopt, too. One thing that must be remembered is that adoption is an alternative for Guatemalan infertile couples, too. The difference I see is that people prefer to maintain discretion during and after the process, so only people close to them may know a child is adopted. I don’t know of anyone who keeps a blog, for example (the privacy-public boundaries are also culturally defined)
I am not saying that everyone is pro adoption, but my impression is that what is interpreted as “anti-adoption” by international AP is rather disapproval towards the current process, which allows some unscrupulous Guatemalan middle people and some attorneys to become very wealthy through adoptions. I also know that people disapprove of the way some buscadoras operate, and of the intimidation, coercion, etc. that sometimes happen. I won’t go into detail on this because this is a subject often discussed on the boards and threads.
I agree with you that more needs to be done to improve the living standards of poor Guatemalans. It is true that certain sectors of society aren’t as involved in this as they should be. I think more involvement is very necessary independently on whether that will reduce the number of children that are put up for adoption. Having said that, I see a tendency to judge ALL Guatemalans of relative power as if they were the same. Like everywhere, there is a diversity of stances (an extreme example of this diversity: a good % of the founders and leaders of the insurgent movement in the 1960s came from the upper and middle classes).
There are Guatemalans working for Guatemala. One thing to consider is that it’s been only ten years since the war officially ended. One of the consequences that we sometimes forget is that the war not only eliminated rural communities but almost every person who was suspect of “collaboration” with the insurgency. Who were these people? Cooperative leaders, educators, college professors, high school and college students, journalists, catechists, agricultural promoters, health educators, physicians who chose to treat everyone in the ER regardless of his or her affiliation, Catholic priests and nuns, and pretty much everyone who tried to denounce injustices and/or improve the life of fellow Guatemalans. This not only eliminated many good initiatives, it also changed the way Guatemalans work. I’m the first one to say that much more needs to be done, corruption has to be addressed effectively (and trust me, it was much worse in the 1980s), etc. I’m sure you have all been keeping up with other news from Guate, so you already know that activists, local politicians, and others trying to make a change are still risking their lives for it. This is why I think that the picture that is seen from afar is only partial.
You mentioned that the indigenous population has distrust of its own government…I’d say that applies to a larger segment of the population  Remember that most Guatemalan adults were born during military regimes, so mistrust of authorities is something learned early in life. What makes things worse for the poor is not only poverty, but that outside their communities the social networks necessary to navigate the system are very limited. The additional difficulty faced by indigenous people is that many are not bilingual, so that, topped with prevailing discrimination, makes access to public services much worse.
I believe there is common ground in that first, most AP I’ve met (in person or through the internet) agree that there is room for corruption and illegality within the current system. Like I stated above, and you said too, many Guatemalans view adoptions favorably. The ones I have talked about this with also believe there is corruption and that more controls are needed to reduce illegal cases. The second point in common is that, while some Guatemalans are not interested in reducing poverty in the country, others certainly are, and are working at it, sometimes with very few resources. I know that many AP are also interested in improving the quality of life in Guatemala, so, yes, I see more common ground that some.
I hope this answer helped clarify my previous comment.

Marie, I agree and yet I think some of these topics are the underlying problem with CQ. Politics, perception, and reported cases of abuse (not necessariy with CQ but fueling a witchhunt which is what this feels like to me). I'm happy to hear the children were pulled from Bienstar by a good judge who ensured the children were removed from all parties. Which is what the children need. Someone sane, without a personal vested interest, looking at the childrens best interests while this is sorted out. They should thoroughly examine each case and return children if nothing is found. Once every child has been examined and if they can't find anything on CQ they need to allow CQ to continue as they were PLUS although I wouldnt expect it they should issue a public statement as to CQ being cleared of all allegations and that no children were stolen.

Karen, thank you for your response. I would like to see the report you mentioned. If you could direct me. I don't agree with a moratorium without evidence of a complete breakdown. We need to know not speculate the entire system is broke before we throw the baby out with the bath water as other moms have stated. I know there are people who think its that broke but it appears they also believe if the laws are not perfect everything should be shut down (all or nothing). There are many laws outside adoption we can cite with evidence innocent people were hurt by the law or insufficiently protected so should we throw out all laws and go into anarchy because the laws are not perfect or focus on what went wrong and fix that piece? We need evidence of a large fire before we make a decision that could cause more damage such as a moratorium.

Marie of Guatadopt keeps telling us we should go to the forum and register and go there for these conversations or for more information (in this thread actually chastizing us for not staying on topic), rather than continue our conversations here. If that is the official guatadop position, why is there this forum for comments as well? If that is not the official guatadopt postition, why does she keep trying to redirect us?

I have two beautiful nieces who were adopted from CQ. In between these two adoptions, my BIL and SIL were given a referal for a handsome baby boy. Approx. one month after referal, they were told that the birthmother had changed her mind and taken him back. Now to me, that's pretty good anecdotal evidence that these CQ babies are not "stolen." Wouldn't you agree, or do you think the story they were told was really a coverup for some other problem? My husband and I are following this situation closely as ICA from Guat. was something we hoped for ourselves in the future, when our bio kids are a bit older and our finances a bit better. After the glowing reports we heard about CQ, it would have been our agency of choice. Now we are questioning everything we thought we knew, even our desire to go through with adoption at all. I have followed each and every comment with interest, and thank you all for taking the time to post. Your experience and knowledge is very enlightening.

Lee (not the Lee that has posted before) wrote:
"The saddest part to me is that these various forms of corruption have been going on for years, well known to many 'insiders' - and the situation has only gotten worse and worse as the numbers of adoptions have skyrocketed."
And Karenms1 wrote:
"I can tell you without a doubt that VERY serious human rights abuses associated with adoption are taking place in Guatemala right now, at this very moment."

Okay. Here is your chance, Lee and Karenms1. I am a journalist, an American journalist with 20 years' experience. And although I see a very different media (here in the U.S. and definitely abroad)than existed when I was in journalism school in the 1980s and early in my career with regards to sensationalism and sloppy reporting--I was trained to and still do work with facts. Not rumor. Not innuendo. Not generalizations. Not summarizations. Not blanket statements. Fact. Not only is it part of my journalistic ethics, it is part of my personality as well. So I ask you... as so many others have asked... please provide more than five, factually-backed cases that you have FIRST-HAND knowledge of where corruption and human rights abuses are occurring/have occurred in the last two years with regards to Guatemalan adoptions.

And for the record, I am frankly quite tired of the excuse that we aren't hearing about all these investigations because any information would jeopardize the investigations. There is a gigantic difference in releasing basic information, such as suspected crimes in specific places at specific times versus John Doe, a buscador in Guatemala, is under investigation for paying as many as 15 young women hundreds of dollars for their young babies, and then threatening them with X, Y, and Z if they don't continue to follow through. The former does not jeopardize, while I get the latter might...John Doe hasn't been arrested yet and when he gets wind of the fact that he's under investigation, you better believe he's gonna cover his tracks and hightail it outta town.

There is no jeopardizing ANY investigation by publicly admitting (by the Guatemalan authories and/or the U.S. authorities) that they have investigated X number of attorneys, and that those investigations started in 2006 (or whatever date) and are ongoing. While the U.S. government has acknowledged investigations... and have already made arrests with quite a bit of public information available... regarding at least 2 agencies in the U.S. suspected of fraud re: Guatemalan adoptions, and the Guatemalan authorities have now gone on record re: CQ... Those three cases DO NOT Make your statements true -- i.e. that "VERY serious human rights abuses associated with adoption are taking place in Guatemala right now, at this very moment" and that "various forms of corruption have been going on for years."
Before you jump to the conclusion that I am naive, let me pro-actively defend myself: I am not naive. I do believe there has been and is *SOME* corruption in ICA, Guatemala included, as well as right here in the U.S. Reform is necessary for Guatemala. But if one is going to bring to the debate the fact that corruption exists and therefore change must occur, one must also be able to bring to the debate the extent of corruption. Define how much, and define the practices that are considered corrupt, and define who is perpetrating the corruption, and then provide specific examples that have been vetted.

Here's a very simple analogy.
Teens in Town High School are using drugs.
Okay... so do we shut down Teen High School and put all the kids in rehab?
Wait, before we make that drastic decision, how many teens?
Well, student John Doe says 500 of them.
Has he seen them all using drugs?
Well, he read about it in an article that there's drug use, and somebody he knows has tried them. And someone else he knows has seen lots of drug use.
Well, have there been any investigations?
Well, three kids have been suspended and arrested for bringing pot to the school.
Is the drug abuse restricted to pot?
Well Suzie Q says everyone is shooting heroin..

okay... perhaps you can see where I'm going with this.

Now, for the record... if anyone has SPECIFIC, documented cases of human rights abuses and corruption directly related to Guatemalan adoptions, please share. Not anecdotes. Not "well a friend of a friend..." I'm not trying to trivialize here. But I need the facts. Just the facts.

Thank you,
Beth

Thanks to all for posting. I have learned from many of you. I just had a couple of thoughts as I read the various posts. When someone uses a word such as "corrupt" it means one thing to one person and something else to another person. For example, some people feel that giving any money at all to a birth mother would be "corrupt" while others may not. I would think everyone posting here would consider coercion to be corrupt. What I'm saying is we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about what a person means when they use a particular word.

Concerning allegations that most adoptions are "corrupt." I keep coming back to a study that showed there were approximately 65,000 abortions and a little over 40 percent birth control compliance in Guatemala in 2003. Combine this with a lot of poverty. Seems to me based on this that there are legitmately a lot of children in need of homes.

Do I think that the current system should be modified? Absolutely

Best, Cheryl

Beth...thank you.

I would like to add that I have also faced a situation where the birthmom changed her mind about adopting her baby (not once but twice). Last year on our pick up trip we were told that the birth mom was 6 months pregnant and was interested in placing the new baby with us. After much thought, we decided to adopt again. We very quickly filled out the paperwork, the birth mom was given shelter, food, and medical care and we proceeded to begin the adoption process. Two months into the process the birth mom changed her mind. We were told and moved on. Fast forward 6 months later. Birth mom once again decided to give up the baby again. After much thought we decided to try again. Two months into the process the birth mom changed her mind again. It was devastating to us BUT her right. Also, validation that she was not being coerced into giving up her baby. While I do believe corruption exists just know there is plenty of evidence and facts that demonstrate that facilitators/attorneys are not all corrupt and quite a few do follow the spirit of the laws.

I found this related to CQ and the children. Not sure if you want to post this or keep in background for maybe the families, you, and Susana Luarca to know.

http://www.sigloxxi.com/index.php?link=noticias¬iciaid=13905&PHPSESSID=6dfdfd6e3943bc5f7ab5b1297bb66e54

Beth,
I was thinking along the same lines when I wrote this message a few days ago but never posted.
Can someone tell me how many “corrupt” adoptions occur every year in Guatemala?
I’m tired of hearing that “WAY WAY too many adoptions ARE and WERE corrupt”.
I’m not in denial; I’d just like to get an idea the percentage of adoptions that are corrupt.

I’ve read that in 2006, there were 4,135 (give or take) adoptions from Guatemala.
So how many of the 4,135 were corrupt (kidnapping, coercion, falsified documents, payments to birthmons, etc.)
I’m not suggesting that corruption doesn’t exist nor that one (1) corrupt case out of 4,135 is okay, but I’m curious about what the actual number is. 1%? 20%? 50%? 80%?

Is there a way to attempt to benchmark this?

I don’t want to get into a debate over how difficult it is to track this nor how statistics are “statistically” inconclusive or biased, etc., but

Based on what I keep hearing certain people exclaiming, it sounds like the majority (over 67%) of adoptions in Guate are corrupt. Is this true or just hearsay?

And by the way, I sleep very well at night knowing that my child is home safely with me and hope that his birthmom has assurance that he is being well taken care of by a loving family.

Pat

To: GUATEMALA-ADOPT@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
> Subject: The latest very bad news for Casa Quivira, and for the future of
> adoptions in Guatemala
>
> All,
>
> Below are the results of a meeting today between Casa Quivira attorneys
> and
> Josefina Arellano, the head of the PGN Investigations Unit. The PGN
> admitted that the Guatemalan gov't is applying new, unpublished
> regulations
> to Casa Quivira's adoption cases that it intends to apply to all cases
> starting January 1, 2008. This is horrible from several standpoints --
> democratic countries do not secretly apply regulations or leave them
> unpublished; democratic countries do not apply regulations to only one
> actor
> in a particular field; the regulations, when implemented, mean that in the
> future, there will be few if any adoptions from Guatemala, because the PGN
> will have unlimited time to look for biological family and then a
> Guatemalan
> family to adotp these children. A very sad day.
>

To: GUATEMALA-ADOPT@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
> Subject: The latest very bad news for Casa Quivira, and for the future of
> adoptions in Guatemala
>
> All,
>
> Below are the results of a meeting today between Casa Quivira attorneys
> and
> Josefina Arellano, the head of the PGN Investigations Unit. The PGN
> admitted that the Guatemalan gov't is applying new, unpublished
> regulations
> to Casa Quivira's adoption cases that it intends to apply to all cases
> starting January 1, 2008. This is horrible from several standpoints --
> democratic countries do not secretly apply regulations or leave them
> unpublished; democratic countries do not apply regulations to only one
> actor
> in a particular field; the regulations, when implemented, mean that in the
> future, there will be few if any adoptions from Guatemala, because the PGN
> will have unlimited time to look for biological family and then a
> Guatemalan
> family to adotp these children. A very sad day.
>

Kevin and others:

The UN report that I was referring to is cited as follows.

United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights (UN) (2000). Rights of the child: Report of the special rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution
and child pornography, Ms. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos (Publication No. GE.00-10417). Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?c=74&su=82

I know that the findings of this report have been discounted by some because of method small sample and key informant interviews). However there is other evidence, including (1) the birth mother who sucessfully fought to have her child returned from Spain with the advocacy of Casa Alianza, (2) a report from a US medical doctor that discovered a house where adolescent girls had been sold into for the purpose of impregnation and adoption (his name is James White and I have the full text of that short article if Guatadopt wants to post it), (3)stories that I have been told personally during my travels and work in Guatemala, (4) documentation on blogs in which Guatemalans and others discuss the "sales" of children (i.e. antiguadailyphoto.com), (5) international press accounts like the year 2000 story that was run by BBC online entitled "Guatemala's Baby Business", (6) investigations into adoption bussiness like "Waiting Angels" and the comments that Simone an Joe made about child sales during undercover footage.

As for Beth, the seasoned journalist, I will remind you that investigatory work of human rights abuses is VERY DANGEROUS in Guatemala. So, you may think it is easy enough to do documentary journalism there, but that is not the case. In fact, journalists and other human rights activitists are under constant threat of their lives on a daily basis and, as such, some stories are not "told" as per US standards of the press. So, you may well be a 20+ year veteran of the press, but this is a very different context. However, the impending major news network story will hopefully live up to US journalism standards and will lend some credibility to this discourse, one way or the other.

Is there any official word on what Sue/Gaby are saying Kevin? Are cases currently being processed by PGN? And will those continue until Jan 2008? Does anyone know if the cases that are in family court, etc. will continue on to PGN and be approved if they are there before Jan. 2008? I guess I'm wondering how this affects, if it does, cases currently in the works?

Do you know if they will implement these new regulations to cases that were in process prior to January 1, 2008?

Beth and all the moms and dads out there I love you!

I'm going to be sleeping like a log tonight!

Sorry last comment was in regards to whether I feel any guilt or not that we are all adopting our children. No.

Hopefully the media can start printing more balanced picture and no longer spread allegations or put condemning titles on articles which have done nothing but hurt children and families. Perhaps if a more balanced story were told the children of CQ would not be tempting pawns in a political game and their cases would be allowed to continue. I believe all the emotionally charged articles helped contribute to giving the authorities the support to conduct this raid.

Gaby:
The changes you refer to are likely related directly to Hague requirements. Guatemala is, by their commitment to Hague standards, required to search for in-country child placements BEFORE a child may be approved to leave Guatemala for ICA. This is also true for the US--we will no longer be able to have our infants adopted by Europeans and others until it is proven that a home was not available in the US. Having an unlimited time to look for a family is very troubling though. I think that we should be hopeful that Guate will be mindful of developing a true and ethical process, including timeframes that are logical for the good of ALL involved, especially the children. You are correct about democratic countries and transparent processes for policy development and implementation. However, remember we are going from almost ZERO in terms of policy to something. This is going to take time and there will be growing pains. The VERY OBVIOUS problem is the application of those policies to ONE HOME (CQ) and not others. That is troubling and may well put a light on how things will be handle from here forward--flexing of those policies earlier than the expected with the impending Hague ratification.

Actually Marie, I think many of these posts have been on topic as what is happening with CQ is probably not happening in a vacuum. There are liable to be similar events. The very issues being covered are likely part of the real or perceived problems at CQ. The world must closely follow the cases of the children of CQ because their cases may represent the "parrot in the mine". Please keep us posted on what is known about the health and status of those kids.
I continue to be hopeful that since the US Dept of State has made recent changes in further closing the loopholes of "baby switching" that those policy makers are trying to keep the US side open.
I second the opinion that the charges of corruption are way to vague. Let's be specific when discussing the issues. For instance, if any payment to the birthmother is considered "corrupt", then giving a birthmom money for a bus pass, prenatal care or a cell phone so that she can be further contacted would all be under that "corruption" category. I believe that coverage of certain needs of the birhtmother certainly does not justify calling that "baby buying". If you want to split hairs over this then the fee in which I paid to my adoption agency during my domestic adioption, which covered birthfamily counselling may in the eyes of some people fall into this category.
I want to keep this dialogue open and active, what I don't want to see is people giving up on international adoption contributing to children growing up in and aging out of orphanages. worldwide.

The standards of US adoptions keep coming up as if they are a good framework to apply to Guatemala. This is not a good way to approach the problem (and we ALL KNOW that US domestic adoptions are problematic!). So, to say that birth mothers in the US receives money so it should be okay in Guatemala is NOT REALLY OUR DECISION AS US CITIZENS. Guatemala and ITS CITIZENS MUST develop its own standards of what is permissible (just as each of our states have developed family and adoption codes). So, Guatemala must develop the laws, policies, and procedures--development which is currently happening now that the Hague has been approved by the Guate Congress. No doubt, criteria will be developed for what is permissible (i.e. transportation costs, prenatal care, etc.). However, right now the payments are ILLEGAL under the current legal framework. Thus the need for reform, transparency, and clarity about what IS and IS NOT considered child sales. And,anyone who argues that child sales are not taking place is uninformed. Does anyone really thinks that a Guate adoption costs $30,000USD in reality...?

In an answer to the question about actual EVIDENCE of corruption:

This was posted on another site.

Dear Krnswife,

The problem is probably much bigger than any of us wish us to think.

Having spent quite a bit of time in Guatemala, I have personally witnessed many of the situations you are talking about. I have met multiple birthmothers who have relinquished over 12+ babies each. Guatemala is a country where any legal document can be fabricated for a price, and many birth certificates are made-up giving birthmoms new names.
People always put so much weight in DNA, yes this proves the validity of the relinquishing mom but in no way tells the true story of what went on before hand. This is the situation with
the Family Court also. There are actually offices set up in Guatemala City filled with women behind computers MAKING UP stories of birthmothers lives for the family court interview. These are offices are set up by and for the use of attorneys/faciliators. I have also attended a few Family Court/Birthmother interviews, and, well, let me say : WHAT A JOKE!
One interview took place in a Mcdonalds, where the attorney and the Family Court Social Worker had coffee and discussed the recent events of THEIR lives. The Social Worker never even spoke a word to the mother. As we were leaving I saw the attorney give the Social Worker 2000Q, which I was informed was the normal fee (bribe) paid to Family Couts for
their APPROVAL. ICK!
You are right that this a well greased machine!
I spent a year trying to find some GOOD being done in the Guatemalan Adopton world, and while I believe there is some good being done. The larger part is a huge money making machine for a certain sector of Guatemalan people. Shame on them!

I'm not a legal expert but I think what someone wrote online is not evidence. I believe there is also "evidence" online of bigfoot and a witch flying around Mexico. I could put somewhere online that person X is guilty of fraud. I would hope the judicial system would want a bit more than that such as that person to step forward as a witness. And the person who saw this is willing to give their name and come forward? Shelling out 2000 Q in a McDonalds and I suppose she also loudly announced to everyone eating there this money is to by a baby? And family court all sitting there making up stories for the women and their offices are really for the attorneys? This is ludicrous.

Has anyone noticed the reported adoption expense for Guatemala appears to be growing? Is this coming from APs? I don't know any where it was 30-40+. I'm tired of hearing Guatemalan adoptions are significantly more than other countries. To my knowledge most ICA Ap's are in the 20 range plus or minus a couple thousand (not including travel or US expenses). Our adoption expense was 23 (not including travel or US expense) for each case. To adopt in Europe with a central authority was 20 (not including travel or US expense). Add in 1500 "in case" the authorities want to travel to inspect the home (which we thought was understandable unless you want to include this as misc travel expense but I include it because it wasn't our travel) then its a difference of 1500. Add in the cost of charitable donations (we bought clothing) because only the agencies who gave the most humanitarian donations would be given a referral despite the large number of institutionalized children then the difference becomes 1k. I feel guilt we only did 500 clothing but, we were already half in, and there was a nagging concern about additional unexpected expense not stopping, knowing the central authority was anti-ICA and seeing all the nasty press articles, where we might be drained in increments until financially unable to adopt. So Guatemala is only 1k different and it has foster care. Wheres the 20k chunk of money going in the central authority Hague countries? Unless you are an AP whose individual adoption case was 30-40+ not including travel and US expense (DNA is a US expense) please spare me (I don't want to see I heard someone paid..).

If the Guatemalan government enforces or changes the law to apply to CQ now with supposedly all others to follow in 2008 my guess is this is a false statement and testing of the waters to see if they can get away with pulling this with the children of CQ (the beginning of a larger campaign). I believe if they can get away with it they will conduct more "raids" and we will see more news articles of "suspected kidnapped children saved by authorities" followed by more inflammatory articles on the same event "baby selling ring exposed". If they get away with twisting the law and unjustly tearing apart a highly visible orphanage whats to stop them from continuing? We need to care about this case for the CQ children, for their parents, for our children, and for other children.

Karen, you have no evidence for your inflammatory allegations of current Guatemala ICA. You gave the adoption agency scandals as proof. I read the 2006 UN and HR reports which I believe are more current than the 2000 report you quoted. A 2000 BBC documentary tells me what maybe happened in 2000 or prior (I say maybe because I haven't seen the documentary so don't know what they covered). For me to sugarcoat anything there has to be something to sugarcoat. You have given me mostly smoke. Spare me the where there is smoke there is fire because people generating a lot of smoke does not mean fire it means hot air. There is a difference. Where is the article from James White I would love to see it. I've read Antiguadailyphoto and all I have seen so far is more people who don't have any clue what they are talking about with no firsthand experience making condemning statements and spreading vicious rumors about who we are, what we do, what our birth mothers were paid, where our children came from, etc as fact. Don't get me started on the exceedingly racist remarks made by the supposed nonracist people there. You couldn't bring anything on Antiguadailyphoto into a court of law as proof of anything. I'm tired of seeing people making vicious allegations against our adoptions with no evidence and no criminal cases. If there were women being forcibly housed known to enough people for you to know about it Josefina would be there in 13 seconds and would have her face in every newspaper throughout the world.

Mom:
I'll be happy to post the story by James White--that is up to Guatadopt. I'll leave it to them...it is a fairly short but very telling piece.

Thanks "mom"!

I too wish to hear less hear-say (or no hear-say).

I have never known of anyone who paid 30,000. in adoption fees, much less 40,000.

I too am sick of hearing stories where persons claim to know things, but don't offer factual info. as proof, and am sick of being asked to just trust this person because they supposedly have inside knowledge from either living there or who knows what other sources.

"Mom" is correct that anyone can say that they live in Guatemala, even if they don't, and just because things are said as fact on an internet post does not mean that they are, even if these "facts" are spread over the internet in multiple places--that is easy to do.

This is not to say that I believe everything is OK with adoptions from Guatemala, because I don't.

I just respectfully ask posters to be less vague, to speak in the first person whenever possible, to stop asking me to trust posters and their information who I do not know and who do not offer up enough/any facts that can be proven.

Sue, if the info you reported is truth, did you then promptly go and do the right thing by reporting this lawyer and family court worker that you witnessed at McD's? You ommitted that part of your story if you did.

And Sue, you also ommitted how you knew about these Family Court women typing and fabricating stories for lawyers. How exactly do you know this? Did you witness it for yourself? Did you do the right thing and promptly go to the authorities to report this too?

Sue, if you did report these incidents, and kept on reporting until your voice was heard by someone who could stop it, and an investigation was started, then I say, "Great! Good for you! Thanks for helping all of the good people involved with adoptions!"

If not, I quote your post, "Shame on them" and add, "No, shame on you for knowing and still allowing them to continue!"

Lizzie
Proud Mama to Anarosa since 5-26-04
Waiting for Migdalia

Just for reference, one of my adoptions through a private hogar is approx. 23k (including DNA), the other is 27k (and probably on the high end). So if you are paying 40k, then maybe you did not do your homework, or maybe, people are exagerating. Lets stick to the facts, also lets not include in the fees, the cost of mulitiple visit trips which are by choice. ~Melissa T.

I agree 100 percent with this observation. I was asked this same question by CNN, actually not how much did you pay, but more like, "so adoptions costs around 40,000?"
No, actually, $19,000(per child).
I had a contract with this amount, changes or increases made after by the agency were not applicable due to our contract. Our agency provided a receipt, it was all detailed as to how much and what went where. I remember telling CNN this and telling them that lawyers, childcare, office fees, intercountry fees, processing and translations costs money. People need to get paid for work they do. I then said, how much do US lawyers get paid? It made sense. Please make sure that your contract indicates the fees that you will pay for their services and if any additional fee will be applied, due to longer waiting time for the care in hogares or with the foster moms.
(please note: the adoptions were completed Oct.06 and June 07)
Marie, Guatadopt.com

Lizzie, Melissa, Maria, thank you and I agree with your posts. I just checked the "UK telegraph" which must still be using one since they are late on the bandwagon and now they are reporting 30-50! LOL! I wonder if the number will keep climbing.

Karen, I would like to see a link to the original article where it was posted if you could provide this? I am curious if Mr White also tells us who in ICE or what other government body he reported this to? Also curious whether this is a recent article or something from 2000.

** I sign Mom because I think people who attack who we are, what we do, and what should be done with the children that they should remember they are speaking with mothers and fathers and then maybe they will come to the next realization that we are discussing real children. I think everyone should sign Mom and Dad so people remember.

Mom:
I provided Kevin with a short article by James White. It is up to his discretion to post that document.

Actually Karen,

I e-mailed you about the story and some thoughts I have on it. I said that it is up to you to post it, assuming that there are no copyright issues.

PAPs have seen plenty in the media that raise serious accusations and concerns about ICA from Guatemala. Unless things come from a government agency (i.e. DOS warnings) or are more current in their nature, we don't generally post them.

This story talks primarily about a thirteen year old girl who was essentially sold by her father to be a baby making machine, living in a home filled with others like her. It includes this poor girl's name and in my opinion, will serve no good by posting it here. But I will not censor Karen should she wish to post it.

If it's posted, I'll post my questions about it. And once again, I will refer back to my numerous calls for enforcement of laws and prosecutions of TRUE criminals (not to be confused with the often pathetic witch hunts that do little more than hurt children by delaying their homecomings). We need the people who perpetrate any such crimes to be thrown in jail - for a long time!

Articles like the one mentioned accomplish little and can't be viewed in isolation. They need to be viewed as part of the larger context of human rights and socio-economic issues in Guatemala. By looking at them solely as an ICA issue, it leads down a road that is wrong for innocent children and the exploitation just moves into other areas - slavery, sexual exploitation, etc.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com