A debate is underway among adoption professionals following an e-mail/notice issued by JCICS that essentially urges agencies to consider closing their Guatemala Programs. Without offering any opinions on this, I think everyone interested in Guatemalan adoptions should read it
First you will the notice from JCICS, followed by a reply from Hannah Wallace. Added 11:20 p.m. Friday: A response from the ADA (also posted on their website) has been added.
Please don't ask Kelly or myself the question of "what should we do". In all honesty, we have no answer or great insight. In addition, we are just adoptives parents who care a lot about children in Guatemala, their bioloigcal mothers, and the families who adopt them. These are such important, stressful life changing decisions that offering advice in any direction is quite frankly more responsibility than we can bear on our shoulders.
Statement from Tom DiFilipo, President of JCICS (Joint Council on International Children’s Services)
Dear Colleagues,
The right to permanency through intercountry adoption continues to be
challenged by a variety of factors in Guatemala. Hague
implementation, competing legislative initiatives, nation wide
elections, government raids on social service providers, negative
press, ethics concerns and pressure from the international community,
all give the immediate future of ICA in Guatemala a very unstable and
uncertain platform. Given the increasing uncertainties and in
assessing the current and future environment within the Guatemalan
adoption arena, Joint Council again strongly recommends that all
adoption service providers reassess their programming efforts within
the following context.
1. The Guatemalan Congress reaffirmed the Hague Convention
with an effective date of January 1, 2008.
2. The Berger administration continues to demonstrate a desire
to significantly alter or eliminate intercountry adoption; most
recently demonstrated through the raid on Casa Quivira.
3. The Berger administration leaves office on January 14,
2008, 13 days after the Hague Convention goes into force in Guatemala.
4. Based on the aggressive posture demonstrated by the Berger
administration and the 13 day window, the possibility exists that the
Berger administration may attempt to alter the ICA process.
5. The Guatemalan congress is currently reviewing adoption
legislation, most specifically 3217 (with the changes recommended
through the technical assistance provided by the Hague Permanent
Bureau and other governments such as Colombia). Passage of this
legislation, while not assured, would nonetheless significantly
alter the current ICA process. Current cases in the Guatemalan
process may or may not be "grandfathered" and it remains an uncertain
issue.
6. While the `grandfather' clause in the US IAA does provide
for the completion of `pipeline' cases, it does not provide any
protection against significant changes to the Guatemalan ICA
process.
7. Client families who have applied with USCIS can have their
cases transferred to another country program. The significant risks
to agencies, families and children begin when the referral is made
and accepted.
It can be noted that current efforts include amendments to both 3536
and 3217 providing for a continuation of the current ICA process
(a `grandfather clause'); however this assumes that either piece of
legislation is actually passed by Congress. It can also be noted
that separate legislation could be introduced which would extend the
effective date of the Hague Convention for a specific period of time
(i.e. 30-90 days).
In assessing this information, one can easily draw the conclusion
that the Guatemalan ICA process will be significantly altered as
early as January 2008 and no later than March 2008. Assuming that
most adoptions from referral to finalization can easily exceed 6
months and in some cases extend over 12 months, it can be concluded
that referrals issued in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 may
face a very uncertain conclusion.
Of significant concern is the potential for unresolved pipeline
cases. USCIS reports no slow down in new applications. Through
July, I-600A applications continue at over 400 per month with most
being identified with a small percentage of agencies. It is not
outside the realm of possibilities that should this pace continue,
over 2,000 cases may be unable to proceed to completion. This leads
to yet another concern related to an adoption service provider's
capacity to sustain services to children and adoptive parents over a
prolonged period which may include legal challenges.
It is the recommendation of Joint Council that all agencies again
reassess their programming and take the appropriate action to
minimize your organizational liabilities, to avoid the problems seen
in Cambodia, Romania and recently in Nepal and most importantly to
safeguard the best interest of client-families, birthparents and the
children we serve.
In a related matter, Joint Council, with the cooperation and support
of the Joint Council Guatemala Caucus, issued a letter to President
Berger regarding our significant concerns over the recent raid of
Casa Quivira. Joint Council called for an immediate halt to such
raids, a transparent accounting of all children and the prompt
resolution of each case."
Response from Hannah Wallace, President of Focus on Adoption and Director of Adoptions International in Philadelphia
I've struggled with a response to the recent posting re; Guatemala. On first reading, it is presenting a seemingly responsible and realistic course of action to the challenges facing us in Guatemala. And there is no doubt that the Berger government has stated intentions since last October to dramatically change adoption processing by planning to implement "executive orders" for the past year. Last September, the Embassy told the JCICS task force that the First Lady would be announcing her Protocol of Good Practices on October 1. There were alleged stated intentions from the President's office that this Protocol would be implemented by "Executive Order". In March, the Vice President announced the "Manual of Good Practices" in a public ceremony (which had been cancelled 2 or 3 times), and the government announced intentions to
implement the Manual in the near future, creating uncertainty about what impact that would have on processing.
In the meantime, there have been continued efforts on the part of JCICS, FOA, and the ADA and Instituto in Guatemala to develop Hague compliant legislation which would address the spirit and tenets of the Treaty and continue functional adoption services to the children who need them. Essentially, the two proposals which are before the Congress (Bill #3217, known as the Ortega Law which has been the law approved by Unicef and the Executive Branch, and gives the government greater control of the adoption process and Bill # 3635 which was developed more recently by Congressional advisers and maintains a balance of private accredited services and government oversight) reflects the real schism which exists in Guatemala and the polarization which has increasingly marked any attempt to come to agreement between the varying interest groups, all who purport to be working towards the best interests of the child.
However, while Tom is describing the very real power struggle which is going on and the possibility that the Berger government (the Executive Branch) will - in fact - do what they have threatened to do since last September, I don't think that he is fully pointing out how far the government (executive branch) has diverged from the rule of Law, most notably in their raid upon a respected Children's Home in the name of laws which don't exist or are being interpreted by the executive branch in a way that is far removed from their legal intentions when they were passed by Congress. And by taking the course that's been suggested by the DOS since March - not referring any more children from Guatemala -- how much this contributes to further destabilizing the system, and furthers the executive branch's agenda to get laws and policies in place which many adoption supporters think would spell the end to ICA to a great degree in Guatemala, thereby depriving the children of one of the few realistic opportunities to survive or grow to their full human potential. As well, it puts in the hands of the government the entire child care system which has been privately supported with NO government support. Many believe - and this is my belief - that this would bring on a child welfare crisis of dire proportions (similar to what has happened in many other Latin countries who under similar laws have almost no adoption services).
I have great disappointment in how the DOS has managed this significant issue as one of its first actions in implementing the Hague Treaty in the U.S. and dealing with the various issues of sending countries (mainly developing countries with various critical child welfare issues). Rather than taking the lead in bringing a new vision to the Treaty,(as was anticipated by the original participants from the U.S.) we apparently have joined with the Hague officials, who are heavily influenced by Unicef and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, who have a prevailing interest in abstract Child's Rights and seemingly little concern for the practical impact on the children they intend to protect. (Officials from the Hague, when confronted with the adoption statistics
over the past 12 years have stated: "The success of the Hague Treaty cannot be measured by the numbers of adoptions a country does." When asked what it can be measured by, the answer is usually something like : "Maintaining international standards". There has been NO accountability for what has happened to the children who "may" have been adopted, who are now in underfunded institutions, living on the streets, perhaps increasing slightly the high child mortality statistics already prevailing in these countries. There is little evidence of increased services to children and families in lieu of adoption services. The Hague officials have no budget to actually "police" the results of this treaty. And now, in Guatemala, the Hague officials and the DOS have all joined to "tweak" the Ortega Bill and are putting great pressure on the Guatemalan congress to pass this bill. They are virtually IGNORING bill # 3635.
How has DOS contributed to the instability in Guatemala? On March 15, the DOS published its FAQ which was meant to discourage adoptive families from adopting from Guatemala, by using recent information about scandalous and corrupt practices as reason to condemn the entire system. They also joined with the Guatemalan Executive Branch in demonizing the attorneys and marginalizing and ignoring all of the creative and practical suggestions which came from the attorneys (and many agencies). Several times, spokespersons for DOS have stated that the intention was to "hurt the attorneys in their pocketbooks" so that they would not "resist" the Hague. However, the attorneys have come a long way towards making peace with the Hague, but they ARE resisting the Ortega Law or variations of such which deprivatize the system, without any realistic way of replicating the current services available in the current system. Bill # 3635 actually provides a way for those ser vices to be continued and become more consistent, under government oversight through regulation and accreditation ... but the powers that be don't like this model, even though we have such a model in the U.S. Discouraging people from adopting from a country and undermining the current system for Agencies as well as attorneys is not mindful of the needs of the children in the system or coming into the system. As agencies we've had the moral struggle to soldier on for the sake of the children,or to just give up and move on to another country. (I personally believe that by doing the "politically correct" thing as suggested by DOS, we are failing in our responsibility to the children and in our responsibility to BEAR WITNESS and to support those in Guatemala who are laboring for a better system, though they;ve been disparaged and labelled as just reflecting 'self interest" and being "anti Hague".
In a few days, Focus On Adoption will come out with a position paper on bill #3635, which Hague experts have evaluated and find to be substantially Hague compliant. It's unfortunate that as soon as the pro adoption community in Guatemala started to support Bill #3635, the government came out against it and called it the "lawyers proposal". Supporters of the Bill consider it to retain the best of the Guatemalan adoption system and improve it through regulation, acceditation and accountability, while addressing the need for transparency. Its difference with other Hague compliant legislation is that it could be "workable", providing for accessibility to the system for those who need it. It does maintain the Notarial process and does not give full governmental control. All of the Latin American governments want to control the adoption process... but once they have that control, we can see what they have done with it.... under 20 adoptions a year, lengthy and bureaucratic procedures, because of lack of funding and infrastructure. However, this Bill has been virtually ignored by DOS, the officials at the Hague, and there has been an active campaign to discourage Guatemalan congressional support.
Finally, I want to state some legal realities about the current and future situation:
1. If the Executive Branch attempts to implement "emergency procedures" which go against the current law, the Congress and Lawyers will each have recourse to Constitutional and Legal remedies. By withdrawing and alloowing the Executive Branch to run over the law is, in my opinion, something that we should resist as undemocratic in what is supposed to be a democratic country. What is DOS' position in regard to this?
2. There is NO precedent in International Law or Guatemalan law to have NEW laws applied retroactively. We should be advocating for the best legislation possible; but also assuring that any legislation passed includes criteria for when a case is "grandfathered" (when the birthmother relinquishes to the notary?, when the adoptive family registers their POA?)). We DO NOT have to advocate FOR grandfathering as that is a part of any law. Therefore any referrals which have been made PRIOR to new legislation, should be defended by JCICS and DOS. We should assure that DOS is protecting the rights of US citizens under the law.
3. The Executive Branch is justifying its recent actions: raids on Children's Homes and foster homes by referring to TWO LAWS - one claiming that Children's Homes must be registered with the Bienestar Social in order to be legitimate; and the other the PINA law which requires a court order for children "at risk" prior to institutionalization.
The PINA law was never intended for children who are in the Notarial Adoption process (relinquished through the constitutional rights granted to biological parents). Those children are NOT considered "at risk". There are courts who have refused --despite great pressure upon them by the A.G., who is part of the Executive Branch not the Judicial -- to bend the law. The PINA law is designed to protect the rights of children who have been abused or abandoned by their biological parents by determining that a court order be required to place them in a registered Institution. When DOS sends out a notification to the adoption community that the A.G. was working within "the law" and that there are "conflicting laws" in Guatemala, (another reason for not adopting from Guatemala) it is overstating the case. There are conflicting INTERPRETATIONS of the law, which needs to be resolved by the legislature and the higher courts. We don't believe there are conflicting laws, as the PINA law, for instance, was never meant to apply to the children relinquished through the Notarial process. (the guatemalan government may want to change this law, but so far IT HAS NOT CHANGED.. THE NOTARIAL PROCESS IS STILL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.) I believe it is wrong for us to support one branch of government violating the constitution... even if it is Guatemala).
Until the current Berger government, the requirements for Private Institutions caring for children were for them to be registered in the Civil Registry and have an organizational structure complying with those registration criteria. The Bienestar Social does not have LEGISLATED POWERS to insist that Private, Humanitarian Aid organizations register with them. However, the Executive Branch has claimed that certain extra legal procedures should prevail and ARE ACTING as if they have the RIGHT to impose these. I believe it is wrong for our DOS to allow this deliberate "misinterpretation" togo unchallenged, especially when it is intruding on the rights of US Citizens who have entered into an adoption based on an understanding that it was legal.
What it means to have children who need families become the political football they have become, to see revealed (again, as in 2003) the indifference of the Guatemalan government to the very real children in order to force a legislative agenda, and how our DOS has tacitly supported this is something that all of us should be very concerned about. I'm very pleased that JCICS has written a strong letter to President Berger, but I think that we need to hold our DOS accountable as well.
RESPONSE OF ADA TO JCICS
JCICS: 1. The Guatemalan Congress reaffirmed the Hague Convention with an effective date of January 1, 2008.
ADA: Congress did not reaffirmed The Hague Convention. It gave authorization to the president to accede the convention, so the convention is not what takes effect on January 1, 2008. To take effect, the president has to send an instrument of accession to the Secretary of the Hague Conference and the effect will be the first day of the month after a period of three months, so if is sent in January, it will take effect until May 1st, 2008, way after the Bergers are gone.
JCICS 2. The Berger administration continues to demonstrate a desire to significantly alter or eliminate intercountry adoption; most recently demonstrated through the raid on Casa Quivira.
ADA: Yes, that is right, but it only proved how incompetent they are to care for the children, so if there was any doubt that the future of the children cannot be entrusted to the government, there is the answer.
JCICS 3. The Berger administration leaves office on January 14, 2008, 13 days after the Hague Convention goes into force in Guatemala.
ADA: Again, that is not true. It does not go into force, just goes into force the Congress approval of the Hague convention.
JCICS 4. Based on the aggressive posture demonstrated by the Berger administration and the 13 day window, the possibility exists that the Berger administration may attempt to alter the ICA process.
ADA: Berger has been trying to do so all this time, but he has not succeeded, so why help him, by closing down adoptions in Guatemala ourselves?
JCICS 5. The Guatemalan congress is currently reviewing adoption legislation, most specifically 3217 (with the changes recommended through the technical assistance provided by the Hague Permanent Bureau and other governments such as Colombia). Passage of this legislation, while not assured, would none the less significantly alter the current ICA process. Current cases in the Guatemalan process may or may not be "grandfathered" and it remains an uncertain issue.
ADA: That is not true either. As the law states all cases already started will be allow to be finalized. They only have to be registered with the Central Authority.
JCICS 6. While the 'grandfather' clause in the US IAA does provide for the completion of 'pipeline' cases, it does not provide any protection against significant changes to the Guatemalan ICA process.
ADA: Provided the US does not stop issuing visas, we will take care that all the adoptions already started (child born is enough) can be finalized.
JCICS 7. Client families who have applied with USCIS can have their cases transferred to another country program. The significant risks to agencies, families and children begin when the referral is made and accepted.
ADA: What country is risk free? Last time we checked, every country of origin of children was either implmenting changes or planning to do so. At least in Guatemala the families know that there is an organization that is poised to fight to restore the order if it is disrupted by an arbitrary decision of any authority .
JCICS; It can be noted that current efforts include amendments to both 3536 and 3217 providing for a continuation of the current ICA process (a 'grandfather clause'); however this assumes that either piece of legislation is actually passed by Congress. It can also be noted that separate legislation could be introduced which would extend the effective date of the Hague Convention for a specific period of time ( i.e. 30-90 days).
ADA: Yes, that could happen too, that the approval of the Hague Convention be postponed for months, until the US really ratifies the Hague convention.
JCICS: In assessing this information, one can easily draw the conclusion that the Guatemalan ICA process will be significantly altered as early as January 2008 and no later than March 2008. Assuming that most adoptions from referral to finalization can easily exceed 6 months and in some cases extend over 12 months, it can be concluded that referrals issued in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 may face a very uncertain conclusion.
ADA: That is a wrong assessment, based on a wrong assumption, that the Hague Convention will come into -force in January 1st. 2008. The earliest it can become effective is in May 1st., and only if the instrument to accede the Hague Convention is deposited sometime in January, 2008.
JCICS: Of significant concern is the potential for unresolved pipeline cases. USCIS reports no slow down in new applications. Through July, I-600A applications continue at over 400 per month with most being identified with a small percentage of agencies. It is not outside the realm of possibilities that should this pace continue, over 2,000 cases may be unable to proceed to completion. This leads to yet another concern related to an adoption service provider's capacity to sustain services to children and adoptive parents over a prolonged period which may include legal challenges.
ADA: Guatemala has a legal system that works, despite what the press says. The same legal system that restored the order in 2003, would allow us to finalize all adoptions started before a new adoptions law becomes effective.
JCICS: It is the recommendation of Joint Council that all agencies again reassess their programming and take the appropriate action to minimize your organizational liabilities, to avoid the problems seen in Cambodia, Romania and recently in Nepal and most importantly to safeguard the best interest of client-families, birthparents and the children we serve.
ADA: Since this statement is a way to suggest to turn your backs to the Guatemalan children, we suggest that each family who wants to adopt looks around and see if they can find a country where adoptions are risk free and no changes will be implemented ever. Since there is not such a thing, we remind you that the children of Guatemala do not have another choice and to help us to keep adoptions as an option to the birth mothers of Guatemala, to give their children a permanent and loving family.
Posted by Kevin at September 7, 2007 02:00 PMlet me start out by saying that I have only the very highest regard for Hannah Wallace - but, that said, I see Hannah's views as Big Picture, while each individual family currently awaiting or contemplating a referral has to look, I think, at the situation from their own Small Picture of what is best for *their family* as well as for *their heart* and *their pocketbooks*. Can we all keep jumping off this cliff in an attempt to save Guatemalan adoptions?
I daresay most PAPs are not in a position to sacrifice (or potentially sacrifice) their emotions much less their bank accounts at this point - but I also say that from the standpoint of one who is not currently contemplating an adoption from Guatemala - I've been way too scared for months now.
I realize that JCICS's statement is designed to get agencies to assess the risk they are putting *themselves* (the agencies) in at this point. I wish to urge all PAPs awaiting referrals to assess the risk they are putting themselves (their families) in by moving forward.
Can Guatemalan adoptions be 'saved'? I don't know, but at this point in time I would not bet on it, quite frankly. Do I want to be one of the cases that never gets completed, or is delayed by years, in an attempt to prove something to the Guatemalan government? NO, I do not. You may, but I do not...
I can only urge people to make carefully-informed decisions. Like Kelly & Kevin, I offer no advice.
Respectfully,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa at September 7, 2007 02:41 PMI'm scared, yes. I just accepted a referral about 2 weeks ago. However, I agree with Hannah and it's simply not right to put in place NEW laws for cases in progress (or even worse, shut down cases in progress).
We entered into a particular contract with Guatemala and our case should be completed under the laws we agreed to. Like with any law, cases already in progress should be able to continue under the old laws and once the effective date begins, then NEW cases will sign into the new agreement. I hope and pray that legislation finds a way to do what's right for pipeline cases. It "should" just happen that way, but if I have to fight to be grandfathered in, I'll fight. I may not win, but I'll go down trying.
Posted by: jlr at September 7, 2007 03:23 PMIn reading this I realized that I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. I understand the Guatemalan executive branch may be motivated by the promise of Unicef money to close adoptions. But why is the US motivated to back the Guatemalan executive branch's attempts to close adoptions? I can understand the US would want human rights protected but as many have pointed out, there are other ways of doing this. Would someone please comment on this?
Thanks in advance
Posted by: cheryl at September 7, 2007 03:48 PMAs a professional social worker who is bound by requirements of integrity (as per our ethical code), I think that agencies must diligently finish what they have started and close their Guate programs for the time being. The MAIN PROBLEM is that for some agencies Guate has been their bread and butter and they will not be so financially viable if they lose Guate while they wait for other countries to come on board--especially with all the problems with other countries slowing down, etc. So, it appears that some agencies are pushing forth in an effort to remain financially solvent (I have been told this directly by one agency in particular). So, any family that is involved with an agency that fits this description--beware of the motives behind staying open. It may well be dollars and cents, especially in an environment in which Guate adoptions appear to have less and less integrity in terms of definable process given the new laws. Any social worker that continues forth really needs to consider values of integrity as Guate continues to disintegrate as a ICA location.
Posted by: karenms1 at September 7, 2007 03:52 PMThank you Hannah, Kevin, and the Guatadopt team!! It is a very scary time right now---thanks for always keeping us up to date. Hannah, we appreciate your perspective and are thankful to have you as an advocate for adoptive parents and the children.
Posted by: SueJ at September 7, 2007 04:36 PMNo advice here, but a view that I would like considered.
The current adoption process in Guatemala has provided thousands of homes for children and has satisfied thousands of families desires to adopt children. Although the process was bumpy, most were successful in the end.
Now the system is changing whether we like it or not. It has been in process for some time and ultimately may affect the ICA in Guatemala for a very long time. I think now the ICA program needs as much attention and support as ever. If the agencies follow the recommendations to suspend their programs and we as PAP change our country of desire, then the powers to be win, and the children lose. If we are true and believers in the "right thing" then we shouldn't run and hide. That may satisfy us on an individual basis, but ultimately hurt the cause as a whole.
I am speaking as a successful adoptive parent. We will not abandon our process or prospective children. Money or not, we cannot run the other way when times are tough. We are not a family of convenience that wants to take the easiest road for ourselves, but will fight the fight even if it means losing some money and shedding some tears.
Posted by: Bob at September 7, 2007 05:23 PMHonestly, I think that new adoptions with Guatemala should have stopped months ago. DOS has threatened, warned, and dissuaded us all from adopting. Yet, Still they are issuing new I-600's. How is this responsible? I'm sorry for those of you who are starting out now, but in my opinion it's crazy. I can't believe agencies are taking new cases at all. This has turned into a complete catastrophe. We need to focus our energy on getting all of the in-process cases home to their families. And of course I am in-process, so my views are a bit skewed...Erik
Posted by: Erik at September 7, 2007 06:04 PMJLR,
What contract with Guatemala? In my adoption experience--I only have a contract with the US adoption agency that we signed our contract with. No contract with the country....no contract with a certain person even. Perhaps, I missed something...........
oh gosh, here we go again. As I appreciate the guatadopt team for keeping us up to date and informed, I'm noticing that the up and down of our fair Guatemala programs has left me not scared, not excited, not vigilant, but numb.
Until Guatemala and all the forces that surround adoptions come to a resolve, I find the "doomsday" mentality quite pointless.
Every other week (emphasis mine) it seems we go round and round. What's happening, speculation, opinions, truths and lies circulate forums and blogs.
We know the hard facts of this reality, and I don't see where speculation helps anybody-ESPECIALLY those who are beginning the process, or in the midst of it.
Let's focus on the now. I-600s are being issued, children are coming home, and justice is being served where it needs to be.
If you are starting the process, go in eyes wide open and battle ready. If you are in process now, keep the faith and don't read the boards everyday. I am learning this the hard way. If your agency is doing its job, you know what's up.
And if your agency is not doing its job, then you need to run and seek counsel immediately.
I feel like the folks who read these boards/sites/blogs are the ones who do want to be in the know, and shouldn't turn a blind eye to the atrocities, but before you start spreading the "doomsday, sky is falling stuff"...think about the people you are working up into a frenzy, who are in the wait.
Support them, don't berate them. Instead of saying, "don't do it, you're crazy!"...why not say-"hey, I'm going to support you as best I can, we are going to get through this together."
Until we know for sure what's going to happen, I challenge everyone to remain calm and level headed. You'll be able to put out more fires if you know where the water is.
peace,
weez
March on Bob:
The children of Guatemala are worth saving all the way to the end. Stopping adoptions months ago as suggested would have done nothing but cause a welfare nightmare that the gov't would not have wanted or supported. The private agencies would have been able to do only so much and the number of children needing help would not have received it period! We can talk until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains the same, poor country, impoverished people and children that need the love of a family. It is so easy for many to turn a deaf ear to the cries for help that one can see on the face of so many. We as a nation find it so easy in life compared to those in third world nations. I have traveled, experienced and seen first hand the great difficulty that is exacted upon children and peoples of struggling countries. I am with you Bob, I will go down fighting before letting go of the rope! We have been so blessed in this life that passing it on is the least we can do.
Bendiciones,
Paul
I agree with Bob and respectfully disagree with Erik! If we all run away from this and only concentrate on in-process cases then the only ones to suffer are the children. The need for adoptions in Guatemala will not stop because we all walk away. I will face up to the fact that some birth mother's may be producing children for payment, but this is not the majority.
We, as Americans have to remember how many rights, freedoms, and priveledges we have in this country compared to Guatemala. I don't even want to get into all the reasons adoptions need to continue in Guatemala, it has been discussed so many times, but we have to remember that this is a country where women cannot even go out at night for fear of being raped, beaten, or murdered. This is a country where the poverty rate is catestrophic. This is a country where there is very little birth control, abortions are illegal, and the conception rate is double that of the U.S.
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/879/1/
I'm not saying the system doesn't need reform. So, let's start with that. Closing down the program or running away won't solve anything!
Paul, it looks your post came in while I was writing mine. Very similar...and I couldn't have said it better myself!!!
Everyone! We have to stick together in this.
Posted by: Jaimee at September 7, 2007 08:56 PMI have accepted a referral of a little boy born in April 30, 2007. I feel like that we should just keep our heads up and hope that as we adoptive these children pray that others can also be helped! I jumped in knowing the risk and will continue as other adoptive parents do the same. Lets all pray for the safe road for the children home. I also pray that other children can be helped. The future adoptive parents should all stay in for the fight! I will!
Posted by: Julia at September 7, 2007 09:03 PMI wasn't talking about walking away from anyone, especially the children of Guatemala. I just think that's it's rather naive to just go blindly into adoption when things look so grim. Erik
Posted by: Erik at September 7, 2007 09:56 PMThe response of ADA to JCICS is at www.adaguatemala.org
Susana Luarca
Posted by: Susana Luarca at September 7, 2007 10:08 PMI had asked the question of what is motivating the US to support Berger's attempts to close Guatemalan adoptions down. I plan on writing my letter about CQ to my representatives tomorrow morning and this information may prove helpful in writing that letter.
Thanks in advance, Cheryl
I'll keep checking tonight to see if anyone provides info on this.
Posted by: cheryl at September 7, 2007 10:20 PMCheryl,
There are a number of reasons for the US position. Here is my take. First of all, it is not the job of the DOS or CIS to worry about the fate of Guatemala's children. Guatemalan adoptions do have problems. IN addition, the US has had to take unilateral steps like DNA that are usually done by the sending the country. The staff at the embassy has been understaffed and underfunded without permanent staff, basically unable to manage the ever increasing number of adoptions from Guatemala. As a result, they have been bombarded by letters from members of Congress when constituents inquire and they have to respond to those.
They thought and hoped that their statements in the aftermath of the Mary Bonn arrest would scare away families. They pleaded with agencies as early as last March to close to their programs to out pressure on the Guatemalans. Neither worked and now they are bitter and p*ssed off.
In short, Guatemalan adoptions are a huge headache for the US government and I believe that they doubt the ability of the Guatemalans to enforce the rule of law, which is probably a fair criticism to some extent.
Now, this does not excuse the laziness or lack of proactive action to eliminate unethical practitioners - the proverbial rotten apples or bad seeds. They should have banned more people, prosecuted American citizens, and set a precedent that unethical activity would not be tolerated. Instead they jerked around and let it happen and now are sudedenly up in arms about what they allowed to transpire. And that is a bloody shame! A few people thrown in jail and suddenly the slimebags wouldn't get into it at all.
Guatemala's adoption system has many great attributes that are being overlooked in the name of "international law", "the rights of the child", and the like. Everyone - humanity - would be better served if efforts were placed on preserving the best aspects of adoption, ending corruption, and not sacrificing children!
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
My wife and I are sitting here talking about this letter, and wondering what will happen to the girl we are in the process of adopting.
My belief is that rationality will still play a big part in whatever decision is made or law is passed by the Guatemalan legislature. Making a law retroactive, so that all in process adoptions would be null and void, would be so far outside the Rule of Law that I can't believe a government that is still a functioning democracy would go that far.
Beyond that, practically speaking, ending all in process adoptions would be such a nightmare from a logistical and social welfare stance, that, again, I can't fathom a functional government doing it.
I know that many people would argue the Guatemalan congress isn't functional, but it has shown rationality with respect to adoptions recently, and has resisted Berger heavy-handed attempts to impose a moratorium on adoptions. So, I think there is a good chance that adoptions will get finished.
I hope that I am not just whistling in the dark. With so many competing interests involved, and with a country so seemingly volatile, I hold out hope that rationality in Guatemala will prevail, and not just regarding adoptions.
Peace in Guatemala.
Posted by: Nick B. at September 7, 2007 11:40 PMKevin,
Thanks for your post. That makes a lot of sense. By the way, I sent a check to you guys awhile back :)
Best, Cheryl
Posted by: cheryl at September 8, 2007 01:01 AMLaura,
I did not mean "contract" in the literal sense. I meant more of an agreement that you start the process in good faith under the current laws, and that APs should finish under the laws they started with. :)
While adoption agencies cannot remain open indefinitely without funding, I wanted to point out that money is not the sole reason many continue to accept new applications for Guatemala. I know our agency is stressing over the fact that they know it might be impossible to complete new cases, but they continue to receive referrals for babies. What will happen to the babies when there is no one ready to accept the referral? I think we all know the answer to that. So, as long as PAPs know the risks involved, and are willing to take them, I say let them try. Maybe one more baby can be saved.
We started the process again right before DOS issued it's warning. I knew going in, even before the warning was issued, that this could be a bumpy road for us, but I was willing to take the chance. So far things have worked well for us, and we hope to have our child home before the end of the year. I do realize we could still hit a snag any day, but I believe it will all be worth it to bring my little girl home.
Posted by: Sophia at September 8, 2007 10:49 AMAll adoptions carry risk. Having children carries risk. Corruption happens in all parts of the world. I'm tired of hearing about Guatemalan adoption corruption and lack of process. All families who have adopted from other countries or researched other countries should find the reported lack of oversight, regulation, and easy process in Guatemala one big JOKE. Everyone in the middle of a Guatemalan adoption should know by now much of what is said is NOT true and what happened in the 90's with another system can NOT be brought up against our adoptions now. Scam artists in the US can not be used as an example of corruption in Guatemala. There are MORE parties involved and processes in place with a Guatemalan adoption than anywhere else in the world (at least for US citizens until the DNA requirement becomes a Guatemalan requirement which is probably what our government is whining about). Not to say the system is perfect it isn't perfect worldwide and it will never be absolutely perfect because systems are made by people and all we can do our entire life is to try to make it better while someone tries to find away around it. You don't throw something out because it isn't perfect. Innocent people go to jail for murder are you going to throw laws against murder out? Child protection laws are not perfect are you going to dismantle all child protection laws? Rape laws are not perfect shall we throw them out? People get in car wrecks lets outlaw cars. How many examples can I use where it is the SAME logic people are using against adoption? Adoption is not perfect so lets throw it out. "All children have the right to be with their bio families and country". These people need to wake up. We haven't been able to solve war, theft, hunger, murder, abuse, children in need, all the same evils of the world since the beginning of time! Fertility does not mean a child can be cared for or is wanted. Bio families die or disappear or abandon their children. People kill their children. Lets get something straight about childrens rights. Many people who say they are for childrens rights that talk about the right to be with their bio families are not talking about childrens rights they are talking about parental rights and responsibility and are still treating children as property. It is not always in a childs best interest to remain with their biological family and forcing that to happen puts children at risk and can lead to a lot of misery or death. I'm also tired of hearing about what the children will not know about their bio families. I don't know everything about my parents and I wasn't adopted. These same people argue against baby drops because the child has the right to know who their mother and father was.. they have the right to LIVE which overshadows knowledge any day. We need real life answers, which will never be perfect, and when we find issues we apply real world RCA/ICA. Moratoriums and restructures are not uncommon worldwide. We found our children and walked in eyes open and will not stop until our children are home and we do not feel bad about adopting our children. With that said, ICA is a tough and sometimes discouraging process. There are benefits to this in protecting the children and there are negatives in discouraging families and taking away hope and their right to be OVERJOYED with the union of their forever family which all in the end leads to fewer children being adopted. Some families are fighters and some families just want to unite their families in peace. For families who have found their child and/or understand the risks and have decided to go forward no matter what I commend you and wish you much strength and hope for your process. For those families who are starting and the emotional and financial risks are too great for them (many people scrape every penny as it is and once they financially commit they may never be able to afford another adoption) it is my opinion I am sick to say I think you should hold out to see what the new year brings. My blessings and best wishes to you also but I could not in good conscience tell another AP that it will definately be okay because we just don't know.
Posted by: mom at September 8, 2007 12:32 PMOur agency issued a letter giving parents a warning. I think they and their attorney in Guatemala have been at the forefront of pushing for a change in legislation, and want to continue to provide an avenue for women to relinquish their children to a safe and loving family.
I think agencies bear the responsibility to make clear to families starting the process a) what the current situation is in Guatemalan adoptions, b) that it is possible that an adoption started late in the year might be stopped or subject to new rules at the turn of the year or sooner, and c) what they will do, both financially and in supporting the families, if the adoption is stopped or becomes very drawn out due to a change in rules.
If they do that, staying open seems reasonable.
Posted by: Nick B. at September 8, 2007 02:22 PMCheryl,
In answer to your question. This is strictly my opinion. I believe all of the reasons stated by Kevin, but in addition I believe racism plays a large role, in both countries. In the US, the country is run by rich, white men, whome I believe want to keep it that way (run by rich, white men and reducing the immigration of persons of color). Most of our Guatemala adopted children/babies are brown.
Please people, I have nothing against men (I love men! and I am white, but certainly not rich), or being white. Just think about it. Think about legislation that does not get passed for rights of women in the US, the resistance of immigration for certain groups of color and not as much for "whiter" groups in the US, etc.
On the Guatemala side, the racism appears to also be against the "browner" children. The powers that be in Guatemala do not care about these brown children, and can't believe that there are many in the US and other countries that do. They, when working with the US, do not advocate for these brown children, and neither does the US.
Erik,
What will happen to the babies being relinquished today, tomorrow or relinquished yesterday? Go to the big list and read Susana Luarca's recent post to see what will happen to these little ones. My personal opinion is those of us who have formed our families through adoption through Guatemala (or are currently in process--I fit both categories) owe Guatemala and its people for allowing us the privelege of rasing some of their most precious children. We need to help whenever/however we can, never turn our backs.
Paul, Bob, Weez, Sophia, thanks for your posts!
Hannah and Susana, always nice to hear from you. You are great at providing so much background info to really help us to understand so that we can better advocate. Thanks so much!
Posted by: anonymous at September 8, 2007 05:26 PMI wouldn't recommend anyone getting in to a Guatemala adoption at this point. After one failed adoption due to an error on her birth certificate, promises from my agency, Guatemala attorney and Susan Luarca that this could be fixed, she is in an orphanage and may never have a home. Now over 10 months in to a second referral and guess what.... yep, issues over the "grandfather's and mother's" birth certificate. DNA testing was done. It proved this mother is the birth mother. My child and so many others are sitting in foster families or orphanages for years over politics. Why do agencies in the US continue to offer referrals? I do believe it's a money maker. What do these agencies do for the thousands of dollars they are being paid? They send you some papers to complete for your dossier. I can't even get my agency to return an email. They've made their money and they're on to referring new babies. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it also seems to be a reality. Everything in our country has come to the almighty dollar.
Where are all the Republicans in our Government of this issue? They are all about the family so why aren't they fighting for so many of us who are trying to have one....oh, they're too busy in Nicaragua buying land on our dime.
Posted by: Shelly at September 8, 2007 09:33 PMWow....... all I can say is my heart goes out to those in process and most of all to the many, many children involved in this ...
I would love to see all these precious children in process come home.......
Praying for the children,
gloria
mom to 5 guatemalan blessings
Come on now, Shelly. Do we have to make this the fault of Republicans? FYI....my state, U.S. senators, and congressmen are ALL democrats. I have been calling, emailing, faxing, and sending letters since the middle of February, you know what I've heard from them? Nothing!!! Not a word, not any sort of reply at all. I could go ahead and start listing all of the things that they are "too busy" with, but I don't really think that is productive.
And to anonymous.....you made some comments about rich, white, men wanting to keep out immigrants. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know that the problem is about illegal immigration, not immigrants in general. And what about so many of our "rich, white" senators, republicans and democrats included, pushing for a reform that would include amnesty?
I'm sorry, but I didn't think this was a place to get into political debates.
Jaimee and Anonymous,
I'm not sure where you read in my post that I'm turning my back on the children of Guatemala. I do realize what will happen to these children if adoptions end? Do you not agree that something needs to be changed? Maybe you need to read Kevin's most recent in the radical rant section. It just feels like adoptions are headed for a bad end this January and I would hate to see people go into this process with false hope from agencies, our government, etc. We do not know what will happen, but we can certainly see the writing on the wall. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone educated about Guatemalan adoption to tell you to go ahead with an adoption right now. So, Is this turning my back on Guatemalan children or being responsible about the current situation? I can change the Guatemalan government or their views about adoption, I'd love to. But, Please do not put words in my mouth to try to make your point. Erik
Erik,
Something needs to be changed, yes absolutely.
End adoptions in the mean time, or end US participation (by adopting, I mean), absolutely no!
We can close our eyes and not see the racism, or think that it is really something else, if we don't want to see it. Is that what we want to do? Learn more about legal immigration and the issues/barriers for people who are desparate. Learn more about stats from the various countries where legal immigrants come from. Learn more about how the desparately poor can't go through legal means because of the costs from our own govt (barrier), the complicated paperwork and language difficuties (barrior) from poor who have no resources and may have family members die before the years it takes to immigrate legally, among many other barriers with our legal immigration system set up to keep the brown and black people out. Or . . . close your eyes. Yes, I do think that this discussion has a place here, as Cheryl asked a question that deserves an honest answer. All of what Kevin pointed out is part of the answer, and what I have said is the ugly dirty part that we don't want to admit exists here.
Bt the way, "I think you are intelligent enough" is quite close to a personal attack, eh?
Reason why I posted anonymously.
Posted by: anonymous at September 9, 2007 02:01 PMErik:
Sometimes it takes courage to see and say the obvious. The US Dept of State will, with 99%-100% certainty, shut down Guatemala sometime early in the new year (within the US ratification of the Hague clock). I have said frequently on this site that the writing is on the walls. I also feel like any agency that is taking new cases is irresponsible and unprofessional. Finally, while I recognize that one should stay positive in their world outlook, it is impossible to stay positive about the state of ICA in Guatemala. The pain and anguish of the CQ parents is the tip of the iceberg for what is to come. Things will almost certainly disintegrate as the internal forces war with each other--that is Susana's group, the PGN, the Bergers, and others with a dog in the fight. I would NEVER put myself in the middle of that fight--too uncertain, unpredictible, and the stakes are too high. And, if you think for a second that ANY one of those forces really cares about you or your family on a personal level, you have bought the swamp land in Florida. This is going to end in tears for numerous people, including some PAPs. At this point, no one can say they "didn't know."
anonymous,
i consider myself to be at ground zero right now with regards to immigration and my job. i am an urban schoolteacher, and my district is literally flooded with illegal immigrants. and, i can tell you that i adore these children. what i do not adore are classrooms without enough desks, so much money being spent on free lunches and free breakfasts that we cannot hire teachers, and 40 kids in a classroom. this is not a union thing, as i am anti union, probably a rarity for a public school teacher. it puts a strain on our schools and on the economy. we cannot just let everyone who wants to come here come, and then support them with free school, free meals, free healthcare, and various other financial entitlements. as much as that would help them, it would sink our own economy. look at what is happening in some of the welfare states in europe. it just isn't possible. it has nothing to do with racism, at least not in my opinion.
My husband & I were just offered last week the referral of a baby boy in Guatemala, and will with much sadness and heartache, have to decline. We have decided to wait and see what changes the new year will bring in Guatemala. And to the anonymous poster who said we are 'turning our backs' on the people and children of Guatemala if we stop the process--with all due respect, I couldn't disagree more.
We each have to look at our individual situation and realize the emotional, financial, and even physical toll this uncertainty is taking, and assess our ability to take on that risk. Looking at the big picture with no regard to the personal stakes would be reckless. To those that have assessed that risk and decided to move ahead in spite of the warning signs, I pray that they are able to save a child and bring him or her safely home. It is a very personal and life-affecting decision.
I would love nothing more than to have a successful adoption from Guatemala since our family is childless and this would be a wonderful blessing in our lives. But for today, I have to keep my sanity and our family intact. And today that means we cannot risk it all with the uncertainty and upheavel in Guatemala with regard to the adoption process.
I will keep the adoptive families and children involved in the Casa Quivira case, as well as all others currently adopting, in my prayers.
Sincerely, Lynne
Posted by: Lynne at September 10, 2007 08:43 AM99-100% certainty? wow. you are good. Until the DOS says it, you are still speculating. Where is your fact to back that up? EVERY person I have discussed this says there is NO certainty what US Dept. of State is going to do, and shutting adoptions down is slim. There will be delays, to be sure, and again, some rats will get smoked out for doing injustices but that happens in all programs. Spare me the fire and brimstone dance.
Posted by: weez at September 10, 2007 09:26 AMThis debate has certainly proven that each family must make a personal decision about how and when to proceed. I can't help but think about how much I relied on my agency for info (before I discovered this site) and how they insisted that I was a wonderful candidate for this program. I am embarrassed about my naivety. My son will turn 14 months this week. When I accepted the referral, the wait time for travel was 7-9 months. I just re-entered PGN. My agency still has a wait time on their website of 5-12 months after referral. I think that is irresponsible. Or maybe they are putting their heads in the sand? We all have 2 decisions to make: what is best for our family (proceed or not proceed) and how can we promote change in the macro sense? Of course I will wait for Wilson as long as it takes. He is my son and I will do anything for him or his waiting big brother. I do wish I had been given a more realistic forecast/timeline or at least not been given a false one. The broader question is what can we do as a people? The answer must be to support those who are advocating in person, especially on the ground in Guatemala, for these children. This site has provided lots of info about how to do this.
I would like to ask everyone and particularly karnems1 to remember that we all want what is best for the kids and we are HEAVILY emotionally vested so please be kind. And, karnems1, we know that you've "told us so" so please stop saying it.
Posted by: Lauren at September 10, 2007 04:23 PMFirst we would like to thank each of you for your consistent insight, experience, concern, and appreciation of adopting a child from Guatemala. We began our journey last September and accepted a referral in January – our experience thus far has included our I-600A taking four months for receipt (for no given reason other than HS being short staffed in our region); our birth mother taking two months to complete the DNA exam and Social Worker interview; not to mention the current and continued climate of the country and the adoption process.
Has this been frustrating - have there been times that we think "oh my gosh this is so hard; will we EVER bring our baby home??" - absolutely! However each time we receive a picture of our baby boy it gives us that "boost" to continue on and faith that we will indeed bring him home after which time we will give him the opportunity to paint his canvass in a way that he has been destined (for he was certainly brought to us for a reason - other than for us to be so blessed to have him as a son) not to mention welcoming him in to a family that will give him unabashed love.
We appreciate those of you who have suggested coming in to this process with "eyes wide open" and believe that is what this site of counterparts is meant to do; it has certainly assisted us in understanding the questions we should ask of my agency in order to assure that we remain "aware".
For those of you who have already welcomed a Guatemalan child(ren) in to your family, we look forward to feeling the same joy you felt on that fantastic day when you were united with your child - for if we have faith we know it too will happen for us too. For those of you who are like us, we will pray for your family and hope that you will do the same for ours.
Sincerest of regards to all,
C&J
I just wanted to say that I don't think everything is all doom and gloom. We were caught in the 2003 fiasco with UNICEF where we expected a child in 4 -6 months and it took almost 11 months. Susanna Luarca was instrumental in advocating for the rights of both adoptive parents and the children of Guatemala back then and she is doing the same now. We are in process with two children from Guatemala, we started well after the DOS warning, and we have already received our preapproval for one of the children and DNA has been taken and is being analyzed on the other. I thank our agency for that and believe them to be of the highest calibre. There are laws in place on both the U.S. side and Guatemala to protect you once you have your POA in place and the first DNA test. Yes, it may be a bumpy road but I don't think it's as dire as people may think. As the ADA has stated, no matter what country you choose, things can change. Our chinese adoption is a perfect example. Referrals there have practically ground to a halt and no one knows the reason. And because it's China, there is very little anyone can do. At least in Guatemala, there are many organizations and people fighting for this program.
Posted by: contessa at September 10, 2007 10:00 PMErik,
I apologize if my last post seemed like it was all directed at you as it wasn't. I know you are in process and this makes us emotional-yes I am too.
Kristen,
I am not talking about illegal immigration or the many illegal immigrants overfilling your schools. Please go back and read my posts again. I am talking about legal immigration, and its design to keep brown and black people out more than whites. Please learn about it.
C&J,
I am sorry for your long wait. When your little one has joined your family, all of these painful times will fade. I'm pulling for you, and you too Erik, and all of the families stuck in this waiting hell of one delay after another. Every time you think there just couldn't possible be another delay---there it is---another delay. My case had been taking a very long time too, but I know the happiness on the other end, and one day soon, C&J, so will you!
Karenms1,
First, bashing families in process and bashing Susana now?
When do you stop? Who's next?
If you really believe the things you've said, then you don't know Susana.
Lizzie
To add to what anonymous posted,
It is "interesting" that the US took formal stances to defend Romanian adoptions despite its breahes of ethical conduct and yet the DOS is doing little about, or more appropriately supporting, moves to end adoptions form Guatemala.
Lastly, and I'm sorry for chiming in on this, I have researched illegal immigration. A graduate school paper of mine on the topic ("Life in the fields: an exploration of migrant labor in America's agricultural industries") was published on the topic.
Undocumented people do not cost us money. The truth is quite to the contrary. They put more money into all of our pockets in the form of lower prices, cheap labor, and contributions to social security that will never be received by the contributor. How we should allow people to come legally and prevent those that don't is a matter for debate. But I must say that based on my research, most of what we see on Lou Dobbs (who I agree with on most topics) is not accurate and looking at the total picture.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Erik,
Just to clarify, I did not put words in your mouth, I said I respectfully disagree with what you said. Specifically, I disagree with your statement that people starting now are crazy (those people need our support more than ever). Secondly, I disagree with your statement that "new adoptions from Guatemala should have stopped months ago." How would that have solved the problems for the children?
Lastly, I said in my statement that the system NEEDS reform. But, shutting it down isn't what I'm advocating nor in support of. There are other ways to implement change to a system besides stopping it. BTW, I do read the Guatadopt site on a daily basis...thanks for the suggestion.
Back on topic...I hope agencies will continue to do what they think is best based on their knowledge and judgement about what is happening right now in Guatemala. There are many children that will be stuck in the middle of this mess and I can only hope that reform happens in time for it to be as painless as possible for all involved.
-Jaimee ("in-process" adoptive Mom)
Posted by: Jaimee at September 11, 2007 02:45 AManonymous,
i do not recall seeing the words "legal" or "illegal" in your posts. i apologize for speculating, but i do consider myself to be an educated person about the matters of immigration, and much more so that what can be gleaned from "lou dobbs."
kevin,
hospitals have had to close on the southern border because so many illegal immigrants go there for treatment and they cannot keep afloat...that might not have cost me money, but many people have lost their jobs because of it? when i have to send my child to a private school because he cannot learn in a classroom of 40 students, that costs me money. and when a school of almost 1500 students (and their many siblings) each get to eat free lunch and breakfast, their families recieve free healthcare through the state, they recieve assistance with food and housing, how is that not costing us money? when it comes out of my taxes, it costs me money. money that could be spent somewhere else, or heck, lower my taxes so i could afford to send my child to a private school.
i know many others that would rather pay more money for a head of lettuce or a bag of apples and see things done fairly. the same holds true for manual labor jobs as well.
i do apologize, because i certainly didn't want to get into a debate on this. the compassionate side of me wants to let everyone come here, but the practical side knows it would not work.
i am praying for all those families that are struggling with whether or not to start the process right now. my gut feeling would be for them to wait just a few months, until after the new year, and see what 2008 will bring.
In my opinion, it would seem neglegient that after all the DOS warnings and even those issues by guatadopt.com and the JCICS that an agency would offer a family a referral. This is not a question about turning your backs on children, this is about the reality of the state we find ourselves in. Hague implentation will cause changes. What these changes will be when they come into fruition, well we will have to wait and see. The process of adoption is an emotional roller coaster with many highs and many lows and every feeling in-between. Let us do this in a supportive way.
Marie, Guatadopt.com
The comments of karnems1:
The writing is on the wall, please tell us all where you bought that crystal ball so we can look at it also. The fact is that you can get out of bed, get behind the wheel of a car and get killed today, does that stop you from driving? According to your logic we should stop driving. When January has come and gone I will either acknowledge you were right or that you were wrong, but in the meantime I will continue to drive!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. Please support those that need support with your vast knowledge of the system that you seem to have.
Behind the wheel,
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. at September 11, 2007 09:54 AMNo crystal ball here, however I have an indepth knowledge of the Hague, including being involved with the US implementation process--personally involved. I know what has been done, I know exactly what the US is saying officially, and I have seen what Pres. Bush said last Spring, clearly reinforcing ratification. Anyone who thinks the Hague is not going to be implented and ratified by the US is either uninformed or not being honest with themselves. (Hague-implementation is underway here in the US as agencies are being required to be accredited at this or cease to work in Hague countries.)Once we ratify, the US will NOT be able to continue to do business with Guatemala until they become Hague compliant (those are the rules as per the international agreement). That requires a number of systems building pieces in Guatemala that will take quite a bit of time, beginning with the development of a central authority. Right now, Guatemala has assigned an individual to head the adoption unit/Central Authority (Dra. Rossana Gonzales). That guate office building and planning is taking place for the organization to become functional in the various oversight (Hague) requirements. No, I don't have a crystal ball. I'm well informed...I don't make serious statements based mysticism rather upon facts. When it is a hunch...I say so. You can look at my previous posts and I use words like "hunch". If you want to undermine my comments about the certain close of Guatemala in the new year--go ahead. It leaves me to question just whose information is correct. And, you need to consider your words as PAPs are trying to make informed decisions.
P.S. Adoptions will not be banned within Guatemala upon the Hague changes, any Tuatemalan family that wants to adopt thier relatives or non-relatives will have an ability to do so. Of course, that is a difficult mountain to climb in terms of people being motivated. However, the Guate Central Authority will have to build a system to socially market, raise consciousness, and provide assistance to families similar to the assistance provided by our public welfare entities (legal advice, assistance with paperwork, etc.). Obviously you can attack this, but the reality is that Guatemala, a soverign nation, has decided this is the path that they are taking. Their Congress took a vote in a special session and the Hague is "on" no matter what Susanna says--the old constitutional challenges are over (no matter what Susanna says) and it is time to move on to system reform. Once reform is achieved, maybe one day Guatemala can resume ICA ONCE it has been determined that (1) there is not a relative or (2)a domestic placement available for the child. Then, and only then, may a child be released by a Hague-country for ICA. Again, these are requirements under the international agreement--that both Guatemala and the US has signed.
Posted by: karenms1 at September 11, 2007 11:46 AMKarenms1,
It's nice to say that adoptions within Guatemala will be an option -- but what will happen if, as can be expected, children are not being adopted? What will happen to those children? You know quite well that, for the most part, they will not be adopted because of racism against the indigenous population.
Much wealthier countries like South Korea have tried to encourage domestic adoption (and this is a good thing) but the efforts have not been as successful as hoped.
There will not be reform in Guatemala. There may well be a closure, but calling this "reform" is laughable.
The Guatemalan government is run by the elite for the elite and indigenous children are disposable -- whether through child labor, malnutrition, or being forced to survive on the streets.
The new Central Authority elite will enjoy all sorts of perks and conferences courtesy of UNICEF but to say that this will help children is ridiculous.
Also, the Hague does NOT require efforts to find a domestic placement first. This is a UNICEF fetish, not a Hague requirement. In the US, hundreds of African American children are adopted every year by Canadian and European families -- US adoption of the Hague will not stop that. In fact, the US adoption system will continue pretty much as it always has -- which is why it is such a tragedy that the US is involved in trying to foist such a restrictive anti-child interpretation of the Hague on Guatemala.
Posted by: Lee at September 11, 2007 04:33 PMIn reguards to Susanna-
I believe it is hard to trust the council of a person who FINANCIALLY BENEFITS from the issue being discussed.
gaby
Posted by: gaby at September 11, 2007 05:14 PMWhat implications do you think the reforms will have for UK adopters utilising American agencies karenms1 ? What is likely to happen to us in January?
Good luck and best wishes to everyone trying to make sense of this.
Cate
To Karenms1:
No doubt here that Hague won't be implemented in the US or in Guatemala and I have never even contemplated that it wouldn't be. I believe that out of pure economics ( and I hope a little compassion) that the law that will be adopted in Guatemala just as the law states in the US "grandfathering will prevail" for those that have entered into the adoption process. If you know how to translate you can see this in the "Ortega" legislation as well as the one that was drafted by the Guatemalan Congress in December 2006. In both pieces of legislation the grandfather clause is stated. The US supports this as well as the HAGUE rules concerning ICA. You toot your horn as much as you like and tell us all that you know but at the end of the day you had better know your stuff when sparring with me.
Determined,
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. at September 11, 2007 06:41 PMLee, I would encourage you to become more educated about the Hague and its requirements. Specifically, the priorities for any signatory country are (1) that the child stay in the family system, including extended family, (2) stay in the country of birth, and ONLY when those options are exhausted (3) be freed for ICA. That will be true for both the US and Guatemala (as well as ALL 69-signatory countries). And, US attorneys/agencies will have to prove that they exhausted #2 & 3 before they can free a child for ICA. Now, you may argue that in practice that there will be dodgy business--however, there is attempt to regulate and IF both the sending nation and the receiving nation are both Hague, regulations will have some bearing on how children are moved across global space and place.
Posted by: karenms1 at September 11, 2007 06:50 PMCate:
I am not exactly sure exactly what the UK will do. I can tell you that I know that the UK is serious about the Hague and has signed it. They may well offically determine that Guate is not compliant--as other European nations and Canada has done (thereby instituting a moratorium). As you know, what happens in the US greatly influences the UK. Also, the UK tends to be more aggressive about human & child rights issues so...you should be cautious. I personally have worked on adoption consultancies in the UK and I can tell you that MANY UK families are focusing on China for ICA (as you probably know). I would wonder if that dynamic is the case because of the fears about the Hague and the fact that China is non-Hague. Good luck Cate. If I were you, I'd look for some position statements from the Home Office or the UK embassy in Guate City or some other source as to policy planning there in the UK. I know there are some adoption researchers at the University of East Anglia who focus on various aspects of adoption (in the social work department), you may want to make some phone calls and ask this of a faculty member who is interested in ICA and ICA policy.
Gaby,
And it is impossible to trust the Guatemalan government by your standards -- because all its actions in the adoption debate are based on its desire to get its hands on millions of dollars in UNICEF money. All of which will go toward their comfortable life, rather than helping the children of Guatemala.
Were it not for Susana Luarca, adoptions would have stopped years ago and there would be that many more children dead due to the inability of, and lack of interest by, the Guatemalan government in actually taking care of these children. But maybe that's what the elite wants -- more cheap labor to serve them.
Posted by: Lee at September 11, 2007 07:52 PMKarenms1,
I had read the Hague regulations that State published and there was nothing in there about US agencies having to establish that they exhausted efforts to place a child with extended family or domestically first -- and I hope that there is no plan to even attempt to do this. Perhaps I missed it, but I hope not. It would be utter child abuse!!
What this sequencing means in effect is that children often will not be adopted. What on earth is possibly good about that? I have no qualms, as an American, about African American children finding good loving homes in Canada or Europe -- at least they'll have a family. The Hague is an utterly perverse anti-child instrument. It does nothing to help children -- just ask the children in El Salvador, Peru, and elsewhere who are now on the streets rather than in loving homes.
Posted by: Lee at September 11, 2007 09:17 PMTo Chrstine Faiman:
Well put :)
To all:
I can understand families and agencies deciding either to pursue adoptions or to discontinue. I do have a big problem with agencies not giving full disclosure on the risks involved. Although many feel irritated with Karen, I personally think her intentions are good. I don't mind that she repeats the problems that she sees in the system. I prefer having many different perspectives to draw from.
Posted by: cheryl at September 11, 2007 09:32 PMKaren, go take a look at the Hague results with your 1,2,3 options in Romania. What a raging success for thousands of children. Seems there is argument also about the numbers of children and Romania accuses the NGOs, including Unicef, of making up the numbers. Unicef has expressed concerns there and I don't know why they should be patting themselves on the back for destroying childrens lives there. Their abandonment did not go down and they have attempted forced reunification with families who stated the didnt want the children. The child will grow up before the authorities have "exhausted" all choices. You KNOW this. We KNOW this. Families who want to adopt domestically there can't because the authorities try to force reunification. The UN is out of their minds and criminally negligent when it comes to child welfare. In my city they just uncovered the graves of two children the father murdered. So we have one baby flushed down the toilet and now two children dug up all courtesy of the families the children have a right to be with. You DONT force children to be with people who are unfit or don't want the children and yet that is exactly what the UN is trying to force. It's easy for them to make that decision when they aren't the ones to live with the outcome.. the children are. They are NOT working in the best interests of children. EVERYONE read the 2006 report on Romania to see what the UN wants the world to do with the children. Come on, they come right out and tell us also the children shouldn't be here anyway. This is a nazi solution. Karen the report I am referring to is the 2006 report not the 2000 report you were referencing earlier.
Posted by: mom at September 11, 2007 11:31 PMkarenms1
I believe that China is a Hague country. At least, on the HCCH Status Table, they are listed as a member, that has ratified the treaty.
Posted by: Nick B. at September 12, 2007 12:28 AMkarenms & Cate
you are right when you say that the UK will be influenced by what happens regarding the usa & adoptions from guatemala - however, the UK currently allows adoptions from guatemala - as it simply chooses not to recognise Guatemala as a Hague country - this route was/is an option for the usa - but i suppose the need to impose a system on another country is more important? will domestic adoptions in the USA be held to the same system Karen? Cate - contact OASIS organisation in the UK for up to date and relevant info for yourself
Posted by: uk adoptive parent from guatemala at September 12, 2007 03:45 AMBecause there has been some misinformation in some posts regarding the Hague Convention and its implementation in Guatemala, I put together some information about such convention and about an alternative to the Ortega Law, the proposal 3635, for the benefit of those interested in the future of adoptions in Guatemala, at www.adaguatemala.org
Posted by: Susana Luarca at September 12, 2007 07:31 AMFor anyone confused about how adoptions will change once the Hague is ratified, here is the DOS site address that gives the provisions:
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/convention/convention_2300.html
Lynne
Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2007 09:41 AMOn Topic:
The Hague ratification by the US will require the deposit of accession documents. The US will not go into force until 90 days after this occurs at which time all I-171's issued after that date will fall into the HAGUE comliant category. When the Guatemalan law is passed ( this will be a definite that something will have to be passed )with hopefully the "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" in place adoptions could in fact be made complete. The fact that the US extended the deadline for accredidation for US adoption agencies suggest to me that the "in force" of the HAGUE TREATY will probably will not happen until late spring or early summer. The DOS Children's Welfare section has stated more than once and has demonstrated that it will not go forward until it is completely ready. They have been preparing since 2000!
With all of this unfolding before us, it is up to the family to be informed and make a decision as well as it is the responsibility of the agency to put all accurate information before the families that have to make these decisions. To close the doors of opportunity for children that may have no other chance for a forever family or for the families willing to exercise faith on the behalf of another is inexcusable!!!!!!!!!
Walking by Faith and facts,
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. at September 12, 2007 10:45 AMJCICS says the 3635 will not comply with the convention. Whatever laws are passed can we have a central authority to register all children, all agencies must be registered, all attorneys must be registered, and can we have a clause where we can change attorneys or have seperate representation between childs attorney and parents attorney because this option would have a lot of appeal to me right now.
Posted by: mom at September 12, 2007 12:26 PMI am going to ask a question that will likely spark further debate on this issue of whether Guatemalan adoption should continue:
Where EXACTLY does the money go for the 'in country' fees that are so high in these adoptions?
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to request a specific breakdown of charges when someone is doling out $20,000+ dollars in attorney's fees. No one has ever given me a clear cut, concrete answer and that is part of the problem. Even my agency was unable to tell me exactly. I've been told that the money goes to medical care, foster care, to pay the attorney, blah blah blah. But $20,000 seems somewhat outrageous to me given the amount of time most children are actually in foster care, and there has never been much accountability in this area. How much does the foster mother receive? Is the birth mother compensated? How much does the attorney keep? I think that with the Hague implementation, the requirement of 'transparency with fees' can only help. And why is the fee gender-based? Adoptions for girls in Guatemala cost $2000 more--are little boys worth less than little girls in Guatemala? Where does that extra $2000 go? While other countries may have a longer wait time for girls (or boys, depending on the country), they do not charge more in their fees for one gender or the other. One can only come to the conclusion that greed is a driving factor that has led to some of the corruption down there, leaving potential adoptive parents, birth mothers, and most important of all, the innocent children...in the lurch.
I'm sorry if all of this sounds crass, but I'm speaking from frustration. I would love to read your input on this.
Cory
Posted by: Cory at September 12, 2007 01:58 PMCory:
Good question about a breakdown of fees--I've never gotten an answer to that question and I look forward to the responses. Thankfully, under the Hague there will be transparency and accountability. US agencies will have to identify the fee schedule, their policies (including refunds), and also be bonded among other things. With these criteria, an agency will have a great deal more structure over what they tell families in order to be accredited.
As for the grandfather clause discussed above. I have referred to this in previous posts and yes, it will be an important time period after US ratification. However, to suggest that families count on that time period as they decide about starting an adoption (the root subject of this thread) is really concerning. As for the DOS ratifying when the agency accreditation process has been taking longer. My understanding is that the DOS does not have to complete all accreditations, rather they have to submit a package that indicates the process and documents a model agency that has been accredited. I may be wrong on this one, but I've been told that directly by someone who is an expert on this on Hague Accreditation. Careful of the conclusions that you jump to on timeline as things are unfolding--a prediciton of delayed ratification is not a surprise, but you cannot predict beyond that. There is just simply not enough information.
Posted by: karenms1 at September 12, 2007 03:21 PMCory, I've never heard of girls costing more. Is that an agency thing? The 20 thing is the average for all the countries. It would be interesting to have all of them answer for where some of it goes.
Posted by: mom at September 12, 2007 03:33 PMHi Cory - If you're working with a lawyer who's fees are based upon gender, then you're working with the wrong lawyer. I have never been asked to pay more for a girl than a boy. That would be a huge red flag to me.
Posted by: jlr at September 12, 2007 04:59 PMThis is to everyone who is saying that closing Guatemala adoption or adoptive parents not choosing to adopt in Guatemala will only hurt the children. How will it? Clearly anyone who has been involved in Guatemala adoptions can see that this is a huge financial win for agencies in the US and Guatemala attorneys. Like previously stated, where exactly does the $20,000 go? This is a third world country. Why does it cost $2000 more for a girl, do they eat more? It does not take that much money to take care of a baby, medical fees for a monthly check ups for SIX MONTHS and attorney costs. Remember, once you hit the six month mark, you will then pay another $350 per month for foster care for that little baby. Plus the thousands of dollars paid to the US adoption agency who is a go between and how many don't even communicate with the adoptive parents once they accept their referral? Adoptions are open right now, children are in foster homes longer and longer and being put in to orphanages every day because of PGN trying to find something wrong with most cases. Just keeping adoptions open right now isn't helping these children, it's hurting adoptive parents because once you get sucked in, get your referral and pay half or all of your Guatemala fee, you will sit back and be terrified each and every day wondering if it is EVER going to happen. Getting a referral isn't helping these children, it isn't bringing them home, it isn't giving them a family. The problems need to be fixed. I know, I had one that didn't work after being promised the birth certificate issue would be fixed. She is now over 2 years old and in an orphanage. I will never see her again, I spent her first birthday with her. I now have another baby who will be 11 months old.
Again, any prospective parent needs to be very aware of all the issues going on over there. It is very doubtful that your agency is going to tell you. I have a very large agency, they act like they don't know what's going on most of the time. Yes, there are horrible atrocities and injustices happening in Guatemala but the US continuing to give new referrals isn't going to solve the issue, only create more heart break for more families.
Posted by: Shelly at September 12, 2007 07:04 PMi have never heard of fees being higher for girls than boys. that would certainly be an agency that i'd be wanting to avoid.....
i have not seen a specific breakdown of fees, but if that is what people will pay for the services of an agency and an attorney, that is what they will charge. i teach private music lessons for 45 dollars an hour....if people can afford it and are willing to pay it, great. if they can't, they will find another teacher. business is business. are all homes that are bought actually worth the price that is paid? probably not, as is evidenced by the slumping housing market. i could go on and on. why don't we demand to know where the 34 thousand dollars per yer for a college education is broken down?
also, i am tired of the money thing being brought up as evidence of corruption...what about the countries that require thousands of dollars in cash for the facilitators when you get off the plane? it happens...i have a friend that went through it with another country. i guess that is different though, right?
Cory --
I agree that there is a need for transparency. Absolutely.
Just an fyi, though -- not all agencies charge more depending upon the gender of the child. This is something that is agency-specific.
Posted by: Anne at September 12, 2007 07:35 PMThanks for all the great responses to this sub-topic.
To all who inquired about the $2000 add-on to the fees for a girl, it is widespread throughout agencies and is certainly not uncommon. Many clients may not bother to ask when they sign with an agency or get a referral, but when any agency lists their 'in country' fees as,say, $18,000-20,000, or $20,000-22,000--that's what the difference is in cost for a boy vs. a girl. Every agency I researched did this, but maybe clients simply think the difference is due to variation in medical costs, foster care, attorney's actual fees, or something else. It's sad but true, and I've also seen this discussed previously on other messageboards from agency clients. This is what I'm talking about with all clients having the need to know where their money is going in this process. For most of us, $30,000+ to complete an adoption isn't chump change. I do hope that if Guat. adoptions continue, there will be accountability in regards to the cost for adoption.
Cory
Posted by: Cory at September 12, 2007 08:57 PMkarenms1:
The movement forward based on the information at hand is a reasonable path if one's concern is about helping the children whom you have placed your eyes upon. To not move is to say that the risk are more than you can handle, and thats OKAY for those that can't handle this roller coaster. The outcome will only come to those that have the courage to step out, believe, and trust that their path will lead them to the child that needs them the most. The subject of where does the money go, when the contract is signed and the money is sent, it is anybodys guess as to where it actually goes. The hypocrisy of the HAGUE ( UN, UNICEF in disguise) to even discuss transparency is a disgrace, just look at the poor people in IRAQ with the oil for food fiasco. In my opinion only, families that do not educate themselves concerning ICA at this point in time will indeed be hurt by this roller coaster. One life that can be saved is worth the outcome for me. Consider walking in their shoes and all you can see is the faint shadow of someones back when suggesting that those with the faith to try are crazy!
Fuerza de Dios
Paul
Off topic:
Just found fantastic pricing on Spirit Airlines for travel to many destinations but most importantly to Guatemala City. This sale ends at 11:59 P.M. eastern time on 9/12/2007. This sale is flexible and is good for travel until Feb. 08, prices as low as 23$ one way!
Thanks,
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. at September 12, 2007 09:29 PMShelly --
Just a small point of clarification: Not all agencies charge additional fees when the adoption process lasts longer than six months. I believe that this, like charging more fees for a girl baby, is agency-specific.
Posted by: Anne at September 13, 2007 11:45 AMCate:
Back to your question about the UK. I have been thinking about your concerns and it seems to me that your issue is two-fold. (1) what will the UK govt do and will they follow the US lead with an all but certain shutdown, (2) the fact that your agency is located in the US. For the second issue: The US agency accreditation standards, should your agency be applying for accreditation, are the main concern. I would directly inquire with your agency as to (a) if they have applied to the Council on Accreditation for accreditation (temporary or full accreditation), and (b) what their internal policy will be for clients/PAPs who are living in foreign countries such as the UK. If they are applying for accreditation, they have to develop various policies and, among other things, they will have to identify in their policies how cases will be continued if they should be unable to complete. They may find themselves in a situation of not being able to complete (due to the impending crisis) and how will you finish up the work/adoption processes--that is a reasonable question for you to ask. If they cannot answer the question and are in the process of accreditation, this is a red flag. You can always issue a complaint about them to the State Department/Council on Accreditation and that complaint is supposed to be confidentially passed along to appropriate parties involved with the accreditation evaluation (inspectors) process. By the way, if your agency is NOT applying for accreditation, this is another SERIOUS issue for you and a red flag.
It seems that some interpret a decision to not adopt from Guatemala as a choice to not adopt at all. A person can choose to adopt from another country you know. Further, if my motivation is to adopt the child that is in the most need, then I should probably adopt a 15 year old special needs child that is in an orphanage from one of the countries that is in worse shape than Guatemala. I don't see a moral imperative that I have to adopt from Guatemala and only from Guatemala. You see if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that all of us choose the level of risk that we can bear.
I don't see a moral imperative that a person has to adopt at all. There are many ways that one can make the universe a better place.
I choose to adopt because I think the relationship with my child will enrich my life.
Posted by: cheryl at September 13, 2007 06:40 PMThe topic on expense is agency specific. We have a son and daughter now and there was no difference.
Posted by: mom at September 13, 2007 06:41 PMI just want ot interject to defend the reputaion of someone who probably doesn't even know this blog and commenst exist.
Wendy Berger's motives are not money..the idea that she hopes to benefit personally from the Unicef funds being suggested as her motivation is ludicrous to any who know her. I have been involved with the social welfare ( bienestar Social) department here for about 10 years, and yes...Guatemala has had many people and presidents who have stolen and extorted via that system. But from the first day the Bergers entered the Casa Presidential ( and had to bring in folding tables to work on, because the previous administration had stolen everything, down to the chairs and desks in the "White House") There have been reforms, and corrupt beaurocrats fired and prosecuted. There has not been a period of reform like this in recent Guatemalan history. It has been a fight, and they have been at odds with MOST of the departments and many of the congress members...why? And for their efforts, they have been attacked wiht inuendos, because there are no facts showing corruption faring well with the Bergers.
Carmen de Wennier (SP?), the new secretary of welfare likewise has been instrumental in programs throught the country that have helped tens of thousands of poor children and their mothers. Doña Carmen continually has expressed and acted in ways that show her concern clearly. But that is not reported to Americans, certainly not via the attorneys and agencies who have been asked numerous times on this blog to state clearly their fees and how they are used.
I was in a meeting when a US NGO was pressuring Wendy berger to take hundreds of thousands of dollars for the programs she very much wantsed to make better. But she said again and again: "Please do not send money until we get the corruption out of the system. Well intentioned U.S. money makes it much harder to regulate our projects." I remember her frustration, because the NGO was pushing so hard to give her the money...because so often their quarterly reports need to indicate large money flows. She did not take that money until major reforms came about. I watched and saw...first, the innocents got canned, as always happens with reform...the corrupt ones are much better entrenched. But then I saw the people I knew to be corrupt get weeded out. THEN she allowed that NGO to start programs.
It bothers me to hear Wendy Berger and Carmen Wennier bad mouthed by assumptions. Because they are the people who could have made such a difference. It is a shame they cannot be here much after the Hague is ratified. Guatemala is a better place because of people like them.
The reforms that Wendy Berger tried to implement, and Susana Luarce ( and others) faught against would have possibly helped for adoptions to continue...for those children truly needing to be adopted.
I also know personally many women who only got pregnant because someone ( usually not the birth mom herself) was going to make a large profit...and so ther statement that babies have not died because they have been adopted to Americans rings hollow to many who work here in Guatemala for the benefit of the children. Without the prospect of American money, many of these children simply would not have been conceived.
Once conceived, that baby needs a good home, so no one who has adopted should feel bad about receiving that baby. BUT the high prices paid need to stop. And now they most likely will. Hopefully we who care about the women and children of Guatemala ( Wendy and Carmen among the best in this category) will make it possible for the children who need families to find them. WITHOUT AMERICAN MONEY MEESING UP THE SYSTEM.
Kevin: I really do have a lot of experience here in Guatemala, and many behind the scenes knowledge. You constantly have the most right on representation...except your assumptions about Wendy Berger. Given the stream of people being negative it is understandable...but I just had to speak up.
Posted by: steve at September 13, 2007 07:17 PMSteve,
Here's what I can tell you. The overwhelming majority of my adoption experience has occured under the Berger presidency - including completing two adoptions. During this course of time, I have seen the government do little to enforce its laws. I have seen corruption in and corruption against PGN be tolerated.
It is only now, with just days left in his presidency, that they are taking all of these dramatic steps, many of which seem to stand contrary to Guatemalan law.
Why now?
These are not safeguards. These are not legitimate prosecutions. These are steps taken to terrorize the adoptive community and prevent living children from reaching permanency as a last ditch effort.
If no new law is passed then Guatemalan adoptions will end on the US side very soon and their problem will be solved.
No matter what one says, laws like Ortega-Berger will end adoptions if implemented. It is impossible to say that Guatemala has the infrastructure in place to function with a centralized system and there is not one valid case study to use as a benchmark.
So my comments are based on what I see as the only logical conclusion as to the "why now". Maybe it is legacy over greed, but the history of leaders in Central America would point otherwise.
I will not go into non-adoption related information I have that is contrary to your assesment. But I will bring out the fact that under the Bergers Guatemala started imposing tariffs on goods being brought into the country for humanitarian purposes. And I know from first hand accounts of legitimate charities that this has had a detrimental impact on their ability to provide much needed aid. A company I used to work for donated over 1 million servings of healthy dehydrated potatoes to feed Guatemalan orphans before this tariff went into effect. And I know that today this would not be possible because of it. So I have a hard time accepting what I believe to be your personal experience as accurate. And I base that on my personal experience.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Cory,
We looked at an agency that had a price range for adoptions from Guatemala. The price de=ifference in this case was due to the attorney you chose.
Posted by: Kathy at September 13, 2007 09:25 PMSteve,
If Wendy Berger and Carmen Alicia Maldonado are so interested in the welfare of the needy children, why is that in the four years that they have been handling MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of the government money, they have not set up one single orphanage in Guatemala? Casa Alegria was a small orphanage that was handed to Wendy on a silver plate by Buckner International (a US adoption agency, hoping to do the adoptions of the children housed there). The orphans left by the Stan hurricane were sent there but had to be moved to the Rafael Ayau hogar and other hogars (all private) - as Madre Ines of the Rafal Ayau Hogar can tell you - because SOSEP was unable to care for them. Casa Alegria had to be closed after a few months because of the bad conditions of the place and the death of four children due to neglect. If Wendy Berger really wanted to give homes to the children who need them, she would have opened an adoption program free of charge, giving better service and better care than what the lawyers offer, - she had the resources to do so - thus helping to find for the needy children the perfect parents that she says she wants to give to each child.
SOSEP and Bienestar Social have been used by the Berger administration to get votes, favoring the working women (who vote) and neglecting the orphans and abandoned children (who don’t have parents who vote). Take a look at the SOSEP and at the Bienestar Social websites and tell me if your find anything that remotely mentions “orphans or abandoned children” among their programs. (www.sosep.gob.gt and www.sbs.gob.gt ) Aside from the project that they never built “The Children’s City” with a cost of 30 million quetzals, to house only 240 children, they do not sponsor any facilities for children in need.
In the last weeks, Wendy’s protégée, Josefina Arellano of the PGN, has been attacking a Family judge who approved adoptions after the PGN rejected them for groundless reasons. Some of those children are at the hogar of Asociacion Primavera. Carmen Alicia Maldonado de Wienner, director of SBS has added fuel to the flames, telling the newspaper Prensa Libre (whose editor is Wendy Berger’s brother in law) that Asociacion Primavera is not registered at the SBS, among the 126 crib houses that are registered there. She neglects to mention that there is no law that gives the right to SBS to authorize or to register private orphanages, and for those who don’t know better, - as the newspaper reporter - the conclusion is that Primavera hogar is “ a clandestine crib house”. Go to the SBS website and look there for the list of “the 126 crib houses” and all you will find in that website is a list of private day care centers where the affluent Guatemalans send their little children during some hours every day, which is very different than the hogars that care for children relinquished by their mothers and for those children sent by the courts of minors. The Bienestar Social director statement is misleading and damaging and has caused unnecessary fear of a raid in the parents of the Primavera children and in the caregivers who work there. The SBS director’s involvement in the raid of Casa Quivira is another undisputable evidence of her total disregard for the truth and the welfare of the children. Carmen published in the newspapers that nobody can take care of children being adopted, unless they are authorized by a judge. (http://www.sbs.gob.gt/File/230807_Comunicado_DCA.pdf) That is not only not true, but we do have rulings of judges of the Childhood and Adolescence, refusing to issue such orders, because children being adopted are not children at risk, and therefore do not fall under their jurisdiction.
If you have read the proposal 3217, the UNICEF sponsored proposal that Wendy Berger is pushing so hard to have passed by Congress, you must know that it does not mention who is going to take care of the children while they are subjected to the ups and downs of a complicated and bureaucratic process, including an abandonment process that right now can take years, because the judicial system no longer can handle the amount of children who are abandoned every day. And if that happens now, when adoptions are still possible and when adoptions still allow the children to be supported privately (thanks be given to those foreign adoptive parents who do not mess up the system, but provide safe homes for the children), just think of what would happen if that option would no longer be possible because the private children care in foster homes and orphanages, without the income brought by adoptions, would no longer be available.
The idea that children are being made to fill the needs of a demanding children market for international adoptions does not resist a serious analysis. If giving up a child for adoption to make money in the process were the only reason that women get pregnant in Guatemala, how do you explain the hundreds of children who are left abandoned at public places? How do you explain the relinquishment by their parents of older children or even their abandonment by their parents and relatives? How do you explain the thousands of abortions that are done every year, despite being abortion a felony? How do you explain that thirty five thousand children die every year of curable diseases before their fifth birthday? How do you explain that half of the children in Guatemala suffer of malnourishment, which is worse than a disease? And how do you explain that almost one million children under 14 years old has to work to help their families and support themselves? The reality is that many children are being born every day, whose parents are unable to provide for them, even if they want to. Those parents who prefer to give their children a better life through adoption, instead of watching them die quickly of pneumonia or diarrhea, or slowly of malnourishment, should not be prevented from doing so. Wendy de Berger supports a proposal that effectively and definitely would make adoptions impossible for those children, and if money is not her incentive, please do tell me what else it could be?
. We cannot just watch how adoptions are made impossible by a law proposal that puts the interest of the United Nations and the international community before the needs of the children, and that is why we oppose and will continue to do so, the law that Wendy endorses from her privileged position as the wife of the president.
We do not oppose reforms that would make the process more transparent and that would protect the rights of the child, the birthparents and the adoptive parents. We support proposal 3635 because it is a proposal that at the same time that complies with the guidelines of the Hague Convention, keeps two good features of the Guatemalan legal system: the notarial process and the private care of the children being adopted, with the added oversight of the Central Authority.
You got it wrong, Steve. The US money does not mess up the system. UNICEF money does.
Susana Luarca
Posted by: Susana Luarca at September 14, 2007 04:01 AMSusana,
I'm giving you a standing ovation at my computer! I feel incredibly blessed to have someone like you, with your knowledge, fighting for the children.
While I appreciate reading a different perspective that Steve presents, I was pleased to read your rebuttal. You give me hope.
Thank you for taking time in your busy schedule to say what NEEDS to be said.
Posted by: JLR at September 14, 2007 08:20 AMSteve, Kevin, and Susana's input is very enlightening and definately food for thought. However, personal attacks on people being on the "take" for millions of UN dollars is dangerous and not ethical without solid evidence. I have repeatedly stated that I believe that the entire situation in Guate is corrupt, but I have refrained from naming names of those 'on the take.' These attacks on individuals and accusations of bribery associated with UNICEF dollars is distracting from the original point of this thread. And frankly, if the Bergers follow suit as many of the previous administrations and abscond with millions of dollars--I assure you that UNICEF's money is a drop in the bucket and probably not worth the effort to the Bergers. We are talking about a country that has been called a narco-state--and there is far more poorly documented $$$ available for mismanagement and payoffs (i.e. DEA monies that are are administrated without transparency). Finally, while I am very weary of the 'democracy' in Guatemala, I am disturbed by the fact that Wendy Berger has actually taken on an important issue (child welfare) as the first lady rather than a soft and empty issue. Just because her initiative is not convenient to US families and is contrary to the needs and values of the Guatadopt community--that does not make her corrupt. It makes her a leader of a movement in Guatemala--a soverign nation that must define its own future. You may not agree with her, but leveling personal attacks on her integrity degrades this forum. I'd much rather see continued discussion about the way forward for families who are trying to complete as well as anyone considering ICA and still factoring Guate in as a viable possibility. Over the next six months, there will be a real need for practical advice and advocacy as the stakes escalate while we near the US Hague ratification (and almost certain moratorium).
Posted by: karenms1 at September 14, 2007 10:26 AMkarenms1,
I noticed you have mentioned a moratorium a few times; I am just curious where you are getting this information? I was under the notion that Guatemala was trying to keep its adoptions open through reform. From your knowledge, is this "almost certain" moratorium going to effect pipeline cases or new cases? Thank you for your input.
Karenms1,
I am interested in hearing what Wendy Berger has done for child welfare in Guatemala since her husband has been in office. Do you have any specifics you can relay to us?
Jennifer
Posted by: Jennifer at September 14, 2007 03:28 PMKaren,
Let us believe that Wendy is not doing it for the UNICEF money. That does not change the fact that she has not done anything to prepare the Guatemalan welfare system to shelter the thousands of children who are going to fall on the State’s lap, if the proposal that she is pushing so hard to get passed, is approved by Congress. To stop adoptions with a draconian law is bad by itself, but to do it knowing, as she should know, that there are no plans for the welfare of the needy children, is criminal. As you say, corruption is rampant among Latin American governments, so it is nothing out of the ordinary that the current administration gets a little something (“a drop in the bucket”) for their efforts, so don’t make that the issue, and please, do not try to convince us that what Wendy is doing is all right, because it is not, and do not tell us that it is fine to say that us lawyers are only after the money, when we do find families for the children and care for the children until they leave with their adoptive parents. That is much more than what the government has ever done for any child, and that entitles us, more than Wendy Berger and her “friends”, to fight for a proposal that would make the difference between life an death, for the children of Guatemala.
You keep trying to discourage everybody to adopt from Guatemala, but at the same time you admit that Wendy/UNICEF proposal “is not convenient to US families and is contrary to the needs and values of the Guatadopt community”, so which side are you? We need people who want to help us to keep giving the children the families that they need, to develop to their full potential. We are positive that we can have a legal system that will enable children to continue to be adopted and that the current system will be kept in place to finalize those adoptions started before the new law takes effect, and are working hard to make the transition to the new law, in a seamless way. Read carefully proposal 3635 and if you really care for the children, you will see that it is a workable proposal.
Susana Luarca
The children need a voice...in Guatemala, I favor Susana's voice and leadership. Thank you.
Posted by: Monica at September 14, 2007 08:19 PMI also appreciate everyone's input. The fact that Wendy Berger has taken few concrete steps to improve the adoption situation and that her few attempts have failed is telling. At a bear minimum, it calls into question how much she cares about this issue. And if she doesn't care that much then I'm not going to listen very hard to what she has to say. There you have it.
Posted by: cheryl at September 14, 2007 08:24 PMKarenms1,
Please provide specifics and facts to back up what you post, as most of us have done our homework and don't want to hear from you how wonderful Wendy Berger is. Right now Wendy's group is keeping my little girl from coming home. How is that good for her, to be growing ever older without her forever family?
Lizzie
Proud Mama to Anarosa
Waiting for Migdalia
Susana,
I can't thank you enough for the work that you continue to do in Guatemala. We all benefit from your amazing fighting spirit.
Paul,
I also appreciate your determination. You mentioned that the deadline for accreditation of adoption agencies had been extended. What is the new deadline?
Elsa
Posted by: Elsa at September 15, 2007 12:11 AMSusana: I am on the side of reform and ending corruption