Kevin,
Although I hope your take on this info isn't correct, I do trust what you state. How does "initial application" equate to first DNA test approval? Do PAP (or their agencies) fill out & submit an I-600 for pre-approval?
From a past adoption, I recall only the I-600A at the beginning of the process (pre-referral) & the I-600 at the end (prior to being submitted for pink). Thank you for your insight.

I'm so glad you'll be at the ethica conference. As the blogger for Guatemalan Adoptions at adoptionblogs.com, I'm very disappointed that many of the bloggers invited are openly anti-adoption. Having you two there will be teh kind of representation that is needed. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about the conference.
Lisa S.

I received DNA Auth on 10/11...does this mean my initial application has been submitted to the USE? Their statement was about as clear as mud to me and really hard to decode.

Thanks.

Kevin and Kelly,
What is your take on the new CIS statement with regards to cases that were approved by the Tribunal court as opposed to PGN, after January 1st?
Lizzie

we are in the same boat as Lizzie, (same agency same courtroom)
any insight on this would be great

Why doesn't USCIS just quit issuing 171-H's and close Guatemala adoptions to anyone without a referral? It doesn't make sense to me to limit the number of appointments for people trying to get DNA authorization when the reality is most of those people probably accepted their referrals in August or September before all of this stuff happened?

as : I agree. Is it me or does it appear that after all the effort put into convincing President Berger's administration to change its mind, it could very well be the US making it even more difficult for those that have accepted a referral to complete? Or am I missing something? We are in the exact position. Accepted a referral mid-August without DNA auth yet. Am I wrong in thinking that the JCICS announcement on Monday may be a mute point?

To those in Tribunal. It would seem to me that if the courts rule in favor of the judicial adoptions, then it should not be an issue. If the courts come out against them, I think you'd just be like any other in process case, having to get PGN's approval as we know it today- all of course assuming the grandfather clause passes.

But of course everything is unchartered waters right now so this all just my opinion.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin

I'm confused. We filed the I-600A in Aug., were fingerprinted in Sept. and are waiting for the 171-H. We are adopting a 5 year-old who is officially "adoptable" from a hogar so we will not go through DNA testing. We are still probably a long way from PGN? Is everyone understanding that if you're not out of PGN, by Jan. 1, 2008 then the process stops? I certainly hope and pray not.

Kevin, I know you said inital DNA, but my agent was a little confused when I spoke with her on Friday and wasn't sure if it would affect us waiting on second dna approval. We were hoping to be submitted next week for it.

I have two questions on this. First, why are you saying there's a new step to PGN? I read the statement and only see where the US is saying that they will only accept PGN approvals, recognizaing them as the Central Authority. I read nothing about any NEW kind of approval.

Secondly, if the US will no longer process DNA Authorizations after Jan 1, aren't they going against their own grandfathering clause? Is this a fight just waiting to happen?

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

I also filed our I-600A but in June, fingerprinted in August, accepted a referral in September and we are also waiting on our 171-H as well, not to mention that our power of attorney has been sent to Guatemala. We are still very unclear about the "loose term" - "In process" is that us or not??? Any info would be appreciated.

Kevin,

My interpretation of the statement from USCIS is focused on the word "or". It sounds like per appointment slot, instead of listening to 4 cases, they will only listen to 1 case. But, one attorney can still have more than one slot (multiple slots) in one day. However, are they going to be working 40 hours/day? Maybe the appt. slots will be short -15 minutes long???
Pretty confusing grammar. I love the somewhat double negative about lessening.... Why don't they use positive terms, "to increase...."

Bethie

Is the CIS statement saying you can only adopt one child? We have applied for 2.

JCICS has a summary document posted today on its website.

HI! Wow! We accepted two referals for two boys in MAY!! Still waiting! We have our DNA approval and that is it. We are just WAITING> I am surprised to find out we are waiting a lot longer than it seems most of you.

This is the english version of today's Berger statement from the JCICS website:

1. The President of Guatemala, Oscar Berger Perdomo, has NOT issued a statement about the suspension of all intercountry adoptions.

2. President Berger supports a new adoption’s law (Initiative 3217-The Ortega Law), which regulates the adoption processes, will give more judicial certainty to a social noble institution, as the adoption, and which will be in accordance to the Hague Convention.

3. Guatemalan children, who are going through an adoption process, are minors under the protection and shelter of the Guatemalan Constitution, hence, the State of Guatemala has the right and obligation to assure their best interest. Therefore, the Government supports a new adoptions law, in harmony with the Hague Convention, that will foster secure and dignified adoptions and above all adoptions with judicial certainty.

4. As from December 31st, 2007, it is the will of the Government of Guatemala, that the Hague Convention on International Adoptions, enters in force, as reflected on the Legislative Decree No. 31-2007. From this date, ALL ADOPTIONS from Guatemala must meet the Hague Convention Standards.

5. The Congress of the Republic of Guatemala will soon pass the Adoptions Law (Initiative 3217, with amendments). IF this law is approved, this will regulate the procedure for the pending adoption cases or adoption cases which are already in-process.

6. The Government of Guatemala has nominated the Social Welfare Secretariat (Secretaria de Beinestar Social) as the Central Authority for adoptions (Government Accord 260-2007). The Cetnral Authority will issue an official statement regarding adoption processes in the next few days, which will be sent and notified to international authorities, through official channels.

7. The Government of Guatemala reaffirms that it is in favor of adoptions with all countries and families that will GUARANTEE a secure and dignified life for the Guatemalan children, but it will not tolerate adoption processes outside the law.

This sounds like he is going to allow in process cases to proceed but under the Hague laws, which would impede or stop our adoptions all together. Plus, this means we would have to wait until the US is Hague compliant in the spring? Does this mean more paperwork? Its this even feasible? The most sickening thing is all the children who are going to linger for perhaps years in institutionalized care or in foster care instead of home with their forever families. One of the children we are planning to adopt is already two, President Berger is not doing what is in the best interest of the children. JCICS said Berger will make an official statement on or about October 19th, 2007. Let's hope he has an epiphany by then in the form of UNICEF pulling back their promised 28 million dollar "donation".

Kevin, et al, please correct me if I misinterpretted the above statement. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Melissa

The way I interpret paragraph 5 is that when the Initiative is passed WITH amendments, all adoptions will proceed in accordance with the Initiative including its AMENDMENTS. Which means that if there is indeed a "grandfather" amendment then the in process adoptions will proceed under that "grandfather" amendment (which is still part of Initiative 3217). This is just my interpretation but I think it is significant that the words "with amendments" are included in that paragraph.

I hope I'm correct because we accepted the referral for a little girl referral in July and are waiting on our initial DNA test to be done.

We're praying for everyone going through this and all of the children caught in this mess.

The way I interpret paragraph 5 is that when the Initiative passes WITH its amendments, all adoptions will proceed in accordance with the Initiative including its amendments. Therefore, if the "grandfather" amendment is included in the Initiative, then in process adoptions would proceed under that particular amendment. In other words, the in process adotions would still technically proceed in accordance with Initiative 3217 but would fall under the "grandfather" clause and would be processed under the law in existence at the time those adotions were started. I may be wrong but I think it is very significant that the words "with amendments" were included in the paragraph.

I am just worried about how they will define "in process" cases.

I am praying that I am correct in this interpretation as we accepted our referral in July and are still waiting on our initial DNA test. Even if I am correct I sure hope our case is considered "in process".

God Bless everyone going through this.

TLG - my understanding matches yours exactly. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but this statement tells me that 3217 will govern adoptions starting Jan 1, and if a grandfather clause is included, then so be it.

-GDS

Sorry about posting the same thing twice-didn't think the first one went through.

GDS-I hope we are correct in our interpretations. I am an attorney and practiced for years in a field of law that was constantly being revised (work comp) and everytime the "old laws" were changed we had to deal with many "grandfather" clauses that governed injuries that had occurred before the "new laws" took effect. Therefore, even though the "old" comp laws governed say, half of my cases, I still had to use the "new" Labor Code which is where I would find the "grandfather" clauses that told me which laws to apply for a specific date of injury.

I'm sure that was as clear as mud!

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, that is the reason I interpreted paragraph 5 the way I did. Although US laws are not the same as Guatemalan laws, I think the same basic concepts would apply.

Hope that makes some sense.

I guess we'll just have to see how things pan out at this point. I won't give up on adopting the little girl we were referred and I plan on doing everything in my power to bring her home.