Kelly,

Please post the CQ side. It is missing from the current posting.

Kelly,
There is a BIG difference between being a responsible guardian of another hogar's children and in joining forces with CASA ALIANZA, who is pure evil and who has nothing to do with adoptions, to try to intimidate the judge to stop her from giving back the children to Casa Quivira. Casa Alianza has access through the hogars who are taking care of the CQ children, to their birthmothers' information and is visting them in their homes, trying to convince them to take their birth children back.

The only honorable position that can take a hogar who gets children of a place that has been illegaly raided, is to refuse to take the children, to make the judge to keep them in their own hogar, surrounded by familiar faces and things. The places who accept children in those circumstances and try to keep them for themselves are not acting properly.

I feel very sorry for the parents of the Casa Quivira children, for the owners and staff of one of the best orphanages in Guatemala, and pray that their situation is solved quickly and the children can go home to their waiting parents.
Susana Luarca

So, the story is a little confusing, did the 2 girls get their hearing aids at the rescheduled appointment?

Also, why would Casa Alianza have anything to do with this situation? If the courts are investigating each birthmother and PGN investigates each case, why would Casa Alianza need to do anything?

Oh my goodness, you were right....the section on what CQ families heard was missing. I am so sorry!

Susana,
Would you please explain why Casa Alianza having unlimited access to a birthmom is worse than the finders (or buscadoras) having unlimited access to birthmoms? It seems that the buscadoras have no oversight, but DO have financial interest in getting birthmoms to relinquish a child. I can only assume they are paid PER child! Since you have mentioned that you use them, if there IS regulation or oversight of the buscadoras, please explain. It seems that in 4000+ adoptions, there could be some really bad buscadors?!?
Thanks for helping make the process more transparent for us (adoptive parents).

It is our understanding, that not only has Amor del Nino saught advice they have shared confidential information regarding the children and their birthmother's identity with Casa Alianza, also a violation of the privacy of the children and birthparents involved. Casa Alianza has in turn filed a suit with the Penal Court in Antigua to stop the adoption of the 38 remaining CQ children. That sounds like a little more than giving advise. How will Amor del Nino feel if these children's adoptions are prolonged even longer due to unnecessary investigations and petitions by Casa Alianza, who had no business being given confidential information in the first place?????? Why are they trying to make a bad situation for these children even worse????

I have personally visited Amor del Niño while delivering some donations, and was deeply impressed and touched by the love and care for the children. Many of ADN's children have special needs, and many will never be available for adoption. Steve and Shyrel create a loving family atmosphere where every child is valued and special. They are long term missionaries who have to raise support to do what they do--give their lives to the neediest Guatemalan children.

I don't think it was wrong or dishonorable at all for ADN to accept the care of CQ children. If I ran a hogar I would do the same thing. Yes, refusing the children makes a point that the raid on CQ is illegal, but what if the children ended up someplace else not nearly so good? To me anything that hurts a child to make a point is reprehensible. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.

I seriously doubt the children would have been given back to CQ anyway. Meanwhile ADN will do an excellent job taking care of the children while the CQ situation gets sorted out. I passionately hate what was done to CQ's children, and hope that the injustice is corrected soon. But in the meantime, the children will be very well cared for by ADN. Steve and Shyrel constantly attend medical appointments and hospital visits with ADN children. To me their choice to be very careful in this situation shows their responsibility. You have to be VERY careful in Guatemala about who takes children anywhere, for any reason. I'm here in Guatemala and pay lots of attention to what goes on. Steve and Shyrel truly have made it their life ministry to care for these children. It is my opinion that they are very worthy of trust.

I've met personally with Steve when he was here in the states on a visit. The one thing that impressed me the most was his love for the children in his care. He is NOT against adoptions, but is concerned with corruption in the system. I cannot believe in my heart that Steve or Shyrel would do anything that would put a child's health in danger, or go against the best interests of the children.

I'm sorry to see that he used CA for advice, but I'm also not in his shoes, and do not know the circumstances. Hopefully, he will realize how corrupt they are, but critizing him now for doing it won't help that.

Thank You Kelly, for always wanting to present the TRUTH.

Thank you, Wendy, for your kind words.

Thank you Marc for the kind words, AND for the heartfelt statement regarding Casa Alianza. That statement opens the possibility of a discussion. As Corruption is the big bone in my throat, your comment that I do not realize how corrupt they are intrigues me. I do not know what I do not know, and so need help there.

What I know. I first heard about the problems of children in Guatemala via the documentary that Casa Alianza produced regarding the systematic shooting of street children by the police back in 1989. I had heard that they had garnered a bunch of enemies by doing things like that. We have then bumped elbows a couple of times, but have pretty much steered clear, as most Evangelicals here talk poorly of them. That's about it, but I probably have a slightly favorable attitude these days towards reformers who get really badmouthed by people who make a lot of money doing what the reformers want stopped. For instance, the history of Guatemala is full of situations that I first heard one way ( usually thye American state department version), but then learned that what I had been told first was not true( It is frightening to me how I, and we human animals cling to what we hear first, and even rearrange the facts according to those filters rather than reevaluate our axiomatic presupositions)

Believe me, Susana Luarca calling Casa Alianza evil isn't enough criteria for me. She may have started out with high ideals but I think she is letting noble ends justify all sorts of strange means. I feel like her description of what happened at the PGN is in direct contradiction of the You Tube video of the event. Forget biased interpretations...if you watch the power attitudes of the various people in that video ( especially interesting is the little old lady with the umbrella) there are many obvious, then many not so obvious things to be gleened. There is no way Susana was held captive in that foyer for two hours. She was not in fear of those people, they were in fear of her, and left her alone, out on the patio, pontificating on her cell phone. There were no jack booted thugs, and frankly, the PGN is not capable of the concerted effort she describes.

Side note: I have interacted with the PGN for about 7 years, now, and the last time there remember thinking: things really are changing for the better. There is fresh air of reform blowing through there. It is still far from perfect. But reform is always messy. You have the residual corrupt players ( who do not wear a sign saying: " I am corrupt" as Kelly explained so well) And you have the people who expect the corruption to continue, and the momentum they bring to the situation. We used to joke in my youth in Philadelphia that the mafia controlled neighborhoods were the best managed. It is always easy, and is always a tactic of corrupt people to cast aspersions on reformers.

So, please, if anyone has more specifics that "pure evil", Please present it.

And, please, if you are a fellow American, show me how their actions were worse than U.S. foreign policy during the same period. If you are Guatemalan, just repeat one word: impunity. If you are Mexican, just sit this one out. If you are a Christian, please do not DARE throw stones at them because Bruce Harris turned out to be a homosexual pedophile.

I will stop this note, asking for discussion, and then maybe try to say what "facts" that have been stated in the above comments are completely untrue.

Kelly wrote:
The pediatrician had seen the girls Monday and had prescribed antibiotics.... The fitting of hearing aids is not an urgent matter and is not typically done with upper respiratory infections, as I understand.... In fact, the children already HAVE their hearing aids through the same organization (CEDAF). The conditions of the children on the appointment day are DOCUMENTED by the pediatrician and Guatadopt confirmed this and that they have their hearing aids.

My comments:
So, on Monday, the girls were too sick to have the appointments but by Thursday at 2:20 p.m. (the time of your post), the girls were already better and could be fitted with the hearing aids??? That doesn't add up to me.
This post still doesn't look too balanced here to me.

Steve,
I am willing to discuss with you on one condition: let us know your real first name and last name and your current employer. That would help me to understand why is that you distort everything. For example: The "little lady with the umbrella" as you said, was actually breaking off the pieces of glass left in the frame of the door, TO GET OUT. The policeman is trying, unsuccessfully, to unlock the door. What else do you need to prove that we were locked in that foyer? I never said that we were there for two hours, but the period of time is irrelevant when you are prevented from leaving a place where you no longer want to be. Pretend that you don't understand Spanish, but that does not change the fact that the grandfather and the aunt of the baby are with the "little old lady" and what she is saying is that they (the PGN employees) had no right to take away - violently and abusively, as you could see in the video- the granddaughter of the man next to her. Does my written version contradicts the video kindly posted on the Internet by the PGN? I don't think so. In fact, that video corroborates what I wrote, and does not support the lies of the PGN Attorney General. Let the courts decide who is right and how is not. And remember, if you want to discuss anything with me, including the agenda of Casa Alianza, be so kind as to disclose your true identity.
Susana Luarca

Can someone please post an interpretation or a summary of the youtube video. Wow, watching the baby being pulled between individuals was heart breaking. It looked like they were desperately and quickly trying to get the baby away to protect the baby. What was happening? From watching and not understanding the language, it's heartbreaking to see a child in the middle, almost being torn between the two, is so representative of the many children who are in the middle of the corruption, new laws, adoptions, etc. It's sad and the video put a face to the many children whose lives and futures are in the balance.

When my daughter has a bacterial infection (ie: antibiotics)....she bounces back rather quickly. We've also had plenty of instances of the 24 hour fever bug and the 24 mystery bug. Many strange illnesses have caused me to rush her to an emergency clinic...and were gone before the morning light.

But the most interesting symptom is my extreme protectiveness. I have walked out of doctor's offices, have postponed shots and have rescheduled many "mandatory" vacs on the slightest sign that she is out of sorts. I've even rescheduled a vision test for later in the day just because I was unsure whether she was feeling OK. And yes, I have lost my patience with anyone who tries to override my authority or questions my decisions.

And from this site, I have learned that it doesn't really matter if you attempt to balance...there will always be some reader who thinks that the only balance is the side they heard first.

Thinking Mommy;

I am not a pediatrician, but have been around literally hundreds of babies, through sickness and health. My experience, (and I will defer to experts here) has been to see a marked symptomatic improvement in children within 24 hours once the correct antibiotic is applied, and the child is properly warm and hydrated. A three day wait is truly appropriate, especially when the ears are connected with the infected areas. That is just plain medical fact, regardless of your position re us and CQ. Your comment suggests, though, that Kelly's description is part of something other than an explanation regarding a confused situation. You may be remembering the lawyers from Casa Quivira who suddenly took sick, and used their "medical needs" to keep from being put in jail. You may think that this was a tactic on Shyrel's part. I am sorry the situation has deteriorated to that level, but it really was coincidental. Shyrel's concern over the irregularities was sufficient legal grounds to warrant a rescheduling, but the girls' infections were certainly a reasonable aspect. [I just want to say here: Had I been the CQ lawyers, and faced going to jail, I would have done anything possible to avoid it. The Jails here are that bad, so I do not fault them for that smart move]

Unfortunately, there were a few false statements made in these comments. Friends of ours who support us have brought them to our attention. We exist and work by the grace of God and the support of people who believe in us. I feel responsible to the very gracious friends who support us to answer when there are clear misstatements aimed directly at us. : ( this will be long, sadly)

1) “Amor del Niño...joining forces with CASA ALIANZA, who is pure evil and who has nothing to do with adoptions...”

["pure evil" is an obvious rhetorical point...but “having nothing to do with adoptions” is not true. Susana has stated before her anger at their activities concerning adoptions. Casa Alianza has been involved in defending the rights and lives of children for quite a while. She may have meant that they have no financial connection to adoptions. In that case, neither does Shyrel, and so it was proper for her to connect with someone apart from the "business" when trying to get help in understanding and addressing the odd actions she experienced. We are a purely charitable home, only trying to help the children. We have been drawn into the adoption discussion and advocacy. We have seen the negative affect of the current system on the children most needing a family, and so have taken a stance against irregularities and perceptions of evil, you might say, in adoptions. And so, must address this in managing our responsibilities to the children in our care. We see it as imperative that the “Casa Quivira 46” have their day in court…and not simply be dismissed in a preliminary hearing. This has drawn the ire of the judge, and of Sandra Gonzales, but it reminds me of my time in the Army: I was a medic, and twice I was present when a battery exploded in the face of an infantry man. Battery acid if left in contact with eyeballs will ruin vision. I wrestled both of them, kicking and punching me, to the wash rack, and held them under running water to dilute the acid and save their eyes while they cursed me. It didn’t feel or seem good to them. But it saved their eyes. We believe that when it is not possible for a child to stay with his or her birth family, that a family is the best alternative. (and that will always be necessary to some extent in every country in the world…please stop bashing Guatemala to justify adoptions!) We want to make sure that adoption remains a viable alternative. BUT IF children are being produced to be adopted, that hurts the existing children who need a family. I think and hope that everyone reading Guatadopt wants children needing families to find that family. No one here wants children conceived to sell, or worse. Patience might need to take the place of large sums of money for this to work, especially when large sums of money might induce improper situations.

2)”...Casa Alianza has access through the hogars who are taking care of the CQ children, to their birthmothers' information and is [visiting] them in their homes, trying to convince them to take their birth children back...”

[absolutely untrue. I am good friends with 4 of the five homes and have spoken with their representatives...The fifth is one not known to any of us in the "charitable Hogar" realm... Here is the truth: neither Casa Alianza nor the 4 homes have had any contact with any birth mothers. But that is a weak point in CQ's case, according to what was shown on CNN (which is the most any of us know) , and so I am not surprised that that untruth was presented...maybe like a pre-emptive defense should it turn out there are irregularities. I wanted to say that only the Cliffords know the true story of the Birth Mothers. BUT maybe they, like other homes, have understandings with the buscadoras that preclude their contact with birth mothers. Maybe they are really trying to do the best they can by the parents and children...but in a shady world, the shadows fall on everyone involved. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Cliffords. They are managing a business, rather than a charity like ours, but that is not inherently evil. It's just that the lines of rights, responsibilities, and rescuing of children get very blurry when you look at what we do, and what they do...different...almost like comparing apples to oranges, yet the same words are used. Just to be clear: if there is no coercion or enslavement of birthmothers in the production of children for the clients of Casa Quivira, and I don’t think there is as far as the Cliffords know, and if there is no manipulation of the system by way of bribes, then we are in no disagreement. The problem is...I don't know!]

3) “ The only honorable position that can take a Hogar who gets children of a place that has been illegally raided, is to refuse to take the children, to make the judge to keep them in their own Hogar, surrounded by familiar faces and things. The places who accept children in those circumstances and try to keep them for themselves are not acting properly.”

[ I need to subdivide my answer on this one:

a) This was actually preceded by the statement regarding our position as “Guardian of another hogar’s children” which I take issue with. We are not talking about cattle, or carrots, or even bank notes. We are talking about precious little human beings. They do not belong to anybody. BUT IF we used the possessive sense, I would say the children belong to the parents waiting their safe arrival in the states, not the intermediary. The people who have sacrificially invested in these children, in paying an exorbitant fee, and who have promised to care for these children for the rest of their lives. EVERYONE else involved is a paid facilitator, or an unpaid friend or an employee ( paid well as buscadoras, or not so well as birth mother).

b) Our position for almost 11 years in Guatemala has been to take in children in need. We have developed a relationship with the judges, in that they know they will not be embarrassed by the quality of care of the children they send us. Our policy has been to take in children whose situation is not clear, and care for them while the powers that be determine the best course. There is a normal procedure for these determinations. It is EXTREMELT frustrating to work with children, and love them, and see improvement, and then to have them return to abusive situations, or extreme poverty, but we have never before argued with the outcome of an audience. The alternative to this cooperative attitude would be children being tossed around, or kept in police stations while their cases are resolved. Guatemala truly does not have the investigative resources to determine what is actually happening in the lives of the children we care for. We often offer to perform the investigations, and our input is a critical portion of the hearings. It is sort of an informal acceptance of the way things are. But in this case, we took the children in to our care, then started seeing things that worried us. We were not looking for or expecting them…simply thinking we could care for the children while the issues were resolved. We know the laws well enough to have thought that everything was probably "Paper Proper" in all of the cases, and that the only reason Casa Quivira was targeted might have been their marketing to Homosexuals, which is not favorable to the general Guatemalan public. We were not making any kind of a statement when we accepted the children when the judge assigned them to us. but as we noticed oddities, we awaited the proper hearings to present our concerns. We were then excluded from the hearing, and concerned that the whole thing was going to "go away" without resolution. Believe it or not, we think of the parents, who will have adult children all too soon, who will realize they were adopted during a period of doubtful adoptions. All we want at this point is a clear honest investigation to affirm the origins of the children. But what we are seeing happening is end runs, tactics with a specific goal that is justifying a lot of improper means, and a judicial procedure that we have not witnessed in our (almost) 11 years of helping children in Guatemala.

c) we do not want to keep the children for ourselves. I think a mentality that suspects that does not see them as precious little children, but as a commodity. We now know them very well and realize we will love them our whole lives. We will never forget each and every one of them. But we learned when we first gave a child to a (Guatemalan) family when the judge ordered a surprise adoption, and broke our hearts and as we realized the effect that child had on us.…we are here to help that child be ready for his or her forever family: that is the way we can best express our love to that precious little human being. What a sacred and wonderful trust. I think I already said that people who adopt children are heroes. We want to be a part of helping heroes have no regrets.]

4) “… I feel very sorry for the parents of the Casa Quivira children, for the owners and staff of one of the best orphanages in Guatemala, and pray that their situation is solved quickly and the children can go home to their waiting parents.
Susana Luarca…”

[ Wow…I absolutely agree with every word! …Well, except the word “orphanage”: These children by definition have a mother who has determined to enter into an agreement concerning the child, and so I am not sure “Orphanage” works. Of course, the Bible puts widows and orphans together, so possibly, the absence of a father constitutes an orphan, and a widow. Again: many women find themselves in crisis pregnancies in Guatemala, just like in the states, and elsewhere. And having people skilled in the process to facilitate the placement of that child in a forever family should not be inherently a bad thing. But right now, in Guatemala, and elsewhere, that holy and sacred union is very much considered bad. It is vital for the children, and for the families willing to take complete responsibility for their precious, and holy accidents, to assure the process. And Doggone it! Money corrupts! A real clearing of the air would be for a transparent accounting of the fees paid. Something I have yet to see. I would love to see a partnership of the rescuers, and the Agencies, and the parents: each paying for their part of a wonderful process. But I am a dreamer.

5) Hearing aids: I don’t think it was confusing, but yes, the girls were fitted with their hearing aids and are very cute in them ( I wish I could send pictures to the parents) It is unusual for children this young to receive hearing aids, and CQ is to be credited with a very extraordinary achievement.

6) …It is our understanding, that not only has Amor del Nino [sought] advice they have shared confidential information ….How will Amor del Nino feel if these children's adoptions are prolonged even longer due to unnecessary investigations and petitions by Casa Alianza, who had no business being given confidential information in the first place?????? Why are they trying to make a bad situation for these children even worse????

[ We have asked Casa Alianza’s legal staff to give us legal advice and aid. Any information we have is perfectly legal to share with our attorneys. We are, by the fact that the judge assigned the children to our care, their guardians and their advocates. We take that very seriously. We always have. BUT we have no birth mother information. We did not give any to Casa Alianza Lawyers. They have not contacted any birth mothers. The only birth mother info we have was that 4 women claiming to be the birth mothers of 4 of the children in our care appeared in the hearing, and each said exactly the same scripted statement: that they had not been given any money in return for the relinquishment of their child, and that they wanted their child returned to Casa Quivira. We may have missed more, having been excused early from the hearing, but the paperwork that arrived just today then states that ten mothers appeared. But we have nothing regarding 6 of them. I do not know about any petitions lodged anywhere, but I do know that we agree with Alianza, and, I guess, with CNN, that things are not normal in the processes. If you think we are making a bad situation worse, you may not realize just how bad it is. Well, no one knows how bad it is…it appears to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe everything is in order. But there are doubts. What should responsible, altruistic people do when they have doubts? And I know that even if you are absolutely above board and innocent; in Guatemala, that does not mean you will be OK. I do not want to convict Casa Quivira of anything. I only believe that Clifford and Sandra deserve what I would want in their position: a fair and transparent hearing.]

Thank you, Steve, for your input. As I already mentioned to you, after reading your response, I want to apologize for speaking about CA without really knowing what they do. I realized that the only information I had heard about them came from Susana and people who are on this side of the debate. I am still not inclined to trust them, but I will make my own informed decision on that after some more research.

Re-reading the original article, a question came to my mind. Why did CQ send young men, in a "souped up sports car" with a copied legal document, knowing that CQ was under scrutiny, and that it's actions would be monitored more closely? Is this a normal procedure in Guatemala, something that is done differently there than here in the states?

I appreciated many things Steve wrote. I know very little about this raid or subsequent actions except what I've read here and on forums. But I do know from our nearly ten years of involvement with the Guatemalan process and our continued and close contact with the nationals involved in our adoption of four older children, that people can present themselves however they wish. It is easy for someone to present themselves as totally in this for the sake of Guatemala's children, use the correct emotional language, and even have a great following of poeple who believe you are who you say you are. But if that same person has a stake in the financial side of adoptions, which we all know is very lucrative, then the rest of us have to lay our own family's future aside for the moment and truly want what is best for all of Guatemala's children. It is way too easy to turn our own heads from the possibility of the corruption many of us know for a fact, in hopes that at least our family will end up with a child before any possible damagin truth comes out and effects our family personally. I'm not suggesting that is the case with any of the parents involved with this sad situation. We all hope beyond hope that these children come to us ethically, but we must be willing to be part of the solution. That involves our patience, giving up some time with our future child, yes sacrificing our own desires to parent the youngest child we possibly can as quickly as we can. I don't know Steve or any parties involved. But I have been concerned for many years that some whom many would consider heroes may not be quite who they present themselves to be. It's very easy to use rhetoric. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for the majority of us to discover the truth behind all of those words. As difficult as it surely must be for the families of these children involved, I trust they desire the truth about any child they may parent in the future. Loving that child fully means wanting the truth for the future happiness and well-being of that child. My heart goes out to those caught up in this and in any case that shows itself to have some irregularities.

Steve,

As someone who adopted from CQ years ago, I can say that CQ is as "charitable" as your home is. CQ until very recently used to place a good number of children who had to go through the abandonment process, often waiting many years before a child could be adopted. Moreover, they've provided all sorts of top-line medical care (including the hearing aids that even you had to applaud) to children awaiting adoption. Hardly the type of "baby factory" that you insinuate in a few places it is...

Moreover, until the raid, CQ had been finishing a clinic connected to the hogar that was going to provide pro bono vaccines and wellness care to needy children in the Antigua area.

Again, hardly an "adoption mill"...

Lee

What CQ parents heard (CQ's side of the story): I'll try to summarize as best I can.
Tuesday, L & M were supposed to get their hearing aids. This had been worked on for months by CQ with Centro de EStudios Neurosensoriales. CQ talked to the judge last Friday for her permission to go to Antigua with Linda for a few hours.
The director and husband of Amor del Nino "refused" to receive the judge's order. When they "finally" did, Shyrel wanted to take them and Linda said something to the effect of "No, I have to represent them". Then suddenly the girls were sick and they were not allowed to go to Antigua. Both the court judge and Sandra talked with Shryel and she maintained that the children were sick and should not be traveling around. Sandra was upset and felt that they were being "blocked" and raised the point that Amor del Nino had decided to go for legal advice with Casa Alianza....clearly, not historically an adoption friendly organization. The story was then elevated by CQ as "Amor del Nino violating the rights of the two girls".
Whew...

From Sandra:
My only comment here is that the people from Amor del Niño disobeyed a direct order from the judge, this was a last minute request from Casa Quivira to Judge Mena, and she has (as any other judge in Guatemala) discretional faculties to attend any petition that is consider an emergency.
In this case the organization that was helping CQ to get the hearing aids (we have been working on this for months) gave us a very short notice, Thursday Oct. 18, that they needed the children present on October 23rd, or they will not have a second chance to get the hearing aids since they have such a great demand.

Judge Mena was not going to be in her court October 22 or October 23, that is why she telephoned the people from Amor del Niño because every Juvenile Court Judge in Guatemala operates under the rule that THE SUPERIOR INTEREST OF THE CHILD COMES BEFORE ALL ELSE. The order was for Casa Quivira to get the children and take them to receive their hearing aids. To this day AN has provided NOTHING in writing to the court which certifies that the children were too sick to be released to receive their hearing aids. And yes it is my legal opinion that AN has violated the children's Human Rights. (WHEW).

Sandra Gonzalez
Attorney
Casa Quivira

Steve wrote:
Our policy has been to take in children whose situation is not clear, and care for them while the powers that be determine the best course. There is a normal procedure for these determinations. It is EXTREMELT frustrating to work with children, and love them, and see improvement, and then to have them return to abusive situations, or extreme poverty, but we have never before argued with the outcome of an audience. The alternative to this cooperative attitude would be children being tossed around, or kept in police stations while their cases are resolved. Guatemala truly does not have the investigative resources to determine what is actually happening in the lives of the children we care for. We often offer to perform the investigations, and our input is a critical portion of the hearings. It is sort of an informal acceptance of the way things are. But in this case, we took the children in to our care, then started seeing things that worried us. We were not looking for or expecting them…simply thinking we could care for the children while the issues were resolved.

Steve:
I understand your program's role when a child is brought to you for removal from his/her biological family for abuse, etc. In the CQ case, however, my understanding is that the investigative portions of the case have been outlined to be performed by the judge, not Amor del Nino. I can understand how your organization and the other 4 homes were released from the hearing as you state because the interviews with the birthmoms had no bearing on your organization's role in this mess. Amor del Nino's role as stated by you is to simply care for the children that Judge Mena placed in your care while SHE completes her investigation.
You state later in your post that you do not have information on the birthmoms or the cases so how do you start noticing "oddities" in the cases if you don't know information about the cases? I'm sure that some of the children, especially the older children, have (or are) display some odd behaviors since they were removed from the only "home" they have ever known at CQ. I'm sure the children in the care of Amor del Nino would struggle with such a change too. It's just difficult for little people to go through these things when they simply don't have the coping skills that we have as adults.
I'm not "knocking" Amor del Nino. I see that you do some good things with those children that have handicaps that would not have other opportunities or options and I applaud you for that. I just don't see where your experience of handling your regular children in your facility applies to the children of Casa Quivira. Two different groups here.
Still thinking....

MY ANSWER TO A PROSPECTIVE FROM AN

Amor del Niño was asked by the Guatemalan government to receive the children who were transferred from Casa Quivira, they weren't forced to take them. They could have said NO to Judge Mena's request. Bienestar Social may have made promises to AN that they are now not able to keep. Judge Mena stated at the hearing of October 26 that at least she never promised to the homes that they were going to permanently keep the children who were transferred from Casa Quivira and this is documented as it was not only stated in front of myself but the representative from the PGN, and the representative of the US embassy who was also present at the hearing.

These homes are not granted "Guardianship" of the children from CQ, they are an "hogar de abrigo temporal" they are just cooperating with the court to receive the children while the legal situation of the children is clarified. They are keeping the children under a judge's order and if the judge orders something they MUST OBEY that order, without any questions. THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE PROCESS, they are not PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS they are just cooperating with the judge, if they don't want to do it any more, then they should inform the Judge that they can't and she will look for alternatives. The "arrangements" were not done on Friday, they were done on Thursday and it doesn't matter who delivered the order, that is not the point, the point is that it WAS A LEGITIMATE JUDICIAL DOCUMENT, not a document produced by Casa Quivira (they have been watching too much CNN). On October 22nd CQ only delivered the order and advised the people from Amor del Niño that we were coming back for the children next day, October 23rd (as stated in the order) not that we were to take the children the day that the order was delivered. The order was clear, CQ staff were to take the children for a few hours to get their hearing aids, that's it, we are not going to risk disobeying a judicial order, we do not do that, others may but we follow the law.

It is odd that Amor del Niño doesn't have their own legal advisor and they have to look for legal advice from Casa Alianza, an organization that prides itself on doing so much damage to others that are doing good in Guatemala, (including denouncing the Guatemalan Police and accusing them of shooting street children). Amor del Niño should seek legal advice from a qualified organization because if they have been lead to believe that they have the legal representation of the children from Casa Quivira they are very wrong, they are assigned to care for the children while the government decides what their future will be and that future will be with their permanent adoptive families.

Sandra Gonzalez
Attorney
Casa Quivira

Sandra,

I admit I don't know the details or intricacies of what transpired, but out of common sense and out of rule of law, I would think that, as the legal guardian of those children, someone from AdN would have to be present with them. Also, as I mentioned before, the unprofessional way in which the order was delivered would raise red flags from almost anyone.

I am the father of two beautiful children adopted from Guatemala. I am a ardent supported of ICA, and believe the system is inherently honest. But to get bogged down in personal issues is not productive, and all this bickering does nothing to put a positive light on the benefits of ICA. And accusing someone of violating the human rights of the children is a very serious accusation, something very akin to what CA does.

I know emotions are running very high, and CQ has a very good reputation that is being tested right now, but the children's needs come first, and that means their health, well being, and happiness come first, and the problems with the legal system are secondary.

Just my two cents worth.

Lee;

If the service or commodity I provide is given freely, with no requirement for renumeration, that is charity. If the service or commodity is given based on a contract or an exchange of money or goods, that is business.

It is not a moral difference. BUT it is different.

Maybe a better analogy (since we are talking about care for children) would be: Buying your own children shoes is good parenting ( unless maybe it was the 17th pair this month, and you bought them due to a temper tantrum on the part of your teenager :-)) But it is not charity.

Amor del Niño cares for children, and receives no renumeration in exchange for services or commodities from anyone.

Casa Quivira, from what I understand, cares for children, but enters into a contract with prospective parents, and provides care and tramite, for which they receive approx $30,000 per case. Because that is only hearsay, I state it asking that any of the parents or CQ staff correct it.

One example of the confusion caused by two organizations doing similar but "bottom line" different work is the incient with the hearing aids which you alluded to. They were procured via a charitable arrangement with Ronald McDonald, and CEDAF. It has been said in these comments that the opportunity had to be taken quickly due to the pressure of a missed opportunity. (yet, lo and behold, the girls got them on the reschedulled date) I submit to you that there was room in that $30,000 to cover the costs of Doctors and the hearing aids. Or, I am sure the parents would have been willing to pay more. It bothers me that that resource was used that could have been used for the children of Guatemala who had no other resource. It does not bother me that the girls got their hearing aids, but it bothers me that an organization that is a business masquerades as a charity, and muddies the waters that the poor must drink from, then does things like buying Pollo Campero chicken lunch for the entire children's Court staff the day before the hearing. You may think that was also a charitable act...but I bet they wrote it off as a business expense.

People have ranted in these comments about the poor care this country gives its poor children, but one of the long standing problems has been rich people using the resources offered for the poor, or divertinng funds given in good faith by individuals and foundations. (might be one definition of the corruption we all agree is here) Well, this kind of confusion between business and charity allows that to happen.

Sandra indicates she does not understand the charitable side of the equation, in wondering why we joined forces with another non-profit organization. Bottom line; we realised we needed help, and did not have the money to pay for it. Her description of our legal standing is also confused. It is complex ( why we needed the help to navigate) but every step we have taken has been in conformance with the laws. Both in letter and intent. The process of appeal is standard judicial activity.

Sandra's statement that Alianza and the police was an example of their improper behavior stands on it's own. That is a perfect example of why we ALL must be vigilent and involved if corruption is to be reigned in. Again, we are not crusaders, we are not looking for fights, but then, too, we will not back down when we see the children of Guatemala ( and their prospective parents) being manipulated and taken advantage of.

We do not know Clifford and Sanndra outside of what has been an admittedly difficult time. But it seems that they are in the position to be the best ones to really help the situation by presenting the facts, and being clear and up front. But instead, the actions have only added to some people's suspicions. it wouldl go a long way if the actions looked a little more transparent: An exact accounting showing no bribes were paid. A clear history of the children, rather than erroneous addresses, wrong midwives and coached birthmoms. Rather than push and cajole an admittedly weak judicial and investigative system, these kind of activities might serve the Clifford's best interests, as well as those of the rest of us caught in this mess.

Marc,

Unfortunately, at this time, the problems with the legal system are what are first and foremost in the way of the children's health and well-being. How can anyone think that these children are better of in an orphanage OF ANY TYPE or name instead of with permanent loving families (adoptive or birth)to care for them 1 on 1?????

I pray this madness ends soon. Most people choose Guatemala as an adoptive country because young infants who can attach and bond esaily with their family can be adopted. Children who spend a great deal of time in orphanages are much more likely to experience attachment disorders and developmental delays, this is black and white fact. Those are long term effects that adoptive families will deal with forever and those dragging out this process will never see. Our adoptions have been scrutinized and our lives and these precious children's lives have been in turmiol and uncertainty for almost 3 MONTHS!!! I doubt any investigation would prove thorough enough to please everyone, but Judge Mena is the one appointed to judge, no one else. When will it be enough??? How much more do we suffer and endure before everyone is satisfied??? Emotional? You bet! THIS IS MY CHILD we are dealing with. OVER PROECTIVE, you bet, again this is MY CHILD who is being tossed around while the system is scrutinized, unknown to us where he is or how he's growing. WE HAVE HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT OUR CHILDREN SINCE 8-11!!!! It is easy for all you who have your children safe and at home to judge and say we are impatient. I have at times been physically ill being PATIENT while this process plays out, the days seem like weeks and the weeks rea endless, waiting..... We finally see an end in sight and it is threatened. All this is doing is prolonging this already drawn out process for families and children involved. Amor del Nino claims they wanted the 72 hour notice to have a ohysician clear the children so the can not be blaimed for illness later, I am anxious for the 72 hours to be up to see what the next step is.

This all needs to stop immediately! Once again the CQ children appear to be caught up in a power struggle. How much investigation is enough? To please everyone it will never be enough. Who decides how much is enough ..answer is...Judge Mena. There is always going to be someone to question some aspect of this nightmare. The judge was put in charge to make that determination, and I hope everyone believes she has done that to the best of her ability. She has indicated that the cases are legal. We all understand that Amor del Nino has the best interest of these children at heart and that they have probably grown attached to them, however the time has come for these children to be reunited with there forever families! The were given temporary custody and it appears they have done an excellent job in providing care and love to the children. Please everyone on all sides cooperate with the judges orders for the sake of the children. They have experienced enough turmoil. Regarding Casa Aliaza they should have enough work to do for the children of Gautemala that are homeless, living in poverty etc. These children have families! One would think that everyone involved are adults and could speak and work directly for the sake of the children and families. Come on everyone work together put all emotions and the past behind and get the precious bundles to their families. This should be a time of peace and happiness.

Steve, do you really think that Clifford and Sandra of CQ are pocketing $30,000.00 per child? That is ridiculous.

My husband and I adopted from CQ four years ago. Of course we paid fees. We assumed our child-to-be would be diapered (he was), fed an appropriate, nutritious diet (he was), be clothed (he was), be cared for when ill including receiving a doctor's care and necessary medications (he was), be given preventative health care such as immunizations (he was). My point is, these things cost money.

He had his needs met by loving, experience caregivers (these people needed to be paid a salary). He lived in a home that was clean and safe (and utility services are not free).

The fees we paid included the cost of DNA testing of birthmother and child; professional translations of documents from English into Spanish and others from Spanish into English; our child-to-be's US Visa and Guatemalan passport; airfare for two adults (the adopting parents), a week's room and board in Guatemala for my husband and I, and transportation within Guatemala to/from the airport and embassy.

And did I expect the lawyer representing us to take care of all of the paperwork and appointments for free? Of course not. And if part of the fees I paid helped to support the other children that lived at CQ for five, six, seven or more years, that is fine with me.

So Steve, please do not try and discredit the work that CQ does - finding families for children - by painting a picture that they are raking in $30K in profits per adoption.

Sara

I agree with "atimeforpeace"

Please, please EVERYONE remember that the children are innocent and should never be used in adult games. Never.

This plea is to all parties--- the Guatemalan government, the courts, CQ, Casa Alianza, Amor del Nino and the other homes who have the children, ministerio publico, adoptive parents, PGN, ADA, DOS, President Berger, UNICEF, and the press.

The sensationalism around Guatemalan adoptions is frightening as NONE of it is correct--- is IA all bad? is Casa Alianza pure evil or pure good? is UNICEF all good? is every adoption in Guatemala 'tainted" by corruption? is every birthmother paid off and coerced and held against her will? is every adoption free from corruption? is the adoption process in Guatemala "easy and fast" (by the way, I have to comment on this one, NOT!)? is the President walking away with 28 million UNICEF dollars? or, is he the "best" thing that has happened to the people of Guatemala?

Not ONE of these statements is completely true or false (except the "easy and fast" process of course--smile). The truth may lie somewhere in the middle but, I can tell you this, the truth will never be found nor the bad stuff corrected if all we do is fight and throw around sensationalized comments.

I challenge everyone who is involved to give all the children of Guatemala our love and our compassion.

Let the law prevail as this is how civilized societies work and function. If the CQ cases have been or are being reviewed/investigated by the Family courts, the minors courts, and the PGN (the very entity that is proposed to be the new Governing Authority over adoptions), then validated by a 2nd DNA on the US side, what else could be "by the book?" The law is to be respected.

Please, stop the fighting. Let us all lick our wounded egos and think about the whole reason why we are even reading/writing on Guatadopt---we want what is best for children of Guatemala...whatever that may look like to you, there are many many children who need our help.

Children first---

Sara, Steve did not say that CQ is making $30k in *profits* per adoption. He only said that that is the approximate contracted fee per case, not that CQ pockets all of that fee as a profit. As I read his post, he gave a very good description of the difference between a charity and a business ("If the service or commodity I provide is given freely, with no requirement for renumeration, that is charity. If the service or commodity is given based on a contract or an exchange of money or goods, that is business."). There are simply differences, that does not make the business (CQ) bad, just different. As Steve said, "It is not a moral difference. BUT it is different."
Tonya

Steve:
I do appreciate your comments very much--I'm listening. The private system in Guatemala is at the heart of the problem. The Guate attorneys and their organizations (i.e. CQ and others) are protesting against the inevitable. They were not capable of regulating themselves--i.e. typically one attorney overseeing the process for all parties EVEN WHEN they could request to have a second attorney oversee the child/birth family rights (confirm the facts). This does not happen. The attorneys could also implement a transparent system, admiting how much they are paid, the birth mother recruiters are paid, and when payments to birth mothers are made. Of course...that would 'out' unethical practices and they would be putting themselves in jeopardy...they are unwilling to be transparent (Susana L. refuses to respond for this request). No matter how CQ gets spun by their marketing team or their wealthy OWNERS it does not change the fact that their case has weakened and the future of the children looks bleak in terms of a permanent US family. Now, if Guatemala had a public system or a hybrid of a public/private system then some regulatory practice could be written into law/policy/procedure. Accreditation of agencies could verify ethical standards. Is anyone against ethical standards??? No. I know that many in this community have no faith in Guatemala moving forward with government regulation and a coherent child welfare system. However, something has gotta give. Over the past few months I keep saying to myself--how will this all be reconciled? The truth is going to hurt the approximately 25,000 adoptees who have departed Guate since the millenium. Unfortunately, the truth is far more disturbing than has yet to come to surface. I don't know about CQ exactly, but sloppy documentation and a confused birth mother does not speak highly of the operation--the point was made quite well on Anderson Cooper. CQ is going down in history as the example of WHY adoption regulation, transparency, and ethics are critical and development of all these elements is critical.

karenms1,

I believe that you think you are doing what is best for the children of Guatemala. We happen to have very different views on how to implement reform. The "irregularities" that occur in Guatemala today are not due primarily to a lack of laws but rather to a lack of enforcement of laws. You can simply look to all of Guatemala's other problems (murder, poverty, racism, femicide, impunity, etc), which are not the result of a lack of laws. Corruption relies on people. If the people do not change or the people are not forced to follow the laws, then corruption will continue. We do agree that transparency is needed, though the focus needs to be on how children enter the system, not how much money the attorneys make. Yes, they are linked, and nobody would like reduced adoption fees more than us parents. However, the focus needs to be on the child.

I do, however, take SERIOUS exception to your self-proclaimed role as investigator, jury, and judge regarding CQ. I do not believe you are in a position of insider with access to the FACTS of the case. When the dust settles, it will become clear that CQ was targeted by the Guate govt for reasons that have nothing to do with illegalities. Of the original 46 children, 9 have been united with their forever families. Neither the founders nor families of CQ will rest until each of the remaining 37 children are united with their own forever families. Many of us have met and known Cliff and Sandra for a very long time. If you believe in following the law as much as you proclaim, then let the process run its course, and the truth will be known in time.

Please continue to express your views on adoptions. Your views are certainly not popular, nor in my mind correct, however, I respect your right to have them and they belong here as part of the overall debate. However, please keep your ill-informed opinions regarding CQ or other specific agencies to yourself. Unless you are in a position of FACTS, which you are not, then this is not the correct forum for such views, especially during these very disturbing and heart-wrenching times.

karenms1
I refuse to discuss anything with someone who hides behind a false name. Disclose your identity and your employer and how much you make, and I would be willing to exchange opinions with you. I don't have any obligation to you or to anybody who is not my client to discuss my fees.
Susana Luarca

Karenms1,

It's nice to know there are still people with opinions even if they are ill informed, misleading and off base on many, many points.

Perhaps you are just out of touch with reality or have an ingrained hatred for lawyers but your continuous & contentious ramblings give no new evidence and lack any FACTUAL data just like your buddy Anderson Cooper's story on Guatemalan Adoption.

Susana was our lawyer and we have NO problem with the pittance she made off our adoption at all! I'm sorry you feel she ripped us off and profited from our case but truth be known she did NOT! In the end her firm walked away with less than 4k after working for well over a year on our case. Heck our US agency that did our 6 week home study walked away with more than 4K! What was left over of Susana's fee was then split between the many lawyers who worked on our long drawn out case. If you do the actual math on our adoption Susana's firm made less than minimum wage on our case. Either you have a problem with math or I guess minimum wage is still too much of a profit for you to swallow. Lawyers in this country make upwards of 35k per case and they take, on average, less time to complete than a Guat adoption.

Perhaps you should re-focus your pent up anger closer to home and try cleaning up the corruption here in US adoptions before attacking folks like Susana.

Susana cares for these children as if they were her own and she is not the money grubbing Lawyer so many Americans think of when they hear the word Attorney or Lawyer. Susana is NOT corrupt as you hint at. She can't be because all eyes are on her.

Until you have visited her Hogar, had a case with her, seen the quality of care, care giver to child ratio, the cleanliness or the fact that she has a medical doctor on staff at a minimum of four hours per day please refrain from your base less attacks on someone you know very little about. Our case with Susana was very above board and we, as are many here, are sick of hearing your rhetoric and baseless rants in trying times like these.

Oh one more thing! Hi Susana & thank you so much for all your hard work and devotion to the welfare of the children! You are appreciated by many!!!!!

This thread might be tired and dead, but I just wanted to give my 2 cents on Casa Alianza. I can't believe they have resufaced in the adoption arena. During the Hague mess of 2003, which we were stuck in, we read plenty of rantings by Bruce Harris, before his demise. CA does not have any business giving advice to anyone regarding anything adoption. If I remember correctly, CA is part of Covenent House. Covenent House is a Catholic related organization in the US providing shelter for runaway teens. I worked at the Houston location after graduating with my MS. Basically, a good organization. The Latin American arm of Covenent House is CA. Like UNICEF, they need to focus on what they do well. CA needs to be working on getting the older kids working the streets in Guatemala City doing magic tricks or clown stunts for a hand out, off the streets and prepared for productive lives.
Mom to 2 Guate babes, now 4 1/2 and 2 1/2

All:
I find it interesting that according to the posts that I apparently have a personal friendship with Anderson Cooper, that I have a "false name", and I'm ill informed. One thing that is correct in the above posts is that I know nothing more about CQ than what has been reported in the popular press or on blogs. I have made that clear in most of my comments about CQ. However, I don't think that anyone who critically looks at the CNN piece can miss the confusion of the birth mother. I agree whole heartedly that CQ appears to have been targeted for something--I have no idea for what. Sometimes I wonder why I keep involved with Guatadopt as I continue to get shoot the messenger, but I will tell you that I care very deeply about what happens in Guatemala. For many years I believed that I would adopt from the nation when the time was right. I started to do my homework (including watch Guatadopt) and I was horrified. I do hope the system is cleaned up...for many reasons, including this very personal one.

Karenms1

Now it all makes sense---you have not, nor are you in the process of adopting from Guatemala.

This is why you get "shoot the messenger"---if you truly understood what is involved emotionally, physically, and psychologically you might have a VERY different point of view.

I think it is great that you researched Guatemalan adoptions before you decided not to adopt. We are unable to have biological children and feel that adoption is right for us to start a family. We also did extensive research and had to rule out the US, Russia, and China for various reasons. Many, many months and references later we chose Guatemala. We love Guatemala and are proud to have it be a part of our family's heritage.

Sorry you have such strong, sometimes inflammatory, opinions about something you could not possibly fully understand. When you have your heart broken and broken and your faith shaken and your world closing in on you and then to have it all make sense with a child from adoption, then, you might understand the extreme passionate feelings surrounding these very personal issues.

Just wanted to update GuatAdopt's readers about CQ's children that were at Amor del Nino. Fourteen of the fifteen children were returned to Casa Quivira on November 9th. Sadly, because AN chose to ignore the judge's orders, the children were not reportedly turned over without a struggle, but had to be taken with the assistance of the national police.

The children, upon examination by CQ's doctor, were found to have a combination of head lice, skin and eye infections (among other things). And to top it all off, the two girls that had been fitted with the hearing aids - that AN claimed to care so much about - were given back to CQ WITHOUT the hearing aids.

These poor children. I'm so happy they are back with CQ, but so sorry they have experienced so much trauma and upheavel during their young lives.

The article, "Adoption of Guatemalan Children: Impending Changes Under the Hague Convention for Intercountry Adoption", was published in the Social Work & Society Online News Magazine earlier this year. Copies of this article were handed out to members of the audience at the recent Adoption Ethics Conference and Forum on Guatemala Adoptions, and it can be found at
http://www.socmag.net/?p=171

This might help explain some of the views expressed here by those opposed to the current system of Guatemalan adoptions.

Steve and Shyrel did not put up a struggle when the CQ children were taken.

Steve could explain it better, but according to an independent pediatrician, the children would have benefitted the most by not being moved again (note: this would have been true even if the children had been in other other homes). All Steve and Shyrel did was appeal the first order to move them, and the judge issued the warrant without waiting for the appeal to be ruled on.

This is the same judge that has been rude and bullying to Steve and Shyrel in the past.

As far as the care that they give, I don't think that they'd be sought out by judges and police as places to bring at risk children to if the care they provided was not good.

Emotions are running high, but please do not impugn the name of someone who has been taking care of children that no one else wanted (special needs) for so many years, especially when he is down there in the middle of it and sees things we don't.

As an American who adopted from Guatemala, my heart goes out to any waiting parents anytime but especially now during this period of unrest. I have no personal knowledge of CQ so would never comment on their quality of care. Having followed this story from the beginning, it had been my understanding that it was more a question of whether the children were legally up for adoption than in regard to whether the children were being cared for properly by CQ. I understood that the government removed the children while the investigation of the paperwork in the agency occurred not due to a question of care per say. Once the paperwork issue is resolved, I am sure that the adoptions will proceed as before unless there are further issues with the overall process that is being examined now not specific to any agency. I pray that any reform be in a positive and helpful light and done swiftly so that the process is not halted for any length of time but made better with peace of mind for all parties involved that things are done fairly and justly and to benefit the children.

I personally know about Amor del Nino and the Osborns who have dedicated the last several years of their lives to taking care of the children of Guatemala. We are proud and blessed to have them in our lives thanks to the fact that they cared for our little one until we could arrive. Our child was healthy, happy, and well-adjusted. While Steve and Shryel care for many special needs children, they also care for other healthy children as well and are thrilled when good families whether Guatemalan or American, blood-related or not, get involved in providing a permanent, loving home for the children. The government and families from both the US and Guatemala have entrusted children to their care for years. Having personally been in their home, spent time with them, their family, and the children they care for, I can attest to the high quality of care both physically and emotionally that they provide. Steve very clearly explains their actions in all of this both here and on ADN's website.

The focus now needs to be on getting the government officials involved in a positive manner to assist Guatemala in quickly clarifying their adoption process so that these children and any Guatemalan children in need of a home will be able to be adopted into loving and caring families from any country.

Marc, I'm wondering if this "independent pediatrician" actually **looked** at the CQ children. These children were not in good condition when they arrived back at CQ.

I would also like to know why the Osborns kept the hearing aids instead of letting the two girls from CQ keep them. Wasn't it supposed to be about what was best for the kids?

Dear ballerinagirl:
It is good that you will not comment about the care of the children in CQ, that makes sense. People often make comments about situations or facts that they don't know.
You are right, we were accuse to have stolen children in our facility, that is not the reality and has been demonstrated in Court. We were use for political reasons and expectations, directly from Sr. Berger and Sr. Stein, they wanted for the Guatemalan Congress to approve the new adoption law, well now that is almost done, they don't like it, what a shame we were used in vain. There are also other reasons in behalf of the guatemalan government to accuse us, that I will not discuss here, there is no point.
The care in CQ will never be in discussion, that is a fact that everybody knows, and we are proud of it, very proud.
I also have met Mrs. Osborn and she has denied numerous times that THEY DON'T DO ADOPTIONS, THAT THEY NEVER HAD, it sounds very strange, Why do they don't want for others to know?
Personally I will never trust them with the care of any children, we are devastated because of the conditions that we received the children back, this is not fare, this is not right and the Court already knows about this injustice, if they didn't want to take care of the CQ children they could have say NO, instead of doing this to them. They can say whatever they want, we only know the facts and the facts are that those kids were suffering in their hands.
Sandra Gonzalez
Attorney
Casa Quivira.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the Osborns who oversaw Mi Hogar in Antigua a few years back?? Buckner International was conducting adoptions through this hogar. I can't imagine the Osborns being against adoptions having spent considerable time working side-by-side with Buckner International.

Taking a moment to clarify and also thanks to Troy for stating the truth that the Osborns are not against adoptions as long as they are handled legally. Again, Steve does a wonderful job of pointing out their stand both here and on their website. In response to Mrs. Gonzalez's comment, an agency had entrusted some children to Mrs. Osborn for their foster care. We adopted through an international agency in our country not through the Osborns although when we encountered some concerns the Osborns were quick to step forward and acquire the assistance of others for us as needed through their wide network of connections with many adoption agencies, health officials, and others in Guatemala. We are grateful for the love and quality care that they gave to our child and to us.
Again, my heart goes out to all parents and children who are waiting during this time when there is such turmoil. Please focus now on connecting with the various government officials or famous personalities (I heard mention of talk show hosts, etc.) who might be able to assist in clarifying the adoption process in Guatemala so that it may continue in a clear and legal manner for the sake of the children in need of a loving home and the parents who are waiting with open arms to provide one.

Interesting article in today's paper:

El Periodico

Actualidad: Nacionales
MP analiza accionar contra Juzgado por la devolución de 15 niños

La Fiscalía considera que esa acción podría afectar la investigación.

Claudia Acuña /elPeriódico
redaccion@elperiodico.com.gt
Recomendar
Más enviados
Formato impresión

El Ministerio Público (MP) analiza la posibilidad de presentar un amparo contra la decisión del Juzgado Primero de la Niñez y la Adolescencia en la que se ordenó el traslado y devolución de 15 niños a Casa Quivira.

De acuerdo con Alex Colop, a cargo de la unidad contra trata de personas de la Fiscalía contra el Crimen Organizado, a pesar de que el MP no es parte directa en el proceso, esta resolución podría afectar la investigación abierta.

En el proceso penal, la Fiscalía solicitó que las dos notarias ligadas al proceso sean escuchadas por el delito de trata de personas.Las pesquisas determinaron que existen anomalías en los documentos utilizados en las adopciones que se realizaban a través del hogar intervenido en agosto.

Hasta el momento, el Juzgado ha realizado varias audiencias en las que se ha escuchado a las partes interesadas. Sin embargo, no todas las madres naturales han comparecido.

De acuerdo con la Procuraduría General de la Nación, los trámites de adopción de estos menores están suspendidos y aún deben depurar algunos de estos expedientes. Además, algunas de las madres han manifestado que desean de regreso a sus hijos.

A inicios de esta semana, la juez Roxana Maribel Mena Guzmán presentó un oficio a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el que denuncia acoso laboral por parte de la organización Casa Alianza. El objetivo es que la Corte determine no sólo si se trata de un hostigamiento, sino que se aclaren ante la opinión pública sus actuaciones que, según ella, están apegadas a las leyes.

Según Leonel Dubón, de Casa Alianza, la organización es asesora del hogar Amor del Niño, donde estuvieron los 15 niños hasta el pasado viernes, cuando fueron devueltos a Casa Quivira.

Dubón indicó que para ellos las investigaciones no han sido profundas y que el proceso ha sido acelerado.

A MORE INTERESTING ARTICLE IN TODAY'S "PRENSA LIBRE"

CARPE DIEM
La costra nostra contra los niños
¿Qué hará que los burócratas que tendrán el monopolio de las adopciones sean diferentes de los funcionarios que saquean todos los días las arcas nacionales en otros negocios en los que está involucrada la costra nostra de la administración pública chapina?
Por: Luis Figueroa

En agosto pasado, con lujo de fuerza y en medio de un espectáculo mediático, la PNC, el MP y la PGN “rescataron” a 46 niños que estaban en una casa cuna. Según las noticias, la casa cuna era clandestina, y los chicos iban a ser dados en adopción de manera ilegal.

Sin embargo, el martes pasado se conoció que el Juzgado Primero de la Niñez y la Adolescencia le devolvió los niños a la Casa Quivira, porque resultó que no había nada malo en el asunto.

Durante el operativo de agosto, dos notarias fueron capturadas. Josefina Arellano, procuradora de la Niñez, afirmó que no tenían la documentación completa de los niños, y que la que tenían constaba sólo de escritos notariales, pero ningún caso era tramitado en juzgado.

El comisario Luis Sul dijo que, luego de haber recibido algunas denuncias, se iniciaron las investigaciones que concluyeron en el allanamiento. Bienestar Social de la Presidencia corroboró que ese hogar no estaba autorizado.

Y se dejó ir toda la fuerza bruta de la burocracia chapina. El allanamiento duró 14 horas. Se hicieron presentes 15 efectivos de la Policía y dos unidades del MP. Se armó un alboroto porque el propietario de la casa era extranjero. Lo único que faltó fue una turba con teas y galones de gasolina.

Trasladados a otras instalaciones, los niños de la casa cuna se enfermaron. Siete de ellos fueron trasladados a un hospital regional y a centros asistenciales de la capital.

Un círculo vicioso de desinformación entre sectores interesados, periodistas, diplomáticos y grupos políticos está acabando con la noble institución de la adopción. Gracias a ese juego macabro, a miles de niños les ha sido negada una vida mejor más allá de los muros del orfanato, o de las redes de la burocracia lenta y rapaz.

Literalmente, miles de niños se están quedando sin posibilidades de tener una familia, porque hubo cuatro mil 918 adopciones el año pasado, y sólo dos mil 845 en este año.

Mucho de este escándalo innecesario es una fabricación que responde a intereses oscuros y ominosos, ya que hasta Rosa María de Frade, ex vocera de la Presidencia y actual diputada electa confirmó, en el programa de radio Todo a pulmón, que no está demostrado que los supuestos robos de niños estén vinculados a procesos de adopción.

Hasta donde se sabe, en el Congreso acordaron modificar la fecha en que cobrará vigencia el Convenio de La Haya, que regula las adopciones internacionales, y pasaron la fecha al 30 de abril del 2008.

En un seminario para consensuar las enmiendas al proyecto de ley de adopciones, diputados de diferentes bancadas acordaron que cambiarán la fecha con el propósito de “esperar a que Estados Unidos lo aplique”.

A mí me parece buena idea, porque los EE.UU. tienen la mala costumbre de no suscribir este tipo de acuerdos (como el de la OIT), y luego demandar que otros sí se adhieran, o que apliquen sus términos.

Por otro lado, y lo que es peor, digamos que el problema con las adopciones tiene que ver con negocios indeseables. Si así fuera, ¿se va a resolver mediante la centralización de los procesos? ¿Se va a resolver involucrando a más burócratas? ¿Qué hará que los burócratas que tendrán el monopolio de las adopciones sean diferentes de los funcionarios que saquean todos los días las arcas nacionales, en “otros negocios” en los que está involucrada la costra nostra de la administración pública chapina?

Cuando –por irresponsabilidad y servilismo legislativo– dar un hijo no deseado en adopción ya no sea una posibilidad, ¿qué efecto tendrá la monopolización de las adopciones en las decisiones de las mujeres para las cuales dar un hijo en adopción es la alternativa frente al aborto?

Sandra Gonzalez
Attorney
Casa Quivira