Dateline has launched parts of its website. I urge our readers to contribute to the discussion and "portrait" that will inevitably develop. In doing so, I can't urge you enough to walk (or type) the higher ground. Be very careful with your words and please be constructive and critical, yet also polite.
The debate following this show will undoubtedly get heated. There are rational people on all sides of the debate - people with firm beliefs. There are people who have been victimized; we can not ignore the reality in their experiences. Equally important though is the larger picture beyond individual cases. What should countries do about corruption in order to keep the positive aspects of adoption? In that debate, we families with children from Guatemala are the voice of the positive aspects of adoption.
We’re not bureaucrats. We’re not NGOs. We don’t earn our living though adoption. We are just ordinary families with children we love more than words could describe. Many of us now support children and other projects in Guatemala. Many of us know the story of children’s birthmother. Our experience is more than just paying someone in order to adopt a child from some easy country. I could go on but you get the idea.
On a site like Guatadopt, we engage in debate among a small niche in American culture – those involved with Guatemalan adoptions. But with something like Dateline NBC’s website, you are talking about all of e-literate America. With our words, each and every one of us becomes an ambassador for us all.
Links to what’s currently on Dateline’s website are below. Before going there, let me caution y’all that the things Victoria Corderi writes about were uncovered by Dateline. Victoria is not making baseless accusations. Remember that before commenting on the site.
Victoria Corderi's blog (where you can comment): http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/577517.aspx
Submit pictures of your children and tell your adoption story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22650538/
No matter what we may think of the Dateline piece that airs, NBC has given us an opportunity to speak about intercountry adoption. We have a chance to show the positive side of intercountry adoption. We have a chance to show the children thriving in loving families because of intercountry adoption from Guatemala. We always ask for balance. Well this is one time where a grassroots effort can tip the scales in a positive way. Tell your friends and family to post about the many blessings that have come through adoption.
But remember, you’re an ambassador!
Use Guatadopt and other forums as the place to discuss the nitty gritty. We can get a bit uglier here. Let’s all use this chance with Dateline’s website to demonstrate why we’re so passionate about Guatemala’s children deserving a chance to join a permanent family - a family just like our own.
Thanks so much for the thoughtful advice and links. I hope and pray for balance in the Dateline story, but would also like to encourage everyone who might be upset with the piece to consider protesting via the advertisers who sponsor the program. Boycott the products of companies who buy ad time during the show's segment -- contact the companies and let them know why you refuse to purchase their products. I hope that won't be necessary, however an organized boycott is something that will get noticed.
Posted by: Lillia at January 15, 2008 12:03 AMIt might be a good idea to forward this link to your agencies, so we can get as many viewpoints as possible. Erik
Posted by: Erik at January 15, 2008 07:16 AMWell it appears the faciliator Thannassis (or Theo) is going to the be the feature of this story from the looks of the Dateline website.
Any agency who is still using him should be shut down by the US government. Kevin said the government agencies don't usually care about pieces like this - but in this case I hope they do care.
Posted by: Jane at January 15, 2008 07:55 AMWe all can agree that some corruption does exist in Guatemala, but I really hope Dateline also met with ethical lawyers doing ethical adoptions. As we know, not all facilitators are corrupt, and most adoptions are GOOD and honest.
The timing for this story just couldn't be any worse. Adopting parents have been through so much, and we just can't take anymore bad publicity. When I bring my daughter home (if I ever do), are people going to be looking at us thinking my child came to me stolen from her birthmom in a corrupt country?
I was not able to enter my year of birth in the MSNBC link. Did anyone else have that problem?
Posted by: Jenn at January 15, 2008 09:21 AMI was not able to enter my year of birth in the MSNBC link. Did anyone else have that problem?
Posted by: Jenn at January 15, 2008 09:21 AMKevin: I just got an email from our agency (that they say was forwarded to them by another agency) discouraging all the families from partcipating or contributing to this. I clearly see your point, tho, and as a mom to 1 (Guatling at home) and waiting on 2 (also from Guat), of course I want to help. But our agency is saying it violates our child's privacy, etc. etc. Any advice? I don't know what to do.
Posted by: Melanie at January 15, 2008 11:02 AMMy very sad story, that I would like to share it with all of you. Thank you for your continuous support and understanding folks.
As babies grow, a couple waits
Change in Guatemalan law may threaten 3,000 U.S. adoptions
HOLLY SPRINGS - Their clothes hang in the closet, their crib sheets are neatly smoothed, and their toys sit on shelves, still wrapped in plastic.
Maverick and Catalina were supposed to have arrived at their new home in Holly Springs months ago, but the babies, now 11 months old, remain in a foster home in Guatemala.
They were to have been among more than 4,700 children from the impoverished Central American country adopted by U.S. residents in 2007. Instead, they are among thousands whose adoptions are threatened by changing laws and political strife.
Guatemala, which had become the second-largest source of internationally adopted children in the U.S., behind China, will cut off the flow of children by the end of the year. Those with adoptions in progress stand in uncertain territory, unsure when they will get the children whose pictures have been arriving in the mail for months.
Adoption professionals estimate that about 3,000 U.S. families are waiting on Guatemalan children, but the numbers are not broken down by state.
T.J. Palazzolo and Amber Sauer of Holly Springs have spent 18 months and thousands of dollars trying to adopt from Guatemala. They were paired with the children they named Maverick and Catalina just a few days after they were born, Maverick in late January and Catalina in mid-February.
Though they have never met the children, Sauer said, she has felt like their mother since the first time the adoption agency sent her a video of them playing at their foster mother's home. She compared the experience to that of a biological mother looking at an ultrasound screen.
Now, she says, each day without them becomes more agonizing.
"There were things we knew we would miss," Sauer said. "We knew we would miss them roll over. We knew we would miss the gurgles and the coos. But we didn't think we would miss them crawling and walking."
More than 15 percent of U.S. adoptive parents now turn to foreign countries for children. International adoption has risen sharply in the past two decades, as parents look for healthy infants who can be adopted quickly with no strings attached.
Increasingly, domestic adoptions are handled openly, allowing birth parents to maintain contact with their children. With international adoption, birth parents typically have little or no involvement.
Sauer and Palazzolo, both 29, said they were drawn to Guatemala because adoptions there were usually completed in nine months, whereas hopeful parents often sit on a waiting list for years in the United States. Guatemala also allowed children to be adopted as infants, while the United States and many other countries offer mostly older children.
They decided in June 2006 to adopt two children, at a cost of more than $60,000 -- which goes to court, agency and legal fees, and to cover the children's care and the birth mothers' expenses.
When Sauer and Palazzolo chose Guatemala, it had one of the most stable adoption processes in the world. In the past several months, that has changed.
Commerce
Evidence surfaced that some desperately poor mothers were being pressured or bribed to give up their children. The Guatemalan adoption system, run mostly by private lawyers who work for profit, became the target of international criticism.
Many in Guatemala began to see international adoption as rich Americans buying poor children -- a complaint made in many of the countries that have become popular with U.S. adopters.
"Adoptions involve commerce; money is changing hands," said Ellen Herman, an adoption historian at the University of Oregon. "And you're talking about people who have a huge amount of money relative to the average family in the child's society."
THANKS KEVIN FOR ALL YOUR WONDERFUL WORK ON BEHALF OF ALL U.S. COUPLES, WAITING FOR THEIR BEAUTIFUL GUATAMALAN BABIES.
Guatemala adoptions on hold for rule shift
By Olga R. Rodriguez
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 11/21/2007 12:51:56 AM MST
GUATEMALA CITY — Jeff and Diana Kerr fell in love with the Guatemalan baby girl the moment they saw her photograph. The Minnesota couple decorated her pink-and-white nursery with pictures of flowers and butterflies, but now they don't know if the 8-month-old will ever become their daughter.
The Kerrs are among thousands of Americans trying to adopt 3,700 babies caught in limbo as Guatemala's lawmakers debate new rules that could all but shut down a largely unregulated system that had become the speediest place in the world to finalize an adoption.
As early as this week, the legislature is expected to debate new rules to eliminate potential fraud in Guatemala's adoption process, which until now has been run from beginning to end by notaries who work with birth mothers, determine whether babies were surrendered willingly, hire foster mothers and handle all paperwork.
These notaries charge an average of $30,000 for children delivered to adoptive families in about nine months — record time for international adoptions.
The small Central American country sent 4,135 children to the U.S. last year, making it the top source of babies for U.S. families after much-bigger China. Americans adopted 6,493 children from China in 2006.
The Guatemala adoptions are a $100 million a year industry, but the system violates the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, which Guatemala and the U.S. have agreed to observe starting next year. Among other things, it stipulates that a government agency must oversee the process and determine if the child was legally surrendered.
What this means for the Kerrs and other would-be parents remains unclear.
The U.S. is pushing for a transition period so that the 3,700 adoptions underway can be concluded.
But scrutiny has turned up problems in about 1,000 cases, said Victor Mejicanos, a federal official.
"We have everything from altered birth certificates to birth mothers who change their minds and want their babies back," Mejicanos said.
Dateline will no doubt "call out" a handful of agencies who have knowingly pursued the services of corrupt individuals in Guatemala - namely a "banned" facilitator. These agencies have in the past, and still today, treat Guatemalan adoption as a "free-for-all" with only their "pocket" being of concern.
IMO, only agencies that are fearful of their actions would discourage parents from sharing the joy that adoption has brought them. Suddenly we are to remain quiet once our child arrives home!! Disgusting!!
Troy
Posted by: Troy at January 15, 2008 11:28 AMHey Kevin,
Just found this article from BBC regarding Guatemala and it adoptions. Hopefully, all this will change after the new law for he best of EVERYONE involve in this nightmare.
Thank you all for your continuous support. Let us always keep hope and continue to think in a positive way for all our children, that hopefully one day will join us at home.
Guatemala adoptions: a baby trade?
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Guatemala City
January 15, 2008
This year, more than 4,700 Guatemalan children have been adopted by US families.
This makes Guatemala second only to China as the source of babies adopted by American families - and means one in every 100 Guatemalan children grows up a US citizen.
But that could all be about to change.
Following months of debate, the Guatemalan Congress passed a bill last week bringing national adoption laws into line with an international treaty.
Supporters of the legislation say it will end a murky "baby trade", in which adoption lawyers make big profits and mothers are often paid or coerced to give up their children.
But critics - among them many adoptive parents and lawyers - say it could result in adoptions ending altogether, with the risk that abandoned children end up on the streets.
Fears that 3,700 American families currently seeking to adopt would be stuck in limbo have eased, however, with a provision that their cases can continue under the present rules.
Shadowy figures
Take a closer look at the world of Guatemalan adoptions and it soon becomes clear that there are no easy answers.
At its heart lies poverty, especially among indigenous communities still struggling to recover from a 36-year-long civil war that ended only a decade ago.
About 80% of Guatemala's population of 13 million lives in poverty. At the same time, lack of access to birth control contributes to a high birth rate. Malnutrition is rife.
US families anxious to give a child a better life are ready to pay $30,000 (£15,000) to complete an adoption, of which up to $20,000 goes to lawyers and notaries, in a process largely unregulated by central government.
Adoption supporters argue that many mothers have no choice but to give up a child they cannot feed.
Critics counter with evidence that some lawyers employ "jaladores" - shadowy figures whose task it is to find pregnant women and pay or coerce them to relinquish their child soon after birth - in order to ensure there are babies to offer to adopters.
'Paradise for adoption'
The UN children's agency, Unicef, which estimates that adoptions bring in $100-150m a year to Guatemala, has been among those calling for urgent legal reform.
"This is what the country needs after so many years of being a paradise for adoption," said Manuel Manrique, Unicef's representative in Guatemala.
"[We need] a system where transparency is guaranteed and where the cases of children given in adoption are where the child needs a family, and not what we see now, where families are in need of children."
Mr Manrique believes the fact that a third of the mothers involved in the adoption process give up more than one child supports the claim that they are motivated by financial reward, with $2,000 rumoured to be the going rate.
Meanwhile, Guatemalan women's rights organisation Fundacion Sobrevivientes (Survivors Foundation) is helping several women who say their babies were stolen to supply the adoption "market".
Norma Cruz, director of Sobrevivientes, said: "We are not against the adoption of children that don't have anyone.
"What we are against is this business that it is has become, where people are getting rich selling kids that have been taken away from their mothers."
'Repulsive'
For the parents adopting from Guatemala - at least 95% of whom come from the US - such claims raise difficult questions about a process in which they have invested time, money and love.
"The thought of a birth mother being paid or coerced or anything like that is repulsive to me," said Katherine O'Meara, from Novi, Michigan, who with husband Brien is adopting twin boys.
"But no matter how much homework you do, I don't know if you can guarantee that you have a 'clean' adoption, where that has not taken place.
"At the same time, I don't believe for a second that that's the main reason why women give up their children. The root of the problem is poverty."
The children Mrs O'Meara is adopting are being cared for at the Casa Quivira children's home in Antigua, the scene of a police raid in August over alleged irregularities. The home's owners denied any wrongdoing.
That raid - and the political row it fuelled - signalled the start of a rollercoaster ride for adoptive parents, desperate not to see the children suffer or cases fall foul of changes in the law.
Until now, Guatemalan adoptions have been popular because they are relatively quick - averaging nine months or so - and because the babies are young, making bonding easier.
DNA 'safeguard'
But that popularity may now wane with Guatemala due to implement the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoptions on 31 December. Any cases begun after that date must comply with new requirements.
These include having a central authority to oversee the process, allowing only accredited adoption agencies and imposing a transparent fee system.
The US is itself due to implement the Hague Convention on 1 April.
Last August, the American embassy began requiring a second DNA test to ensure that the baby presented at the start of the process - when the mother is also DNA-tested to ensure she is the child's biological parent - is the same child who receives a visa at the end.
US Ambassador to Guatemala James Derham told the BBC that he believed stories of children being stolen were unlikely to be true, given the requirement for DNA tests and papers signed by the mother.
However, the fact that so many babies come from very poor indigenous communities raises "very real questions about what is the level of consent", he said.
The resulting situation is tough for the embassy, he said, as it seeks to balance the need for adoption reform with helping American adopters.
"They come down here, they fall in love with these children they are going to adopt and also certainly have no interest in buying or coercing the surrender of babies," Ambassador Derham said.
'Mud-slinging'
Among those who have opposed the changes is Guatemalan adoption lawyer Susana Luarca, founder of a children's home and herself the adoptive parent of two children.
"The Hague Convention is not a treaty that helps children," she said. 'It is a treaty that has closed down adoptions in every country where it has been ratified and implemented."
She says many abandoned children will end up in the street because, without the money from adoption fees, privately-run homes that currently take them in will be forced to close.
Ms Luarca says criticism of adoption lawyers' profits is "a mud-slinging campaign" that ignores the expenses involved in feeding, clothing and caring for the adoptive children.
"The best way to kick us out of business would be to offer the same thing. We keep asking officials, why don't they offer the same thing for free, with all the resources the government has?
"We would welcome the competition because that would allow more children to be placed."
Uncertain future
With the new adoption rules due to come into effect soon, the issue of future provision for abandoned children is pressing.
There is only a handful of state-run homes and it is unclear whether the government has the will or the money to set up more.
Nidia Aguilar del Cid, responsible for the rights of the child in the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, estimates there are currently 500 privately-run children's homes, of which the government has details of only 300.
While these homes will still be able to operate under the new laws so long as they register, how many will choose to remains to be seen.
"We don't want them to close, we want to regulate them," said Ms Aguilar. "Twenty-thousand children have left the country in the past 10 years - we want to know what happens to them."
Proponents of adoption reform say they do not foresee a flood of abandoned children because most of those in homes now are already promised to adoptive families. They do envisage the "supply" drying up once the financial incentive is gone.
But Congressman Rolando Morales, a driving force behind the reform bill, acknowledges that the authorities have no idea how many children are involved, or what the adoption homes plan to do with those children without a family lined up.
"We don't know if they are going to give them back to their mothers or what they are going to do with them. A lot of awful things may happen," he said.
HOLEY MOLEY - someone has posted a photo of their child's birthmom on the Dateline site - YIKES - please consider removing it; this public display could place the birthmom in grave physical danger. The photo is a wonderful treasure for the child, but the birthmom has privacy rights too, and many do not disclose their pregnancies and/or adoption plans to friends and family. thank you for considering this issue, Lisa
Posted by: Lisa at January 15, 2008 04:13 PMConcerning the so called "violation of your child's privacy." It is a violation if you are REQUIRED to discuss private matters. DAte line is asking you to share. I think your agency is using emotionally loaded language to manipulate you to do what they want.
Share with Dateline if you feel that you want to. Otherwise, don't.
Best, Cheryl
Posted by: cheryl at January 15, 2008 05:54 PMFolks- All articles are either posted on the bottom of this webpage or we post translated GT articles and news every morning. The two articles posted above one is from Oct. and the other from late Dec., the GT story was posted back in 07 on the forum, the other is listed below if you scroll to the bottom of this webpage under "other news. If you need to repost, provide the link. We post news that is current to avoid confusion.
Thanks, Marie, Guatadopt.com
Jlr- yes I'm so sorry. Thats what so many of us are upset about. No problem with going after corruption and stamping out the predators. But the news has definately cast a black mark on all of the adoptions including the majority legal adoptions. We will have to handle this and yes it is something we all hate trying to explain to our children. I have tried to think what I will say to our children about remarks they shouldnt have been born [thanks DOS and Unicef]. I think I will tell them some people are just jerks and sorry but they will encounter them in this world.
Posted by: lisa2 at January 15, 2008 06:16 PMI agree with Lisa, I will not post the person's name, but this is incredibly thoughtless. Who knows who will see this picture in Guatemala. Please consider this woman's right to privacy. You are lucky to have met her in the first place. Erik
Posted by: Erik at January 15, 2008 06:56 PMThoughtless...how about arrogant! Anyone who does not understand the sensitivity of birth parent rights OBVIOUSLY has not been educated about adopting a child. Not only did they violate the BM's rights, but they took advantage of their child in the process.
Posted by: karenms1 at January 15, 2008 10:50 PMI'm just curious, but is everyone sure this family does not have a relationship with their child's birthmom? Might it be possible that they know it would be okay to post it. And maybe, just maybe, if they know it would be cool it is a positive thing to show?
For all the talk of women not knowing what they are getting into, from what I know they are well aware of what adoption means. That's not to say they don't deserve counselling and the like, but they know what they are doing when they relinquish. I'd argue the far larger problem was the opposite end - women who know EXACTLY what they are doing.
So I could see it as positive to show that the system did make it possible for these poor, brave women to know that the children they sadly felt compelled to relinquish are okay. Isn't that a positive thing?
Once again, I don't know the circumstances of this particular picture. I just hope no one is jumping to conclusions...
Peace,
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
I completely agree with kevin, I don't think, that now there is a new administration in Guatamala; furthmore, a new president and vice-president, who both seems to be well-educated, to have the BM's photo published; moreover, I completely agree once more with Kevin not to make a big deal of it, as really no one knows what is really involved with this picture. It might be for the best of EVERYONE, after all she is no stranger to the child, she is the BM. I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, especially that now everyone wants transparency and honesty in all adoptions process and procedures in Guatemala. Keep in might that each case is different, this BM might wanted and agreed to have her picture published. Please, as Kevin said, don't jump to conclusions without hard evidence of the contrary.
Thank you!
Posted by: cathy at January 15, 2008 11:31 PMKevin,
Good points! Another point is that by showing the BM's picture, we see that she was and is involved with the process and the child would not have been "stolen."
You beat me to the punch Kevin. No one knows the relationship an adoptive family has with the biomother etc... To "label" the family based on this is as ridiculous as saying "all adoptions are corrupt." - as some have done.
And, as I told Dateline, it is embarrassing how little credit we give to these women. WE want to assume that they are "corruptable, coercible, and trickable!" Shame on us. The many I met were very proud, strong-willed, and admirable!!
The Dateline website was set-up purely for the purpose of allowing families to express the "joy" expereienced and to show off our children - if we so desire. Not something other news media has allowed us to do in the past.
Posted by: Troy at January 16, 2008 10:42 AMI guess I, for one, was just looking out for the birth mother on this one. And what, if this turns out, the family did not notify her. I think it is just as valid an argument. I understand the counterpoints that are being made and hopefully I and others are wrong. Do we not have the right to express concern? Thanks. Erik
Posted by: Erik at January 16, 2008 11:33 AMAbsolutely express your opinion, but let's not crucify "our own." So-to-speak!
People make mistakes - I may have made the biggest mistake of all by participating with Dateline!!
best wishes,
Troy
It looks like the birthmom photo was taken down (that disturbed me also!).
Posted by: Abuelita Mar at January 16, 2008 12:22 PMYes, everyone the BM's photo was taken down. It doesn't matter, in my personal opinion, I don't think it's neither a positive or negative sign of anything. I might be wrong!?! Again, I really don't think there is something to worry about. After all the BM needs protection, too. So, if they rectified a mistake, I think there is nothing wrong about it, on the contrary.
Thanks! Abuelita
Posted by: cathy at January 16, 2008 03:01 PMThere are kind of bigger fish to fry, as they say at fish fries. So let's drop it about the picture.
Posted by: Jane at January 16, 2008 03:30 PMMyah is on page 5 of the Dateline pictures and our story is on page 7 of the stories. I think it sounds good, some of the stories were heartbreaking and we know the overall story will be sad, so I'm glad that my little blurb made it on there with a good outcome and overall experience!
Posted by: Emily at January 16, 2008 04:17 PMTROY!!!!
you did not make A MISTAKE, you made the best decision for your family. Things (Like now) were crazy in Guatemala when Dateline approached you. You were having challenges with your case. Anyone would done what you did, if they think it would help their case, to bring their children home. If People are upset with you, it really none of their business, it yours and your family business. You been such a strong supporter to Guatadopt, and to me and My own family.
Shawn
Jane - this is actually very big fish...and a teachable moment (the BM photo thing). Many people are working through agencies that have not worked to become accredited under the new rules, and so have not been informed about the privacy requirements related to Hague implementation.
KarenMS1 might be able to validate or chime in on this, but I believe all those personal/public Blogs with photos and names of in-process children will be in violation of Hague rules. A surprising number of people do not realize that, culturally, a woman's life can be at risk for choosing adoption. I brought my child home in March 07, working with one of the first agencies to become Hague-ready and compliant (and who runs a home for abandoned and unadoptable children) -- and they have taught their clients the privacy rules well in advance, to give parents time to get in tune and adjust. Many prospective adoptive parents are not so fortunate to have this kind of education or guidance from their agencies, some are not working through an agency, nor have they done the cultural research themselves. So, I think the "BM Photo Thing" is very useful as a teachable moment for the many people who read this site. There are many good books one could read that give perspective and historical insight on this issue (i.e. the consequences for some BM's who disclose adoption plans).
-B
I wish that at some point the agencies in the US were scrutinized as much as the process in Guatemala has been.
Although US agencies are for the most part very ethical and professional, lets face it, there are a number that are just on the edge of shady and some are just plain corrupt. And I mean some that have not been investigated or outed...yet.
I'm sure Kevin and Marie are aware of the bad practices of some US agencies where the PAP have shared their stories but can't or won't rock the boat for fear of loosing their children or worse.
In my state, if you can sign your name, you can open an adoption agency, that is receive a license from the state. I know for a fact, because I've tried to get information from them, most of the employees in our Dept of Public Welfare, who monitor agencies, have no clue about the international adoptions that are handled by a "licensed" agency.
Mimi
Does anyone know if the Central Authority has registered any new cases yet? I been KO from PGN but now need to be registered with CA.
Comment by Stephanie at January 15, 2008 11:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUGE UPDATE!!! THIS IS BIG YALL!!!
This is what I just heard. I head it's in the papers too, but have not yet confirmed it!
It looks like President Colom's wife canceled the appointments of the newly appointed CA in Guatemala!
This could be good news, because she needs people under her whom she can trust and feels confident that they can improve the problems in Guatemala adoptions.
I am in support of the Colom's and do feel that God has blessed them with the position to have a great and positive impact not only on adoptions for those children in Guatemala who need homes, but also to be a part in a divine destiny to free the country of Guatemala from the severe corruption that plagues it's streets and it's citizens.
Now the negative part is that this may obviously delay our ability to register with the CA in the appointed time required by the new law.
I home that Mrs. Colom can accomplish what she needs to quickly to appoint those to the CA.
I just saw a promo for Sunday's Dateline broadcast. It was all about "baby brokering" and "how far adoptive parents are willing to go to geta child". Frankly, I didn't even hear them mention Guatemala specifically, but they did say I "would be shocked to discover what the Dateline cameras revealed". There was lots of sinister music and pictures of poor-looking children with sad expressions on their faces - like a "feed the children" add. I'm hoping the actual report is not so sensationalized...
Posted by: Amy L. at January 17, 2008 10:17 AMJust received this press release dated yesterday...no comment here, just FYI:
PRESS RELEASE
updated 2:57 p.m. MT, Wed., Jan. 16, 2008
New York – Jan. 16, 2008 - With the wait for a child usually being only months instead of years, one out of every 100 children born in Guatemala is now adopted by Americans. Many Guatemalan adoptions are indeed successful, however critics of the process claim this impoverished Central American country has become a place where unsuspecting families, and innocent children, are victims to corruption, lies, forgery, kidnapping and broken hearts. In an eye-opening hidden camera investigation on international adoption scams, airing on Sunday, Jan. 20 (7:00 PM/ET), "Dateline's" Victoria Corderi travels to Guatemala to investigate how children are sometimes used as bait to lure dollars out of Americans who want to adopt.
The hour-long report also unveils a heartbreaking story about three young sisters who were kidnapped from their home, abused, and nearly sold for adoption. Shockingly, police tell Corderi that the kidnapping ring is run by women, many of them mothers themselves. After four and a half torturous months, "Dateline's" cameras show two of the girls being reunited with their distraught family. Fifteen months after she was kidnapped, one sister is still missing.
Corderi also interviews a group of devastated American families who say they were deceived by a controversial Guatemalan adoption facilitator who is still in business despite being banned by the government. "Dateline" set up a fake adoption agency and after hidden cameras catch him in action, Corderi confronts him in a heated exchange.
David Corvo is the executive producer of "Dateline NBC."
I am very sad to hear about the negative Dateline promo. I hope the segment is balanced, but if not, I plan on protesting via a boycott of Dateline advertisers.
I will be happy to post contact information for companies advertising during the Guatemala adoption segment on the day after the show.
Posted by: Lillia at January 17, 2008 03:33 PMOK I have to ask this.. if any of us had wanted to adopt one of those three girls how in the world would anyone get past the US embassy DNA plus mother investigation plus through family court, PGN, and the second round of DNA?
Also on DNA 2 wouldn't parents recognize if the child they picked up was not the child they were adopting? I would have known. Maybe some wouldnt but seems that would be a huge risk for anyone who wanted to test the APs.
Posted by: lisa2 at January 17, 2008 04:24 PMThe Dateline program description from my cable TV service (NY) reads: "A hidden-camera investigation into international adoption scams." This sounds like a very deliberate focus on the corruption, rather than a balanced piece about ICA.
I'm just glad that the Giants game is on at the same time.
Regarding Lisa2 's comments.
I too wonder about how these kidnapped children make past the dna' test's and the social worker's appointment.
Shawn C, yes it sounds odd. I'll say it. I think either the adoptions were not for US adoptions or they weren't kidnapped by anyone for adoption at all and were either kidnapped for other motive or were never kidnapped and this is just a story, publicity stunt, whatever. I suppose its possible they were meant for US adoption by individuals who were so incredibly stupid or ignorant of the process so had no idea they would never pull it off. The children are also talking age. Wouldn't that be yet another tremendous risk involved? They don't say if they caught the individuals or how they know it was for adoption. But they place the story next to the story about adoptions like its proof all of our children were kidnapped. My favorite though is the photos of the reporters all smiling and goo-goo about a happy ending. And a photo of the reporters is important to the story how? Its all so staged. And they made it to Guatemala and navigated all the streets "just in time
to see the reunion".
I think Theresa has a good point about the Giants game :). And I don't even like football.
Posted by: lisa2 at January 18, 2008 07:28 PM