Yuster insists that UNICEF never pressures countries to tighten their adoption regulations

never PRESSURES???....maybe she's right, i always thought of it more as BRIBED...which is completely different. (sense the sarcasm)

ugh. unicef bugs me.

And if you really want to get fired up, read the ridiculous comment by Stuysevant ((?) afterward, and then please respond!

If anyone from UNICEF is reading Kevin speaks for many of us who read this blog. We'd love to hear/watch any debate between Kevin and Alexandra.

Kevin- I hope she takes you up on your debate offer. I know I would make a donation to see that,on the condition that it not go to UNICEF.

Finally, an article that begins to seriously look at the real impact of what UNICEF pushes for.

A small anecdote of how screwed up UNICEF is. I have a friend who works in the restaurant business for one of the most expensive, elite restaurants in Washington DC, and is an adoptive dad of a son from Guatemala. UNICEF called his restaurant seeking a very large table for a luncheon - happily, the restaurant was all booked up that day. It shows how UNICEF showers itself in obscene luxury even as it tries to stop vulnerable children from finding some small measure of happiness by having a family, security, and permanency.

Agree with Kevin re:UNICEF. I liked this article in that they gave the opposite viewpoint at least equal airing...even giving them (us) the last word.

"The going rate" end of page one! That is pretty offensive. And for the record... we were able to adopt domestically, but our daughter was not in the US she was in Guatemala; where GOD called us. If UNICEF wants to argue with God, then good luck. If they think we just showed up and wrote a check they are sorely mistaken. Where is the list of dossier items we must submit, or the number of times we have background check and fingerprinting performed. How about the elaborate home study conducted or the required Hague Training. They forgot to include all of that. I'm not complaining about having to do that, but let's be fair when judging us as parents of children from Guatemala.

Finally, a reputable and well-known magazine has gone up against the UNICEF "spin" machine. This is a great reference to share with friends, family and colleagues. When I discuss the dangerous tactics of UNICEF, people look at me like I am Reagan from the Exorcist. Even after talking about UNICEF, they don't always believe it. I also think it is ironic and dumbfounding to me how they have Angelina Jolie as an advocate for them. Didn't she just win an award from them? I would love to see this debate between Kevin and representative of UNICEF. I agree there needs to be reform but not the kind of reform UNICEF wants. We all need to work together to get corruption out of ICA whether in Gautemala or any other country. Look what UNICEF did in Romania a few years ago-NO ICA in that country. How is that in the best interest of the child? I hope this is the first of many articles exposing UNICEF and their stance on ICA.

Thats right. Never pressures.

http://www.childtrafficking.org/cgi-bin/ct/main.sql?file=view_document.sql&TITLE=-1&AUTHOR=-1&THESAURO=-1&ORGANIZATION=-1&TOPIC=-1&GEOG=-1&YEAR=-1&LISTA=No&COUNTRY=-1&FULL_DETAIL=Yes&ID=2413

Again, UNICEF uses sensationalism to sell their agenda. Enough already!!!!!!!

This is on balance a decent story and I'm grateful to have something pithy to show relatives and friends about Unicef.

But what I'd like from journalists is more investigative follow-up in countries where "for-profit" adoptions have been shut down. How about reporting closely on Guatemala in five years and telling us what has been happening to the country's poor children since things were "cleaned up" and those attorneys stopped making money. Admittedly it's hard to get good data or even a straight story in these countries on what's really going on, but the lack of follow-up on the plight of chidren in countries like Colombia where adoptions have been restricted is part of what permits success for anti-ICA positions.

All of you surprised by the UNICEF behavior. Isn't UNICEF part of UN?
When was last time that the UN with their different offices have accomplished something good? Have you forgotten the ethnic cleansig in the ex-jugoslavia, the civil war in Rhuanda, the many killings in Sudan? Do you know that in Congo ( african Country ) in the last ten years an ethnic-civil war has killed 450.000 ( yes, four hundred and fifthy thousand) people and lately 40.000 ( forty thousand ) people every month die. I can keep going but I stop here. This organization is corrupted ( remember Kofi Annan and his son), is useless ad we the US contribute to it with 5 billion of dollars a year: My tax and your tax money. It's not my intention to make a political statement but what I have just said is thru. For dacades this organization has shown it's useless in resolving regional conflicts that have left millions of people dead, included children. Now they show up a they tell us that they are committed to " help " the children in Guatemala or in other Countries by trying to regulate the adoptions. The sad reality is that once in a while they have to po-up like a jonk e-mail on a computer screen to giustify their salary

I'm not sure what's so ridiculous about Stuyvesant's comments - is it that this person takes a different perspective from what is so typically seen in the GT adoption community? I noticed that this person was attacked not only in the Newsweek comments but here on Guatadopt as well. While I disagree, this person has a right to an opinion and, I think, a valid perspective given that s/he identifies him/herself as an international adoptee...

Kevin:
While you may not agree with Ms.Yuster, I find attacking her on a personal level to be troubling in many ways. First, Guatadopt has quite an audience many lurkers who check-in for a variety of information--PAPs, professionals, and the curious. As such, I suspect that you turn-off some with name calling and this undermines the forum. Secondly, whenever one resorts to personal attacks, it detracts from salient and important points. Lastly, Ms. Yuster is a human being and deserves respect and dignity--as everyone does. I encourge you to retract your comment and stick to the principles of your position rather than personal attacks. By the way, you have regularly reminded us that personal attacks are not posted on Guatadopt...

We have a rule against personal attacks on other commenters. Those of us in the public eye must be prepared to take the heat.

Alexandra has stated that offering pre-natal care to birthmothers is a bad idea. As if ANY women in Guatemala receiving pre-natal care is a bad idea. To hell be it with the children impacted I suppose.

She was asked what women are supposed to do if they find themselves pregnant in a country with no social services. She said that there are no such countries.

Okay those are not direct quotes but they are close enough.

Alexandra represents everything I loathe about Unicef's involvement in ICA.

I was tame but sorry if my use of the now-censored five letter word offended anyone. Alexandra, please come be my friend. We can play a neat game called "debate the global implications of Unicef's position on ICA". It'll be a lot of fun..

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin,
Thank you for not backing down after Karenms1's reprimand re: Alexandra bashing. The only way that UNICEF can redeem themselves in my mind is to clean up the bureaucratic quagmire they helped to create by accelerating hague compliance in Guatemala.

Interesting read ... http://www.ceecis.org/child_protection/PDF/rom_careref.pdf

Someone out there has any news about the CA? I phoned to my lawyer yesterday and she told me that the CA did not issue any registration because they couldn't print them since they were out of ink. Today she told me that the CA can not issue any registration because only two of its members are on the job, being the third one " despedito " ( means trown out, fired ). At the same time she told me not to be worry about ( easy to say hard not to be it ) because since the " aviso " ( request of the registration ) has been filed we are grandfathered. Basically she told me that you are grandfathered if you request the registration before february 12, regardless of when the CA prints the registation; and she added that considering something different from this is illegal. This looks like being in line with what said by the DOS in the last pubblic statement. I tried to be clear, I am sorry if my comment is little twisted but english is not my natural language ad I still have problems with the grammar: I immigrated ( legally ) to this country when I was grown up and you know it is hard to learn a language when you are not very young.

May God help us all to bring our children home.

Buena noche a todos - Good night to all of you.

Vince

It is reassuring that the lady at CA says if you are registered you are grandfathered but I understand for families in process they want something they can verify so they have time to respond if there is a problem. Even if there is nothing people could do just having the peace of mind would mean so much.

God bless you Vince and I pray you and all the families continued strength and that you hear good news soon.

Of course a public figure for any organization such as UNICEF must be prepared for public disagreement but that does not mean they deserve any kind of personal attack. Disagree on the merits all you want but as soon as you make it personal, you lose credibility.

And for the record, it seems strange to me that so many people who are interested in the best interest of children are so united against an organization that helps so many children. As someone who has friends going through the international adoption process but not going through it myself, it seems like everyone could keep in mind the quote from the article "Adoption is supposed to be about finding homes for children, not finding children for families." If adoption is harder for us as Americans, so be it. I would rather that be the case if it truly protects children from corruption and even human trafficking and I believe a lot of the restrictions that people here "blame" on UNICEF are in the best interest of children.