Wow! I am impressed! Go Jon!!

Wow, I have to say, that may be the best article I've ever seen on Guatemalan adoptions! Finally, someone presents both sides of the story...

Thank you for sharing this article.

WOW! That last article was REALLY direct! I wish these kinds of articles had circulated more before all of this mess happened. I guess hindsight is 20/20.

So basically we should all register (which our family has) but have we heard any news about when we are actually going to start getting some constancias!?

It seems like years ago we were ko'ed of PGN and it's starting to feel impossible to get back in? Who would have ever thought we would all be fighting so hard just to get in on this (usually long and complicated) step?

Life is full of irony I guess...

~Hoping for good news today (that's what we're all doing huh? :) )

NOW THATS A NEWS REPORT!!!!

John Stossel I could kiss you. FINALLY the right side of the story is being told. Its kind of a joke that adoptions are going into the hands of one of the most corrupt governments in the world. I pray for the children, they are the ones who will suffer greatly at the hands of this government.

Wow...someone in the media actually telling it like it is. I was not always a fan of John Stossel, but now I am. The US seems to forget that US birthmothers, adoption agencies, and others are also allowed to "make a profit" from adoptions. I call it make a living, off of what they choose to do for their job. I can't afford to work for free, so why should adoption agencies, workers and others involved in the process. I also like how he realistically showed the cost for the adoption fees, not just 35K to the attorney in Guatemala. Thank you Kevin for finding and posting this!

Stossel makes so many good points! I've often wondered why the *cost* of adoption gets folks so riled up. Sure, if it were less expensive, I suppose more people would/could adopt. But this is always the conundrum of free market/capitalism vs. socialism. Neither are perfect, and there needs to be balance. But Guatemala went from one (free market) to the other and given it's government is in such dire straits, I really don't hold out much hope that the government will be able to process any adoptions or eliminate corruption with regards to adoptions. In the end, as so many of us have said over and over and over... it is the children who will suffer.
So, now I'd like to see a debate about ICA with with Kevin, Unicef, John Stossel, and the Guatemalan congressman who introduced and pushed through the latest and deadly new Guatemalan adoption law. Wouldn't that debate be interesting!!!!

Stossel makes so many good points! I've often wondered why the *cost* of adoption gets folks so riled up. Sure, if it were less expensive, I suppose more people would/could adopt. But this is always the conundrum of free market/capitalism vs. socialism. Neither are perfect, and there needs to be balance. But Guatemala went from one (free market) to the other and given its government is in such dire straits, I really don't hold out much hope that the government will be able to process any adoptions or eliminate corruption with regards to adoptions. In the end, as so many of us have said over and over and over... it is the children who will suffer.
So, now I'd like to see a debate about ICA with with Kevin, Unicef, John Stossel, and the Guatemalan congressman who introduced and pushed through the latest and deadly new Guatemalan adoption law. Wouldn't that debate be interesting!!!!

Is there any way the article can be forwarded to the DOS, UNICEF, and the Guatemalan ex congressmen?

I hope to hear good news coming from the CA today.

Vince

I LOVE JOHN STOSSELL.

I rarely comment on here, but I read everyday. My daughter came home in May and I think about all of you who are still in-process everyday. I hope this mess gets cleared up very soon.
I just want to thank you for all that you do and for putting the link up to this article. FINALLY someone tells the other side of the story.
We have started a second adoption in another country and I can see the US trying to steer that country toward the Hague and a central authority as well. All of this seems to be based on China's system (which isn't running so well right now...). It is like the US is trying to propogate Chines Communist policy throughout the world because it makes their job easier at the Embassies.
I am so sad for the state of IA these days. I can't think of a single country where the process is currently running smoothly. The powers that be forget that this is a fabulous solution for children in many countries and for loving families here.

I take issue with Stossel's style, and with the accompanying lack of nuance.

* What role does the Hague play in this? No mention.
* What role does the political climate in Guatemala play in this, particular in reaction to the incredibly large number of children emigrating to the US via adoption? No mention.
* What motivates so many US parents to look to Guatemala to form a family? No mention.

What seems to be the point is that US bureaucracy and foreign policy is bad, and profit making is slandered, and this is just one area where those two things have led to a tragedy. Fine. But the short and quippy style leaves rational debate behind, and foments more misunderstanding down the road, because it leaves out significant facts.

My final thought is that Stossel finds fault with the US, internationalism approach, and the harm it does to children being adopted. But he ignores what has motivated both sides in the issue. The two-fold problem continues to be the poverty and lack of educational and business opportunities for Guatemalan families and women in particular; and the terrible foster care and adoption system in the US that scares off many families, and pushes them toward adoption in other countries. Solutions for those two things don't have anything to do with what Stossel has written.

BTW: I am an adopting father of two children born in Guatemala, and couldn't agree more that the Hague Convention will prevent the adoption of children.

John Stossel put my thoughts into words. I have thought the same. When does anyone in the US expect to work for months for the benefit of another and not get paid for his or her time? Why is paying a fee for legal expertise so wrong? Like he said, it is not. Someone has to pay for the care of these children, whether in foster care or orphanages. The Guatemalan gov't doesn't pay for these expenses. I also agree with him on his statement about the US gov't wanting to bring adoptions back into gov't hands. The US gov't hasn't exactly done a good job in helping children be adopted into loving homes.

I enjoyed the article for the most part, but there was one thing that really bothered me. When he talks about the kidnap cases as being 'only' 5. ONLY 5? 5 out of 4000 is still 5 too many. The way the article was written it almost gave the impression that the writer thought 5 kidnapings was not so bad.

"Its kind of a joke that adoptions are going into the hands of one of the most corrupt governments in the world" Quote BY Karen

*Well, Actually, Karen, we do not know if that will stand true with the new president. It very possible that under the new President's leadership, Guatemala will have a brighter future.

*I believe we will see Guatemala begin to get free from Corruption under the new leadership.

*Wikipedia, "Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption."

*Finally, under the new leadership and a New CA appointed by the President elected by the people of Guatemala, we will have Transparency of funds that facilitate an adoption of a child.

*If I had read this article prior to experiencing first hand the corruption, I would too probably be on the bandwagon saying wow this is the best article ever...

However, I know for a fact that the exploitation of children was NOT A RARE EVENT!!!

We were told that 2,500 of the 4,000 adoptions that went into the US, in one year, went through organized crime.

So, maybe you feel that the organized crime did a better job then you expect the new President and new CA to do.

Well, that sounds good to those sitting safely on US soil but it's not very much hope for Guatemalans who have to live in fear of these people.

One child in the hands of criminals, is one child too many!

For this one child alone, there must be transparency.

The new Government and CA will provide this Transparency.

We cannot judge this new President and new CA based on past problems.

The President has already shown that he will fight for the people. We saw this in his fight to place those he trusted in the CA positions. We saw the courts of Guatemala agree with this decision. In a real sense, the new CA was elected by the people of Guatemala, because elected the President and in doing so, gave him the authority to make these decisions.

The people who elected him to office, elected him because they felt that he could bring about change for the better, and now he has elected a CA whom he feels will help to bring Guatemala into a brighter future where the country is not over taken with corruption.

What the article mentioned about the corruption, is not fair because we do not know if Guatemala will still be a country high on the worst corruption list, under the new leadership.

Second, the article suggestion that corruption in adoption is rare and that is not accurate either. For, example if in the past the country was one of the most corruption countries, are you telling us that, in one of the most corrupt countries, adoption corruption is rare, lol, I don't believe that.

This new leadership and transparency alone will help to protect children and decrease the corruption.

Now, as far as the DOS is concerned, I absolutely agree that they don't care!!!

AGAIN, SOMETHING I EXPERIENCED FIRST HAND OVER THE PAST YEAR!

WELL, MAYBE THEY CARE BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEMS THAT PAPS ARE IN NOW, THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW FOR THE BETTER BUT DON'T WANT TO HELP PICK UP THE MESS THAT THEY MADE.

YAY! This article brings to light so much that's not understood by most people. Stossel only scratches the surface of what can be considered justified adoption costs when he states "Someone has to be compensated for arranging the DNA tests and leading hopeful parents past the government's obstacles" What about the care provided by the (no longer in place with the new legeslation) system of foster care? Consider here in the states that day care (only 8 hours a day) is a cost of upwards of $500 a month, when foster care provides around the clock care, food, vitamins, DIAPERS, and monthly pediatric checkups during the months (or years) it takes to go through the process. Do the math and it easily approaches or exceeds the fees that are being paid by adoptive parents to bring children into their loving families.

John Stossel has always been a breath of fresh air when it comes to hearing the truth from the main stream media. I was really hoping he would give his two cents on adoptions from Guatemala. Thanks so much for posting this. I sent it to all my friends and family so they know the truth as well.

I feel validated simply from reading the article!

I'm not sure that if IA was less expensive, more people would do it. In many states, including my own, adoption from the state foster care system is technically free (ie you don't pay the state anything; of course there are other fees involved for home study, etc), yet many many foster children in the US wait for homes. So, the cost isn't the whole story.

While I was very happy to see the "other side" of the story presented, as others have said, Stossel is clearly using IA as a way to make larger points, such as profit=often good and government intervention=often bad. I suspect that he is not a big fan of social service programs. Yet, if Guatemala had better social service programs, perhaps many birth families would not be in the dire circumstances that lead them to choose adoption for their children.

Finally, take a look at some of the comments in response (not Kelly's, which was excellent, of course!). Including the basically 'anti-immigration no matter how old the immigrant is' comment. Grrr.

We just received our pink slip today!!!! Our embassy date is February 20. Do you think we still need to register with the CA, or are we past the risk?
Thanks for Everything you do!
Tammy

I have sent John Stossel an e-mail thanking him for taking a position the main stream media will not. As far as his "style", if you have ever watched John Stossel on 20/20, that is how he speaks. He cannot possibly convey in one article all of the issues that we are so intimately aware of, but in my opinion, took on one issue that needed to be exposed for what it is (the US government's interference) and one issue that the anti-adoption crowd regularly throws in our faces(the fees paid and the profits made). It's about time someone in the media stepped up. Now if we could just get our government to stand up for us, that would be real progress.

Thanks to John for this article, to Guatadopt for posting and to Kelly for her thoughtful, articulate and well thought out comments.

Kelly & Kevin,

I'd love to see you contact John Stossel and ask him to do a story on 20/20 on Guatemalan adoption. I think we'd fare better than we did on Dateline (not that Troy didn't do an excellent job, just that John's position is more favorable to adoptive parents than the Dateline reporter).

The sources John Sorrell cites are among the most conservative and neo-liberal in Guatemala. The Ayau family(Inés Ayau being the one exception, perhaps), Marta Yolanda Días Durán, and the folks from Universidad Marroquín couldn't care less about the welfare of children in Guatemala (an ideology that spouses cheap labor and few social services surely not cares for the quality of life of children). This article made me sad. Sorrel spoke some truths but only scratched the surface, positioning himself along the political lines that have traditionally benefited from the gap between the rich and the poor in my country. His sources also have often sided with the military, responsible for over 80% of the crimes committed against the civilian population during the war.

Also, even 5 crimes would be too many. Sorrell clearly didn't have time to analyze the many and "creative" forms of coercion that can take place in a society like Guatemala's when uncontrolled systems can give way to many abuses. I agree with him that the US should not have intervened in the outcome of the new adoption law. Sadly, intervention is something we know well in Guatemala. This time it concerned international adoptions and perhaps that is way it drew so much attention to a practice that is certainly common. What seems outrageous to many Americans now has been the ordre du jour for us. The outcome of this intervention is by no means ideal. It is rushed and flawed. Reform was and is necessary, however. Transparency should not only concern governments but private enterprises. Sorrell forgets that corruption and abuse also happen in the private sector. Drawing from the negative experiences of some PAP, it is obvious that lack of transparency also concerns agencies and facilitators functioning in Sorrell's happy free-market world.

I honestly wish a better voice spoke up for hopeful PAPs and families stuck in this transition.

Congrats on Pink Tammy! May I ask, how long were you in PGN? When did you accept your referral? And, how old is your little one now?

Dear Guatadopt, we have been in a nightmare adoption thru Waiting Angels. The little girl we are trying to adopt is suppose to be an abandonment but, for the last 18 months a judge has been ruling on our case. She has been interviewing the birth mother/Loida repeatedly. Is there a need to register, honestly my wife and I have given up HOPE !!!!

Mariale, you make some excellent points. Though I appreciate his efforts, the issue is much more complex than can be portrayed by a sound-bite person like Stossel.

Reba

Wonderful to see this point of view, but will the general public?
Stossel is a famous reporter, yet this story made it on Townhall.com and appealdemocrat.com. Never heard of either one -- Where's the major media coverage? Obviously absent, as this point of view does not bode as well in the public eye.
Hoping all the outstanding cases get resolved soon.
DonnaG