The ADA has issued a new statement focusing on the consitutional challenges being brought against aspects of the new law of adoptions. You can read it here: http://www.adaguatemala.org/English/news/
Posted by Kevin at March 6, 2008 07:41 AMI know this post is all about the legal side of things, but the two things that really jumped out to me are:
What IS happening with the babies being born that would otherwise have been taken to the hogars or attorneys for adoption?
Can existing private hogars be registered as part of the CNA and take care of the babies?
Posted by: Sheryl at March 6, 2008 09:52 AMGod bless Susana! It is a scandal that there is nothing in place for children whose parents can't care for them. What are UNICEF and Casa Alianza doing for these kids?
The answer is NADA.
If, as Susana points out, greater governmental oversight was the issue, there were lots of ways to do this without grinding everything to a halt.
Whether or not there are adoptions, there needs to be a system in place for kids, and no one seems to be doing it.
Posted by: Lee at March 6, 2008 11:56 AMi agree with Lee completely
if UNICEF and Casa Alianza etc say it is about the children ... then step up & do something about the children being affected RIGHT NOW by your actions
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 02:56 PMI agree that the children are absolutely going to suffer and that something needs to be done to ensure they have places to live while this gets sorted out and the new adoption procedures take effect.
I do have to say though, attacking PGN and saying they are same old, same old and dragging their feet might not be fair. I'm seeing cases getting out of PGN MUCH faster than they were before the registration stuff. Some out in less than 2 weeks, many others within a month.
Posted by: ACS at March 6, 2008 07:13 PMI am in contact with about a dozen homes that take in children in conjunction with the Children’s courts in Guatemala. They have found families for children who could be adopted, but that is not their motive for existence, or for caring for the children. These homes will not be closing any time soon, and will continue to receive children at risk. When children are brought to any government agency by a mother who cannot take care of that child, they go through the Children’s courts, and these homes are contacted to ask if they can take the children in. Not many of these homes are ready to take in babies, as babies have not been in the abandoned part of the process for a few years, thanks to vigilant buscadoras and newspaper ads. So the homes that are able to take babies is only a portion of these homes, and I know them well, and know how often the courts are calling with babies.
At the rate suggested by ADA, and last year’s adoptions including the approx 3000 grandfathered cases, there should be about (5000 babies/12 monthsX2 months) 800 newborns in January and February going to these homes who will take a baby whether it is notarial or judicial, and whether it can be adopted or not.
So far, this year, there have been the usual number of older children assigned to homes, for the usual sad reasons, and a slight raise in babies…but it is a couple of dozen, not hundreds. That is my best evaluation…the courts are reticent to give out statistics. You can take my words or leave them…but think logically that if there were 700+ babies abandoned in Guatemala, you would read about it in the [sensationalist] newspapers.
The dire warnings of ADA have not happened. The accusation that the Bergers’ were going to pocket $28 million from UNICEF did not happen. The general social welfare of Guatemala was not raised by the ADA. They provided a service that affected specific babies, and specific American couples. Each of those cases was a good thing. Although various adoptive parents have been generous, and have “given back” to Guatemala, I don’t think those charitable activities were through the lawyers who ADA represents. Guatemala is muddling along with many social and justice problems, and no one can say how the adoption picture will turn out. ADA had their chance for years, and did nothing to self regulate, or raise the general welfare, or work towards a system that would be palatable to the Guatemalan public. It is time to let them fade away, and focus on the tasks at hand.
The Children at risk today:
Although there are many who are grateful for the work of the ADA, remember, it was work…and very lucrative work. They have mentioned nothing regarding caring for children during the present limbo. Presently there are numerous charitable organizations who are working also, but not under a contract with potential adoptive parents. These organizations deserve your respect and help, if you are inclined to see the children of Guatemala have a better future. The staff at Guatadopt can connect you to them.
Children who will need a family in the future:
Rather than the antagonistic pitched battle waged and lost by ADA, Americans who want to see adoptions continue from Guatemala need to focus on the National Adoption Council, and the people who advocate for children in Guatemala who are trying to watch and help them shape the future of adoptions. One issue that needs to be addressed by Americans is the cost. Earned wages are fine, and help us all to work together, but there is no place for profits, and the motivations they drive, when dealing with defenseless human beings, and decisions of their futures. There must be cost accounting at a super transparent level…in every country from which children are adopted.
I could go on and on, but instead will end and give my cell phone for anyone to please call if they know of a child who has no place to go. We will help to legally place any child brought to our attention. 5865-8577…do not be discouraged by voicemail … leave a message, and I promise we will get back to you, and find that child the best place for them to safely wait for the adults to work out a way they can have a forever family.
Steve,
Obviously, I can't question what you are experiencing. But I have to ask you this, where are the children?
By this mean that if all the allegations of children being manufactured for adoption were true, then children would be born today. It's not as if the law had a nine month implementation period to clear the pipes in a disgustingly literal sort of way.
I do know of people who had concerns about what pregnant women who had an adoption plan would do. I will pass on your number.
For what it's worth, I did request from my favorite huge NGO that they set up something for women to offer them a no questions asked easy place to relinquish. Sort of like here in the states with fire stations. But then of course add the element of providing care.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Steve,
When you mention "caring for the children" did you mean the children can be expected to have bug bites, lice and candida when they leave those non profits establishments??? So your main concern is the profits.....not the quality of care of the babies. So if I understand you there has been no "abuse" of the children in a non profit organization??? It all comes from the profitable agencies?
Steve,
I'm not in a personal position to know but I'm willing to guess that the significant percentage of women who placed from small towns/cities/villages outside Guatemala City would have no way to finding you or other NGOs. There aren't exactly buscadoras networking women with social welfare services -- so you're not likely to see a big increase in babies being dropped off at your door.
We'll see the impact of this law in a few years, with small increases in child mortality, malnutrition, lack of schooling etc showing up in different age brackets.
I also respectfully disagree with your contention about the "unseemly" amount of money the lawyers earned - I personally don't have a problem with it. We pay athletes/singers gazillions of dollars -- to say nothing of corporate lawyers who bill in the hundreds of dollars an hour to find ways around laws. It's no more outrageous that lawyers earn tons of money facilitating adoptions -- and doing some good in the process -- than for athletes or actors to keep us glued to our TVs watching them. The latter just keep us addled and smiling, while the former - the adoption attorneys (the good ones) - do some good in the world.
Moreover, you certainly know something about child development and I hope you'd agree that keeping children institutionalized for many years is not good for them. But this is what the CNA seems to plan -- years to process an adoption -- no matter what the developmental damage done to kids.
Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2008 06:20 AMSteve,
Just wondering what organization you are working with/for?
Thank you,
Monica
Kevin;
Your question is my question. Where are the babies? Depending on one's extreme position there would either be thousands of babies whose mother had become pregnant to sell them now flooding Guatemala streets, or there would be thousands of children who's mothers all along were in the socio-economic position that they could not be cared for, and therefore would abandon their children also flooding the streets.
I had said that I do not see them, and the Newspaper reporters do not see them.
Where are the children that might have been among those available for adoption? My best guess from experience is that the children are with their mothers and cared for in extended families.
At this point, I think the onus is in those who have been very vocal to prove where they are. Although it seems to me it would be powerful ammo in their attempts to modify the new law, I doubt they will do that. But to sort of paraphrase Susana, "there is no proof that there are huge numbers of children dying [her words] now that the new law is being implemented."
To be realistic, the crisis for each individual mother may not occur until after the nursing stage, or until the next child.
Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2008 07:35 AMThanks Steve for bringing some balance to the discussion.
Lee, I know you care a lot about Guatemala, so I urge you to learn a bit more about the many ways women from rural areas, particularly those that do not speak Spanish, can be coerced by buscadoras with some $$ in mind. I do see a difference between artists making millions and attorneys profiting significantly from adoption. In the case of artists, there are no human beings involved. I don´t know if I am the only one who sees a difference...
Posted by: Mariale at March 7, 2008 07:55 AMLee;
There is the very real possibility of children in the rural areas dying without fanfare. But I am in contact with health teams and aid workers on the ground, who are the ones approached by women in those areas...when there are not buscadoras offering money.
My beef is that this is not basketball, or other diversions. A child is not a ticket to be scalped to the highest bidder or controlled by ticketmaster. What is nobly driven on the American side, with parents focused on that child, and willing to pay whatever it takes to give him or her a good life, has become something else on the Guatemalan side.
The bottom line (so to speak)is that the people in control of the process over the last decade over reached and abused their position of power. Instead of limiting the process to women in need who voluntarily and freely relinquished their children, some of these people coerced, harassed them and (now it has come to light on this site,) apparently stole children. The motive for those abuses was not the child's well being or even sympathy for the adopting parents. Instead of weeding these miscreants out of their ranks, those in the process circled the wagons, and made all involved with adoptions here guilty by association.
First they said "there is no evidence", then as evidence came to light, they said "there are no indictments", then as the indictments slowly came about, "there is no convictions"....the general population of Guatemala finally had had enough...and now those children who, in a perfect world would have a family quickly, will have to wait, at this point, indefinitely. And that is a shame.
Betsy;
That allegation is a sad and failed attempt to discredit charitable organizations. The people who tried that lied about many things. I did not speak of abuse, but am aware that abuse happens. You imply that the children in the paid for foster care have not been sick? But I would like to be vigilant, and would like to talk with people who have allegations of abuse or poor care in charitable homes. Please call!
Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2008 08:19 AMSteve-
The bio mom for our daughter just gave birth again. She made it perfectly clear in her interview (last Sept) with the social worker that she did not want our daughter or the child she was carrying. I was told this by the foster mom whom I speak to weekly. I imagine the baby she just delivered is with her now, although I cannot bring myself to ask too many questions. So, here is one baby with no place to go. Just because they are not flooding the streets with unwanted babies does not mean they do not exist.
Posted by: anonymous at March 7, 2008 09:12 AMThere is a strong possibility that the Constitutional Court will uphold the ADA challenge and that it will restore the notarial process of adoption in Guatemala. Those of you who are interested in adopting a Guatemalan child, before the Hague Convention becoming effective in the US closes down that possibility, you may apply for an I-600 A before the end of March. The US DOS has been very clear in saying that those who do it, will be able to do an adoption according to the US rules existing before the Hague Convention becomes effective in April 1st.
Susana Luarca
Posted by: Susana Luarca at March 7, 2008 10:07 AMAnonomous;
That is the reason I listed my phone number. Please have the Foster mother call me.
Maybe Guatadopt can put together a place on the site where people who come across children in need can post, and they can be helped in a non-volatile way.
Posted by: Steve at March 7, 2008 11:19 AMJust another comment on the amount of money attorneys and agencies make for each Guatemalan adoption. When my husband and I were in the homestudy process, our social worker presented us with several different domestic babies (even though our intent was to adopt from Guatemala). Each adoption was $40,000 and this did not include the homestudy fee. Everyone seems to be up in arms over the fees in Guatemala ($20K attorney fee), but many times fees in the U.S. are comparable or more. Just wanted to point that out.
Posted by: Holli at March 7, 2008 11:46 AMSteve,
I personally am sad that the attorneys and the government couldn't have come together to agree on some sensible legislation. From what I've heard, the ADA did have a number of constructive suggestions over the years, but ideologues in past governments (or perhaps pressured by Casa Alianza and UNICEF), refused to engage them.
I agree that poor women probably were in many cases coerced by unethical buscadoras. Unlike you and Mariale, however, I see this as part of a broader problem -- the disempowerment of women in Guatemala. These women aren't coerced in isolation -- their labor is exploited in many cases and ordinary poor Guatemalan children are exploited in many more ways from a very young age -- whether as street kids or as child laborers, as well as through hunger and lack of educational opportunities.
It's controversial, I'll be the first to admit, but I see the issue of women being paid to place their kids for adoption in a much broader context -- a society that offers women and whole families better ways to survive does not have this problem of women being paid to relinquish.
To Mariale, your point about artists is valid. But what about, say, corporate attorneys and hedge fund managers who rake in big bucks in part by acquiring companies and firing workers wholesale. That affects people too and yet no one is trying to regulate how much they earn.
I for one don't think you should have to starve to do something good in the world. I personally think school teachers, to whom we entrust the education of our kids, are woefully underpaid. Ditto those who work in the adoption field. I think it's much healthier to see attorneys getting rich - even "obscenely rich" -helping children find families, than for hedge fund managers to get rich by firing workers by the thousands.
Ethics are a different matter -- attorneys involved in adoptions should be acting ethically and legally at all times. If they're not, they should be prosecuted promptly. But that doesn't mean Show Trials and sensationalist coverage of adoptions.
Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2008 11:54 AMI am just curious especially to Steve who I assume is from Amor Del Nino considering the wealth of information that he has posted, what do you propose that we as Americans, Adoptive parents, charitable orginizations etc do to help the Central Authority in working towards a solution to the social welfare problems and the children of Guatemala?
I believe there needs to be transperancy in the system, oversight etc but implementation of the Hague and the Central Authority have literally "thrown the baby out with the bath water." Look what has happened in other developing countries like Romania where UNICEF shut down adoptions there. I believe there existed a plan that could have been developed to have transperancy and oversight without effectively shutting off adoptions to the children who may in the future need it. To quote you Steve, "To be realistic, the crisis for each individual mother may not occur until after the nursing stage, or until the next child." I actually find that ironic that you would write that because therein lies the problem. Adoption certainly is not the solution to all the woes of any developing country like Guatemala but at least it was an avenue for birthmothers and their children if the circumstances so called for it. There are many social welfare problems that exist in Guatemala but what does happen to the next child that is born where a mother no longer can nurse because she has 3 others to take care of as well and adoption is no longer an option for her or her child.
Steve-
It seems that you have forgotten that the fundamental law of a democratic society is the Free Enterprise System. Without free enterprise the system would collapse. History has proven this over and over and over.
Guatemala is not exception!
Remind me again why it is wrong for people to make money?
Has anyone run into the requirement of having their 1st DNA results authenticated? We are required of this before we can re-enter PGN. Anyone else?
Posted by: Jimmy at March 7, 2008 03:37 PMWouldn't it be nice to allow the children who have been spoken for to be "fostered" in the pending adoptive families homes while their paperwork is being complete? If the PAPs are willing to pay the expenses of travel and have been approved by USCIS, it would make room for all the new babies born with no adoptive plan in place for them. Certainly, this would have to be regulated, but it would help the babies, the children pulled from the only home they have known for months or even years, the families waiting for them, and the Guatemalan government.
Posted by: Jill at March 8, 2008 12:56 PMPt:
This is based on my recollection from 8th grade civics, so feel free to investigate for yourself:
Any one born after 1914 in the U.S. has not experienced a truly Free Enterprise System. That was the year that the Taft Hartley anti-trust law was passed, severely limiting the freedom with which businessmen could pursue enterprise. Our Government has consistently curbed the excesses brought about by the jungle of the market forces operated by fallible Human beings. Democracy and unrestricted Free Enterprise, throughout history, have not lasted long…Soon, Democracy is replaced by Oligarchy, if not a strong man Junta by a coup. But even then, surely you agree that certain things are outside of the realm of free enterprise. You cannot, for instance, sell drugs to minors, just because of supply and demand.
The brilliance of the U.S. constitution is the balance of power and incredible accountability at every level. Even in that environment, there are increasing stories of scandal, and calls for reform. What makes you think that the lawyers who have controlled the adoption process in Guatemala can remain ethical without accountability and a balance of power?
Anon:
The central Authority has a narrow responsibility of oversight and control of adoptions. Adoptions, though valuable on many levels and for many reasons, are only a part of “ a solution to the social welfare problems and the children of Guatemala” I think within your question lies a very good point that needs discussing, but cannot answer until you say whether you refer to the Central Authority’s scope, or the broader question of social welfare…”. Either can be answered, but in the context in which you asked, I am stuck.
You see my words as ironic because you assume (wrongly) that because I point out problems in the notarial system as practiced in Guatemala over the last 10 years, that I am against adoptions. I am very concerned about that mother, her 4 children, and also her neighbors in similar circumstances. Until the people who have taken advantage of her dire straits by coercing, or promising one thing and giving far less, or at the worst, stealing that baby, are not protected by fellow attorneys, but prosecuted by them, as they in turn are held accountable by their clients in the states, the free enterprise system of adoptions in Guatemala will be a force that hurts her, rather than helps her.
Lee;
I think the only person who deserves more compensation in this whole process is the mother. But the 1st hand stories I hear continuously from them is that they were cajoled, not counseled, that they were promised much more than given, sometimes simply free care, then told they would have to pay it back if they changed their mind ( or, having answered an ad that simply said “we will help you”, never intended to give up their child). Wouldn’t it be great if we could have a system in which the adopting couple paid the Birth mom directly, a sum of say $5,000, and then the Attorneys $4,000, then the various medical and lab and Registry costs ( all published) and a set fee of say $200/month for care. (Since $200 is pretty much the minimum wage, and normal salary for workers here, it should cover costs of food, and compensation…but if you want the Foster mom to earn more, allow 2 children per foster care provider.) That allows quite a bit to cover incidentals and unexpected medical costs if we assume a similar Adoptive parent contribution to what is happening now. Waddya think? Truer free enterprise, if you will, where the consumer pays for each of the various parts of the process, rather than being controlled by a monopoly.
If, as Susana commented, the Notarial adoptions begin again, the Adoptive Parents will be the strongest force for ensuring rectitude….and the ones most needing it in the long run.
Dear Mr Osburne,
I'm impressed by your worldly knowledge and deep concern for the economically disadvantaged people of Guatemala. For you to dedicate your life to such a cause is truly admirable...you must have been an underaged Guatemalan girl who gave up her child for adoption in another life! It is clear that only you understand the plight of these poor women. It is also amazing that the lawyers, MP, PGN, buscadoras(?) Unicef, CA and the Hauge trust you enough to share confidential information about practices and procedures and obviously ask your advice on how to deal with crucial decisions concerning adoptions from Guatemala. Every time I read your post's I'm amazed by your knowledge of Guatemalan and US History and Law. The people of Guatemala should be truly grateful for your omnipotent insight! I believe there is a special place for people like you!
I can´t speak for the "people of Guatemala", but at least this Guatemalan very much appreciates Steve´s insights. They come closer to what I´ve seen, heard, and experienced living and working in my country. I don´t think that what he shares is very confidential information, btw. If you know a bit Guate, you know it isn´t very hard to learn from the different networks (legal, charitable, medical, you name it) if you have a bit of tolerance and willingness to listen.
So, Betsy, I´m 100% with you on appreciating Steve´s knowledge ;)
Saludos
Posted by: Mariale at March 9, 2008 10:58 AMSarcasm really doesn't work very well online, we can agree to that, right? Emoticons are not clear communication....and don't we need that here? I am very interested in the opinions of the people who are "in the field" in Guate. Thanks to all those who try to educate here.
Posted by: mifamilia at March 9, 2008 12:11 PMNo matter what Susana L. is promising, the old notorial system is defunct if Guate is to become Hague-compliant. There is no way that a return to that system, as it operated almost without any regulation, will pass the test of other Hague countries that can refuse to deal with Guate. So, the US (as a Hague nation) can choose to NOT deal with Guate if the US decides that Guate is not truly Hague-compliant. And, since the majority of adoptions are to US citizens, that essentially changes the demand and curbs the adoption on the Guate side by market economics. So, even if attorneys were to be given more powers than they have under Ortega, the old ways and days are over. That's my opinion, of course, but I think you can take that to the bank!
Also, my kudos to Steve. Your courage and insight is appreciated. Nice to hear some critical thinking and words FROM Guate rather than the rest of us who are more speculating than grounded there in day-to-day living in the complex world of poverty and oppression.
Posted by: karenms1 at March 9, 2008 12:58 PMWhat's laughable is this notion that there was no regulation under the notarial system. Any a-parent who has gone through countless PGN reviews would beg to differ. Moreover, there was nothing to bar PGN from doing more substantive reviews under the old system.
Clearly, there were corrupt attorneys. What's so infuriating, however, is that people like karenms1 never call out corruption in government-run systems -- nor do they stop and question whether state-run systems where children languish in horrible institutional care and adoptions happen, if at all, at a trickle, are healthy for children. Karenms1 and others seem overly enamored of government regulation and never stop and question whether, in some countries, governments actually cause more harm to children and their healthy development.
Posted by: Lee at March 9, 2008 09:22 PMKarenms1,
Your attempts to discredit my statements about Guatemalan legal matters, disclose an evident lack of knowledge about the legal system of Guatemala and the legal consequences of the implementation of The Hague Convention in my country.
Just so you get some knowledge of what you are talking about, let me tell you that the name of the legal system is "notarial", not "notorial", and that those who are allowed to preside over notarial processes have obtained a professional title of “Notario”. To become a Notary requires to study six years of Law, additional practice in different legal fields, a written thesis, and a very extensive and difficult final exam (written and oral) that covers all the areas of the whole career. The Universities where the Law School belongs, grant to those who meet all those requirements, the professional titles of “Lawyer” and “Notary” and the academic degree of “Licenciado”.
The activities of the notaries are properly regulated in the Guatemalan legal system. To state the contrary, is not only false but it demonstrates ignorance or bad faith. The Notarial Code establishes the high fiduciary duties of the notaries as well as how to authorize public deeds, acts and legalizations. The Law of Notarial Process of Voluntry Matters regulates all the processes that can be presided by a notary, adoptions among them, with the same legality and validity as those done before a judge. The Criminal Code establishes that the notaries are liable in the same way as public officers if they commit any felonies while performing their notarial duties.
The Guatemalan Constitution protects the professional practice of the university graduates with the following provisions:
Article 81 of the Guatemalan Constitution says: "The titles and diplomas whose issuance belongs to the State have full legal validity. The rights acquired by the practice of the professions accredited by those titles must be respected and cannot be issued dispositions of any kind that limit or restrict them".
Article 87 of the Constitution says: "Cannot be dictated legal dispositions granting privileges that harm those who practice a profession with title or who have been legally authorized to practice it."
Since the Adoptions Law denies the notaries and lawyers the right to work as adoption professionals, and grants that right only to the CNA, it is easy to understand that the rights of the law professionals are being limited and restricted, and that such dispositions harm their professional practice, which constitutes a Constitutional violation. A constitutional challenge has been filed, to remedy this violation.
The suspension of the notarial process does not only harm the interests of the lawyers and notaries, but harms the State of Law in Guatemala and harms the children who need to be adopted, because as it has been proved by the Central Authority in 2003 and by the CNA now, they are not able to handle the legal work that is required to authorize an adoption.
Whether you agree with attorneys and notaries handling adoptions or not, an adoption is a legal matter that must be handled by Law professionals. Proof of that is that the three members of the CNA are lawyers, since nobody would have thought of appointing someone without legal training, like social workers, for example.
Regarding The Hague Convention for Inter Country Adoption, it was created to unify the rules of international private law, as a way to use the convention as a legal framework that would allow the countries to adapt their legislations, as each of them seem fit, to the very broad guidelines of the Convention. The CNA could accredit law professionals to provide the legal services required by the adoptions, and the way it would work could be established in the regulations of the law. Each country has to trust that the other countries who are parties to The Hague Convention are Hague compliant, the only right that they have to express their opinion is within the first three months after the country has became a party to the convention. Some countries have expressed their objection to Guatemala becoming Hague, because there was no legal system in place to implement the convention. The situation has not changed, because the Adoptions Law is as far of the guidelines of The Hague Convention, as Guatemala is from Calcutta.
The notarial process is temporarily suspended by an illegal law, in the same way that adoptions are suspended by the illegal accession of Guatemala to an international treaty that was created to stop international adoptions. Until every country realizes that the State has no right to tell the citizen which country he can adopt from, inter country adoptions will be suspended world wide, because The Hague Convention was not created to expedite adoptions, but to make them impossible, and the protection that the convention is supposed to offer to the children, means that they will never be adopted. Whether the children grow up in the streets or in under funded orphanages, or die for lack of medical care or medications, are none of the business of those who are behind the enforcement of The Hague Convention. All they care about is that those children do not immigrate to the First World countries with citizenship, families who can give them a good education and the possibility that they can become influential in their country of destiny.
Despite the negative effects that The Hague Convention has had everywhere it has been enforced, there is a way to reconcile the good features of the Guatemalan system with the guidelines of The Hague Convention. It is Bill 3635, a law proposal that was presented to Congress a year ago, and was strongly opposed by the forces behind the approval of the current Adoptions law. The main reason why this proposal was not given a chance is because it could be the first story of success of The Hague Convention, and that is precisely what those behind it, are trying to avoid.
If you are interested in learning more about Bill # 3635, go to the website of FOCUS ON ADOPTION at www.focusonadoption.com and click on the link of Bill 3635.
Susana Luarca
Susana,
Don't you feel its a bit risky to be asking PAPs to submit I-600A's right now? Its very possible you are just trying to secure families for children currently waiting, and I'm not going to question your motives. However, your post encouraging US citizens to start paperwork for a guatemala adoption right now made me cringe. Any adoption began right now has a very low chance of completion, at least within a reasonable time frame. It most certainly guarantees the PAPs a difficult, expensive, long, and heart-wrenching journey. I would encourage people NOT to submit an I-600A right now....if your heart is set on Guatemala then wait. Wait until laws are finalized, and a new system is put into place. Have hope it will happen, but don't put your money or your heart into the process until it does.
I am NOT saying: "Accept a referral and start an adoption in Guatemala" . What I am saying is that if you have filed an A-600 A before the end of March, you have a pass to do an adoption that will not be required to fulfill the requirements stated by the implementation of The Hague Convention in the US, that most likely, will make intercountry adoptions very difficult. In other words, to file an I-600 A opens the possibility to adopt a Guatemalan child without the limits imposed by the regulations of The Hague Convention in the US, when the Notarial process gets restored. If it does not work out, it can be changed to another country, and in case the parents do not qualify for any other country, the financial loss is not much. To wait until a system is in place, means to wait until BOTH countries get their systems working and are willing to do adoptions with each other, a possibility that at this moment looks very unlikely.
Susana Luarca
For anyone questioning the level of reform needed in the "old" Guatemala adoption system, I encourage you to go to the following website: www.gssg-usa.org. (Guatemalan Student Support Group) This organization is doing amazing things for the impoverished indigenous youth of Guatemala, and it would be wonderful if we could all get behind them with our sponsorship. You can learn much about the living conditions of the Mayan people on this website if you explore. Clearly much needs to be done to eradicate the poverty and conditions these folks often endure. It's possible to see how the socioeconomic issues can lead to circumstances and abuses that make our skin crawl, as will probably happen when you read the story I will direct you to in Volume 4 of their newsletter, which you can view on the website. (Vol. 4, #1, page 5). I'm not suggesting this to get people up in arms, although I know some of you will be. I am an adoptive parent of an older child who's birth mother is terminally ill. We know the circumstances of his relinquishment. Our daughter came to us as infant. It is painful to know that we will never know with 100% certainty the circumstances around her birth mother's choice to relinquish, although we certainly "believe" that all was ethical in her process, as it most likely was in the vast majority of all of our children's cases. I do not wish to create hurt or anger for those who choose to read the article I am suggesting, but I do believe we who dearly love our children and their birth country need to fully realize the good, the bad, and the ugly in regards to Guatemalan adoptions. For the sake of our children, their birth moms, and their native country, we cannot turn a blind eye to a system that allows for such abuses. While a part of me prefers to remain in denial, I realize the selfishness of that choice. I am deciding that I have to acknowledge that things I earlier heard and refused to believe probably do exist to some extent, though prayerfully to a minor extent.
Humbly,
JMD
Susana -
As one of your former clients, it has always been very discouraging to read your extremely lengthy posts on this site and others. While it's clear that you are a passionate activist for these beautiful children, we counted on you to do all possible to bring our child into our home at the earliest possible time. This did not happen, and we feel it was due to lack of attention from you, our attorney, on far too many occasions. During multiple visits to Guatemala, I encountered perhaps one dozen clients of yours, who were also frustrated in feeling that you had forgotten the invidivual cases you had agreed to represent. A sampling of data clearly told the story that Primavera's children are leaving Guatemala at a much older age than the average, and this was clear to us when we finally went to our Embassy appointment.
As long as you are accepting individual clients, please help your families who are waiting to bring children home from your orphanage. They deserve your time, as well, and they can rely only on you.
Posted by: Home at Last at March 10, 2008 02:09 PMSusana- With all due respect, what you said about, "If it does not work out, it can be changed to another country, and in case the parents do not qualify for any other country, the financial loss is not much." I have to disagree on that bigtime. Some agencies ask for some fees, and some even ask up to half the fee upon referral, so a loss of $5- to-$15OOO means ALOT of money to many of our families, not to mention the emotional loss that has no pricetag, which we see first hand every day. The DOS and the Guatadopt warning still stands as posted on the main webpage of this site, under Announcements. Simply put adoptions are on HOLD in Guatamala right now and saying otherwise does a disservice to countless parents and gives a free license to countless agencies and attorneys who may not have the best of intensions nor thinking of the best interest of the children from Guatemala. Marie, Guatadopt.com
Posted by: marie at March 10, 2008 02:47 PMA PS- I do hope you see how easily misconstrued your comment can be taken by agencies with less than the best of intentions. Also, I am not aware with how much you are familiar with the process state-side, but there is no way that someone filing an I-600A today will get a result by... April.
I am sure many of our PAPs can elucidate you on how much paperwork is involved. Cheers!
Marie, Guatadopt.com
Susana,
As an adoptive mom waiting to bring my daughter home (within the next month), I want to say thank you for all that you do to fight for the children of Guatemala, and for your attempts to keep adoptions an option for the children, and for us.
Marie,
The DOS says "filing", not "result". Read carefully before attacking.
Susana Luarca
To add to Marie’s thought…
What Susana is saying is accurate in that anyone who has sent in an I600A before April 1 has a “non-Hague” adoption case so far as the US concerned. With that being the case, IF the Ortega law were overturned, implemented, or adapted in such a manner that adoptions are possible on the Guatemalan side, BUT the US does not recognize them as Hague compliant, then the only way a US citizen could do a Guatemalan adoption would be if they had mailed in an I600A before April.
Confused? Think of it this way… Mailing in an I600A might create a loophole or grandfathering of sorts for new cases IF AND ONLY IF Guatemala reopen its system in a manner the US deems non-Hague compliant. Still confused? Then read up and become an expert on what is happening.
But here’s the reality – to get to what Marie is saying…
NO adoptions from Guatemala can be started today. At the moment, there is no way to know WHEN or IF adoptions will be possible again in the future.
It is the strong opinion of Guatadopt.com that it is unethical for any agency to accept applications or more importantly $$$ for hypothetical future adoptions from Guatemala. In our opinion, this is more than likely a bait and switch scheme whereby PAPs will get sucked in and then later put in the position of losing funds paid or working with the same agency on another country. And as we know, the agency you’d hire for Guatemala may not be the same one you’d want for China.
What is happening is a horrible crime to children and the fact that it has come to this is a scar on all adults involved in this process. Nonetheless, it is what it is and Guatadopt maintains that anyone sending money to anyone for a future Guatemalan adoption is accepting a huge amount of risk. Quite frankly we don’t hear about when you lose that money or find out you’ve been duped. The DOS, CIS, and Guatadopt have all warned parents that adoptions can not be started at this time. The information is out there. So instead, donate that money to a charity that helps kids in Guatemala because it will be better put to use.
So for the record for anyone thinking about what Susana wrote about I600As. Susana has not contradicted what I wrote above. She is merely pointing out that US policy is that anyone with an I600A filed before April 1 could do a non-Hague adoption IF it is possible with the sending country. Right now, that is not possible if the sending country is Guatemala. Please don’t take what she wrote to mean otherwise.
Peace,
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
How come when someone brings up a very important point, Susana takes that as an attack? No one was atacking you for heavens sake. Anyways, there are agencies who do not have the best of intentions, as I am sure you all are quite aware of this situation.
Folks, please read what Kevin has written so thoughtfully.
Take care and hugs,
Marie, Guatadopt.com
Article I just saw on AOL when signing in. A ton of people read AOL articles. When signing into AOL, several articles rotate and this one you can't miss, because a beautiful Guatemalan baby is pictured right under the headlines.
Here's the link to the article, plus I will post it here to.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/adoption-fraud-probe-strands-babies/20080310183809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Article Starts Here:
Babies Left in the Lurch
Probe Stalls Adoptions
Will Children Be Sent Back?
It has 8 pictures.
Adoption Fraud Probe Strands Babies
By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA, AP
Posted: 2008-03-10 21:24:23
Filed Under: Nation News
GUATEMALA CITY (March 10) - Luciany Ball's adoption file says she was born 14 months ago by Caesarean section to a single mother who gave her up so she could be raised by a loving family in a six-bedroom Indiana farmhouse.
But now some of the documents appear to be fraudulent, part of a slew of irregularities at the agency handling Luciany's adoption that have left dozens of babies in danger of being seized from their anguished American adoptive parents. The probe also casts a cloud of uncertainty over some 2,900 pending U.S. adoptions.
Prosecutors describe their probe of Casa Quivira -- considered Guatemala's best adoption agency -- as their first serious attempt to investigate a $100 million industry that has made tiny Guatemala the largest source of American babies after China.
The system has delivered 29,400 Guatemalan children into U.S. homes since 1990 -- so many that one in every 100 Guatemalan babies born each year was growing up in an American home.
But after a monthslong investigation that began with the seizure of 46 babies from Casa Quivira last August, prosecutors say they found fraud cloaking the true identities of at least nine children and that half their birth mothers couldn't be found at all.
The fraud points to much deeper problems with the flawed adoption system that Guatemala replaced in January, and casts a cloud of uncertainty over the backgrounds of thousands of children now growing up in America, The Associated Press has learned.
After intense lobbying by U.S. parents, most of the 2,900 pending U.S. adoptions will likely go forward, partly because Guatemala lacks the resources to fully investigate them. Parents of the Casa Quivira babies, however, are stuck in the very nightmare they tried to avoid by spending at least $30,000 per child for hassle-free adoptions.
"I certainly wouldn't want to give Luciany back," said Mary Ball, the child's adoptive mother, her eyes welling up. "She's our family. She's our daughter."
Prosecutors say the problems at Casa Quivira include illegal payments to at least one birth mother, stolen identities -- including that of a child stillborn 22 years ago -- and a mentally ill birth mother who was incapable of giving consent.
A Guatemalan judge said he would announce Tuesday whether to pursue a trial against Casa Quivira's attorney and notary. Prosecutors also obtained an arrest warrant against the American owner, and they want fresh DNA tests for all the babies, even those whose paperwork is apparently in order.
"Their rights to an identity are violated because if their mothers have no identity, neither do they," prosecutor Jaime Tecu told the judge.
Luciany's story reveals some of the complexities of adoptions in the poverty-ridden country.
Luciany was born on Jan. 4, 2007. Her birth mother shows up twice in her village's civil registry, with the same picture and fingerprints but different names. One says she is María Natividad Hernández, a married woman. The other -- created in her village the same day she gave birth to Luciany in a hospital hours away -- identifies her as Orbelina Davila Paz, a single woman.
Prosecutors suspect she got a false I.D. so she and her husband could give the baby up without going before a judge. They believe many of the birth mothers with false identity documents were trying to get around laws that require husbands and grandparents to renounce their rights in court.
Luciany's birth mother gave her to a network of notaries and attorneys supplying babies to Casa Quivira, a spotless home in the picturesque colonial city of Antigua. A few weeks later, Mary and Michael Ball started adoption proceedings for Luciany.
Mary Ball, 39, has an adopted sister, and has wanted to adopt a child since she was a little girl herself. She felt so strongly about adoption that she discussed her plan with Michael even before getting married.
She chose Casa Quivira because her best friend had adopted through the same agency. The Balls did not want to adopt an American child out of fear the birth mother would back out at the last minute.
"We didn't want to grow attached to a child and have that child taken away," said Ball, who prosecutes sex crimes and child abuse in Indiana.
They met Luciany when she was 4 months old and fell in love. She has huge brown eyes and a ton of dark brown hair. Every month they received new photos of her by e-mail. They spent more than $30,000 in agency fees and travel costs.
The Balls were told that Luciany would be living in poverty if she stayed in Guatemala. A visit by the AP to her birth mother's home in Santa Rosa de Lima confirmed the extended family lives in a tiny one-room shack made of cinderblocks, with an open cooking area. Barefoot children played on the dirt floor as sewage water ran past.
While waiting for Luciany, Mary Ball became pregnant herself with a daughter, Isabella. She looked forward to the girls growing up together, along with her 3-year-old son, Hadyn.
Then came the horrible day last August when Mary Ball received an e-mail at work from Casa Quivira. Authorities had raided the agency, seizing Luciany and 45 other babies.
Casa Quivira's notary and attorney were arrested on charges of illegally processing paperwork. Since then, prosecutors also have tried to build a case against the owner, Clifford Phillips of Deland, Fla.
Phillips, who owns the agency with his Guatemalan wife Sandra Gonzalez, an attorney, has denied any responsibility for fraud. The couple has handled hundreds of adoptions since it opened in 1996, and outside adoption experts said their record was spotless.
Phillips told the AP he has been made the "whipping boy" for a system in which corrupt officials have for years supplied and signed off on adoption documents.
"I have nothing to do with documents. I don't touch documents," Phillips said. "They want me to be responsible for making sure the process is not fraudulent? I'm not equipped to do that. I have faith that the Guatemalan attorneys did all they could to check it out."
Thirty-six of the babies seized in the August raid are still being held at Casa Quivira.
Ten more, including Luciany, are now in the United States, with families in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But their fate is uncertain.
Luciany finally arrived in Indiana in September, days before Mary Ball gave birth to daughter Isabella. But their uncertainty continues.
If fraud is proven, whatever the reason, Guatemala would invalidate the adoption and try to recover the child, even one that has already become a U.S. citizen.
"We would have to do that, according to the law," Solicitor General Mario Gordillo told the AP.
Custody disputes with Guatemala for babies already in the United States would eventually land before a judge in the adoptive family's hometown, according to the U.S. Embassy. But if document fraud is discovered for babies still in Guatemala, their cases will have to start all over again. A false identity for whatever reason would be a "strong indicator" that the child may not qualify for an immigrant visa, said U.S. Consul John Lowell.
Guatemala, for its part, says it will give priority to U.S. parents who have to restart their adoptions. But these cases will come under the country's new adoption law, which took effect Jan. 1, to comply with an international treaty to prevent human trafficking. The law puts adoptions before Guatemala's notoriously sluggish courts and a new National Adoptions Council, which still does not have an office, a budget or a staff.
The result: U.S. parents could face a very long wait before they know whether they will get their babies.
Mary Ball is ready to fight for Luciany, who has her own room in the family's home west of Indianapolis and a flood of toys from her two doting grandmothers.
"I couldn't give up without a fight because I love Luciany," she said. "I feel she's going to have a great life with us."
Associated Press Writers Michael Warren in Mexico City and Ken Kusmer in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-03-10 18:38:20
8 Photos, Here are the captions:
Fight Over
Children1 of 6 "Photo of Baby"
Baby Juan is in limbo. A family in Massachusetts desperately wants to adopt the Guatemalan boy. But Guatemalan prosecutors have opened an investigation into alleged fraud at Casa Quivira, considered the country's best adoption agency. While the probe is being conducted, 2,900 pending U.S. adoptions -- including Juan's -- are at risk.
Fight Over
Children2 of 6 "Photo of 5 Babies in Swings"
Guatemalan children awaiting adoption swing in chairs at Casa Quivira on Aug. 14, 2007. These children were among 46 seized by authorities investigating alleged fraud at the home. Ten of the 46 have gone to live with U.S. families. But if fraud is proven, Guatemala will try to get them back -- even if they've been legally adopted in the U.S.
Fight Over
Children3 of 6 "Photo of Cedula Page Registration" Prosecutors believe many birth mothers have been using fake documents to get around laws that require husbands and grandparents to renounce their rights. They suspect this is the case with a baby named Luciany. Her adoption by an Indiana family could now be in jeopardy.
Fight Over
Children4 of 6 "Photo of Birth Mom, Baby, and house" This shack in the Guatemalan village of Santa Rosa de Lima is the home of Maria Natividad Hernandez, the Guatemalan woman who allegedly used a false identity to give up her daughter Luciany for adoption. Several extended family members live in the one-room, cinderblock home. Sewage water runs nearby.
Fight Over
Children5 of 6 "Photo of a Little Girl Bathing in Small Bucket" This one made me cry, cause I could see my little girl in that picture. God, I love these kids, and I just pray that God has heard the cries of the victims and he is working to help them and better protect these little ones. I've got to believe that God is in this and that Guatemala will see a brighter future. If the law allows the attys to work adoptions again, but holds them accountable to keep things transparent this time, that fine.
Just better protect these children, please!!!
Sanitary conditions are primitive in Santa Rosa de Lima, where a child is shown bathing outside. Authorities believe Hernandez, who is married, used fake documents identifying her as a single woman so she and her husband could give up the baby for adoption without going to court.
Fight Over
Children6 of 6 "Photo of a PAP" Mary Ball and her husband, Michael, were arranging to adopt Luciany when they learned she had been seized as part of the fraud investigation. The Balls were finally able to take Luciany home to Indiana, but they may still be asked to give her back. "I couldn't give up without a fight because I love Luciany," said Mary Ball. Source: AP
***Again, this is an AOL article***
AND, I have to say the best article I've seen so far, especially with the pics.
Posted by: airstar98 at March 10, 2008 09:43 PMJust wanted to add, since 9:55 PM today, already 130 comments have been made. To view the comments, use the link and scroll all the way down past the article.
It shows the most recent 10 comments. Click next to view the next 10 and so on.
Posted by: airstar98 at March 10, 2008 10:52 PMHere is a short video link: http://us.video.aol.com/player/launcher?ar=us_en_video_748x541_full&mode=1&pmmsid=2084649
There are now over 230 comments. They are not easy to read either. You would think the community would pull together to support the families, but that's not the tone of the comments.
I guess I'm so used to the Guatadopt and adoption.com community, whose very supportive of adoption, that, reading some of the comments was not very pleasant.
i am really shocked that this birthmother is identified by name and location - this is incredibly irresponsible of the journalist - is this woman safe now? or at the very least, does she not have the same right to privacy as everyone else?
Posted by: mk at March 11, 2008 03:24 AMI must begin this statement by admitting to much ignorance surrounding GT adoptions. It is even harder to solve that ignorance by pulling out the truths from perspectives of the ones of us here in the US and the people on the ground in GT trying to make positive impacts on the adoption situation. It is very evident that everyone has their own "truth" all according to their perspective. In Ms. Luarca's lenghty post explaining the lawyer's and notaries responsiblity, it finally clicked with me that many of us here in the US are comparing the notaries duties here in the US to the notaries in Guatemala. Finally, thanks to Susana that ignorance has been solved. Notaries in GT can't just sign a piece of paper and pay $20 and be a notary. It is a true profession. It has also been a goal of mine to dramatically cut down on reading posts on Guatadopt to weed out as much negative press as possible about these adoptions and focus on the positive.
That thought makes me wonder what would actually happen if we all started focusing on the positive aspects as minute as they may seem at many moments. If we are not positive we cannot attract positive to us. If we keep trashing the Guatemalan adoption situation it will without doubt keep getting worse. I will be the first to admit I have been guilty of this negative thought pattern. If we as PAP's want to do all we can, then why not start focusing on the good? There must be success stories happening every day, why aren't we hearing them?
Today is a great day!
Posted by: pt at March 11, 2008 11:29 AMKevin (and Susana, if you have insight on this),
I'm waiting to complete the adoption of my baby begun in 2007 and duly registered with the new CNA. My process has been very transparent and I'm quite certain there has been no corruption, and have complete confidence in everyone I've been working with.
I'd like to submit a second I600A application before the April first Hague deadline in the US, in case Susana is right about the challenge to Ortega and the notarial system is reinstated in Guatemala. My question is this:
Since my original home study and USCIS approval was for the adoption of up to 2 children and I'm only adopting one now, could I request an extension of the current I600A approval (before April 1st)and begin a second adoption under that if the notarial system is reinstated? Would the US consider that acceptable if I submit the request before April 1st? Or, if I submit a new application (before the April 1st deadline), will the USCIS approve it even though the current one is still effective? I don't mind submitting (and paying for) a new request if needed. I can't get another home study done before then, but could get that done as soon as possible after submitting the new application.
What do you recommend?
Ruth
Posted by: Ruth at March 11, 2008 10:15 PM