The timing of this story is a bit disturbing. and it makes sure to reference the 2900 cases pending and says they dont have rhe manpower to investigate those cases.. My heart goes out to all the waiting families and especially to ones affiliated with Casa Quivira.

Kevin,

I think you need to take the quote about CQ being considered "Guatemala's best adoption agency" in context -- it, and a few other hogars, work/ed directly with many US families and were licensed by at least one Guatemalan ministry to handle adoptions. The article was referring to the much smaller subset of Guatemalan entities able/authorized to handle adoptions -- not to the much larger universe of US adoption agencies with programs in Guatemala.

I don't know who supplied the quote, but those of us who've adopted in the past from there can speak to the quality of the care that the children received.

The fraud mentioned in this article is almost our story. No, we were not with CQ but our lost daugher, but forever in our hearts, Trinity, was a victim of identity "cover up". Her original paperwork stated she was born in a hospital in GC to one woman that was married....then her "corrected" paperwork stated she was born at home to a 19 year old single woman who happened to the be younger sister of the first woman......
If anyone would like our story, please feel free to contact us.

I totally agree with you. As an adoptive parent still is process (just left PGN 2 weeks ago)I felt degraded by his article and it made it sound that most adoptions from Guatemala are fraudulent and I did not appreciate the comments he made about the 2900 in process cases, as he insinuated that it was a shame they would go through as probably most of these children have fraudulent documents, which is a lie. I also wondered about the CQ quote of being the most reputable agency, as another innuendo to again insinuate that the rest must really be bad.
Keep up the good work,
Don

I actually agree with Kevin's reading of the use of that phrase 'best adoption agency' - I also can speak to the standards of care that CQ gave my child - but in the context of the article this phrase does not make sense except as Kevin explains. I do think he is accurately assessing the motives behind this article (which are not about telling a truthful or considered story about adoption in Guatemala) As chris posted - the timing of this article is a bit disturbing and implies that all adoptions grandfathered are somehow under suspicion. We can only guess at the motives behind this.

As Kevin says, this story is missing VITAL information.

The prosecutor is pushing to offer NO amnesty for any birthmother who used a false ID. He wants to prosecute them also... this is sick really as everyone knows that most of these women are illiterate and therefore unable to do such a thing as complicated as fake an ID.

What is missing from the story--"why" these women take part... they do NOT have any "rights to privacy" in Guatemala. The right to chose to adopt a child out in Guatemala is completely LEGAL, but is now considered a bad thing by society, government, and now the international community.

These women use false IDs for a variety of reasons: They get hunted down by UNICEF and Casa Alianza-types, they get beaten by villagers and police, they may be married and can't adopt to a US citizen per US law, they are underage and the adoption process forces all family members to sign off, or they may be like many, many Latin Americans and just simply do not have their own birth certificates (which they need in order to adopt out).

The right to adopt out a child is just that...a RIGHT and a LEGAL right at that. This right is being taken away from all birthmothers.

As usual it is the poor, undereducated women and children of a society that suffer---ALWAYS.

Who can help them? Susana Luarca---can you assist?

My first adoptions completed in 2000, so I feel a teensy bit safer in wondering about them, but I reel every time I hear of a new form of fraud. When we began our adoption journey in 1999, we knew none of this. Even when we had our journey through the Hague nightmare of 2003, we had no idea the ways in which documents could be, and were, manipulated. Thankfully, that adoption was, I hope, one of the more transparent, honest adoptions out there.

One of the tricky things about life in Guatemala is that many are "married" and many are Married. Many live as married, as common law married, without a marriage certificate or legality to the relationship. What is not clarified here is whether or not "married" means common law or just those with documents.

And what happens when the husband leaves the family because of a preganancy? Is that a "divorce" so to speak?

On the one hand, it terrifies me that Guatemalan officials can come to the U.S. and try to remove our children, even after they have become citizens. Sure, they have become citizens under "false pretenses," but somewhere there should be some sense of humanity in this. Usually, when wrong-doers are punished, it directly affects the one doing the wrong. If this happens, it hurts everyone but the one doing the wrong.

My only assurance is that Guatemala has so little resources to do what is already on their plate that they will not try too hard to "reclaim" any chidren.

I hope Guatadopt will use its resources and contacts to clarify with officials in Guatemala that there are no plans to go through every completed adoption and attempt to reclaim kids that were adopted in good faith by American families.

I also hope Guatadopt will clarify that it is safe for adoptive families to travel back to Guatemala with their children. Many of us out there have gone/plan to go and it is a terrible thing to contemplate that our efforts to teach our children about their birth country may result in them being torn away from the only families that they know.

This snowballing story has worrisome implications not just for the many families who've adopted over the years from Casa Quivira but for all 30,000+ children adopted from Guatemala to the US since adoptions from there began. There have been many agencies over the years that have been exposed/experienced difficulties -- are all these families in danger too?

Guatemalan prosecutor: no amnesty for moms who used false IDs to give babies up for adoption

LINK: http://www.pr-inside.com/guatemalan-prosecutor-no-amnesty-for-r480962.htm

© AP
2008-03-12 04:53:46 -

ANTIGUA, Guatemala (AP) - Guatemalan prosecutors ruled out amnesty Tuesday for birth mothers who used false identities to surrender their babies to an agency where 46 children being adopted by U.S. families were seized in a raid last August.
The probe of the Casa Quivira agency turned up a slew of irregularities, including at least
five cases in which birth mothers were allegedly provided with false identities to avoid having to obtain permission from family members and a judge to give up their babies.

Eighteen other mothers could not be found under the identities provided in the case files, prosecutors said.
«We can't give them amnesty,» Prosecutor Jaime Tecu told The Associated Press. «My role as prosecutor is to prosecute anyone who used falsified documents to fool the justice system.

The lack of amnesty could be a powerful deterrent to resolving the cases and reuniting these babies with their adoptive families in America.

Unless the mothers come forward as their true selves and allow any family member with a claim to the children to properly renounce their rights before a judge, these babies will never have their adoptions finalized and be granted a U.S. visa, according to Guatemalan and U.S. officials.

«We've asked for the adoption process to be halted,» said Nineth Guevara, who runs a section of the Solictor General's office that supervises adoptions. «If the children's mothers come forward and demonstrate their consent, we'll let the adoptions go forward. If not, we won't.

The fraudulent documents were likely prepared by experts on behalf of the birth mothers, who in many cases are illiterate and could not have done it by themselves, Solicitor General Mario Gordillo has told the AP.
But Tecu, who is prosecuting Casa Quivira's notary and lawyer on charges of fraud and people trafficking, says the government cannot ignore the responsibility of the birth mothers who repeatedly presented themselves as someone they were not. Guevara agreed that any evidence of false documents being used must be submitted for prosecution.

A judge was scheduled to determine Tuesday whether the notary and lawyer would be tried, but put off the decision for another day. In two of the five alleged false identity cases, the birth mothers assumed the identities of babies who were stillborn two decades ago. Two other mothers stole the identities of living women whom prosecutors later located.

The adoptions won't go through in these four cases until government officials look for immediate family, Guevara said.
If no relatives are found, the government will declare the children abandoned, and they could then go to their U.S. adoptive parents under a new law that took effect this year, members of the new National Adoptions Council told the AP.

The fifth child, Luciany, is already an American citizen, growing up in Indiana with her adoptive parents, Mary and Michael Ball. Prosecutors re-examined her case after her adoption was approved and discovered that her married birth mother had a second identity created as a single woman.

Only single mothers can unilaterally give up their babies.
In cases where the biological parents are married, a judge must decide that both parents have formally abandoned the child, in which case the baby would be put in a state orphanage and out of the reach of the old, notary-run adoption industry.
In Luciany's case, Guevara said authorities will try to find the girl's real biological family to determine if they want her back. If they are not successful, Luciany, at least, will stay.
«We'll try to locate the child's father and her immediate family,» Guevara said. «If we can't find them, in my opinion we can't take this girl away from the family she already has.

Reposted by Marie, Guatadopt.com 2:14pm

The decision of the Guatemalan prosecutor Jaime Tecu to deny amnesty to the birth mothers who falsified their documents punishes the victims. Where is the justice in this? Nineth Guevera, supervisor of adoptions in the Solicitor General's office will not let adoptions of these children go forward unless the mothers come forward to accept their punishment. Where is the justice in this? Who is representing the needs and rights of the children whose infancy is gone and whose babyhood is passing as the justice system rattles it's sword? Day after day these children awake in their cribs searching for the familiar face that will look back at them with a smile that tells them that they are the most important thing in the world, that they are safe and that they are loved.

I just started catching up on my reading today and saw the article that Marie posted in the forum and wanted to say that this does sound like a hard punishment for the biomoms.

But, the truth is that when corruption continues for so long without consequences, then it takes examples and strong punishment of crime to show that the corruption will not be tolerated any longer.

I wish that they could be just as hard with "no amnesty" on those facilitators and attys who helped the biomoms falsify the documents.

Now, I know some of you give me a hard time for my all caps usage, lol, but here I go with some very important info to share!!!

THE EMBASSY TOLD US IN OUR MEETING THAT 90+ % OF BIOMOMS RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR HANDING OVER THE CHILD. I'VE SAID THAT A MILLION TIMES ON THIS SITE AND OTHERS, BUT WHAT I HAVE NOT REVEALED WAS A STRATEGY TO BE USED IF ANYONE TRIED TO TAKE A BABY AWAY FROM THE PAP AND THAT IS THE FOLLOWING: THE BIOMOM WHO RECEIVED PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR GIVING HER BABY UP, REALISTICALLY PUT HER BABY IN DANGER TO BEING SOLD.

NOW WITH THE EMBASSY SAYING THIS IS 90+% OF ALL ADOPTION CASES, THE % THAT THE BIRTHMOMS THAT RECEIVED PAYMENT OF BABIES IN US, WOULD BE VERY HIGH.

SO, IF THE GUAT GOV ATTEMPTS TO TAKE A BABY IN THE U.S. BACK, THEN THE PAP CAN GET ASYLUM FOR THEIR CHILD, SEEING THAT THE BABY'S MOTHER PUT THE CHILD IN DANGER AND ALSO THAT THE GUAT GOV, UNTIL RECENTLY DID NOT PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM BEING COMMODITIES AND THE CHILD COULD BE IN DANGER AGAIN, IF THE CHILD WAS GIVEN BACK TO THE BIO FAMILY OR SENT BACK TO GUAT. ASYLUM COULD PROTECT THE CHILD FROM GETTING SENT BACK TO GUAT. SEEING THAT IF THE CHILD WAS SENT BACK, THEY COULD BE IN DANGER AS THEY WERE ALREADY A VICTIM OF THE OLD ADOPTION SYSTEM where 90+% of biomoms were being paid to hand over their child.

Now, if the child was kidnapped and the family reported that to the authorities and public ministry and there is documentation that the child was stolen and there is a matching of DNA, then I do feel that the child, even if in the U.S. should be returned to his family, since the child was stolen, the family reported it when it happened and the DNA matches.

------
Marie, posted this info on the forum: GT NEWS: No Amnesty for CQ biomoms for fake docs....

Guatemalan prosecutor: no amnesty for moms who used false IDs to give babies up for adoption

LINK: http://www.pr-inside.com/guatemalan-prosecutor-no-amnesty-for-r480962.htm

Hi Kevin and Kelly,
I would like to second the comments made by the 'worried parent'. We are parents of 2 children adopted from CQ. We have open adoptions with their first families and we have no concerns about the ethics of their adoptions and any information we received in the dossier has proven to be accurate. However the recent comments in the AP articles are terrifying and we would really appreciate it if you could use some of your influence to find out if there is a real threat to families who are now home. it is frankly unbelievable that adoption orders can be overturned and it seems to fly in the face of all that adoption stands for.
Any feedback on this would be so appreciated. Thanks for all you do.

Based on this article, my wife and I feel we have no choice but to seek legal advice on what to do in the event that Guatemala attempts to recover children who have already been placed in homes within the US.

Obviously, this is extremely unlikely, but the risk is far too great to ignore. There seems to be a tremendous groundswell of anti-Guatemala information out there right now, and personally, I would not travel back there at this time, even though our adoptions are completed.

I'd rather be safe than sorry. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but that's the way I feel right now.

Perhaps the State Department could issue an advisory -- it publishes all sorts of advisories warning Americans about travel conditions in various countries and possible dangers. Perhaps the State Department should be issuing an advisory warning Americans with Guatemala-born kids to refrain from traveling to Guatemala for the time being? It really would be helpful to have some clarity about this.

Juez pospone fallo para dos abogadas de Casa Quivira
>>Judge Postpones Judgment for Two Casa Quivira Lawyers

19:46 | 12/03/2008
Un juez local pospuso hoy por 24 horas su resolución sobre si abre o no juicio contra dos abogadas de la agencia Casa Quivira, a quienes la fiscalía acusa de captar menores para adopciones irregulares.

>>A local judge postponed today for 24 hours his decision about whether to open or not a trial against two lawyers from the Casa Quivira agency, whom prosecutors accuse of kidnapping children for irregular adoptions.

“Fuimos en la tarde y nos dijo que quizá el jueves tendría la resolución hecha” , dijo el abogado de una de las acusadas, Eduardo Castellanos, al referirse al nuevo retraso en la apertura a juicio.

>>"We went in the afternoon and he said to us that perhaps on Thursday he'll have a decision prepared," said the lawyer for one of the accused, Eduardo Castellanos, refering to the new delay in launching a trial.

Castellanos defiende a Vilma Desiree Zamora, quien junto a Sandra Leonardo están acusadas por la Fiscalía de Trata de Personas ya que existen graves irregularidades en los expedientes de al menos cinco de los 46 niños hallados en Casa Quivira durante una redada en agosto pasado.

>>Castellanos is defending Vilma Desiree Zamora, who together with Sandra Leonardo are accused by the prosecution of human trafficking, while there already exist serious irregularities in the cases of at least 3 of the 46 children seized during a raid last August.

Las abogadas trabajaban para el estadounidense Clifford Phillips, quien se encuentra prófugo en Estados Unidos. La fiscalía obtuvo una orden de captura en su contra debido a las irregularidades en el caso.

>>The lawyers worked for US citizen Clifford Phillips, who is a fugitive in the United States. The prosecution obtained a warrant against him due to the irregularities in the case.

Durante la audiencia para convencer al juez de abrir a juicio el fiscal Jaime Tecú argumentó que en dos de los cinco casos, las madres suplantaron la identidad de dos niños que nacieron muertos hace 20 años, mientras que en otros dos tomaron la identidad de mujeres que, al ser ubicadas por la fiscalía, aseguraron nunca haber dado niños en adopción.

>>During the hearing to convince the judge to open a trial, prosecutor Jaime Tecu argued that in two of the five cases, the mothers assumed the identity of two children who were born dead 20 years ago, while in two others, they took the identity of mothers that, upon being located by the prosecution, stated that they had never placed children for adoption.

La quinta, una mujer que dio en adopción a una menor que ya está en Estados Unidos, tramitó su identificación tres meses antes del nacimiento de su hijo. En esta identificación, la mujer, llamada María Natividad Hernández aparece como Orbelina Dávila.

>>The fifth, a women who placed for adoption a child already in the United States, obtained her ID three months before the birth of her child. In this ID, the women, named Maria Natividad Hernandez, appears as Orbelina Davila.

De los 46 niños, 10 ya están en Estados Unidos. Del resto, hay 18 cuyas madres no han sido localizadas y que, por esa misma razón, la Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN) -la instancia de gobierno que supervisa las adopciones- ha dicho que no autorizará sus adopciones.

>>Of the 46 children, 10 already are in the United States. Of the rest, there are 18 whose mothers have not been found and, for this very reason, PGN, the governmental body supervising adoptions, said that it will not authorize the adoptions.

La defensa de Zamora y Leonardo ha asegurado que ellas no podían saber de la falsedad en los documentos y argumentó que en todo caso la fiscalía deberá perseguir a las madres y no a las abogadas que, junto a Phillips, dirigían la Casa Quivira.

>>The defense for Zamora and Leonardo has stated that they could not know the falseness of the documents and argued that in any case the prosecution should pursue the mothers and not the lawyers who, together with Phillips, ran Casa Quivira.

Tanto la fiscalía como la PGN han dicho que procesarán a las madres que utilizaron documentos falsos.

>>Both the prosecution and PGN have said that they will prosecute mothers who used false documents.

Kevin; I respect you enough to not let you get away unchallenged.

1) Give a little grace to Llorca. The article came out now, because the case occurred now. If you applied this kind of evaluation to the posts and comments of Susana, she would not bear up as well as Juan Carlos. I don't know him, and do not know his motives, but the facts are that fraud occurred in multiple cases.

2) Focusing on the least insidious example, of falsifying documents so that a woman could change her marital status, seems to me to be the same kind of tactic as stating that Casa Quivira is "the best" to smear the adoption world at large, as you so correctly pointed out.

3)You have a well earned reputation for fair and balanced evaluations and website. But your slanted evaluation of this story does not help anyone, as you have caused your readers to think that "nothing really bad happened at Casa Quivira", but then hedged the bets by arguing that Casa Quivira should not be considered a stellar example of the people involved in adoptions in Guatemala. Which is it?

4) These are hard times, especially for the people who are the true unknowing victims of this incident: the Prospective adoptive parents, who ( as well as their potential children) are the only ones not in it for the money. But not acknowledging the reality of the deception and it's effects on the innocents causes the attitude seen in comments here that say the Guatemalan investigators, who are trying to get to the bottom of things in very difficult circumstances and a very tilted playing field, are the bad guys.

5) ( and final) what percentage of corruption in a given system would you deem sufficient to be considered "rife"? Apparently 12 of the 46 Casa Quivira cases have been verified as clean. That means that 34 (74%), when subjected to a real attempt at investigation, could not stand up. Airstar98 has said the embassy says that 90% of the adoptions are illegal according to Guatemalan laws ( although You and I do not agree with the law prohibiting payment to a birth mom...it is the law)

It had to change. Now let's hope we can get a process that will allow children to find families, without perverting Guatemala.

John: It is that kind of emotional thinking that makes one a target of sham artists who will promise you a level of security that is completely unattainable in this world. Please be careful as you consider your options, and get advice from close friends. You are vulnerable. God Bless you. What Airstar98 had to say should alleviate some of that concern. The system's weakness may be your strength against any official action against ANY adoptive parent.

Joanne;

I agree with you, that once again, the poor and marginalized will bear the brunt of the consequences of the actions powerful and conniving people used in conjunction with them. So the question is: Who should be held accountable? Until people like the posters of Guatadopt SHOUT out against the true perpetrators, this will remain a sad reality.

This site was bombarded with the sanctimonious edicts of the owners of Casa Quivira...saying there was no substance to the government's actions against them. Now that the actions have been justified with clear evidence of wrongdoing, they have said it was the birth mother's fault. Puro Pisto!

So at this point, where does everyone stand?

34 children in limbo at best.

34 paps having paid ??? with nothing to show for it.

34 Birth mothers either hiding or in risk of indictment.

You can either say the Birthmoms are evil scheming desperate women, or that the Government investigators have made it all up, or ... that people got caught systematically using falsified documents.

It used to be that one was warned that if you rolled the dice, you paid the price. In this instance, it seems that Casa Quivira rolled the dice, and everyone else paid the price.

1.) I have no grace for sloppy journalism. I raised a couple of what I think are valid criticism of the content.

2.)Perhaps you’re right but that’s what we keep hearing about. I am very curious about the mention of a mentally incapable birthmother. But if that one was something as atrocious as it sounded, I somehow have to assume it would be the central story.

3.)Not a stellar example. Blatant disrespect of the rule of law and now bullsh*t excuses. But one thing I do know as an adoption advocate and overall rebel… Just because a law says something must be a certain way doesn’t make it right. I think it is fair to separate moral issues from legal ones. That doesn’t change the fact that when you get caught breaking a dumb law, you have to stand accountable.

4.) No, in actuality, mostly in private discussions, I have been understanding of the MPs and the time it has taken. And you know I am in tune with the pain of the PAPs. Would you like to see my phone bill? The deception as you call it has undeniably hurt many people and possibly jeopardized the future of innocent children. That’s serious stuff.

5.) 100% need to follow the law. And the laws need to be better. And the laws need to be enforced consistently. And people guilty of far worse things should have been prosecuted first! That doesn’t say good things about a system that absolutely had to change.

My peeve with the media is when they bring stuff up and don’t explain it, ultimately misleading the average reader. How hard would it be to say that the most logical reason for the married lady’s false i.d. was to circumvent US immigration law? Was that not a relevant fact in the context of the story being told? Why was it ignored and even in the “no amnesty” story not properly or clearly stated?

Hope that makes it clearer…

Paz,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

A big deal is being made of the fact that the MP cannot locate many of the birthmom's of Casa Quivira's children. Honestly, that doesn't suprise me. More than one CQ bmom has been "abused" by the MP. I know this because our bmom was one of them. She was lied to and emotional abused by members of the Ministerio Publico. Other bmom's received worse treatment. The judge of the children's cases has the testimony of these bmoms to prove it. So, if I was a bmom of a CQ parent would I make it difficult for people to find me? Absolutely. These women are vulnerable and scared, and I can't blame them. They and their have already endured enough and should be treated with respect.

Any news about new cases registered with the CA coming out of the PGN?
Vince

Kathy;

What abuse has occurred that would make these women not cooperate with their children having a chance[the only one at this point] of being united with the adoptive family who has committed their lives and honor in some cases mortgages to give a wonderful?

State the abuses that the MOP have perpetrated to the Human Rights commission. The system will not work if everyone complains, but does not do something positive.

I have also adopted from CQ and have made contact with my daughter's first family. All of the information provided was 100% accurate.

Steve - are you seriously asking why 'these women' would not cooperate with authorities who have just officially confirmed that they themselves will be prosecuted? have you lived as a disadvantaged woman in Guatemala? or are you afforded the advantage of being white? I can thoroughly understand why 'these women' (the first mothers of our children) might be less than trusting of the MP and authorities in Guatemala. Go read the report just published by the US embassy on Guatemala and read the section on the MP and domestic violence (in fact read it all). I know you live in Guatemala, but don't imagine that you fully know how 'these women' feel and think - I can only guess at their feelings as these events have unfolded. My heart genuinely hurts for the children caught up in this and growing older each day as adults pontificate ... and the mortgages of the PAPs are not likely to be of great concern to a woman who is struggling to get by and probably care for other children too.

Steve,

It is not my place to point out specifics, but threats to loved ones (including children) have a way of making people fear those in power. This isn't a new tactic in Guatemala or anywhere else in the world, particularly where there is such an imbalance of power.

As for revealing the info, that would largely be in the hands of the judge as she is the one with the documentation.

I would love nothing better for the world to know the abuses that take place within governments. One of the more aggravating aspects of adoption reform in Guatemala is the assumption by so many that the corruption is entirely with the attornies (and their associates)and could not possibly not include governmental employees/officials.

All of this discussion about CQ seems to be drifting away from some of the real issues--falsified documents. I am certain that some falsified documents originated in the US--specifically home studies that did not really disclose all of the information about the families and singles that were adopting from CQ. Then couple that with issues of Cedulas(BM identification) and other issues... At the end of the day, we can argue about who made the reports--concerned citizens of Antigua or not--and whether things got sloppy or actually criminal. I don´t have those answers to that, but would err on the side that things started out innocently enough and then ran off track as demand grew. The answer lies in the fact that things have gotten out of control and now it is time to identify what happened or is happening and sort through it in the best interests of all involved. Adoption is far too serious of a transaction to complete without full documentation. CQ is in the spotlight and for whatever reason the microscope is being used. It really does not matter what the reason is. What matters is that children are relinquished correctly--I just can´t imagine that anyone here on this forum would argue otherwise.

Because you have identified yourself as a CQ parent, I will take the time to answer what may have been a rhetorical question on your part. My issue is not with the poor women, but with the people who are feeding people like Kathy a dizzying amount of spin.

I understand the deep emotional strain this has on many innocent honorable and mortgaged clients of Casa Quivira. How, you ask? I have lost children in whom I have heavily invested, to the malicious actions of others. They should never have been put in this position. It is a horrible place to be, and one who is in it wants to say there must be some way out of it. Then you realize it is in the hands of people who don't and never did care for the children, much less your feelings. Then you feel murderous. Helpless. Angry just doesn't begin to describe it.

I am not the smartest person in the world, but I think we can all read between the lines and see what is reality, and what is spin.

Kathy stated: "She was lied to and emotional abused by members of the Ministerio Publico. "

Being lied to and treated in any number of ways that could be labeled "emotional abuse" at the hands of a bureaucrat sounds pretty tame, yet is being used by Kathy as justification for how CQ did business. Threats and intimidation are emotional abuse, but rudeness or even making one wait in line have been called abuse also. Experience has taught me that when people are trying to make a point, phrases like "emotional abuse" mean the latter examples, else they would have been more specific.

Kathy then said " Other bmom's received worse treatment."

The funny thing is, that even though it seems like spin was occurring, I believe that. Poor women get the worst of all worlds here: economically, legally, religiously, and gender-ly. I have spoken with women who had many heinous crimes committed against them. And I have seen how apathetic the people paid to protect them have been. I have seen how the women whose baby's were stolen from them were treated. Often, the police and MP and Human Rights have assumed in the past that a report of a stolen baby was an adoption deal gone bad, and only by the persistence of these hurting women, was that assumption overcome.

The sworn statement of these women is that they wanted their baby to have a better life. I have seen how the poor women in this country sacrifice at a level no American, man or woman can appreciate, to try and give their children a better life anyway they can. So my question was: "What level of abuse would make a woman abandon her child to the whims of the courts after she has declared her sacrificial wish to lose that child's presence forever so that it might live in the U.S.?"

I don't think you all would opt for doing away with speeding tickets or other law enforcement practices in your neighborhood. It would be chaotic quickly. If the allegations cited in the press are true, these women, for whatever motives, were involved in breaking the law, and committed crimes. Even if they knew what they were doing** it is very much like the story of Jean val Jean [sic?] in Les Miserables, who was sentenced to life in that awful prison for stealing to feed his family. THE BIG DIFFERENCE here, though, is that it is as if someone aided and financed Jean's stealing the bread, made a lot of money in the process, documented the incident with a paper trail that led to him, and then dumped him on the mercy of the court.

Making excuses for the breaking of the law as a standard practice in the adoptions industry in Guatemala does not help those birth moms, or the millions of other poor women one bit. Guatemala is changing. There are many people in the PNC, and MP and PGN who want to do a correct job. But the transition will be messy, as the old ways morph. There is need for compassion for the people caught in the middle, like these moms. And there is need for people who see abuses to REPORT IT! Don't say you care about the poor women of Guatemala, and then say you will do nothing when you hear of or see abuse.

** Two predictions I cannot prove, but am willing to lay money on.

1) Some of those moms did not know they were breaking the law. The tramite of documents here is a second hand event even when everything is completely legal. This suggests to me that, if it wasn't outright slate of hand (Sign here, we will keep the documents for you) someone could have given a reason believed by these women to use different data. An old story here goes that many people paid lawyers to register their land when the government started requiring it. The lawyers took the money, and had the people sign papers that said: "I give this land to this lawyer" in legalese. Then the police were used to forcefully evict them from the land that was not theirs "legally". So, who abused them? The police? The Law? Or those who manipulated their knowledge of the law to put them in a vulnerable position?

2) I believe that if these women came forward, they would not suffer. I believe if they cooperate, they will not spend a minute in jail, or be mistreated. I think we could make that happen with the collaboration of the press, and the human rights groups here. I would be glad to be an observer to guarantee their rights as I have done for dozens of women in the past. They would face trial, and maybe they would be convicted and given a sentence in accordance with compassion, and their willingness to say who manipulated them. THAT is why they cannot be found, and the people who manipulated them are not cooperating, but are rushing forward to say it is a safety issue, and fear of abuse by the authorities.

Steve,

Spinning is a two-way street and you are doing a far better job of it than CQ seems to be doing.
To suggest as you are that the people who manage CQ don't care for the children is just BS - many of us have adopted over the years and we've visited the home, met the owners and staff, and seen firsthand how these children are loved and cared for.

You talk about the commodification of children but you seem just as guilty of it -- that these kids, who were placed by a judge TEMPORARILY with you, somehow became your personal property.

Moreover, to minimize Kathy's experience -- and more importantly, the experience of the birthmother of the child she hopes to adopt -- is either naive or malicious on your part. You yourself have noted in previous posts that adoption is heavily political in Guatemala -- don't you think it's possible that this whole case against CQ is just politics at its worst? This happens in our country, so why do you think it can't happen in Guatemala?

Read the human rights reports (or have your anti-adoption friends in Casa Alianza give them to you) and see how women are treated. Women in Guatemala are victimized every day by the government in countless ways -- why don't you believe that the MP is capable of using its immense power to terrify poor, often illiterate women? These aren't just bureaucrats, Steve -- these are law enforcement officers who can threaten these women with prison if they don't give the MP the story that the MP is looking for.

Steve,
Just google women in Guatemala and see if any of the human rights organizations would agree with you that these women would be safe. I would lay money on your second prediction being 180 from the truth.
jandc

You may believe that these women would not suffer or be mistreated, but that does not make it a fact.

Speaking of facts, I think that I used the mistreatment of birthmothers by the MP as reasons why birthmothers would make themselves hard to find...the statement had nothing to do with CQ. Please pay attention next time.

Dear anonymous poster (who is involved in this issue: how? Like Susana says: identify yourself ;-)

Please re-read all of my words, and see that my chief concern is the poor women of Guatemala and their children.

Your words suggest that the children were not the personal property of a home to which they were assigned by a judge. This implies that they are someone else's personal property.

This Idea of children in dire straits being anyone's "personal property", instead of precious human beings with rights and inherent sacred humanity is just wrong, and a result of the slippery slope of treating children's futures in a "free market" atmosphere. I think this points out one of the chief reasons why the "one Attorney" system of adoptions is problematic.

Re who is better at spinning:

Eventually, truth will beat spinning. When the facts were obscured, Spin controlled much of the discussion. But as the facts come out, the spin is more readily seen for what it is.

Re Corrupt government officials:

Let's apply logic:

1) What does MP gain by harassing these women? Money? From whom? Fame? A sense of power? What?

2) What, other than money, corrupts Government officials?

The Government of Guatemala has a horrible, well deserved reputation. That was business as usual. Things are slowly, painfully changing. There is more transparency in the Guatemalan Government today than ever before. But it is nowhere near perfect. The choice for all involved right now is to determine if they want to be part of the old corrupt past, or part of the future. And: Do you want to support corruption, or expose it? Do you think accepting and collaborating with corruption helps poor women or hurts them?

Kathy;

You justify these women participating in falsifying documents, and then hiding themselves from the authorities, which, according to the article in the post, is how CQ did business.

Actually I have never even mention the women falsifying documents. All I have been discussing is the women who can't be located...the article mentioned women (not including those that have falsified documents) that the government hasn't been able to locate...it is these that I have been referring to. I also haven't been referring to CQ, nor their practices. You seem to be determined to take my comments out of context.

please let us all keep our eyes on the prize, the children being held hostage. Hostage to absent, for whatever reason, birth mothers who freely relinquished them. Hostage to government officials who are trying to do their sworn duty to prove and prosecute fraudulent activity. Hostage to owners, notaries and facilitators who quite possibly will incriminate themselves by cooperating with the investigation. Hostage to reformers, some of whom want to improve the system and some others who want to obliterate it. Who will negotiate for the release of these hostages? Who will answer to them in years to come if they have problems making emotional attachments caused by the many unnecessary months spent in an orphanage? Place them now and prosecute at the leisure of the courts.
Steve,
It is apparent to me that your empathy for the Guatemalan people is genuine. These children need a white knight to expedite what you know in your heart will be their final placement. They will be adopted to the US. Make it sooner rather than later. May the coming spring bring us all new life.
ps. you ask "What other than money corrupts government?" Power!

Steve wrote:
"You justify these women participating in falsifying documents, and then hiding themselves from the authorities, which, according to the article in the post, is how CQ did business."

Steve, your hatred toward CQ seems to be growing daily. This is spiritually unhealthy and does no one any good. This personal vendetta you have against CQ is getting ridiculous. Please let the judges decide what the truth is and stop your self-righteous sermonizing.

Steve,

It really seems that your anger at not being able to keep these kids has blinded you to a few things. You berate Kathy for supposedly justifying the falsification of documents and then claim, based only on press accounts that this is how CQ does business.

You know, CQ has been around for well over a decade. Hundreds of families were created thanks to them. Many families are in contact with their children's first families and know, firsthand, that there was no falsification of documents/identity (otherwise, it goes without saying, they couldn;t have found their kids' birth families).

I'm not saying that it's not possible something could have gone awry, but before you start making unsupported generalizations, you should know that CQ has placed hundreds of kids and many of us know for a fact that the stories of our children's birth families and their identities are indeed true and real.

Finally, Kathy didn't justify falsifying documents -- she merely pointed out the reality that there are cases in Guatemala where people do so and she also has known firsthand, based on what she has said, that her child's birthmother was subject to abusive treatment.

So, step back a bit -- it seems you do a lot of good work in Guatemala but you also seem to have turned this into a bit of an obsession.

The attacks on Steve are not surprising. He bears bad news. I do find it very interesting that PAPs think that they are ADVOCATING for women and expectant mothers of Guate. Well, more bad news...while prosecuting BMs seems outrageous and clearly has a negative effect on investigating wrongdoing, it is important to point out that some of these women will not come forward because of fears greater than prosecution. These fears are much more grave such as belief that they or their family members (i.e. other children) will die for speaking up. While you may not like how Steve tells this side of the story (called Spin), I'd suggest that you think long and hard about the spin that you are hearing from people whose income depends on Guate adoptions. Now, some of those cranking out the spin may well be under the prosecutor's microscope. This is not over.

There is no one more innocent than the children caught in the situation at CQ. Second to them, the PAPs.

Guatadopt is a place where we can express ourselves and learn, but, this back and forth with Steve and families is once again unproductive.

Don't get caught in this debate. Know in your hearts that getting the children to permanency is the right thing to do and do it.

Whether CQ, lawyers etc. did illegal activities or not is to be decided in courts. Certainly it cannot be decided by Guatadopt readers!

Someone mentioned "hostage"---well, that is exactly what is happening to the children. Where are the human rights groups for them? It has been stated in the press that none of the children were stolen/kidnapped from their birth mothers. Morally, ethically nothing else should matter and the children should be released.

Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted, as Kevin always says, prosecute the criminals, not the innocent...

I say, let the innocent hostages go.
nancy

karenms1,

Unless you can say that you are not earning any money due to the US transition to the Hague, I don't think it's fair of you to say that anything CQ (or Susana Luarca or anyone else involved in Guatemalan adoptions) says is tainted by the fact that they have a financial interest in Guatemalan adoptions.

Dear KarenMS1

Steve said: "I believe that if these women came forward, they would not suffer. I believe if they cooperate, they will not spend a minute in jail, or be mistreated."

Steve also wrote: "You justify these women participating in falsifying documents, and then hiding themselves from the authorities." He is making some bold assumptions - that the missing birth mothers are hiding because they, too, used false identification. That is pure speculation on his part.

My own speculation? I think these women have suffered, are suffering and are hiding for fear of their own safety, and the safety and security of their families. Maybe they don't want the entire country to know that they placed a child for adoption.

Give me a break Lee. I have not earned one dime. And, where is the money in this? Adoption agencies are going broke and the ONLY thing I do is work as a VOLUNTEER Hague Evaluator. I have offered some training for agencies on the US-side but there has been no profit. I don't expect any either. In fact, I have spent money from my own pocket that I don't expect to recoup--because I am passionate about this issue. For example, I have offered my services as a social worker (with adoption experience) pro bono to families who are trying to deal with difficult situations--again no profit for me only my commitment because I feel badly for PAPs. You are right, plenty are earning money--or were earning money--but the future is not lucrative. Anyone who knows me is aware that I've spent years volunteering my time for causes in Central America, literally living in Belize and Guatemala and working without income. Por Favor!

Karen;

I need to apologize. You have spoken up for me in the past, and I did not get in here before you were forced to speak up for yourself. John Adams said that silence gives reason to the innuendos and accusations that otherwise are unsubstantiated. He and the men who founded America pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, in a cause they believed in. The overwhelmingly superior British forces were completely surprised, because they could not understand conviction, and honor. It is obvious, that your detractors are making the same mistake.

I think that has been one of the reasons that the Adoption mafia in Guatemala lost the recent battles: they did not expect that people would make a stand unless there was financial gain.

Karen, they don't understand you, because you are a rare bird. (Don't reject me Kevin!!!) Like the Guatemalan Quetzal, and the American Bald eagle.

We need your wisdom and detachment.

Fair enough, karenms1! I still don't think that there could/would be a system for placing children if people aren't able to earn a good living doing so. Most people can't afford to provide for their families by working a job and not expecting any profit from it. And just my personal take -- I'd rather see people earn lots of money handling adoptions than earning money as corporate lawyers or hedge fund managers (I'm an attorney, just for the record, but don't work in the adoption field).

Karenms1
I see here that you wrote that you help PAPs and are a volunteer Hague evaluator... can you help the children and PAPs of CQ?

Don't they need help instead of more ridicule and conjecture? Please consider using your experience and potential contacts to assist these children and families.

Steve, please consider this also. Please help the PAPs and children of CQ. We all know that they did nothing to deserve the horrifying situation they are in.

The children need permanency--even our good friends at UNICEF have acknowledged this in the "Rights of the Child"--- please consider helping.

nancy

I also really appreciate the thoughts and insights of people like karenms. Please don't stop sharing your knowledge. On this site I usually see spin from adoption lawyers (through the PAPs they influence). It is refreshing to see the occasional other view. Readers should be aware that the views that are in the majority here, are often not in the majority in forums of people who have completed their adoptions.
Those of you who are beginning the adoption journey - have much to learn. I hope you are open to it, because your child might be very interested, even if you are not.

Nancy:
If and when the time comes that you need the kind of assistance that I can offer, I'll be happy to help out. To suggest that silence about the problems in Guatemala is the right path, I respectfully disagree. The ONLY WAY that things will change is to be honest. And frankly, we are in the early stanges of a truth and reconciliation process. Because I have friends who are Guatemalans--and not privledged Guatemalans--I have particular views that are informed by them as well as my professional contacts. (I have worked as a health promoter in Guatemala in the past, etc.) By the way, when I worked in Guatemala in the year 2000, I was approached to become an adoption facilitator. I could see that it was a career opportunity in which I could become enriched, especially since I have a professional social work degree as well as enough language skills and contacts in Guate to be sucessful in this pursuit. However, I could see the writing on the wall and I prefer to get a good night of rest after a days work. In good conscience, I knew I could not involve myself in Guate adoptions. In fact, I refuse to do Guate adoption home studies--a practice in which I've been engaged in since the early 1990s (and to this day I work probono with families who are trying to decide what adoption avenue to take--int'l or domestic--I am positive about both except in the case of Guate). I'll stop with that--I've frankly grown tierd of trying to justify my position. Some things are just obvious but PAPs have a particular position due to their stage of understanding. In other words, the punto de vistas are different.

Karenms1,

Some things are not as "obvious" as you state. Even most critics of the old system said that most adoptions were legit but that the problems were growing - and growing out of congtrol.

As an parent-by-adoption, lack of knowledge is not my problem. I read extensively (including what you have to say) on adoption-related issues, am on various listservs related to Guatemalan adoptions even though I adopted years ago, and attend conferences.

This isn't to boast but rather to point out that those of us who have disagreements with you are not ignorant of the problems. What I object to is your broad-brush criticisms of the old system, without any acknowledgment of some of its good aspects (relatively high levels of care and low levels of development delays in children, for example), as well as your seeming unwillngness to open your eyes to the fact that many a-parents (and the number is growing) have contact with their kids' birth families and know that the situation is not as you paint it.

What you fail to acknowledge is that, if there was coercion in the system, it's overwhelmingly the coercion of extreme poverty, which impacts so many aspects of the lives of women who place their kids for adoption.

You also fail to acknowledge the real human impact and cost of moving to a Hague system. Any cost in your eyes seems to be just a dry statistic rather than real children suffering. And you fail to acknowledge that most state-run systems in other countries do very badly by the children who fall into their care -- unless you think that understaffed institutions and malnourished children is the gold standard of child care.

Karenms1 and kl,

Some of us with views different from yours are long-time adoptive parents who read voraciously about adoption, belong to listservs long after our kids at home because our understanding and learning about so many things develops in new directions over time, and attend adoption conferences. So, your condescending view that people with views other than yours are either being spoon-fed by the attorneys or naive PAPs is just that -- condescending.

I happen to think that criticism of the old system is often one-dimensional and based on shoddy research (the infamous ILPEC report, for example), and most definitely is not child-friendly.

The research on child development shows conclusively that the longer a child spends in institutional care without permanency, the greater the damage to that child. Yet karenms1 actively promotes a system (as sadly our government seems to be doing as well) that ignores what is in the best interests of the child from the standpoint of his/her optimal development and security, so that the child can sit in limbo for years while governments engage in a leisurely effort at birthfamily reunion, wider relative adoption, national adoption, and only then, as a last resort, int'l adoption.

Moreover, most critics of Guatemalan adoption don't take the view of karenms1 that such adoptions all are tainted or done only because of coercion. Truly, the coercion that leads to women placing kids for adoption in Guatemala and other countries is the coercion of extreme poverty - punto.

I'd be far more sympathetic to karenms1's views if she acknowledged that children are often gravely harmed by state-run systems, but she seems to ignore all the empirical research -- Romania being one small example.

Moreover, karenms1 really is casting aspersions on everyone's adoptions and ignores the fact that many - and growing numbers of - a-families have contact with their kids' birthfamilies and that they discover that the stories from the birthfamilies are consistent with what they had been told -- that poverty or other extreme personal circumstances compelled them reluctantly to place their child (or children) for adoption.

Informed debate is desirable, but karenms1's views seem one-dimensional.

And, kl, the only adoption attorney I've seen post on here is Susana Luarca. The rest of us seem to be a mix of PAPs and a-parents, with a few others like karenms1 thrown into the mix.

Karenms1--

I am confused by your last submission... I was trying to say that with your considerable experience and contacts, please help the children and PAPs involved in the CQ situation. They did not do anything wrong.

I am not saying that there is no corruption or that things are great in Guatemalan adoptions... that point does not need to be defended with me---I know from first hand experience.

I am asking for you to help the children if you can and let the CQ PAPs know where to turn, how to get help.

Punishing the CQ PAPs endlessly seems counterproductive... why not work together for the health and wellbeing of the children.

nancy

on the other hand, Karenms1 and kl, there are probably a lot more of us who are long-time adoptive parents who read voraciously about adoption, belong to listservs long after our kids at home because our understanding and learning about so many things develops in new directions over time, and attend adoption conferences, who DO agree with your views. With all due respect to Lee, with whose view on this I have long disagreed...

Lisa

how is it that every thread turns into the same old discussions? Nancy has asked twice about REAL help/solutions/aid for the REAL and ACTUAL children caught up in the CQ situation ... so far no-one seems really interested in responding to the situation that this thread title refers to. Every day these children are growing older outside of a family setting - I am sure that we can all agree that this is NOT in their best interests?? no matter how wonderful the care is that they are receiving - being loved in the devastated families that are waiting for them is surely what is best?

does anyone want to HELP ? or offer helpful suggestions? directions? (for the PAPs affected by this who do read this board) or is scoring debating points more important for you all? I feel so frustrated and angry at all the 'caring folk' who are doing nothing to help these children/families ...

by all means - please continue your debate while these children continue to live in an institution today/tomorrow/next week/next month

Karenms1,

To suggest that all on this list are PAPs at the same level of understnading, or even that we are all just PAPs and attnys., and that our level of understanding is all at the low-basic level, or biased to preserve our own interests, is either thoughtless or just naive.

I wish that you would continue to express your views, even though I disagree with many of them, because this is what this forum is for---thoughtful, respectful discussion.

I am very tired though, of your thoughtless, insulting blanket statements grouping all (ie PAP's as the same, all a-parents as the same, all attnys the same--and apparently they are all bad, etc.) as if we are not individuals.

I wish you could try to see more of the good that people do or that people feel and express here.

Yes, some bad things have happened. I agree. But stop trying to villify all of us, or villify all attnys, or claim that non of us are informed on the issues.

and the comments that I find especially offensive are the "told you so" comments that you usually slip in at the end of your messages. I am paraphrasing, but you know what I mean, the comments that say something like, "this is just the beginning of what will be exposed" or whatever.

My point is, people would listen to you better, and perhaps hear your ideas better, if you were more respectful in your delivery, leave out the blanket statements, and stop trying to stab us with the "told ya so's", or make assumptions about what we know and do not know.

Lizzie
Proud Mama to Anarosa since May, 2004
Anxiously waiting for Migdalia since December, 2006
BOTH a PAP and an a-parent, interested in reserchingg Guatemalan issues since early 2003

I'd like to clarify one thing. I have no personal vendetta when it comes to the CQ parents. In fact, this whole mess saddens me for all involved. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain. And, many on this forum undoubtedly know far more about CQ than I know. My comments are in general and LONG BEFORE CQ I predicted something like this would happen. The sentiment about adoption here in Guatemala is such that someone has to be a fall guy--and I have specifically predicted that an American will be thrown in jail. In the case of Cambodia, Lauryn Galindo (a "facilitator") was lucky to have served her time in the US. However, my sense of it is that Guate will prosecute (as is indicated by the nation naming a special prosecution office JUST to pursue adoption fraud issues). By the way, in my opinion, many of the organizations involved in adoption here in Guate would fall short if put under extreme scruitany. Paperwork is sloppy and the system was going as fast as it could with demands for very young children/infants--especially with the impending changes looming. At the end of the day, GREED has caused a lot of problems--and that saddens me because it really destroyed something that could have been a good thing. As I said before, we're in early stages of a truth and reconciliation process. You can try to wiggle out of it, turn a blind eye, or even deny with a variety of arguments, but it won't go away. All I can say is that RARELY does anyone on this forum argue as vigorously for birth mothers and their rights (i.e. a system of unbiased counseling). And, when I see sophisticated arguments about the old 'system' and its merits, this is an obvious oversight because there was essentially no protection of BM rights under the old laws. Now, at least, there is some consideration for them in the new law and it is time to DEVELOP a system that we can all (hopefully) live with in terms of integrity! Of course, the dye has yet to be cast, but I'm optimistic. I can't imagine that anyone here really would argue against integrity...does anyone really want to continue with this mess as it is? Let's be honest! And finally, Lee get your head out of the sand! I know that you are well-intentioned, but really.

The soapbox has been trampled folks. - This is "bickering" that only gets everyone upset and solves nothing. Most of the frustration seems to be that we want to make our points ad nausium. Why not make a few assumptions that are constructive to discussion and get over the soap box stomping:

1) I would be willing to bet that most parents would support PRODUCTIVE processes in place to ensure that the adoption was legal (ie: the birthmother willingly relinquished the child or the child was legally abandoned).

2) I think we are ALL concerned with the fate of the children who are caught in an investigation, stall or are deemed unadoptable when there is nobody to actually step up to the plate and take care of them.

3) I KNOW most of the folks involved in this debate DO feel horrible for the parents caught up in this and would do what they can to help. FYI: Many of you might not realize how much volunteer work has been done not only by Guatadopt Team members, but our commenters. Please do not assume that because we don't advertise every personal detail, that nothing is being done.

4 - We ALL want to see adoptions opened up for the children who legitimately need a family whether we agree on what that entails...doesn't matter.

Point being is that there are a lot of labels, blanket assumptions and tangents that are just simply not productive to the conversation.

Finally, please do not take it as a scolding. We do encourage debate and passion about one's subject is included in the bargain!! This is simply to say...lets think about productive discussion and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Kel

Karenms1,
You mention how the new systems will benefit the birthmothers, but tell me who will be looking out for the children? While they are waiting several years to be adopted, where will they be living? Will they be receiving medical care? Will they be well fed? Who will be looking out for their psychological development?

Do you know anything about RAD, Karen? I am a special education teacher and guess what? I get a LOT of special education students with RAD, and guess where quite a few of them are from? Adopted from state run orphanages in Romania, where there was lack of enough food, lack of developmental relationships with loving adults prior to ONE YEAR OF AGE, lack of proper medical attention, and staying in orphanages until they are older.

Is this what the children of Guatemala have to look forward to in the new system?

I am not saying that the old system didn't need reform, so please do not throw that at me. I am saying that the children were looked after VERY WELL by the private foster families and the private orphanages.

Who is going to step in and do this now, Karen? Who is going to be watching out for the kids? When are the new systems to care for the kids going to be put in place? The need is NOW.

I don't hear anyone talking about that.

Lizzie

I, like Lisa am a *long time* adoptive parent. My first adoption from Guatemala was completed before there was required DNA testing. My second, of an older child, was out of PGN a couple of weeks after the 2nd DNA requirement went into effect.
All I know of Lee, from several listservs is that he appears to be a great dad. He does seem to me to be very one dimensional on this subject. His main themes include children's need for permanency as early as possible (which is real) and that he'd rather see people make a lot of money on adoption work than on the financial markets.
From all accounts CQ took fabulous care of the children in their custody, as do many foster homes and some hogars, but the problem is how do the children get there in the first place.
Along with the right to permanency, children have the right to know that their first mothers made the best decision - and wasn't coerced. More than one person has reported that the US embassy estimates that 90% of birthmoms are being paid. I would rather see those funds used for unbiased counseling for the birthmothers, rather than another variable in the 'choice' the birthmother makes. And I wouldn't place too much stock in birthfamily contact for knowing the whole truth, because birthmothers have already been coached during the adoption to provide their reliquishment decision in 'acceptable' terms, and they are unlikely change their story on meeting/contact with the adoptive parents.
And I'm of the opinion that the large amount of money and the ease of entering the adoption field in Guatemala has led to many of these abuses. I think at this point, the system was too entrenched to make the changes and tweaks that some thought could be made to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad. The buscadoras provide a service that should be handled by salaried social workers who have no monetary interest in completing an adoption. I don't know if that can ever happen, but I think it was way too late to change that withot the dramatic upheaval that we are experiencing now.
Those girls on Dateline who were kidnapped were real and didn't need to be adopted and already had permancency which was stolen from them. The US embassy didn't institute DNA testing in 1998, because only one person posed as a birthmother who wasn't. The embassy didn't institue the 2nd DNA test because there was only 1 case of baby switching DNA fraud. There are real problems, and they were getting worse.
And to conclude, I feel horrible for the innocent PAPs and children caught in the CQ mess. I wish the children could come home, but unfortunately, CQ was the target that Guatemala used to make their point and there is a point to be made.

VJ and others,

I think the reason Guatemalan adoptions became so problematic is not because of the money, nor because of the ease of entry for agencies, but because of the demand -- and the demand was fueled by elements of the system that most of us as a-parents liked: 1) generally good care of the children and 2) relatively early age of adoption in most cases. Very few countries offered these along with openness to a wide variety of families (older parents, singles). Demand was also fueled in my opinion by closings in other countries, such as Vietnam, and/or tightening conditions for adoption.

I don't like to think of myself as one-dimensional in my views on this issue. What I don't accept is the notion that because there were problems, the system had to be shut down. You don't see our own adoption or foster systems shut down because of horrific problems and you most certainly don't see shutdowns because of problems in other fields. Imagine for a minute that we were going to shut down indefinitely all of our country's banks because of cases of insider abuse or that we were going to ban Major League Baseball indefinitely because of steroid abuse by many players.

What is going on in Guatemala and other countries is extreme overreaction to real problems that could be solved much more constructively by other means. Moreover, I think that the problems in Guatemala and other countries represent an excuse for those inciting to end Guatemalan adoptions -- namely opposition to international adoption period. The corruption that occurs is just a convenient reason for those who oppose international adoption, like UNICEF and Casa Alianza, because of the belief that ICA robs a child of his/her birthculture.

I also do not consider it "Reform" when a system shuts down and there is nothing in place to replace it, as we're seeing now. Where is the new government-run system? Where are the social welfare services for women and children who need them? When are they coming? What is the continuing impact of the lack of such services?

People like myself do not oppose things like neutral birthmother counseling. I wish such a thing had been in place long ago. But I'll posit that it's not the fault of the adoption agencies and the attorneys that it's not there. Anything they'd have established would have been suspect. The Guatemalan government, or perhaps our own gov't or UNICEF, could have implemented something like this at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the harm that the shutdown is causing for real-life, flesh and blood women and kids.

Again, Adoption is likened to sports.

Maybe part of the problem, which includes the demand fueled increasingly large sums of money, which, when coupled with dwindling supplies ( not of needy children, but of marketable young ones) motivates less than ethical behavior in meeting the demand, is an incredible ignorance or apathy to the real social needs.

Guatemala does not need to have their children adopted, any more than the U.S. does. Their social ills as a country were not altered one iota (OK, maybe an iota by the kindness of individual adopting families returning, and giving) by the notarial adoption system.

But I might be wrong being upset about Lee's references to baseball. Maybe what you want is a consumer driven pastime; more like Major League Baseball than I realized.

lee, How can you make such a statement as,
"people like myself do not oppose things like neutral birthmother counseling.The Guatemalan gov't or perhaps our own gov't or UNICEF could have implemented something like this at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the harm that the shutdown is causing for real-life,flesh and blood women and kids."

Can you honestly say you and people like you would not have been outraged by even the suggestion of one of the above entities performing birthmother counceling?
Anytime any one has tried to implement anything that didnt involve the attorneys its been like a rodeo(a bunch of bucking broncos).Why?
Dont you think all this bucking has all to do with this final shutdown,I mean really,how long can anyone sit by and watch the show.
People like me put the blame where its due.Its the only right thing to do.

Steve,

You missed the point and I'm disappointed -- your comment about "consumer-driven pastime" referring to my alleged view about adoption sounds like something right out of the handbook of Casa Alianza...

My point was -- and you as a religious figure who deals in human frailty and sin should understand this better than most -- that the field of adoption, while it's special because vulnerable children's lives are at stake, is going to be run no better than the stock market or any religious organization or non-profit because they're run by human beings. All have people in them who screw up, who succumb to greed, or who are just plain incompetent.

Did Casa Alianza shut itself down because of Bruce Harris? Do we ban all televangelists because some of them run off with people's money or lead less than perfect lives? Do we permanently shutter Wall Street because of financial scandals? All of these examples have caused untold real damage to other human beings and yet, somehow they - and we - go on.

Only in the field of adoption is a universal shutdown somehow considered an acceptable regulatory practice/solution even though the people adoption's supposed to help in some way - the kids - did nothing wrong. It's completely A** backwards in my opinion. And only in the field of adoption could basic child development needs be ignored by governments everywhere (including right here in the US) and have this considered somehow to be a best practice.

It also seems to me that you don't know the extent to which adoptive families end up making small differences here and there in Guatemala. No, we're not saints, nor can we even begin to solve big problems, but in a world full of suffering and need, many families look to ease that suffering and need in Guatemala and not . They go on missions with their churches, speak out about Guatemela, give money to charities there etc. That probably does make more of a difference than you're willing to admit.

No, adoption is not a solution to Guatemala's, or any country's, problems. It's a small, weak bandaid, at best, that probably helps to mask much bigger socio-economic problems. But adoption is a need everywhere - because there are kids everywhere who, for whatever reason, do not have a parent or parents who can raise them.

Simplyme,

No, I would not have been outraged if the Guatemalan gov't had set up neutral birthmother counseling. UNICEF, probably another matter, quite honestly because they are not neutral in this at all -- they have long had a strong position against ICA period. They've managed to pretty it up over the past couple of years as the word as gotten out, but they still think a child should languish for years in an institution before having a chance at a home in another country.

For your information, most people who adopted from Guatemala were very happy at what appeared to be safeguards, such as the birthmother having to sign off multiple times during the process. When I was adopting, I knew of families whose birthmothers decided to parent after all and got their children back.

As for attorneys, it seems to me that over the years they've demonstrated willingness to change, including urging the DNA tests. Maybe not as much as you'd like.

Again, with respect to adoptions, I think people have expectations of perfection that just aren't going to happen in an imperfect world. Even in our country, birth parents are exploited. The best you can do is to have a good enforcement system to go after the bad actors and prosecute them vigorously -- and there clearly was no such mechanism under the old system. Even our own embassy, which is supposed to be protecting US citizen parents, didn't pass on troubling information to the Guatemalan government, nor did it maintain bans on certain attorneys.

I'm going to more or less agree with Steve and disagree with Lee here.

Although I'm not offended by analogies, there's a huge difference between business, sports, and adoption as has been pointed out. There's also a big difference between immigrant adoption and domestic. When a child is taken from their home country, natural family, and rightful place, and moved across international borders, the issue become way more complex. I think the analogy someone used once was in a shopping mall, when a child goes missing, they lock down the entire place and don't let anyone else in or out for a period of time. Protecting that single child is well worth the trouble. This is essentially what has happened with Guatemalan adoptions. Even if the percentage was 5% or even just 2%, that's way too many children and mothers being exploited.

I do agree with Lee that shutting down the system is not the final answer, and I pray that's not the case, but just because we are not able to adopt, does not mean we cannot make a difference for the children of Guatemala who need help. We can criticize UNICEF and the Guat government for not providing services, but it's up to us to step up to the plate. If we're only willing to help people because we can adopt their children, then our priorities are out of whack.

One more thing that totally irks me about all of this. Cliff Phillips said as much in one interview - that it's not his responsibility to make sure the facilitators and lawyers on the Guatemala side are processing the paperwork properly.

To that I say WHAT THE....?????
You're darn right it's your responsibility to make sure the people you work with are following legal and ethical protocols. American agencies are the interface for the adoption for us parents. We expect an ethical adoption and you cannot just wash your hands of it because you provided good care for the children and an approved home study. Your character is a reflection of the people with whom you are surrounded. There's no shrugging of shoulders and passing the buck when it comes to children in these circumstances.
Peace,
-GDS

Dear Simplyme,
I am curious who you think the blame lies with? It is almost as if you blame the adoptive parents for making the decision to adopt by attacking Lee. I don't think or at least speaking for myself that we as adoptive parents would object to birthmother counseling. However, I am opposed to a child languishing in a system that keeps them from the most part becoming part of a forever family. I frankly object to our own system here in the USA where they give the birthparent every opportunity to screw up but still maitain their parental right to a child while the child languishes in foster care.

I believe that safeguards could and should have been put in place before the system came to a screeching halt in Guatemala. I only hope that the system is not forever crippled, punishing those children that truly need to find their forever family.

GDSinPA - a few requests regarding language and analogies. You say 'When a child is taken from their home country, natural family, and rightful place, and moved across international borders, the issue become way more complex' I think most people find the term 'natural' quite problematic. I use 'first family' - personally I don't see myself or my family as 'unnatural'. I agree that international adoption carries it's own nuances and complexities but it is not intrinsically more or less complex than domestic adoption.

You talk about the analogy of 'a shopping mall, when a child goes missing, they lock down the entire place and don't let anyone else in or out for a period of time'. I am floored that you seem to be comparing adoption to child abduction/disappearance? can you clarify? you contradict yourself by saying the 'mall' needs to be shut down, but that shutting down the system is not the answer?

I don't have all the answers - but I did feel amazed at some ofyour language and analogies

I see that people are quite resistant to any comparisons with other systems where we punish individual wrongdoers but keep the system running and improve it, as necessary. Which is quite tragic for children, in my opinion.

What people seem to be saying is that children can only be protected by extreme measures like indefinite shutdowns, even though they've done nothing wrong.

I'm not "for" corruption, coercion, or cutting corners in adoption. Quite the contrary, to put it mildly. I just happen to think, and the evidence supports what I have to say in my opinion, that what passes for "regulation" and "reform" in the name of protecting children typically does anything but. Have children in Romania been protected by that country's UNICEF- and EU-inspired shutdown? Are they better off?

Comparing adoption to other endeavors like finance or sports does not mean that I think that adoption is a form of commodities trading or consumer-driven entertainment -- and it's poor logic on the part of too many people posting here who could read that into what I've written.

Adoption is not some celestial endeavor -- it takes place in a real world of problems and attempts, if not to solve them completely, then to at least make a difference for some small number of children.

Only when people start looking for real-world solutions, rather than setting up false analogies and appeals to sentiment, will children truly be protected.

Excellent post Lee!

For whatever reason, it's been interesting to sit back and watch this debate develop.

Lots of valid points by many people who I happen to know/believe are more alike in their views than they realize.

I've learned that everyone WANTS the same thing. The debate should not be over that but over how we get there.

My biggest criticism of Unicef and others has changed. I no longer think them evil, just misguided. It bothers me to no end to see a basic unwillingness or moreso ignorance toward looking inward and evaluating whether their positions and agendas have been truly successful. Who is looking back at over a decade of the Hague and saying "so how is it doing compared to its intent?"

How do we protect women and children without screwing them in the process? That is the real question.

So Lee, thanks for that last post because it gets at this. As soon as "we all" can get down to addressing the real questions, we can start to solve this thing.

Pragmatism... a beautiful thing!

Peace,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

That's what Lee

OK, folks, the analogies to finance and sports (those were just two that came to mind) obviously rankle many.

What about the child care industry? Since children are sacred and can't be discussed in the same breath as non-profits run by child abusers (Casa Alianza a few years back), Wall Street, or MLB, will people agree with me then that anytime there's an abuse anywhere in caring for children -- daycares, nannies, preschools -- we need to have a total indefinite shutdown of existing child care businesses and a ban on anyone getting involved in this activity because children can't possibly be protected any other way and there's no way to oversee these businesses in a way that ensures that there will never ever be a mistake or abuse committed? If not, people, why not? And if not, why do we think that this is how things have to be handled in Guatemala and elsewhere in ICA?

Mary,
I am not attacking Lee,Im disagreeing with Lees words.
Who do I blame?
I blame the US agencies and the attorneys.
This is not a sudden shut down.This is a shut down that occured because of years and years of certain attorneys and certain agencies determined to see how far they could go.Determined to go to any means to line their pockets.
Dont you think I know who is suffering because of this? Of course I do! I know there's children in Guatemala that need families,but needing a family is a whole lot different than being taken from a birth mother and being*sold*.
Youre right a complete shutdown didnt need to happen,but,it did,because everytime there was a threat of putting a hurt on the pocket liners they bucked and bucked.Everything is ALWAYS unconstututional.UNCONSTITUTIONAL?What about whats being done to the birth mothers and the children?Is that not unconstitutional? If its not,lets see to it that it is!!Does anyone realize how many thousands of children will be adults sooner than we think and will be speaking for themselves,the questions will be there but the answers for thousands will be heartwrenching,now thats suffering!

MK - huh?

First, adoption language is one of my sticking points as well. I use the term natural parents at the specific request of some adult adoptees, including family members, and natural mother's that I have gotten to know. I don't have a problem with first family and neither do they, so it's just a preference and I wish to honor that. I can use the term natural for my daughter's biological family and not also consider myself unnatural. I don't think we know each other well enough to judge the motives behind these types of words, so I'm sorry you were offended.

Second, please re-read my post, I did not compare adoption to child abduction. I literally talking about child abduction. You've seen the reports - children are abducted and placed for adoption. Adoption facilitators abduct children and bring them to the US - it happens. The US and Guatemala both have done a poor job at policing the problem. Even banning shady facilitators and shutting down some agencies has not stopped the practice. So they agreed that the system needs to be reformed.

Unfortunately, in the world of international politics, this required a shut down. But the reality is that enough horrible things were happening. Like you noted, in my post that I agreed that shutting down the system was not the final answer - I'm just explaining why it happened. The analogy is consistent because I'm trying to say that shutting down the mall permanently would not solve the missing child - it's only reasonable for a short period of time to gather information and conduct a search in order to protect that child.

The same seems reasonable here - if the parties in question are unable or unwilling to prosecute and clean up the existing system, then a new system should be implemented that contains less weaknesses to exploit. Of course, it remains to be seen if that comes to fruition.

To all, my biggest concern here is that we all somehow think that since adoptions are shutdown that some huge number of women and children MUST fall into crisis. There are abundant opportunities to help in terms of service, education, and through giving. If a large crisis ensues, we can blame the big boys (UNICEF, US and Guat govt) for sure, but if we only point the finger, we will be just as guilty.

I'd like to point out the inherent flaw in many of the arguments that I have read above. There is at least an implicit assumption (and sometimes explicit) that a percentage of irregular cases is an unfortunate reality but not a good enough reason for system reform. I am avoiding the term "shutdown" because I refuse to assume the worst at this point. Going back to the point made by one child theft/abduction and amber alert. Well, there are far more one missing child...on Guatadopt there are five children with problematic matches listed on this site due to issues of sloppy or unethical work. At what point do we all say, with an ethical sigh, that it is time to reform the system? Personally, I can't stomach even one unethical adoption because that means that someone's child was bought of stolen from them. Regardless of the underlying reasons (poverty, etc.) and who is to blame, any % bought/sold/stolen is just wrong. So Lee and others can continue to beat on the drum and cast doubts upon UNICEF and the Hague Convention and I support critical thinking (I happen to have my own concerns about the Hague). But, critical thinking goes both ways...how about some critical thinking about human rights? Sometimes things are just so obvious that they bite you on the rear end! It's time to pay attention and advocate for a reformed system that everyone can live with. What's so hard about that? What is hard is hearing what people have to say about the problems of the system. Reform is only possible when the facts of the past are known. Hence the reason for the Special Prosecutor's continued pressure on CQ--documentation of problems are taking place with CQ as a case study. And we all know that there is a certain amount of unfairness for CQ PAPs (as they suffer being singled out while others glide by), but then what is even more unfair is any birthmother/child who has their identify changed by CQ or any other adoption org. in Guate. Weighing that all out, I advocate for the birth mothers and their children which means that each CQ case has to now be traced back, problems be identified, and some sort of rational solution must be developed in the best interests of the children (including adoption when an assessment indicates this is the best solution). Complicated, yes. However, can we really do anything else? Again, as I said before, the truth and reconciliation process has begun. It'll be uncomfortable, but necessary because a largely unregulated system has run amuck. No big surprise as people (i.e. notaries and others) are not good are self-regulation--just look at the current mortgage crisis in the US or past Savings and Loan problems fifteen+ years ago...self regulation by those making large sums eventually disintegrates into a mess and the government eventually has to step in. And yes Lee, the gov't can really screw that up...but do we have any other choice at this point? Obviously not.

Karenms1,

On some level, I found myself agreeing (shock!) with a good deal of what you posted. Yes, any instance of a child being stolen is one too many. Any alteration of a child's identity is just obscene.

And yes, there needs to be regulation. The problem in my opinion is that more regulation in the adoption context after something blows up usually translates into no adoption -- or years long waits for adoptions, or requirements that effectively make adoption impossible (adopting family has to live in the country for many months). And this is just bad news for children.

I'm also skeptical that you can get to a system where none of the harms you (and most reasonable people) are against takes place -- nothing can be regulated perfectly 100 percent of the time.

Lee - I used to try and fight the good fight as you are doing, in my opinion. I gave up because it's completely clear to me that a few people posting here are clearly not acting in good faith. However, thanks for your efforts.

Your last point is an interesting one: "Nothing can be regulated perfectly 100 percent of the time." We brought our daughter home from Guatemala a few months ago. It made me think as I've often done recently about my own adoption. I don't know exactly why my birth mother relinquished me. I assume because single mothers weren't appreciated too much back in the '60's. But I can't say for sure that it was entirely on the up and up and she wasn't pressured or coerced. However, I will be eternally grateful that I wasn't put in an orphanage and I was placed in a family that wanted me more than anything in the world. I wouldn't change a thing.

Of course, this isn't to say that more effective measures couldn't and shouldn't be taken. But I agree, the focus on perfection to the detriment of the children suggests to me that the goal of many (but not all) is stopping adoptions altogether.

Lee:
Any new system will certainly have flaws. I am worried that Guate will only change the system on paper and continue to have serious issues. For example, Guate may greatly reduce the "profesional fees" officially on a fee schedule and then an under the table bribe scheme emerges to secure healthy children, etc. Bribery has occured in Guatemala, but the expectation that a family travel in with $10,000 USD in cash has not been a dynamic as is currently the case in Russia. I do worry that this will emerge in a new system. However, I am really pleased that we are going to finally see some sort of attempt to get control over the relinquishment process. This is far too of a delicate situation with serious stakes to be essentially unregulated. And, I do agree that whenever governments start to make decisions about what is best for a child, you can be guaranteed that the machine is inefficient and sometimes obscenely wrong in decisions. However, the reality is that the obscenity related to unregulated practices is not tolerable and is far too out of control at this point.

I think everyone can agree that the system needs serious reform. One issue, however, that seems to be a sticking point is how long the new system will take and what effects it will have on the children.

The New York Times just reported on a study that conclusively showed that the IQ of a child who is placed in an orphanage is lower than one who is in foster care. In both cases the child's IQ is lower than if the child stayed with biological parents. they didn't specify whether the foster care was permanent (ie pre-adoption) but the study took five years which indicates that the childen were in foster care for the length of time.

The conclusion was that children should be moved out of institutional care as quickly as possible. After the age of two the damage is permanent.

I desperately want reform so birthmothers are not coerced, etc., but it scares me that some institutions, organizations, etc., would like to see the adoption process drag on for two or more years. I think now we have some empirical evidence that keeping the children institutionalized (no matter what the level of care) can cause permanent damage. (There was also a Canadian study that showed that the longer the child was in an orphanage, the more worse off the child was.)

Whatever system is put into place should strive to have the children adopted as soon as possible. (And yes, that should be possible without corruption.) That doesn't seem to be what is going to happen.

Today was very nice to see, Lee and Karenms1 agreeing on some points and working toward a common goal. It make me realize thought all of us have differant views, but we all one goal
the children

I would generally agree that institutions are not the best place to raise children. But I do take issue when studies indicate permanent "damage" to IQ across the board for children raised in orphanages. Our four kids were raised in a small, private hogar in Guatemala. They received excellent care, went on field trips, celebrated their birthdays with cake and gifts, etc. The older children attend private school, and they all receive excellent medical care. Our children came home at the ages of 4yrs, 4yrs, 10yrs, and 11yrs. While we see some issues that have to do with being raised with 20-30 other children, and while the older ones are behind academically after changing languages, they are also very capable of learning and loving and becoming wonderful adults. It's amazing how far our daughter home at ten yrs has come academically in three short years. She is behind grade level merely because of vocabulary, not IQ. She continues to gain and receives grades weighted the same as her classmates, receiving some true As and Bs. To assume all orphanages are created equal and conversely that all foster families are positive experiences is a stretch. In general, I would agree that children need as small adult to child ratio as possible in an orphanage. That, I believe is one of the biggest issues, that of numbers, as well as the quality of care, of course. I believe it has more to do with the persons giving the care than on just the fact of whether they are raised in a foster home or an orphanage. I comment not just to defend my own children, but also for the many who spent time in an orphanage. Parents don't need to jump to conclusions, just be aware of how to help their child with issues, no matter how they came to be. And while love will definitely solve all issues, becoming part of a family can make up for a great many previous losses.

My above post was meant to read, "And while love will definetly NOT solve all issues...."