Kevin,

Thank you for posting this!

Elizabeth Emanuel

Thanks for posting this. What a powerful video. I have a feeling I will be thinking about this a lot today.

This is an interesting video, and one I don't doubt has merit-particularly for the women featured who are searching for their stolen children. But, what I don't understand is why we should take the report as truth even when there are obvious inaccuracies.
As a side note, I'm afraid this will keep families from attempting to locate their children's birthfamilies. It's one thing to pursue an open adoption, it's another to risk being subjected to DNA rests and an attorney general who wants children possibly returned. (Yes, I realize that the chances of it happening are very slim...but terrifying.)

While I can't even imagine the pain and fear the adoptive parents are likely feeling, in my heart and mind, I KNOW the right thing is to return these children to their families. While the report may contain some inaccuracies, there doesn't appear to be any dispute that these women and their children are victims of a horrific crime (kidnapping). It is disappointing to me, as an American, that our government and official agencies seem to be a bit slow/uncooperative in pushing to get a resolution to these crimes. While my heart goes out to the adoptive families, and while I wouldn't wish this on even my worst enemies, to me, the right thing to do is treat these cases as the crimes they were - kidnapping, and prosecute the horrible people who created this tragedy to exist. Until the people behind the crimes are held accountable, I'm afraid international adoption will always be tainted by the actions of criminals.

This is disturbing to say the least but I appreciate you posting it. Kevin, if you have any additional information or even personal opionions, I'd love it if you could share more.

Specifically, I am wondering what your thoughts were on how widespread this is. Ie, for those of us who had children relinquished at birth, do you think there could be a potential problem? My daughter came home before they imposed the extra birth mother interview, but even so, all the other waiting families were able to locate a birth mother and complete the process. It makes me think I was dealing with legitimate people, but I wonder if thre is something I am overlooking.

Also, something in the interview about rigging the DNA tests, which confused me. If, as one person explained, the mother would use a bio child to confirm DNA and then give up a stolen child, how would this work during the second DNA test: wouldn't that confirm that the babies had been switched?

At any rate, I'd love your opinion on how widespread you think this practice was. While I've come to the painful realization that some mothers may have received money, may even have conceived with the intent of giving up for adoption, this is an entire matter entirely, and I certainly would like to know that it was the very rare exception rather than a commonplace practice. Do you know how many birthmoms in Guatemala are making these claims? Many thanks.

Also, do you think the U.S. agencies knew about this practice, turned a blind eye, or what? It is all just so hard to get my head around.

Anon,
I’m not sure how one would define “widespread”. There were many thousands of adoptions and only a handful of women claiming true abduction. Likely there are more who gave up, don’t have access to media, etc. But I do not think that kidnappings of this nature were anything but a huge exception. There are many possibilities that fall short of abduction though where a birthmother may have been tricked, coerced, or threatened in a manner that ultimately resulted in an adoption. But still, based on everything I know, the overwhelming majority of cases involved an adoption where the biological mother supported it.
Here is the DNA scenario. To get through this whole, you ultimately needed to have someone at the lab taking the sample in cahoots. They would basically have had to sent in a picture of the kidnapped child with the DNA from another. On the first test, who knows which picture was sent in. But on the second, they would need to have the DNA for the biological child sent in with a picture of the kidnapped child. That way the child in the picture matches the picture on the passport and the visa.
I do not believe that anyone should worry about their child nor that they should be afraid to make contact with their child’s biological mother.
One of the most interesting parts of this report for me, based on my experience, was the statement about how it got worse the last couple of years. That is definitely what we at Guatadopt saw. It’s just too bad that there was not more vigilance by US and Guatemalan authorities to stop it. They could have – and fairly easily.
I don’t believe most agencies would have known about it. There would be no reason for them to be involved. And contrary to what the guy in the video said, I believe attorneys may not have known. I say this because another trend we saw was more and more attorneys who really were not involved in the case. They were more and more hired only to sign the necessary paperwork, with some sort of “facilitator” being the one really involved with the case.

And to Kim... Having been interveiwed by countless media, they often get stuff wrong. I was only once contacted by a fact checkern, Mother Jones Managazine, but not the USA Today, LA Times, Cox News Service, etc. You also don't see how the interviews are being cut and editted.

Kevin
Guatadopt

I feel for these women. My upset is with Norma Cruz for stating that the children would be able to blend back into their biological families fairly easy. (my words). These children suffered a great loss when they were kidnapped, then transferred to a foster mother or hogar, then transferred to the adoptive family, then to expect these children to suffer another loss (ap's) and be returned to Guatemala. Is Norma or the Guatemalan Govt going to supply attachment specialists for these children if they are sent back? I also have an issue with strong arming these families into DNA tests. I think if more mothers come forward it will make AP's less likely to come forward and offer some type of arrangement, updates, etc with the mothers. It is easy to sit in your home with your Guatemalan child safely playing, napping, etc and state that these children should be returned. Who gets to make the decision as to what is best for the CHILDREN - ap's and bio-mothers put aside.. I don't think any govt official who is a stranger to the child has the right to make that decision ~ Just my 2 cents.

Kevin,

You mentioned facilitators. Are there any shared facilitators linked to these adoptions that you are aware of?

Ours was notorious and I am sure that the attorneys on our case were not involved at all I wouldn't put much past this one!

Kevin, I would disagree with a couple of your points having dealt with DNA fraud on our case. You can read the AP article on our case to find out about the DNA switch theory if it is of interest. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-22-guatemala-adoption_N.htm

DNA fraud was rampant in the system. Anyone profiting on adoptions will tell you it was the exception, not the rule. I beg to differ. APs can check their paperwork to compare the names with the names in "our" article. These names show up on hundreds of DNA tests. Perhaps thousands. It doesn't necessarily mean the child was stolen, but it does beg the question of the test legitimacy IMO.

Further, there were not a "handful" of stolen children in the adoption system, but more likely hundreds. That is not counting children conceived for sale, or purchased, or coerced from their original families. I suspect there are hundreds of stolen children in the US, all immigrated using this flawed corrupt system.

The safeguards in the final years were useless. We all relied on these mechanisms to protect us and honor the institution of adoption. The system failed so many. So many were damaged. Here and in Guatemala. It is incomprehensible.

What Norma Cruz and these women are doing should be praised, supported and applauded. They are brave and selfless women who need our help to have their voices heard and justice rendered.

Consider this: If the children that were stolen were American... there wouldn't be any "discussion" or debate about what to do. As sad as it may be, the children would be returned to the biological family immediately. These stolen girls need to be returned to their Guatemalan families, the sooner the better. THEY WERE STOLEN. I only hope that the APs will find it in their hearts to do the right thing, no matter how painful that may be.

So Jennifer, for arguments sake, would you be willing to send your child back?

Does Norma have attachment specialists in place for these kids if they are returned?

By sending the children back to a life of poverty (AND I AM NOT STATING AMERICAN LIFE IS BETTER) are we putting the mothers needs ahead of the childs?

Are there finances in place to help feed, clothe, and shelter the children?

Again, my heart breaks for these birthmoms. If Raquel Par was my childs birthmom, my heart would be torn into pieces watching her interview. But I also know how devastated my child was when she came home and I know that emotionally and physically she would not be able to handle another move/loss.

I find it so sad that some people are such cowards to sign off as anonymous and point fingers at people who are brave enough to engage in an intelligent and thought provoking discussion.

These children are NOT legally adopted. These children were STOLEN!

It is an arrogant assumption to suggest that life in America is better than life in Guatemala because Americans might be able to give the kids material things. How about giving the children their God given parents?

These parents did not relinquish their children. These parents did not make adoption plans. These parents were not dead or incapable of caring for their children. These children weren't malnourished and uncared for.

These were healthy, vibrant children who were thriving with their MOTHERS!

How arrogant of us Americans to suggest for one moment that we have the right to play God in the lives of these children.

I am sorry but I truly do believe that God frowns on this behavior. God does not call anyone to adopt stolen children; nor do I believe that God condones this type of behavior.

I do not think in the least that this would be easy for the adoptive families. It might be the hardest thing in their lives to do. But it is the right thing to do. No wants to even imagine the hardships.

If you take the time to read the link that Jennifer included, it might give you a little insight to the road that she has traveled. She has had to make those difficult decisions. I applaud people like Jennifer Hemsley and Elizabeth Emmanuel who are brave women who chose a path of integrity and character rather than rationalizing and justifying their decision to turn a blind eye.

I admire women like this who are not afraid of the comments of "Anonymous" but stand for ethical adoptions -- because adoption is a beautiful thing.

There are children in this world that are truly orphaned and relinquished because there is just no other way....There was no need to steal children of parents who loved them.

Shame on all of us who can justify and rationalize that we are better off taking care of Raquel Par's daugther because she's poor.

Anonymous,
I don't know Jennifer but I've read newspaper articles about the events surrounding her adoption and my understanding is that didn't bring her child home. She exposed the corruption in her adoption to authorities in Guatemala. She (I believe) either visited or fostered the little girl in Guatemala so she has experienced the loss of a child. The link that she posted is for the article if you're interested in reading it. It scares me to death because we had the same attorney, facilitator, etc. There were several posts on the forum a week or so ago regarding whether these children should be returned to their birthparents or not. The discussions got pretty ugly. I hope that this issue doesn't divide the adoptive community. I'm not sure how I'd respond if I was one of the parents involved. I agree with your point about returning the child to poverty and I posted something similar a while back....others don't feel the same way. In fact someone responded with something like it shouldn't matter if the child was going to be returned to a grass hut in the middle of the jungle...the child was stolen and should be returned.

Jennifer, thank you for keeping coming forward and speaking about what you know so well. Wishing more people in the adoption world were as brave.

A reminder!!!

Feel free to disagree with, debate, etc a person's content. But you must refrain from attacking the person.

People are entitled to post anonymously and some may have good reaosn to do so. Rule is that you must submit with a valid e-mail address (that only Kelly and I can see).

These are incredibly difficult situations and it does NO god whatsoever to fling insults at fellow posters. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and to have that viewpoint be respected.

So please be courteous. Debate always welcomed - attacks are not.

Thanks

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

There are several issues to consider in this situation. I am an adoptive parent (hence, having to relinquish my two daughters would absolutely devastate me), but I know that if a crime has been committed, and a child taken without the birth mother's consent, the two people that matter the most in this situation are the birth mother, and the child (not me).

Ethically and legally, the child should be restored to her rightful family.

Would this ultimately be the best thing for a child? In some situations, quite possibly not. Especially for an older child who has come to know his or her adoptive parents as mom and dad. What a devastating loss.

I am reminded of the story in the Bible where two women claimed the same baby as their own. Solomon, known for his wisdom, declared that the only way to solve the dispute was to tear the child in two and give each woman half. One of the women begged him not to do this, and asked that the child be given to the other woman. Solomon then knew who the real mother was.

These children need to be found. Those who committed crimes need to be held accountable. Then, all involved (adoptive parents, birth mothers) need to take a deep breath and make a rational decision (together) that truly does consider what is best for that child given the circumstances of that particular child.

I think the problem for us, as APs, is that when these cases come up, we think about them from our position as APs. I totally agree that I would do ANYTHING to save my (adopted) son from ANY distress. I know that if I found out he was stolen and that his birthmother wanted him back, it would be like ripping my heart out. I know he would suffer greatly to be disrupted from his home at this point. I honestly don't know if I would have the strength to send him back. To be honest, I probably wouldn't. I'd justify it by saying he'd be better off staying with us, because he's attached to us and that being removed from the home he knows would damage him.

But, I come to a totally different conclusion when I try to think from the position of the parent (birth or adopted) who had a child stolen. Then I think that if my son was stolen, I'd do EVERYTHING within my power to find him and I'd never rest until he was home with me. I wouldn't care how attached his was to the parents he was placed with or anything else. I'd want him home. And I think the focus on poverty is completely misplaced. If my child was kidnapped and adopted by Bill Gates, I'd fight like hell to get him back. I would not be thinking of what a better life Bill could give him. I'd probably minimize the disruption bringing my son home would cause and justify it by saying I'd make it work and that in the long run he'd be better off with me.

How sad it is to know how things are perpetrated in Guatemala. I feel for those mothers searching for their children. I feel comfortable knowing that my child was safely relinquished and that her birth mother in the DNA is in fact her birth mother because well, my daughter is the exact spitting image of her birth mother. lol.

I think also one thing we must remember; each one of us adopted a child not just so we could have a child but so an orphaned child could grow up with a stable loving family and have a more secure life.

When we think of a mother being drugged and someone illegally stealing her baby and selling it on the black market, who of us can honestly say that we would want a child to this length?

It would be devastating to give our little girl back, but if she was a stolen baby I wonder when she gets older what will I tell her?
Before,I would tell her how much we loved her to take her as an orphan and how hard
we worked and never gave up even in dire circumstances to take her home.
But inevitability an adopted child will always ask about her biological mother. How could I look my daughter in the face someday and tell her how much I love her, when I have to tell her i knew she was forcefully kidnapped from a loving mother and I did nothing to help her be returned to her rightful mom that loved her and wanted to keep her.

Arrangements can be made with the rightful mother for visits with the adoptive parents, and keeping these children in the lives of the American parents. However, in fairness not only to the grieving mother, but also to the children who will grow up and have to know that their adopted parent kept them all these years away from their real mother who wanted to be with them; this will be even more disruptive in the child’s live at that point than even giving them back at this point.
Shalom Don

As an adoptive parent myself, I can not imagine the pain of having to send my child back to Guatemala - but if my child was stolen, there would be no other decision that I could make. If a child was stolen, then the child belongs with their birth family. I don't feel that I would have any right to declare that any other life would be more fitting for that child. Another post speaks of the trauma to the child if returned: What will you tell the child when they are old enough to understand? How many psychologists will you need when the child finds out they had a birth mother who desperately wanted them to come home, and that you, the person they trusted the most, had kept them from their family? That their life with you had been based on lies and dishonesty? That has got to be far more damaging than an additional disruption to send the child back to their family now. I can understand the pain of having to make such a difficult decision, but I feel there is only one right decision here.

I just want to thank the majority of posters in this thread who have given various thought and heartfelt perspective on the different aspects of this debate. It sure is one packed with pain and sadness for anyone involved no doubt of that. It is just very refreshing to finally be able to read through a discussion like this one and hear all sides without the anger and ugliness at eachother for expressing ourselves. I appreciate the thought provoking ideas presented and it has really made me think instead of making me angry and I can't say the same for other threads. so thanks.. My heart goes out to the moms/babies and ap's who are caught in this horrible nightmare....what a tragedy for all involved. and Mom....your bible reference was right on the mark! Lynn

Kevin,

How do you know that the Al Jazeera report is "reality"? How do the women who claim that their children were stolen know that they were actually adopted? Children are stolen for many other and unfortunately, much worse purposes than giving them a permanent loving home through adoption.

At the beginning of June, someone from Al Jazeera contacted me to ask me for an interview. I eagerly agreed, but they never called me again. Their report does not mention the claim of Loida Elizabeth Rodríguez Morales, who is sure that Karen Abigail, who was adopted by a Missouri family, is her stolen child. The Primavera Director is still in jail, for obeying the court's order to place Karen Abigail for adoption, accused of "Traffic of persons" and of "Use of forged documents", even though the documents were duly authorized by the Civil Registry and by RENAP and the Civil Code says that the Civil Registry is personally responsible for any forgeries, mistakes, etc, but in this case, it became the responsibility of those who worked to solve the situation of a girl that until proven otherwise, was abandoned by her mother.

Karen Abigail is not related to Loida Elizabeth Rodriguez Morales, because according to someone who knows how to read DNA results, the woman who went to the DNA test of Karen Abigail as her mother, is a very close relative, probably her aunt, and certainly not related to Loida Elizabeth Rodriguez Morales. The lawyer of the Primavera Director has requested a DNA test of Loida Elizabeth Rodriguez Morales, to compare it with the results of the DNA done to Karen Abigail, but the Court has not ruled on that petition yet, a petition filed six weeks ago.

Behind the accusation against Asociacion Primavera is Fundacion Sobrevivientes, which is an entity created by Norma Angelica Cruz Cordova, who accused her husband Arnoldo Noriega of abusing her daughter during five years. He went to jail, did some time and now he is an adviser to President Colom. He also filed charges against Norma for slandering and defaming him.

Fundacion Sobrevivientes is authorized to help the victims of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Nothing more. Norma Cruz illegaly has extended the scope of the organization as to cover the killing of women, outside of their homes, but that did not attract the attention of the media. Then, she started a campaign to help women who claim that their children were stolen. I do not dispute the claims of the mothers who lost their children and I sympathize with them deeply, but I absolutely reject the involvement of Fundacion Sobrevivientes and of Norma Cruz in those matters, as it is far beyond the scope of such organization and it only screams that UNICEF is behind it and their “empty cradles” campaign that put a lot of pressure on the Congress, to pass the Adoptions Law that effectively has closed adoptions in Guatemala.

The witch hunt that the Ministerio Publico is doing against the best organized hogars in Guatemala (Casa Quivira, Semillas de Amor and now Primavera) only shows that it is meant to discourage any attempt to try to continue doing adoptions. The fact that there is not a security net for the children who are not wanted, is irrelevant. The people who are supporting Norma Cruz’ efforts to put in jail the adoption professionals are not concerned for the welfare of the children. That is crystal clear.

Susana Luarca, attorney at law,Guatemala City.

I have read all these comments, saw the video and keep up with the threads on this. I am an adoptive parent of a 2 yr old boy, my only child and maybe it is just me but I would never, ever send him back. I don't care if he was stolen or not. I know its selfish but I don't care. Am I the only one who feels this way or the only one brave enough to admit it. I know you people are going to have a fit when you read this but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I know you all have hear about the guy who married the Brazilian and she took off back to Brazil with their child,divorced him, remarried and died during childbirth of another child. This man has fought for years to bring his American born son back into the US and still after years cannot get our gov't and the Brazilian gov't to let him have his biological child back. The Hague is a load of crap because it sure didn't help this guy so this quote; (If the children that were stolen were American... there wouldn't be any "discussion" or debate about what to do. As sad as it may be, the children would be returned to the biological family immediately) isn't so true after all.
I am sorry in advance for offending but my son is my son.

To the person whose post has not been approved. We require that you submit with a valid e-mail address. Only Kelly and I can see it. But that is a rule.

Susana - I did not say definitively that child in MO or any others are being correctly identified. Pictures can be deceiving and we it's also been reported that the same pictures were found on multiple files. What I do say is true is that these women did have their children taken from them.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

If I were one of the families in the US from this report, I'd go into hiding. I would never give my adopted child or children regardless of the situation. Now, on the other hand, if my child was stolen I would go to the ends of the earth to get him/her back and I would do whatever I could to keep him/her safe and in my arms.

Human trafficking is wrong but there are far worse situations happening every day with the sex trade and slavery.

For those of us who had the DNA tests (and are curious if there was any fraud) wouldn't a second DNA test (now that the child is home) tell us if the first test was actually taken from the adoptive child instead of a biological surrogate?

To Susana:

As an attorney in Guatemala who has been working, allegedly, for the best interest of the children, what have you done in the following cases other than attempt to discredit those who would suggest something other than your position?

Are you suggesting that there has been no corruption in adoptions in Guatemala?
Are you suggesting, stating for the record, that there has been absolutely no wrong doing in the case of Karen Abigail and that you stake your personal and professional reputation on knowing this case completely; that it is above board and legally and ethically handled?
Are you so certain of the efficacy of the Karen Abigail case that you, personally, have contacted the family in Missouri and asked them to donate the DNA sample since it would bring closure to many allegations? Since there is NO WAY the child would be related to Loida, what is the harm – and if the DNA results show that Karen Abigail is NOT Anieli then by all means – this simply credits you with being an above board member of the community who cares about the TRUTH and ETHICAL adoptions.
Now that adoptions in Guatemala are not longer in the private sector, how are you handling children being brought to Casa Primavera? Are your doors still open even though there is no American or European money financing? Is your heart still in it for the children?
As a prominent member of the adoption legal community, what have you done, personally and professionally, to partner with the CNA to lend them your expertise on how to run an ethical and successful adoption organization?
Again as a prominent lawyer, have you partnered with Norma Cruz in trying to find truth and resolution for these mothers whose children’s have been kidnapped?
Are you willing to step down from your soap box, roll up your sleeves and clean up the mess that other lawyers and facilitators did to a honorable system that protected and provided homes for children in need?

To Nancy:

Thank you for your vulnerability and honesty. Yes, you are selfish. That is the truth. You would prefer to bring your child up in a lie because the pain of returning him would be too great. That is selfish. I can understand it. But it is selfish, and you are not thinking of your child and how devastated he will be when he learns that you lied to him his entire life. He would never forgive you for playing God and lying to him. If the best answer you could give him was, “I was selfish and just couldn’t bear to lose you”. I wonder how you would feel at the devastation in his eyes and perhaps losing him totally later in life.

I don’t think there is a single person here that would not be devastated, completely and totally at ever having to return their child because their child was stolen. I don’t think that there is a single person here that would think it was “easy” or “hard but doable”. NO, it would require supernatural strength to just survive doing this. The pain that one of us would feel at this thinkable situation is the same pain that these women live with day in and day out.

By refusing to cooperate, you are selfish and you are saying that YOU are more important than your son and more important than the mother who is searching and longing for her child. Yep, that is selfish.

It’s honest. It’s a real answer. It’s vulnerable. And yes, it is selfish.

To ANON2 et al,

Warning - you were soooo close to crossing the line on not attacking another poster. Had you not started out with Nancy by complimenting in what seems a sincere manner, I would not have been able to approve the post.

Nancy was being painfully honest and deserves to be respected for that.

My opinion is that is impossible for any of us to say with 100% certainty what we do in the situation. But I think that Nancy's far closer to 100% than those who may say that they would definitively return a child.

David Smolin in the video made wonderful points about legal precedent, how the child's best intersts could be determined, etc.

Yes, there is no doubt in Nancy's post that she is "putting herself above the child's (biological) mother". I do not see how you can say that she us putting herself above her child. I don't want to spark a debate on that topic, but I think that was unfair thing to say.

Also, I've received a few e-mails asking why I permitted Susana's post. Let me remind that our rule is not to attack other posters. She did not do that. In addition, I do not see anything she wrote that was overly inflammatory. I don't agree with all she wrote but that is irrelevant.

Susana's opinions are welcome here as are Anon2's.

Susana, based on what you wrote, wouldn't it seem possible that a relative of Loida's may have been involved in the abduction? I know NOTHING about the case. But based on the "facts" being presented, isn't it possible that the child in MO was abducted and that the person who posed for the original DNA was related to her. Here in the US, most incidences of kidapping are relatives - although for different purposes. Just a thought to find where what you say could accurate along with Loida's story. And of course, a DNA test, however done, could answer the question once and for all. At least the question on whether the child in MO is her child.

Paz,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

While no adoptive parent knows how they will REALLY respond if they ever encountered this nightmare, I would hope that I would be able to do the right thing.

And I think that the right thing would be first discovering if the child is in fact the abducted child and then proceeding to determine the best interest of the child. I, personally, do not think that we as adoptive parents are objective enough to make that decision. However, I do think we need to be open to deal with all possibilities -- even the most terrifying that would require returning the child.

As much as I think it would pain, devastate and destroy any of us adoptive parents, I would like to believe that we would have the courage to do the right thing.

And I would be very curious to hear Susana's response. I do believe that Susana is a prominent member of the legal community and I hope that she can shed light by answering the questions directly.

I suppose in an ideal world, I would like to see people like Norma Cruz and Susana Luarca working together to resolve these issues and bring peace and resolution.

Right now, we have mothers who are longing for their children, children with false identities and adoptive parents facing their worst nightmares. Hopefully, if those who processed the Karen Abigail case are confident that she is not Anyeli Rodriguez, a simple request from the Casa Primavera representation to have the child take the DNA test would bring some resolution -- if it turns out she is not Anyeli, then the adoptive family can rest, and Loyda and Norma can continue their search elsewhere.

As a PAP that has been working with Susana for over two years, I feel the need to comment here. We've been to Guatemala seven times and it is crystal clear to us that Susana DOES act in the best interests of the children. In fact, from what I can see, she is one of the only brave, dedicated advocates still working on behalf of Guatemalan orphans. While many attorneys and facilitators closed their doors in the face of adversity, leaving many children in the lurch, she continues to provide excellent care and advocacy for the children. And, yes, she IS working with the CNA to do what she can to complete adoptions - both ethically and legally.

I am not attempting to speak for Susana - only comment on our experiences.

Well said Alzaun01

This whole discussion is so unsettling that last night I pulled out the first set of photos of my daughter with her birthmom and studied them for a resemblance. I was comforted to see that they both don't look "Guatemalan" whatever that means, but have striking similarities that I can see even in their hands.
I am angry that so many people -- even the "legitimate" ones, I fear -- looked the other way when they could have been more vocal about all the fraud going on around them. I am angry that I have to deal with this ugly history and that my daughter might one day read about it, that strangers on the street may wonder.
I am wondering what other people think/know about the matter of payment. While my agency/lawyers denied that birth mothers were paid, other people working with other agencies readily admitted it, and I am increasingly finding it hard to believe there was not a cold, hard exchange of cash at some point.
On a different note while I hope and pray no babies were outright stolen and no parent would have to face that decision of giving the child back, I do think it would be an extremely tough decision to make, emotions aside, on a number of ethical grounds.
A person who commented above made the excellent point about how none of us would consider our child better off with a billionaire like Bill Gates. At the same time, I wonder if it could not be fairly argued that a child might be better off in the U.S. if they could have an education and not live in poverty. I don't know the answer. I am just posing it.

For those who would advocate "just" doing the DNA test, how could you be sure that THAT wouldn't be handled in a corrupt manner, especially since many (including many of you) repeatedly mention the amount of corruption in the system?
I'm not saying the APs with children who are suspected of being stolen shouldn't do the DNA test, just that I don't think it's a simple matter of "what is the harm?" of doing the test, as one person said above. It's more complicated than that.

Also, how many of the people who are so fast to say "what I would do" in such a case (ie "the right thing") have actually done anything to examine the valdity of their OWN adoptions? Have they gone through their own paperwork to look for discrepancies or "typos"? Have they done a birth mother search and gotten her perspective on the "facts"? It's far too easy to say "what I would do" when it's hypothetical and not you. JMHO.

I am not discrediting Norma Cruz. I am stating a fact. If she speaks as Norma Cruz, she has the right to say whatever she wants, within the limits that the laws establishes. But if she speaks on behalf of Fundacion Sobrevivientes, she has no right to speak against adoptions and much less, to get involved in the prosecution of the alleged thefts of children. Simply because that is not what Fundacion Sobrevivientes was authorized for. It is like getting a license to drive a car and using that license to open a restaurant. Both are licenses, but each of them gives different rights. And because Norma Cruz has been discrediting me, I was forced to file criminal charges against her. Norma Cruz slandered me at a press conference, stating that I was involved in the theft of a baby boy, in a case that was already tried and that never was linked to me in any way. I do not know why she made such irresponsible accusations against me, that were totally uncalled for. Nuestro Diario, a tabloid owned by the same people as Prensa Libre, published her slanderous allegations. Norma Cruz is taking the place of Bruce Harris in the war against adoptions, sponsored by UNICEF. When Casa Alianza packed their bags and left, left a space that UNICEF needed to fill, with a voice to express their anti adoption propaganda. Some may think that Norma Cruz is doing a wonderful work by helping those poor mothers who lost their children, when no one else would help them, but that is not so. When Norma Cruz gets involved, she brings along all the media and the judges, pressured by a room full of cameras and journalists, do not hesitate to be unfair, like it happened in the case of Karen Abigail, where the judge, without a DNA to prove that Loida Elizabeth Rodriguez Morales was in fact the mother of Karen Abigail, sent to jail the director of the hogar Primavera who happened to shelter a girl “who looks like her daughter”, the lawyer of the PGN who was just doing his work, and even the notary who presided the attempted adoption that could not be finalized because of the negative results of the DNA. None of them did anything wrong, but it is undeniable that if the judge would have been only with those people who had the right to be at the arraignment hearing, the results would have been totally different. The media factor weighs way too much in these days when the judges are hoping to be appointed as magistrates of the courts of appeals and those who attract the public attention must be kept on their side.

We have been talking about DNA every day, so I will share what I understand of that test. Maybe you already know it, but let me elaborate. The DNA profile looks at ten sections of one’s DNA. For each of these sections we have two sets of numbers, one from our mothers' side and one from our fathers' side. That is the genetic profile of each person. It is what makes us unique and it is the same set of numbers that identifies us, regardless of where the lab is located or when the specimens were analyzed. We already have the genetic profile of Karen Abigail and all we asked from the court is to order Loida Elizabeth to provide her DNA specimens, so the results of her DNA test would be compared with the ones we already have of Karen Abigail. The District Attorney refuses to admit that only Loida be tested, insisting that Karen Abigail must be brought to Guatemala, probably because if we simply compare both results, that would bring all this charade to an abrupt end, as the DNA of Loida Elizabeth would prove that she is not the mother of Karen Abigail.

I asked numerous times the Missouri couple to agree to the DA petition in Guatemala, by allowing their daughter to be tested again, but they refused to answer my calls and messages and hired an extremely rude US lawyer to shield them from me and my requests. I understand their concerns, but they have nothing to be afraid of, as their daughter was not abducted. Karen Abigail is not related to Loida Elizabeth unless her sister, as Kevin says, was who gave her up for adoption, which is quite difficult to believe for reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss here. Most likely, Karen Abigail is the niece of the woman who presented herself as the birth mother, maybe because the real birth mother was married and could not relinquish her daughter for adoption. Karen Abigail was brought to Primavera by the MO couple, when their lawyers gave up on her and nobody wanted to help them and certainly, nobody claimed Karen Abigail as their lost daughter.

Primavera, as many of the private hogars for children in Guatemala, is funded by the adoptive parents who pay for the care of their children. Now that the Karen Abigail case has given the excuse to the PGN and the DA to criminalize all the pending adoption processes of the children at the hogar, the Primavera hogar is dire straits. Forced by the lack of resources, fourteen children who had not families and some of them with serious special needs were transferred last month to Casa Alegria, the state orphanage, because it was not possible to support them any longer. The few children left at the hogar, are still waiting for the authorities to stop making excuses to derail their adoption processes and let them join their adoptive families before the damage of growing up without a family, gets worse.
Many women who gave up for adoption a child or who know that Primavera could take care of their children, have been coming to us, asking us to take their babies, and we had to tell them that it is not possible, that they must go to the CNA to express their wish to place their children for adoption. Some of them have told us that there are still people accepting children, no papers and no questions asked, but who knows for what purposes they want them. Child pornography and child prostitution come to mind.

I have no desire to clean up the mess created, not by lawyers or facilitators, but by the anti adoption policy of UNICEF, who would rather see the children of the Less Developed Countries being aborted, killed, abused, abandoned or mistreated, than adopted by the citizens of the First World. As we all have seen, The Hague Convention is the most effective weapon of child destruction. When I asked the lawyers of the US State Department in 2006, to give me an example of a country where the Hague Convention worked successfully, they had the nerve to tell me “China”. When I insisted that I wanted an example of a successfully implementation of such treaty in a Latin American country, they could not come up with a single example. The law proposal 3635 of Adoptions Law could have been a way to reconcile the good features of a uniformed international system, with the good features of the existing Guatemalan system. But it was squashed by the US DOS and UNICEF, for the single reason that it could have worked. Now that they got the law they wanted, they are going after the few of us who still have anything to do with adoptions, to make sure that we would not want to keep fighting to keep adoptions open. That is also crystal clear.

Susana Luarca

As an adoptive parent, I will say that all of this information has encouraged me to take a closer look at my own adoption. I never had a reason to doubt the legitimacy of my adoption. However, I want to be able to show my son the legitimacy of his adoption.

I did study closely all the records given to me at the time of my PINK appointment, read the social worker interview – in Spanish. I also filed my G884 paperwork and carefully reviewed all the paperwork. And yes, I looked for the typos, possible erases, and inconsistencies. I have carefully studied and looked at the DNA picture with my son and his birthmother (they are the spitting image of one another). I carefully reviewed the Consentimiento along with the attached photos and again, they are the same people and have a very striking resemblance.

My foster mother shared with me the relinquishment story as she was there when my son was relinquished. And she also shared with me each time they met again with the birth mom and her interaction with my son.

I have spoken at length with my attorney in Guate on each visit.

I have been researching the birth mother search to get “her side” of the story.

So, yes, I am doing my part to ensure the legitimacy of my adoption. There is always the anxiety of finding something you do not want to know but I have to be able to tell my son that I did everything I could for him. So, I face the anxiety and push forward so I can show him HIS truth.

I suggest 2 new samples of DNA since God only knows if the samples originally taken are of the same child. A sample of Loyda and a sample of Karen Abigail. I don’t think that the Missouri family would have to go to Guatemala to do the test – at least in my naïve thinking. I think that the sample can be taken and overseen by Guatemalan officials from the consulate and that they are responsible for sending the specimen to the lab in Spain.

I do understand the Missouri couple’s fears and anxiety and wanting to protect the child they believe is theirs. I am not sure that the fear and anxiety will go away if they ignore all of this. I think that if everyone cooperates, that maybe they can come to an accord in the best interest of the child. It is obviously heart wrenching, devastating and horrible just to imagine. So, I am sure this family is living their own personal hell. What happens after is all a matter of trusting God for the best interest of the child.

But back to the video at hand…

When I first saw that video, my heart broke. I felt for these women before having seen them in the news papers and read their stories. However, hearing them speak, seeing the pain in their eyes moved me in a more profound way.

While we can rationalize that a life in the United States is better than a life of poverty anywhere, it’s not our call and borders on elitism. I am sure that if I found something in my own research I would naturally justify, rationalize, and make excuses of why my son is better off with me. But is that where my son belongs? Not deterred by the fear of discovering something I do not want to know, I press forward to ensure the legitimacy of my case. So far, everything was handled ethically and legally.

Susana's attack on Norma Cruz isn't
substantive, but hangs on what might be called a minor point of law. This suggests she has no substantive argument against what Norma Cruz says. To follow her logic, a person who merely has a driver's license would not be allowed to report a crime committed away from her car. That is the difference: reporting a crime as opposed to prosecuting the criminal must be the right of every citizen of a just society. But attacking in court people who suggest you are involved in shady dealings is a tactic that goes against justice.

Susana wrote: "The media factor weighs way too much in these days when the judges are hoping to be appointed as magistrates of the courts of appeals and those who attract the public attention must be kept on their side. "

This seems to me to be another way of saying that the freedom of the press might be a tool to keep judges honest. The whole world knows that there are grave issues with judicial impunity in Guatemala. It seems to this American that Norma Cruz's desire to have the light of the press shining is a proper one, and reflects what our country is built on.

We Americans really need to remember, especially this weekend, that the rights we enjoy as citizens of the greatest, and most honest Country in the history of the world come to us as an inheritance from people who sacrificed mightily to gain and keep those rights. Sacrifice of one's own desires so that others may receive justice is what we are all about, when we are at our best.

Susana, thank you for this comment "I asked numerous times the Missouri couple to agree to the DA petition in Guatemala, by allowing their daughter to be tested again". It makes me feel better that this was asked because my earlier impression was people wanted the mother to have the DNA against the contested sample which made me very uncomfortable. If the earlier DNA is contested the only way to prove anything would be to have fresh samples conducted in a controlled environment.

Slander is a serious matter. Slander aside, I disagree on "authorizations" to speak for or against adoptions. Everyone has the right to speak what they are for or against and why. There are many NGO's that are for or against adoption although the main intent of the NGO has nothing to do with adoption. If they feel it is somehow tied to what they are working on for people, and have evidence or reason to believe they need to stand up for something, they have the right to speak for or against it. That doesn't mean slander is okay or that I like everything either side has to say but I can't take away their right to their beliefs and if we don't talk we get nowhere. I've had my mind opened and changed through these forums before but only through people being willing to speak. I'd rather clear the air then have everyone not speaking but views remaining the same and problems resulting from it.

Regards,
Lisa

This is in response to sjbj, just so you can understand that some of us have had to become intimately involved in our adoptions to see them come to their successful conclusions, and as a result have been privy to many details that we may not have been privy to otherwise. I imagine there are a number of us who have researched our cases very well. Not everyone believed everything they were told - many of us pushed hard for truth, even though we were afraid of what the truth might have been. I can only speak for myself, but I was more afraid of not knowing, and the implications for that in the future.

We have been searching for our son's birth mother for a few years, no luck so far. I feel an even stronger need to find her as time goes on, with a growing pit of anxiety in my gut.

The corruption in the system, it is becoming clearer and clearer was rampant. That doesn't only mean abduction but also coercion, manipulation, and in many cases, I am beginning to understand, stretching of the truth to present children who were not 'orphans' in a way that they were allowed to be adopted. This is happening in many international adoption situations, not just Guatemala.

In cases where the children were actually abducted, it is a horrific situation for all involved. My concern is for the children. I cannot imagine my 3 year old, who has only known us as parents, being left with people he doesn't know, even if it is the right thing to do. Yes it would break my heart but honestly I could live with that. However, I cannot imagine the trauma that would place on my child. It is horrific.

To Questioning's Point. A story from my family just yesterday. My wife went to our daughter's camp to pick her up a few minutes early so she could go to their office to pay for field trips. It took about five minutes longer than expected so she was a couple minutes late for pick-up. When Sheila got to the pick up place, Isabel was hysterical and horrifiied. Isabel is a brave and confident kid - she doesn't get that way easily. Sheila immediately imagined that something bad had happened to her.

Why the hysterics? Isabel couldn't see the car because Sheila had parked a diffferent place. She didn't know where hr mommy was. And even though she was in a safe place and it hadn't been long, she was in hysterics. The point being, that was in two minutes without her mommy. What if that was a permament thing?

I do not think I am expert enough to opin on "the best interest of the child". Of course I have an opinion, but the point is that in civil society there are means out there for making that decision. There is a rule of law that while imperfect, is how things are to get done.

As Isabel's parent, I can say with 100% honesty that I do not see how anyone could claim it would be in her best interest to be raised by anyone but Sheila and myself. But that is based on obviously huge bias, no education in chld psychology, no research/precedent information, etc.

This is why I took what David Smolin had to say in the video to heart. He is THE expert in this area in many ways. And he gets it from the personal as well as professional/academic perspective.

Peace and God Bless America,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

I have been relatively silent and watching this Guatadopt discourse and situation in Guatemala with the birth mothers and Norma Cruz. And, I know I will not be popular for saying this (as usual here), but if we were to STOP saying that the children in question were "adopted" and that they were potentially "kidnapped" this whole argument about whether to DNA test or not would be mute. I suggest that we start to use appropriate words to describe exactly what it is that we are talking about! Further, what if a US child were potentially kidnapped and taken to Guatemala or any other country--wouldn't we all expect for the two nations law enforcement to collaborate to determine if the child is in fact genetically linked to the family/mother making the allegation and then determine if kidnapping did take place? Yes, we would without a doubt! To do or think otherwise is irrational. Finally, I suggest that we all demand of our government to do the right thing here--the longer this drags out (with lawyers fighting it out), the worse for everyone involved and this includes the entire Guatadopt community. Finally, thank you Jennifer and Elizabeth for your courage. I wish that more were willing to speak out about their bad experiences. You speak truth to power every day as you speak from the heart and live with your pain of adoption fraud. I hold you in the highest of regard. In terms of speaking truth to power,I suggest that we ALL use the term "potentially kidnapped" so that we can be more precise. Finally, I know that this is difficult but I'd suggest that everyone get use how hard all of this is to believe because from what I can see, things are going to get worse. More stories are emerging everyday in Guate about coercion,birth mother payments, etc.. Truth and reconciliation is difficult,but necessary to more forward and learn from our mistakes.

Karen, I don't see how you are going to be unpopular from saying we need to be careful with terms. I don't see kidnappings as okay or should be handled differently throughout the world. I see your point on the terminology and agree we need to be careful. I don't think most when speaking of adoption are intending to replace or negate the word kidnapping or gloss it or make it other than it is. We are an adoptive community. We adopted children. That does not undo any events, including criminal matters, leading up to an adoption. If children were kidnapped then placed for adoption they were both kidnapped *and* fraudently adopted. In the case of the adopted [legally until proven otherwise] children who were identified by mothers of kidnapped children then they are adopted *and* suspected of being kidnapped. I see both terms as relevant but agree we need to be careful with the terms and when I use the word adopted I am in no way trying to negate any crimes that might have taken place prior to the adoption or attempting to undermine what a kidnapping is.

I have to disagree with the idea of needing to "STOP saying that the children in question were adopted". In fact, these children WERE adopted. They went through a process of adoption, approved by BOTH the US and Guatemalan governments. Their APs, in most if not all cases, acted in good faith. These children may not have been eligible for adoption, may have been kidnapped. But, they certainly were adopted. The children in question on the videotape, I can see them being described as both adopted and ALSO potentially kidnapped, as there are serious questions about what happened in their cases. But to say these children were not adopted seems to me to fail to acknowledge the hard work and love of the APs, who are likely as much victims in these cases as are the mothers whose children were kidnapped.

karenms,

You, my friend, are the brave one, and what you said is all so very true. Thank you~

Kidnapping is not an "adoption" problem in Guatemala. In fact, some close friends of ours have a handful of body guards because their mother has been kidnapped for ransom twice. It's not uncommon to kidnap for money.

I'm not minimizing what has happened. It's just that I feel that people (not necessarily the Guatadopt community, but often in the media etc.) sometimes point the finger at international adoption as the underlying cause.

What we are witnessing is part of a much bigger problem plaguing Latin America. Corruption, bribery, crime, and greed permeate all aspects of the culture. The problem is not that ADOPTION in Guatemala has been tainted by corruption. You will be hard pressed to find any aspect of the culture (business, government, what have you) that is not tainted in some way. Introducing the Hague, or trying to implement more safeguards, will not guarantee that corruption will not rear its ugly head again. It's simply impossible to prevent when it is a pervasive part of a culture.

Corruption can be found at all levels in the adoption chain. I know of birth mothers who have extorted more and more money from attorneys (throughout the process have threatened to "change their mind" about the adoption unless they are paid more), I know of facilitators who are greedy and dirty and have deceived birth moms and attorneys, I know of foster mothers (ours) who have extorted money from families directly, I know of attorneys who were unethical and corrupt, I know of bribes being asked for by the new, supposedly "cleaned up" PGN (we personally were asked), I know of government officials getting kickbacks and money on the side. And on it goes.

My husband is from Latin America so I feel I can speak from some experience about the fact that this is just the way it is. It's not right. It's not okay. But we will not be able to "fix" this problem.

In the meantime, innocent children are being abandoned, orphanages are turning children away or closing their doors, and the number of children dying from lack of medical care and/or malnutrition continues to be high.

I don't know the solution. But I do know that there will continue to be children whose parents cannot properly care for them. And I do know that being given a chance in a family, even if it is in another country, is far better than growing up in an orphanage with noone to call "mom" and "dad." I am afraid that if we wait for perfection in the system, adoption will not be an option again for the children of Guatemala.

All the focus over the last year has been on what is wrong with the system. A few children have been kidnapped and that is a TRAVESTY! But thousands of children who may have died of malnutrition, grown up in an orphanage only to live on the streets when they came of age, etc., have been given a family and a chance at life! It seems the good in all of this has been lost.

I know my children have faced a loss. At times I look at their innocent, toddler faces and feel pain in my heart over their loss, and the questions and feelings of loss they may have some day. But I can also tell you, that one of our daughters was a hairsbreath away from being placed in an orphanage (a last minute miracle from God, literally, prevented this) and I when I look at her I shudder to think of how different her life would be growing up without us to love her.

I am not sure if I am misunderstanding the above commenter, but I - skeptical as I am -- take offense at the suggestion that all Guatemalan adoptions should be categorized as kidnappings. Puhleeze! Surely you've heard of all the adoptive parents who have successfully reconnected with birth parents, and, sadly, of all the many kids who have been abandoned since adoptions closed. I'm all for exposing corruption, but I don't think we should sensationalize!

Okay, I think we've gotten way off topic here.

The video that we are presented shows us a mother whose child was kidnapped and allegedly placed for adoption.

In this case, it is very probable that the child was both kidnapped and adopted. However, being adopted doesn't mean that all of a sudden the fact that the child may have been kidnapped is no longer a crime and well, let's just think of what's best for the child. No, the child was kidnapped.

Yes, the child went through the Guatemalan system and was approved by the US Embassy. But that again does not negate the reality that these children may have been KIDNAPPED.

I have been thinking about this a lot. I saw pictures a friend posted on Facebook about the Guatemala 900. Yep, we all rally behind families still waiting to bring their kids home. In fact, we will all say that the Guatemalan government is placing needless roadblocks, in some ways, holding the children hostage that ought to be united with their forever families. Yet, we debate on whether or not the children of the women of Guatemala that were stolen from them, allegedly placed for adoption and perhaps living in the US should be reunited with their FAMILY.

A while back, Guatadopt asked us to sign a petition, our commitment to stand by ethical and legal adoptions and do what is right to bring up our children in a manner that respected their culture and history.

I wonder what message it would send to the world if we stood united and said that adoption is a beautiful and wonderful institution, God-ordained and a blessing to all yet WE WILL NOT STAND SILENT WHEN A CHILD HAS BEEN RIPPED FROM THEIR LOVING HOMES AND SOLD FOR ADOPTION.

I have encouarged many families as they wade through the adoption process, sometimes swallowing water with them. I have called Guatemala for several families and held their virtual hands hoping to bring their children home.

My heart is for children to be with their families whether God designed that family through biology or adoption. So I stand -- perhaps alone -- staying, I will hold the virtual hand of Raquel Par, Loyda Rodriguez and the others until their children are returned.

When the seed of suspicion is planted-it can be a destructive force as we have seen with Guatemalan adoptions. I can't judge some of the allegations and the surrounding circumstanes. For the children who were blatently kidnapped and stolen they should be returned in my opinion. But this opens the debate of other cases that are touched by corruption with the intent to help the child...As mentioned with dna tampering-- a mom desires a better life for her child has no intention of parenting, and sends an aunt, becuase she is married. Another mom needs to feed her children at home, becomes pregnant-so her other children have a meal.

What steps can we take to investigate our children's adoptions without opening a can of worms? Is there ia list of attorneys/facilitators with there adoption statistics (good or bad)? What part do the foster parents play--would they have any insight, if the childs bm is unavailable? To report on this without the tools to help all concerned is wasteful, and giving lip service to a tragedy. The suspicion needs to be removed, so families can move on, adoptions can re-open in Guatemala and UNICEF can stop feeling so right about things, because they are not.
It is about the children first and foremost. This includes the children left behind and the closure for our children here.

Nancy i am with you! I have adopted two girls and they will never leave me and my family. Hopefully their adoptions were both done right, But i would never even consider sending them back if they were not. One is almost 6 and she would be devestated to leave the only family she knows. You have to think what is in the best intrest of the children.

Ladybug you make some very good points. There is a blizzard of accusations and denials that are difficult for me to understand and impossible to verify. There seem to be two camps one claiming no problem exists and another that claims evry adoption was corrupt. How many adoptions have been completed over the past several years? How mant valid claims of kidnapping etc have been made? How many AP's have contacted the birthmother? Does the problem lie with specific facilitators,agencies etc?

Ana01.... you are not alone, I stand with you.

I also stand with Ana01. I think the problem is, at least for me, that when the issue of kidnapping or corruption is brought up, it is often sensationalized and generalized to all adoptions from Guatemala. We have had several people here and on the Forum state that there has been corruption in the "majority" of cases. I had someone tell me here, in a previous posting, that NOTHING could prove that there wasn't corruption in a case, not meeting the birth mother, NOTHING. When people make these inflammatory, generalized, I would argue ridiculous, statements, it's hard to have a rational conversation. It's easy to be defensive and dismissive.
On the other hand, I haven't read anyone here say there is NO corruption or that ALL cases are clean. Either extreme is incorrect. The truth has to be somewhere in the middle--as there was enough corruption that the system has been shut down.
Ana01's statement is right on--we have to emphasize BOTH sides, neither ignoring corruption, nor claiming that it was true of all or most cases. We need to celebrate the positives of adoption and strongly oppose the abuses.

sjbj said: I think the problem is, at least for me, that when the issue of kidnapping or corruption is brought up, it is often sensationalized and generalized to all adoptions from Guatemala."

Who sensationalizes and generalizes? I mean other than those who prey on the emotions and pocket books of adoptive parents.

Norma Cruz is speaking about specific cases. They have the names of the people in the states that have adopted the alleged kidnap victims. She is asking that a legitimate DNA test be made of that child. If that comes back as a negative match to Raquel, she will not bother that family again.

BUT if it comes back as a match, that will shake the entire adoption family, because it is proof that a kidnapped child made it through the process we all counted on.

Will that mean all adoptions are suspect? NO!!!! No one thinks that. But which ones are "good" and which ones are "Bad"? That will be the unknown...if...

...if the named family continues to refuse to allow a DNA test, and if then the Adoption community in general agrees with that stand, it will mean to those who would sensationalize it, that all adoptive families wonder if their adoption was of a possibly kidnapped child.

This will be a travesty for each and every adopted child, who when they reach a certain age, will be inquisitive, and will hear about the mess that the system became right around the time they were adopted. And they will ask you. Wouldn't it be wonderful for you to be able to say you loved them so much, you wanted to make absolutely sure of their origins. I think they would rather hear that you found that there was an issue, and there was a law broken, but in collaboration with the CNA, because no one could find their birth mom, all agreed that the best thing for them was to stay with you.

I know of a number of AP's who this year spent a lot of time and money to find and communicate with the Birth Moms, I know they sleep better at night than those who have said on this site that they don't want to know.

But the community at large must break ranks with those who want all AP's to live in fear. These people knew what they were doing when they preyed on poor women, and on the American couples. They want you to worry as only they should. It is the wolf who dons sheep's clothing, and hopes that all the sheep will look alike to the world.

Neither Norma Cruz or anyone in the CNA is lobbying for children beyond these specific cases to be returned. Other than kidnapping, the crimes committed will result in ( maybe)_ criminal action against the lawyers and agencies, but not the AP's. Of course the lawyers and agencies want you to worry that something ridiculous, like a child whose mother turns out to have been married, will be taken from its adoptive parents. NO ONE here believes that. If someone tells you that is a possibility, it will be a willful lie. Ask yourself what their motive might be?

As for abandoned babies. I live in a house that receives the abandoned babies. The majority of children that we have taken in this year were abandoned by the lawyers and or Casas Cunas, as the adoption money dried up. Its a shame, because each of those children is receiving love and care that could be going to the children who were abandoned by a distressed young woman, rather than a rich lawyer. We have taken in these children, in hopes of helping the family who was in process to regain that child. We believe with all our hearts that they are the people most qualified to raise that child.

That reminds me, if anyone thinks they have to abandon a child ( or 14 children) to Casa Alegria, please contact the folks at Guatadopt, and they will get you in contact with a much better home.

Steve, so very glad to see you back. If anyone can speak of the current situation it is you. Thank you for bringing clarity to the discussion.

Steve, I don't think I can state exactly who sensationalizes and generalizes without violating the "no personal attacks" rule of the comments. But, go look at the forum. Search by "stolen". For one example, you'll see an alleged in-process PAP who screamed in ALL CAPS about how the MAJORITY of cases were /are corrupt, how NO ONE can EVER know their case was clean, how NOTHING can prove that a case was clean. There are at least a half dozen folks on this site who make the immediate leap from the few specific cases that have been questioned (like those in the video) to ALL cases being somehow /somewhat tainted.
As for the issue of APs with questionable cases who are now being asked for DNA tests, I understand totally the logic behind that and agree. BUT, WHY would they--or you--trust that the system would now , at this point, be any more able to do a corruption-free process than the old system was?? I don't blame the APs for not trusting the system.

Hi,

This comment is for Steve. Is your point that agencies will want to deflect attention from their illegal adoptions by pointing out other illegalities? I feel a little dense here, but I am not seeing how this benefits the conspirators.

Thank you for your home, your faith and your example.

Ana01 - I'm the original anonymous from above. I've not been able to read the replies until today.

As for using "anonymous" - I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't know the road I've traveled, nor, the fact that the "adoption professionals" hired in my case are still reaking havoc in my life almost 2 years after bringing my child home. I'm sorry to see that you feel this is a cowards way, but you my dear, are not a concern in my day to day- the best interest of my child is.

I never said American life is better. If I could move to Guatemala, run an orphanage, and care for the children- I would, in a heartbeat, without a doubt.

As for Jennifer's news story, I have read it in the past. I'm "very" close to all of these situations.

We can bicker back and fourth but what it all comes down to is that my "right thing" is different from your "right thing" - so we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not changing my opinion and you aren't changing yours.

I have to say that it disturbs me greatly when parents can overlook the rights and devastation felt by mothers in Guatemala. it is almost like seeing the people of their country as second rate when they are victims of a crime as if they do not deserve the justice they would receive in America. I understand the horror I would feel at the prospect of losing my children if they were returned to Guatemala. I don't think I could live without them, but it wouldn't be right or fair to them to deny them and their families the reunion they deserve.
We established first family contact straight away as to be honest I needed to know that everything was done right as if the parents told us that they were treated unfairly then it would be easier to put right at that stage.
The communication is so important for our children, their parents and us.
I know it is a personal decision to have an open adoption but in the current climate, I couldn't imagine having it any other way. If many of you have seeds of doubt what on Earth will it be like for your children when they read all the negative press and internet sites about theft and corruption. How will they feel, if they can not then establish contact? What horrific thoughts will they have? I think it could be really traumatic.
I think that the Guatemalan adoption issue is not black and white. For me , the rhetoric of both sides is what concerned me most. Pro adoption people called UNICEF evil, anti-adoption folks spoke only of trafficking etc. I don't deal in absolutes, its like 'the axis of evil' nonsense. There are good people, bad people and many somewhere in between- Good adoptions, bad ones and some which could have been handled better.

I think this video shows the nightmare experienced by a mother who was devastated by horrible , ruthless people. Her innocent and altruistic actions led her into the web of those fiends who stole her child. It breaks my heart for her.
I think she deserves our support.
I hope she finds her precious child very soon. If the child has been adopted, then my heart breaks for the adoptive parents , I hope that mother gets justice but the adoptive parents have some access too.

Anonymous,

I am sorry that your case has taken so long to process. I fully understand that the adoption process, at its best, is stressful and frustrating. Hitting roadblocks must make it even more stressful and frustrating.

We may not see eye to eye. I am fine with that. It is not my objective to convince people that I am right and they are wrong. I have an opinion; I have compassion; I also have my moral compass which may or may not differ from others.

This topic is not about “corruption”. Perhaps at a later date, a topic can be started on how one defines corruption and the means one can take to ensure that corruption didn’t touch their case or touched it in a limited manner. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that every case out of Guatemala was riddled with corruption or that overt crimes were committed. Persuasion, nuances, nothing you can put your finger on but maybe, maybe not, sure. But that every child was kidnapped or abducted NO.

I do not believe that anyone on this topic has claimed that all adoption out of Guatemala are a result of children being kidnapped and ripped from their loving homes. I think it is safe to assume (at least I think), the minority of cases resulted from children being kidnapped from their mothers.

The video that Kevin presented is a moving video that places a face and a voice to a mother’s broken heart and her longing and search for her little girl. The video shows us the other side; the side of the woman who did NOT relinquish her child or was involved in the alleged adoption of her daughter.

Susana brought up the case of Loyda Rodriguez who has been searching for her daughter Anyeli for some time now. Her search has lead her to a family that may have adopted her child who today live in Missouri. Is the child known as Karen Abigail Anyeli? I don’t know. And we may never know if the family in Missouri does not cooperate.

The issue has been raised on what would you do if you received the call that the child you have grown to love, believe is yours, have cared for and embraced completely turns out to be a child that was kidnapped and now the mother wants her child back.

Some have argued that under no circumstances would they even entertain that idea. The child is theirs and that is all that matters. Others have suggested facing their fears and trusting the outcome that the best interest of the child would be served – even if it meant the heart breaking and devastation of returning the child to the mother who longs for her.

I have spoken that I stand on the ground of ethical and legal adoptions. I believe that adoption is a beautiful institution and I am thankful to God to be blessed with my son. I am forever grateful to Guatemala for allowing me the privilege and honor as well as responsibility to do what is right by my son.

As I have held the hand of many families in process, I hold the virtual hands of these mothers who search for peace and resolution in the quest to be reunited with their children. As frustrating as it must be for you to be in an adoption process for 2 years, imagine the pain and anguish that these women have endured. I believe that you can relate to the anger, frustration, heart ache, heart break, and devastation at roadblock after roadblock and obstacle after obstacle. I believe you can also relate with these women in that you too are longing and doing everything in your power to be together with your child – the child that burns in your heart. I believe you can also relate with these women because nothing and no one will tell you that your child belongs with anyone else.

To Jennifer Hemsley,

I don't remember your exact words, but you said something to the effect that illegal DNA samples were wide spread. I'm truly interested in knowing what your evidence is.

If Jennifer does not see this post, I hope that someone else can shed light on what she was referring to.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

The video and comments of many here have really inspired me. So, I'm going to do express my thoughts as I believe some points need to be raised and perhaps even some egos bruised.

First, let's all consider the source of this video and its intended market. It's Al Jezeera, which puts out its product for those who generally don't see the United States in the most favorable light to put it mildly. Here's a domestic analogy. If you were not a Republican, you probably wouldn't put a lot of stake in an investigative report by Fox News even though it may have had some salient points, would you?

Second, there are many factors at work in Guatemala that we must consider when considering with the adoption issue. If you look into it a bit, you will see that the U.S.'s history in dealing with Central America has been rather poor. There is an understandable mistrust and fear among many towards the behemoth to the north. That negative feeling towards the U.S. is something which many use to gain the spotlight and power. I know for a fact that in Guatemala's last elections this mistrust towards the U.S. was used along with calls that Americans were stealing the youth and future of Guatemala. International adoption was used as a political football much like anti-immigration campaign platforms and statements, primarily aimed at Hispanics, were used in the U.S. but one party and its proponents. They both baited ethnocentric fears. Now, I don't know enough about Norma Cruz to make a conclusion about her motives. However, it does appear that she is using these poor women to play on the fears that exist in Guatemala while also gaining more media and hence political attention for herself.

Third, I completely agree with the statements of Sra. Luarca concerning UNICEF's anti international adoption stance. Without a doubt, UNICEF played a major role in shutting down Guatemala. UNICEF's policy is anti-international adoption, particularly if it involves western nations and especially the U.S. The U.N. believes that a child is ultimately better off with his own race, culture and country no matter what. This is no different than those in this country who oppose interracial adoptions. Or to strech the analogy further, their belief is similar to the legal position in many U.S. states where the birth parent always has the ultimate rights to their child, irreglardless of the fact they have demonstrated a pattern of abuse or drug use.

Fourth, I really take offense to those who throw rocks at Guatemala and its adoptions. Don't forget what has gone on in this country! I'm sure all of you have heard the stories right here in the 'Good Ole US of A' about private adoption lawyers making payoffs to mothers for their babies, foster parents who starved the children or simply took them on for the money from the state, stealing babies from and even murdering new mothers, and orphanages that conducted shady adoptions. Furthermore, chilren are abducted and sold in Guatemala and to neighboring countries for labor and more nefarious purposes not unlike workhouses that existed and crimes that have taken place in the U.S. Yes, these things have all happened in our country. If you haven't heard of them before, perhaps you should start Googling before you start off-handedly referring to all adoptions from Guatemala as tainted and getting holier than thou about the situation.

While I'm discussing our home grown adoption issues, there's one other point I'd like to raise. How about those wonderful judges and states where birth parents have ultimate rights, no matter how many years have passed since the mother or both parents dumped the child like he or she was a rent to own stereo they could no longer afford? I'll bet this threat played a factor in many of you deciding to adopt abroad.

It is undeniable that many women feel regret for having given up the child they gave birth to and some want them back. For some it is an attack of conscience, others see a state paycheck, and some may later find themselves in a better financial situation where they can now affor the child, while others come out of their drug stupor. We are all familiar with horror stories of judges in the U.S. returning custody of children to birth parents years later even though they have had NOTHING to do with the children for years. Right now, there are birth mothers of Michael Jackson's children starting to come out of the woodwork because they see those three unfortunate children as dollar signs. I don't know what the motivations are of those women in the video, but I do wonder if some of them may be those I mentioned previously if their children were not truly abducted.

Now don't get me wrong and think that I'm in Sra. Luarca's camp. Her professional situation guarantees at least some bias. She may be a very altruistic and effective adoption attorney. I don't know. I have not dealt with her and know nothing of her besides what she has posted here. Personally, I have no good feelings towards those in the 'adoption industry.' They all seem to profit from suffering as I know all too well from my own adoption experiences. Besides the fiscal aspect, adoption carries an unfair negative stigma. Adoption too often seems to be looked down upon along with the adoptees in all cultures including our own. I've seen trailers of a Warner Brothers movie coming out this month called "Orphan" in which the child is an evil killer! It which plays upon and reinforces the stigma giving adoption and adoptees a bad rap. Why are we furthering adoption-bashing here on a site that is supposed to be for support of adoption? There seems to be many out there against adoption one way or another.

Lastly, there's one last point to make, which I'm sure will inflame some. I find it hard to believe some of the posts in which some who claim to be parents of Guatemalan children would consider simply sending the child back and/or automatically begin to question the veracity of your adoption. If you can write such a post, I believe that you must be one of two alternatives. First, you perhaps haven't adopted a child and are a provacateur posting such inflammatory comments. Second, you are the epitome of the American throw away culture. It is truly horrifying to me how you can consider casting away a living, feeling child that you supposedly have been raising and nurturing as if they were not a living person but instead a malfunctioning laptop, problem pet or SUV you think is a lemon. Yes, you do have a right to your opinion and somewhat of a point in which the child may feel distress in the future. Yet, honestly, adoption is an issue all adopted children will face to one degree or another. Again, I refer to the fact that this is a site for information and support of adoption. So, you if you don't support it, perhaps you should take your opinion elsewhere.

Sincerely,
A Lot 2 Say

Cheryl, you make a good point. When people say fraud was widespread what is the evidence? How many women have made claims that their baby was stolen? How many cases of fake DNA have been proven? Were woman in Guatemala reporting the theft of babies to the authorities over the past years?
I don't think most of tthe adoptions in Guatemala were corrupt for two reasons.First,I don't think most Guatemalans are sinister kidnappers who would do such a thing. Secondly, adoptions in Guatemala were moving a brisk pace. An attorney could have a successful adoption practice and still work within the law.
I am not stating that corruption did not exist nor do I deny the claim of any individual. I am only asking what facts exist to substantiate the claim of massive fraud.

good for u, A lot 2 say!! There is no way you could jump and say you would give your child back. Yes it is a shame if these stories are true but anyone who is truly a adopted parent could never say that. My kids are my whole life and will never leave my side!! Some of you who jump to "Oh the right thing do do" Think of you children and the only parents they know!

I was under the impression that the DNA samples were taken at the US embassy. Is this correct or incorrect?

I would have hoped that at least the second DNA sample to match the child back to the child would have been done at the US embassy. Was it?

Henry, I also tend to think that the out right kidnapping, putting guns to heads, drugging biological mothers, God forbiden even possibly killing biological parents, etc was not terribly common. I'll tell you about a conversation that I had with a good friend of mine, Michael, who is a rather skeptical fellow and a very thorough thinker. He is an attorney. Graduated suma cum laude from Princeton. His reaction was that attorneys and doctors in general can make rather good money without resorting to such dark deeds so he doesn't think that it would be really common for them to stoop to this. He made a good point. They already make a lot of money so why take such big risks? I'm not saying that none of them did this. Obviously, some of them did. There are always people who think that they will never get caught.

But even if they are only motivated out of self interest, if they are already in a position to have a pretty good standard of living why take the risk that comes along with kidnapping, killing, ...

I have read a lot of the posts and it is a bit hard for me to remember verbatim what has been side. I thnk that Jennifer Hemsley posted that there were a lot of paper work subbmited that all had the same biological parent/child names I'm thinking "what?" Surely the name of the people who submitted the paper work is on the paper work. Go find those people and haul them in. If this really happened, I cannot fathom how any would think that they would be able to submit a lot of paper work with the same biological parent/child names and never get caught. *shrug*

I am definitely interested in hearing facts, whatever direction they point.

Best, Cheryl

Sjbj; I guess my point was that the concept of sensationalizing and the rampant and widespread appear more in the comments of people who are accusing straw men of saying that, rather than directly from the mouths of adoption opponents. I get the sense that [re Shakespeare ] “Me thinks [they] doth protest too much” , suggesting that the argument is that it is OK to have a little corruption, but the people who are against adoptions think all adoptions are bad. That “all adoptions are bad” is an untenable position, and so the people with a latent sense of guilt feel better. Using words like “witch hunt” to describe government investigations is that kind of tactic.
Again, the simplest way to make this video a mute point would be for a reputable DNA test. FBI? Missouri state bureau? There are plenty of agencies that would be considered reputable by all. Let’s see what those results are before talking about the next step. I think Karenms made the point that these are crimes that would be properly addressed if given the proper term. Apart from the intricacies of international adoption, there is the accusation
This then goes to the question that Pitterpatter asks. I am probably the dense one, and am not making my point clear. And you are right, it wouldn’t be an innocent person’s 1st choice of defense! In light of evidence of falsified documents, and dubious DNA testing efficacy, the lawyers have at times explained that they had to break the law, for instance, to help a mother who was underage or married that could not keep her child. This is a noble motive, and has sympathy everywhere. And so the big bad PGN is hassling these poor frightened women by making them submit to a verifying interview. Then the lawyers inform the American PAP that the mother is afraid to show up, and the situation will take longer, and that they will probably have to move to have the case become an abandonment….because of the big bad PGN. And as they explain this, they also mention it will cost a lot more now. But it is not their fault. It is the “everyone knows is corrupt” Guatemalan government. And so we pay, and keep in league with people who have pretty much admitted that they broke the law. But to what extent did they break the law, and whose word do you take? The DNA test failed because…? The BM did not make the interview because…?

I think it is time for the AP community to recognize that they are victims of this charade, and they should stop helping hide the victimizers, and also stop seeing the other victims as their potential enemy. Wouldn’t it be something to have all of the AP’s get together, and document their stories, and shed light, and compare notes. I feel that many ( don’t know the number, so Many might be too big, but I have heard anecdotally) agencies that are continuing in the states who were knowledgably part of this scam. They had rules limiting open communication with other PAP’s, right? They said : “we have no control” when things were not going well, right? Put those two sentences together, and realize they did not have your, or your child’s best interests at heart….to put it as mildly as I can.
Look at it this way, PP. We all agree, there may be some coercion and kidnapping. ( 2 proven cases at least) Very little. But how much is a little? Is a little a matter of degree or quantity? All agree that “a little” would be 1%. For 2007, that would mean 40. Forty falsified documents for age or a married woman is not too bad. We can live with that. 40 kidnappings, or enslavements to produce babies would be unacceptable. These women in the video have not had an easy go of it. Their first attempts to get help from police and investigators were met with stonewalling at best, and ridicule and defamation at worst. They were told there was no hope. In other words, making this stand is not an easy one, where there are more people doing it than there are legitimate cases. If you know the culture of Guatemala, you can expect that many mothers stoically gave up in the face of indifference and abuse by police. Resignation to corruption and hopelessness is a cultural phenomenon.
Now, in light of about 900 cases, of the 3,033 grandfathered cases being suspect: You have to agree there is more than a little problem. Most are not kidnapping. But which ones? Those people who know they are trying to arrange a very bad situation, want to be included in the mercy motive breaking of the law. Does that make sense, Pitterpatter? It is not as if everyone is saying: “yes, I am guilty” but when caught, they paint the potential wrong as minor, and those who want to investigate, as witch hunters.

I agree Henry-this is why articles that speculate and sensationalize are dangerous. Someone asked about the sensationism in these reports-in fact claiming that children were bought for 50K is an example. How do we seperate truth from lies?
Then another article written by Ms. Graff from some investigative reporting university in Mass. was covering a case or two of kidnapping in one paragraph, and then in the next paragraph quotes the US embassy in GT claiming they said that there are irregularities in most GT adoptions refering to PGN previos.
We know-that a previo can be something as minor as ink color--but the article portrayed the irregularities as widespread kidnappings and to someone not familiar w/ the adoption process would assume this is what it meant.
I read about how women in Guatemala are victimized by the powers that be. So is it right to use more money for an investigator to exploit my child's birth mother who may desire privacy and has np desire to be found? Many birthmom's have legitimate excuses, too many to list to remain anonymous.
I believe many families are motivated by these articles to do search, and if proof of a legit adoption is the only reason for the search I think that this is another way suspicion hurt the birthmom's in GT.

All I can do (at this point) is refer to the AP article http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-22-guatemala-adoption_N.htm

Here are some quotes pulled from the article:

"The Hemsleys say they had many reasons for suspicion. But the final straw was a doctor's statement that said DNA samples were taken from the baby and birth mother on a date when Hazel was with Jennifer Hemsley. She said her Guatemalan attorney told her, "Don't worry about it, you want the adoption to go through, don't you?""

"If all it takes is a doctor's signature to hide a switch in DNA, it would challenge the bedrock evidence on which the U.S. Embassy has depended to guarantee the legitimacy of thousands of Guatemalan adoptions over the past 10 years."

"In an earlier case of switched DNA, Esther Sulamita, a girl stolen at gunpoint and given a false identity, was recognized and recovered by her birth mother in July just before an unknowing Indiana couple could adopt her."

"Dr. Aida Gutierrez handled the DNA for both Hazel and Esther Sulamita. Now under investigation for allegedly forging birth documents, she told prosecutors she followed established procedures."

""The ramifications are immense," Hemsley said. "How many children adopted by U.S. families may have had DNA falsifications such as this, and the U.S. adopting family is unknowing of the fraud?""

Cheryl,

DNA samples were taken at the offices of a handful of doctors in Guatemala that was authorized/approved by the USE. Bu the samples were not taken at the actual Embassy.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Our cases were handled through the UK. The DNA was taken in the actual embassy. I think that was a better system.

Mary

Taking a deep breathe...

I resent the statement that anyone who would seek to do the "right thing" is not a parent or views their child as a consumable that is disposable. That is SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH.

I will refer back to the biblical reference that mom posted... when Solomon was presented by the two women claiming to be the child's mother....

I AM A MOTHER. And as a mother, my son is more important than ME, what I want, how I feel, what matters to me.

NO ONE on this board has said they would ship their kid back with no after thought or regret. In fact, I think that those who would honestly want to do the "right thing" and face the possible corruption in their case, would most likely be praying heavily that the wrong kid was located.

As an adoptive parent, I do not know how I would survive a situation as that which is presented in this video. I do not know how Raquel Par makes it through the day. I also do not know how Loyda Rodriguez makes it. I don't know how the families of the children how are allegedly the kidnapped victims deal with this potential reality.

I would be beyond devastated and destroyed. I would rationalize till my last breathe that my son belongs with me. I would move hell and high water to be close to him -- even if it meant moving to Guatemala.

What would consume me even more would be living the lie and withholding the truth from my son -- that is like a cancer and last I checked, cancer isn't a healthy thing to have in one's body. I could not survive the lie.

So, when I think of this....I think that I am thinking as a responsible and loving mother. Not looking at my son as a possession. He has been entrusted to me by God not an article of anything that I bought and paid for therefore I have the receipt to show that no one but me is his mom.

So please, I would appreciate that those who would act in a manner which would cooperate and would work together to find resolution for the child as being anything less than loving, nurturing and REAL PARENTS.

This video displays a woman whose daughter was stolen from her. This child was not some malnourished little girl found on some street corner. The child was healthy, loved and happy with her mom. Is this woman, Raquel Par not a mother? Does the potential reality that another family is loving this child make Raquel less of a mom?

And make no mistake, kidnapping reports were made at the time the crimes were committed. This is not a case of a birthmother changing her mind or wanting to cause problems. These were actual crimes that were committed and reported at the time they occurred.

Not every child out of Guatemala was kidnapped. And I do not believe that anyone here has said that.

Not a single person said they would just return the child no questions asked -- treating the child as a commodity rather than as their child.

Was there corruption in Guatemalan adoptions? Sure. How rampant was the corruption? I suppose that depends on your definition of corruption.

In the case of Raquel Par and Loyda Rodriguez, there children were stolen from them. In these cases, there was a crime and corruption involved if in fact the children now residing in the United States are the children of these women.

A few months ago there was a posting on this site and another looking to contact parents w/ the same last name as ours. I tell you, for the 2 days it took to find out it was not us they were looking for my mind went to the absolute darkest places. I couldn't sleep, couldn't eat. My conversations with my husband made me realize we were in 2 totally different mind sets for the "what ifs". I am so glad we did not have to face the nightmare of finding out something horrible like our adoption was fraudulent. I honestly don't know if we could have survived it. My husband was so resolute with heals dug in that this was our child and that is that. I, on the other hand, don't believe I could ever send her back, really struggled with the idea that there might be a birth mother fighting for her child, stolen, kidnapped, whatever. Truely dark thoughts. How would I feel? I know I would fight tooth and nail for my kids, all 3. But I am privilged with resources that woment in GT do not have access or maybe even knowledge of. I tell you, it was aweful. But because of that mini scare, it pushed us to seek more information and now I am comforted in the truth being that our adoption was above board and real. I always thought that before but now know for sure. For that I am thankful. (See guatadopt team, you help more than you know!)

ANother question: Did the attorney or any one who benefited from the adoption get to choose which doctor performed the DNA for a specific case?

Then I suppose they were able by their own choosing to go back to the same doctor to perform the second DNA as well?

Someone didn't have their thinking caps on.

Why didn't the embassy randomly assign doctors to perform each DNA collection? See where I'm going with this? Assume that doctor A and attorney B are corrupt. Attorney B needs to have DNA collected for case C. If the doctors are randomly assigned, then attorney B has no way of knowing whether doctor A will be assigned to collect DNA for case C. Lets say attorney B gets luck for the first DNA test and doctor A is assigned. Well, if doctors are randomly assigned, there is no way of knowing that doctor A will be assigned to collect the second DNA for the same case C.

Best, Cheryl

I want to echo something Ana01 said and I am speaking here as the moderator, activist, and overlord of this site.

I approved some comments made today that I probably shouldn't have. I was guilty of a busy day at work and only reading the first few lines of posts.

Some things being said are about as cruel as possible, whether intended as such or not.

I have incredibly thick skin. And in my role as Guatadopt overlord, I have allowed myself to be assailed far more than members of our community. I put myself in the public eye, I've got it coming.

There was only one time that someone really struck a nerve with me. It had nothing to do with adoption. It was an election season and somehow the discussion digressed into legalization of marijuana - which is something I personally support. Think of that what you may but my archnemesis in the discussion took that as a reason to proclaim that I could not possibly be a fit father or positive rolemodel for my kids. That was too much. Point is, that was the equivalent of a three year old screaming "I hate you" because you won't let him have ice cream without eating some vegetables. Luckily I came to terms with that fact, because it was a low blow. Incidentally, I still didn't ban him

Any insuation that someone, because of their view on this complex and heart wrenching issue, is not a mother or must not love and cherish their child is hitting below the belt. Even if it technically wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

This is difficult and painful shit here. It is the worst fear of ANY OF US!! We all share that in common. We all love our kids and thank god it isn't us having to deal with this. We have testament to what that feeling was like.

It is so hard to debate right and wrong on something that is clearly so wrong. There is no way to right the wrongs that have been committed to the child and two sets of families who love him/her.

I think we all need to realize that different people can with crystal clarity see things differently. And we can't understand how in the heck the others are sane. But they are and it is part of the amazing diversity that is the Guatadopt readership and the human race.

So remember that human part and find some humanity in your comments.

Peace,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com
who kind of likes the overlord title

Thanks Kevin for your thoughts and moderation--it is always appreciated!

For AP's that want some piece of mind in their adoption case---couldn't they privately do a DNA test---that nobody would know about but them---and compare the results with the first two DNA tests? This would not ensure that the birthmother was not paid for the adoption, or that the birthmother was not held against her will--but it would show that the child at home is the same child presented at the beginning and the end of the process--the same child that matched the birthmother that was with the child for the test. I believe it would show that the child was not kidnapped at least.

I agree with the comment that somebody didn't have their thinking caps on----what WERE they thinking, if in fact they allowed attorneys to choose the doctors for the sample---and why in the world wasn't this conducted at the embassy?

I just can't figure out why a doctor would want to take such a huge risk when they make a great wage already? What did these doctors have to do to be "embassy approved"? Shouldn't the embassy share the blame? Have any of the labs been accused of falsifying information?

My heart goes out to these women who have had their children stolen, and to the AP's who are living this nightmare.

Anonymous

Wow! Before watching the video and reading these comments, I think, had I been approached about a possible kidnapping involving my child, I would have submitted to a DNA test to prove it one way or the other. I would not have given her up even to her birth mother because she is now old enough never to recover from such a drastic separation. However, now that I hear all of the accusations of rampant corruption at every level of the adoption process, I would NEVER submit her to a DNA test for this purpose. How do I know that her DNA test won't be falsified? How do I know that the possible birth mother's DNA test hasn't been falsified? How do I know what kind of info would be given to whom and cause my family turmoil throughout my child's life? No, it's all too if-y to take a chance with the well-being of my child. I will, however, give her all of the info I have about her and her adoption, let her read both sides of the debate over international adoption, and support her in any search she does if she chooses to do so when she is a young adult. Our kids need a childhood. They need to grow up like other children without a black cloud over their heads wondering if their birth mother is a victim of a crime. I will live with that cloud as her mother until my daughter is mature. Then I will give her everything I know and let her make her own decision.
BTW, I think the point one poster made about the corruption in US adoptions is a good one. It does not negate any crime done against women in GT but it does give this whole issue some perspective. The real victims here are the adopted kids - even those who have been legally and ethically adopted, which I believe are the majority. They have to live with the stigma this all causes. I think our best move is to work for better adoption systems world-wide for the children of the future and to give loving, stable, untainted childhoods to those that are in our homes and hearts now. As adults, our children can decide for themselves what is in their best interest. If they've been given a childhood filled with unconditional love that builds their self-confidence and self-esteem, they will have the emotional tools to handle whatever they find out. JMHO.

Kevin,

You really hit the nail on the head when you said that so much of what has happened is wrong and it is impossible now to correct all of the wrongs.

LA, I really connect with your last sentence, which says, "If they've been given a childhood filled with unconditional love that builds their self-confidence and self-esteem, they will have the emotional tools to handle whatever thye find out."

I'm sure there are exceptions to that statement, but I think it is important for us parents to be confident. We are much more likely to be successful if we are. A very successful entrepreneur once said to me that it is important to believe that you deserve to be successfull and to believe that you will be successful. I clung to what he said during my adoption process. I cling to it now as I'm raising my daughter.

If authorities came forward and said there were suspicions that my daughter had been kidnapped, I tend to think I would investigate carefully to find out if that were the case. If it turned out to be true, I would try to figure out if her birth parents are people of good character. If they are of good character, then I would probably coordinate spending time with them, keeping them informed about how my daughter is doing and so on. I would not relinquish my daughter to them. I'm sure that relinquishing her would not be in her best interest. Ya, that really sucks. But I think the central issue is "what is best for her."

Kindest Regards, CHeryl

Just a reply to a few of the previous comments.

Doctors in Guatemala don't make the kind of money they do here. In fact, when I was living in Guatemala I had to take my daughter into a hospital for a bladder infection, and after seeing the doctor, having a number of tests done, and spending a good portion of a day there, we walked out having spent about $30. So, it's possible that making some money on the side might have a stronger appeal than we might think.

Secondly, someone found it hard to believe that that many attorneys would be involved in corruption due to the fact that the were making good money as it was. But there is a strong possibility in many cases that the corruption was perpetrated by the facilitator or someone else, and that the attorney was not fully involved/aware. In many cases, it is the facilitator that handles the paperwork, legwork, contact with the bio mom.

Lastly, let's not forget the cultural differences. We may find lying at any point in the process shocking. But, those types of things are just not that big of a deal in some other cultures. We were lied to left and right by our attorney (about what previos we had, when, why, how they were going to fix them, etc.). They were nice enough people, not bad people, but telling 'little white lies' is just not considered a big deal there. So, yes, there likely were plenty of things going on that were not above board. A document forged here and there, etc.

That does not mean these adoptions were corrupt. In my opinion, if the birth mother willingly relinquished her child, that is a legitimate adoption. Even if that means that she had to lie about her marital status, or if the attorney had to forge something on her cedula because some mayor failed to sign a bunch of cedulas some years ago (because there was a war going on). These types of things are just part of life in Latin America and for the most part nobody bats and eyelash over it.

For the many, many, many of us who did not zip in and out of PGN in 2 months, we know how our files were scrutinized to the Nth degree. I personally was in PGN with one of my daughters for over a year.

We are fortunate to have met one of our birth mothers and to have 100% confidence in the facilitator and attorney for our second adoption. For those with concerns or questions, I wonder about using Bio Trace. It seems it might be worth it for a little peace of mind.

I appreciate your moderation, oh overlord (said with humor), and your hard work and oversight. I know you are referring to my post here concerning "commodities" and would like to clarify. I do not feel that any actual adoptive parents do feel this way. At least I truly hope not. To easily surrender a child one has raised and only knows those who have raised her or him as parents would be an epic and destructive tragedy to all parties involved.

Admittedly, I was quite PO'd after watching the video and reading some posts. I should have taken the intelligent course in the electronic world to write the message, let it sit, then go back and make some revisions before sending. That being said, I would like to add a bit.

My real problem is that too many people and institutions generalize some bad apples and tragic cases to impune the whole system of adoption. As I mentioned previously, adoption in general seems to carry a negative stereotype and interational more so. That is why Guatemala is now shut down instead of requiring and making necessary changes and safeguards. It is also my belief that anti-Hispanic immigration sentiments of the party in charge in the U.S. at the time had something to do with the shut down as well.

We should not all begin to question our adoptions because of the tragic cases. As I said previously, the same kind of things can and do happen right here in U.S. And as to the comments about irregularities made in the Al Jezeera video, I question what exactly were they referring to and considered an irregularity. (Kevin, I appreciate your comment that in a worse case secenario, this accounts for only 1/3 of cases.) Furthermore, we all know that PGN was infamous for classifying a typo, faded copy, or wrong color ink as an irregularity. To use a bad cliche, but I can't think of one more applicable, we should not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and race to a conclusion that our children are tainted somehow because of a few cases and insinuations.

I am confident that my adoption was legal as I researched the matter fully in advance, followed the process carefully, and believe I am more aware of what is going on as I am a Spanish-speaker. I will not go back and try to dig up something wrong when I know it did not exist beyond the monetary gouging by all parties in the chain including in Guatemala and our government.

Additionally, I will not and advise people NOT to pursue getting another DNA test unless you fully believe there is evidence of a real problem in your case and/or there is absolutely no other way for you to live with yourself. Attitudes among many have changed in Guatemala and politics are now different. Ask yourself this. As some have insinuated that even the double DNA system was corrupt in favor of adoptions, who is to say it is now not corrupted against any adoptions that took place?

One final comment. I am really fed up with those who impune AP's of children of other races or nations and would like to cast doubt upon all adoptions and all of us. I don't swallow it and think no one else should have to either. As I stated, I believe that some of them do read and post to this site as it is well known and Kevin rightly so does let differing opinions be heard. We should bear that in mind. Out in the everyday world, I'm sure we have all run into variying degrees of insensitivity. I have even had the following questions asked right in front of my child, such as: "Is that your child?" "Where is the child from?" "How much did you pay for the child?" I'm sure many of you have too. Nevertheless, we should not let the comments and beliefs of those insensitive to us and adoption doubt or change the love we feel for our child.

A Lot 2 Say

My heart breaks for Raquel Par.

I did not get angry when I saw the video. I did not think that the video was anti-adoption. My heart did break for Raquel Par who was drugged and her precious daughter kidnapped. My heart breaks for any parent whose child has been ripped away from her -- whether that child is their child due to biology or adoption.

Raquel Par did not relinquish her child. Loyda Rodriguez did not relinquish her daughter and there was no positive DNA test. In fact, her DNA test was negative and the child declared abandoned by a judge in Escuilta. That judge is now under investigation.

These women filed police reports when the crimes were committed. They have courageously sought out their children. They have not been discouraged by a patriarcal system that does not validate them.

This is not about rampant fraud or irregularities found in PGN. This is about families that have been devastated because a crime was committed, both a family who had a child stolen and a family who has adopted the child.

There are many people suffering here. There is a mother longing for her child. There are APs who are dealing with this potential truth. But most of all there is a child who has been robbed of her identity.

I believe that those that have said they would "do the right thing" and see if in fact the child that was being searched for was the child kidnapped is acting in a way that is honoring the child -- honoring her birth right and loving her enough to let her go, if it meant that.

how about

Dear GUATABWANA....I want to say that you have nothing to apologise for, your record as overlord is still way above anyhting else similar.

AS a strong advocate for truth making the adoption community free, I want to say I agree with Anon of earlier today. If anyone has influence on the family in question, can you ask them to do a private DNA evaluation, and match it to the paperwork? Then they will not be dealing with fear of the unknown when making that next step decision...and will not be doing it in a fishbowl.

Listening to the news today, and hearing about " healthcare reform" sent chills down my spine. De ja Vu all over again. Once again, we hear that everyone agrees there needs to be a reform...but after that, there seems to be no ability to actually reform, and will the UN get involved???

Maybe true reform is just an illusion. It seems that in history, when there is a need for reform, from the American 1776, Russia 1917, what was actually called the Reformation, but in reality was a revolution we still are reeling from in the Chrsitian world; every effort to reform corrupt systems ... that the people in power ( either economic or military control) resist reasonable reform until the natural forces reach combustion pressure and revolution breaks out.

Yes Ana-the debate is not about widespread corruption. Reading about kidnappings of 4 cases in 3 years has led me to think if investigating every adoption is warranted, especially when it is portrayed as widespread in the media. I don't think it is.This is the question I believe is on some families mind.
This is why I also am wondering if searching for a childs' birthmom to prove a legit adoption based on the number of kidnappings occured & reported on, is further exploiting the women in GT, who wish to remain anonymous. I agree with the posters who say another dna test done in private is a good solution to closure for our children.
I hope reports like this do not cause any unecessary panic within the adoption community.
It is my hope that the stolen children are represented by the families involved to meet the child's emotional needs whatever this may be, and that they know they are loved and wanted by all.

Ladybug,

I don't believe that finding out the truth by searching for the birthmother is exploiting them further. Many searches have been carried out successfully without endangering the parties involved. As far as I know, in most cases it is a big relief for her and/or her parents (when parents were aware of the adoption) to know their child is well and loved.

It is my opinion that parents who research their case to confirm it was legit are doing the most they can for their children. With all the stigma and prejudice against ICA, at least they will have elements of truth to know they were not one of those cases.

I will admit this kind of stuff makes want to hire a PI to check into mother if nothing else but to have the information for my children when they come across all these stories. I am torn on topic though because she indicated no contact, I want to respect her position and not expose her or family to any issues, and because I'm afraid of learning something that perhaps we're better off not knowing. However, another party saying no contact might be a cover. How on earth do you ever know while trying to respect all sides in the equation and protect your child? I know of three cases of domestic adoption where the biological parents were NOT the kind of people you would want open contact with. In one case the story is so awful [in multiple newspapers] my husband and I both admitted in their shoes we'd be tempted to tell the child their parents were good people killed in a car crash and change our names and disappear to spare the child from the media and public knowledge of the crime. I know everyone talks of truth but I got to say when I learned of that case hands down I think there are things in this world the child should maybe never know out of fear of what damage it might do to their psyche to grow up with the knowledge. I know this is not the case with the mothers of the kidnapped children but just a fear I have on the birthmother search. I think she's a good woman for making an adoption plan and not having the children removed so that at least eases some of my fears but it doesn't necessarily make her a saint. And "fallen" women can be better human beings than the so called pillars of society so I just don't know. I know this outside the kidnapping thread but just wanted to say that this does make some of us want to pursue more information for our childrens sakes.

ladybug, I agree with you, totally, that if the only reason one searches for one's child's birth mother is to verify the facts of the adoption, that is exploiting the birth mother. Doing a search is a complicated decision and one that shouldn't be entered into lightly or merely to satisfy one's curiousity or put one's own mind to rest.
However, I don't think it's necessarily true that Guatemalan birth mothers wish to remain anonymous. On a couple of listservs regarding birth family contact, many people report that although the paperwork or the attorney says "no contact", in fact the birth mothers are happy to be contacted. The norm is "no contact", so many attorneys use that as the default. No way to know what the birthmother really wishes without contacting her. Most of the stories of birth mother contact on the listservs report that the birthmothers are happy to be found.

This is just a suggestion, and I really want to hear what people Like Kevin, Kelly and those who know think of it before anyone doing it. In place of seeking the birth mom, could a family have another DNA test on their child performed wherever they are, and if it matches the paperwork in the dossier, then there is a strong possibility of everything else being in order in the paperwork.

Only if the DNA comes back ... less than perfect... would the parents determine whether or not to then seek the birth mom.

Ladybug,

There is widespread corruption. It all depends on how you define corruption. But this thread is not about wide spread or isoloated corruption and what percentage of corruption and baby stealing you are comfortable with as long as your child comes home topic. This thread is about a woman whose daughter was kidnapped and allegedly placed for adoption.

So no, it's not that only 3 kids have been kidnapped in 3 years. These are the women who have come forward and not cared about the repercussions of coming forward and persisting.

I am considering a birthmother search not to allay my concerns but to provide my son with all the information that I could possibly get him. I know a few people who have conducted birthmother searches and all have had successful contact and the birthmothers have been relieved to know that their children are healthy, happy and well. But that is another topic for another discussion.

Raquel Par was drugged and had her daugher stolen from her. Raquel has been searching for her daughter ever since that tragic indicent. It is believed that the child is residing in the US after having been adopted. As far as I know, the American couple is not cooperating. (this is not the couple from MIssouri).

Steve,

Yes, that certainly can be done. Now, let's remember what it would tell you. It could show you that the child is the same child who had the original test done with his/her biological mother.

In NO way am I saying this happened. But let's say a woman like Raquel Par was drugged and the perpetartors knew they had someone unethical at the DNA doctor's office. Could they have taken some saliva when she was passed out and had it submitted with another woman's picture? I don't know how fresh the sample need be.

Point is, it can certainly determine some things. I know of no cases where anything like what I hypothetically stated above occurred. I'm pretty good at figuring out possible scenarios, but I have to admit that folks have come up with things I never fathomed. Thankfully, my brain doesn't go as sinister as others....

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Ana01-
Yes the article is about kidnapping. If I said the number (just an extremely exaggerated guess) that 200 kidnappings happened in 3 years out of over 7,000 adoptions completed, this still would not motivate me.Perhaps most birthmothers do not mind the search, but in fairness, there are also some that would.

Searching can be a good thing when the intention is not only to prove a legit adoption but to learn medical history, contact and understanding etc. The other side of the coin, is when my dd is old enough-what if she resents this extra step? I can't predict how my dd will feel about this, and it will ultimately be her decision to search or not. Perhaps most children would appreciate this step when older,but again there will be a few that will resent it. Read some adoptee blogs-resentment is there for some. To seach as a knee jerk reaction is not wise imho.

This has no black and white answer & what is right for some is not right for all-you have expressed what is right for your family. I would rather look for a common ground with commenters reaching a similar goal (which is to help and sort out a far reaching, complicated issue afecting many) than to be right in my opinion.

I am keeping my mind open to every possibility, every train of thought, which still includes trust and faith with the attorneys that handled our case.

There is no reason for me to have any doubts-so I will not go looking and creating problems where none exist, based on the readings and reports of articles such as this.

I agree with thankfulmom-that with all of this--that the goodness is becoming lost under the veil of suspicion cast on all GT adoptions.

As you eloquently reminded me-this is the topic of kidnappings of this particular case. It is-but the fallout affects everyone with a child from GT, on many different levels. I think solutions need to be discussed--from the bithfamilies/ap's touched with this particular incident-to the children left behind, and to the adoptive families that need closure, and those still in process. With that we are all connected.

Several have suggested "why not just do the DNA test privately." I'm not an attorney, but based on my experience of a law suit when I was mauled by a dog, you cannot count on anything being "private." If you are subpoenad, you have to tell them everything that you know. For example, you may think that your medical records and your conversations with your doctor are private, but, when if your medical history is pertinent to a law suit, as was mine after I was mauled, the other side is allowed to almost go on a fishing expedition.

As I said, I'm not an attorey. If there are any attorneys reading this, I would love to hear what they have to say about whether a "private DNA test" could legally be kept private if there is a law suite pertaining to an adoption.

Based on my recollection of the video, the attorney said that there is no legal precedence for returning a child even in cases of kidnap. So it sounds like there is no possible harm. I'm just bringing up the possiblities so that everyone can weigh it out.

Best, Cheryl

Ladybug, again I think you make some very good points. From reading the posts on this board I get the impression that a good number of AP's have investigated their own adoptions to determine legality,contact birtmother etc. Its seems that they all have concluded that the adoption was legal. I do not know if the posters represent a valid statistical sample of all AP's but the posts seem to indicate that the vast majority of adoptions were legitimate.

Lisa said "I am torn on topic though because she indicated no contact, I want to respect her position and not expose her or family to any issues, and because I'm afraid of learning something that perhaps we're better off not knowing."
This was also indicted in our first mum report but we did the search anyway and it was NOT the case, she really wanted contact.

Henry, I think it is clear that the readers and posters on Guatadopt represent the most well informed of the adoption community, and the ones who would be responsible with either concerns or information. I think that also makes them ahead of the curve as far as initial investigation, and knowing who they were dealing with. I would bet that there is a higher percentage of " good" adoptions in this community.

Cheryl;

That is a good point. I guess I would hope that a person would do the right thing with the information found privately. I keep forgetting how litigious our society is, and how " win at all costs" lawyers are. Perhaps there is no hope for simple truth anymore in this type of society.

Kevin: regarding the possibility of fraudulent DNA testing: what a long strange trip it's been since you and I weighed in on the subject way back when! Back then you asked me how in the world could anyone fake a DNA result. Now you are presenting a pretty complicated way that is certainly possible, but I don't think very probable. The cases that have become clear seem to all involve switching the results. In other words, if there was fraud at the DNA testing, the VERY HIGH likely way would become evident with a testing of the child. As Cheryl just reminded us, Lawyers do not think that rationally, and so it may mean nothing in court, but it still seems to me to be the simplest and very effective way for a parent to have peace of mind.

Steve and others,

I have appreciated all of the comments and continue to be very interested in this thread and all of the differing ideas--and I am thankful that many have been polite in their posts.

I have another, more selfish reason why I recently did a DNA test on my child that has been home for awhile and who completed the process prior to the second DNA requirement. The test was easy and fast. The results were identicle to the first DNA test.

For those of you interested in this test--consider your time-line as the lab only keeps the DNA for 7 years after which you will not be able to compare to the first test.

I worked with a reputable agency and attny, and I was not even the slightest concerned about my child's adoption. I was concerned about my child.

I was concerned that she would read all of this press when she is older and question her own adoption and wonder if she was "switched" or "kidnapped". We sent photos for awhile to her birthmother, but her birthmother has since disappeared and we do not know where she is. Some day when I have the resources I intend to hire a searcher, but who knows if I will find her.

Now, I am concerned about my second child whose adoption was completed more recently when there was a second DNA test. Again, I am selfish and thinking about my child. Again I am not questioning the legitimacy of my adoption, but what she will think when she reads articles when she is older. Will she also think that there is a possibility that she was "switched" or "kidnapped"? I may do a second DNA (actually it would be a third DNA, but the only one conducted since she was home)so that I can show her the results again one day as well.

I want the paperwork in my hands to show them one day if they are wondering.

I would be very interested in hearing from some of the adoption attorneys and other attorneys about their opinions on this.

It is so unbelieably sad that there are such devious minds who can think of no other way to make their living than to kidnap children. My heart aches for these mothers whose children were stolen.

My heart also aches for all of the adopted children who may not feel good about thier own adoptions as they read all of this when they are older. It is so sad that some want to taint all adoptions when I beleive most were not "switches" or "coercions" or "kidnappings".

It is so devastating that some of the adoptions were.

Thanks for listening.

The "anonymous" from above who suggested the DNA test after the child was home--but not the other anonymous posts

Steve,

I will almost certainly contact my daughter's birthmother. I'm in the process of getting the docs that I'm entitled to from the US. I feel very confident, for many reasons, that my daughter wasn't kidnapped, her biomom wasn't killed... Who knows, she may have been paid *shrug* I'm pointing this out because every parent has to make up their own mind about how to proceed. If it turned out that my daughter was kidnapped, I don't think it would be in her best interest to relinquish custody back to her birth family. I have pictures of her at 3 days of age with her foster mom in the pediatrician's office. I have been her mother far longer than any body else. The transition from her foster mother to me was already quite hard on her. I think I would visit her biological parents, send them pictures and letters... I say "think" because as Kevin has correctly pointed out, none of us know what we will do until we are actually in that situation.

I definitely agree with Kevin that in the case of a child being kidnapped, so many wrongs have been done that they cannot all be corrected.

With regards to you and Kevin trying to figure out how someone would fake a DNA, I think that a reformed criminal and an engineer that specializes in designing secure systems should collaborate to design an adoption process. I'm saying that slightly in gest but to a certain extent I'm serious.

Best, Cheryl

Mary, thank you. I wondered if that ever happened.

Kevin, many thanks for posting this powerful piece. Fortunately for us, my wife and I have met our child's birth mother, who is in somewhat regular contact with us and has forwarded us photos of our child's bio siblings. There is no doubt in our minds that she is the birth mother... and that, yes, she was paid a substantial amount of money.

At the same time, it is clear that there have been many cases of fraud in the system. (We know from personal experience that the social worker in Guatemala for our case fabricated many details in her report, in an apparent attempt at making it impossible for us to find the birth mother. A few flat-out lies, and a number of changes in the details.)

All I can say when someone challenges or disputes the probability of fraud is "Follow the money!" The system was such that those with the potential to make the most money were also the ones who basically made the rules and drove the system. How could there NOT be systematic corruption, given the circumstances?

Wow...I still say the Guatadopt community is the best place for honest, intelligent discussion of these very difficult subjects. I agree with all who have written since my last comment. I wish you guys were in charge of the world. I only disagree with one comment by Anon: I do not agree that you are selfish by wanting to have paperwork to show your children. You are thinking of them. That is the best example for why adoption is the best answer for a child who has lost the ability to be raised by his or her birth family. You are not selfish, Anon, you are what makes me have hope for the future of adoptions.

I am posting this in hopes that someone who has influence in how adoption processes are implemented will read this. Random assignment and cross checking are powerful tools in preventing and catching corruption. They are easy to implement. For example, cases can be randomly assigned to individuals who work on the cases. In the old process, exaples of individuals work on the cases would include doctors, attorneys, PGN staff. Bar codes could be associated with the papers that assign the work to these individuals. The bar codes can be easily scanned. Another aspect is to prevent one person from inpersonating another person. For example, assume that doctor A was randomly assigned to collect the DNA sample for case C that attorney B is working on. Attorney B may go to corrupt doctor D and have corrupt doctor D impersonate doctor A. You can cross check with doctor A by requiring doctor A to send notification that indeed doctor A did collect the sample for case C for attorney D. I don't thinkt his takes that much extra work since it mostly invovles a computer and a bar code scanner.

I know that the system is being changed to a central government operated process. However, corruption can abound in this case of process as well. The tools of random assignment and cross checking can also be used to prevent/reduce corruption in a central government operated process. I have described how they can be used with the old process because that is the process that I'm familiar with.

I'm sure that if you spent some time talking to someone that specializes in designing secure systems, you will find lots of other tools that can be used.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

I'm on the roll, watch out. ha ha ha. Continuing my example above, the letter that was sent to doctor A assigning caes C to them, would include a random number that the attorney B does not know about. After taking the DNA sample for case C, the doctor A's letter back to the embassy would include that random number that the attorney B doesn't know about.

Now with regards to judges declaring children abandoned after a failed DNA test: hum... Maybe there is a way to have a judge rule on the case without the attorney knowing who the judge is and without the judge knowing who the attorney is? Probably not. But you can see that not letting one person know who the other parties working on the case are is another powerful tool that can be used in certain situations.

****Only let people have access to information that they have a need to know****

Best, Cheryl

Cheryl,

While I appreciate your coming up with different ways to address potential DNA fraud, under the new system, there are no lawyers or middlemen profiting from the adoptions of children to American families.

As I understand it, in my limited knowleged, removing the "money" is removing the enticement to kidnap and steal children.

The child is also declared adoptable before an adoptive parent is located for the child.

The centralized system doesnt address corruption in governments. The more money that goes to an institution based on number of children it is profitable to keep them in the system. If government officials are bribable then they could have an increase in number of children deemed adoptable based on the flow of money. Its happened. Basically whether middlemen are involved or not it seems the ability of grown human beings to profit off the misery of others is in no short supply and such low lifes can work their way into any system.

People just suck. I am so disheartened.

Ana01,

I can tell that there is some confusion here, so please allow me to try and remove the confusion.

As I stated in my post, I understand that there is a new process. However, countries that have become Hague compliant have also had problems with children being sold, in a manner of speaking, to adoption agencies. As I understand, Vietnam was one of those countries. Romania has had problems with child trafficking even though no adoptions are taking place. I do not understand their processes well enough to apply security principles to them. However, I suspect that mechanisms I described could be applied even in their situations.

I can think of one application off the top of my head. I don't have much time to do an analysis so it is quick and dirty and may not be the best application of the mechanisms that I described. As I remember, some adoption agencies were paying certain orphanage directors money for children. I don't know if they were paying to get the healthier children or to get more children or what. If children were randomly assigned from different orphanages to adoptive parents then it would be more difficult for an adoption agency to form a relationship with a particular orphanage director.

It pays brain storm and to think creatively.

I think that Cheryl makes some great points about thinking creatively and thinking more about security in planning a new system, but as Lisa points out so well-

there will always be persons who are evil in every system. These persons will also be thinking creatively about profit and profit only.

Think about some of the current systems--like PGN--and how it is to their advantage to keep kids in the system, and to keep as many kids as possible in the system. After all, these people will no longer have jobs when the grandfathered cases are completed, right?

If government orphanages are built, along with all of the job positions that go along with this to care for the children, and people are hired to process a lot of adoption cases in government jobs, etc. it would be in all of these persons best interest to have as many children in the system as possible, right?

What a double edged sword though? From what I can tell, more places for abandoned children to be loved and cared for as they wait for a family is exactly what is needed right now.

Too bad that the government can't work with the existing private orphanages (that seem to be all going under) to provide loving temporary homes for these abandoned children. But how do we stop that from becomming profitable too (for both the private orphanage owners and the government working with them)? Perhaps the answer is that we can't? Perhaps the answer is not preventing government and private workers from making a living, but rather preventing them from profiting more as the child numbers rise? Some of this can be done with random assignments, etc. as Cheryl suggests, and some can be done by transparency and set salaries for workers, but other than that I just do not know how to keep the evil out. I just don't know and I feel a bit hopeless about it.

anonymous

You are right, whenever good things are done for money, they seem to drift into the category of not so good.

The idea of keeping children in "the system" to keep one's job comes from hanging out with people who peddled the misery of others for money and now have lost their very lucrative jobs. The social workers and attorneys in the PGN do not fear that there will come a day when their services in helping and protecting children will no longer be needed.

As for homes. The homes that had the preeminence in adoption websites are all closing. I know of one home that has changed their fund raising to charitable sources rather than adoption fees. I appreciate them. The others haven't even tried to see if people like the MOM's or other charity minded groups would help them stay afloat. That is because they have no concept of charity.

One such home admitted on this site that they "had to give" 12 children to the very poorly run Casa Alelgria. It seems to me if they really were a champion for children, and really cared most for the best interest of the child, they would have kept those 12, and raised them the right way ( which they seem to know regarding every situation) rather than abandoning them to the system.

In the meantime, Orphan Resources has joined with a few charitable homes of integrity to form an association that will help people who would like to start a home here. Their mission statement is:

"To honor the Lord Jesus Christ by speaking with one voice to proactively represent Christian Childrens' Homes and promote ethics, quality and credibility within our association by providing a network of advocacy, transparency, and resource sharing. "

The founding homes have been around quietly taking care of children for many years. They are not adequate to the need. More is needed. Some of the founders are getting together to try to help churches here emulate a program that is growing in the states called "Safe Families". That program trains people [who say they want to obey God by caring for the least of these] to care for children in their own homes VOLUNTARILY while their families try to sort things out.

Anonymous and Steve, I definitely agree with what you have both said.

On another note: I work with patent attorneys and I asked one of them some questions about legal matters that have been bounced around here. He said that if you do a DNA to see if your child matches the samples that are still at the lab and you get a mismatch, you are legally required to report this to legal authorities. If you don't, you will be an accomplice to whatever crime was committed. So the legal standard is actually higher than what I had thought.

He said, "I'm not saying that the child would be returned. I'm just saying that you have to report the matter or else you become an accomplice."

I also discussed with him the difficulties of getting a DNA sample from a child as a result of a birth mother's allegations that the child is her birth child and Law Professor Smolin's statement that there is no legal precedent for returnign kidnapped children. He said that the legal standard for obtaining bodily samples is very high. There has to be a lot of evidence that the person committed a crime. I think he also indicated, although I don't think he explicitly stated this, that the person had to have committed a serious crime. He said that there are problems with where the trial would be held. Would it be held in Guatemala or in the US? The laws in the two countries are very different. This makes it almost impossible to try these cases.

One thing to keep in mind, that this also pertains to children that are kidnapped from the US and taken to another country. Watch your kids.

I'm not telling people what to do. I'm providing information so that you can make a better decision as to how you want to proceed.

The attorneys I know are not adoption attorneys. They specialize in intellectual property. So their opinion cannot be counted on as absolutely on the mark. But there are a lot of principles of law that they know and so their sense of this is probably pretty accurate.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Hey Cheryl;

I appreciate your lucid and on point remarks. But I think you are looking in the wrong direction ( which is what magicians do to make you not see what is really happening.) It is a tactic of those who want to obscure the issue to have a sample compared to these possible birth moms. If they know it is a false test, they know it will not match the real mother.

I think that the raw DNA signature from the tests performed as required by the U.S. Embassy is in the final adoption dossier that the AP's carry with them to the states. This is the signature in question. If the child was part of a false adoption, in other words, that the dna match to the relinquishing mother had been falsified, then that signature will not match the child. So testing the child, and comparing it to the paperwork would be a way to determine the validity of the original DNA sample.

I believe your attorney friends might be right in that a paid rep of the state, like health care professional, or teacher is bound to divulge information. I bet it does not apply to parents, who have a certain privacy right. Who would be demanding that they divulge it anyway? Only when there have been assertions of wrong doing would any agency follow up on this. If they, for instance, saw the results, and then destroyed them while not under any investigation, they would not be liable for destroying evidence, etc.
This obviously does not apply to the AP's in question in the video. They are now aware of the possibility of an investigation. Their heart wrenching dilemma is that they now have to choose between the heartbreak of doing the right thing, and the heartbreak of living with not having done the right thing.

As I keep saying, they are victims.

What does it mean if a Guat.court nullifies an adoption? Does that have any legal effect in the U.S.?

Can anyone require these parents to have a DNA test done on their children?

The situation seems to be: a women in Guatemala says her child was stolen. She sees a photo of a child in the U.S. and claims it is hers. Unless the AP's voluntarily agree to he test I don't see how this can ever move forward. I don't think any AP would voluntarily agree to a test unless they were agreeable to return the child. Why let them test your child if you have no plan to return him to Guatemala?
It's a real mess.

Henry
My question exactly, can they make these families return these children?

Steve,

I just saw your comment about APs doing a DNA test and the results being a mismatch. For context to the readers, Steve had suggested that APs do a "private DNA test." I checked with an attorney friend and he said that if you do a subseuqnet DNA test and it does not match the DNA test done during your adoption, you are legally required to go to the authorities and inform them of this matter. If you do not inform them, you are now an accomplice in whatever crime was committed.

Steve posted back "who would require them to divule it?"

Answer: it is the law. The law requires this of us. Let me give you another example. If you become aware that a murder was committed, even though you yourself did not participate, if you do not go to the police and tell them what you know, you become an "accomplice after the fact." It is the law.

As long as we are talking about law, I discussed this matter of Susana posting here. He said that based on US law, anything and everything she writes here can beused in a court of law. It doesn't matter whether it was said in the court room, it doesn't matter if she swears on a bible. Those things don't matter. What she posts here would be considered "admissions" and the court would look at them.

The Guatemalan authorities are probably reading the things that she is writing here. She is taking a big risk in posting these things here. Susana, correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Again, everything I'm telling you is based on US law not Guatamalan law. But there will be a huge overlap.

Best, Cheryl

I'm going to speak a little more to Steve's post dated July 21, 2009. He mentioned the parents "privacy rights" and "destroying documents."

Steve, again I want to say I'm not an attorney but I am constantly rubbing shoulders with attorneys and I because of the law suite that resulted from being mauled by a dog a few years ago.

People don't have nearly the privacy that they think they have. I'll give some examples.

If someone goes into their therapist and says I'm going to commit murder, the therapist has to report it to the legal authorities. If you (proverbial you, not STeve) are diagnosed with a communiable disease by your doctor, your doctor has to report it to the CDC. I know of a situation where a doctor reported that someone was exposed to a veneral disase (the doctor was treating two people that they knew were sexually active with each other). The doctor informed the CDC. The CDC was so overloaded with more dire cases of STD that they weren't doing anything about the "less important" STDs. So the doctor called the other patient and inform the patient that he knew they had been exposed. The doctor was legally required by law to do this. There are many many thigns where "privacy" does not apply at all.

Some exceptions. They cannot unlawfully enter your house and do a search and seizure without a warrant. They have to go to a judge and get a warrant. There are legal standards for getting a warrant. I don't know what the legal requirements are. Maybe it is "probable cause."

Lets take a criminal case where you committed murder. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant's job is to present alternative theories that create doubt about the prosecution's assertions.

If you confess to your attorney that you committed teh murder, your attorney can legally enter "a not guilty plea." But the attorney cannot put forth theories that implicate another person. The attorney cannot present theories that contradict what he/she knows to be true. So if you committed a crime, your attorney doesn't want to know about it. Confessing to them ties their hands legally. THey are officers of the court and they have ethical responsibilities.

You mentioned an AP destroying a document that showed there was a DNA mismatch. If not going to the authorities is a crime, then destroying evidence about it and keeping quiet is also a crime.

I'm going to say this again. I'm not an attorney. I work with attorneys. This is US law that I'm talking about not Guatemalan law.

***I'm not giving legal advice***

Best, Cheryl

I appreciate your concern about this, Cheryl, but wonder why you are so dead set against people checking.

As you said, the DNA test does not fall under any of the criteria where a health care professional must report data. Therefore, there is no law that says how that data is to be handled.

So, we have only the AP, reading it, and finding out that the DNA of their child does not match what was reported on the DNA test by the Embassy approved lab. Does this mean a crime was committed? Maybe. Maybe not. That AP, if not a lawyer or expert cannot say one way or the other. So they read the report, then put it into their office paper shredder, or into their "to burn" pile. If they later are asked what they did with the paper or what it said, they can legally refuse, as it MAY violate their right against self incrimination. No one in the US can do anything to them legally. There is no legal basis for fear.

But, what if it turns out to be negative to the prior test? NO Legal worry. But what is the ethical next step? Is that what you might be afraid to address, Cheryl?

If we put to rest the specious legal argument, we are left with ourselves, and the right thing to do.