Thanks for posting this. If anyone knows who has actually being arrested or who has search warrants out against them in this case, I'd be curious to know.

Guatadopt staff,

Did you know that Google has an automatic translator? You can cut and paste or type the spanish in, select to translate from spanish to english, press a button and out it comes. Go to www.google.com, then select "language tools" on the right hand. I'm sure the translations probably aren't the best, but I'm sure it is very helpful and if you don't have anyone, then something is better than nothing.

Best, Cheryl

Kevin,

The Civil and Supreme courts are Guatemala's Civil and Supreme courts, right? If so, I am a bit baffled as to why Guatemala's legal system wasn't quicker to act on this.

Best, Cheryl

I was also wondering is this the guatemala civil and supreme court? Does the us have anything to do with it yet?? Is it possible these poor children will be sent back and taken away from their adoptive families??? Scary stuff!!!

If there's any truth in this (and I suspect there is), it's a tragedy for all. Clearly the perpetrators need to be severely punished. Beyond that, whatever happens with the children will be wrong... and right. But nevertheless tragic for all. There will be no good solution.

The strides made in this case are absolutely groundbreaking and indicative of the truth that Guatemala is beginning to come to terms with in relation to its (previous) incredibly flawed adoption system. This is beyond symbolic--it is a major step forward and my hat is off to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I commend Guatadopt for being so open to the issue and taking a very hard look at this tremendously uncomfortable subject. It is in NO ONES interest to be associated with kidnapping--and, if these allegations are true, the adoptions should absolutely be invalidated! We need to be clear here...if the claims are true, these are not adoptions but rather kidnappings. And, last time I checked, kidnapped children were returned to their families without argument. And, as Gregg said, there is no good solution but there is what is right and just. When it is all said and done, the 'right' answer will emerge in terms of with whom these children should live as we all continue to struggle with the best interests of the child.

These cases are incredibly horrific and my heart goes out to the mothers whose children were kidnapped. I don't think there is a good solution, however. There was a case in Tennessee not too far back involving parents who tricked a Chinese couple working here in the US and struggling into giving up their children -- the Tennessee couple then fought the parents in court for years. The court ruled for the Chinese parents, as it should have, but the results can hardly be seen as happy for the children involved. The Chinese parents returned to China and then divorced, and the children are really struggling with learning Chinese/integrating.

For the sake of the discussion, let's agree that these children were indeed kidnapped. After such a horrific start in life -- being stolen and ripped away from their mothers, families, and country, these children continue to be victimized by the passage of time, the slow-to-action Guatemalan government, the inaction of the US government, and the (apparent) slow-to-action or inaction of US families.

Lee, chances are good that Anna Mae He would have a reasonable re-adjustment period had her US foster family not fought in court for so many years. Who were the perpetrators here?

The answer to the "best interest of the child" question is very complex and I'm not sure it is terribly applicable in this situation. The adoptions were fradulent. The children belong to their *mothers*. Their transition back to their rightful families may very well be difficult but, imo, it is the only ethical solution. How to effect that solution while attempting to ensure the best possible outcome for the children could best be done with the full cooperation and involvement of the US families in the transition period, and possibly even beyond.

Enlightened adoptive parents talk about the importance of sharing information with adoptive children in an age appropriate manner, and of safe-guarding their children's stories so that the children have the choice of sharing their experiences, or not. These situations defy best practices in adoption because they are NOT adoptions -- they're kidnappings. To allow a child to grow up believing that she was lovingly (freely?) reqlinquished for adoption, to integrate into their identity their adoption story, all the while knowing that the child was kidnapped instead, moves the "parents" beyond the realm of complicit and places them in the category of perpetrators.

Perhaps there is no "good" solution -- but there is and ethical solution and a tragic one.

Laws surrounding adoption/kidnapping can be very messy even when dealing with adoptions within the US. I'll give you an example that happened in my own family. My second cousin's child was "kidnapped" and transferred across state boarders by her biological father and then adopted by him and his second wife. This is the fact pattern. My second cousin was in the hospital being treated for mental illness. Her step sister was taking care of her son. Her biological father, who was divorced from her mother, my cousin, told his son and the brother of my second cousin in the hospital, to go get the child from the step sister. The brother had no idea that his father planned on kidnapping the child. The father went to the hospital with papers to relinquish custody to him and authorizing to transport the child across state boarders. The mother being sedated didn't know what she was signing. He took the child across the boarder. He and his new wife adopted the child. The child thinks his grandfather and the second wife are his biological parents. We know this because the brother that got the child from the step sister is still in contact with his father. My second cousin fought this case for years in the courts. She was never able to regain custody let alone any visitation rights. The kidnapped boy is now 21 and still doesn't know that his "father" is really his grandfather that kidnapped him. I have never read the court reports so I don't know what the courts reasoning in these matters were.

Further, just becasue thigns were done a certain way in the past doesn't mean that they will continue to be done that way. After all, who would have thought that the iron curtain would come down? Who would have thought that east and west Germany would reunited? Who would have thought that India would gain its independence from the British empire without a war?

I'm curious about that Samoan case. Was that tried in state or federal courts? Surely it was in a federal court.

Best, Cheryl

I and another woman posted the question about whether the Guatemalan kidnappings were being tried in the US or Guatemala. I did a search and they are being tried in Guatemala. I also read a sentence that went something like "..with US aid the kidnappings are being tried in the Supreme and Civil courts..." I'm not sure what the US aid part is exactly.

From where we all stand right now, it seems unlikely these children will be returned in the event that they were kidnapped. In light of that, I would think that a more realistic approach would be to assure the adoptive parents that they won't loss full custody of the children and ask them to do the DNA tests. This way Guatemala can at least get evidence to go forward with the trials. I would imagine that a lot of adoptive parents would be open to and probably even embrace visitation with the biological families.

Best, Cheryl

Elizabeth S., I don't know how you can "for the sake of discussion" assume the children involved are indeed those that were kidnapped. I could just as easily say "for the sake of discussion" let's assume that these are the wrong children. The APs involved have no proof that these are the children who, we assume, were kidnapped. Until such proof is found, any parent that would willingly submit their child to the admittedly (by all sides of the argument) corrupt Guatemalan judicial system is, IMO, not a real parent at all. I think it's easy to jump to a conclusion. However, be careful to weigh the EVIDENCE before you do it. I don't think anyone knows yet what the answer is or how to get to it in a non-corrupt matter.

When I was preparing to adopt, I read over and over again and was told very pointedly by a therapist that specializes in adoption and by a pediatrician that specializes in internationaly adoption and works at a world reknowned hospital that the trauma a child goes through just from being in foster care and adopted can very well leave emotional scars for life. They said this is the case even for children that aren't in foster care for very long. A child that is in foster care for over 18 months, they said bsaed on research is almost certain to have permanent damanage of some kind.

So now we are talking about taking these children and doing yet another major change in their lives. Some have argued that this won't be too difficult if done early. But wait a minute, the experts have said that these kids probably already have some permanent damage.

You can say that my main motivation is selfish. However, at this point in time, the adoptive parents are closer to the child and in many respects better able to asses whether a child could handle yet another major transition.

There is no good solution once a child has been kidnapped and spent a significant amount of time in foster care or with an adoptive family.

One can argue that the only ethical solution is to return a kidnapped child. But a solution that doesn't truly look at the psychological impact on the child is not an "ethical solution" in my book.

I'm a bit haunted about the Jennifer Hemsley case. That child is now in an orphanage. No one has come to claim her. I really hope that she has biological relatives somewhere that find her. My fear is that she was abandoned or her biological parent(s) disappeared after relinquishing her without finishing the paper work. My fear is that the adoption attorney falsified the DNA to speed things up and the biological parent(s)are not interested in finding her. So one has ot ask themselves, what is the most ethical thing to do when one is in this kind of situation? It is very very messy and ugly.

Best, Cheryl

I want to share the response one person gave me as I polled my friends and associates regarding the very difficult issue.

"To me justice is justice and if a child is robbed from his/her rightful parent, that is where that child should be. Of course I cannot begin to say how I would actually feel about this if I were in the shoes of an adoptive parent with a child whom I found out who was stolen but I would hope and pray that my wife and I would do the incredibly difficult but correct thing and return the child to her/his rightful parent and continue a close, committed loving relationship with the child and his/her mother with frequent visits, help with school/college, time with the child with us in the States, etc. We could keep a rich and vital relationship with the child in this way and while at the same time allow him/her to be where God placed her/him. "

Could this be a solution?

Steve,
Would you give your adopted child to a woman who claims to be her mother, without a DNA test?
Because that is exaclty what Loyda's lawyers (Sobrevivientes) are trying to do. She did not sign the lawsuit.
Susana

Wow! I'm still so surprised that there are some who are willing to assume that these children are indeed the CORRECT children and that the horribly corrupt government that allowed this atrocity to happen could be trusted in providing proof through DNA testing that the children belong to these mothers. As for sending children back, could someone clarify how long the children in question have been in the US? I've lost track of that. My own child has been with me for 5 years, since infancy. To send her to a country which speaks a different language, to an environment which is materially impoverished compared to what has always been familiar, and to cut off day-to-day contact with people who have always been known to be family would be devastating to the child. And I guarantee that there are no psychological supports for children in most parts of Guatemala. If my bio child were kidnapped at an older age and would be remembering me or if s/he had been kidnapped at infancy but only for a few months, I might fight to have him/her returned to me. But if my bio child had been kidnapped and was now ingrained in a completely different culture and language and would have no memory of me and was living a good and safe life, I hope I would do the right thing and keep contact, visit often, be a part of his/her life but not take him/her away from the life s/he knows and loves.
If and when these girls are proven to be the children these bio mothers are looking for, not only will the APs need to be thinking about what is best for the children but the bio mothers will have to do the same. It reminds me of stories of baby switching (accidental or purposeful) in the US. When it has been enough years for the children to actively love the family they are with, though contact between the children and families has usually been established, the best outcomes seem to come from both families doing the right thing and keeping the children with the family with whom they've grown. After all, as most APs know, "family" is a psychological concept, not a matter of blood.

I agree with Steve- A harmonious relationship between the adult victims would benefit all, if indeed these are cases of kidnapping. Perhaps a legal document can spell out specifics so that the adults can feel comfortable with this arrangement. Most importantly the children will have the love and connection of thier entire family. I haven't read that the mom's in Guatemala want exclusive custody without contact. Removing this fear of never seeing the children again may prompt the a/p's to have the dna test & move forward to a workable solution.

Elizabeth,

I completely agree with you re Anna Mae He. The US couple compounded their deception by subsequently fighting the Chinese parents in court and absolutely made reintegrating the kids much more difficult.

Like others, I'm appalled that kids may have been kidnapped. I just don't know how best to proceed.

A complicating factor: If the adoptive parents readopted the children in the US, it may not matter whether a Guatemalan court invalidates the adoption. It would be unheard of to invalidate the US adoption, unless it could be shown that the a-parents actively were involved in the kidnapping of the children...

I hope that, assuming the DNA test establishes the relationship between the child and the Guatemalan mother, both families somehow are an active part in the child's/children's life/lives.

LA wrote:
"To send her to a country which speaks a different language, to an environment which is materially impoverished compared to what has always been familiar, and to cut off day-to-day contact with people who have always been known to be family would be devastating to the child. And I guarantee that there are no psychological supports for children in most parts of Guatemala."

LA, I understand where you're coming from but what you describe in most respects is what happens to a child adopted internationally to the United States, at whatever age. The child typically loses language, culture, familiar people etc. and none of us blinks an eye.

I think what many of us worry about/have issues with is how a child would adapt to a potentially much lower socio-economic status (but we don't know how the mothers in question live) -- possible lack of clean drinking water, regular medical care, school, etc. and the impact of that on the child.

I really hope some reasonable arrangement can be worked -- even having the child spend part of the year in both countries. But I also hope that any reunion with the mother, if it turns out that the child was kidnapped, be prepared carefully with a lot of psychological support.

My second cousin's child is in the US and she could easily look up her son and tell him about what happened. My side of the family, my cousin and her daughter the mother, have come to the point that they don't want this boy to find out or at least not to find out until he is old enough and mature enough to deal with it.

The desire at our end, at this point, is that the uncle, who played the dupe, will eventually tell the boy in as kind and caring a way as possible. We think that the boy will eventually find out and we prefer for him to be told by someone who cares rather than him finding out while he is by himself, for exmaple, looking at his birth certificate, doing internet searches or whatever.

Steve, "justice" for who? One could argue for the biological parents but maybe the child will feel differently. And yes I agree it makes a difference as to the age of the child. And I feel it makes a difference whether the adoptive parents knowingly were a part of the kidnapping.

I find it interesting and a bit dismaying that a court would award the boy to the very person that kidnapped him. Like I said, I didn't read the court reports, but my cousin was in a mental institution when she signed those papers. That is a hard fact that neither side could dispute. I would also imagine that there are records as to what medications she was on at the time and therefore one could make a strong case that she wasn't in a mental state to agree to anything.

Best, Cheryl

I'll admit that being an adoptee lends not an insignificant amount of bias to my opinions. I'll counter, though, that my perspective is also informed by my training as a clinical psychologist, and my extensive research into the consequences of adoption on identity development in adoptees, and on the subsequent adjustment of women who have relinquished. My perspective is also informed by the scores of adult adoptees with whom I am acquainted (personally and professionally). The trauma and loss engendered by the early act of adoption (removal from biological mother, foster family, or institutional care) creates, for many adoptees, lifelong consequences. For those who rail against adoption in adulthood, the single factor that they strive for is to be reunited with their families of origin. Unfortunately, with the mostly still sealed records in the US, that is not always an option -- and, of course, the outcome when reunited is not always a good one. A big part of the problem in the reuniting of adoptees with bio families is the passage of time. It serves us well as adoptive parents because our bond to our children grows stronger and stronger and we become parents in a way that the biological mothers can never be. History cannot be recreated, and thus, for these adoptees, there can never be a full psychological return to a non-adopted status.

Similar to my bias as an adoptee, adoptive parents who emphasize their bond to their children and the trauma that reuniting would cause are also looking through biased lenses. If those same parents lost a child to kidnapping, I cannot imagine that they would consider leaving the child in the new environment -- even if it was a good one -- but that they would move heaven and earth to have their child returned. I also think that adoptive parents would benefit in these discussions from really listening to adult adoptees -- the ones who did not sail through the process of adoption -- the ones who decades later still mourn the loss of their families of origin. Looking through their eyes would yield a different picture of an ethical solution.

In addition to David Smolin's children from India, another US father did voluntarily return his child to Samoa (he had an NPR interview this past winter/spring). Not as a result of any US or Samoan government requirement, but because it was the only ethical choice.

I agree that there are no "good" solutions, that the US adoptions will probably hold until perpetuity. I agree that any solution holds certain and enormous grief -- the questions remain as to which party will bear the lion's share. At the very least, any discussion of a solution needs to take into account the fact that(a) families are not interchangeable, (b) it is in children's best interest to be raised in their families and culture of origin whenever possible, c) kidnapped children belong to their families.

Lee, I indeed said that I felt that moving a child to an environment that was materially impoverished compared to what they know is one factor that would be traumatic. Rarely does a child from another country move to the US through adoption into a household with less - a family with less simply wouldn't have the means to adopt. But my main point is that there would be no real help in coping with the drastic change for a child who was returned to Guatemala. It is my understanding that none of these women who are alleging that the adopted girls in the US are theirs have bounteous financial situations. That would be okay IF the children were to have frequent access to psychological help to aid in transitioning and IF one could be sure that the environment to which they were returned was safe and healthful. It's lovely for we Americans to brush aside the importance of clean water and the like, but live in a place where parasites or other maladies due to poor drinking water is the norm and I think most of us would not be so nonchalant. But, IMO, this is all a moot point until real evidence has been found that these girls are, in fact, the kidnapped children of the Guatemalan mothers. I think anyone that feels that these girls should be handed over without such reliable evidence is treating them like chattel and, therefore, aiding in a sort of child trafficking themselves.

Cheryl;

Justice is ... HMMM...Let's go to Wikipedia and see what it says....Yikes! it tries to incorporate all of our ideas, and pretty much robs Justice of any meaning at all! So much for democratic encyclopedias!

I thought Justice was pretty cut and dry, and that is meant [simplistically] is that what is right for you is right for me. What is right for an American is right for a Guatemalan. WE show Justice as a woman with a set of scales, and a blindfold, ostensibly so that all are equal under the law.

It is NOT the concept that might makes right. I know that has been America's foreign policy for some time now ( ever since we gained the might, I guess) but, well, many people around the world beg to differ.

Some might say personal Justice is embodied in the Golden Rule, when Jesus said simply: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Unfortunately, we see evidence that some people think the golden rule goes like this: "he who has the gold makes the rules"

Your family's case is very special, and if the actual biological father is the "kidnapper" it almost defies the normal definition. So, even though that is also heart wrenching, let's not have the exceptions be the rules.

I think there actually were some cases found where women of diminished abilities "relinquished" their children, but it is doubtful that they knew what they were doing. That is a sad usage of a person IF the intent was not for the woman's and child's best interest. But a charitable act if it was. I would concede a range of opinions having value regarding that.

But these cases are alleged kidnappings from women who loved their child as much as you love yours. The idea that any part of it is alright might be akin to a millionaire choosing to take your child right off the playground at school, then hiding behind a number of legal maneuverings, and then pretty much saying to you "I hold all the cards. You have no say in whether or how I choose to engage you in determining what will happen to this child. I will sue you and block you at every step, and I have the resources to do it. AND you cannot prove it is your child, therefore, you cannot ask for proof." That sounds pretty callous. But that is what is being said to these women.

Welfare of the child might be a different concept. I thought my friend's comment addressed that in a creative way. But Justice, as written in every country's laws, says that one may not commit a crime, and then say it is too late, what's done is done. In the case of a stolen child it is all the more heart wrenching, and that is why it must be all the more considered unacceptable, and a heinous crime.

Elizabeth S., do you happen to have the link to that NPR interview? I'm pretty sure the rest of that story ends with the bio parents later contacting the AP in the US and asking for him to take the child back. There was some problem in the bio family that led to this. At least I think it's the same case, but can't find it without the AP's name to do a search. There was definitely a case like that--stolen child, AP did "right" thing and returned child, only to have it fail and the bio parents ask the AP to take the child back.

Lee,

You said, "I understand where you're coming from but what you describe in most respects is what happens to a child adopted internationally to the United States, at whatever age,...none of us blinks an eye." I think most adoptive parents agonize over their child's losses.

Elizabeth, I think there are a range of opinions even among your professional colleagues about how to best deal with these situations. I was talking to a social worker this weekend at a birthday party and her opinion differs from yours.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Quote from Cheryl:

"I'm a bit haunted about the Jennifer Hemsley case. That child is now in an orphanage. No one has come to claim her. I really hope that she has biological relatives somewhere that find her. My fear is that she was abandoned or her biological parent(s) disappeared after relinquishing her without finishing the paper work. My fear is that the adoption attorney falsified the DNA to speed things up and the biological parent(s)are not interested in finding her. So one has ot ask themselves, what is the most ethical thing to do when one is in this kind of situation? It is very very messy and ugly.
Best, Cheryl"

Dear Cheryl, I do not know where you are getting your information from or from whom, but you are very wrong. Let me alleviate your fears and rest assured that this little girl is NOT in an orphanage nor has she been abandoned by the PAPs, the Hemsley family.

The case is currently in process as a transition case with the CNA.
The Hemsley family did not abandone her nor leave her, they stood up for her.

Guatemala is the Hemsleys life and they are united with their daughter awaiting the final stages of their case.

I personally know the Hemsley family and am very proud of them.
The Hemsley family should be admired as an example for all.

They will be remembered in Guatemalan history as an fine example of unselfish love not only for their child but for all the children of Guatemala.

Trust me, us chapines will make sure of that.

Cheryl, please correct your statement or atleast finish reading the newspaper article that you got that title from. Statements like yours hurt in-process families that need our support. Thank you Cheryl.

Marie

Cheryl,

Do you personally know of the Hemsley case? Because I do and your statements are completely and totally false.

The Hemsleys have fought to right the wrong that was done in Hazel's life. They have not abandoned her. They have not left her in an orphanage. They have fought for her and have ensured her wellbeing as they complete their adoption.

However, topic is not about the Hemsleys or about corruption that was in Guatemalan adoptions. This is about children who were kidnapped from their loving families and allegedly placed in American homes via adoption.

It is quite apparent that the adoption community is divided on what is "justice". It seems that you are either for the Guatemalan mothers or you are for the adoptive families and using the idea of the child to rationalize opinions.

I appreciate Elizabeth S's input. As an adult adoptee she offers insight that we do not have. I have also read MANY adult adoptee blogs. In general, most adult adoptees long for resolution about their adoptions.

If in fact these children are the kidnapped children, they have been placed in homes illegally and unethically. We can all justify and rationalize why the child is better off with us rather than being sent back to an impoverished (by our standards) life, a culture that is different, and a language that is foreign (a problem none of us have when adopting internationally when it is the other way around).

Someone argued that reality by suggesting that most children's welfare and social status is improved in adoption to the United States. I suppose my question would be...according to whose standard? Are you suggesting that "money" is the qualifying factor for where a child should live?

Someone else suggested that with regards to the Somoan case how the child was returned but then later on the bio family asked the APs to take the child back. I suppose the point there is to suggest that the kids are better off with the APs and that the bio family is simply not equipped to handle these children.

I found that interesting when disruptions of adoptions is on the rise and want someone else to take the children off their hands.

It seems that suggesting that biofamilies are ill prepared to care for these children is an overly generalized statement. Similiar to the deduction that APs are not prepared to care for children that are adopted transracially/transculturally.

In an ideal world, the children would be returned to their families and the APs would remain in the child's life.

Historically, more powerful groups have always found ways taking children away from their poor, unhealthy, uneducated, younameit, families. Australian aborigines were taken away, Canadian Indians, too. After reading comments on this thread and the previous one, I am appalled at how these arguments come up again over and over justifying keeping KIDNAPPED children in the United States. If we were talking about American children kidnapped in Guatemala, there'd be a war already to get them back.

I agree with Steve, the Golden rule has been twisted way too much.

Elizabeth, thank you for coming back! your insight is much appreciated, particularly because you can talk as an adoptee and as an adoptive parent.

Cheryl,

I have read your position and numerous posts with great interest, and you appear to be a person who is not only concerned about the issue of kidnappings and the latest hunger strike, but the moral dilemmas which encompass these issues. However, you also strike me as someone who is desperate to believe the well-constructed, time worn and favored fantasy supplied to all of us by those that profit on adoption, and in the process, are helping in proliferating misinformation under the guise of being "well informed", and I find that a little disturbing.

I would like to correct some of your statements, as they are blatantly false, and they were made about myself and my family. Let's be clear, you do not know me, nor my family, and very little about our case. Yet, you have presented yourself (in a public forum) as knowing information about us, by making outright false statements that allude to, and paint, a less than favorable picture. For that I must come to my own defense. Some may say what you wrote is slanderous. Perhaps. I will say it is a thinly veiled attempt at using judgment and fiction to further your Adoption Fantasy.

Make no mistake: Hazel is not in an orphanage, and we have been supporting her financially and emotionally since the summer of 2007 when we began the adoption -- as anyone who really knows us will attest. When everyone else left her with no support—the US adoption agency, the GT facilitator, the GT attorneys, among others—we continued to provide for her with a keen interest in her future and protecting her rightful knowledge of her past. Should we be lucky enough to be blessed with the (legal and ethical) adoption finalization for Hazel, we can look her in the eyes with clarity and honesty for the rest of our lives together... knowing we did not look the other way to blatant fraud, or make rationalizations based on issues of entitlement that so often plague this community like a festering disease.

She will know the truth of her origins, as we have fought long and hard for it, all the while looking after her best interest, welfare, and health. We have been driven to the brink of emotional and financial destitution by this adoption, we are exhausted, and comments like yours only add to it. But our guiding force has been the love and best interest of this child, whether it be with us or someone else, and to allude to otherwise is a slap in the face for all that is good in this now defunct system we find ourselves wading through.

Perhaps, as you allude, you would have made other choices than we did when faced with numerous illegalities. Perhaps you would have looked the other way to falsifications on the DNA test? I ask you, what effect does that have for the child in the future, to the adoption system as a whole, to the child's birth family and home country? And what does that say of your ethics? Do you not see that by continuing an adoption with numerous illegalities, you are essentially part of the corrupted system, and in fact may be enabling the corruption? For those that would have looked the other way when faced with what we were (and believe me, many came out with their pitchforks to condemn us), I say look no further than the mirror for reasons as to why the corruption got so out of hand, why the system was shut down, and why today there are thousands of *legitimate* orphans in institutions who cannot be adopted due to the shutdown.

Imagine if everyone had reported fraud.

Imagine where these children would be today.

You state our case "haunts" you based on erroneous assumptions, when I believe what should haunt you are the criminals and profiteers who created a system so corrupted, babies were stolen from their mothers for money. What should haunt you are the US adoption agencies that have yet to pay any remote price for their crimes and roles in this scandal. What should haunt you are the people who looked the other way, and in doing so, let the darkness fester in a country I deeply love and respect. What should haunt you are the faces of the mothers in Guatemala, not just the vocal three in the media, but the hundreds we don't see, silenced by oppression, who have had their children ripped from their arms through theft or coercion, SO WE ALL COULD ADOPT.

Why these things don't haunt you ... is what haunts me.

—Jennifer Hemsley

Marie and Jennifer,

I am definitely not criticizing the Hemsleys for how they have handled this situation. The article was very clear that the Hemsleys spent lots of time and money in taking care of this little girl. ***I really truly admire them for their sacrifice. I may not have the fortitude that they have shown in this matter***

I don't think the article made a really clear statement that the adoption was still pending. It said something like "until this case is resolved" which could mean a lot of things. Unfortunately, I interpreted that phrase in combination with the fact that she had been in an "overcrowded" facility to mean that the adoption had been terminated due to the corrupt DNA test and now the government was trying to resolve it by looking for her biological relatives.

I did read that Jennifer had visited the child again. The first time I read the article, I interpreted this to mean that Jennifer was incredibly concerned about the child and was keeping tabs on her despite the fact that the adoption had been termianted. Big kudos to her.

I did not say that the Hemsleys abandoned the little girl or left her. Perhaps the others have said that to the Hemsleys, but I did not.

I totally understand that the Hemsleys searched their hearts and decided what course of action they could live with and what course of action they felt would provide the best outcome. What I tried to say and did a very poor job of, is that others may search their hearts and their consciences may dictate a different course of action. ***I'm afraid that the government authorities don't care very much about what happens to this little girl***

Like I said, it is a very messy and ugly business. I suspect that all of us will look back and say "Well, if only I had known, I would have done it this way instead of that way." But none of us have the luxury of going back and re-living our lives. We take our best shot at it.

I am sure that the Hemsleys feel haunted by the images of that little girl and are extremely worried about what happens to her. So of course, others of us also are worried and feel haunted.

I truly hope that there will be a good outcome to this matter. That biological relatives may be found or that the adoption will go through.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Expressing my views here on a sub-topic. And it has do with the issue of a child "moving down" in socio-economic terms.

This is an area where I think we have to always look at the macro situation and not the individual. The precedence is too great. There are grave dangers anytime that comes into the debate.

Of course this is one more thing that could be a challenge for a child's transition. And like in so many ways, as we have so often stated as advocates for adoption, the earlier a child has permanency in a loving family environment the better. But finances and our standard or style of living can not take on a value in "the best interests of the child". This has happened before and the effects have been disasterous at best.

Of course, there is a case to be made as generality that any child who ends up in the legal system is extraordinary and thus there is a responsibiity placed on the powers that be to ensure the child will be properly cared for.

In other words, we would expect our government to do more to ensure that a child under its care receives proper nutrition than what we expect them to do any traditional family down the street.

I'm not talking about these kidnapping cases at all, but in a more global sense. In the macro sense and under international law, all children have the right to nutrition, health care, education, etc. The world falls far short on living up to that obligation. No one could advocate for taking children from poor families worldwide and placing them with families in better financial situations involuntarily. I know that is not what was intended to be said in prior posts. But I also know it could be read that way, or at least in support of the same philosophy.

Paz,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

child should live?

"Someone else suggested that with regards to the Somoan case how the child was returned but then later on the bio family asked the APs to take the child back. I suppose the point there is to suggest that the kids are better off with the APs and that the bio family is simply not equipped to handle equipped to handle these children."
NO, you suppose wrong. The point is that when you look at these cases from the point of view of the CHILDREN, there are no easy answers, no fairy tale endings. And that maybe folks should be more humble in their assessments that they know the "right" thing to do, for everyone.

Kevin, feel free not to post this, I just don't know any other way to contact you. This argument has become so twisted and so have people's words. If, as you said in your last post, any argument stated could be "read" as or seen as in support of involuntarily taking children from their families and placing them with families in better financial situations, then those arguments have been twisted out of shape by people who have very different agendas than I would ever want to entertain. If those kinds of people are allowed to post and carry on arguments here on this website then this website is no longer of use to me. I wonder how many APs who have adopted ethically and legally (I believe most situations are thus) read this site and begin to have unfounded worries and lose joy in their children because of reading, day after day, a site like this one lately. It's like watching the news and only the news and beginning to think that all that happens in the world is bad. I don't think allowing these kinds of twisted arguments and interpretations to go on and on is a service to the AVERAGE adoptive family. I'm sorry to say this but I will be erasing the bookmark I have to this site as soon as I complete this email. My child will grow knowing the joy I take in the adoption that was completed and that I will provide her with all the truths of her life as I know them. Adoption, even in the US, is always a bittersweet thing, bitter for the BM and sweet for the AP. To believe anything else is an illusion. Whether domestic or international, adoption ALWAYS involves a BM who is coerced by situation, finances, family, or the law to make an adoption plan for her child. But this discussion has gone on and on in a game of "What If?" and has totally gotten away from the fact that these girls have yet to be proven to be the children of these Guatemalan mothers. To hear most of your most frequent posters, you'd think that whenever an accusation is made via photo ID, APs should automatically send their children back. The real issue is a sad, sad story but what it has become on this site is sad also. Goodbye.

In looking at this more closely, I want to refer back to some direct quotes.

I said
I’m a bit haunted about the Jennifer Hemsley case. That child is now in an orphanage. No one has come to claim her. I really hope that she has biological relatives somewhere the find her. My fear is that she was abandoned or her biological parent(s) disappeared after relinquishing her without finishing the paper work. My fear is that the adoption attorney falsified the DNA to speed things up and the biological parent(s) are not interested in finding her. So one has to ask themselves, what is the most ethical thing to do when one is in this kind of situation. It is very very messy and ugly.

Jennifer said, “Make no mistake: Hazel is not in an orphanage, and we have been supporting her financially and emotionally since the summer of 2007 when we began the adoption….You state our case ‘haunts’ you based on erroneous assumptions, when I believe what should haunt you are the criminals and profiteers who created a system so corrupt…”

Marie said, “…let me alleviate your fears and rest assured that this little girl is NOT in an orphanage nor has she been abandoned by the PAPs, the Hemsley family.”

First, lets talk about the phrases “abandon child” and “terminate the adoption.” Based on my understanding there are several parties that can terminate an adoption depending on the circumstances—the people who are in the process of adopting a child, the adoption agency, the Guatemalan attorney, and the Guatemalan government. I have only seen the phrase “abandon child” used in the context of biological parents abandoning their child. I have never seen it used to describe the actions of people who are in the process of adopting a child, at least not until today. Until the adoption is complete, the child isn’t theirs so to me it doesn’t make sense to describe in process people’s actions as “abandonment.” It never occurred to me that any one would ever use the phrase “abandon child” to refer to the actions of people who are in process.

For the record, I had interpreted the article about the Hemsleys to say that the Guatemalan government had terminated their adoption and that in order to save the child’s life, Jennifer had persuaded them to put her in an orphanage. She had gone so far as to go and visit the child after the adoption was terminated to check up on her. It was a very poorly written article with phrases like had to give up the child in order to save her, and until the case resolves. Gee wiz, what does that mean?

I am sure that the Hemsleys are haunted with the images of the child AND they are haunted by “criminals and profiteers who created a system so corrupt.” Therefore, my saying that I’m haunted by images of the child does not exclude my being haunted by the criminals and profiteers as well. We can be haunted by both at the same time.

Now that we have established that, lets go back and take another look at what I was saying. Based on my incorrect assumption that the government had terminated the adoption and my fear that the child was abandoned by her biological parents, I’m afraid that there is no one to come and get her. See the fourth sentence in my paragraph. That fourth sentence clues you into what I was talking about. I said, “My fear is that she was abandoned or her biological parent(s) disappeared after relinquishing her without finishing the paper work. My fear is that the adoption attorney falsified the DNA to speed things up and the biological parent(s) are not interested in finding her.” I would also imagine that the Hemsleys are afraid that this child will fall through the cracks. They may not be allowed to adopt her and in addition to that, it is possible that no biological family will be located. If they are worried about that possibility, then why wouldn’t I be worried about it?

Also notice that I used the phrase “the Hemsley case.” I did not refer to the Hemsleys themselves. I was not criticizing the Hemsleys or their actions or their choices in how to handled this matter.

Yes I did say “So one has to ask themselves, what is the most ethical thing to do when one is in this kind of situation.” My point is that many people are acting like this is so straight forward. That people in process who decide to pursue a different course of action are SELFISH and UNETHICAL and DISCUSTING and …. Well, I would like you (that is the proverbial you guys out there, not referring to any one specific you) to consider that their consciences dictated a different course of action.

To Jennifer, I’m extremely sorry that my words caused you pain. I hope you I have been able to convey to you that I was not saying that you had abandoned this child. To me, that doesn’t even make any sense at all. Any one that says you abandoned this child is talking gobbledie gook, is an A.H., and … I could think of other things to describe them.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Cheryl- You wrote that no one has claimed the child, which is not true.

You also wrote:
"I truly hope that there will be a good outcome to this matter. That biological relatives may be found or that the adoption will go through."

Now you say you misread the article, but you are still misreading even what I am Jennifer posted about her case and inserting your own take on her case. You seem to more interested in judging everyone's moral compass, than learning the facts or staying on topic. What is up with that?

Anywaaaays, just make sure to reread your entry before you press "post", hurting in-process families is not what this site is for, neither is causing confusion about the news.

Marie

Please remember that there is often a gap between comments being written and being posted. It is not uncommon that things are posted before people are able to see a reponse that, at the time the subsequent post was written, had yet to be approved.

Let's all try to err on the side of assuming the best in one's intentions.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

There would be no war if an american child were kidnapped. It's already happened and no war. Which means not only has it happened already it could happen again to anyone regardless of nationality. I think that is one of the reasons perhaps behind trying to keep children in their country of origin and with trying to set up international laws and cooperation regarding childrens rights. I had thought it had a biased slant against "outsiders" but now I think much of it is to avoid such issues of getting tangled up between two countries.

I finally have to comment... our second child came home at 18 1/2 months old (that is how long the process took).

Lee stated that when we have adopted these children we "do not blink an eye". You could not be more wrong. Our son has been in early intervention therapy since he came home. It has helped him deal with his loss of language, culture and his foster family. Our son hurt himself and others. He was frustrated and angry. We had 8 hours a week of in home therapy for him and our family for the first year and a half.

Happily he is doing wonderful now (2 years later)but it was a long road and I do not know how he would have progressed had it not been for all the psychological assistant out family received.

I am heartbroken for all involved but I do think some sort of psychological therapy needs to be put in place for these children not matter what the outcome.

Jennifer,
I had reservations about posting this. I do not want to cause you any further pain. Although, in the following, I have said that other people may feel compelled based on their consciences to take a different course of action, please do not interpret what I’m saying as criticism. From the depths of my heart, I am not criticizing you. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that you and your family are going through. I do understand and empathize with your opinions and convictions in this matter.

To all,
At this point in time, I weigh in on the side that the attorney based adoption system in Guatemala had to be closed down. However, I don’t think that going to a centralized government run adoption system will do away with all corruption. I hope and pray that people who are putting the new process into place pay attention and design a process that as much as possible prevents human trafficking. Some may argue that adoption should be stopped all together. I don’t agree with that. I would rather tolerate some corruption than to halt all adoptions. When I say tolerate some corruption, I mean that I don’t think it is possible for any process to prevent all corruption. Some may say, well then why bother changing the process since there will always be corruption. Well, it makes a huge difference to the people that are affected by the corruption. We have to try.

Hague promotes a tiered approach to adoption where they first try to place the child with a biological relative, then with someone in the country and the last tier is international adoption. I have never found the argument that this is in the best interest of the child in order to preserve their heritage. I child needs a caring home as soon as possible. I think that the tiered approach does help address human trafficking. If more children are kept in their countries, there are more options for reuniting them with their biological families in the event of a kidnapping.

Now what I have said so far is very theoretical. It doesn’t touch the lives of the children that are caught in limbo right now. Based on Steve’s information, the current process in Guatemala for determining if a child has been abandoned ***by their biological parents*** is to place a poor quality picture in a news paper one time. Many Guatemalan’s will never see the picture. An illiterate parent may not look at the news paper, may not have access to the news paper, may not recognize their child even if they looked at the news paper because of the poor quality of the picture,…. I’m sure I’m going to get tarred and feathered for this. But, for me, if I were dealing with a child right now with the lack of process for finding biological parents, the lack of process for determining how corrupt the adoption has been, the lack of process for determining in what ways the adoption is corrupt, the very low probability of finding biological family, boy I just don’t know what I would do. In light of all of this, if a family in process decided to not call attention to the irregularities and let the adoption go through, I’d say that is understandable, that is human. They may take that course of action to a large degree because they are really frightened about what will happen to the child if they do something that stops the adoption.

We have been discussing/debating “the best interests of the child.” My understanding from what Smolin said is that the current and almost non-existent laws concerning kidnapping of a child that is subsequently adopted internationally takes into account “the best interest of the child” (I wish I had the time to transcribe what he said. As has been clearly demonstrated by this last misunderstanding, one missed word or an intonation can make a huge difference in how to interpret something). Based on my memory of what he said, “the best interest of the child” deals with how old the child is when the kidnapping is discovered and how difficult it would be for the child to readjust to being placed back with their biological family. I strongly suspect, that whoever passed these laws, collaberated with experts in the field before making these laws. I don’t think that these law makers dreamed up “the best interest of the child” and the interpretation of what that phrase means (taking into account the age of the child and their ability to readjust) all by themselves. So yes, I definitely think there is a range of opinions even among experts in the field.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Cheryl;

You speak of the past, and then of the future. The only way to make the future not a repetition, is to learn from the past. You seem to really be backpeddlng, but not simply stating the obvious, that could be a good first step to your future. Just say: "I was misinformed, and made wrong assumptions, and then pretty much slandered Jennifer ( by naming her, then saying no one has come forward), and I was wrong." In light of all that we have discussed, a simple apology is the very least step forward, out of the dark, and into the light.

I know I sound preachy, but I can't stand the idea that Jennifer has to defend herself here. She deserves more respect.

You asked the question "So one has to ask themselves, what is the most ethical thing to do when one is in this kind of situation?"

Jennifer has answered that in words and actions that the rest of us need to honor. She has subsequently proved that it was out of love for Hazel that she blew the whistle on the DNA fraud.

There are usually many ways of interpreting something that someone said. I find it interesting when people are intent on interpreting what someone said in the most negative way possible.

To Jennifer,
Again I say I wish you were not going through this. I think I would curl up and die if it were me. I get the impression that a lot of people have said that you have “abandoned” this little girl. I am sorry that I used a wording that poured salt into your wounds. Please believe me, I never thought that any one would think that the word “abandon” applied to in process families.

To Marie and Steve,
In my original statement, I said “That child is now in an orphanage. No one has come to claim her. I really hope that she has biological relatives somewhere that find her. My fear is that she was abandoned.”

It seems to me that you have translated my statement into “The Hemsleys abandoned this child. Because the Hemsleys abandoned her, she is in an orphanage and there is no one to come and get her.” Please note, that the two statements are very different. The first statement does not say that the Hemsleys abandoned the child. The first statement does not say that the child is in an orphanage because the Hemsleys abandoned her. Please do not twist my words.

Abandonment is a legal process where a judge decides whether the biological parents have abandoned the child. An entity that has no legal right to the child, like in process families, can not “abandon” a child. A judge would never be asked to determine whether an in process family had “abandoned” a child. It never occurred to me that any one would ever interpret the statement that “My fear is that she was abandoned” to mean that the family in process had abandoned her. To me saying an in process family abandoned a child does not make sense.

I did misunderstand the article. I thought that the government had terminated the adoption. I thought that Jennifer had persuaded the government to at least put her in an orphanage to save her life. I thought that Jennifer had gone back and visited her even after the adoption was terminated to see how she was doing. The article was very poorly written. It used phrases like “they had to give her up to save her,” “until the case can be resolved.”

I’m going to say this again, I find it very interesting that some people are intent on interpreting other people’s statements in the most negative way possible. When someone says, “I didn’t say that” maybe you should consider the possibility that they are telling the TRUTH?

Cheryl- I just don't understand why you had to mention or bring up the case of an in-process Hemsley family or any family into the conversation of this thread, for whatever the reason and to your own admittance you state along the lines that you misread the article, with that said, please understand that no one is interpreting what you wrote, but reading what you did write.

Maybe I missed one of your earlier posts and you already shared this with the readers, so excuse me for not keeping up with the postings.

Just curious...are you an AP or a PAP or someone in the business?

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to explain some of your prior statements. Please take into consideration how you word entries in the future, so that you don't hurt in-process families that you don't know, nor have others read what you apparently wrote which later you say you didn't mean to say that.

Paz, Marie

LA,

I posted what you sent me because others may feel the same way.

I stated that I know your intent was not the extreme case I mentioned. That was not my point.

What I was attempting to get at is the fact that we live in a world that bases alot on precedent - legally, philosophically, and psychologically. I feel that the underlying basis of the argument about socio-economics can lead to dangerous things.

It scares me personally to start rationalizing such things.

I think the argument really is better based in what any change entails for a child who has an established identity. To take it to the extreme. Imagine a kidnapped child adopted by innocent people and raised by them for 15 years. I don't care if Donald Trump is the biological parent, would it be right to uproot that child after so much time?

None of that dilutes the fact that everyone has a fundamental right to know the truth, even in my extreme example.

Hope that makes sense,

Kevin

Cheryl,

I am curious and confused as to why you bring up the Hemsley's case when it really has nothing to do with the Hunger Strike and the progress made by it?

SJBJ,

I do not think that there is any fairytale ending regardless of what the outcome is -- SHOULD these children in fact be the kidnapped children.

I believe it was Cheryl who said that adoption was bittersweet, bitter for the birthmom and sweet with the adoptive mom/parent. There are many adult adoptees who would look at that statement and question where they figure in in that equation as their perspective was not mentioned and how they feel about the mere idea of being adopted. But that again is a completely different topic.

Those who have entered into long and deep discussions with me personally on this, know my position and my heart felt sentiment towards all sides -- with the exception of the greedy, evil people that perpetuated the crimes.

Ultimately, the real victims in this are the children. What and how the best interest of the children is served is not up to me or you to decide.

However, when it comes to my son and my son's story, I would hope to maintain the integrity of my son's story and life. If I was one of those APs who received a call from PGN, yes, I would certainly go through all the stages of grief. I would certainly want to curl up and die. I would certainly go into fight or flight. I would certainly hope that when I processed my feelings and my fears, that I would look into the big brown eyes of the little boy I call my son and love him enough to want to do right by him and maintain the integrity of his identity and his story -- even if it killed me.

I do appreciate greatly the courage of the family that is going to do the DNA testing. I can only imagine the anxiety and fear associated with that decision. And I offer them any support they need as they preserve the integrity of their daughter's story.

None of this is easy for those who have been victimized -- the mothers, the adoptive parents and most of all the children.

I would hope that we as an adoptive community would simply support those who have been hurt by all of this and lend them our support.

I have a question. If your child (bio or adopted, irrelevant) were kidnapped and subsequently placed in a new family, how much time would have to elapse before you would say, "it is in my child's best interest to stay with her new family?"

For those of you who would answer never, or 15 years, how can you advocate that these kidnapped Guatemalan children should remain with the US families? To me, it seems like it would take massive amounts of rationalization and mental gymnastics to be able to ethically hold both of these positions simultaneously.

Re "experts." It is very rare to find even amongst the mostly highly trained clinicians and research academics individuals who have more than a cursory knowledge of providing services to adoptees and the academic literature concerning adoptees. Adult adoptees frequently express their frustration and disgust when trying to find a therapist who can even begin to understand the experience of being adopted, let alone one who has specialized training in adoption. "Experts" have advocated the removal of children from biological families in numerous instances of social engineering (se Mariale's post above for examples) over the past 100 years as they cited the "best interest" of the children. The near unanimous consequence was the destruction of families and -- as the children grew into adults -- vocal condemnation of the adults who clearly did not have their best interests at heart but instead were engineering children's lives through racist and classist lenses.

I see many corollaries between the situation with the kidnapped Guatemalan children and a historical adoption situation. In the US, in the period of time after WWII and before Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in 1972, FOUR MILLION babies were adopted in the US (two million in the 1960s alone). Up to 80 percent of the white unwed mothers in maternity homes placed their babies for adoption during this era as maternity homes changed from focusing on skills and family preservation to what some have called a breeding agenda. Oftentimes the women were strongly encouraged, manipulation, and outright coerced. Of course, the under-age girls had no choice at all. In essence, the Baby Scoop Era was a period of time wherein the experts and professionals frequently coerced women into terminating their parental rights so that their babies could be adopted by usually wealthier and older white adoptive families. Lives were forever changed and the impact of the relinquishment on the mothers was frequently devastating. Many never recovered from the loss of their children. Interestingly, although no one used the words kidnapped or stolen during that era, it has been used since and loudly.

I hypothesize that a significant part of the anger experienced by many adult adoptees of this era stems from their forced participation in the breaking up of their families of origin. There is much to be learned from listening to their experiences (as Ana mentioned).

The analogy is not a perfect one. One glaring difference between these cases of kidnapped Guatemalan children and the Baby School Era is that the adoptive parents of the past had little awareness if any awareness of the role that they were playing.

Elizabeth,

I did not say that I thought these kids if proven to be the kidnapped children should stay in the US.

There was a debate going on about when it might be in the child's best interest, etc etc.

I stand by my comment and do think that at some point in time, I as a parent, under conditions described in my post, would say that the best thing to do for more child would be to keep them with the adoptive parent and work from there on re-establishing my relationship with my child. I never said that I'd walk away entirely an I stressed the need for the truth to be known.

I apologize if that post came across as being about these cases, where certainly the 15 year extreme doesn't apply.

The obvious question is "then how long needs to pass". I have no answer. The analogy I use in this invovled warfare. We've got our soldiers somewhere. If you ask me to choose between one dead American soldier and one dead adult ciivilian, the civilian dies. One American soldier or a million civilians, hte soldier dies. The exact number lies somewhere between the two extremes...

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin -- I know that you didn't say that the kids should stay in the US. I just used 15 years as it was in my mind after reading your post. I didn't mean to sound critical of your comments, and I did understand your points.

I hope that my use of the 15 year example does not obfuscate the original question for folks...

Shalom,
Elizabeth S.

In order to make blanket statements about how adoptees feel-each and every adoptee needs to be interviewed. What is the feeling of most is not the feeling of all, even in the same family.

There are adoptees out there that have tried to reunite with birthmothers and were turned away. But because this does not support the line of thinking of posters--it's left out. There are less than perfect birthmothers too.

There are also blanket statements about corruption of laywers in Gt-whereas I am sure not all of Gt lawyers are corrupt. I have been around this topic before ad nauseum. Then it is also asserted that GT as a whole is corrupt. In NJ last week 44 government officials were arrested. Focusing on this criminal incident-is the whole US corrupt? This is what is happening with these discussions about GT, & I am insulted.

Then the psychology industry is brought in-first they are used to support a view of a poster-then they are condemed as not even scratching the surface by the same poster & post adoption care in this entire country is dismissed. Again did you all survey each & every psychologist?

To try and prove you are right in your opinions with condeming or applauding groups of people or assuming how most think-- (birthmom's a/ps' lawyers, adoptee's, psycholgists etc) and countries is wrong. When I last checked this is stereotyping.

Remove the word a/p, adoptee, lawyer etc. and insert any race into some posts & you will be reading reading racist thinking. Why is it okay to do here? Can't you all see this? example: Most adoptees... Most Irish people... get it? The only time people should be grouped together is when they have a disease for diagnosing- are you all treating adoption/adoptees as a disease?

I don't think it is a fairytale ending to suggest that the adult victims come to an understanding in the best interest of the children. That the birthmothers allow contact with a proven kidnapping & that the adoptive parents allow contact even if the cases are dismissed, for the best interest of the child. It is a solution.

I have not seen many posts addressing solutions to this just moral judgements and arguments. And also-the children are individuals too-it is suggested at what age should a child remain w/ a/p's in this type of situation (15 years)--what is best for one child is not right for all in this curcumstance too.

How may I ask is this helping in process families or anyone? This is gossipy nonsense, just moral platforming. And to prove that the journalists out there sensationalize for a reason--look at how many comments are given to this topic and the first one regarding this.

I know I have said things that have lead to some confusion. I’m going to put a little more effort in trying to explain some of the points I have been trying to make.

I’ll first start by sharing some of my own adoption experience. I asked lots of questions when interviewing adoption agencies. I got a list of questions off of the Internet, as well as lists of questions from other sources, and I augmented it with my own questions. Still, there were so many things that I should have asked but despite my research I didn’t know to ask. Fortunately, I lucked out. I have been told by more than one source that my attorney was one of the most honest in the business. It was luck on my part and I can understand how other families worked hard to have an ethical adoption but it just didn’t work out for them.

For the record, I had emailed Kevin while my adoption was in process and there started to be accusations of biological mothers being coerced. I asked him about the address on the DNA report and if I could use it to contact my daughter’s birthmother to see if she was coerced. I was prepared to loss the little girl that had been assigned to me and to loss a great deal of money. He told me absolutely do not contact the birth mother because it could backfire. I could be wrongfully accused of bribing her. He also told me that at that point in time, he had only heard of one case where the biological mother did not intend to relinquish her child. I also tried to get information about the level of ethical conduct of the attorney that worked on my case. I heard from a couple of sources that he was one of the most ethical in the business. So based on this, I feel I did my “due diligence” in trying to conduct an ethical adoption.

I think my adoption was conducted ethically. But I’m also compelled to put myself in the shoes of the people who have irregularities, who are worried their child may have been kidnapped or whatever. Now that I have my daughter, I don’t think I could give her up and the truth is probably a lot of adoptive parents couldn’t either. I admit it, I’m human, I’m weak, and I’m fallible. Who knows, maybe I’m even going to Hell, ha ha ha. No I don’t think so. I just had to put that in.

Some are theorizing that the world would be a great place if every one blew the whistle on all irregularities and any adoptive parent that discovers that their child was kidnapped returned the child to the biological family.

First, I hope this doesn’t hurt any one’s feelings, but I think it is a pipe dream to think that all people who are in process will blow the whistle on irregularities. Everyone has their limits as to how “good” and “moral” they are capable of being. That is why I keep saying that the process needs to be designed that as much as possible prevents coercion, kidnapping, etc… Second, I think it is a powerful drive to bond with a child. I think that most of the time adoptive parents bond as strongly with their adopted child as biological parents bond with their biological children. If adoptive parents were constantly worried that they may have to relinquish their child, in my opinion, for many adoptive parents it would interfere with the bonding process (I’ll refer to this now on as the “interference with bonding”). Interference with bonding isn’t good for the child either. So lets as much as possible, not place a child that was obtained through unethical means into the arms of an adoptive parent. Lets try as much as possible to assure adoptive parents that they will not loss that child so that a strong bond can be formed between the child and the adoptive parents.

I’m going to be very blunt; the “interference with bonding” is one reason, that in my opinion I don’t think that converting everyone into “saints” is a good idea. In my opinion, it wouldn’t get the results that you want any way. You are entitled to your own opinion. We could debate this ad houseman and I don’t think that any one on either side will change their minds. I’m stating it plainly so that you have a better idea of where I’m coming from.

We have a few exceptions who have posted here who are capable of whistle blowing no matter what and are capable of relinquishing their child in the event of kidnapping no matter what the child’s age. But I strongly suspect, they are the exceptions and I doubt that any one can provide evidence that I’m wrong in my assertion that these people are the exceptions. Ha ha ha. For the record, I’m not saying that the “exceptional people” haven’t bonded with their children. I’m just saying that they are few and far between and I don’t think that is going to change.

I don’t think that preaching at people or shaming them is going to change the overall dynamic very much. You might change some people’s minds in this matter but not enough minds to significantly change the overall dynamic. I should probably say change hearts instead of change minds here because of the “powerful biological drive to bond” that I mentioned earlier.

I doubt that anything I have posted will change any one’s minds. I’m posting because I think there are a lot of APs who feel the way that I do and they are feeling alone. Being human doesn’t make us bad. And converting the world into “saints” may backfire on us. We weren’t designed to be saints.

Ladybug and LA, you both had a lot of things that in my opinion are right on the money. LA, I’m with you. I’m going to try and stay away from guatadopt for the reasons that you very eloquently stated. Thank you for your clarity of mind.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

Dear ladybug,

First, I love your nickname "ladybug." Great :)

You said,
I don't think it is a fairy tale ending to suggest that the adult victims come to an understanding in the best inerest of the child. That the birthmothers allow contact with a person kidnapping & that the adoptive parents allow contact even if the cases are dismissed, for the best interest of the child. It is a solution.

I think there is a missing comma or period in there. I'd really like to understand what you were saying so could you take another look at that and clarify what you were saying? Thanks, :)

Hi Cheryl,
What I tried to say --That if the individual case is a proven kidnapping, that the family in GT allow continued contact of the child with the adoptive family.

Also, if the same case is dismissed, that the adoptive family agree to the same consideration with the family in GT. What the contact entails is up to both parties to hammer out.

For the adults to work together to sort this out so that the child has the benefit of knowing all who love her/him. It certainly will not be easy, but for the child it will be so worth it.This to me is showing respect& love for the child, who has no voice in this.

I also think that if this agreement is worked on now that perhaps the adults would be more likely to cooperate knowing they will have the privilege of being in the child's life. This can be in a legal document to protect all parties and ensure it is carried out after the case is determined. Because it was mentioned that dna could not be reliable sometimes, I also think that it would be very sad for a family never to see a child again because of a mix up.

It does not have to be an all or nothing situation for any of the families involved in this.

For one family to keep a child from the other familiy who clearly loves them is wrong in my opinion--and it goes both ways.

There is one thing that is certain-that the child is loved--so the disputing is the wrong way to show it.

I find it odd when people talk about the impact of moving a child to impoverished conditions. If I was an adoptive mum who had to or felt the need to return a stolen child, then I would do everything in my power to make sure the child and his or her family had everything they needed. Once a parent always a parent. The child's welfare would be my greatest concern as it is now. If you love a child as a parent, then it is a no brainer to me that their safety and situation would always be your focus. For very little cost, you can easily change the welfare situation of a Guatemalan family. As parents we lavish much money on our kids upbringing, why would that change?

What I do not make little of is the total hellish turmoil I would feel in losing them and the concern that they would get the emotional support needed to reintegrate into their first home. I am so glad I do not face this nightmare situation, it could have been any of us and I break my heart for the first families, the children and the APs who are all going through Hell.