Kevin,

It has been reported late yesterday that Susana was taken into custody. Could you verify?

Oh, yes, look at these children with their plump cheeks and smooth, glowing skin. . . these images only prove that they have been receiving top-notch care, and it makes it all the more ridiculous to claim that they needed to be "rescued".

I am still stunned and in total disbelief that this could or would happen to these children. To uproot them and to throw instability into their lives without any reason is such a heartbreaking shame.

I hope that every judge whose custody orders were ignored and disregarded is OUTRAGED that the PGN/CNA/MP would do this. The most-concerning part of this entire ordeal is that it seems so blatant that the best interest of these children was not taken into account at all. Who is protecting these children? Who CAN protect them when armed guards can show up and take them without a court order?

The cameras were rolling when the children were together on a bus with much excitement around them. What we cannot see and what we can only have nightmares about is how they looked when they were told to go to bed that night in a place that they have never been with people they have never seen.

Who will stand up and stop this madness? We have already resigned to the fact that these children will have to wait an indefinite amount of time before they can have a permanent family. But we cannot accept this kind of violation -- these children deserve stability, security, and safety NOW!!!!!

Susana is not in custody. At least, I really doubt she'd be able to e-mail if she was.

To all... One thing, and I will post this on the other thread as well, that I think is wrong is to demonize those hogares that received these kids. The authorities are going to do what they are going to do. The children need safe surroundings!

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

My son (and yes I call him that) Anderson is the biggest ham on the tape. He is the boy with the red shirt and green jacket jumping around and sticking his head out the window. What has happened to Susana and these children is clearly an egregious abuse of power and another example of the anti-adoption policy that still exists in Guatemala. I know some of you may disagree with me...but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've seen and heard enough to form mine.

Where is the outrage?!

There is NOBODY that can possibly justify this action is in the best interest of the children!

Kind of off topic yet on topic. Some of the strongest Unicef supporters who have played major roles in international adoption themselves adopted. Wendy Berger and Baroness Emma Nicholson. Where are their children now? How old are they? How do they feel about this topic? Especially when their families are openly AGAINST adoption. Talk about adoptions going badly. Do they spend every hour talking about how it was a mistake? Does everyone pay because two women spent more time brownnosing with Unicef than reading books on attachment theory or getting help?

Also off topic yet on topic- how many of Tecu's children were street children or without family and what role did that play in their life? How do they feel about this topic?

While I agree protections must be in place for the children how can keeping children in limbo help them? If parents were investigated beforehand and found okay to parent a child and children are clearly in need of a home how can anyone feel good about these power games and denying these children a home?

This stinks of a power game or "getting even" with Susana. They knew the children were there. If there was reason to believe children were unsafe why were they taken now and not earlier? I've always been middle of the road on Susana because of her role and as a middle roader what I see and read leans me in her direction. Not because of what she has said so much as what the authorities and press say and do. When she has said they were targetted in the past part of me says "no way they wouldnt do that". But then to pick the children up from a well known hogar and have the gall to say you were surprised the children were there is a blatant lie. If they were unsafe why werent they removed earlier? To have the gall to claim its a "save" when earlier saves they returned children with NO PRESS followup .. what is that? More lies. Then we are expected to take other things they say as truths?

I'm confused about children who have been "abandoned" for two or more years. If my children were lost me, my husband, and my entire family and friends would be out looking for them. When children have noone stepping forward while their cases go through court how long do you go through this before you determine noone is coming for them? How long do you drag it out? Until they are 18? How flippin hard is it for the authorities to try to find the parents? If kidnapping is widespread you could have people come in and do a free DNA database then do DNA on all abandoned and relinquished children. I don't believe it is widespread. Even a little is inexcusable. But its not widespread. What would that be saying of ALL Guatemalans if it were widespread? Do you know how many people, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles would have to be in on it to pull it off? They've suggested look alikes as a way around it. Are they saying all Guatemalans look alike? Because they don't. So to pull that off lets say you have 30 kids you'd have to comb the streets looking for women with children of same age and look alike then approach these mothers and have them work in collusion to steal another mothers child. I think most mothers would NOT be okay with that. I think if it were that widespread there would be people on the streets everywhere demanding justice. There would be civil war. There has already been violence on speculation of such things. So to do it also not only requires so many being in on it, which would speak HORRIBLY of Guatemalans, and those people would face violent repercussions if others learned of it. Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen but when you see the press and authorities reporting on it then numbers seem to grow to the point the entire country is part of it. And they say the authorities do nothing about it because they are part of it. Then they say the authorities are trying to help. This coming from the same Unicef inspired camps. So which one is it? Part of it or working against it?

Or you can just shut everything down and say if people can't afford their children they should stop having them which is EXACTLY what they are attempting to do. "Its sad but.." I will hate that statement till the day I die.

Some of us walk in the light, and some of us use a lot of smoke and mirrors. I agree that Childrens’ Homes should have solidarity. But again, I hope the readers of this site realize that there are two distinctly different types of homes in Guatemala.

I was reminded of the Casa Quivira case as I read the responses of the agonized parents, followed by the use of emotions and misdirection by the owner of Primavera. I would not have brought it up...but the door was opened, surprisingly, by her.

The children have been kept from the authorities in the past, when there was a doubt of their status. They have been physically moved to control jurisdiction. If someone says moving a child from the home where it is living is abusive, but engages in that practice, it means either their words or their actions are wrong.

And, when children's homes' owners have moved the children in their manipulation of Guatemala laws, that leaves the authorities with few options when trying to find the truth. If there is any basis for action, they must act. It hurts the children, undoubtedly. But using that as an argument in cases like these is really weak.

In light of the recent postings on this site regarding stolen children found to be in the adoption process, the authorities here would be as stupid as some paint them if they didn't act forcefully when they suspect something. Imagine how the U.S. authorities would clamp down on an industry where it was proved that 7 children who had been stolen from their mothers were finally found in process of adoption? They may not have any proof regarding these Primavera children, but to require proof before action would be ridiculous. Remember, they can only suspect until all the truth is seen...because of the smoke and mirror tactics of these homes. If a crime has been committed, the evidence, by default, is in the hands of the perpetrator.

Speaking of Casa Quivira, the government's actions against Primavera have some pretty good precedence because of that very case. Once the time was given to investigate, in spite of all of the manipulations and attempts to obfuscate on the part of the owners, almost half of the cases were found to have grave anomalies. Getting time for investigating, and THEN getting the opportunity to actually review the evidence is the main issue when the authorities have raided homes. The owners of Casa Quivira, I believe, are now fugitives. Under indictment for a number of crimes surrounding the activities at Casa Quivira.

I have commented before that I was close enough to the situations to doubt what Susana said. Now I am a witness, and so can state unequivocally that her description of "that home" and the Children's court judge is absolutely false, and I believe she knows it. For the record, That home's appeal was upheld by a higher court. It infuriated the MP and the PGN that Clifford Phillips [Casa Quivira owner] attended the appeals hearing in the place of the judge. Who was making the decisions, they asked. It was the judge's scare tactics and bullying indictments against the home's director that were declared illegal, and the director was exonerated in every court action. Her standing with the Children’s courts and with many sectors of the government were indeed enhanced, as her courage and concern for truth was obvious to all involved. The home's action against the judge ( for menacing grave bodily harm with her illegal arrest warrant) is still before the supreme court. The fact that it still awaits a decision is significant. That body has never ruled against a judge, and so if they were inclined to, they would be setting a precedent that they want to think long and hard about before doing so. On the other hand, if they were inclined to rule for the judge, there would be nothing stopping them from moving quickly…except the truth.

Scare tactics did not work then, and seem to have backfired on the people making the threats.

I understand the precarious and excruciating position of the PAP's held hostage in this. But they need to understand who is doing them the most harm. We have heard from clients of Susana on these comments who love her. But I have also heard others who have stories of her threats against them, and control by manipulation of the children. They fear her, but certainly do not love her.

In light of those stories, by people afraid to comment here, I have an ethical peace about the location of the children who are in the private, homes. These homes are motivated by Deut 27:19. They are supported by people who believe in what they are doing, and not by contracted fees. The children will receive excellent care by loving staff.

These homes are actively building an association of homes, based on ethical behavior and high standards for financial accountability, and a united voice for interaction with the government. They will be accepting applications soon, and you are welcome, Nancy, to apply.

Steve,
I have read a lot from you lately and I'm just curious if you have a children's home in Guatemala?

I just want to add that Susana helped our family bring home our daughter when other's were ready to put her in a city orphanage and be done with her. I am forever grateful to Susana and all that she does for the Children in Guatemala.

This is Steve again, and so Those folks who get offended, stop reading here :-) I don't want to hog the comments, but statements are being made and questions asked that need response.

Soon2bdad; Having seen Anderson on the tape, I know it must kill you to not have him with you already, and this all is more salt in your wounds. But you are "literally" buying a lie that it is merely an egregious abuse of power on the part of the government agencies. International Adoptions have a bad name in Guatemala. That is more a result of LACK of action on the part of the government, than any government activity. Did you see the tape from a while back showing Susana kicking out the doors of the PGN? At that incident, I believe she was trying to remove a child from the PGN, as she did not like the way the interview had gone. It looked to them like she was bolting with the child, never to be seen again. Whether she was right or wrong legally can be disputed. But you have to think that that may be one small part of her behavior in her contempt for the officials. Now, why should they give her the benefit of a doubt? Why wouldn't they mistrust her? Her grandstanding has not and is not doing you any favors. What is stopping you from going with your legal documents of adoption and meeting directly with the PGN and CNA?

Lisa: You had a lot to get off your chest! You talk about being confused, and I believe it is because you are intelligent, and have good reasoning skills, and are trying to reconcile what you have heard with what you see.

The Berger's were not anti adoption. If anyone said that to you, they were not telling the truth. You can see that in the fact that they are connected with an adoption. You are right; it would make no sense that they were anti adoption. They were anti corruption. They attacked it in many parts of the government. They and anyone else who honors adoption as a noble institution should be sickened by the behavior of the wolves who dressed in sheep's clothing to fleece Americans and brutalize Guatemalan women to make a fast and dirty buck. You may have also heard that they were going to receive $28 million from Unicef when the new law passed. Also not true.

From what I hear from adoptive parents, Tecu has quietly tried to help them navigate through a messy terrain. He did not make it messy. Do you understand who made it messy? And why? Who undermined the integrity of the DNA testing? Who fabricated documents, and bribed government officials? We all know it was done. AND we all know it was not done by him. How do you figure he is the one to blame?

Whose responsibility is it to get these children to their awaiting parents? You seem to assume it is the government's. But the PAP's did not contract with the government. They contracted with private individuals and agencies. It would have behooved the agencies and lawyers to work with the government for the best interests of the children and the parents. Don't you think if they had had clear cut, honest processes, that they would have shown it all, and moved the cases through? The more light shines on some cases of the past few years, the more clearly the irregularities appear systemic. That makes the people charged with upholding the law VERY slow these days. Not because they want to hurt the children. Think about it...you are assuming them to be simple minded sadists. The lawyers also are not sadistically lengthening the process ( although some PAP's think so). They do not have good cases. It is a sad, sad mess. But you are blaming the wrong people.

You are so right again, Lisa, regarding abandonment. Your logic and familial resolve are right on. So, it is logically safe to say these children were not merely lost to their families. The initiation of DNA testing by the US Embassy way back when was because of concern about stolen children being put up for adoption. So while it wasn't every case, it was considered significant enough to alter the process. 7 were proved this last year to have been stolen from their families. The families in these cases did look for their child. Now there are 3 women, who have looked for their children, and think they have found where they are, and are being denied a simple gathering of evidence. ( OK, not that simple emotionally to the parties involved)

Others were cases where a relinquishment was started, and for some reason, the mother disappeared. Maybe she was afraid of the government, because they had been painted as the boogie man. Maybe she had had a bad experience with a cop or official. Maybe she herself had falsified a document, to not appear married, or underage. But there is also in this country a chilling meaning to saying someone "disappeared". That sounds dramatic. But it sits in the craw of the government officials who are processing these cases where the BM is not around. The Lawyers initiated the abandonment process when they "lost track" of the BM's. That had been standard procedure for years. But the dubious nature of many of these procedures were becoming more and more apparent. The government couldn't turn a blind eye in light of public outcry. Again, these officials made no contract with anyone to deliver children to adoptive parents. They are getting a lot of heat, a lot of it justified, that they do not investigate serious crimes. Any case they let go by approving the adoption that turns out to be "bad" will make them look that much worse. They have no incentive to cooperate. It's sort of a no win situation for them. This too was not created by them.

You mentioned the investigators having the gall to say they were surprised in the situation. I would be interested to hear if the CNA had been notified of all of the children who were at Primavera. Does Primavera provide the CNA with a monthly list of the children there, and were all 17 on that list? If so, that comment by the investigator made no sense. But if it making no sense, is predicated on that IF.

Surprise is something the lawyers in these final cases claimed to their clients. They were surprised by government scrutiny.

The lawyers contracted by the American couples did not like how the rules were changed at the start of 2008. They can't honestly complain they were surprised by it, as it was brooding for years. The US state department and Guatadopt both counseled against starting any adoptions in the year leading up to the change. But the lawyers drummed up what can only be described as an inordinate amount of business in the final stages of 2007, using scare tactics and scarcity tactics. But after receiving the money for these children, instead of saying "OK, this is the new path, and I have been contracted to get this child through it" Their main tactic seemed to be to say "if government investigators start to investigate, that is not fair."

Maybe there was a lot of conjecture, and "only some cases were bad". Still, it doesn't vindicate the behavior of these lawyers and agencies. Use your logic again: If you knew that people driving a red car had just robbed a bank in your town, and you have a red car, and a policeman pulls in behind you in traffic, would you attempt to evade the cops ? I would pull over immediately and establish credibility and transparency ... unless I was guilty.

I just watched the report and those children should've been asleep in bed, not seized at night and taken away to some other hogar. Just the fact that a bunch of government officials think it's fine to take away a bunch of kids at night shows that they do not have the best interest of these kids in mind. You can see the confusion on some of the kids' faces. Absolutely heartbreaking...

Steve,

As I stated previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect yours. I have had interaction with numerous individuals who were no affiliated with susana who have endured numerous unwarranted delays because of the actions or inactions of Guatemalan entities/officials. Numerous delays with PGN claiming documents were not in the dossier when they were, numerous previos after a number of resubmitttals etc... Read the forum and see for yourself. How can one say thet there is not an anti-adoption policy on a systematic level? I do believe there are some individuals who care about the children, but unfortunately, that is not enough and those who do not share the same views are making things worse. There is alot more I would like to say but will not. This is not about me...it is about the children who now have to wait longer to be part of a family.

This raid is heartbreaking. For anyone to say they care about children and take them at night in a van and make them wait for hours is horrible. Regardless of how you feel about the politics, Primavera took very good care of these children.

I think there are a few issues here, and I want to start by saying that I do not see how taking children, unannounced in the night time, for possibly no good reason could ever be in their best interest. Surely there is a better way to accomplish whatever the PGN and CNA is trying to accomplish. My heart breaks for all the children and parents involved in this mess. I understand your pain, our adoption was also very long and very painful. The following thoughts are in no way meant to minimize what happened at Primavera because I think it was wrong the way it was carried out, and I am outraged that this was allowed to happen in this manner.

That being said, I have been reading the posts and have to say that for all the years I was in process, all I heard was how all the govt. agencies were the 'bad guys' and how no one knew why our adoption dragged on and on at great financial, and emotional expense to our family, especially our child. But, as more and more became known, it became apparent that the govt. agencies involved were doing their jobs, albeit maybe not as efficiently or effectively as one would like. Yes, the reason our case dragged on and on was because there was an anomoly - one that we worked hard to research and determine was not criminal, but a major red flag nonetheless, and one due to the greed and incompetence of the people handling our case. My point - don't believe all you are told by the folks who are processing adoptions.

There are REASONS certain attorneys are targeted, and if you are still in process now, then there is a REASON you are still in process now and it is likely that it is not simply because the PGN, USCIS, RENAP, is doing all the dirty deeds. I am just sick of hearing the one sided stories from the attorney(s) - mine included. Why aren't these cases long completed?

Also, I am wondering how do 9 and 11 month old children have PAPs (if I read Kevin's post correctly)? I wonder if attorneys worked the system, and the authorities are well aware of this and now are cracking down to prove a point? Why do some cases with birthmothers who are still in contact become abandonments? Is this really an abandonment? Many questions that will likely never be answered with the transparency that all the adoptive parents deserve.

Two sides to every story. The reason adoptions are a mess is because of the greed and corruption of SOME of those who were able to make a buck of the backs of innocent children and their mothers. Doesn't anyone wonder why we paid 20-30,000 dollars for adoptions from a country where foster moms often receive less than 100 dollars per month for foster care? We were charged this, because we were willing to pay it -and so people got rich and the wrong kinds of people were attracted to the 'business' of adoption. And yes, I am guilty too.

My hats off to all the children's homes who will find a way to remain open despite the fact that the govt. is not funding them, and they will no longer be getting rich off of adoptions. Then we will know who has the best interests of the children at heart and not just their bottom line.

Sorry, but I am jaded by all that I have been through. Susana, this is not a personal attack on you, as you were not affiliated with my case in any way, however, I do not believe that the authorities are doing investigations solely for publicity or power plays, although that may factor into HOW they go about their investigations (which is wrong.)

Let's all take some responsibility for what has happened to adoptions in Guatemala and elsewhere - including the attorneys who have had plenty of time to see the changes coming and who continued to do business as usual, at the expense of the children and the PAPs.

Steve:
There were 46 children in the care of Casa Quivira when the raid on that orphanage occurred in August 2007. More than 1/2 of those kids are home with their adoptive families now in the US. If more than 1/2 of the cases had "major anomalies," then how were they approved by the Guatemalan government? If there were these such anomalies, why weren't the adoptions stopped?
Yes, I have one of these "old" CQ cases. No, my case is not yet complete. No, there are not any anomalies with my case. You can't lump everyone together into one category simply for the sake of argument. Am I saying that the owners/directors of Casa Quivira are saints? No, I'm not. Not many people fall into that category.
I did read the forum of one hogar that refused to take the kids from Primavera, not because they wanted to take a stand against what they perceived as abuses by the government but merely because the children were involved in adoptions and they don't like adoptions. They also posted the day before the raid happened that they had been contacted about taking the children and they refused. While I know nothing of this home other than what I can read on their online forum, I think it's sad for the sake of the children.
Children are not pawns. Children are REAL, living and breathing people. They suffer when they are moved. My little one has been moved at least 4 times during her short life of 4 1/2 years. While it does not make me love her any less, it does add to the different journeys we will have to endure to help make her whole again. She's worth it, of course, and I will do my best to help her reach her greatest potential. Things could have been, however, much easier for her if she had not endured those moves.

My heart breaks for these children. I did not watch the video as I can't on my computer, but I don't need to anyway.

Children taken during the night, kept for hours and then brought to a new "home" with new "caregivers" might think at first that they are going on an adventure, but will soon know they are not "home" when they go to sleep at night. They WILL be sad, and confused, and this WILL upset them--everyone knows that. Anyone who knows children, knows that this was nothing short of cruel treatment of children to make a point. Where is the video of these children as they were being put to bed?

What a sad statement. And even sadder that a children's home who cared for removed children in the past would then not return these children to the loving care-givers that they are most familiar with as soon as they are allowed to. Cruel and shameful. Again to make a point? To "stick it" to an individual or a system that is not cared for?

Using the children's tender emotions and physical selves to say a big "nah na nah na nah" or "I told you so"?

Both of my children were at Primavera. The Nineras, cooks, workers at Primavera are some of the most giving, loving individuals I have ever met in my life. I could clearly see (in their eyes, and the ways they held my children, and talked to my children, and cared for my children, and cried when they left) how deeply these people LOVED my children. My children were healthy, well-adjusted, well-socialized, well-mannered, LOVING little people themselves when I came to bring them home. This is what they learned from the wonderful environment that they were in at Primavera. My children attached easily to me because of the special bonds that they had previously made with these beautiful women who were their caregivers. My children are giving and trusting--they learned that at Primavera too during the very important early stages of their development.

These children that were taken are mostly older. These children most likely have been visited by their PAP's or at least received letters, phone calls, photos and the like.

These children know that they were not taken from their loving caregivers and given lovingly into the arms of their "forever families." These strangers did not have the blessings of the caregivers to take them and the children know that. They will know that they were taken by strangers. They will wonder why. They will wonder why their caregivers are not coming to rescue them or why they are being kept from the caregivers and their home that they have known for their entire lives.

The only humane thing to do is to return these children ASAP and possibly these children may just remember this as an adventure or . . . are they to remember this as something painful that happened in their lives?

How will these children learn to trust? How will they continue to bond?

Someone also said earlier--"where is the outrage?"

I say, "where is the US Government outrage?"

Some of these kids were waiting for pink--the legal children of US Citizens. Where is the US Government when it comes to protecting these children as well as the others taken?

Why couldn't these strangers work this out between the adults and leave the children in their FAMILIAR, LOVING environment?

Someone said earlier that these children were abandoned by the director of the hogar because she was in jail? What? Anyone who has visited Primavera knows that those wonderful Nineras would never, ever abandon the children under their care. Never. They are the best of the best and I am sure their hearts are also breaking.

To the PAP's,
I am so, so sorry this is happening. You have my thoughts and my prayers. I will pray for these little ones each and every day that they can be returned to their familiar, loving, temporary home SOON, and remain there until the day when they can be in your loving arms and care forever.

This was not in the best interest of these children.

Peace,
Lizzie

Dee stated: "Let's all take some responsibility for what has happened to adoptions in Guatemala and elsewhere."

I think "all" is rather over-inclusive, as you surely can't lump the well-meaning PAPs in this group.

However, I think what is crystal clear is that there is corruption among everyone else in the process: the attorneys, the children's homes, the MP, the PGN, the seekers, etc, etc. While Steve brings several valid points, the truth is that everyone involved is greedy, self-serving and the PAPs are the victims.

Thanks, Karen, for your post. As another (long-ago) CQ family, it pains us to see Steve dragging CQ and its families through the mud, and stretching the truth in the process. I suspect that Steve considers a "major anomoly" the lack of correct birthmom address during the adoption process -- if that's the standard, then most Guatemalan adoptions indeed have "major anomolies." I know that we and many other CQ families have found our kids' birthfamilies (and met with them personally in many cases as well), despite the fact that the address where the birthmom was supposedly living during the process was incorrect. Many of us likewise know the facts of our kids' histories are not what Steve makes them out to be.

As Karen put it, I don't think that the owners of CQ were saints. I think what happened to CQ was tragic on so many levels. But CQ was not some baby farm, as Steve has often tried to portray it. If the owners were just out to make a quick buck, they never would have improved the facility the way they did (this process was underway when we were adopting many years ago and we never did get to see the end result, but we did hear about it from other families).

I know that Steve says that he never requested to take in CQ kids after the raid -- and I believe him. But he sure wasn't in a hurry to return those kids either, even though they certainly weren't in danger of being illegally wisked away somewhere else and in fact had top-notch care. It was harmful to those kids to be removed, just as it's been harmful for kids to be removed/threatened to be removed from Semillas de Amor and Primavera.

I'm sure that Steve believes that the authorities are just trying to investigate illegality, but the situation is not so black and white.

Here's an alternate scenario: The authorities deliberately targeted large well-run children's homes, in two cases owned by foreigners and in the third case (Primavera) owned by an outspoken critic of the Guatemalan government's efforts to "reform" the system. Raiding large homes makes great media copy.

Not disputing that there was a need for reform, but I think UNICEF et al happily threw out the baby (babies, actually) with the bathwater, and we see the consequences: The growing number of children abandoned on the streets (I speak Spanish and started following the Guatemalan media way back when I was adopting - there were rarely articles about babies being found abandoned in the streets until after the old system was shut down). There is no new system to speak of in place. So, children suffer so that zealots can feel good about themselves, while averting their eyes from what their zealotry has wrought.

No one can deny that the old system spawned its own horrors -- the kidnapped kids/kids with altered identities just is not adoption, it's criminal and it's great that such evil has been uncovered. Perhaps if the state had spent as much effort investigating the real anomolies (such as kidnappings -- which, for those that have followed the saga of Norma Cruz know, the justice system couldn't be bothered for an unconscionably long time to lift a finger for these women), instead of staging dramatic "rescue raids" of kids who are in no danger, things would've been different.

Kevin/Anyone,
Have you heard any additional information on the whereabouts of the Primavera children - beyond the six you originally posted about??

We are desparate to know where our son and the other children are! We were completely confident in the excellent care they were receiving at Primavera, but are now worried SICK about where they are and how frieghtened and confused they must feel!!

To Steve.
I dont get offended by your posts but I do find them insensitive. They have an "I told you so" flair to them which comes across condescending whether that is your intention or not. What I really struggle with in you posts is what I perceive as your end all belief that the GT govt and its agencies are so altruistic in their approach to all this and they are so purely working in the best interest of the children. This I find ludicrous. These gov't agencies are the same ones that time and time again took bribes, held up cases until the wheels were greased. Do you really believe their hands are so clean? There is enough blame to go around. There have been honest agencies, corrupt agencies, honest and corrupt lawyers, honest and corrupt gov't employees. How you can possibly summise it any other way just boggles my mind. I really do welcome your opinion but I've got to say, The trend I have seen in your posts is that of being so dead set one sided and not acknowledging the gray.

To Soontobedad and the other PAP's, my heart goes out to you and your children.

Lee:
I am so glad that we agree that something must be done about kidnapped children and also that the work Norma Cruz & others is involved in has merit. Moving forward for adoption nullification and investigation of kidnapping/DNA fraud is essential. Given this, and since you agree that there is a reasonable likelihood that kidnappings have taken place at some point (in these or other cases), why do you think that this removal of children from PRIMAVERA is not related to criminal matters/investigations? I mean, I have no idea in all honesty, but why do you assume that this extreme action is not based on a serious inquiry that requires removal of children? You seem to be advocating for law enforcement as the way forward to end adoption corruption, but then when the authorities make a move...criticism.

Yes, you can state that there are problems with law enforcement in Guatemala and impunity does reign in the nation. That is painfully clear. And, yes there has been more than a fraction of corruption--at all levels. But, when do we begin to let Guatemala do what it it needs to do with its own citizenry (these young children at Primavera, for example) and work toward Hague-compliance, as per their ratification agreement to do so? Remember, the Hague was set forth to prevent the sales, trafficking, and theft of children.

Also, in regards to previous posts, I would like to say that if Susana L. is being treated unfairly that wouldn't surprise me. Unfair things happen in Guatemala ALL THE TIME. On the other hand, why is this an automatic assumption? If I understand correctly, this is not the first time she has been investigated and one of her employees (a home director, I believe) is under some sort of detainment from a previous investigation? Seems like this is far more complicated than is being presented. And yes, because she is such a vocal advocate--she comes under more scruitany. That is a common outcome of such an approach. And, I'm the first to say that she should be treated fairly as well as her employees and the children in her care.

Now, I am sure that I will be criticized for attacking Susana L. I don't mean to and I have no personal knowledge of her, in all honesty. On the other hand, I don't think anyone who was involved in hogars in the past 5+ years can claim that EVERY SINGLE child that they've cared for was a 100% clean adoption. Susana L. seems unwilling to have this discussion and always takes the high road in her claims of a fair and just process. We all know that birth mother payments became routine and ANYONE who says that they can absolutely verify the past of EVERY child to be clean and clear--that is just impossible, especially when you send hundreds of children for adoption. Because of this fact, I find it hard to believe anyone who claims that their operation was entirely above board--especially given the sheer numbers that we are talking about.

It was illegal to pay birth mothers for relinquishment signatures, but we all know the truth behind that... There are far too many instances of worse than sloppy paperwork and now DNA fraud may well have been widespead (if kidnapping allegations are true). More and more examples lead down that trail.

All of that said, I apologize to anyone who I may offend including Susana L. I am not interested in getting into personal attacks. I am interested in adoption reform in Guatemala because god knows that there will always be children out there who need families.

Karenms1
Yes, I am offended by your comments about Susana. You admit that you don't know her yet you claim that she must have done something illegal in some adoptions, WOW! Let me tell you- I know her, and she really does care about the children despite what you or any one else may think.
Neither she nor the children deserve to be illegally snatched or harrased in the middle of the night just because she is vocal about the injustices of the PGN.

As far as my son goes, I know for a fact she did not make any money on his adoption. Even though she never said anything to my wife or I about it, I am sure she lost money. Every penny we paid her was well worth it, she clothed and fed him for over two years while the PGN harrased our son's birth mother several times trying to get her to change her mind. That does not include all the paper work, court dates and running she or her staff did to get our adoption finalized.

Steve,
Why don't you find out what really happend at the PGN when Susana got locked up there before you start spreading misinformation.

To Donna:
Have you contacted the US Embassy in Guatemala for assistance in locating which Hogar your son is being cared for? They should be able to help you. They can not give you legal advice but they should be able to inform you of his whereabouts. I would suggest contacting Kay Anske, US Counsul General in Guatemala.

Karenms1,

If there were serious allegations that the children were being mistreated/in danger of physical harm, then of course they should've been removed. That's not the case with Primavera (and wasn't with CQ either). If PGN was a serious law enforcement entity, it could've sealed the place off/posted guards and investigated to its heart's content. As a social worker, you presumably know something about the traumas involved these things - this is all about politics and has nothing to do with the best interests of these kids (I'm talking about the raid/removal of the kids specifically).

These cases have nothing to do with Hague compliance. Under the legislation, Guatemala was obligated to process these adoptions under the old system. There are no Hague requirements to comply with because these cases are all pre-Hague -- and there won't be any Hague cases to process any time soon because Guatemala isn't even close to setting up a working system.

As for the Norma Cruz et al cases, it'll be interesting to see what happens (whether there is a DNA match in the one adoptive family's case that's agreed to do so). I had posted previously wondering what would happen if the US families have already readopted in the US -- there are a lot of painful, complicated issues to sort out. Whatever happens, I think that both the innocent APs (since they presumably never wanted to kidnap a child) and the mothers of these kids should be involved in these kids' lives.

Karenms1,

I agree with you in not assuming guilt or innocence with regards to this matter. However, I disagree that corruption of DNA testing may be wide spread. I think it is highly unlikely that it was widespread. It takes a network of people in order to falsify DNA reports and when you involve a network of people there is a high probability of getting caught. It is also hard to find a network of people who are willing to do the illegal/dirty work. In order for it to be wide spread, a high percentage of the authorized DNA collectors would have had to have been on the take.

I'm very tempted to not even comment on things like this. I continue to comment because when statements like this are made frequently, eventually people start to assume that they are true and that has a big impact on our children and on our families.

In conjunction with Karen's statement that we should not assume innocence or guilt about this matter, I think we should also be careful about assuming the outcome for the "3 kidnappings." Yes, I do think that kidnappings have occured in Guatemala. But we should not assume that kidnappings occured in these 3 particualr cases. Lets wait and see before jumping to conclusions. I'd like to remind people of our discussions about the Bonn case. Everyone had strong opinions about what had happened while it was under investigation. When the dust settled, no one was entirely right about what had happened. So lets not jump to conclusions.

I also want to say, that Lee made a lot of very good points and I'm glad he posted. He said that he has been following these matters in the Guatemalan media. I value his input not only because he can understand Spanish but because he provides a voice of reason.

Sad to see that the kidnappings are being mentioned as "kidnappings" again...not even the topic of this thread. Why is it so hard to believe the testimony of three Guatemalan women who lost their children through abductions?

I find it that people jump quickly to defend Susana, who speaks English and posts often, but many are quick to doubt those who are unable to defend themselves in fora like this. People who know their cases closer are also attacked, as if somehow questioning Susana is terribly bad but questioning this women is totally fine.

When child trafficking in any form is reported to the police, they should act on it quickly. It doesn't matter if a party involved is wealthy, speaks English, is poor, doesn't speak English,...

However, we cannot skip the investigation and the trial. We just don't know what has happened until we gather information, analyze it, etc...

I'm sure that most people have their opinions based on the information that we have at this time. But in my opinion, until that information gathering, information analysis, trial, etc has happened, we simply do not have enough information yet to know what has happened.

With regards to Mariele's statement "why is it so hard to believe the testimony of three guatemalan women..." For the record, there are individuals I find extemely believable. But until more information has come in, I'm not going say that I definitely believe or disbelieve a report. If you look at my posts, I have usually spoken to the subjects of trafficking in whatever form in general ways rather than addressing specific cases. Oh well, there was that one infamous time that I mentioned a particular case Ugh. Very stupid of me.

I have also proposed alternative reasons for DNA mismatches and anomalies in adoption records because several people were very eager to say that DNA mismatches/adoption record anomalies autoamtically mean the worst.

Best, Cheryl

Mariale,

I think what people with actual experience with Susana (I'm not one of them) are trying to do is correct the one-dimensional portrait that her opponents (who may have legitimate issues with her) are trying to create. It's clear from APs' experience with her that she's no monster and she doesn't run a baby factory.

I actually have to say the same about the owners of Casa Quivira, with whom I do have experience. I don't know what went wrong there, or why it did, but they too were not just running some baby factory, which is the way that Steve has portrayed them. My personal experience, seen with my own two eyes, is that the owners very much cared about those kids and did their utmost for them. When my son was being examined for me by the CQ doctor, Cliff (one of the owners) happened to drop in and he knew my son's name and a lot about him. If I hadn't seen how he interacted so warmly with my son-to-be, I might well have thought that this was just a way for him to make a (very good) living -- but it clearly was more than that. And I have no doubt that it's very much the same for Susana.

So, this isn't because Susana speaks English. Don't forget that Susana herself adopted two Guatemalan children -- which is more than can be said for the Bergers, the officials at PGN, and other critics of Guatemalan adoptions.

Well I wrote a novel in response but thought I'd spare everyone plus people will start whining about my paragraph structure.

Steve, you havent offended me. I do listen to you and see your point in some things and agree with you on some things but we don't agree on all things.

Short version:
I've felt, seen, and read the condemnation and anti-adoption rhetoric too much to ever believe its not there. Including from those who've adopted. It seems the moral dividing ground for some is once their children are home.

One of the most difficult learning experiences for me is that in the real world sometimes the good guys wear black hats and bad guys wear white. They are not easily identifiable. Good guys can do bad things. And maybe, who knows, maybe bad guys can do good things. I am not ready for putting a white hat on Nicholson, Berger, Tecu, or Unicef. I will give you a gray hat for Arellano. I'm not being cruel if you'd told me 3 years ago I'd say that about Arellano my eyes would pop out.

Yes the authorities should investigate. Yes the attorneys should work with them. Together and only together can we do what is right by the children. If only we could do that.

Time and time again people have told us it is not about OUR children and to look at the BIGGER picture. As a parent it IS about our children and if I had the
choice between "the bigger picture" and knowing my children were safe somewhere I'd pray to God for another hogar, a good one, to shelter them.

My problem with the government and media on this is the big press splash on "saves" from "irregular
adoption". Its the distortion of truth when the truth is bad enough. People say "everyone in Guatemala knows children are stolen". Well of course they do. Is it because they KNOW of a case or because they heard rumor or because they read these two second irresponsible sensationalized headlines with NO followup on the story on what happened? The impression left with all of these articles is that X children were saved which means X children were victims of irregular adoption therefore X children were kidnapped. If returned later that wont be in the press and the damage in the public eye is done. We know there are definate cases out there which SHOULD be investigated and handled [notice here I am saying there are cases before someone responds with I am denying it] but the situation is bad enough we shouldn't confuse things by putting things out there which are not true right next to what is. Its like everyone is more interested in the PR campaign then in doing what is right. By putting things out there that are not true it becomes all that more difficult to get APs to believe what is being said. Why should they? If the authorities want us to believe its true justice and not a PR campaign they should report it as it is.. that a home is being investigated and that children have been temporarily moved until authorities ensure everything is okay and if not they will proceed in best interest of children.

Yes, that was the short version.

Good night.

Not a power play?! The reason that the children were taken was not because there was suspicion of wrong doing, or because they suspect that these children are kidnapped. They were taken because they "were abandoned," by the hogar director who is in jail and trying to get her case heard. These children were "abandoned" into the hands of the women that have been caring for them for years!

Even if Steve's account of the events at PGN with Susana were true, that is still no justification for taking the children. They should not have been taken just because Susana is a pain in the butt to some at PGN. Where is the justice in that.

Steve, shame on you and anyone else who knows where these children are but will not tell the PAP's. It makes me sick when people do evil things and then use the name of God as justification. I'm sure you are very happy to have "rescued" the children from one of the finest homes in Guatemala. I just hope that you will care for them half as much as the nannies at Primavera.

Lo

To all the PAPs with children that were "rescued" by this sting operation: I'm really sorry that you are going throug this. I'm also sorry that I didn't offer my sympathy in my first post. And yes, I agree, why didn't they leave the children there and post a guard instead of rounding them up like criminals, videoing them, broadcasting it for the world to see, ...

Lo made a lot of good points. People's reactions are affected a lot more by how much they have at stake than by the socio economic status or language skills of the parties involved.

Best, Cheryl

Well, maybe the waters are so muddied that no one knows what the truth is anymore. I thought PGN went into Primavera because of concerns over a particular case, and then subsequently removed the children because they were 'abandoned' by the hogar director (which is ridiculous, I agree - however do we know why they went there in the first place?)

I don't recall reading any comments about Susana's lack of concern or care for any of the children she represents. To the contrary, everyone I have ever spoken to who dealt with her said the children received top notch care. I would even say that I wish my child had received the level of care that the children at Primavera seem to have received.

That however, is a separate issue from a reported concern over a case that may warrant further investigation by the Guatemalan authorities.

I also took offense to the comment that implied that once folks got their kids home they could change their tune about speaking out against corruption. All I can say is we had our eyes opened long before our child got home - we are fortunate that our child got home at all actually. So, the fact that some folks actually question whether there may be something legitimate about this investigation of Primavera may actually be because we don't believe everything that we are spoon fed by the person who happens to run Primavera.

I for one, still have questions that no one has answered. Do 9 and 11 month old children at Primavera have PAPs? If so, are they American PAPs? If so, how is that possible? Am I incorrect in how I interpreted this? If so, I sincerely apologize. If I am not incorrect, I am curious how this is possible, as the CNA would be processing any adoptions after Dec. 2007, correct?

Let it all be transparent, and people will not have any doubts.

So Cheryl, what do you think happened? these children vanished into thin air? or someone is hiding them to blame ICA once again?

Lee, please, you cannot deny that someone who has access to this forum, writes freely and without censor, has not more of a voice than women like Norma Cruz and the mothers in question who do not have access nor have posted here to defend themselves. Bear in mind that I am not even judging Susana here, I am just saying that she has a quite permanent and vocal presence in this forum and that is bound to cause bias.

I cannot but laugh at the fact that you needed to drag the "they have not adopted argument..." first of all, I don't think you know everyone enough to know whether someone in PGN has adopted...you cannot possibly think that is a valid argument! First of all, we are not here talking about Susana de AP, as far as I understand, at least. Second of all, I do not think having adopted or not matters when it comes to following the law, or, as a matter of fact, whether someone works and devotes his or her life to protect and find families for children.

I do know adoptive parents that are very critical of the adoption system. If you go back a few topics you'll easily find them. No need to travel to Guate to learn that.

Rhetorically speaking...

A statement of disbelief that an adoption professional was knowingly involved in the adoption of a kidnapped child, does not equate to calling the child's mother a liar.

I'm admittedly bad at remembering the specifics of each of the cases. With that said, in at least one instance a mother mistakenly identified a child as hers. I don't fault her. If I was in her shoes looking at child after child, my heatrfelt desire could lead me to do the same thing! All the more reason why DNA needs to be done to know the truth...

In addition, as it relates to the Primavera case, especially when speaking to Primavera's role, my OPINION is that evidence would lead more to some sort of charge of gross neglect than knowingly being involved in the adoption of a kidnapped child. I don't believe it is disputed anywhere that Primavera was not involved in the initial referal of the child or the subsequent failed DNA test.

There are some key pieces of evidence that I'd like to see made publically available on this case. Primary of which is the newspaper listing. Is it true, as once reported in the papers, that a different child was pictured?

To me, as it relates to the legacy of the adoption system that formed our families, the real shame is that based on how the system worked, it seems like it became possible a kidnapped child could have been adopted out without the relevant parties knowing it. The shame is that this debate is even a debate.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Mariale,
I guess the reason many, especially in the U.S. seem to be tentative in referring to the "kidnappings" is that all to often in the U.S. high profile kidnapping cases where a child/ren have been reported taken by a stranger turns out to be false allegations. Many times the children are victims of murder by a parent or close relative. I believe it was Susan Smith that accused a "black man" of car jacking, the children found drowned in a car driven into to a pond, eventually it was discovered Smith herself committed the crime. Casey Anthony case in Florida is another example where a non-existent Latina baby sitter was accused accused of kidnapping now it looks as though Anthony committed the murder of her child. There is a case of a five year old boy missing in the Bay Area and the Foster Father just failed a polygraph test. I guess it is the American experience that causes some question the kidnappings. That is why so many want a DNA test done by both parties to ensure the child is who her mother claims her to be. I don't think anyone would ever think kidnapping was anything but abhorrent but people just want to be sure that a kidnapping occurred before lending unwaivering support. Also when there is a great deal of conflicting reporting about the circumstances the children were taken and timelines of reporting, and unfortunate cases of mistaken identity of children alleged to be the victims, people tend to be even more cautious in their assumptions and therefore support.

Begin 8/21/2009

In response to the question about “Where did the children go then?” I have pulled up a couple of posts that I made on other threads.

7/22/2009 posted on

Do I believe that children have been kidnapped for the purpose of international adoption? Absolutely yes. The kidnapping of a child is a horrible thing. However, as has become painful obvious many times during our discussions, most of us are not corrupt or creative enough to think of all of the possible scenarios that could transpire. So, even if a woman alleges that her child was kidnapped and a lab reports that a child is the biological child of that woman, it is not a forgone conclusion that the child was kidnapped or that the adoption was illegal. Let’s even add into this mix that the report is correct, the woman actually is the biological mother. It still isn't a foregone conclusion that the child was kidnapped or that the adoption was illegal.

I'm not saying that any of these 3 women are lying. I'm just saying that we have to be careful. For this reason and for many other reasons, it is absolutely understandable that adoptive parents wouldn't run out and have a DNA test done because of an allegation. From their perspective, they are the "parents" that are responsible at this point in time to protect their child.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

7/30/2009

This goes to show how complicated the scenarios can get. So we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. I can think of many scenarios that could make it look like the child was kidnapped when in fact they weren't.

For example, assume that a child was abandoned. The attorney didn't want to go through the lengthy process of getting the child declared abandoned so the attorney hired another woman and their child to get a DNA test taken. The international adoption completes. In the mean time, the biological parents are being questioned by their relatives and neighbors, "Where is the kid?" Out of shame, the biological parents say, "the kid was stolen by those awful adoption attorneys."

The same thing could play out if the biological parents relinquished custody of the child and didn't show up for the test and the attorney decides to bypass proper proceeds by having another woman and child come for the DNA test.

We have had incidents in our own country of parents killing their children and claiming that they were kidnapped. Those horrible adoption attorneys are good scape goats for blaming the disappearance of a child.

Sounds like the improper/corrupt DNA testing was done before Susana came into the loop for this child. That is definitely another scenario. And then what do you do if the biological parents don't show up for a long time after proper procedures were used to put the APB out for them? Well, keeping the child in an orphanage for ever isn't a good idea.

I can think of scenarios where there isn't a mismatch, the adoption was legal and the biological parents are claiming it is illegal. Their relatives and their neighbors start questioning them about where the child is, they feel ashamed or scared. Or maybe discussions between the US and Guatemala aren't going well. A government official bribes them to claim the adoption was illegal to put pressure on the US. *shrug* it could happen.

I'm not saying that any of these scenarios apply to the three woman who are doing the hunger strike. Everything I know at this point is hearsay, meaning that I didn't get it first hand from the alleged mothers, the adoptive parents, etc.. I feel I don't have enough reliable information in order to know.

But I also want to say that I definitely do believe that children have been kidnapped for the purpose of international adoption and I think it is horrible.

Steve had commented probably over a year ago that a lot of dead women's bodies were being found. After reading the new thread that states 98 percent of murders go unsolved, I'm much more concerned that children were being kidnapped, their mother's murdered, ... Steve, did Guatemala implement that DNA bank of samples from the dead bodies that you had mentioned?

***The following was added on 8/21/2009
I wrote the above paragraph shortly after reading the thread on corruption in Guatemala. Since then, I have discussed this matter with attorney friends, as usual  Our conversation went like this:
Me: I read that 98 percent of murders in Guatemala go unsolved. In light of this, I’m more concerned about biological mothers having been murdered and their children kidnapped.
Att: Well, a high percentage of murders in San Francisco also go unsolved. The reason that murders are hard to solve is because usually only one person is involved in committing the murder. Kidnappings and especially kidnapping for an international adoption would require a network of people. When you have a network of people the probability of getting caught goes way up.
Me: What percentage of murders in San Francisco go unsolved.
Att: I don’t remember but it is very high, and since Guatemala is a third world country, it isn’t surprising that it would be very high
****

Do Guatemalan officials or the Guatemalan attorneys for the cases have copies of those DNA profiles? It sounds like that information is with someone in Guatemala. The Guatemalan government definitely should have at least asked for copies of those DNA reports.

On another note: somewhere I got lost and thought the child was still in Guatemala. I had assumed that she would be tested again as a part of determining whether Lloyda was her biological mother.

Best, Cheryl

***written today on 8/21/2009
I want to emphasize that I said in both of the previous postings that I wasn’t saying that any of these scenarios applied to the 3 cases that are in the news now. I was speaking to the general problem of child trafficking. I’m very loath to make statements about these three cases. I also want to point out, that I don’t like it that the three are being lumped together. They are each individual cases that should be considered on the basis of their own circumstances. If people are really interested in making judgements at this point in time, I think it behoves them to look at the fact patterns involved in each of the cases. One criteria that courts use for judging a cases merits is whether parties contradict themselves. They also watch out for people who tell their stories using exactly the same wording verbatim. Either is considered a red flag. A little contradiction is to be expected since people do not always tell their story in exactly the same way. Contradiction about major points is a redflag.that something is wrong. Also, listen to the story and ask yourself, “does this make sense?” Subject it to the sniff test.

I also want to say that even if any of these three cases is showing red flags at this point in time, there may be explanations for those red flags that we will hear about in the future. I think it would be horrible to have a child kidnapped and then tar and feather a biological parent because they messed up in how they told the story and handled the situation.

I’ll just venture this: At this point in time, I have very different opinions about each of these three cases. But I hold my opinions very loosely as more evidence comes in.

I want to reiterate and ***emphasize***, that we are not creative enough to think of all of the possible things that could happen. So let’s wait and see. Questions like “Well where did they go then? Did they disappear into thin air?” are asking me to be a magician, a mind reader. You are expecting me to have a crystal ball and I have said over and over again, I don’t have one. And neither do you.

End 8/21/2009

I'd like to try and address the comment that people are much quicker to believe Susana than the mothers in the three cases because Susana is affluent, speaks English, has access to web sites whereas the mothers are poor, less educated etc.

I think that Raquel Par said that the Police didn't take her seriously. I believe her. I can definitely believe that the Police may not listen to an indigenous woman.

Now I want to discuss APs reactions to these matters. Lets say that you see a documentary on TV where a person A says that their child was murdered by person B. Person A is crying, crying while they are telling the story. Of course, our first reaciton is to believe them.

Now let's say that person A accuses your spouse of murdering their child. Well, of course your reaciton is going to be different becuase now it is very close to home. It doesn't matter whether person A is well educated or not. It doesn't matter what language person A speaks. You are going to be cautious.

I think that most APs care a great deal about corruption. I think most APs want a just adoption system. But these matters are close to home and therefore most APs will exercise more caution in evaluating them than people who are not so directly affected by them.

My ten cents worth.

A number of people have focused on the hour that the children were removed as proving the heinous nature of the event. The PGN et al actually arrived in the morning. It was the ( understandable) defense measures of the home that drew out the ordeal into the night. As in any measure you would expect of American police forces, once the hand was put to the plough, so to speak, it would have been irresponsible to disengage. To pick details of the event and create an uncomplicated scenario where the gov’t officials controlled and orchestrated the situation is to not understand reality.
I used Susana’s prior behavior and relationship with the PGN to explain that there is no “benefit of the doubt” in their relationship. I wasn’t in the remotest suggesting it as the REASON for the raid. The legal reason of abandonment is completely different that what you point out. You are right, Lo, that they were not practically speaking abandoned. Guatemalan law is a labyrinth, and the official reason is often not the actual reason for a move by attorneys or governments. I think we all agree that the care was adequate. Can you then take the next logical step and say that that was not the ultimate motive? If so, then can you get past the simplistic and incredible idea that it was purely vindictive on the part of the Government? What would they hope to prove by doing this vindictively? Waste a lot of time and effort to show Susana who is boss in a residual case of a defunct system? As some others have suggested, there may be more to their motives that Susana wants you to know.
I have two questions, Scott:
How much money did you in fact pay to Susana and or the agencies involved for your child? I know it is rather personal, but you have presented your personal experience as validation.
Did you see the videos of Susana at the PGN? (OK, 3 questions) What is your knowledge base for saying I gave out misinformation?
I have been hard on Susana in some comments. I hope not mean, but for sure hard. I am not sure there is a soft way to say someone is not being truthful. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and think that she started out with the best intentions, and then as things got crazy in the adoption world in Guatemala, maybe she really believed she was doing the best for the children at risk. And in doing so, took cases that had problems before she got a hold of them. That makes her better than many of the attorneys for whom she speaks. I can even see it is fear on her part that causes her not to admit to ANY wrongdoing by anyone except the C N A and PGN. As a battle trained attorney, that is her way. I wish she could channel that energy and conviction towards the needs of the mothers of these children, and especially the mothers whose children have been stolen. There will remain many children at risk in Guatemala. There are also 2 brutal murders a day of young women in Guatemala City. I appreciate those, Like Guatadopt, who have said if adoptions stop, we will find other ways of helping the children of Guatemala. The Berger’s proved those who said they were going to take the $28 Million from UNICEF wrong. I would love it if Susana proved me wrong by continuing to help children at risk after the lucrative aspect closed.

Then, Cheryl. I really appreciate your sharing your reflections and logic. They really do help to consider that there is more than one view, or motive, or explanation. But in the case of these three women, and these three children, it would be so simple to do a DNA test in a manner that all could trust. The theory and generalizations will always be there, but should not be used as a reason to not perform the simple investigation in a specific case.

Steve you did not direct this question at me but I will jump in and answer it. How much did I pay Susana? Really the question should be how much money did Susana spend on my Son? Like Scott, I can guareentee that Susana did not "profit" at all on my case. She received .73 cents per hour. From that you will need to subtract her expenses. Caregiver fees, food, clothing and medical expenses I could go on but you get the idea. NO WAY did she earn anything on my case. She never mentioned the loss of money or asked for more. Oh and don't forget to subtract the Christmas gifts she bought. Yeah that's right I was there when she brought in gifts for each and EVERY child.

jttcook
Thank you, I could not have answerd that question any better.
Steve
Yes I did see the video and what is your knowledge base for what you said happend? PGN?

Steve,
I also want to chime in about adoption costs. Your comment to Scott asking, "How much money did you in fact pay to Susana . . . for your child?" is offensive (AND provacative and I guess I am falling for it). I will say this--the amount I paid was FAR less than the high amounts posted here by some posters and posted in Newspaper articles----I know many, many who have adopted and have not met any that have paid these high fees yet.

Like jttcook said, it should be ----How much did Susana spend on my daughter?

I am sure that Susana did not make a dime--rather she must have acrued a lot of extra debt caring for my child because the process took so long, and yet she continued to offer the same excellent level of care to my daughter and never asked me for ANY additional funds / fees.

Suppose you will counter now and ask me what part of your statement was offensive and why? Don't bother--I'm not biting next time.

Peace,
Lizzie

Steve,

I agree that the best way to figure out if the children in the US are the biological children of the 2 women (excluding Raquel Par since the APs in this case stepped forward) is to do a DNA test. However, we both know that for various legal reasons DNA tests will probably not be done in a majority of cases. I have posted before that one way to motivate the APs is to assure them that they will not loose custody of the children. I know that isn't fair, but it is a way to get the DNA samples. Otherwise, I think nothing at all will happen.

Then the question is, if the three alleged US children turn out to not be the biological children of of the three women? I hope it is not automatically assumed that no crime had been committed. What I'm saying is, a kidnapping can occur while at the same time the wrong child in the US is identified. I wouldn't want a legitimate kidnapping charge to be dropped because they were having a hard time finding the child.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Again, no straight answers to my questions!!!!! If I didn't feel like all your misdirection was some sort of signal that there is something missing, I would be persuaded by sheer volume.

I agree that published numbers are way high. But I don't know how way high, because I don't know what you paid. I guess I can calculate $0.73 by the hours in one year, and say you are saying you paid Susana $6,394.80 if your case took a year. I would agree that that is a fair cost.

Is that about what the clients of Susana have been paying?

Let me pose a question that gets to the root of the issue in many ways. Cheryl;

You wrote:

"I think that most APs care a great deal about corruption. I think most APs want a just adoption system."

Would you [or they] want that Just System, even if it meant that there would be a lot less adoptions of infants? This would mean the majority of people hoping to adopt an infant would not be able to. Everyone wants to claim anti- corruption and "justice" as their position. But when being just means depriving yourself of your desire, do you still want justice?

Based on my understanding of things at this point in time (and I may be wrong), I think that the US government and the Guatemalan government didn't care very much about whether the adoptions were legal or not. I'm sure there were many government employees working in adoption that cared but each individual only has so much influence.

Here are some of my reasons:
1) it took a long time to persuade the US to do a second DNA test.
2) Guatemala never bothered with any DNA tests
3) I suspect that Guatemala never bothered to obtain copies of the DNA tests that were performed.
4) the process for doing the DNA tests made it too easy for an attorney to find a doctor that was willing to be bought off.
5) Referring to Kevin's comment made on 9/20/2009 in this thread: If in deed it was possible to put the picture of a different child in the news paper as a part of determining abandonment, then that means that neither Guatemala or the US had a process of ensuring that the right picture was put in.
6) Referring to Jennifer Hemsleys post made on 6/29/2009 in the "Powerful REport-Watch this Video" she said (I hope I'm not misrepresenting her here) that the same names showed up on hundreds of DNA tests and referred the reader to the article www/usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-22-guatemala-adoptions_N.htm. In the article it said that there were 1000s of registered children that no one showed up for some appoint (sorry I can't remember exactly what appointment this was and I forgot towrite it down). The theory is that attorneys registered false IDs of children with the council in hopes of matching these later to babies obtained through fraud. I think Jennifer said there were hundreds of DNA tests with the same names that appeared on hers. I'm guessing that she means "Maria Eugenia Cuz Yax."

If I have interpreted the above correctly, this means that Guatemala wasn't paying any attention to the names of the children on the registrations that the attorneys were sending in. I am absolutely blown away at the sloppiness of this. Hey, a child with name A is registered. Some time later another child with the same name A is registered. Hello, that is a red flag. Its really simply. You keep a list of the names. If you have a data base that you enter the registries into, it can be set up to send an error message "duplicate name." If you don't have a database, well then use a simple list of names. I cannot even begin to fathom the sloppiness that would allow an attorney to register 1000s of fake children with the same name.

And back to the DNA testing thing. It isn't rocket science to figure out how to keep doctors and the attorneys fairly honest about these matters. And in my opinion it wouldn't have to add that much more complexity or time to the process either. Ya, maybe the run of the mill citizen wouldn't figure out how to do this, but I would think that government officials who work on adoption would have some kind of an idea of how corrupt individuals could circumvent the process. They should have been on top of this. OK, I'll just say it out right. I'm very upset with them.

OK, I'm done for now.

Cheryl

Steve,

I am very comfortable in saying that PAPs would very well sacrifice some things to know that systems were clean. Yes, speed (and viability) is something that factors in to decisions.

But, for example, suppose that the Hague actually succeeded in its intent. Suppose that were a group of countries with viable adoption programs, all operating under similar rules, and free of corruption. If we could get that, "supply" would cease to be an issue. The problems come up because all of the demand gets pushed to one or two countries that have functioning systems.

In short, if the leaders of this world could get over themselves, if they could focus on chilcdren's well being, if the NGOs could abandon their hard idealistic lines, then the industry of adoption professionals would morph into something new, more children in need globally could be placed with loving families, systems would be transparent, and debates like this cease to exist.

Ultimately you have a lot of willing and able PAPs. They are a willing funding source to support initiatives to provide care and infrastructure. But they are largely powerless in this political game of chess that goes on with ICA...

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Steve, My adoption cost me $20,000.00 in just attorney fees and Susana was my attorney. Hope this helps.

Steve,

I agree with Kevin. I don't think we have to choose between a very good adoption system and large percentage of PAPs being able to adopt. There are tons of children that need homes. I don't think that designing an adoption system that enables PAPs to adopt AND at the same time provides a high level of confidence that those children were obtained legally is all that difficult. I'm seeing that a lot of problems resulted from sheer sloppiness.

I'm sure that Kevin understands the big picture way better than I do. But even when looking at the smaller picture, I see lots of stupid mistakes that I find very irritating.

Regards, Cheryl

Steve and Kevin,

I have re-read STeve's post and I think there is a little bit of a miscommunicatio between us. Steve asked whether PAPs would be willing to forego adopting "infants" in order to have a fair adoption system. Steve, I'm right with you on this. I would love to see a lot more older children placed. My hope and prayer is that money is funneled into getting proper care for the older children so that they are not so damaged from institutionalization that PAPs feel they can't handle the situation. Another part of the problem is persuading the psychologists and various experts who are making recommendations to PAPs that orphanage A and orphanage B has older children that are in fairly good shape emotionally.

It might be worth while for you to understand how much various experts are highly recommending that we adopt infants. It would also be worth while for you to take a look at the literature/studies that they hand us. The stuff they hand us is very scary. Its one thing to have some emotional issues, but this literature is saying that there is a high probability that the kids who are in orphanages for more than 18 months will have very serious problems.

My agency provided a 3 day seminar. During one of those days, a psychologist and a pediatrician that specializes in internationally adopted children from a world reknowned hospital were there. They asked us all to share about which country we were adopting from and so on. When I said I wanted to adopt a child that was 2-4 years old, the psychologist and the pediatrician looked at me like I had two heads. No kidding.

You run an orphanage with older children that have special needs. If I were you, I would contact the people who are considered "experts" in the field, and invite them to take a look at your orphanage and the children there. Then ask them to advice people to adopt from your orphanage.

I could be wrong but I think there are a lot of people who would adopt older children provided those children aren't damaged to the point that the PAPs cannot handle the situation.

Best, Cheryl

I think that Cheryl's speaking of "Guatemala" as if there was an entity that made all the decisions, fits right into how I want to respond to you, Kevin. So let me address Cheryl's comments first.

Cheryl, IMHO, the reason that adoptions in Guatemala got to the numbers they did, was because there was not any strong government oversight. Virtually none. There was a lot of paper shuffling, but in the end, the attorney of record pretty much dictated the rules. Little by little, over the last 10 years, as reports of stolen babies and enslaved birth mothers began to appear, the entities that are supposed to protect Guatemalan citizens began to try to be more active. Their early attempts were blocked regularly by the adoption cartel. When the Berger's came into power, many more reforms were attempted with varying success. One of the swing battles came in 2006, and was discussed at length on Guatadopt. It was all very confused and no one in the government had much power. Clumsy actions like the raids and blocks of processing adoptions were their only moves, which were often immediately countered by legal maneuverings of the adoption lawyers. This last raid on Primavera is I think, the 3rd attempt in the last year. The previous 2 were blocked by legal maneuverings. The Guatemalan Government is not an all powerful entity. It is very weak, and really cannot do much against a well funded or powerful constituent. It is known as a murderer's paradise, because a small percentage of murders are even logged, much less investigated, and much much less brought to trial.

Adoptions was in the hands of the adoption agencies and their affiliates. That is the fact of the previous way of doing adoptions in Guatemala. You are right, that the US was the only entity trying to put some sort of regulation in place.

So, Kevin; If the leaders of the world get together and decide things but do not take into account market forces, they are not strong enough to regulate and police the profit driven parts of the societies around the world. Look who controls Washington, for Pete's sake. The harmony you suggest will not come until there is an equilibrium of parents wanting babies, and babies in need of families. As we see in the states, 1/2 million children are in foster care. They need families. Is there a statistic regarding how many infants were adopted in the U.S. in 2008? Not ICA. I heard that there are close to 150,000 children older than 5 who are adoptable.

All over the world, there are "Tons" of children, but not many infants.

In a world that was closer to the ideal you paint, there would be far less infants needing adoption. Infants are the simplest children to assimilate into the extended families in every country, including the US. It's just not going to happen.

Unless that equilibrium arrives, there will be people if allowed to, who will seek to profit from that inequity.

You say the the Paps are powerless. But they hold the purse strings. The NGOs with their hard idealistic lines can only act, like the weak Guatemalan Government I described earlier, in negative, and very clumsy ways.

If the PAPs are powerless now, it is because they abdicated their power to those who promised them what could not be had apart from a corrupt abusive gathering process that finally has drawn the ire of the world.

Here's my take...

I'll go out on a limb and say that "most" PAPs are not in adoption for humanitarian reasons. For a variety of reasons, biological and/or IVF are not viable options to grow our families.

My wife and I fit into that group and I take no shame in saying it. We wanted to share in the experience of parenting. And yes, getting to see first steps, first words, etc were something we wanted to experience like parents everywhere.

On a second adoption, that could have very well been different. That was our plan somewhat until an unplanned sibling adoption came our way.

I know of many families wanting to adopt older children.

It is supply and demand in as much as all families have the right to grow their family in the manner that is right for them. And we don't need to be ashamed of that.

For example, god bless the people who adopt special needs children. I mean that with all sincerity. But are we to say that PAPs should have no control over whether they adopt a special needs child?

Somewhere down the line in political correctness an assumption has been wrongly placed on us that everyone adopts to save a child somewhere in the world. That gets thrown on us with the whole "why don't you just sponsor a poor woman with the adoption fees" argument.

We often meet people who tell us how wonderful it was of us to adopt our kids. I know that I am not alone in our ICA community in the fact that I always correct them. We just wanted to be parents. Our children blessed us.

No one can, for example, state how many infants there are worldwide in Hague countries in need of families at any given point in time. And if there were functioning systems who knows how many women would make the decision on their own that adoption was the best thing for the child. If that's putting an unethical amount of "meeting demand" into the equation, than I am guilty.

Intercountry adoption should not be something viewed as so horrible.

What happened in Guatemala and other countries is a shame but it should not deter us from wanting better systems and realizing what the institution can be.

I find it hard to defend Berger's adoption record. Yes, the Protocol was some weird attempt, and a huge cluster****. But this was the guy who seemed to allow bribery go on in his PGN at the highest levels. From what I saw, it was under his tenure that corruption went rampant. Maybe he knew that letting it go nuts would help to ultimately pass a law. He did need the US to get hardcore on it after all.

There were so many cases of known illegal activity and, unlike today, no one was ever prosecuted or arrested. Heck, there was an attorney caught faking PGN releases, and they never went after her. So I'd have to give Berger a "F" on adoption. He sucked up to all the big boys and left a disaster. Hmmmm, sounds like what happened on many issues in a country closer to home...

In any case. Steve, I know you mean no harm. Just as there is so much we don't know from your experience, there is much you don't get because of ours as PAPs and APs.

Maybe we want our cake and to eat it too. Maybe there is no way to have ethical adoptions of children of all ages. On this, as an advocate, I must remain the idealist. I know who my wife and I are. I am 100% transparent about how we came to adopt. We know our children's history. We see them thrive every day and could not possibly love them more. Our family is a normal family. We don't live in any progressive metropolis and being a trans-racial family isn't any big deal here. We're just another family.

Our society has made great strides in all areas of social equality, especially the non-economic ones. Love him or not, we have an african-american president. Think of them what you will, but gay and lesbian families don't freak us out. Whites marry blacks. Latinos marry asians. Pretty soon, we'll all be mutts and we can finally get over all this racism stuff!

I will never be ashamed or anything but proud of my family. In honor and respect of my children, the idea that it's a shame that they werent adopted by a family in Guatemala is insane. They will have questions and we will work through them. But "who they are" is nothing but 100% perfect!!!

If Guatemalan adoptions had to go down because the corruption, then let's see the truth come out. Let's see the offenders prosectued. Let's see some of the folks in the US pay the price as well. I support all that. Let's not forget, most importantly, to hope that someday more children can find the families they deserve and through a better system.

Peace,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Just one word, Kevin: AMEN!
Oh and 2 more: Thank you.

Kevin,
Well said! Thanks!
Peace,
Lizzie

Ditto to Kevin's Post....I couldn't have said it any better myself....Perfectly put and articulated ! Thank you....

Going through the adoption process tends to touch on the worst fears that many people have. I think it is very important for PAPs to work with professionals who will not judge them. There are people who have a deep need to be a part of their "child's first steps" as Kevin put it. There are people who do not feel up to adopting a special needs child or an older child.

For me, I could have adopted an older child with a certain amount of special needs. I tried that route but I found that I could not get enough information about the child to determine whether I would be in over my head in raising the child. The next time around, Idecided I would ask for an infant that is in as ideal of a circumstance as possible. I just could not go through the emotional wringer again.

So my advice to you Steve, is to try and provide PAPs who are interested in adopting older children or children with special needs, the information they need so that they can decide whether there is a good fit between them and that child. And understand them if they decided that a particular child isn't a good fit for them. Help them to find a child that is a good fit for them. If you build a reputation of judging them, they will not come to your orphanage. They will go somewhere that is emotionally supportive.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

Cheryl,

I read your last response suggesting that Steve should change his approach so more PAPs would be willing to adopt from his hogar.

Your statement would imply that Steve's hogar has been unsuccessful at placing children (to my knowlege that is not true). That those at Steve's hogar are not emotionally supportive -- which you really don't know unless, under the former system you attempted to adopt from his hogar and found it a difficult experience.

Most importantly, under the new system, it is not the PAP that goes and finds the best fit for them. It is the CNA that finds the best fit for the child. It ceases to be about the PAP and places the focus on the child.

I didn't adopt my son to save the world or to do my part to help the orphan situation. I adopted my son because I had a desire to start my family and my heart was in adoption. I do not feel guilt in my decision because guilt does absolutely nothing to help me to be the best mother I can be so that my son can be who he is destined to be. But with adoption also comes responsibility to honor my son in everything that I do. When I became a parent, it ceased to be about me.

My heart goes out to the family whose children were removed from the Primavera Home. I can only begin to imagine how upsetting all of this is and how any bit of information that you can get is greatly appreciated. I would hope that Susana will be able to provide the families with satisfactory information. In the meantime, know that my prayers are with you.

Cheryl:
Your comments about Steve's children home working directly with parents and providing information that is meaningful and useful to a family in the process of making a decision to adopt lacks one critical thing. In the new system, under Hague criteria, there will no longer be the personal relationship of the previous system. So, in the future, a child is LISTED as available and per Hague criteria a study will be carried out and documented as per the child's specific needs--including disability issues. A PAP WILL NOT have a hands-on experience in "selecting" a child as per the old days. In fact, PAPs are not allowed to meet the children prior to the adoption as per the old days. Yes, I know this sounds sterile and ineffective. But, we all know that some of the individuals that have brokered the system in the past (i.e. facilitators) used those human relationships to leverage money. Since the Convention is put forth to prevent sales and trafficking, these are new safeguards. As such, a special needs summary is not up to an individual like Steve, but rather the Guatemalan Social Workers now tasked with this critical step, especially as they write the background study. Of course, someone like Steve will be a critical key informant and he will be the best source of real-day-to-day information, but the social workers are now tasked with this process as per the new Consejo Nacional regulations. Moving from the informal processes of the past to a more professionalized approach will most certainly be difficult and fraught with problems as these systems are typically inefficient. However, it takes the many hands out of the process in terms of the huge sums of money which flowed during the final years of ICA in Guatemala.

Ana01 stated in the post dated 8/26/2009, “That those at Steve’s hogar are not emotionally supportive—which you really don’t know unless, under the former system you attempted to adopt from his hogar and found it a difficult experience.” Ana01, in response, I ask you, do you think that the following in any way help Steve’s orphanage? I’m very happy if they have been successful in placing their older children with special needs despite treating people in the way demonstrated by the quotations below.

Anonymous posted 7/23/2009 on the Sobrevivientes Hunger Strike thread “Steve, One of the reasons why I read here is because of the quality of the site, and the generally respectful tone of the posters. I am glad you post, because I want to read a variety of perspectives—just wish you could be more respectful and less demeaning when you post. I know I would listen to your points better and probably other would too. Several of your comments above I found quite offensive.”

LA posted 7/24/2009 on the Sobrevivientes Hunger Strike thread, “Steve, Just had to make a quick point since your tone always seems to be so ‘high in a tower’ as though the rest of us might not understand what you do…I think addressing anyone using a very biased interpretation of what they said and then making snide comment about their knowledge of the English language just serves to make your arguments less credible.”

I posted 8/5/2009 on the Hunger Strike ends-progress is made thread “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.”

Sjbj posted 8/25/2009 on the Primavera Raided thread, “Steve, on the Aug 15 thread YOU asked: ‘How much money did you in fact pay to Susana and or the agencies involved for your child? How much did someone pay for your child?!!!!! Perhaps that shows the attitude toward human rights that YOU have?? Or maybe you were typing quickly and not considering the fact that someone might think the very worst of you and try to vilify you for something you typed in haste. And maybe you might give other people (Particular those who disagree with you) the same benefit of the doubt.”

M.E. posted 8/26/2009 on the Primavera Raided, “Steve-Since my issue with you is that you continually comment on these issues without clearly identifying your own interest in the matter at hand, I will be upfront about my own involvement and hope that you will do the same in future discussions…I cannot fathom how you made the leap from my statement that AN did not return the CQ children to CQ (where they had been lovingly cared for until their removal) upon a judge’s order to describing me as someone who considers ‘some humans commodities to be given and taken by those who own them.’ I ask that you abide by the rules of this forum and not cast slurs and personal insinuations upon someone based upon your reading of a 2 line comment.”

Jandc posted 8/18/2009 on More on Primavera Raided “To Steve. I don’t get offended by your posts but I do find them insensitive. They have an ‘I told you so’ flair to them which comes across condescending whether that is your intention or not. What I really struggle with in your posts is what I perceive as your end all belief that the GT govt and its agencies are so altruistic…I really do welcome your opinion but I’ve got to say, the trend I have seen in your posts is that of being so dead set one sided and not acknowledging the gray.”

Karen,

I definitely can understand why things have come to this. However, I'm afraid that if PAPs aren't given enough information to be put at ease, many of them will find other ways of building their families. And that is too bad for the older children and the children with special needs.

I really and truly do feel a burden for the older children and the children with special needs.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

This discussion has strayed so far from the initial title that I suppose it is ok to post here that DNA testing confirms that Loyda Elizabeth Rodriguez is indeed Karen Abigail's mother. I suppose that now we can take the " " from "kidnapping..." at least in this case?

From Telediario (www.telediario.com.gt)

26/08/2009
Una prueba de ADN, confirmó que la niña que buscaba y que fue dada en adopción a una familia extrajera, es hija de Elizabeth Rodríguez. Esta será una prueba para el Ministerio Pública para que la progenitora recupere a su pequeña.

Cheryl a question...how did the primavera raid and our sympathy for the famlies involved in this turn into a Steve bashing session? Why? Because Steve's approach makes some APs uncomfortable? How does that make his hogar unsuccessful at placing special needs children? From reading his blog and reading blogs of those who have visited his hogar, only wonderful things can be said about Steve and his wife. They have a true desire and love for the children of Guatemala and have selflessly devoted their lives to the children. Perhaps, that devotion has lead them to be a bit possessive of the respect that they believe the children deserve -- and who can argue that? We may not always feel comfortable but at the end of the day, the one that has rolled up his sleeve, put his money where his mouth is on a daily basis and faces the system while opening his home and heart to the children of Guatemala is Steve.

Again, not quite sure what that has to do with Primavera Raids and supporting the families involved. Perhaps, our focus should be on that rather than on trying to discredit or educate Steve.

I have to agree with ana01, I don't
understand where bashing Steve fits in with this thread? I was contacted by several readers that this was occuring.

It is quite disturbing to read the discrediting of Steve by a person who does not even know him. Not sure why this is being done, nor for what purpose.

I can attest as a former Guatadopt Team member that Steve, and his wife Shyrel, have devoted their lives to Guatemala and to the children of Guatemala. Not only do they take in children, but they take in children who are not adoptable and children with moderate to severe needs. In a nutshell, their dedication is exemplary.

I have to admit to read numerous posts and constant bashing not only of Steve but of MANY of our long time posters is very disturbing, especially when comments are not based neither on fact nor on personal observation.

Cheryl, I am not sure why your posts take away from the news or thread discussed and turns into a discrediting entry, is that your purpose?

I am not sure why you continue to post...as you had mentioned many times in your prior posts that you would not be reading this site anymore. Cheryl, for your own sake, you many want to consider taking a breather.

This site was a link to me during my own process and also for THOUSANDS of families who were in process as well and it continues to be so for those that are STILL in process, let us not forget that.

My thoughts and prayers are with the PAPs whose children were removed from Primavera.

Concerned, Marie

I wonder also where are those who jump to remind posters that no personal attacks are allowed in Guatadopt threads...it seems it takes much longer (if ever) to remind everyone of this when the object of attacks is Steve, Karenms1, etc. This time is Steve. How did this topic became about him, I still don't know. It just strayed off the original topic, which is important and QUITE relevant in itself.

Good thing Steve is tough but still it is a bit disgusting to see how someone can ba attacked while the rest of us "watch." Truth is, we all know what Steve's agenda is, he's been pretty clear about it. What we don't know is what his attackers' agenda is, perhaps they could enlighten us?

So what is the message here? Is the message that it is impossible for a person who runs an orphanage to twist people’s words, or to impugn people’s character on the basis of a couple of hastily written sentences? Is the message that if person A, who runs an orphanage, twists person B’s words or impugns person B’s character on the basis of a couple of hastily written sentences, then no one has a right to call attention to person A’s behavior? Is the message that we must always buy in to what a person who runs an orphanage says?

If you (proverbial you, not directed at any particular person) have been following what I have actually been saying you would know that my purpose is not to discredit Steve. I don’t always agree with him. But I’m certainly not always disagreeing with him either. Many of the things I have said has dovetail in with what he has said. I tend to disagree with him about the extent of the problem and I don’t always agree with him on the solution. I do ask for evidence.

I would appreciate it if a certain person would not verbally assault or impugn people’s motives when that certain person does not get answers in the form that that certain person wants them in or when the answers include hastily written sentences that leave room for that certain person to attack the poster. Here is an example of an attack on posters, “Again, no straight answers to my questions!!!!! If I didn’t feel like all your misdirection was some sort of signal that there is something missing, I would be persuaded by sheer volume” (posted August 24, 2009). It would be also nice if a certain person tried a little harder to understand other people’s points of view.

Boy, if asking for that is trying to discredit a certain person then I’m a monkey’s uncle. If saying that engaging in these kinds of behaviors may damage that certain person’s ability to run their orphanage is discrediting that certain person, then again I’m a monkey’s uncle. It seems to me to be sage advice and I meant it with very good intention. Further, I think I said it very tactfully. ****Even if everything Steve has said turns out to be totally correct, even if all of his projections turn out to be right on target, in my opinion, I don’t think it is in Steve’s interests to talk to people in the way that he has at times.****

How did we get on this? The topics went from Primavera was raided, to possible illegalities at Primavera, to the US and Guatemalan governments haven’t done a very good job of overseeing adoptions, to Steve asking whether PAPs would be willing to forgo adopting infants in order to have a just system. He asked a very good question. He runs an orphanage with older children and with children that have special needs. If they aren’t having any problems placing those children, then I am extremely happy for them. I’m also very glad that he and his wife are doing this work and I even said so in a previous post.

Cheryl thank you for your long response. Unfortunately, I have been having a great deal of trouble following your line of thinking. Perhaps, that has been the problem with my understanding how this discussion on Primavera has dissolved into etiquette and business lessons for Steve. More importantly, the Primavera families deserve our support. My prayers to all of you as I can only imagine how difficult this is

I'd like to see alot more support posted for the families whose children were taken from Primavera.
I hope your attorney is able to give you the answers that you are looking for.

You are all in my prayers.

If you are wondering why these posts always end up at the same place with the same handful of posters arguing over the same things regardless of the what the thread started to be in the first place....perhaps you ought to look around at who ISN'T posting anymore and why ? I read this post in response to the hunger strike and thought I would quote it here
"When I saw the strike was being formed I thought "oh what a great show of solidarity for these mothers whose children have been taken from them", then I went to the site and read some of the con-adoption articles and realized it was really just another attempt to make adoptive parents out to be negligent, selfish criminals. Why are adoptive parents such targets of hatred these days? Some of the comments on the articles on the site called APs "infertile baby stealers". Guess what! The mother of my child decided to give her up for adoption because she was born out of wedlock. This has been confirmed by sources other than the lawyer/agency. Should I feel guilty because I wanted the child she did not want to care for? The hate mongering against APs has got to stop. When countries (including the US) have a better system for children who are left in the streets to die by the very parent(s)who gave birth to them then talk to me about alternatives to adoption. Until then, be thankful that there are people with unselfish loving hearts to care for those children. And before you lamblast me about corruption, I realize it exists as well, but in trying to abolish international adoption you are literally and figuratively throwing the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for letting me vent.

Comment by jpor at September 1, 2009 02:42 PM "

The participants are shrinking for these discussions that end up nowhere....and really what do they accomplish ? Who do they help ? How are they helping anyone in this situation ? Are they creating anger and bad feelings amongst people who share in this online community ? I don't know...it's a question to ponder.