Susana, are you saying that Loyda's child Anyeli never made it out of Guatemala? That she was never adopted by an American?

I am a little confused, but it sounds as though the family that adopted the child that everyone believed was Anyeli, may not have Anyeli after all?

It is all very confusing, and I am having a hard time following these developments.

Thanks for your clarification.

Thanks for posting this. I've said it before on the forums and I'll say it again. None of us on the outside of this case know all the facts and should withhold judgement unless and until we have access to all the information in this case. My heart breaks for all caught up in this mess - the birth mom, the APs and most of all the child/children stuck in the middle. Hoping and praying the TRUTH can be found.

oh my. if this is true, how scary to think the wrong adoption could have been nulified, the wrong child returned to Guatemala. what a mess.

This info would answer one question only - was Primavera involved with the adoption of Anyeli. And that answer would be "no".

What it would not help with is "where is Anyeli". A mother's suffering is continued. All that would be known was that a sample of Anyeli's DNA was submitted for an adoption. And that test came back negative.

According to what Susana says, accepted at face value, the woman's DNA shows to be an aunt. I did do some web surfing and have validated that DNA testing can prove someone is an Aunt. One company claims 100% accuracy.

Questions linger... As Susana pointed out, why in the world would someone use a kidnapped child as a stand-in in an adoption case. It defies logic. And one has to wonder why any child was used in lieu of the actual child involved in the adoption.

Knowing how some of the games worked because of money, I can come up with a number of hypotheticals. Without getting into specifics, for someone unscrupulous it is all about money. Names and moral rights to one's identity were irrelevant. A child could have been used for any purpose, for reasons nefarious or just downright pathetic. Anything to get more money sooner and play the game as long as you can before bailing out. This can lead to numerous weird scenarios that defy the minds of all but screenplay writers. So maybe I need to write one of them.

Assuming all being reported is accurate, as I beoeve it to be, I am relieved to see Primavera taken out from the case of Anyeli.

But as I said, this does not answer where Anyeli is. And this does still reaffirm that somewhere down the line, a child reported as kidnapped found her way into the world of adoptions.

To mommy,

Yes, you are right. But let's also remember that none of that happened. Knock on wood, and I am sure the APs lawyer would have gotten it, a DNA test on the child living in MO as Karen Abigail would have been mandated before any sort of physical move would have happened. But for the APs, this has to have been the best news of their lives. Even better than "you're out of PGN" - many times over.

Paz y liberdad,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

This is difficult to follow. I'm trying to put the pieces together. Why/When was Karen Abigail believed to be Anyeli?

Very well stated Kevin. What a nightmare for all involved. I just could not imagine being the AP or searching mother in this case. My heart goes out to all involved in this situation.

I am still confused. The theory of the woman posing as a birthmother being the child's aunt is not new. Have any of the child's aunts been questioned? Seems that there is DNA proof of who had this child at one point? This seems like major evidence, but I haven't read anywhere of family members being suspects. Are the police investigating this? Also, if there are photos of Anyeli, can't they be compared with photos of visas to help confirm whether or not this child was adopted out of the country or may still be in Guatemala?

I am sorry if I am missing something. I just find this all very muddled and it isn't making sense.

WOW, the story gets more confusing and unbelievable. I will continue to pray for all invloved, what a journey they have had.

Yes, we have to be very careful abuot jumping to conclusions. I hae also said that we should wait until all of the facts come out. We here are not creative enough to think of all of the possible twist and turns that a case can take. I do not have a crystal ball. No one has a crystal ball.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

I too am thoroughly confused by what is going on! So did the little girl known as Karen Abigail have a DNA test done? Why did they even think Anyeli was Karen Abigail to begin with?

Can you run through the entire thing in bullet points? I can see I'm not the only one struggling to even follow who's who and who did what and what child is actually missing!

I feel...Such relief for the PAPs, Primavera and Susana (my child is from Primavera). I feel...So much anguish for the birth parents.

1.) An adoption process is started for a child (Karen Abigail)as a relinquishment case
2.) DNA test is done. A different child (Anyeli) is presented for that test.
3.) Test comes back not being a maternal match.
4.) Relinquishment process ends. Child (Karen Abigail) moves to PV
5.) Abandonment process is completed. PAPs become APs

Hope that helps,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

I am totally and completely confused.

Loyda identified Aneyli from the PGN picture. Which according to Susana -- as I understand it -- is the same child as the DNA.

but then the picture that was provided for the PGN/CNA files were of Anyeli but not of Karen Abigail. So why was Anyeli's picture used for the PGN file and not Karen Abigail's?

And Karen Abigail is not Anyeli. But then who on earth is Karen Abigail? And where is her original DNA test that lead her to an abandonment case?

I am not sure that this has "cleared" anyone. I think it has just muddied the waters EVEN MORE.

I am totally confused. Hopefully, this will be cleared up for the families involved as I am sure this has got to be extremely nerve wracking.

Aren't there two DNA tests taken as a safety net to prove you end up with the same child you started with? What about the 2nd DNA test? Based on my interpretation, and I may be confused, if Anyeli's DNA was used for the first test,how did it compare to Karen Abigail's DNA? They would of had to have taken K.A.'s DNA at the end of the adoption to prove she was the same child, relinquishment case or not. I'm just trying to get a clear picture. Were two little girls used for the same adoption, I guess is what I am asking?

Thanks for the bullet points Kevin. That does clear it up. But it also leaves one glaring set of questions.

*Who is Karen Abigail?

*Why would the aunt present Anyeli in place of the bio mom of Karen Abigail (and how would she know to consider doing this?)?

It seems that this case is even more suspicious and complicated than even first thought. It makes me think that there is a lot more being covered up than previously assumed.

Why is it not possible for the child to be the original Main Street child named Dulce Maria?

Trying to keep up, but getting more confused I think.

If I understand correctly, Karen Abigail is not Anyeli so she gets to stay with her AP end of their nightmare, but Anyeli's Mom is still in search of her missing daughter so her mightmare continues?

How does anyone know that Karen Abigail is NOT Anyeli?

The picture that Loyda identified that was submitted in Karen Abigail's PGN file is of Anyeli. So why on earth would Anyeli's picture be in Karen Abigail's file?

ARS. Since this was not a relinquishment but rather an abandonment -- becuase the original DNA failed (which turns out was not even taken of "Karen Abigail" but of Anyeli and allegedly her aunt), she went through the abandonment process and no second DNA taken.

Is the child in Missouri going to be DNA tested? That is really the only way I think that anyone can be 100% sure that she is not Anyeli since there is so much confusion about pictures and original DNAs. A fresh batch might clear this very muddied mess.

Am not at all surprised by this news....as I and some others have posted...people argue and debate what "they think and assume" are the facts of the case and they really don't know it to be true. What I find curiously absent after this information is posted is all of the usual posters comments ??? Where are they ? why are they not posting now ? It is interesting.
Some are so quick to condemn and judge but not so quick to admit when they did so.

One poster said that Lloyda saw a picture of Anyeli's PGN folder that was submitted for Karen Abigail. Who knows maybe this was posted somewhere, but I'm not so sure that we know this to be true.

I also have a lot of the same questions that everyone else has. But lets be careful about muddying the waters by interjecting our own interpretation into this.

Kevin's scenario is one possible scenario. Of course it does raise lots of other questions. It seems to me that Kevin's possible scenario would be motivated by an attorney that had kidnapped Karen Abigail. But then, why would Anyeli's picture be submitted for the DNA test? It is really very very confusing. We need to sit tight and wait for more information to filter down to us.

Best, Cheryl

Not Surprised, I couldn't agree with you more. There is a old saying about assuming. I think we all know what it is..

I thought the purpose of the 2nd DNA was to make sure you still had the same child you started with. Why would this not apply to an abandonment case? I understand that there would be no birth mother at the beginning to compare the child's DNA with, but I think there still needs to be DNA taken from the abandoned child. Is this true? There is not a 1st or 2nd DNA taken for an abandoned child?I'm sorry but if this is true, I am very surprised. I just started posting to this site, so I might be in the dark about a lot of details. I'm just trying to keep up.

When the DA agent in charge of the investigation of Anyeli’s kidnapping talked to me first, I said to him: “You have to do a DNA test to be sure that Karen Abigail is the same child as Anyeli Liseth and even if the DNA proves that they are the same girl, you have to check all the facts regarding the kidnapping. If the parents did not file a complaint the very same day, it must be because there was no kidnapping.” As I started reading the documents of the trial, I became convinced that there was no kidnapping and that Anyeli’s parents relinquished her or at least pretended to relinquish her and in order to get her back, if they would want to do so, they filed the complaint at the Police station, the day after they claimed that Anyeli disappeared.

Anyeli and Karen are two different girls. We know that because we know how Karen looks like and she is not the girl in the picture taken at the DNA test. All the Primavera caregivers agreed that the girl in that picture is not Karen and since she tested positive as Loyda’s daughter, she must be Anyeli Liseth. Therefore, there is no DNA of Karen, who is the girl living in Missouri. It would help to settle this matter if we could get her DNA, to prove that she is a different girl as Anyeli Liseth and that she is not Loyda’s daughter. Unfortunately, when her parents were approached by the Guatemalan consulate they said that they would talk to their lawyer and stopped accepting calls. They hired a lawyer who does not want to collaborate, for reasons that I cannot understand, since it is in the best interest of the family who hired her, to clear things up, in order to be assured that nobody is going to show at their doorstep, demanding that the girl be returned to Guatemala. One may think that it is very unlikely, but the possibility would always be present if they do not establish once and for all that Karen is not Anyeli.

Since both girls look so different, why is Loyda claiming Karen as her daughter? Is she being compensated to pose as the grieving mother of another girl? Does she know where her daughter Anyeli Liseth actually is? Why is that Anyeli’s father is not claiming her? From the DNA picture, Anyeli’s parents must know who the woman who went with Anyeli to the DNA is and why it is that they are not filing charges against her? Why it is that the District Attorney people do not change their position against the people who did the second adoption, since we had nothing to do with Anyeli Liseth, only with Karen Abigail?

The whole case seems to be totally fabricated to implicate innocent people in several crimes. Meanwhile, the director of Primavera and the PGN lawyer are still in jail, the children who were at the hogar are at different orphanages, their adoptions are being investigated and their waiting families are wondering if they would ever become the parents of those children that they already love as their own. All these problems could be solved if only the family of Karen would allow her to be DNA tested. It is a pity that they are ill advised and hurting so many people by doing so. They have nothing to loose and a lot to gain if only they would let their daughter to be DNA tested.

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

Even though the girl is affirmed as not being the stolen daughter, the government is not allowing the other cases to move?
As you said Susana, so much time and so much pain...

Even if Karen Abigail is proven not to be Anyeli, it still leaves the question as to who Karen Abigail is.....another kidnapped child? The AP's in MO must still be worried about their future with their baby.

So really the only thing they are going by right now is the picture in the PGN file? Who has all seen this picture?

I have the same questions as Susana. And wondering WHY someone would put Anyeli in Karen Abigail's place in the first place? What purpose did that serve?

I can't even imagine the questions Karen Abigail will have when she is old enough to realize that her DNA was never tested and no one knows WHO she is. THAT is the tragedy.

Can someone help me piece this together? My son was adopted through Primavera, under very different circumstances, so I'm interested in figuring it out.

Here's what we know: a woman begins the process with a child, who we think is Anyeli. We also think that the woman was a close relative of the child's, but definitely not her mother.

How did she begin the process? Did she meet with an attorney, or a facilitator, to sign documents? Did she keep the child between that first meeting and the DNA test? (I'm assuming that the DNA test was not done right after that first meeting.) And where did both of them go after the DNA test? From what I've read, they disappeared from view after that.

So, how did the child now living in Missouri as Karen Abigail get to Primavera? (I'm assuming that the first little girl, who we think is Anyeli, never set foot in Primavera.) Was she brought by the woman who started the process (Anyeli's alleged mother), or by a third party?

And, where did Karen Abigail come from? Was she at Primavera when the negative DNA test arrived, or did she arrive after the test results were known? It appears that Primavera did the right thing: they had a "Jane Doe" child whose relatives could not be found, and they processed her case as an abandonment so that she could have a family.

At this point, we have DNA from Anyeli, but not from Karen Abigail, so we don't have DNA evidence that proves they aren't the same child. That said, we do have the word of the caregivers at Primavera, and I trust them.

So we're left with two questions. We have a little girl living with a loving family in Missouri, but no verifiable story of her origins, how she came into the adoption process, or any trail back to her birthmother. We also have a little girl who may have been kidnapped, and whose whereabouts are currently unknown. At this point, can anyone blame the parents of Karen Abigail for hiring a lawyer and putting as much distance as possible between them and this case?

I have been lurking for some time now and trying like everyone else to follow the ins and outs and ups and downs of these cases. Though one at times want to break the case, one has to remember that this is not a tv show, but there are real people behind all of what is going on. I do not want to sound harsh at all to these families, so please forgive me ahead of time if I do, this is just a simple question. Please understand I am too an adoptive parent trying to make sense of this horrible nightmare.

I for one, and I know I am probably not alone in this... am totally confused as everyday it seems some bit of information is given or interpreted.

I do have a question for either Kevin, Kelly, Troy, Marie or Susana Luarca. The papers in July reported that the photos of the missing girls were located in the Guatemalan passport office and the MPs investigated this and found this to be true, the mothers then identified the children who were issued these Guatemalan passports as Anyeli, Heidy and Arlene.

So my question is, if the mothers of Anyeli, Heidy and Arlene identified the photos in the Guatemalan passport office as thier children, then if another child was Karen Abigail (the child Susana says was at Primavera), why didn't the adoptive parents notice that the Guatemalan passport had a picture of another child that was not theirs?

Below is a google translation on what I am basing my question on.
Thank you for your time and hard work.

Link: http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20090724/pais/108141/

El Periódico
Guatemala, viernes 24 de julio de 2009 - Friday July 24, 2009 -

Posteriormente, la Fiscalía contra Trata del Ministerio Público (MP), estableció que las infantes habían sido dadas en adopción a familias que radican en Estados Unidos.

Subsequently, the prosecution against Trafficking of Public Ministry (MP), established that the infants had been given up for adoption to families that reside in the United States.

Las pesquisas del ente investigador determinaron por medio de la Dirección General de Migración, que las menores de edad habían salido del país con otros nombres.

The investigation of the investigative agency determined by the Directorate General of Immigration, the children had left the country under other names.

En el Centro de Emisión de Pasaportes se localizaron las fotografías de las niñas que viajaron a los estados de Illinois, Louisiana y Iowa de aquel país.

In the Passport Issuance Center is located photographs of girls who went to the states of Illinois, Louisiana and Iowa in that country.

LaRonda,

Great question and one for which I have no answer. I have NO insight into this case's particulars. I have only posted the information coming to me and offered hypotheticals based on knowledge of the overall system.

To all, everyone is thinking logically but there are parts you just dont get - once again in hypotheticals. For instance, and sadly, there is no way to know with 100% certainty that at the time of the original referal, there was even a real child attached to it. All we know, the "facts", is that at some point Anyeli appeared for a DNA test. And that at some point after that the child adopted as Karen Abigail was brought to Primavera. Think of the facts holisitically and outside of "how the system was supposed to work".

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin,

You said, "All we know, the 'facts', is that at some point Anyeli appeared for a DNA test. And that at some point after that the child adopted as Karen Abigail was brought to Primavera. Think of the facts holiestically and outside of 'how the system was supposed to work'."

I totally agree with your description of the "facts" and with thiking of the facts holistically outside of how the system was supposed to work.

It seems to me, that we do not know how/why the Guatemalan government and Anyeli's parents made a connection between Karen Abigail and Anyeli.

I was thinking about this the other day. I'm not saying this is what happened but it goes to show how very simple innocent mistakes can confuse things. What if a PGN staffer had both Anyeli's and Karen Abigail's folders open on their desk at the same time and accidentally exchanged information between the two cases in the folders? I'm not saying this is what happened. But it demonstrates how something veyr innocent could confuse things a lot.

Best, Cheryl

Kevin,

I sent you a post explaining how this adoption started. Would you please post it? You may have doubts, but I am sure that Loyda is claiming as her own a girl that is not her daughter. She told someone I know, that her daughter is in Guatemala and that she knows where she is. Therefore, stop feeling sorry for her and feel sorry for Enriqueta, the director of Primavera, who has been in jail for over three months, because of Loyda's lies.

Susana Luarca

There is one possibility that I haven't seen discussed yet. That is the possibility that DNA records in Guatemala were accidentally misplaced or switched from file to file. This could be do to carelessness, disorganization, or more sinister motives.

Either way, I do hope that those who published the names of Karen Abigail's adoptive parents online in a witch hunt-type of manner are suitably chastened.

Just no one thinks I'm holding back info... I have asked Susana whhatever she is referring to. I'm not sure what itis and have nothing in my in-box (i.e. an old e-mail) that I see is what she's referring to.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Ellie,

You mentioned that someone published the names of Karen Abigail's adoptive parents online. I agree with you that that kind of behavior is wrong. Unfortunately, there are databases with tons of information about all of us that any one can access through the Internet. I looked myself up in one of them and I was *shocked* at all of the info AND how far back it went. We can probably contact those companies and tell them to remove us from their DBs.

One of the bedrocks of the American legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." This was a big part of what the American revolution was about. We got tired of the British Empire throwing American colonists in jail. A lot of people in their zealousness have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Karen Abigail is a girl met by the Missouri family in January 2007, when they came to Guatemala to visit the boy they were adopting at that time. The Missouri family visited Karen several times during her derailed adoption, also during her abandonment process and then during her second adoption. Karen was fostered by her adoptive mother during the last month (November 2008) of her adoption process, who also took Karen to get her passport and to her final medical check up. So there is no possibility whatsoever that Karen or her records were switched sometime during all that time.

We met Karen in September 2007, when she was brought to Primavera by her foster mother, where she stayed until November 2008. We have reliable information that Karen was never taken to the DNA, which confirms that Anyeli Liseth, Loyda's daughter was taken instead of Karen to the DNA by her aunt. We have no explanation as to why Anyeli was taken to Karen’s DNA test.

Since Loyda is a party to the criminal process for the "kidnapping" of her daughter, she must have seen the picture of her daughter and the woman with her at the DNA, which results proved that the girl in the picture is Anyeli Liseth and that the woman who is holding her on her lap is Anyeli's aunt. Why is Loyda still claiming as her daughter Karen, who is not her daughter and who is a different girl than Anyeli Liseth? Loyda has been using Karen’s picture to claim her missing daughter, it was Karen’s picture that Loyda identified as her daughter at the CNA, and since both girls look very different, the inevitable conclusion is that Loyda is part of a deliberate plan to claim as her own, a child who is not her daughter, maybe to discredit the abandonment process, which is a necessary step to do an adoption according to the new law. Whatever their agenda is, it is clear that Loyda is lying and that those who are supporting Loyda are lying too.

Best regards,

Susana Luarca

My word that is strange. Is it even possible that Loyda knows Karen Abigail? And for some reason wants her? Just speculating out loud...

Susana,
Thank you so much for sharing the details of this case.

I am having a great deal of trouble following the logic in all of this.

You tell us NOW that you don't understand why Loyda would insist that the picture of Karen Abigail is Anyeli because they look nothing alike. But Loyda thought they looked alike. And from the pictures on the internet, they don't look that much different.

And how on earth did Anyeli's DNA get into Karen Abigail's file; how did Loyda identify Aneyli in Karen's file if the two have nothing to do with one another? Honestly, the odds of that happening must be one in a million. How do you explain that?

Right now, we can choose to take your word that the DNA of Anyeli and the DNA picture of Anyeli are not of Karen Abigail. Why should we believe you?

I just keep seeing you discrediting Loyda as a means to bolster your crediblity. Show us your evidence -- the pictures -- so that we can have something more to go on than your word.

I mean no disrespect. I just don't trust anyone involved in this case.

Dear Guatadopt,

Thank you so much Kevin and Susana for sharing this valuable information with us, I really appreciate all that you do for us to keep us updated and informed, your services are greatly appreciated and I am sure I am not alone in saying this. I am not apt at asking these questions but I will try my best to be clear in my thoughts. Please excuse me if my questions multiply, it seems that it is easy for this to happen.

Susana and Kevin, then just to be clear and if I may bother you once more to make sure I understand, what you are saying is that Anyeli is still in Guatemala and never left with this Missouri family at all? OH MY! Then Karen Abigail left Guatemala with this Missouri family with a passport with a picture of another girl in it? I am confused. Is this possible? Is that better?

What does the US Embassy say about this? I have not read any remarks in the papers from the US Embassy. If there are any comments by the US Embassy, can Guatadopt repost them?

Also, I guess this is another question as I imagine we all have many...you have to understand how shocking it is to hear the news that Loyda is involved (if this is true) in all of this disappearance and pinpointed any child and saying it is her child, for some nefarious reason. This is a parent's worst nightmare. Is there any protection for AP families?

And now today Susana you share that Loyda knows that Anyeli is in Guate and that Anyeli's picture is not Karen's. Has this fact been submitted to the authorities? Just for not only peace of mind for the APs in Missouri who are going through this nightmare but also for all APs everywhere.

Cheryl- I cannot agree with you more, it is horrible how the newspapers in Guatemala published the names of these Adoptive families and how private information was given to anyone who asked for it.

Kevin and Susana, is there any protection for adoptive parents so that does not happen in respect to private information about an adoptive family given to the media or human rights groups? Or is all our personal data a public record and open for anyone to read and see?

Thank you again for your time.
Respectfully yours.

LaRonda et al,

Let me first once again reiturate that I don't know any more than what is posted here. And moreso, I am not privy to any proof, documentation, evidence in all of this beyond what Susana is publically posting.

I personally find all of this very hard to accept. I'll admit that. But I've also seen such weird, wrong, and inhuman crap in Guatemalan adoptions and all that surrounded them, including media reports, that anything is possible.

On one hand, I hate to ponder any mother being involved in such a travesty. And moreso, I hate to ponder that if what Susana says is not the facts, Guatadopt has given content to something that further victimizes the victim. In all our emotions, we must remembering that EVERYONE should be presumed innocent!

On the other hand, I really want to believe Susana. I hate the very thought of Guatemala's greatest defender of adoptions, love her or hate her, being connected to such a thing. After all, without Susana, this site would have never become as it popular as it did. And for over five years, thousands of families relied on it and were helped immensely by it. I was one, before I wrote for the site, when Susana's Thursday updates were the only thing I looked forward to in life. And that's not to mention that without her, I may not be the proud father of two chapines today.

I've seen plenty of legal spin from Susana over the years, where for example legal opinion may be communicated as fact over interpretation. But I've never seen anything come from her with this detail that was a complete fabrication. Susana and I haven't always agreed, especially in more recent years. This isn't coming from someone who'd be her cheerleader. But it is hard for me to just blow it off as complete b.s.

To help folks understand. Essentially Susana is saying that the pictures used by Loyda to identify her daughter were actually not her daughter. They were Karen Abigail, a different child. This would of course raise the question of "then was it just pure luck that it was Anyeli's DNA attached to Karen's case?". IF all Susana says is true, this would be easily explained. Because obviously anyone involved in all of this would know to pick Karen Abilgail's picture.

And let us not forget that if what she says is true, there are people incarcerated today that should likely not be!

It's very hard to accept such a conspiracy. Where's the motive for it all? So many "why" questions to be answered.

Whether in fact Karen Abigail and Anyeli are one in the same can be easily proven. If everything posted here is true, then more than ever I wish Karen Abigail's parents would do a DNA.

So I have tried to explain my feelings on all of this. So far as Guatadopt's role, think of us as any news source. When someone famous is accused of a crime, the allegations against them are made public. Should they choose to, the media are happy to let them defend themselves. Of course usually their lawyers won't let them, but that's a different story.

In our journalistic duty as about the only site devoted to Guatemalan Adoption news, we covered the allegations and actions as they broke. And now on this thread we have what I described above.

Peace,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Susana,

You said "Karen was never taken to the DNA...We have no explanation as to why Anyeli was taken to karen's DNA..." And you say that Anyeli is in the DNA photo sitting on a woman's lap, who must have been her aunt because the DNA profile shows that this is her aunt.

Was Karen supposed to have been DNA tested?
If so, did Karen have an appointment to be DNA tested that somehow Anyeli showed up for?
So were there two DNA tests that Anyeli was taken to or just one?

It seems to me that Karen would not have been DNA tested since she was an abandonment process. Then some how, Anyeli's DNA test got into Karen's folder. Susana, I'm not saying that you did this. This would have had to of been PGN that put Anyeli's DNA results into Karen's folder.

Oh I still have so many questions. No one has told me whether those DNA profiles even went to PGN.

I'd like to see those pictures for myself as well.

AGain Susana, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm not accusing anyone at this point.

Best, Cheryl

Cheryl,

Karen's case started as a relinquishment. The DNA test was for her case - her name. Only problem was that it was, according to Susana, Anyeli who was the actual child appearing as Karen Abigail.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Sadly, there seems to be a familiar agenda here to blame the birth mom, and blame the victims. I remember some of the same was posted, when my case came to light of a lost referral being returned to her birth mom by a judge in court in Guatemala City last year. The birth mother of my referral was blamed for the loss of her child, and innocence was claimed for some who handled her adoption process.

With my case still under investigation, I have been told that there have been three arrest in regards to the child I was approved to adopt. The child and her sister continue to struggle in their healing back with their family.

Someone mentioned the ab sense of regular posters here. Well, I am a regular reader and poster, and I don't know of anyone staying quiet for any reason other than we are all reading and digesting the info being posted here. With so much now being said, it is easy to be diverted from what was originally reported on this case. I was actually shocked by the harsh word posted about the birth mom.

If this follows some the patterns seen in other corruption cases from around the globe, we have probably only begun to see the number of hands that touched the K A case, and others. The innocent children had no choice in these matters, nor did those who were coerced, nor those who were deceived, Somewhere, in the process, decisions were made and trust was broken. Eventually, light is shed on all things, and most likely, all those involved will be visible. And lastly, everyone needs to remember that the MO family may not have been the only family to be offered the referral of little Karen Abigail.

Elizabeth

JMO, but based on our experience, all that was needed in the original case of Karen was a “match.” Most attorneys, facilitators, etc… did not want to deal with abandonment cases – for obvious reasons. There was a lot of misunderstanding of the accuracy of DNA science among both professionals and non-professionals working the adoption scene. It is very possible that the aunt was convinced (convinced by whom is the question) her DNA was a “match” or close enough to acquire a match and that the monetary reward for doing so prompted this situation.

I know that our notorious attorney went as far as to do makeup, hair, clothing etc…. to make the “match” look like the actual mother/child pair. And, I’m quite sure at least one of those cases made it through completely. Whether it is the difficulty of matching photo to actual pair (sometimes there is a long period between DNA/final processing), or more illegal means of getting it through would be pure speculation. It is quite possible Aneyli was never intended to be up for adoption; It is quite possible Aneyli’s mother knew absolutely nothing about it; It is quite possible she knew everything about it.

twebb

Kevin,

Now that Susuana said that Karen and Anyyeli are two different children, I'm not assuming that Karen started as a relinguishment. I'm trying to go back to square one and reconstruct what happened.

Did both Karen and Anyeli start off as relinquishments?

Did the same attorney handle their cases at the time that the DNA test(s) was/were performed?

Best, Cheryl

At this point, I have NO idea what the truth is. But, Susana has said some very strong things. I find it interesting that NONE of the VERY verbal folks who have posted on previous threads, attacking Susana, yelling about how they knew the "truth" have said anything on this thread to rebut Susana's statements. Where are all those very vocal folks who "knew" the "truth" now??

Cheryl. There was NO adoption, to my knowledge, of any child named Anyeli (or not this Anyeli anyway).

The reason why second DNA tests were done was to prevent anyone from presenting a child different than the one being adopted from being at DNA.

We have seen cases where amazing things were done. Things that would obviously get found out eventually. But remember, half of the money flows at the time of referal. That was a considerable sum, some might do whatever to get it and not worry about the second half.

Troy (nice to hear from you) points out some things. Not related to this case, but we saw instances where as best we can tell, some mom might have rented out her kids for a luxurious week at the Marriott with some gringos.

Elizabeth correctly points out that the same child could have been referred out to numerous families. Couple that with Troy's comment and what I said above and it gets funky quick.

When we ponder some things, try to separate in your mind the children's names. Names mean nothing in this. Names tie to an actual single child. In the worst of worst, there was not necessarily such a thing.

A person could have gone around to numerous layers, facilitators, etc with a supposed child. They've got some paperwork, pictures to be e-mailed out, etc. That doesn't mean that the hypothetical child in that paperwork really exists. Yeah, there's a picture of some kid. There's a picture that some innocent, loving PAPs in the US cherish beyond belief. But that didn't mean that child was really waiting in Guatemala to join their family.

These are the things that made me sick. These are the things that changes my tone. These are the things that, like Troy, make me believe anything is possible.

But saying anything is possible is not the same as saying this is anything beyond the harsh crime presented. As it relates to Primavera, even if the child in MO is Anyeli it doesn't mean they were involved with the initial crime or were aware of it.

Head spinning? Welcome to the world that Troy, Kelly, Marie and I lived from a distance. Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason, and in Troy's case a bit of James Bond. And so far on this one, I can't say "elementary my dear Watson".

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that really no one will co-operate rationally in this case?
Between the lies,deceipt,corruption etc.. I know if I was the AP in the US I wouldnt budge at this point, not until everyone had their ducks in a row.
Susana says this one day then that another.
How can anyone feel safe?
We cant solve this case over the internet,so why not let it be,learn from it,and let the ones involved solve this.
When all is said and done then come back and let us know who the real culprits were so we can write them off.
Someone in the adoption line,most likely,one who profited from this is where the original problem started,they will get found out,in the mean time,let this adoptive family and/or birthmother do what they have to do.
Both have representation,let them use it.Theres no sense in putting either one of these parties down with the messy messages were getting here.

Head spinning?

yes.

Just to set the record straight:
Anyeli Liseth was a two year old girl who was reported missing by her father until the following day, which seems suspicious, as most parents would report the disappearance of a child the very same day it happened. Even more suspicious is that Loyda, mother of Anyeli, has given two different versions of how her daughter disappeared, that contradict the father’s version. Eight months after Anyeli was seen for the last time, Anyeli was taken by her aunt to the DNA test of Karen Abigail Lopez García, a girl being adopted by a MO couple. The results, obviously, were negative since it was neither the mother not the child who were supposed to go to that test. Loyda has seen the picture of her daughter taken at the DNA test, but that has not changed her position that Karen Abigail, a very different looking girl, is her missing daughter.

Loyda, - who is being sponsored by Fundacion Sobrevivientes, an organization formed exclusively to help the victims of domestic violence, but who also became the mouthpiece of UNICEF against adoptions, when Casa Alianza was no longer used for that purpose - brought criminal charges against everybody who had to do with Karen Abigail López García, claiming that Karen is the same girl as her missing daughter Anyeli Liseth: the lawyer and the notary who attempted the failed adoption that could not get through because of the negative DNA; the lawyers of the PGN who gave a favorable opinion in the abandonment process and the PGN reviewer in the adoption process. She has also accused the judge of minors who ruled the abandonment of Karen, and also pressed charges against the director of Primavera, the hogar that sheltered Karen Abigail, and by court order did her adoption to the MO couple who had been trying to adopt Karen since she was referred to them in January, 2007.

Now, even after the picture of the girl taken at the DNA proves that Anyeli Liseth is not Karen Abigail, and that the results of the DNA prove that Anyeli was taken to the DNA by her own aunt, the Ministerio Publico and Loyda continue acting as if all that important evidence were not there, because to do so would mean to exonerate everybody who dealt with the abandonment and adoption of Karen Abigail and who are unfairly charged and some of them, like the director of Primavera and the PGN lawyer, are in jail since almost four months ago.

It is one thing to look for one’s missing daughter, and I am not saying that the other two mothers who are claiming for their missing children are lying, but there is overwhelming evidence that proves that Anyeli Liseth is not Karen Abigail, and therefore, that Loyda is not telling the truth. The best way to prove that Karen is not Anyeli, would be to DNA test Karen Abigail, who lives in MO, but her parents are not willing to help now all the people who lent them a hand when their adoption seemed impossible, and working ethically and legally, made Karen’s adoption possible.

As an adoptive parent myself, I cringe at the possibility that someone would put the adoption of either of my children in jeopardy, but if I would know that the lives of so many good people are upside down because I refuse to let my child DNA tested, knowing beforehand that there is nothing to loose and a lot to win, I would not hesitate one second to take my child to the lab and have her tested right away. No to do it is selfish and irresponsible.

Best regards.
Susana Luarca

No to do it is selfish and irresponsible.

but on the other hand, as fast as this story continues to change, you have to know they are scared to death. especially with your new information, as a parent, i would wonder, is the new information fabricated to put me at ease, will they alter the dna test and claim karen is anyeli to take her, will they lie in another way to take my daughter. the story is VERY VERY strange, and very unsettling for many adoptive parents. i can't say i'd sacrifice my child for the good of others, especially when i look around at this story and others and see that even the truth may not set people free. you said that yourself...the Ministerio Publico and Loyda continue acting as if all that important evidence were not there.....as a parent, i wonder, why then would a dna test of karen abigail be any better than what they have already that they do not believe? i get the feeling that you believe this case is really about some kind of social agenda, in which case, i would NOT want my child to be a pawn in this game. i would want to believe that keeping the child out of it, would be in the best interest of the child.....not selfish or irresponsible.

It seemed to me that Susana was claiming way back in July, all the things she is saying here ( and referring to it as new developments in her 9/10 comment).

Then this DNA match. What exactly was matched? A sample from loyda...to what? The original data of the failed DNA? Did It also show the woman in the original failed DNA to be Loyda's sister? Can you even use the posted markers of the report to make that kind of analysis? ( Kevin, you said your research online revealed you can determine aunt level relationship...but can you, if only using the markers available on the report that is presented in adoption cases?)

Something must have changed, but it is not Susana's declaration that the woman in the picture is the sister of Loyda.

I appreciate Susana's agreement that getting the DNA test results from the little girl in question is needed. I am not sure why she says that now, after noticeably NOT saying it in July. But it seems there are other ways to prove the innocence of her cohorts.

I am not even a lawyer, but if my friends and colleagues were in jail and the woman in the failed DNA photo was the sister of the accuser of my friends, my friends would not have been in jail this long. It seems it would be simple to identify the sisters of Loyda at this point, and compare to the Photo. It seems like that could have been done way back when Susana first said that she knew the DNA results indicated close kinship.

Who, besides Susana, is saying it is a sister?

Steve, how about Susana's other point, that she says that the photo that Loyda identified as her daughter is NOT Karen, the girl in MO. That seems to be much more important than whether or not the DNA photo is the sister. I have to agree with Mommy above, if this were my child , NO way would I drag him/her into the mess that has gotten only more messy over time.

At the beginning of the investigation of the Karen Abigail case, we thought that although Karen and Anyeli were two different girls, they were not together in the same case. All we had were the results of a DNA test done to “Felicita” and “Karen” that was negative for maternity. We made the court to draw DNA specimens of Loyda and those results were matched to the genetic markers of “Karen” proving that Loyda is the mother of “Karen”, but when we saw the picture of “Karen” provided by the facilitator to the District Attorney, we did not recognize that girl as Karen Abigail and since Loyda tested positive for maternity to that girl, she must be Anyeli Liseth.

The original DNA results of “Felicita” and “Karen”, (that is to say, Anyeli Liseth) and the results of Loyda’s DNA test were analyzed by “PTC Laboratories (www.ptclabs.com) and they are who state that the first DNA results show that there is a 95% probabilities that Felicita is the aunt of “Karen” and that Loyda is the mother of “Karen”.

Therefore, we need the DNA of Karen, the girl in MO, to prove that she is not the same girl as Anyeli and to confirm that the picture of the DNA was taken to a different girl, who must be Anyeli, since she tested positive for maternity with Loyda. The authorities and Loyda are acting as if Karen Abigail were Loyda’s daughter, when they have the picture of Anyeli that proves that she is not Karen and the evidence that a relative brought her to the DNA . Certainly, a DNA test would give closure to this investigation, regarding all of us who had nothing to do with Anyeli, just with Karen, as it was Karen who was brought to Primavera and who was placed for adoption by court order to the MO couple. It also would give peace of mind to the MO couple, because their daughter is not Aneyeli, we just want them to help us to prove it. As I said, there is nothing to loose, and a lot to win.

I have been keeping you informed of the new findings of this case, because the Guatemalan press gives a totally different version of them, but that does not mean that the court rules on those findings as quickly as they posted here or when they are presented to the judge. Thus far, there has not been a ruling regarding the evidence presented, regarding the picture of the girl taken at the DNA that does not match the face of the girl we know as Karen Abigail, and the analysis done by PTC Laboratories that proves the kinship of “Felicita” to Anyeli, and an affidavit with the deposition under oath of the Primavera caregivers stating that the picture of the girl at the DNA is not of Karen Abigail.

As a lawyer and as part of the accused in this case, I feel frustrated because neither the judge, nor the District Attorney have any hurry in dismissing the case against the Primavera director and the lawyers who are being accused of traffic of people based in a very vague article of the Criminal Code that was recently modified by a law that exonerates them, and that should be applied retroactively, following the principle that the criminal law applies retroactively when it benefits the accused. Based on the evidence and on the law, the court should dismiss the charges brought against all the accused, except for the facilitator, who has a lot of explaining to do, because he is who knows why Anyeli and her aunt were taken to the DNA test, instead of Karen Abigail and her birthmother. And Loyda has to explain why is that she is claiming Karen as her daughter, when she very well knows that Karen is not Anyeli and why is that she is not asking the woman in the picture, who is a relative, to tell her where Anyeli is. Maybe because Loyda already knows that.

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

Just asking,
Do we know who the facilitator is that Susana L. is speaking of? And do we know who the name of the original agency that had offered the child, 'Karen Abigail', to the family in MO. when they got a neg. DNA and lost the referral?

Also, sad, but not surprised to hear that the articles in the criminal code for trafficking in Guatemala are vague.
That seems to be the case for the U.S. as well, in regards to trafficking for the purpose of adoption. Hard to believe, but true, as the U.S. laws cover sexual exploitation, and slavery, but not for the purpose of adoption! I guess our legislative branch didn't think of that.

I see no end to this as a global issue, if laws in the sending and receiving countries are not changed and enforced.

Elizabeth

If the Guatemalan courts rule that Karen Abigail is the same girl as Aneyli Liseth, Loyda and her sponsors will continue fighting to annul her adoption, as they already have filed a suit to annul it, against the Primavera director, the notary who authorized the adoption and the attorney who represented the MO couple. If they win the case, the adoption will be annulled, and the next step would be to try to bring Karen back to Guatemala, since all her adoption was based on a deception. We know that it is not the case, that she is not the same girl as Anyeli, but we cannot prove it conclusively, because the MO couple believe that it is better to ignore the problem than to solve it, shielding themselves behind a lawyer who is not willing to mediate, but just to stonewall any attempt to solve this problem in an amicable way.

As adoptive parents of a child of unknown origin, the MO couple must be responsible of the consequences of adopting a child in that situation and allow their daughter to be DNA tested. PTC Laboratories is located in MO, not far away from the place where they live, but the specimens can be collected at a nearby lab. The results would be matched with those of the girl first tested, and since the MO couple has a copy of those results, they would be the first to know if there is a match. If there is a match, that does not affect the current situation, since the authorities here are acting as if Karen and Anyeli were the same girl, but if the DNA results prove that Karen is not Anyeli, that would help the people who took care of Anyeli and those who made her adoption possible. But most important, it would be the right thing to do and by doing so, it would bring peace of mind to the parents of the girl that we knew as Karen Abigail.

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

i'll accept that rationale susana. you are right...i still say they are probably scared, but i understand what you are saying.

A few questions if Susana's statements are true.

Has "Karen" in MO ever had DNA tested? She had an appt but Anyeli showed up with her aunt instead.

Who originally relinquished Karen? Anyeli's aunt? Seems like there is still a connection between the two girls. If Loyda knows Karen is not her daughter, why is she persuing the annulment of Karen's adoption?

Elizabeth,
It was the old law the one that did not establish what was considered as the actions to perpetrate the felony of "irregular adoption". The new law, valid since April 2009, establishes that an irregular adoption is committed by the person who wanting to adopt a child, pays another person to get a child for adoption. It also penalizes to pay someone to give up her child for adoption, for a third person. It clearly exonerates the director of Primavera, since she neither paid to adopt Karen for herself nor paid to get Karen for adoption for the MO couple, therefore she could not have committed the felony of "traffic of people for irregular adoption" as she is being charged.

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

It would seem like it's possible (probable?) that Anyeli and Karen are two different children, but it also sounds like Karen's case became an abandonment when Anyeli and her Aunt showed up for her DNA test. Supposing that's the case...

Would that not suggest that both children were involved in a corrupt case of some sort?
It would seem to me that 2 girls are "missing" here depending on your perspective. If Karen's biological mom did not show up for DNA with Karen, then that case would be just as corrupt, which makes all of this an even greater tragedy.

Or, am I totally wrong and this whole fiasco suggests a clerical error somewhere related to Karen's adoption?

Still wondering~

Do we know who the facilitator is that Susana L. is speaking of? And do we know the name of the original agency that had offered the child, 'Karen Abigail', to the family in MO. when they got a neg. DNA and lost the referral?

Elizabeth

Oh my I have been reading these posts and trying to peice together all of this. If Karen Abigails case was an abandonment case why would they put a DNA test in the file?? this alone makes no sense. DNA tests are not done on abandonment cases. So why would a mismatched DNA test on a child automatically go as an abandonment when it essentially should have been investigage for fraud? what am I missing here?

I wouldn't link corruption to Karen's situation because there was no bio-mother for DNA testing. It was not uncommon for there not to be. What can be discerned is that the original facilitator or "handler" knew there would be no bio-mom for Karen.

This could be due to a variety of reasons such as the bio-mom could not be located. She may have migrated out of the country or disappeared due to work etc...

Our first adoption started as a relinquishment and then turned into an abandonment due to no bio-mom. We searched for months but could not locate her. Her own family (which I met) did not know where she was. They suspected she either went to the U.S., or she was dead. Sad but true. Even two years later, they had still not heard from her.

somehow the DNA test for Anyeli was linked to Karen. I would like to know who linked them together and how they were linked together. For example, the original attorney kept a file on Karen and PGN had their own file on Karen. Was Anyeli's DNA test results in the attorney's file or in PGN's file?

If it was in PGN's file, then the question is, who put it there? Did the original attorney send it in to PGN claiming it was for Karen or did PGN put it into Karen's PGN file.

Hope I'm being clear in my questions.

Thanks, Cheryl

Elizabeth,

Why do you want to know who the facilitator and the agency were? I am not a liberty to discuss many of the issues in this case, but if you think that it is important for you to know that, because you can bring something helpful for the case, please email me. If it is only curiosity, I am sorry, but I cannot tell you..

The MO couple did not loose their referral, as you said, as Karen Abigail was ruled abandoned later and adopted by them.

It is evident that this case is totally political because it does not have any legal grounds. When there is a negative DNA, it is normal to denounce the facts to the DA against the false mother and whoever gave her the birth certificate of a false delivery. The child is not kept as evidence, as the abandonment process is the legal way to restore the human rights of a child when those rights have been violated. In this case, Karen Abigail was an abandoned girl, since the DNA required by the US embassy had negative results and there was no mother to relinquish her. It turned out later that it was not her DNA test the one that got negative results, as it was another girl, Anyeli Liseth, who went with her aunt to the lab instead of Karen Abigail. I don't know why. I don't know either, why Loyda is still claiming as her daughter a girl who she knows that it is not her child

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

So Troy what you're saying is this....Possibly, the handler knew there was no bio mom for Karen and didn't want to go through abandonment procedures. To make this a relinquishment case, he tried to substitute Anyeli and Aunt for Karen and her mother. This would make sense. I still think Loyda is somehow connected to Karen. Why would she be fighting to regain custody of a child that is not hers?

Some are proposing that the attorney had Anyeli and the aunt pose for a DNA profile in order to avoid an abandonment process for karen. But if that were the case, Karen would be sitting on the lap of the aunt in the picture that is submitted with the DNA. For example, assuming that Karen was abandoned and the attorney wanted to falsify a DNA report in order to avoid long abandonment proceedings, the attorney would get a biological mother and her biological child to provide samples. Then the picture would have Karen in it so that Karen's picture that is submitted with the DNA would match Karen's passport picture... The fact that Anyeli is in the picture would suggest other possibilties to me.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

Terri,

Exactly!! I'm not sure who the handlers were, but they would have known how others circumvented the system prior to the second DNA test being standard. This was indeed accomplished by others. How many times would only be a guess!!

I can't answer the second question in regards to Loyda fighting to regain custody. It could be a simple case of denial. Either way it is a sad set of circumstances for all involved.

Cheryl,

That is not correct(unless something changed I am not aware of). DNA samples are drawn onsite from those present and photos are taken on site. One could not substitue Karen's photo at the time of DNA. Karen was nowhere near the DNA lab at that time.

This is much simpler than we want to believe.

In order to "salvage" a case, those who weren't smart enough to process an abandonment found it cheaper to buy their way through the system. A lot of attorneys processing cases when this took place would have "starved" if they had to actually practice law!!

They weren't about to give up the money if they could find other ways.

But what exactly is the likelihood that Anyeli's DNA be in Karen Abigail's file? That seems like a one in a million long shot for Loyda to have picked the right DNA from a bunch of pictures.

There does seem to be more going on than what is being presented here online. I certainly do not think it is as simple as to suggest that this is just politically motivated. If the "smoking gun" was that the pictures of the children were different and therefore the Primavera staffing held in custody would be released on lack of evidence. Just a lot more going on than what meets the eye.

Maybe I am missing something here, but if DNA was drawn under the pretense of it being Karen's and Karen's mothers, whether it matched or not would not exclude it from her file, it would become part of her PGN file regardless.

So, since what we are hearing is that the DNA drawn was that of Anyeli and her aunt, it would only make sense that Anyeli's DNA would be present in the records of Karen.

Susana,
When you took *Karen* into your orphanage,did you know she had a failed DNA?
If so,did you know the % ,as in the possibility that it could be a relative(aunt)?
If yes,why would you take a case like this?
This case sounds like it was iffy from day one.
Were the APs told that this case could be rectified when they came to you for help?
From whom did the APs learn that you could help them?

What happens to imposters who show up for dna testing? This is fraud.

Who is liable if the imposters cannot be located?

Where is the aunt? She must have been paid to be silent, or threatened. Did she have a connection to an unethical lab assistant, who was off that day? Was she able to do this before?

Did Loyda see the aunt in the photo at dna testing holding a child? What was the reaction of this?

Is this why she thinks that her child was adopted?

Have the lawyers for Loyda/Anyeli
examined the evidence of the origional DNA pictures of Anyeli
not looking like Karen Abagail
and DNA result suggesting that Anyeli was related to the person she tested with? It would seem,
if they were ignoring this they are possibly adding to unethical behavior and isn't this what we are trying to correct. I would think all possibilities would be examined because Karen Abagail may be safe MO. while they still may not know where Aneyli is.

Also, would anyone representing
Loyda/Anyeli be able to share some
evidence, not opinions, from this case of why they believe Karen Abagail and Anyeli are the same children. We have heard Susana's
side now it would be helpful to hear the other side.

I do hope if Anyeli has been mistaken for Karen Abagail that Anyeli is safe somewhere.

Thanks,

Karen B.

Troy,

I know that Kevin has proposed more than once that an attorney working with a corrupt DNA sample taker could switch photos AND would need to switch the photos so that the photo with the DNA profile would match the photo on the passport. For some reason, I'm under the impression that there have been some cases that have involved switched photos.

Now if an attorney couldn't find a corrupt DNA sampler who was willing to switch pictures, then they may have done what you proposed hoping that no one would notice. We will all be relieved if your hypothesis turns out to be correct.

You made an interesting point that most attorney's would not have been able to make a living if they had processed abandonment cases according to the law. It is one thing to break the law, for example, by falsifying DNAs, paying bribes.... It is something entirely different to kidnap. Even if a lot of people were falsifying DNAs, paying bribes, etc... I still think there are very few people who would be willing to kidnap a child and even fewer who would be able to get away with kidnapping.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

This is getting more and more hard to follow, I am so confused ???
I guess I just can't understand why Anyeli and her Aunts DNA and pictures would be in Karen's file, unless someone(Attorney, Facilitator)was trying to be very sneaky. How could NO ONE notice these pictures didn't match Karen until NOW?? I mean it was in her file for goodness sake.

Susana:

["Elizabeth,

Why do you want to know who the facilitator and the agency were? I am not a liberty to discuss many of the issues in this case, but if you think that it is important for you to know that, because you can bring something helpful for the case, please email me. If it is only curiosity, I am sorry, but I cannot tell you.. "]

This statement from you (quoted above), is rather contradictory, considering the substantial information you have shared here about this case. Why not say who was the original agency and/or facilitator? It seems you are trying to cover for someone or is it that you don't want to admit working with such nefarious entities?

Having spent time in Guatemala and having friends who live there, I can tell everyone that Ms. Loyda would have to be a fool to try and deceive people about this situation. To do so, would put her life at great risk. It sickens me to see her being victimized.

Could all of this be an attempt to distract from the real APS and agency involved? Is the hope to drag this on and on so that someday when this child is found, it is too late to move her back to her home in Guatemala?

What a sad state of affairs and an agregious violation of human rights.

God bless this Mother and child may they come together some day soon.

Cheryl - you're supposition is similar to what I've read about elsewhere.

Certainly, the double DNA test prevented a lot of corruption, but even that's not foolproof. Think about the scenario at the DNA test. Are the PAP's there? An actual US Embassy representative? There really isn't anything physically stopping a DNA sample taker from sampling a woman and her baby, all the while taking a photo of the same woman posing with a different (stolen) baby - the one actually being adopted. They could go through the same routine for 2nd DNA in order to receive pink.

Troy - read what you wrote and tell me how that scenario is not corrupt on the part of Karen's case/facilitator? If the facilitator knew there was no bio mom and still presented two people for a DNA test in order to get an adoption rolling, then the case was corrupt. If there were a true relinquishment, and the bio mom disappeared before DNA test - then how did they end up failing one without someone trying to beat the system.

I am familiar with a number of cases like yours where bio mom simply could not be found before the DNA test and a long search ensues. This is not the same thing.

Like Karen B, I'd like to hear evidence from the other side, that is (was???) so sure that Karen and Anyeli are the same person. The only evidence I've seen here is that Loyda identified the child in the DNA picture as her daughter, the picture that Susana now says is not the same child as Karen.
The folks opposed to Susana, who were once very vocal and accusatory, are now mostly and strangely silent.

GDSinPA
Didn't have time to look back, but I absolutely agree that the "case" of Karen went corrupt as soon as the facilitator/handler presented a stand-in for DNA. I guess I am referring to the "intent" of Karen's adoption by separating it for a moment from Anyeli's (if that makes sense). After the DNA failed and her case went into abandonment, I no longer believe corruption existed based on what I am seeing - meaning the standard procedures for abandonment declaration were followed. If one believes that process to be legally acceptable.

The abandonment process is set up to first and foremost find the child's biological family and present them an opportunity to take guardianship of the child (having gone through two abandonment cases, I can honestly say we were NOT guaranteed anything and we were prepared should either family wish to raise our then referrals).

Had the APs not chosen to continue, Karen/whomever would have been bound for the minor's court which would have meant placement in a state run facility. Once this occurred, Karen's ONLY chance of getting out of there would have been via her bio-mom, whom is a mystery at this point.

Recognizing differences in photos isn't as easy as some would want to believe. Remember, the photo at DNA could be months earlier than a passport photo. From my experience, other similar cases were drawn out either intentionally or out of fear, but either way there would have been quite a difference from an early DNA photo as compared to a passport photo months later.

When we dealt with photos of a "stand in" referral, we had to examine the ears (not to mention there were no good photos to go from) in order to really identify provable differences. Evidently the ears do not change as an infant ages, but most faces change dramatically.

I don't think it takes a "crooked" DNA sampler (after all, they are Embassy approved) as much as is takes a "bold" criminal to have falsified DNA samples from earlier cases. Think about it, how many have used false IDs to buy alcohol etc... For most, it wasn't worth the effort of really investigating. If they had the documentation and they looked close, they took samples.

I would be willing to bet that our infamous attorney and her cronies were one of the first to do this. Do you think with ALL the evidence we had on her we could get Guatemalan authorities to do anything?? People are connected to high places and rarely to they go after one another.

Susana's reluctance to reveal the facilitator is wise. The risk would be inherent!!

I think what it comes down to is the fact that there are a million reasons why something like this could have happened. Some are downright nefarious. Others could be just plain stupidity and laziness.

Here's a pure hypothetical... A buscadora is in trouble with a lawyer over a different case. She knows she's got Karen Abigail's case out there and no birthmom (for whatever the reason but not kidnapping). She knows she can't tell the lawyer this because he's about to pay her for a third case. So rather than admit to it, trying to pull off a shenanagan at DNA maybe gets her out of it (maybe she doesn't know she's paying an aunt, not a mom, to stand in) or at least buys her some time to get the next check. By the time the negative comes through, she's got another 10K in her pocket.

I'm NOT saying this is what happened. I'm just showing one of many ways I could come up with to explain it.

What I take away from Troy, is that you just don't know. Anything is possible and we can't jump to conclusions. His first adoption was an eye opener for many, including myself...

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin is always correct (ok, maybe 90% of the time)!! I am just offering an opinion based on what I know can happen. There are no certainties at this point.

What I sincerely hope is occurring is that someone is locating this "aunt" or woman in the photo and pressing her for information. I can't imagine why either side wouldn't have their people all over her.

Sorry guys - it seems like a stretch to suggest the case started clean, went corrupt, then back to clean. That's like rhetorical foosball. I also don't find it any bigger of a stretch to imagine a bribed DNA sample taker than a bribed anyone else - who cares if they are embassy approved? Given the number of cases going on - it would be pretty easy to pull off and actually much more foolproof than risking false papers or paying of a series of people who would have to ignore problems with those papers. Payoff one person and you've got it made. The only way for to have certainty would be to run sample the DNA both times with the bio mom, baby, and AP present.

Moving on from that scary thought - I suppose that once the original facilitator was kicked out of the picture, the process may very well have followed the law. But at that point, there would have been zero reliable information regarding the origins of the child.
When there's a genuine case of a mom not showing up for DNA testing, then the search process has a specific person to find. Kevin's suggested motive seems plausible, but it seems more like an easy confession to make because it's obviously less serious than kidnapping or co-ersion.

I should point out too, Kevin - that I'm not saying that Karen was kidnapped either. I actually think it's possible the corrupt facilitator did not realize she was paying an aunt.

(One more thing - Troy - you're effort to remain connected is commendable)

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

To Tremendo Arroz con Mango,

I have repeatedly said that I don't have a crystal ball and I do not know what happened. I have suggested some possibilities, as others have done.

YOu said what is the possibility of Anyeli's DNA results being in Karen's folder. Small, but I work in the legal field and I have at times placed things in wrong folders accidentally. For exmaple, I may have a folder for case A open on my desk. A client for case B calls and wants to know something right away. I go crab case B from the shelf. Now I have the folders for case A and B on my desk. In another exmaple, the foldres for case A and B are next to eachother on the shelf where the folders are kept. Someone goes to put something into the folder for case A but accidentally grabs the folder for case B.

Here is another one that sometimes happens. A person is preparing a word document for case B and the person realizes that the things they will write will be very simlar to things that have already been written in a word document for case A. They pull the word document for case A but forget to delete thigns that relate to case A out of the word document.

We have a saying in the business. At least two pairs of eyes should see everything. The reason being is that it is too easy for our eyes to play tracks on us and we don't see something that is right under our nose. An attorney could literally send the wrong photo to the news paper for an abandonment case by mistake without intending to do anything wrong. It could be just a mistake. The longer they pratice, the heavier their load, the more stress they are under, the more likely they are to eventually make a mistake. And of course all of these scenarios could have also played out with someone in PGN working on a file. That is why double checking is so important.

Best, Cheryl

I hope the authorities are looking for the original facilitator and also the "aunt" of Anyeli. These two people seem to have the answers to this mystery.

Cheryl,first of all, there were more than 2 files. And again the assumption that it just so happened that Karen Abigail's file was mixed up with someone else that was trying to pass for Anyeli on some reviewers desk at PGN is very simplistic. Again, it's not very "logical" to find that the DNA of a missing child that just so happens to show up in the file of a child identified by the parent.

SJBJ -- Loyda did not identify the DNA picture. She identified the PGN/CNA picture. Loyda's DNA was tested against the DNA that was collected for Karen Abigail and sent to PTC labs. The results showed that Loyda was a maternal match for Karen Abigail. The test also showed that the person posing as the mother was a close biological relative. Hence the assumption that the aunt was posing as the mother.

Is Anyeli and Karen the same person? I don't know. I can come up with MANY scenarios of tampering with the files, here, there, everywhere; now and then.

There is the question of why is Loyda so bent on the fact that she believes she identified Anyeli and that she has DNA proof that the child she identified is her daughter? Some have suggested denial and others have suggested she is part of a greater conspiracy.

If Karen Abigail arrived at Primavera with a negative DNA -- then Primavera acted as any other hogar or attorney would have proceeded with her case; as an abandoment. They followed the law in placing the ads, going the court and having her declared abandoned and adoptable.

So why is Primavera's director still in custody? Why is the judge in Escuintla under investigation? Why aren't the MPs (to our knowlege) trying to track down the "aunt"?

There is much more to this than we know.

As an adoptive parent this is very upseting because you just don't know who is telling the truth -- if you believe Susana that the DNA picture is of a different child and therefore not Karen Abigail -- then "YAY" for the APs and the child can stay in the US. If you believe Loyda and the DNA results stating that she is the biological mother , "yikes" this is scary stuff because what does this mean and how does this affect all of us.

If you believe that there was DNA tampering -- bigger YIKES because what does that mean to all of us who have passed DNA tests. Is our DNA of the child we call ours? Was the DNA some scam and a whole new can of worms is being opened up? I mean really, how many of us rest on the idea that our DNAs (first and second) match? Well, what if DNA samples are just batched and false reports offered?

If you believe Susana that this is personal and a conspiracy to bring her down -- it angers us that families and children and the legacy of adoptions is tainted by fabrication.

If you believe that Guatemalan adoptions are full of corruption, coersion and fraud, this is black and white. And that is upsetting because never is anything black or white. There are always shades of gray.

So you see, we can choose to believe that which is easiest for us to believe and that which is most comfortable for us to embrace.

What is the truth? I have no clue. This case has gotten more and more complicated by the day. The twists, turns, discoveries, discrediting of discoveries. It all boils down to who you want to believe and not necessarily what the truth is.

For all we know, we may never know the truth. What happened to Anyeli? And who on earth is Karen Abigail?

And that is Tremendo Arroz Chino con Mango!

Tremendo Arroz Con Mango and others,

There are some things that those of us home can do.

Those of us who have children home already, and have first and final DNA tests that match, can have another DNA test completed on the child that we have at home. If the DNA of the child we have at home matches the first and second DNA tests, then we have the same child that began the process.

We can then do a search to find the birthmother and see if she would like to meet with us and talk with us.

Those who have not yet traveled, can request to meet with the birthmother while you are in Guatemala for the pick-up trip. That is what I did and I think it gave the Birthmother peace to see her child, to say good-bye, and to see the family that her child was leaving with. Now, I send her small photo albums and updates.

For children we have had home before the 2nd DNA test was instituted (came home before August, 2007), we can also test the child that we have at home and compare with the initial DNA test to see if we have the same child home as at the beginning of the process. I did this for my oldest child. It was easy and private and quick. I plan to search for this child's birthmom as soon as I have enough cash to do it.

I think that the more of us can have proof that are cases are clean, and the more of us that can go back and visit in Guatemala to show Guatemala that the children are healthy and happy and not missing any of their internal organs, and the more we can meet with the Birthmothers and help these selfless women have a small bit of peace, the better.

Right now there are some that would want us to believe that all adoptions are tainted---we need to all check and recheck and do whatever we can to prove that ours are not. We owe this to our children who will likely read threads like this and wonderabout their own origins.

Searchers are very cautious and discrete so as to not endanger birthmothers or to harrass them when they do not want to be bothered. But my experience has been that most Birthmothers DO want to know and ARE interested in seeing their children when they return to Guatemala.

Think about it----Wouldn't you?

I think those who are not willing to take DNA tests of their children who are home are people who suspect that there may be something wrong with their cases and people who do not want to meet with the Birthmoters, or at least inquire whether or not the Birthmother is interested in meeting with you, or interested in saying good-bye to her child, are only thinking about themselves when they should be also thinking about these selfless women.

I wholeheartedly agree with Cheryl and some others,

Who are we to read posts here and to be judge and jury on this case? We do not have all of the details. It does seem very suspicious though, that the original persons with this case do not seem to be located, and the "aunt" does not seem to be around either, and why is it that the persons who got the case second, after the failed DNA test was already done are being blamed for the sins of the first facilitator/handler?

What possible reason could there be for the MP to not investigate these first persons who had the case and to find the "aunt" and to compare her looks with the DNA photo?

It seems that this would have to be a sister of Loyda or a sister of Loyda's husband, and if all of the sisters were brought in, they could either strengthen Loyda's case or find the person that may know where Anyelli is?

Why is the MP and the attorneys from both sides not jumping all over this? It does not make sense to me.

I just want to suggest that people all keep an open mind. I will tell you about a person situation that happened to me a few years back where I lost my job that I had for 12 1/2 years. I will tell you because sometimes when people try to do what is right and just, they get dragged through the mud, or get attacked by those that they expose.

I am a teacher. I witnessed the principal at my school severely abuse a child. I reported it. This principal told a friend of mine, (that he did not know was my friend) that he was, "going to GET _______, as soon as he got a chance!" Then two months later the school was in severe financial trouble. This principal permanently laid me off from my job, with the excuse of saving money, despite I held 5 different teaching licenses, and had worked there for 12 1/2 years. Other teachers worked there and were still on their first three months probabtionary work period, and three of these teachers had not even aquired their first teacher's license yet. I went to the higher up administration, and they did nothing to help me--I was willing to speak up when I saw a wrong, and they wanted to quiet me.

We do not live in a world that protects children before adults--sad but true. This is why all of the remaining children were taken unnecessarily from Primavera and used as political pawns, instead of thinking about their well-being and them being brought home as quickly as possible to live with their forever families who already love them.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Agree, anonymous--definitely recommend a search for your child's birth mother. We did so and it has been a wonderful experience, at least so far. Put our minds at ease and, more importantly, her mind at ease.

Tremendo arroz con Mango,

You said, "Again, its not very 'logical' to find that the DNA of a missing child that just so happens to show up in the file of a child identified by the parent."

Tremendo, again, I'm not saying for sure that there was a mix up. I'm proposing a mix up as one possible reason. You say it isn't logical. That depends on how the various pieces of information in a folder(s) are correlated and tracked. And when information from one case is accidentally put into another case, who is to say that the person may not have accidentally mixed up two pieces of information rather than just one piece of information.

I had original replied to you that I thought the possibliity of a mix up was small. AFter thinking about it some more, I think that mix ups may happen more frequently because I remembered that there were 2 mix ups in my own adoption case. The agency that did my home study sent me someone else's home study. The second, I found one sentence in my PGN submitted home study (pertaining to which university I attended) that came from someone else's dossier. These were obviously unintentional mistakes. No one intended any harm. The first was easily fixed. The second had no impact on the adoption.

AGain, I'm not saying that this is what happened. I'm just saying this is one possibility.

If people want to figure out what has happened in a difficult complex case, they should be willing to investigate all possibilities.

Was there fraud with this DNA test? The DNA test failed so there may very well have been no DNA fraud. Then again Troy and Kevin have also proposed plausible theories.

It would make sense for us to wait for more information *smile* rather than trying to figure this out. But, I know that we are all dieing of curiosity.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Some are wondering why people who believed Anyeli was kidnapped have stopped posting. I’m getting the impression that some are wondering if this silence indicates a weakness in the kidnapping case. I would not interpret their lack of posting to indicate this. For legal reasons, it is prudent to stay quiet. From some of the web sites, it appears to me that several people who used to post (Steve, Jennifer, etc.) are now talking and associated with Norma Cruz. What Jennifer or Steve say may be presented in the trial as reflecting facts for this case. So they may have been advised to be quiet. This is prudent and does not automatically mean that they feel there is a weakness in their case.

What is unusual for a legal case is Susana sharing a lot of very specific details. The other side must be reading her posts. They can report things she says to the police and legal authorities. They can easily check out what she says. They can ask for all of the information Susana refers to during the discovery period before the trail. Susana has referred to information, such as police reports and a news paper article, that can be easily verified. Susana is taking a risk by talking so much. If she says anything that is incorrect (whether it is a lie or a mistake) it can be used to hurt her case. One mistake in what she is publically stating could seriously hurt her. We have a saying in English about an attorney legally representing themselves, “He who represents himself, represents a fool.”

I’m not saying that Susana for sure is not lying about anything. There may be more to this and things work in Guatemala than what I know.

I’m curious about the photo that was on karen’s passport. That is the photo that INS would be looking at when she entered the country. Did Karen enter the US pre or post Mary Bonn? If it was post, I think INS would have looked very closely at the passport photo when she entered to see if it was the same kid. I felt they looked at our stuff very closely when we entered.

Best, Cheryl

"I think those who are not willing to take DNA tests of their children who are home are people who suspect that there may be something wrong with their cases and people who do not want to meet with the Birthmoters, or at least inquire whether or not the Birthmother is interested in meeting with you, or interested in saying good-bye to her child, are only thinking about themselves when they should be also thinking about these selfless women."

______________________

really?

I was reviewing the April 2 photos
of missing children in the Guatadopt article listing. I read the ABC report which quoted Loyoda
as saying Aneyli was ripped out of her arms in her yard. Didn't the police report state she was playing in the yard when she was kidnapped and neighbors witnessed a white van taking Aneyli?

When Karen Abagail "Anyeli" was in the relenquishment process, who was caring for her, and did they take her to the DNA test? Our foster mother's signature was on our daughter's DNA form as a witness.

Karen

Quote: "I think those who are not willing to take DNA tests of their children who are home are people who suspect that there may be something wrong with their cases and people who do not want to meet with the Birthmoters, or at least inquire whether or not the Birthmother is interested in meeting with you, or interested in saying good-bye to her child, are only thinking about themselves when they should be also thinking about these selfless women."

Let me begin by saying that I have known many, many APs over the years and I don't think this is a fair assumption to make of APs. There is a process in place and for the record relinquishing sometimes has nothing to do with a woman being selfless, but out of the best interest of the child. Keep in mind that APs did not enter into an open adoption, some may use a PI to verify their case, but under no circumstance should the AP community be divided into those that have are better than those that haven't. There are many reasons why some Bmoms do not want contact or even be found, a reputable PI would ensure that the safety of the Bmom's privacy would be ensured and if she has a request for no contact that should be honored. Also an APs request not to find the Bmom and interrogate her should also be honored. That is a private family matter and each family had to decide what is best for them.

Karen, good question but from what I have been reading, the child in Mo. is the child in the photographs and not Anyeli, as Loyda claims. I am not saying that this is true or not, just stating what has been reported and posted by Susana Luarca. Please also keep in mind, that sloppiness does not constitute fraud, nor does a misplaced file, nor misspelling nor a wrong date.
It happens, we are all human.
Many of us have had a PGN ko based on a misspelled letter in a name, etc.

Many have written to me to get my take on this and let me repeat what Kevin posted previously all of us (Kevin, Kelly, Troy, me) are as confused as you all are and we have no access to any private information nor insider scoop on these cases.

Let me just say that all your questions are all very good.

We hope that a conclusion is arrived promptly for all parties involved.

Marie

Cheryl....Oh what can I say. On my translated documents, I had someone else's information on my TRANSLATED SWI. On my Spanish one, everything was correct. What does that indicate -- someone just had an old document that she changed the pertinent information and missed the last page. That is not fraud. That is sloppiness in work.

I work in healthcare so I am very familiar with how specimens are sent to labs and how lab reports get placed in folders. Even if there was a mix up in paperwork on PGN's side....it is something that would clearly be seen on the labeling of the lab reports.

What is left to discover is if the intent was to pass Aneyli's DNA -- on purpose -- TO PROCESS Karen Abigail's adoption as a relinquishment? Or was it on PURPOSE that someone else stood in for Karen Abigail -- if Karen and Anyeli are different people. Or is this just CHANCE?

Was it that Anyeli and Karen were both at the lab on the same day, roughly at the same time and the nurse wrote the wrong name on the wrong sample because she was in a hurry or worse ... ON PURPOSE? So could Karen Abigail have been processed legitimately as a relinquishment and not identified during an abandonment process because the birthmother was not looking for her -- but becuase of lab worker ineptness had to be subjected to an abandonment process? Is there another child out in the US somewhere with Karen Abigail's DNA reports under a different label?

I doubt that the DNA reports ended up in the wrong file -- that would mean that not only did PGN misfile the DNA report but that PTC also misfiled the DNA report. Likelihood -- unlikely. Now that would be an even greater coincidence that both PGN and PTC made errors on the same file that proved that a child was a missing child but not the child that was actually adopted.

Regarding with how things stand with Primavera...Primavera received a child with a negative DNA which meant that they then proceeded as any other entity in Guatemala would have done. They did an abandonment process. And the child was deemed abandoned and adoptable. That's just how it worked in Guatemala. To suggest otherwise would then suggest that all abandonment cases are kidnapped children -- which is not fair to the children or to those families that have gone through the painstaking process of trying to adopt a child with no known origin.

It is a sad statement to suggest as well that as APs we must now legitimized an adoption which we entered into with the most legitimate of intentions and paid a fee for a legimate legal process.

And the statement that all birthmothers are "selfless"? NOt so sure about that. I have heard of some who actually had children just to put them up for adoption because they wanted to buy a house. How selfless is that? It is romantic to generalize and suggest that all birthmothers loved the child and due to unforseen reasons made a difficult decision so that her child could survive -- I think that is the fairytale we all want to believe and embrace. For some, it was a selfless difficult choice; for others, it was a coersion and manipulation stating that the child would die if the child was not adopted (I know of that situation as well); for others it was plain out selfish to create a life for monetary profit. And I am sure that there are many who fall somewhere in between.

Some birthmothers do want to be found -- others don't. But this is WAY off topic.

Karen B: yes, there are many different reports on how Anyeli went missing. Was she ripped out of her mother's arms? Did she run away from her mom as they were returning from the market? Did someone come into their courtyard while the mom went to hang the laundry for 10 minutes. Your guess is as good as mine.

Susana also states that the Missouri APs pursued her and brought Karen Abigail to Primavera. Then she states that the APs were visiting a boy they were adopting and saw the child. Were they visiting at Primavera when that happened or was that how they met the child at another facility?

That is why this is un Tremendo Arroz Con Mango!

Marie,
"Ditto" Well said!

tw

To Troy:
To say that lawyers who do adoptions would starve if we have to practice law is insulting and unjustified. We are Law professionals and the fact that many children found families through adoption is because, as lawyers, we fought the necessary legal actions to keep adoptions open, long after many other countries in the world folded down under the pressure brought by UNICEF. We practice Childhood Law, Family Law, Civil Law, and Constitutional Law and do a lot of good with our work. I find difficult to understand why is it that adoptive parents belittle the adoption professionals who made it possible for them to adopt and criticize the system that allowed them to parent a Guatemalan child. With the new system, very few children are being adopted, many are being abandoned, and countless will grow malnourished and mistreated. Prensa Libre’s headlines of today’s edition (September 28th., 2009) states that there was a decline of adoptions of 97%. That is the triumph of the bureaucracy over the wellness of the children. Something that is well known but not mentioned is that at the same time that we handled adoptions we supported children who were not adoptable, giving them the same good care that the adoptable children received.

The DNA results that were included in the adoption files done according to the notarial law, were in document signed by the birthmothers, whose signature were authenticated by a notary and where the officer of the US Embassy stated that the DNA results had a 99.99% of probabilities of maternity. If the DNA were negative, the adoption would not proceed, so it is not true that the negative results would become part of the PGN file regardless, because if the results are negative, the document stating so would not be obtained from the embassy.

Another statement that I find inaccurate is that “Loyda is trying to regain custody” (of Karen Abigail). Since Karen Abigail is neither her daughter nor was ever under her custody, Loyda cannot “regain” her custody. Loyda is Anyeli Liseth’s mother, and there is no proof that Anyeli Liseth was ever adopted or that she left the country. We don’t know why is that the Ministerio Publico has not asked Loyda who the woman in the DNA picture is and why she had Anyeli Liseth in July 2007, eight months after that girl was reported as “disappeared” by her father.

What we have at hand in this case, is the photocopy of the picture of a girl who tested 99.99% as daughter of Loyda so she must be Anyeli Liseth and who looks nothing like Karen Abigail, so she is not Karen Abigail. There must be a connection that links the facilitator, with Loyda, her husband Dayner and the aunt who is in the picture and who took Anyeli Liseth to the DNA test, eight months after such girl was reported as disappeared. The fact that Anyeli Liseth disappeared, or was kidnapped, has not been proven, because all the proof there is, are the three or four different versions that the parents have given of how it happened, which is highly suspicious, to say the least.

I post here what the newspapers would not say, because they only publish what Norma Cruz (UNICEF) tells them to publish. I have given interviews to the press about this case and nothing that I have told them has been published. I am surprised that someone “advises” me not to speak so freely here. What I post here is the truth and I have evidence to support it. I am no drawing conclusions from assumptions that I make. I know that there must be a link between Anyeli and Karen and that the key to solve the problem would be to DNA test the girl in Missouri, to find out who she is. If she turns out to be Loyda’s daughter, it would be up to the courts to rule if her abandonment process and adoption process preclude Loyda to claim her or if by the contrary, her adoptive parents have to return Karen to Loyda. If Karen is not Loyda’s daughter, the MO couple can be assured that nobody is going to try to make them return their daughter to Guatemala. So there is little to loose and a lot to win by doing that DNA test.

Cheryl, for your information, we have criminal lawyers who are taking care of the defense in this case, so I am not my own client, as you fear. On the other hand, to assume things is very risky and many of you are assuming a lot of things. The only one who can tell you what is going on in this case it is me, and you can either believe me or not, but this is becoming more like a script written by those who have the time and creativity to come up to possible scenarios and for that you do not need first hand information.

I have been told that the court has ruled on many of our petitions and this week we will know what it ruled about them. I am not sharing any more information on this post, not because of what Cheryl or Troy say, but because it is useless. I will share it only with the Primavera Families list serve, because their children are trapped in this problem and they need to know what is going on. For those of you who are just “dying of curiosity”, you will have to read the newspapers.

Best regards,
Susana Luarca

Susana,

Reread my post. I said "a lot" of lawyers, NOT all would have starved. You know as well as I do that a number of second rate law professionals dove into the adoption world head first with minimal understanding of all the variables.

I would be willing to wager their private practices suffer from the same sort of issues. I seriously doubt "they" (those that would starve) are fighting the "good fight" for children in Guatemala or fighting for the rights of anyone other then themselves.

After all, one didn't even need to possess a law degree to process an adoption.

twebb

Susana,

I am sorry that you will not be posting anymore, because the newspapers don't seem to publish information that is anywhere near balanced (although that is certainly not a problem specific to your country.) I for one want to read all sides of a story, and try not to speculate. It will certainly be a loss to lose your opinion. I hope you will reconsider, as there are many folks who visit this site to read what we can't find elsewhere.

With all due respect though, there are many of us who did not have stellar legal teams, who were put through hell or who are still in hell - and it at least in part because of these dishonest attorneys and facilitators that adoptions are in effect closed down. While it appears that UNICEF would prefer that children are not adopted internationally, their position is only strengthened when all of the corruption is exposed in the handling of adoptions.

I do not have any knowledge of what happened behind the scenes in Guatemala between the threat of the first shutdown many years ago and December of 2008 but I would like to know if the honest attorneys tried to run the dishonest ones out of the adoption world - because they are the ones that really caused so much pain for all involved - the children left behind, the families who will never be united with their babies, those who continue to wait due to the increased scrutiny...let's be honest - if there weren't so much corruption it would have been more difficult for UNICEF to push for the shutdown. Let's put the blame squarely on the criminals who did the damage.

What was done to try to eliminate the corruption that has caused this mess? It appears it has gone on for years and years.

I am sincere in my questioning...I really want to know? I just feel like we were thrown to the wolves and the only reason my child is home is because we hired outside counsel to help undue the absolute disaster of an adoption process that our original team had started.

I am sorry but my attorneys weren't practicing any kind of law - they were just blindly signing any paperwork that was presented to them for a buck. And that cost my family years of anguish and countless thousands of dollars to undo the damage. Just because someone has the degrees to say they are an attorney doesn't mean they are practicing law.

Why aren't we talking about these attorneys more? We can blame the facilitators, or the govt. or UNICEF, but ultimately, the attorneys signature is on the paperwork vouching for it.

"...And the child was deemed abandoned and adoptable. That's just how it worked in Guatemala. To suggest otherwise would then suggest that all abandonment cases are kidnapped children -- which is not fair to the children or to those families that have gone through the painstaking process of trying to adopt a child with no known origin."

Nonsense. I'm only speaking of this case as I understand it.

The majority of cases of abandonment include several examples - mainly children literally found abandoned, children verified as an orphan (meaning no family alive), or children where the birthmom went missing at some point in the relinquishment process. I have also known some people involved in cases where the birth family was in fact found, but refused to cooperate and also refused to parent, leading to an abandonment stripping them of their parental rights.

In all of those cases - there would be no known fraud in the case. In this example for Karen (again, as I understand it) - there was in fact known fraud where someone was attempting to exploit the child and possibly her parents for money in the adoption industry. Then I would actually argue that the child should not be allowed to shifted to a new adoption process. I just can't justify that ethically in my mind.

Having said that, I should not automatically suggest that the people involved in Karen's case acted illegally from that point forward. Clearly a cert of abandonment was issued under that process. That does not, however somehow nullify the known fraud that took place earlier and will unfortunately be a part of her story forever.

I hope that clarifies the difference.

For some reason it is my gut intstinct that Susana is telling the truth. At this point, though, how safe could it be for the family of Karen Abigail to DNA test and send it off ot Guatemala, especially if there is some agenda going on here? If I were in their situation, I would submit the test but only if Loida( probably Visa impossible?) was brought to the US or possibly the US Embassey for the testing. Even the US Emabsssy would scare me unless they could prove it never left US hands(even on delivery). If I were in their shoes, I could not simply just send the results off to Gautemala and trust that the right thing would be done at this point. So I am wondering if Susana or anyone could offer this family a way that this process could be safeguarded to the possible saitisfaction of the family?

I for one am saddened that Susana will no longer be posting. Many of us forget that if it was not for Susana (and others like her) we would not be having this discussion because adoptions in Guatemala would have ceased to exist years ago. I have met susana and she is a loving and caring person. When she walks into the hogar, ALL the children know her and run to her. She knew each child by name and could tell stories about how this child called her "monkey" and that child loves a certain toy etc... I do not know her to be a liar or dishonest in any way at all. Everything she has told us she would do, she did and then some.

Susana has been extremely responsive to questions asked of her on guatadopt and has revealed many things that we would not have known from "mainstream" Guatemalan media. Susana is an asset to the guatadopt family.

I am sure there are some who are happy to see Susana stop her postings. I know there are many more who do not want to see her stop. Perhaps those who value her opinion and insight should let her know how much she is appreciated and persuade her to continue posting. Let's hope we don't lose another poster.

Anthony

Responding to this quote:
"I think those who are not willing to take DNA tests of their children who are home are people who suspect that there may be something wrong with their cases and people who do not want to meet with the Birthmoters, or at least inquire whether or not the Birthmother is interested in meeting with you, or interested in saying good-bye to her child, are only thinking about themselves when they should be also thinking about these selfless women."

Right now, we are dealing with a very volitile situation in Guatemala. The adoption system right now is completely messed up. There is corruption. Politics. Extortion.

IF we were dealing with system that was clean and fair, and IF we were dealing with a political system that could be trusted, and IF we were dealing with a country that was not permeated with corruption and certain unscrupulous individuals out for personal gain, THEN MAYBE we would subject ourselves to the DNA.

My husband is from Latin America. When I shared the details of this situation with him, he said if he were the parents of Karen Abigail, he would retain a lawyer and refuse to cooperate. Not to cover up an illegal adoption. But to protect our child from a messed up system that could actually put them at risk, EVEN IF the adoption was above board.

I can't recall all of the details now, but didn't the courts in Guatemala overturn Karen Abigail's adoption? And now, what do we find out? Karen Abigail is not Lloyda's daughter. What if the parents, well meaning and wanting to do the right thing, had brought her back to Guatemala to be returned to Lloyda?

As far as meeting with the birth mother...I personally have wanted to establish contact, but my husband is unwilling. Having grown up in Latin America, he is all too familiar with how things can work. I tend to want to think the best of others. But there may be the occasional birth mother who is not trustworthy, who may try to extort money (although from my point of view once an adoption is complete I can't see how that could be possible), who could decide to go to the authorities and claim that they were tricked or manipulated into relinquishing their child. In my mind, this is a very unlikely scenario, yet possible. Even in the U.S., there are bio moms who try to get their children back after relinquishing.

I'm sorry, but the system in Guatemala cannot be trusted right now. And we are not about to put our child's well being, safety and future into the hands of such a system.

Patti- It is our understanding that the swab test for the child would be conducted at the PTC lab in Missouri. Further analysis could be done at the labs at the University of Granada at La Frontera, Spain if the Guatemalan court orders that to be done. Susana can elaborate more on that, I think she already mentioned something to that effect in a prior post.

We have been very appreciative of
Ms. Luarca's long term involvement with Guatadopt and keeping us posted, giving us insight through the various shut downs, slow downs and explaining new procedures and lasw that is Guatemalan adoptions. We hope to see that continue but she can do what she feels is best and we respect her decision.

Troy and GDSinPa, thanks for clarifying.
Troy- Excellent point!
Dee- You are not alone in your concern.

Marie

Susana,
(not sure if you'll see this if you are no longer posting here)

The tone of your last post was a bit surprising. I was also surprised to see you address me directly, twice now, when I have not asked you any direct questions on this case. My inquiry on the agency and facilitator for this case was to the group in general, to see if anyone had seen that posted anywhere else. I did not indicate I had information on the case that could be 'helpful', nor do I read these boards and respond with questions or statements out of 'curiosity'. I do still think the info as to who handled the child, Karen Abigail, in her prior referral, is important information. I find it interesting that no one has revealed this.

As an advocate against corruption in adoptions, I consider this a serious matter, and do not read guatadopt for entertainment purposes. I am wondering why you consider the names of the agency, and facilitator a secret? I have just never heard of such a thing. Honestly, I see no reason for anything other than 'total transparency' in this case, or any other adoption case, from any country, or for any child! If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then why wouldn't everyone come forward, and put this case, and others, to rest? Why are some of those who have come forward considered liars, when we have not even heard from some of the others involved? And, now we are told we can't even know their names? I don't agree with that, and I don't agree with you on the motives of this birth mom. Like the birth mom in my case, Loyda has risked much to look for her missing child.

In an earlier post you expressed little faith in the Guatemalan press, and now, you tell us to read there for info if we are 'dying of curiosity'. Susana, I really think most AP's just want clear and accurate information, in order to stay informed, and knowledgeable about adoptions in our own child's country of origin. So many of us have painfully dealt with agencies that did not keep us informed with accurate information. I don't see the words 'dying of curiosity' being a good fit for this forum, or a valid description of most who read and post here.

Please know that many here greatly appreciate your first hand information, no matter where we stand on what did happen, or could have happened in this case. The truth is, there is a circle of people who do know exactly what happened, and when, and they all know who they are! As I said before, many hands have touched these cases between countries. Right now, those of us reading here don't know all the details. But most feel worried about them, for the sake of the children involved.

I wish you would reconsider, and continue to keep us informed. Please try to realize why we ask the questions that we do. I find it amazingly good that everyone feels so comfortable coming to you with these questions, and hoping for clear answers. Your passion in this case is evident. You have been very forthcoming, and I think that lends it self to your willingness to be open and informative with the readers. While there has been a lot of confusion, and speculation, I know your input, explanations and information have been more than helpful in trying to keep all this straight.

Susana, even though I do not always agree with you, I don't want to see you stop posting here. If you do, it will only add to the uncertainty that is already out there. The number of comments on this thread should tell you that AP's want to learn, and they want clarity. It is OK to ask questions, to disagree, and to learn from what others tell you. This thread has run with a great amount of respect, so far, and I would like to see it continue until we all learn the truth. I am sure others would join me in asking you not to stop posting here. Those reading and posting comments, care about this case and the others.

It's important to all of us to know what will happen with Guat. adoptions in the future, and what happened in Guat. adoptions in the past. This past belongs to our children, and the future belongs to their country.

Thanks again for sharing the info that you have, you've been incredibly helpful,
We all wish for the best in this case, for the truth,... especially for the children!

Elizabeth

honestly, even when i don't agree with susana, i like to see her posts. she gets me thinking. and i like that. i hope she doesn't stop posting either. her insight would be missed.

I'm sorry to see Susana stop posting. No offense to anyone, but I come back to this topic only to see if Susana has posted. She seems to be the only one with facts in this case.

As I mentioned in my last post, I too hope that Susana will reconsider. It seems that this forum has lost a number of posters recently - many who seemed to have been clients of Susana and who seemed upset at those who questioned Susana in any way. I was sorry to see those posters go and I will be very sorry to see Susana go, if in fact she does go. You can't have healthy discourse if it is one sided.

For Susana, if you are still there: As others have offered up, I don't come to Guatadopt out of some morbid curiosity, but because my child was adopted during this time of uncertainty. All of this news is deeply personal to our family, because it is all part of our daughter's story and her heritage.

I can't see any reason why the original agency, facilitator and attorney team can't be identified. Since your position is that Primavera and your attorneys processed this adoption by the book (and I am not disputing you on this in any way) then it is extremely important to understand who began this case, since the corruption clearly must have been introduced early on. There may be families who used the same agency, facilitator or attorney team, and who would really appreciate knowing this information - for many of us, we don't want to turn a blind eye to the corruption. Information is power.

Who is protecting the identity of the original facilitator, agency, notary and mandatorio? and why? WHY? For sure the press has no issue publishing names, since the press is all over Primavera and your attorney. So why the lack of info on how this case started? And why wouldn't you (Susana) want to share this to take some of the heat off of Primavera? Are you legally prohibited from doing so? We look to you because you are credible...we don't know who most of the other posters are, as we don't use our real names (for obvious reasons for some of us.)

It raises the question of whether you have any ties (working relationships on other adoptions) to the agency, facilitator or attorneys? Not being accusatory, just can't understand why you don't feel that this is important information to share with the Guatemalan adoption community, which is in a state of shock and dismay at all of these recent developments.

Please remember that in all of this, our children and our families are ultimately all victims. We are all victims of what is happening in Guatemala today. We are not the enemy. Thank you.

Susana,

I also want to clarify what I said. I'm glad that you post. Since I don't know you, I cannot testify to your character.

There are several that have accused you of lying or twisting the facts. I was making the point, that you would be crazy to lye or twist facts because most of what you said are specific details that can easily be checked out. Further, I strongly suspect that the opposition reads what you are posting and will ask you for proof of your assertions. For example, you said that the woman in the picture is Anyeli's aunt. One person questioned whether there was any one else that had agreed with this assertion. In my thinking, if no one in this legal process has proof that the woman is the aunt, they will surely be asking you for that proof because you stated this to be a fact in your posts. Being a lawyer, you knew even before you posted this that they are probably reading what your posts and will ask for proof to verify the things you have said. So I strongly tend to think that you are telling the truth about the things that you have posted.

I said you were taking risks in posting these things. Again, to me this indicates that there is a high probability that you are telling the truth.

However, I also encourage you to do what you think is best and to do what is best for your clients. For your sake and for your clients, I hope that you have not accidentally said something that isn't true or worded something in a way that can be twisted and used against you.

I said that we were dying of curiousity. That was a bad choice of words on my part. I think that one of the other posters did a better job of explaining our motivation. We adopted our children from Guatemala so we feel very emotionally invested in the outcome of these cases. I hope I have been clear in what I'm saying.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl Eichstaedt

GDSinPA,

You posted on 9/29/2009, "In this example for Karen (again as I understand it)-there was in fact known fraud where someone was attempting to exploit the child and possibly her parents for money in the adoption industry."

I'm not sure where you came up with this. Based on my memory of what has been posted (I don't have time to go back and find the exact post) Anyeli's foster mother admitted that the original attorney paid her and the person who relinquished Anyeli money. At this point in time, the legal process has not completed. So it has not been determined for sure whether Anyeli and Karen are different people or the same person. If they are different people, then we cannot use the Anyeli's foster mother's testimony as a basis for questioning the validity of Karen's abandonment.

If you are aware of different facts, then please clue me in.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Cheryl - I'm with you, there has been so much said it's impossible to know the truth. I guess all of us speculating doesn't help much eh? :)

The info I have is coming from Guatadopt, and the research documented over at http://poundpuplegacy.org/

My thought process in that comment was focused on Karen (keeping the possibility of her and Anyeli being one in the same separate).

It seemed like the one thing we could conclude for sure is that a DNA test was attempted in relation to Karen's relinquishment case and it failed. Then it moved to an abandonment. Is that not the case? I may have misinterpreted the info, but it sounded like a likely reason it failed was that the child and/or mother at the DNA were impostors.

Right there we have fraud and no reliable info regarding Karen's relinquishment or abandonment because someone started the process essentially pretending to relinquish.

Like I said, this is so complicated, I would not doubt if I missed a key detail that makes my conclusion invalid. So far though, I can't find any information, or put together any scenario under which Karen's case does NOT have fraud particularly early in the process. As stated later, the abandonment proceeding may very well have followed the letter of the law.

Blessings,
-Greg

Cheryl
Just to be clear, I used the word 'curiosity' in my post because Susana had first used it in reference to me wanting to know the names of the agency and facilitator involved with Karen Abigail. In an earlier post she told me that she could not tell me the names of those people if I my only reason for wanting to know was 'curiosity'. You were not out of line with your comments at all, and I totally understood what you meant. It seems that Susana may not have taken it the same way. I just hope now, with so many telling her how we feel, that she will be able to understand why we ask these questions. I still believe that it is important to know who these individuals are, not only for understanding the origin of the case, but for those of us who may have even dealt with some or all of these people! Referral DVD's seem to almost come in bulk to interested families in years past, so others may have seen this child. We can call this 'curiosity' or not, but the bottom line is, that many families may be using this case to measure their own. We all deserve to know who all the players are, in my opinion.

In quoting Dee, "we do not come here in morbid curiosity, but because my child was adopted during this time of uncertainty. All of this news is deeply personal to our family, because it is all part of our daughter's story and her heritage because my child was adopted during this time of uncertainty." Dee is completely right here.... many families know this, and other cases, could raise questions in our children when they are older. It would be nice to be able to give them solid answers, rather than leaving them to this much speculation, as you know their minds could drift to their own processes.

As I said before, I hope Susana will continue to keep those of us with interest in this case, fully informed with what she can tell us legally. While I am sure she is not the only one who knows the information, but she is the only one who has been willing to share with guatadopt readers, on her prospective from Guatemala, and to attempt to help us understand this very complicated case. My heart breaks for the birth mothers. My involvement and support in the Three Days for Three Daughters global attention to the mothers who are missing their children shows my support for these woman and I do believe they are telling the truth. I fully understand the risks they are taking in Guatemala by coming forward with courage and hope of finding their lost daughters. I see no benefit for these mothers to come forward with lies. But, I appreciate the prospective Susana shares here, and I am open to learning more. After all, we are not in Guatemala, and she is.

I hope she see the value of educating us (as parents of Guat. children) on this case, and will continue writing here. But of course, she is under no obligation.

Elizabeth Emanuel
an advocate for children who have no voice or choice in those who handle their futures

It's a shame that we now lose Susana's insights and first hand information, because some folks who post here felt it necessary to attack her personally. This has occurred on other threads and I can hardly blame her for not subjecting herself to personal attack.

Momof2, of course, there is the possibility of a birthmother trying to take advantage of the situation after a search. But, there are now two Yahoo groups of parents who have searched for and found their children's Guatemalan birthmothers. Negative experiences reported are very few. Most people report positive experiences, if complicated.

As Marie said, searching for birthparents /having contact is a personal decision and each family has to decide what is best for itself.

sjbj,

I have not seen anyone attack SL on a personal basis on this thread. I have seen questions regarding information, but if there was a personal attack, I missed it. I have seen the birth mother attacked, and I find that sad. But, in general, this has been a resptful thread with a lot of good information. I hope we see more!

No doubt there is going to be a lot of controversy as this case unfolds, but for those with nothing to hide, that should not be a problem.

Elizabeth

Greg,

Thanks for responding and yes this is complicated/confusing. You said, "One thing we can conclude for sure is that a DNA test was attempted in relation to Karen's abandonment and it failed." Sorry, but I'm not interpreting things that way. Susana had said that some how Anyeli's failed DNA test got linked in with Karen. There are many ways that one child's failed DNA test may have gotten linked in with another child. Those of us reading here do not have enough information to figure that out. It is possible that Susana does not know for sure how that happened either. I find it very interesting that she said the US embassy does not send failed DNA results to PGN.

I don't remember Susana's exact words on these matters and I don't have time to look for her statements. So I hope I'm not accidentally misrepresenting Susana's statements.

Elizabeth, I thought you were getting blamed for my unfortunate wording and I wanted to set the record straight that I was the one who used the infamous "curious" word. OK, so 2-3 people have used the word "curious" ha ha ha.

In my original post, I did not clearly state that I strongly tend to believe what Susana says and the reasons that I tend to strongly believe what she says. I'm still hoping that the biological family has truthfully stated that their child has gone missing and they were not a part of it. I'm still hoping there is an explanation besides "the biological parents are lying" for the 3-4 abduction stories. I would really hate to be a part of pouring salt into the wound of a grieving family.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Cheryl - thanks for your continued respectful discussion. It's possible I missed someone correcting this post, but I was going off of something Kevin said like 2 weeks ago. I'll review and see if maybe there's a post that corrects Kevin's summary.

"1.) An adoption process is started for a child (Karen Abigail)as a relinquishment case
2.) DNA test is done. A different child (Anyeli) is presented for that test.
3.) Test comes back not being a maternal match.
4.) Relinquishment process ends. Child (Karen Abigail) moves to PV
5.) Abandonment process is completed. PAPs become APs

Hope that helps,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com"

Greg,

Kevin worded number two very carefully. It says that "a DNA test is done. A different child (Anyeli) is presented for that test." Your statement that a DNA test **for Karen** was performed and that it failed assumes that the test done for number 2 was intended to be for Karen's adoption process. We do not know that at this point in time. All we know is that somehow the failed DNA test for Anyeli got linked in with Karen's adoption. I find it Susana's statement that the US embassy does not send results of failed DNA tests to PGN very interesting.

Greg and everyone else. Please excuse me if I word things in a very to the point manner. I write applications for patents and I argue with the USPTO to get the applications issued as patents. So my writing style tends to be very to the point. It isn't my intention to be disrespectful. If you heard my voice you would know that I'm speaking in a very nice way.

Greg, I appreciate it that you realize that I'm being respectful.

This is a very good example of how different people read the same thing and interpret it differently.

I'm not even sure that number 2 followed number 1 in time. I'd have to go back and look at the dates that Susana provided. I think there was something rather interesting about the time lines for Karen and Anyeli as well, but I don't remember what I noticed about that.

I have to admit that I'm a bit mesmerized. When I get a few hours I'm going to re-read all of Susana's posts about this case.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Susanna has been attacked personally on other threads, related to this same topic (as I said in my post). This posting has , indeed, remained respectful...probably because the one or two people on the previous post who were so certain and so inflammatory are now surprisingly silent.

Susana,

IF you are still reading here, could you please tell us if you were made aware of any findings from the court, the ones you mentioned earlier, that may be made public this week?

"I have been told that the court has ruled on many of our petitions and this week we will know what it ruled about them. I am not sharing any more information on this post, not because of what Cheryl or Troy say, but because it is useless."

I think enough of us have tried to let you know that your efforts here are not 'useless'! We have told you that we appreciate your first hand info. We have told you why we ask the questions, and that we are here to learn as well. We have told you what we disagree with you on, and you have done the same. We have told you why this case is important for us to follow. I am not sure what more we can do, as this has been a healthy thread, in my opinion. We would appreciate your continued efforts to keep us informed.

Of course, if you chose not to, then I guess there could be speculation about that as well. But I have only seen 'polite requests' for you thus far.

I am very interested in this case, but this will be my final appeal to you.

Elizabeth

Hi Cheryl - you are correct.

Supposing what you said is true then - we do not know how or why Karen's case changed from relinquishment to abandonment.

-Greg

I see your point Greg. Even if the DNA test for 2 was not originally intended for Karen, the remaining question is why was Karen's adoption changed from relinquishment to abandonment. maybe the birth mother didn't show up for the DNA test? If she did show up for the DNA test, then where are the results of the DNA test? Is it possible that we are wrong about Karen's adoption starting as a relinquishment? For example, if Anyeli's DNA results got mixed in with Karen's adoption process, is it possible that other information also got mixed in with Karen's adoption process?

We have many questions about this case. I think if we could see the pertinent pictures -- picture with DNA test, Karen's passport photo, the picture that Loyda ID as her daughter this would be much easier. It would also be helpful if we could see pictures of Anyeli that her family took before she went mixxing.

Also, I and others have asked what originally caused people to think that the DNA test was for Karen. My understanding of one of Susana's posts was that she did not know how the Anyeli's DNA test got linked in with Karen's adoption. But, still someone knows what they saw that caused them to think the DNA test was for Karen. Susana said that the US embassy doesn't send DNA results for failed DNA tests. So was it in Karen's adoption folder that the original atttorney maintained? Some may think that the Guatemalan legal authorities would not know what was in the original attorney's files for Karen. But, the legal authorities may have either confiscated that folder or the legal authorities may have subpoened the folder and whoever had Karen's folder may have full filled their legal obligation by providing all of the contents of Karen's folder to the legal authorities. It seems that it shouldn't have been in Karen's PGN files. But who knows, maybe it was, some how, for example, due to the one of the original attorney's staff people sending in wrong information.

Someone could at least tell us what they saw that caused them to think it was for Karen even if they do not know how it got linked into Karen's adoption information.

When I get time, I'm going to pour over Susana's posts.

Best, Cheryl

Kevin,

Obviously, Susana is no longer going to share info on these cases. I honestly do not understand her becoming offended, and I am sorry that she did.

If you are still in contact with her, do you know anything at all about the findings that may have come out in the court last week that she was talking about? If so, will you share them? I for one, and very interested in continuing to follow this case, and I am sure others are as well.

thanks,

Elizabeth Emanuel

Elizabeth,

I know nothing.

Sorry,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com