Isn't Marvin Bran (not Braun, btw) the attorney that Celebrate Children Int'l used frequently? Curious.

Interesting, thanks for posting this Kevin~

Elizabeth

Good news Susana! Many of us support you.

Kevin and Guatadopt readers:

I don't believe that the charges against Susana Luarca have been dropped, unfortunately. I think this video is based on the fact that the Prosecuting District Attorney was trying to get the judge to approve an arrest order for Susana and the judge has refused to do this, since Susana is due to appear in court on Tuesday, October 13. Because Susana was given 2 continuances, based on the fact that the certified file of the charges against her was not available, sobrievientes and the D.A. are implying that the judge is "friendly" with her and gave her the continuances for that reason.

I have been following this situation very closely and can state that this is a serious miscarriage of justice, with Susana Luarca being targeted, persecuted and accused of "irregularities" in adoptions (linked circumstantially to the adoption of a child who is alleged to have been kidnapped).

I know that Susana or the Primavera orphanage director had nothing to do with the child's original relinquishment or subsequent DNA which showed that the child and mother were not mother and child.

I know that the prospective adoptive parents hired another U.S. lawyer to help them when the negative DNA put the child in the position of going into custodial care. Susana was asked to take the child into Primavera and to help begin an abandonment, which orphanages could initiate.

Neither Susana, the orphanage director of Primavera who has been in custody for 5 months, the PGN lawyers who did the investigation, nor the Notary of the adoption should be accused of collusion with the original (and somewhat controversial)entry of the child into the adoption/relinquishment process. There is NO REALITY or EVIDENCE to support the accusation of conspiracy.

But there is a great deal of EVIDENCE and REALITY to the fact that the prosecutors are persecuting Susana (probably to discredit Guatemala's most passionate and vocal adoption advocate) Perhaps those in power now, (who are claiming a transparent adoption process...but who have yet to produce the regulations that the law demanded of them, and who are accountable to the thousands of children who need families,) will never forgive Susana for her role in keeping adoptions open for the 20,000 children who joined permanent families between 2003 and 2009. But those who have their children now should NOT FORGET this sincere champion for the children, whose life is now endangered by those who are abusing their power,and the law for political purposes.

MORE TOMORROW,

Hannah Wallace

Like her or not, it is obvious that Susana is being targeted without any cause, since the child was in process before she was even involved. It is frightening that prosecution is even being considered with no evidence. What can we (adoptive parents) do to help?

Hannah,
Thank you for this update. You seem to be keeping a close watch on this as we all are. Prehaps you could tell us if you know who the original agency and attorney/facilitator for Karen Abigail was. We have yet to learn more about the very start of her process. Everything we read seems to start with the neg. DNA. It seems important to know who and how her file got to the neg. DNA point that sent this family looking for help elsewhere to complete her adoption. Just wondering if you could enlighten us?

Elizabeth

Hannah,

You have stated how many of us feel. Susana and many others are being targeted and there are children in Guatemala who now have to be without a family for even longer. My son turned three last week and because of all of this, he spent another birthday without us. What they are trying to do to Susana is wrong, but what they are doing to the children is even worse.

it continues to blow my mind that people are in custody or about to be perhaps in relation to this case, except we hear nothing of the "aunt" who appeared with anyeli in the dna photo. shouldn't SHE be in custody?

Thank you very much Hannah.

Susana, we wish you the best of luck in dealing with these trying times.

Best, Cheryl

I have the same question as mommy above.
Why is the "AUNT" not being sought after? After all she is the one who is in the neg DNA photo. They seem to be going after everyone BUT the right people here.
So confusing.....
And like Elizabeth who stated who was the original Agency/Facilitator/Attorney in this case.... Maybe they need to start there. I also feel families need to know this information.

I don't know what Attorney they used but i know of two of their facilitators Celebrate Children used and they was and are as corrupt as could be, two of the same that Faithful Adoption used.

I, too, would like to know who the original lawyer/facilitator and agency was that offered this child for adoption. If it was Marvin Bran, he worked directly with Sue Hedberg and CCI. If my memory serves me correctly, didn't Marvin Bran and CCI offer two other stolen children to prospective US parents?

Mommy hit the nail on the head. If the "aunt" has not been questioned, can they be seriously looking for Anyelli?

I have learned, or been told from someone I trust implicitly, that Celebrate Children International was the agency for the referal of Karen Abigail and, as implied in the TV coverage, Marvin Bran was the attorney.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Kevin this is very interesting, is there anyway to find out who the facilitators was?? I wonder IF it is the same ones that Faithful Adoption used as I know they was linked to CCI in 2006-2008. I know the Case worker we had, had talked with Susan on several occasions about these two facilitators after Faithful families started having issues with them.
Thank you so much for any info you can provide.

The original faciliator and attorney had something to do with how this child came into the system. Hogar Primavera and Susana Luarca did not.

The original faciliator and attorney are not in custody Yet, the hogar director of Primavera is in jail and has been denied bail.

The original faciliator and attorney are just now being publicized. Yet, hogar Primavera and Susana Luarca have been under media attack for months.

The original faciliator and attorney seem to have never been mentioned by Sobrevivientes. Yet, hogar Primavera and Susana Luarca have received many "unkind" comments and accusations.

What does that tell you? It tells me that there is serious lack of judgement going on in this "investigation". It tells me that the wrong people are being punished for . . . well, no one is really sure what happened since the truth has not been investigated!

And yes, punishment has already been dealt. It was dealt to the 16 children who were abruptly removed from their home 8 weeks ago. Their lives have been disrupted, their sense of security has been rattled, and they have been cut off from every person that they knew before August 13, 2009. It's a punishment that that will have long-standing effects for them and for (God willing that they ever make it home) those of us waiting for them.

Praying that justice and logic prevail in this situation. So far, I haven't seen either.

If in fact this case originated from CCI & Bran,then we need to question why Susana would even want to touch this case?

Attorneys,agencies etc know of each other fairly well and if not well its evident that theyve heard of each other,in much more detail than what we hear here. Theres so many things that go on behind "closed" door that we arent privy to.

I believe we can rest assured that this case was not a "clean" case to start with and Susana most likely knew this, so that when it was found out way back when that Bran had this case originally,and then Susana took it,dont you think it would make sense for officials to scrutinize Susana and her orphanage? I do!

Theres alot more to this story than we will ever know.
Remember were talking about corruption, corruption leaves no innocent trail.
I do believe this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I couldn't agree more!

I believe that Susana took the case to help a child. Anyone who knows Susana also knows that this is what she does. She loves children and she helps children. Does she profit from it? Yes. Don't we all profit from our jobs?
It is interesting how many people are so free to make assumptions about Susana when they do not even know her.
Anonymous

anywho, you have to remember that at the time of this case, CCI & Bran did not have the same reputation that they do today.

You can read the whole Karen Abigail story at:

http://susanaluarca-english.blogspot.com/

Please go to:

http://susanaluarca-english. blogspot.com/

to read more about the Karen Abigail case.

Peace,
Lizzie

What does that tell you?

I agree 100%

To whoever,

Susana had said that she was of the opinion that the mismatched DNA was because the biological mother was married and, not really understanding how DNA tests work that biological mother had persuaded the aunt to pose as the mother. Did you ever consider the possibility that Susana is telling the truth about what her thinking had been about the mismatched DNA test? Lets try and put ourselves into the situation as it was at the time that Susana was asked to take the case. Even a very jaded attorney probably wouldn't think that an aunt would kidnap her own niece. That kind of thing does not happen very often anywhere.

Also consider this, Susana had to persuade the legal authorities to do a DNA test on Lloyda and compare it back to the profile.

Lastly, assuming for the sake of argument that Susana's motive was to be up to no good (I'm not saying her motives were corrupt. I'm just saying lets assume that your accusations are correct and lets see where that takes us) what do you think Susana had to gain? Karen's APs paid Susana half of the usual adoption fee to persue Karen's adoption. I suspect that Susana did not make much money, if any, on Karen's adoption.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Anonymouus,anon,cheryl
You dont know if I know Susana or not,Bran has been around for sometime now, and should be known by his colleagues.
We are not going to get all of the information we need here on this small forum.
There is much more to this story that needs to be investigated thoroughly by the Guatemalan officials.
Look how much this story has changed in a very small amount of time here on Guatadopt.
Cheryl, as far as Susana saying what she has said here,fine,but we still dont have the other side of the story.
I can believe what she has to say about the failed DNA.
But then,what about what transpired after that?
Im asking questions just as most are doing here.

Please give me a break! I do know Susana and this is far from the first case that she handled that was questionable! She has left a trail of unhappy APs not to mention questionable cases. Let's not forget that Susana is an attorney who, by the time of the Karen Abigail case, had handle many many adoptions. One thing Susana is not is stupid! There were problems with this case before she took it over...why do you think SH from CCI told the APs she would not move forward with the case? I know for a fact that by the time of the Karen Abigail case Marvin Bran had developed a questionable reputation. I do not doubt for a minute that Susana knew Bran and knew his reputation not to mention the fact that she could easily read between the lines!

Oh Please

You are making a lot of strong acusations and assumptions, but I did not see you back any of this up with facts.

Anonymous

whoever,

I have no problem with you asking questions. I have no problem with you posting your opinions in the matter. If you get to ask questions and post opinions then I also get to ask questions and post opinions.

I also want to reiterate that I have said many times that I don't have a crystal ball. I hold my opinions loosely because new information may change my opinions.

Kindest Regards,Cheryl

A few have said that Kevin Bran had a bad reputation, Susana must have known that, and therefore, she should not have taken this case. I just want to point out, that even assuming that Kevin Bran had a bad reputation at the time Susana took the case and even assuming that Susana knew that he had a bad reputation, any legitimate court of law would never convict Susana on this basis. I'm not saying that Kevin Bran's reputation was bad at that time. I'm not saying that Susana would have known. I'm just saying assuming that those two are true, then what is the logical conclusion. In order to legitimately say that a person is guilty, someone has to prove that that person actually did something wrong. Then there is the question of what is the appropriate punishment for the particular crime that they committed?

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Anonymous & Cheryl,

Anon-I can appreciate wanting the facts. However, to provide you with proof/facts would require breaking the confidentiality of numerous APs who used Luarca or Sue Hedberg for their adoptions and I am not willing to do that. However, much of what I have stated has been published before and, in some cases, by the APs who were victimized by Susana or Sue. Here's a fact for you--why do you think CCI and Sue Hedberg never received Hague Accreditation despite numerous appeals? Answer: because of their unethical adoption practices in Guatamala which are now being scrutinized in Ethiopia!

Cheryl- all I can say is if I knew someone had an ethically questionable reputation, I would run the other way if I cared at all about my reputation. Marvin (not Kevin) Bran has been under investigation for more than a year. This is old news that has been public knowledge for sometime. I am not saying Susana is guilty but I am questioning her involvement and her motivation, which in my opinion was self-serving at best.

The truth is the summer of '06 is when Sue Hedberg started to slip. It was the clients at that point who were staying hush hush and not warning new clients not to sign.

At the time of Anyeli becoming available for adoption, Marvin/Sue were also referring out kidnapped children Maria Fernanda & Ana Cristina. Now we have three children linked to the same agency, and same facilitator. How many more are there?

Past CCI victim,

I was the mom slated to adopt Maria Fernanda, and to answer your question, I know of at least one more case between those two, of a child that did not come home when things allegedly went very wrong.

Elizabeth

To all of you that follow Susana's information.
Just one thing, she is a very smart lawyer she knows exactly how the law works in Guatemala and she has a lot of friends in the same field that will support her and colaborate with her cases. There is not only one case that involves Susana, this particular case that is in court is the only one that has a Mother looking for her kid. But many of the adoptions have been done with a missing part and they went ahead and proceed to get the children to their adoptive parents. Why? because there was money involved. How come a Attorney will continue to work in an adoption case where she already knows that the biological mom is not present? And if they went to the authorities and pretend to demonstrate that this kid has been abandoned why was not a good investigation or put the adoption on hold until the mother will appear? No, they will not do that because is all about money. In my oppinion Susana Luarca and all the responsible parties are washing her hands on the Director of the orphanage (by the way she was not a real director) According to investigations in this case in order to be a Direcotor of one of this orphanages a person needs to be registered and she was not, they could not found any evidence that she has been working accordingly to the rules of adoption-orphanages. If you would see this woman that is in "custody" she has no way to defend her self, with no money at all and Susana is not doing any thing for this poor woman that was only an employee of Primavera and Primavera has been always administrated by Susana Luarca. Why they have not get other people involved but the director? Because all other people have friends and money that will cover their backs and they don't care about any other. And because in Guatemala the people in charge of this case is the most corrupted people that you could ever imagine. It is sad, I hope something clear comes up soon.

Lucia, there is one thing I’d ask you to ponder and do so outside of this case.

If a failed DNA test comes through, what should happen? Moreso, what should happen to that child?

Obviously it should be investigated by police of some sort. An attorney has no control over that happening. But what about the child? Should the child be handed back to the facilitator? Back to the woman who posed as the child’s mother? Of course not because you’d be handing the child back to whomever was most likely “in the know” about corruption.

Now, if the person who posed as the mother was an aunt or something, it becomes a little less clear. The single most common reason why DNA tests failed was because the mother was married and her name couldn’t be used because the child wouldn’t meet the US Orphan Status to be adopted. In such an event, logically the aunt and mother should have to come clean provide proof to the relevant authorities, assuming they are trying to reclaim the child.

But my point here is this. If you were an attorney, hogar director, etc and you were faced with a child whose DNA test failed, what should you do? What should happen to that child? Do you just leave the child with no parents indefinitely? That’s not fair to the child? It makes complete logical sense that this determination would be made by the courts, just as it would be in the United States.

There is the very valid old argument that there was an inherent conflict of interests in an attorney representing both the child and the adoptive parents. But really, in the abandonment process the PAPs are almost irrelevant. The role there was to say that this child’s right to a family had been breached and thus they were available for adoption.

I guess what I am saying is that I think it is incorrect to attack an attorney, who had nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding the failed DNA test, for taking the child in and keeping things going while the courts decide whether an adoption can be done. The responsibility for the outcome there rests in the hands of the judge, not the attorney.

To say it is wrong for an attorney to try to move the case along is not fair to the child. Even UNICEF was VERY critical of the fact that if left solely to the government, it would take 6-7 years for a child under state care to be deemed adoptable. Surely we can’t suggest that any child should have to wait that long.

There is no doubt that the largest shame is that in Guatemala, if a child is reported kidnapped you don’t have the publicity, Amber Alerts, police department cross communications, etc to make the connection. If they did, as soon as a failed DNA test happened, someone should have been looking to see if this was a child reported as kidnapped. If not, then it going to the courts makes perfect sense.

Paz,
Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Lucia
You are so on target with this.

I have also thought the same thing about this woman in jail , I had this deep down feeling that that was probably the case.

Susana has always been known as the director,why not now.

Why so many changes to suit certain people and actions,this is how corruption works,its a tangled web that could take years to unravel,its taken years to create.

Kevin, I know you asked Lucia the question,but if you asked me the same,
I would have to say, that when a child is in the preliminary stage of an adoption
and the result with the DNA is neg. then the child should be placed in a "safe" home, until a full investigation has been done, not go right from a failed DNA to an abandonement proceeding.

There are still a few excellent "safe" homes for these children to go to, sure, this might not be a "family" type setting, but it makes a whole lot more sense, so that more time could be spent investigating the whole case from where it started.

Now as it is,the originals,are where? The woman is in jail because she did what? Was she told she would be bailed out soon?

The child in question is where?
Is it the child? Is it not?

The Aps, are in the torture chamber(most likely)

If in fact this is "the" child, look at the future and the present for her,better than a "safe" house? Not by a long shot.

It was all about the money and those involved thought they could get away with it just one more time.

How many times have we heard of failed DNAs ? They happenned,most paps were devastated,but, somewhere down the road they healed and brought home a child.

What would be so wrong with sponsoring the child (failed DNA)?
A "safe" home would be a lot better than no home or family.

The trail would be a whole LOT shorter,and the corruption wouldnt have gone on for so long.(in this case)

Kevin:
My point is thar when a child is in hands of one of this orphanages they will not let go the kid becuase he or she represents MONEY for them. Of course they need to put the children in a safe home until adoption can be clear but it did not happen and no one requested it before especially Primavera or any other hogar. Hopely with all the changes that have been done by the goverment people can see it in the future.
But again why Susana is not helping her employee, why nothing is done on her benefit. Probably you don't care about that but I think is because she is the only one that they could use so no one else will be implicated. Now MP and sobrevivivientes have a good case with proof that the kid that Primavera give in adoption was a kidnapped kid. Susana is going on and on with her absurd story about two different girls but I believe that she is just trying to waste time so the poor woman in jail gets all the responsability once they don't find any other evidence.

I also have to question why anyone was in such a hurry to declare this child "abandoned" or free for adoption? The process for abandonment takes quite some time, as two notices are usually put in the paper, while social workers make efforts to also contact birth parents or family. Would Susana have us believe that the child should go so quickly to abandonment and being free for adoption. That is NOT how it is supposed to work, and she would know that. Unless she has been involved in cases where paperwork was slipped through the system by other than ethical means, why would she recommend that this case move forward, with such a dubious beginning? People who truly care for children should also care for their birth family's rights and concerns, families living in poverty. While we can say it's not right for a child to have to wait many years for a family (our four waited from 4yrs to 11yrs to have a family), it is also not ethical for a child who entered the system under negative DNA and suspicious circumstances to be moved quickly through the system. At the least, those investigations should take months (often a year or more), considering the lack of transportation and communication networks in remote areas of Guatemala, social worker's reports and searches for birth family, judges rulings, etc. None of us truly knows who did and who did not have anything to do with this child's case before the negative DNA. The very sad thing about all of this is, that it's the unethical practices and big money that truly ended adoptions in Guatemala, not any treaty or PGN or any other entities but corrupt individuals in high places and those who rub shoulders and grease palms. It was the years and years of illegal payments that brought things to a grinding halt. The lies and deception in the false claim of truly caring about the children is what sentenced Guatemala's children to limbo. I know for a fact there were also honest, ethical people who were shut out and slowed down because they would not pay the expected bribes. When attorneys were completing some 20 cases a month at nearly $20,000 per case (minus a bit of payoff monies), honest attorneys were hard to come by. Keeping adoptions open was not all about the children. Sorry, but I know too much to be convinced otherwise. When attorneys halted the shut down in 2003, can we all honestly believe they were doing that strictly for the children? $20,000 times 20/month? Lucrative business, it was. Adoptive families were in the dark and at the mercy of those they trusted. I'm not accusing anyone specifically, I just know there are way too many questions for there to be easy answers. We had a good agency and worked with honest people who were often accused of slowing down their own paperwork because they didn't stoop to payoffs. Corruption effected the honest agencies, social workers, and hogars. And it kept our older children in Guatemala for years, while lawyers were placing infants at an alarming rate. Just my nickels worth, for what it's worth.

I totaly agree that there were problems with the process. My only wish is that people find Susana guilty or innocent on the basis of the facts for this case.

I'm frequently seeing posts that say she is guilty because she is an attorney with the assumption that all attorneys are corrupt, because she knows this person or that person, is in some way associated with this person or that person, she is guilty because we know of corruption in the adoption industry, or she is guilty because someone had a bad experience with her. However, that is no way to determine if someone is guilty or innocent for this particular case. The facts of this case have to be used for determining if she is innocent or guilty. And if she is guilty, then the facts of this case have to be used to determine which crime she committed. For example, she may not be guilty of kidnapping but she may be guilty of some kind of negligence.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl