Here is my best attempt at translating the 4th one for ICA pilot program. My Spanish is not very good but the Google translator is quite helpful. Feel free to correct if I got anything wrong.

I'm actualy surprised that they have gotten moving on this so quickly. I was under the impression that this would take years.

Best, Cheryl

The National Council for Adoptions (CAN) issued a report yesterday that opened the process to start a pilot scheme for international adoptions which will be promoted this year with five countries that are interested.

Rudy Zepeda, a spokesman for CAN reported that the procedure was started in late 2009, when he took the call which was answered by 10 countries, who sent letters claiming to be interested in adopting Guatemalan children.

From last November 19th to Decemeber 3rd, the institution received documents from institutions from those countries that are interested in doing adoptions.

Each country must nominate two to four adoption agencies.

Since each application must be qualify by Guatemalan standards, CNA was informed of that each agency must research and analyze families wishing to adopt in order to score them for suitability.

The agencies experience in international adoptions will also be assessed, especially in cases of children with special needs such as sibling groups or children with physical or mental deficiencies.

So far, out of the 526 children that qualify for adoption only 238 have found Guatemala families. The rest are still hoping to have a home.

Zepeda believes that the children could be adopted abroad, but stressed that Guatemalan couples should always take precedence.

The spokesman explained that one of the requirements of the pilot is that the ANC is in charge of sending the data about the children who may be placed for adoption, not like before, when foreign families provided their requirements.

Zepeda said the process is in the phase of evaluating the agencies’ applications. Next March to April, the program will be started in five countries that pass the process.

From that moment, he started working in the adoption of children who are abandoned and have not been placed in Guatemalan families.

Unfortunately, Chagas' disease (infestation of Trypanosoma cruzi, a parasitic species of a euglenoid flagellate) is not "rare," but rather widespread from Mexico southward towards Brazil. It is spread by bites of several species of Triatoma assassin bugs (Heteroptera: Reduviidae) known as kissing bugs, which are nocturnally active insects that bite people when they're sleeping; the trypanosoma parasite is passed from bug to human via the bug's feces. People are then reservoirs for the parasite, who pass the parasite to non-infected bugs during blood meals. Charming.

Brief translation for story #2:

Today Guatemala’s President Alvaro Colom announced a minimum salary increase for 2010 from Q52/$6.23 per day to Q56/$6-71 per day which translates into a monthly salary of Q1953,33/$234.21, up 7.69% for agriculture and city workers and 8.37% for maquila workers (Q1824.06/$218.71). The Canasta Básica (basic food basket) in Guatemala costs Q1917,34/$229.89. The exchange rate used is Q8.34 per 1 Dollar. Source: Prensa Libre.

2 things. #1....are they saying there are currently only 200ish children in Guatemala that are orphans in need of families? do we believe that the thousands of children needing homes before just disappeared with the cessation of international adoption? is that not weird to anyone else?

#2. should we then have our Guatemalan children tested for chagas? is this something any doctor can do?

I sent an email to the contact listed in the article (re Chagas) and she is out of the office until 1/11. I did drop the info off at the ped. office this morning to see if Ava can be tested here as we are not near Cin. I will let you know what I find out.

I did some reading about Chagas disease. I found that it appears to be treatable only in the acute phase. I found nothing about treatment during the intermediate phase, which is where most of our children would fall IF they had it. Does anyone know anything more? Is anyone considering having their child tested? I'm not sure how it would benefit them or us at this juncture.

I know the CNA has tried to do a census on the number of children in care but I don't know that they have ever come up with an accurate number. I think the number they are referring to, in the article, are the number of kids that have their certificate of adoptability. I suspect the other 1000's of children have no legal status, such as abandonment decrees or certificate of adoptability. The Guatemalan children's court is responsible for granting the adoptability of the children after exhausting all possibilities of placing the children with family members. I would imagine that if a child has been stuck in an institution for years that no family member is interested in the child. However, I have found the PGN, who will continue to remain involved in the adoptions, to pressure family members who do not want the children to take them and the family members do so out fear of retribution by the PGN.

I don't hold out a lot of hope for the kids stuck in institutions finding their way out. Someone will have to advocate for them and the CNA has already said that children 10 years and up are considered unadoptable. I don't agree with this but the longer they stay in institutionalized settings, the older they get they harder these kids will be to place.

I was sad to see the neither Canada nor the UK were on the list of countries that had applied with the CNA. I have worked on adoptions for France and Spain but never with the other countries who have applied.

The manual of standards of care for children's homes is still not finished, as far as I know, which means children's homes cannot be certified.

I am very happy to see that the CNA is moving forward and am interested to see how this will play out. The kids are the ones suffering so I hope that things get moving along quickly. For the 1000'a of kids in institutionalized care I don't hold out a lot of hope for them. Seems like the CNA isn't even counting them, which certainly says a lot.

Just to calm parents, a blood test would determine if your child was infected.

Mommy (and others) - The article is saying that the number of children that are adoptable, meaning that they are clear so they can be referred. There are more children who are in orphanages but they have not been cleared, also many of these children are not orphans, they have families and many are sent to these large orphanages by their familes to be educated, families visit them so often.

This is different than the prior notorial system when children were referred but that did not mean that they were cleared, reviewed, and adoptable. Please note that there has been a sharp drop of newborns being relinquished. Most of the children available now are older, some with special needs and sibling groups.

Keep in mind that domestic Guate families have priority, if an ICA would occur the CNA would determine which child would be matched with a family. Also please note, the US has not been approved by Guate for ICA, so just hang on until we get more info and an official announcement is made.

Mommy,
I was wondering the exact same thing... how did it go from Thousands to a few hundred? I am wondering what I missed.

I called my pediatrician and her nurse practitioner said that my daughter was tested for every known paraiste. She mentioned two tests: a full OMP and a full Heliocop. ***I hope I got those names of the tests correct*** Samples of feces are used for these tests. My pediatrician orders these tests.

Are there any medical professionals reading this to confirm that I got the names of the tests correct and that they are comprehensive?

*sigh* my daughter had negative results for everything.

Best, Cheryl

As others have mentioned, I am very concerned about the sequelae of having our kiddoes tested for Chagas. It does not appear to be treatable after the acute phase. Screening for diseases that cannot be treated is a big no-no, for a lot of reasons.

One logistical consequence that came to mind immediately is insurability. If our kids tested positive, I wonder about whether they would be able to obtain health insurance as adults. I very much would like to support this research, but frankly my number one priority is my child. Before enrolling, I would consider:

1. What you will do if your child has been infected

2. How you (and your child) will cope emotionally with the knowledge of infection

3. What the potential future harms to the child are

In short it seems that this study may contribute to the knowledge of the epidemiology of Chagas, but it may not help the individual, and in fact, it may harm them.

El
AP

It looks like Chagas disease could result in heart problems. Even if after the acute phase there was no way to successfully treat the actual disease, it would be beneficial to know if our children have been infected so that their physicians can keep a closer eye on their hearts on an ongoing basis. My guess is that heart complications (resulting for Chagas)that may appear later in life could be treated in some way, increasing your child's chances of living a long and healthy life. Not knowing may make us feel better in the short term, but may put our children at greater risk in the long term.

I had Bug participate in the study that Cincinnati Children's is doing. It has been almost a year now- so please forgive me if I have this wrong.
One of the things being tested in the sensitivity for the blodd test. Participating in the study is not something that is tagged to your child's medical reacord- the child's identifiying information (name, age, Social security #) are not part of the tube of blood sent to the lab- your child will be assigned a "blinded" patient number- this is how the aggregate results will be reported. Bu as part of the consent, you are asked to acknowledge that identifying information is held seperately and can be reviewed by the hospital ethics committe or government auditors.
You as the parent will recieve the results- but it may take as much as 6 months as the tubes of blood are sent in batches to the lab.

There is a large consent document that you will have to read first and then sign, you are provided time to ask questions, etc.

This study is conducted exactly the same way as studies being done to determine new medicines and medical devices. It is governed by an ethics committe. You can request the Informed Consent document before you go to the office, but typically Informed consent documents are read to you and review with you with the doctor or reasearch assistnat so that you can ask questions immediately.

Many thanks,
Deb

I could be wrong, but it seems I read somewhere that in 2006, 95% or so of the children moved from Guatemala via ICA were under 3. Less that 1/2% were over 10. The children who are now over 10 years old were there in those homes in 2006. I appreciate words of concern for those children, but did not see actions that reflect those words when there was an opportunity.

It is really important to separate the business of supplying children to couples that was adoptions in Guatemala prior to 1/1/08 from the present attempt by the government to deal with children in need. That sounds harsh, I know, but that really is the answer to the questions regarding the numbers of children being talked about in ICA dropping from 1000's to 100's.

Anecdotal only: I have witnessed something that just wasn't happening prior to 2008. In two instances in my home, where the mother did not want the child, the birth fathers have come forward, and stayed with the process to regain their rights to their children. I cannot prove it, but am as certain as I was when I said 2 years ago that the DNA screening was regularly circumscribed, that these fathers would have never found their child under the notarial system.

I have yet to see this list of countries who applied. Does anyone know who they are? Please post if you do. Thanks

It is really important to separate the business of supplying children to couples that was adoptions in Guatemala prior to 1/1/08 from the present attempt by the government to deal with children in need. That sounds harsh, I know, but that really is the answer to the questions regarding the numbers of children being talked about in ICA dropping from 1000's to 100's.
*****************************
my only problem with this is, i find it hard to believe there are not ALSO younger children in need of homes but that Guatemala is choosing to focus on the older ones. which is good, don't get me wrong, but the longer you ignore the younger ones, the more they will become older ones. i have adopted 2 older children, it is difficult and is not for everyone. so i just wonder if when they say "hundreds" they are not getting that number by ignoring littler ones. not arguing, just curious really.

I read an article the other day at the doctor's office. The author used the term "optimistic stoicism" and referred to the philosopher Marcus Aurelius. The article quoted Aurelius as saying, "In life, particular public life, we are not to 'go expecting Plato's REpublic,' but to work, he advises, 'in a principled way, with diligence, energy and patience....If you can embrace this [work] without fear or expectation--can find fulfillment in what you're doing now, as Nature intended, and in superhuman truthfulness (every word, every utterance)-- then your life will be happy." It also said, "The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good." "As Marcus Aurelius would understand, a never-ending war is not a war we should not fight: it is just a war that never ends. The sooner we accept this, the better."

Although this author was referring to terrorism, I couldn't help but apply these principles to international adoption. No process is going to be perfect. We should never be complacent and think "ah, now we have found the perfect process and we can relax because there are criminals out there that will be looking for weaknesses in the process." But the cause of continually trying to have ethical international adoptions is a never ending fight that is worth fighting. WE shouldn't abandon this fight just because we will never have perfection.

My thoughts also turned to Normal Cruz's statement that she was opposed to starting international adoptions again. No matter what course we choose, there will be consequences. Choosing to not allow international adoptions also has consequences. The children that languish in institutions are not going to be thanking her for her position.

Too bad they don't let children over 10 be adopted. I have heard some wonderful accounts of families that have adopted older children.

Kindest REgards, Cheryl

Thanks for the insight Deb. Again, my concern is with insurability. If our kids are asked on a questionnaire to list things they've been diagnosed with, and they've found out they have Chagas, they have to list it. Or, of course, they could lie.

But, if as Holli says, the benefit to the child would be greater monitoring for heart disease, then your child's doctor has to be informed. If one lies on an insurance form and the company finds out that Chagas has been documented, there is big trouble ahead.

It's just food for thought. And Holli, while I understand where you are coming from, there are a lot of people out there who would NOT want to know that they have a parasite which may or may not result in an untreatable, chronic, progressive disease that manifests itself in adulthood. It's my child's choice, and when he turns 18 he is welcome to be tested.

Ellie
AP

I really miss the forums. Will they be able to be restored?
Thanks for all your work!

Nancy M:
Ten countries applied and five will be selected, according to the CNA:
United States
Italy
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
Switzerland
Austria
France
Israel
Norway
I was surprised to see Canada and the UK not applying.

Mommy; You may have mixed my two messages.

1) The older children were in the homes when ICA was wide open in adoptions. They were not adopted then. ICA did not help them.

2) now there are 100's, not 1000's of babies who are eligible for adoption. The C N A has been processing adoptions and is monitoring the new arrivals; the newborns being abandoned. The numbers do include all of the little ones needing families. There simply are not the numbers one would expect if the assumption is that ICA in Guatemala was a response to the needs of children for families.

Nancy,

You had said that biological relatives were being pressured to take children and they were doing this out of fear. In your opinion, what is the motivation for the government pressuring biological relatives to take a child that they don't want to take?

Best, Cheryl

thanks steve. that clears things up for me!

That is incredible about the Rose Parade. I marched in the Rose Parade in 1987 and believe me it was one of the highlights of my childhood. It takes HARD WORK to get there. Amazing story. I wish I would have seen them on TV, but with a 3 year old, watching an entire anything is near impossible.

Cheryl, in some of the Semillas de Amor cases and in cases that are not ours we have had reliable information that relatives of children, aunts, uncles, grandparents, have been pressured by the PGN to disrupt the adoption and take the child into their care. I have spoken some of these families and they have been threatened by the PGN that if they do not take the child then legal action will be taken. The PGN cannot take legal action against a family member because they cannot care for a child that is not theirs. But these are poor people, many don't read or write, they cannot hire a lawyer and they fear the legal system. I have seen the PGN pressure families and I have first hand information they do this so if anyone out there doesn't believe me that is certainly your choice.

Cheryl, I do believe in some of these cases that the PGN is trying to justify why they took children either away from foster mothers or children's homes during the PGN interviews. The PGN is not looking at the well being of the child but want to make sure they can convince the court, the MP, the CNA that a family member wanted the child even though they didn't. Another very sad piece of this is that I have no doubt that UNICEF has a percentage of children they would like to report as on the way to be adopted but a biological family member really wanted the child. Needless to say that pressuring a family member to take in a child they cannot care for does not fair well for that child's future. I hope this answers your question. Nancy

Steve: I would like to see some statistics from the CNA census on the ages of children now being cared for by both private and government institutions. It will be interesting to see the age spread. The 95% of children, under the age of 3 in 2006 that you mention, were LEGALLY ADOPTED in Guatemala and were not MOVED from Guatemala. There is a difference, as you know. I don't know about the 1/2% of older children being adopted being accurate. We had a large number of children being adopted that were over the age of 6 and some as old as 14. I believe part of the problem with older kids being adopted is that often nobody had advocated for their adoptability (which should change with the CNA). It is a long, aggravating and costly process so the older kids have been stuck in the system. I know first hand because many of our older kids had to go through abandonment and those cases could take years to resolve just for a child to be adopted. Babies, on the other hand, newborns with a birth mother and paperwork certainly was an easier process and needless to say that most families wanted to adopt infants. However, I worked with many families that wanted to adopt "older" kids, kids with special needs and they still do.

Cheryl: I don't believe that the CNA will deny a child 10 and over an adoption. I think they just don't believe adoptive families want them. I am eager to see how long it takes for the CNA to resolve, with the children's court, a child's adoptability. I can see where they would want to focus on the older kids to get them a family and the help they are going to need. However, those babies and toddlers are going to be in a similar situation in a few years. I am working very hard at getting our 15 kids, regardless of age, adoptable so once international adoptions open, we can find families for our kids. We have a couple of two year olds but mostly 5-11 year olds.

Steve,
1) I was not aware of the orphanages until after we began our process. Crappy PR ratings on their behalf.
2) Once I became aware of them I also became aware of rumors abandoned children or children in state run orphanages had slim to no chances of ever being adopted which was substantiated by Arellano stating in the Guatemalan press that no child would be issued a decree of abandonment on her watch. So, why WOULD anyone attempt this? Honestly? First you'd have to know about it which is some state secret THEN you'd have to get through people who flat out state they will do everything they can to stop you. I knew about other countries orphanages. Not Guatemalas. Nothing on our state dept website either and they had stuff on other countries.
3) Dont get me started on age.

Kindest regards
Lisa

Lisa, not all of the orphanages that warehouse children in Guatemala are run by the government. There are many private orphanages that have large numbers of children. Many of these places did not and still do not believe in adoption. The other difficulty is that most, if not all, of the kids were placed by the PGN or the children's court. Kids were abandoned, left with family that did not want them or taken out of dangerous situations and since there was no birth mother the kids basically had no legal status and most without any identification or birth certificate. In order to free those kids for adoption someone in the children's home would have had to initiate the abandonment process. As I mentioned before, this is a long drawn out and expensive process. So these kids, these beautiful children were just left behind. It is heartbreaking. And you are correct, Lisa, in that there was little information about older kids being available for adoption. But the truth is that the "older" kids were not available because they lacked any legal status or identification. Nancy

As I read these posts, hear about the current status of Guat 900 and the future of adoptions - I am so upset that I am literally on the verge of tears. I feel helpless. I want to help the families stuck, I want the children of Guat to have a chance of a solid future and I would love the opportunity to adopt again from Guat. I have been researching for almost a year for a second adoption and found some possibilities but my heart will not allow me to pull the trigger and sign with an agency. I just feel that we need to hold out for Guat - so am I crazy? I know everyone has an opinion on the future of Guat adoptions some say it will happen - which is what my heart is saying others say it won't happen at least for several years. So for us we are trying to decide (in our early 40's) - do we hold onto what our hearts are telling us or should we let our head make the decision? I can tell you that it took me 3 years to decide on an agency and a country before deciding on Guat. I found plenty of viable options in those three years but my heart just wasn't telling me it was the right choice. My heart told me Guat was the right choice - even with the threat that we might not finish the adoption. thankfully we did and I know with all of my soul our guat princess was meant to be with us. So in summary again my heart is telling me hold out - my biggest wish is to adopt one of the many children who were born after the shutdown and would be a little older now - those that were not given the chance and now spend their days wondering if they will ever have a family- I could be that family!!! Or do I really need to come to the realization that my head is right and move on (but never forget as I do send contributions to Guat when I can)What to do???? Thanks for letting me vent.

Stephanie,

You can go to youtube and see the marching band in the Rose Bowl Parade.

Lilian

The CDC does recommend anti-parsitic treatment for all stages of Chagas in children:
I found this on the CDC site

"Treatment
Treatment for Chagas disease is recommended for all people diagnosed with an acute infection, congenital infection, and for those with suppressed immune systems, and for all children with chronic infection. Adults with chronic infection may also benefit from treatment.

For cardiac or gastrointestinal problems resulting from Chagas disease, symptomatic treatment may be helpful. Patients should consult with their primary health care provider. Some patients may be referred to a specialist, such as a cardiologist, gastroenterologist, or infectious disease specialist.

In the U.S., medication for Chagas is available only through CDC. Your health care provider can talk with CDC staff about whether and how you should be treated. "

Nancy,

Thanks for your response and I do believe you. I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Let me try and ask my question again in a different way. Hum... at present, I don't information about what is motivating DNA to pressure bio families to take a child they don't want. You had mentioned UNICEF. But there is still some missing link. An example of a motivation would be getting money from Unicef if they provide statistics indicating that a certain number of bio families said they wanted a child that had been previously relinquished. I'm not saying that is the motivtion, but I'm giving an example so you understand what I'm asking. There is some missing information here. Hope I'm being clear.

Too bad people can't just do whats right for the kids.

Best, Cheryl

Your are right, Nancy, in that the process for abandonment and then adoption is very difficult. But do you understand that the process became hard because of the tactic employed early on, of declaring a child abandoned, when in actuality, it had a family that was looking for it. Unfortunately, the state's response to those who do wrong things, is to make the process difficult for everyone. Then those who do wrong simply figure out a new way to beat the system, but those who try to be legal, suffer.

I would like to see C N A's statistics, too. But maybe you could help us. What are the statistics, for, say, your home, from 2000 to 2006? What percentages? Those percentages I remember were from a source like WHO or other data gatherers. You speak of children 14 years old being adopted. That is good...are you saying that was 50% of the adoptions you facilitated?

I am not sure you answered Cheryl's question, and so want to re-ask: or ask you to clarify. Do you really mean to say that PGN had a vendetta that help no purpose other than to disrupt adoptions? That doesn't make sense. Apathetic or corrupt officials going out of their way to stop a process just doesn't happen.

On the other hand, if they were afraid, because the press was exposing the number of false cases proven to get through their offices, ( with rumors of a standard $1,000 mordita rampant) and Norma Cruz was actually pursuing prosecution against PGN officials who had been implicated in corrupt adoption cases, they just might be looking to not look anything like a guilty party. Unfortunately, this meant leaning heavily in the direction of family reunification, because No one, ( except an adoption profiteer and those who swallow that line, hook, line, and sinker) would accuse them of being corrupt by moving in that direction.

I do not put you, Nancy, in the category of profiteer. It is clear it is your life. But many people with very good motives have allowed the wolves full access to their sheepskin. We believe the people who advertise. And so now we are looking for who to blame...hint... it is not the ineffective, fearful bureaucrats who ultimately are to blame. They simply react.

Steve, I didnt see where Nancy indicated she ran an orphanage. I saw her as a sister pissed off AP. Perhaps I missed something.

Lisa

Perhaps PGN is pressuring families to take children they don't want to take so that anti-adoption folks can cite how few children are available for adoption...how much the numbers of children adoptable have dropped...what a "success" things are now. In a word (or 2 really): PR

Steve: My first trip to Guatemala was 20 years ago. I spent 6 months of the year in Guatemala for about two years and then decided to move to Guatemala for one year. I will celebrate my 16th year living in Guatemala February 14th. Basically, I think it is important for you to know that I have been in Guatemala a long time and I have worked with kids all of that time. My first work with children was at an orphanage operated by nuns. These kids ranged in age from newborn to about 12 years old. All of these kids were sent by the courts. After spending a few years at the home these kids were sent on to other homes, no notice, no preparation. All of these kids were either abandoned or taken from their parents. Even 20 years ago abandonment decrees were difficult to get and that is way before all the talk about corruption. I don't know if you have gone through the abandonment process but it is grueling. The older the child, the more work trying to track down family. And as you know most Guatemalan government workers are pretty slow at their jobs. I don't think the difficulty of abandonments happened in the last few years but it is has always been time consuming, expensive and very stressful on the child and the children's home.

Of course 50% of our adoptions were not kids 14 and over. That would and is impossible. First, in all special needs cases, older children our adoption fees were reduced significantly, if not free. As a children's home with children being adopted and some not we depended on adoption fees to work through abandonments, take children from the courts and take on special needs cases. Of course that money has gone away and we now depend on private donations. Secondly, there aren't that many families that want to adopt 14 year olds. And personally, I don't recommend that a family that wants to adopt necessarily take "older" children. Kids raised in institutions very often come with lots of ugly emotional baggage and many parents are not prepared to deal with the magnitude of the problems. Older kids 4 and up are really my preference to work with and will request that age group from the CNA. I am not sure if you have ever had a chance to visit Mi Hogar in Antigua? This "home" is run by the Bienstar Social and is a hell hole for young and teen girls. This place is criminal. I doubt that there are any families looking for those 200 plus girls because if they were why would they have them? The truth is that the families do not want them.

Fortunately, the children's court judge that presides over our jurisdiction has resigned. This judge has been in her job 12 years and has done incredible damage to children and she was allowed to do so no matter how many complaints were filed against her. I have no faith in the Guatemala legal system to protect the children.

To answer Cheryl's question and hopefully to be a bit more clear about the PGN disrupting adoptions, I am not 100% clear what their intentions are. Other than the ministerio publico I have never dealt with such a corrupt group of people as the PGN. Stupid people with a lot of power and those people are scary when they have the lives and futures of children in their hands. I don't know what the PGN's "marching orders" have been from the powers that be but I have seen, I have been in the court room, when the PGN has pressured extended family members to take children that they do not want and that the court has deemed unfit to care for the child. Do I think it is something sinister? Probably not. Does the PGN care about these kids? Absolutely not. Someone, somewhere is trying to disrupt adoptions and I don't know why. Steve, this is more than the PGN not wanting to look guilty or to get into trouble. This is something more. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there truly is something bigger that we don't know about going on. It is more than fearful, ignorant bureaucrats but appears to go much higher. I wish I knew.

Nancy,

Thank you very much for sharing your invaluable insight and experiences. I have the utmost respect for your lifes work. I wish I had the energy to do what you do.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Just a gentle reminder, we do ask that those associated with agencies or orphanages, do identify themselves. Maybe some of the newbies are not familiar with the regular names. Thanks!

Lisa- Nancy Bailey is the owner and director of Semillas de Amor and Parramos.

I am sure she has mentioned that in many of her entries over time.

Guat Team

I don’t believe it is relevant what % of kids being adopted were of any age range. I think the real question is whether or not folks like Nancy ever found themselves unable to place older kids. From everything I know, it sometimes took a bit longer but was never a huge problem. And a bit longer is a bit longer than no time flat.
I once did an interview with a newspaper out of Xela. The reporter had also been talking to UNICEF who was telling them about people could adopt judicially to find homes for the children who really needed them. I told this reporter to ask the UNICEF person how an American would go about doing a judicial adoption, through the state, of a child under state custody, without the referral coming from a private attorney. I challenged them to get me that info and that I would post it, promote it, and do everything in my power to have these adoptions occur. I explained that no one would rather pay tens of thousands of dollars if it wasn’t necessary - we’d rather have a jump start on the college fund.
Long story short, the reporter asked the UNICEF person for this info, they couldn’t provide it, and it was largely left out of the story. Point being that while it was always hypothetically possible, it was pragmatically not possible.
I also believe that it is fundamentally wrong to create an environment where adoptive parents are made to feel guilty for their desire to raise a child from infancy. Those of us who adopt for non-humanitarian reasons have nothing to be ashamed of. And our desires and adoption should not in any way be confused with condoning children being conceived for adoption, birthmothers being coerced, etc.
Back to the point. Agencies were able to place older children while the infant adoptions were predominant. If more older kids were adoptable, more of them would have found families. I think this debate confuses two very different issues – the problems with how infants entered the system AND the government’s ineptitude in clearing the legality of children under its custody.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Nancy;
Can you clear up the mixed message? You said first: "the CNA has already said that children 10 years and up are considered unadoptable. I don't agree with this"

Then, :
"I don't recommend that a family that wants to adopt necessarily take "older" children."

And then:

"I believe part of the problem with older kids being adopted is that often nobody had advocated for their adoptability (which should change with the CNA)."

So, if you weren't recommending older children, who would have been advocating? You have the experience, and have stated here how much you hate the idea of the children growing old in orphanages.

20 years of experience is impressive. Where was I 20 years ago? Oh yeah, in Africa, building a hospital on the border of Uganda and the Congo. After that, I spent a few years helping establish a women's shelter in Chicago. So I didn't arrive in Guatemala till 1997. Where I immediately started working with Judges, and abandoned children.

My point in bringing that up is that I have dealt with beaurocrats in other places before coming to Guatemala. Maybe that is why I don't share your read on the PGN motives. They are human everywhere.

I didn't find them stupid. I found them to have the same motives as those I met in Africa, and Chicago. Yes, they demand respect, and when it is not offered, will be incredibly obstinate. And they want their butts covered.

You have to ascribe some unknown sinister motive, because the simple forthright one, that they are humans who want to keep their jobs, and are susceptible to bribes doesn't match the blame some would like to throw their way.

I have been in situations, where the birth mom was being pressured by the family to give the child up...and in many, a financial arrangement had been made with the parents of the birth mom. In one case, the baby was spirited away in the middle of the night from the National Hospital, because the NGO that was going to help the Mother and child was coming the next day. The child was delivered to a children's home by the step father...who many involved think had impregnated the girl.** If I was responsible in the PGN, with the allegations of fraud flying, I would want to be very certain that there was not pressure in that direction. When they did private interviews of young women, that is when people like Susana Luarca cried foul, and stormed the castle. What was she afraid of? Stupid PGN workers? or the truth?

As for Abandonment; I have been aware of or have participated in the process of about maybe 50 in the last 13 years. You are right. They take a lot longer than relinquishment. Especially with the Chimaltenango judge, who told me once that her main motive in determining cases was to stay out of the paper.

Have you asked for Susana's help in these cases? She has said to many clients that were in process, and the BM disappeared, that she could have an abandonment decree in a matter of months.

** This is an example of why I believe in adoption. That young girl was not capable of raising that child. But the child was whisked away because of a financial arrangement. These arrangements have muddied the waters where we who want to help try to operate. You need to distinguish between profiteers, and those who are trying to help. Hard to tell the difference, because the profiteers, when engaged in an activity that has Charity written all over it, do everything they can to hide that difference.

Steve:

The CNA has told me that they consider children 10 and over unadoptable. However, my experience is that there are many families willing and happy to adopt older children. These families are aware of the challenges ahead of them and most are prepared. Most know that loving is not going to cure all their suffering and that building a relationship will take time. On the other hand, if a family wants to adopt a child that does not come with so much upfront suffering or they want an infant I would never recommend they adopt an older child. People adopt for many reasons and I am not going to place any judgement on why and who families adopt. But I do know there are families in the US who would happily adopt older children. My message is not mixed. There are lots of kids but fewer families available for older kids. It takes time to find those families. I would only be cautious about making sure families are well prepared as are the children we are placing with the families.

I certainly have advocated for many, many children through the abandonment process. Cases that took five+ years to free a child. Every child that has come into our care and was not relinquished was advocated for in abandonment no matter how long those cases took. However, I don't believe that all children's homes do advocate for the kids. I think many feel that having a roof over one's head and food is enough. It isn't enough for me, I believe that kids need families and not institutions no matter how well they are run. No matter how you dress up an institution it is still just that.

The work you have done is impressive and I have no doubt that bureaucrats are similar in many areas but each country has their own culture and way of doing things. And I do believe that there is more going on with PGN not allowing kids in process to continue their adoptions, kids with US visas to go home. Maybe it is sinister but it is more than some bureaucrat covering his/her personal butt. Perhaps it has something to do with UNICEF, perhaps the Norma Cruz and possibly kidnapped kids that are in the US now. I would like to believe it has all to do with incompetence but I doubt it.

In the case you describe of a young girl possibly being impregnated by her step father, I would assume this type of case would be referred over to the MP and charges placed against the step father. I would want the child and birth mom placed in a safe place until a resolution was made but I would not want a child living in an institution while bureaucrats cover their butts while a child's future hangs in limbo.

Your comment about the PGN interviewing these women privately is scary. I assume you sat in on the PGN interviews a few years ago with the birth moms? Those mothers were treated like garbage. Most of the birth moms were terrified. There were times it took everything in me not to cry at how these women were treated. In our court case I have had one birth mom who has been interviewed 16 times! She has been interviewed when I have not been there, when I have been there and she has had the PGN show up at her house, in a tiny village, and threaten her to take the child back. In the meantime all her neighbors were paying close attention. This woman had a new baby that she was unable to care for. She was afraid if she put the baby in a children's home that she would continue to get hassled. So she didn't even though I begged her to bring the baby to us to at least get fed. The baby died when he was 10 months old from malnutrition. That never needed to happen. That I blame on the PGN.

I would have no reason to ask fro Susana Luarca's help in any case. We have our own children's home lawyer. However, we had a few abandonment cases heard in Escuintla, when we recused the Chimaltenango judge from the cases, and I found the judge in Escuintla to be professional and very caring and NEVER did this man ever ask for money or anything from us. The case proceeded as a normal abandonment and we went to hearings and did what we always do. The only difference was with the Escuintla judge he was not worried about his "back" as the judge in Chimaltenango was. He cared about the kids.

I don't want to get into the Susana Luarca thing. I don't know enough about the situation or about Susana to comment.

I assume all those children's homes that were engaged in charity work fraudulently have now closed and I am sure there are many that did good work that had to close as well. We depended on adoption fees to operate our home and have had to work extremely hard to keep our place open. But the kids are the priority and we will keep moving forward with their best interests as the priority.

I don't know if I answered all your points or went off into my own direction but I just need to say that I have seen horrible abuses by the Guatemalan legal system. I don't have any faith or trust in the PGN and have met only a very few judges in the children's court system that seemed to really care about the kids. Maybe things will be better with the CNA or maybe not. Only time will tell.

Thank you Cheryl for your kind words. As tough as this work can be, as heartbreaking as it can be my life has been enriched in so many ways. I have had to be stronger than I ever imagined possible, and love more fiercely than I ever thought I had in me and in return I have been loved and adored by some of the most wonderful children anyone could have the good fortune to meet.

Kevin, you make good points, but it still is best explained by the profit motive paradigm. Not the receiving parents. I think you explain their position well.

Nancy has reflected here what is said versus what is done. She blames the government by citing the older children who did not have the opportunity to be adopted. That is hard to substantiate, unless one puts a sinister Evil Empire moniker on the Government. Oh yes, stupid and sinister.

But if you recognize it as the situation being controlled by people who, as Nancy stated, were motivated one way or another by the money they could make in adoptions, it makes sense.

Many people want babies. Relinquishments avoid government interaction. People will pay more for a quick infant adoption. You deny human nature to expect people motivated by profit to not have a 95% infant adoption rate.

I know for a fact that the Chimaltenango judge would make deals with the homes... they had to take one hard to place child for every infant she sent their way. She did this, because those homes would not take those children otherwise. Advocate? Who was doing something for the sake of the hard to place child willingly, and who was being forced to do it, then trying to make the best out of it, and say they older and hard to place children in their program?

Steve: I don't have the time nor energy to argue with you. We see things differently and that is fine but I don't want to spend time picking over points when we clearly disagree on some. The most important issues are the kids and their care. I wish you the best in your work and hope to see you at some point. We welcome a visit from you when you have the time. Nancy

STeve,

I would have adopted an older child if I could have found an avenue to adopt one that was in reasonably good shape. I talked with "experts" here and they did not know the avenues to enable me to do that and they were extremely fearful of adopting an older child. If policy makers want people to adopt older children, then they have to make sure that people who are interested can get information on how to do that. They should provide information to the psychologists and the pediatricians that are advising PAPs. Talk to adoption agencies and find out who are considered the "experts" who are advising PAPS. I think there are a lot of peole who want to adopt older children. In my international adoption class, which was required by my home study agency, out of about 8 people who were adopting, one wanted to adopt a 10 year old and I wanted to adopt a 2-4 year old. That is 2 out of 8 is 25 percent of those attending that class. Now if we weren't successful in doing what we set out orignally to do, who is to blame? Remember, a lot of PAPs are pushing 50 or are even over 50. An older child makes sense provided that its emotional and physical condition is within the range of our ability to handle.

One other thing. I talked about my desire to adopt an older child with a woman who adopted a 2 year old. She told me point blank that the process of adopting an older child takes much longer and is more likely to fall through because there is so much history to go over.

The obstacles to adopting older children need to be addressed. It is too easy to keep saying "Oh those people just want infants" because it removes responsibility from those who are in a position to remove the obstacles.

And I agree with Kevin. Shaming those who want to adopt infants isn't the way to increase the numbers of older children that are adopted.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Nancy...lousy timing...my comment was written when Kevin's was the last comment...but did not print till after your last comment. You are right, I disagree with you on a number of things, like the PGN or Norma Cruz were responsible for stolen babies ending up in the U.S.

Cheryl; The difference is not age...but abandonment. Abandonment at any age normally took a lot more time than a relinquishment case. People focused on bottom lines would naturally focus on the quicker, and more controlled process. Do you understand who were the ones focused on $? Not the paps...they were willing to give what it took, focusing on the child more than on the money, and those others knew that.

If you mean by "Policy Makers" the government agencies, the problem is they were practically non existent until the C N A started. Therefore, in the past, the only "experts" who were there to counsel you and advocate for the children were the adoption agencies. I am aware of many who spent a lot of money making a very convincing website, and the ones I saw did not advocate the adoption of older children. I am not blaming the adoptive parents, only saying they were deceived by these types of powerful tactics.

This also brings up the continuing tension between the charitable part of adoptions, and the desire of barren parents to raise a child. The desire to have a child is normal, and natural. Nothing sinister about it. But as Kevin has said time and again, it is not charitably motivated. The need of a disenfranchised child, on the other hand, is the focus of charitable organizations and policies. I humbly submit, based on numerous discussions behind the scenes with adoption agencies, that the money was in the hands of the childless couples, and the agencies followed the money, and focused more on meeting the desires of the parents than the needs of the children. This opened the can of worms that became International Adoptions in Guatemala. The activities of infant procurement actually hindered the attempts to advocate for the older children.

I say it again, because it seems to not have been heard. The judge in Chimaltenango advocated for the children with various homes, by forcing them to take a child harder to place, for every healthy infant she gave them. The saintly judge in Esquintla is now under indictment, I believe.

Now, there are clearly polarized positions: the government agencies and the majority of judges, who fear that adoptions in Guatemala might have been corrupt in the majority of cases, and do not trust the agencies or lawyers. On the other side are the couple of judges, and the agencies and lawyers, who call the government agencies sinister and incompetent. Needless to say, there will not be much collaboration between those two camps.

There are several conversations worthy of their own thread in here.

One I think comes up but not discussed is selfishness.

I think theres a disconnect between the "adoption used to be noble" and the current adoption camp. Its politically correct in adoption circles to say the act was selfish desire for family. It is NOT politically correct to indicate any act of charity or humanitarian benefits. People from the "noble" era should be aware of this but I don't think they are or don't understand it. I don't know when this change in talk came about but if you read adult adoptee accounts from when "adoption was good" there is much anger at feeling they were charity cases. They just wanted to be loved and wanted for them. So much for the good era. Which IMO turned into "we did it for selfish reasons" to send a message of "we did it for you" which may or may not help the kids we'll see in 20 years. Then people from the prior camp saw the change as something bad.

So I can be a pariah of both communities new and old. I believe it is both. Adoption has humanitarian reasons but humanitarian reasons are not *THE* reason to adopt. To state the obvious.. you must want to love and raise a child THEN comes the question of how your family is created. And how your family is created can have humanitarian effects.

As far as selfishness it can be philosophically debated all acts are selfish because there is some personal gain for the doer whether it be good feelings, etc.

Anyway from an AP that believes more adoption less procreation to a "selfish" AP... I support you 100%. I am also "selfish", we all are, I just don't like this label. I don't see why the answer can't be both. I understand why you are using the word even though I think there is a problem in the world in general where some don't. Perhaps it is an education opportunity. Perhaps a new word other than selfishness is needed. How bout we did it for love?

My thoughts only. I could be way off. Paz.

Steve,
FYI, many APs and PAPs are not "barren" nor "childless". There are many reasons people adopt and being "barren" (hell of a choice of words, btw) is only one of them. Must be nice to have such a rock-solid understanding of everyone and their motivations. Would be nicer if it was more reality-based.

Steve: I disagree that we cannot have cooperation if we have differing opinions. To disagree with a judge or a legal decision is not a bad thing. That is why the law is there. If we disagree with a judge then we appeal. I have found that there is often a lot to be learned in differing view points. I don't believe that polarized opinions are a good thing and I do think there needs to be room for everyone's view points. When the CNA had their focus groups on quality of care a few months ago there were huge differing view points and I believe that was a very good thing for us to talk through. At the end of the day the CNA had a long, long list of quality of care issues, concerns and standards. All of this was done in a room full of people who did not necessarily agree, who came from a number of different children's homes and we were working with the CNA. I was impressed with the homes and the CNA as well as the consultant they hired to facilitate the group.

I don't know if the judge in Escuintla is saintly or not. I don't know him personally, just through a few cases that were transferred there. I just know that he was not fearful like the Chimaltenango judge which made the legal process move a long, although those abandonments still took at least two years but did not take five years.

Did I say that Norma Cruz was responsible for the stolen babies ending up in the United States? If I did, that was never my intention because I do not believe that. However, I do believe that the Guatemalan government is more than likely using the children, who were "stolen", and in the States as a reason not to finish the adoption cases under the agreed upon grandfather clause. No DNA on these three kids then the hundreds of kids in process or with US visas aren't leaving the country.

However, Steve, I do agree partially on one issue. When I began working in adoptions there were not a lot of families adopting, birth mothers truly had made an adoption plan and could not care for their child. But at some point that began to change. I saw adoption agencies being created because Guatemala was profitable. I saw some families, not most, get very ugly about the age or look of the child they wanted or that their case was not moving as quickly as another family's. I saw birth mothers demand money or take their child to someone who would pay them. I believe this started when some adoption facilitators came to Guatemala and saw it as a place to make money fast. However, there were still very good adoption agencies that I worked with that found families for whatever age child we had or whatever health issue the child might have. We also worked with wonderful families that were thrilled with their children and did not see the adoption process as a "horse race". We placed numerous HIV+ kids with families in the US. So yes, there were some greedy people that I feel were responsible for closing adoptions in Guatemala but there were also some excellent adoption agencies that were committed to the kids here no matter what their age or health. Again, I don't think it is a black or white issue. For example, when birth mothers relinquished a child they brought the child to our children's home, we showed them around the home, gave them our phone numbers to call if they had questions or just to see how the child was, birth mothers were always welcome to visit, we also videotaped the interview with the birth mother and at the end of the adoption the birth mother had the right to meet the adoptive family. The majority of birth mothers met the adopting family. This is something that most families videotaped and photographed for their child to view later in life. And many families kept in contact with the birth mom.

I expect, even with differing opinions, that adoptions with the CNA will be better. Everyone I have met in the CNA has been responsive and caring. I think the CNA has a tough job ahead of them because they are working within a very difficult and dysfunctional legal system. However, the people I have worked with in the CNA seem up to the challenge. We just eagerly await the news of what countries have been selected for the pilot program and what the new requirements will be.

Good point(s) Lisa!

I don't agree with but understand the feelings of the adult adoptees you cite. It feels weird to be the beneficiary of a charitable act, but that was a portion of the motive, and that was NOT a bad thing.

Then, you mentioned adopting instead of bringing yet another child into the world. Sort of the green motive. Fine!

I really do agree with and appreciate your points, but feel you missed the main point I keep shouting here. Like you said:
" ... And how your family is created can have humanitarian effects. "

My point is, if your choices have humanitarian effects, well then, cool!

But, as what happened in Guatemala, when how you chose to create your family played into the abuse, coercion and manipulation of poor Guatemalan women, there is a problem.

Lisa and Steve,

Very good point that things are not always A OR B but can be A AND B. My daughter is not a charity case. Every child born into this world deserves to be loved simply for the little souls that they are. All of them have great gifts to give us. I need my daughter like I need the air that I breath, the food that I eat and the water that I drink.

BUT, I also feel good that adoption, provided it is done ethically, has as Steve says "humanitarian effects." I went on a date with a guy and showed him a picture of my future daughter (the adoption wasn't complete). He looked at her like she was a piece of trash. Gee, I feel good that I'm not like him. The constant mantra that adoption is only for me to the point of denying that there is any benefit for the child undermines adoptions. There is no reason for adoptions if there is no benefit for the child.

How you answer this question depends a lot on how you are analyzing the issue, like slicing an apple from different diretions. Lets slice the apple from one direction. The child should *NEVER* be made to feel "less than" or "unworthy." Now lets slice the apple from another direction. At the same time, there should be benefits to adoption otherwise it simply should not be done. It is unethical to take a child from one family and country, move it to another family and country if there is no benefit for doing so other than that we wanted a child. Why should the world cater to PAPs and APs whims in this matter?

Steve, I had said that I think it is important to get the people who are advising PAPs on your side about adopting older children. Those people being well known therapists, agencies, pediatrician's specializing in internationally adopted children, etc in the US. These people do exist. I could probably provide you with some names. Kevin could probably provide you with some names. Here is a name--Jane Aronson. How about the international adoption unit at Oakland CHildren's hospital. And Bee Brown, PhD in psych from Stanford.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Steve, you say "But, as what happened in Guatemala, when how you chose to create your family played into the abuse, coercion and manipulation of poor Guatemalan women, there is a problem."

Agree, totally! But WHOSE problem and WHO is to blame? As others have said on other threads, for years here, most APs and PAPs went into the adoption process with very little or no idea of the corrpution that was going on. Many of us did all the research that we could. And despite this, some of us got caught up in a mess we had no idea was going on. And many of us did not.
Guatemala is a country where folks can't even figure out if the PRESIDENT contracted for a murder. UN says he didn't. Folks aren't sure whether to believe the UN or not. Talk about a mess. Yet, PAPs in another country were somehow supposed to know what was and is going on.
I only hope you spend as much time "shouting" at and judging the folks who are really responsible for the mess, as you do here shouting at APs and PAPs.

Thanks Guat Team for reminder of people who are agency-related. In that vein, who exactly is Steve? Sounds like he is involved in Guat in a non-profit role? Just wondering as we all have bias- thanks!

I hear you Steve. I just don't agree with you. The same argument can be made to never support charities because some people abuse charity. Never commit a good samaritan act because some people are criminals looking forward to exploiting that.

I think for those who don't try to educate themselves or follow something that feels or looks wrong then by all means condemn those people. But people can stop throwing on to our shoulders the responsibility to fix world governments, corruption, and try to rid the world of large scale criminal organizations. To state such is ridiculous. I am not a politician, cop, or commando. I doubt having a bunch of middle class social workers, programmers, office workers, homemakers, etc raid various countries governments and police stations and take over is going to help much. I kind of wish we would do this just to see everyones faces. If we ever do this I know I will be yelling loudly "Unicef told me to".

I've seen multiple times we should not adopt until we can guarantee 100% not even a question of impropriety by someone somewhere. Any reasonable person would know there is no way to 100% guarantee that. In ANY situation not just adoption.

We followed the laws of two countries and subjected ourselves to process of both. So I will not take the "you're part to blame" piece because of others complete absence of heart or failures. People can state it and I don't agree.

Regards.

Nancy,
Thank you for all the information you have provided on your experience with adoptions in Guatemala. The CNA is fortunate to have you and the many other adoption professionals who have children's homes working with them and giving imput. The care and love these children received while waiting to come home has made a huge difference in how they adjust at home. I hope the CNA takes that into account and will continue with private foster care
and private children's homes. Guatemala had a great reputation for the care the children received and it played a huge factor in choosing a country for adoption.

How about this - lets take the energy and passion from these posts and help those that are still stuck in the process? All sides have points that are worth discussing but we are focusing on what was. Hopefully,going forward things will be better. Unfortunately in any country, in any industry and in every town corruption exists. I'm not making exscuses or saying we should turn the other way - its just part of life. We should be focusing on how to change it - it will never ever disappear but we can all do our best to make it difficult for the "bad" guys. With that being said - the children of Guatemala are beautiful and are deserving of a safe and loving home - that is why we all choose to adopt from Guat. We didn't go into this thinking - its loaded with corruption so this looks good lets just jump in! We did it out of love and the desire to have a family. Not all agencies,atty, gov't, foster mom's or orphanages were bad - my guess is that most were legit. It was a pocket of bad apples that brought this to a dark place. NOT ALL ADOPTIONS WERE CORRUPT - NOT ALL CHILDREN WERE STOLEN - NOT EVERYONE WAS IN THIS FOR THE MONEY. Many adoptions were done legally! What type of legacy are we leaving for our children when they get older???? To continue fueling the fire that all adoptions were illegal is creating a great dis-service to our children. Not only will our children deal with adoption - now they will have to deal with questions on how they came to our families. Again - I'm not saying turn the other way I just think we all need to stop and realize we need to start looking to the future and how we can best help the children and stop reliving the past. Much of what happened is out of all our control and we can't re-write the past.

Thanks for listening to my rant and I hope we can all put our focus on the future and the children - the children currently in need of families and the families that are STILL waiting.

Today, at Semillas de Amor, we received an email from the CNA for a meeting a week from this Wednesday. As always, the CNA has been very respectful and professional. We have been asked to attend a meeting regarding standards of care and basically how children's home will be working with the CNA. This is our second meeting, which means close to certification. This is great news because this means things are moving forward for children who need families and not institutions. I will give an update on how the meeting went and any info that might be helpful or interesting to the Guatadopt readers.

On another note the Prensa Libre, lunes, 18 de enero 2010, page 12, had an article titled "El CNA Podría Cerrar Hogares (The CNA Could Close Children's Homes) The title shocked me until I read the article. It appears that the CNA is looking at 20 children's homes, who have children in the adoption process, that have not filed paperwork to become a certified children's home. These homes need to work with the CNA so they can continue to care for children or they will be closed. The children's homes are being visited by the CNA and will have three months to comply or risk being closed. According to the article, and Monica Pozuelos from the CNA is quoted, there are five homes in Guatemala City in this category, the other homes are in the departments of Mazatenango, Quetzaltenango (Xela), Quiché, Chimaltenango, Santa Rosa, Jalapa, Izabal, Petén. Families in process, with children in children's homes in Guatemala should make sure that the children's homes are complying with the CNA. My opinion: The certification process is not an easy one, lots and lots of paperwork, and it is possible that some of these home just don't have the staff or the ability to get the certification process finished. It appears, however, that the CNA is willing to work with these homes, another positive sign.

According to the article 77 institutions have solicited accreditation from the CNA to continue working, ten homes are close to receiving certification, four homes have been certified, four children's homes closed in 2009 due to financial difficulties. Norma Cruz added that the CNA should "reorganize" these children's homes in order to avoid adoptions as business.--end article.

Before the Hague there were about 350 children's homes in operation. I would be interested to see how many of these homes closed before 2009. I am sure there were some homes that were profit driven but I am sure there were many that depended on fees from adoptions to care for all the children. I know at Semillas de Amor we have had to move from not depending on adoption fees to pay for operating costs to strictly donations. I am not a fundraiser but I have had to become one. Those homes that were run by groups with no contacts outside of Guatemala didn't have a chance at survival. I remember being at the children's court in Guatemala City when one children's home brought in a large group of children to hand over to the court to "redistribute" to other homes. It was very sad.

At Semillas de Amor we have asked the CNA to be certified to take children ages 2-12, boys and girls. We have worked very hard this year on our school and this age group will benefit the most from our home and school.

It looks very positive for adoptions and we just need to keep moving forward and, hopefully, working as a team.

"We followed the laws of two countries and subjected ourselves to process of both. So I will not take the "you're part to blame" piece because of others complete absence of heart or failures. People can state it and I don't agree."
Lisa...I couldn't agree with you more...not only w/the statement above, but your whole post. As AP's who go into this process with open hearts, our lives are also open books....we willingly agree to provide any piece of information needed to complete the processes of 2 Countries and multiple times I might add...we just completed our Immigration paperwork for the third time on the US side as we have been waiting now over 3 years and are more than willing to do so for our son ! But there is a place in this world for adoption and regardless of what anyone says, coming from both sides of the fence, as an adoptee and one who is adopting, it is a wonderful thing to unite a child with a family. And anytime I have an opportunity in my personal life to educate in a positive way, despite all the obstacles in our journey in Guatemala, about the beauty of adoption, I will do so 100%. Nothing in this world is perfect and there are many ugly truths that need to be overcome, but as cliche as this sounds, you do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

kmb, thank you for your kind words. I am happy to post my experiences, with Guatemalan adoptions, on Guatadopt. I do think the CNA is working hard to figure out how to make the system work for the kids and basically how to please the government and work within the very dysfunctional legal system at the same time. The CNA does not have the experience of setting up an entire new adoption system so this is a very tough job. Let's hope that we can keep the quality of care for children, who are being adopted and those unable to be adopted high.

An added note, since the Guatadopt team asked children's home and agencies to identify themselves I will make sure I end each post with my information.

Nancy

Nancy Bailey
Executive Director
Semillas de Amor
www.semillasdeamor.org

Lisa,

I was so impressed with your posts on 1/16/2010 and 1/18/2010 that I have typed them up in my personal diary. Concerning the "old camps" mantra that "adoption is good" and "the children are charity cases." There is a huge difference between "adoption is good" and "the chidlren are charity cases." Further "adoption is good" can convey many different things depending on the thinking and intention of the person uttering this phrase.

I once a heard a story that went like this. All of the selfishness was removed from the world. The next day, no one got up to open their businesses, no one went to work, no one started any new businesses.... Selfishness in and of itself is not bad. What is bad is if it isn't used properly.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Thanks for the info Nancy!!! Its good to get updates as we have prayed and prayed for the ability to adopt again. Its still a long road and don't know if it will be a possibility for us (keeping our fingers crossed). Is there anything you need from "states" side as I may have the ability to get a small package to you in March. Someone who is traveling has offered to take things down for me. Let me know.

Chrissy

Thank you Lynn and Cheryl. I am not a good writer like you and so many here. I tend to pour out my heart which can be good or bad but at least I can trust my fellow netizans to let me know if my thinking is flawed. Your points are very good and give me a lot food for thought. Plus I find comfort and support many times when you speak up even if I do not comment.

Nancy, thank you for the information you've shared and for being so open.

Chrissy, I agree we should focus on and help children still waiting. Many of us have the same concerns about what our children will read later. Which is why we do need to talk. I would rather be exposed to different views now and see various responses to them then have my children bring these views to me unprepared. At the very least if they bring something to me and say "have you thought about" I can say "yes.. I've thought a lot about it". I feel its easier for families who are home to speak up or handle these conversations then those waiting and I feel we owe it to them to speak up. At least they can see we are here and they are not alone. On that same note.. I know there were times when we were waiting I wanted to scream at the world to shut up. I think we should be considerate of families in this position. I just wish I knew how to fix it.

Steve, thank you, sincerely, for your posts. You are clearly an intelligent compassionate human being trying to do what is right. I do think you try very hard to be considerate of feelings while trying to get us to see your views. I see your points I just don't know realistically what we can do as human beings to make everything perfect. I understand your frustration. You fix a seam here another unravels. You do nothing and thats not good either. If we take away the money we take away some of the evils. But if we take away money we also lose some of the necessities. How do we get legal help without an attorney? If we stop adopting children suffer. If we adopt people could try to exploit it. The only way I see that would do the most is transparency which is being fought for. Then we still come down to different views on how it should be done and what is right. I'm not sure who gets the badge on deciding what is right. Seems to be an age old question.

Regards
Lisa