Kelly is recovering

I spoke to Kelly's husband today. She had her surgery yesterday and is recovering well. Better than expected according to him.

Next week will be very dry. I am moving and am not sure when I will have internet access. Kelly will obviously be recouprerating. Hang in there...

Cases Only Registered with the First CNA

As most of you will recall, when the grandfathering process and CNA registration process began, there was some controversy of who was in fact the BOD for the CNA. For a few days, cases were being registered by the BOD that had been appointed by former Guatemalan President Berger. Eventually it was settled and the BOD appointed by President Colom took over, got the cases registered with a different form than the first, and issued registration numbers that were not a part of process with "the first CNA".

A certain number of cases, estimated to be possibly as many as 250, were only registered with the first CNA and thus never received registration numbers. These cases at the moment stuck in a state of limbo. A Yahoo Group has been creates to join these families together. If you have never received a registration number, then please click on more to learn about it and read a message from its moderator.

Posted on behalf of the Yahoo group Moderator:

About 250 families were signed up at the first registration procedure, but not the second. Because only the second procedure resulted in a number, these families, who got all their paperwork done and their power of attorney filed on time, have been in limbo for months, their cases unable to go forward. The number of families involved, around 250, is very significant - it is close to 10% of the total number of grandfathered cases. Very unfortunately, a very high percentage - as high as 95% of these families - don't know that they're in this situation. This makes it very hard for this group to advocate for themselves. Since most of the families are unaware of their situation, they are of course not taking any action to rectify it. This is very unfortunate for them - their adoptions are in jeopardy, and there is nothing they can do to help themselves because they are not even aware of their situation.

This probably also has a very unfortunate effect at the Consejo. As they see silence from most of the families involved, they probably assume that the families in this situation don't care. And even those families who do know they're in this situation are scattered and isolated. The legal opinion from Guatemala is that if this were to go to court, the families would most likely win, because their lawyers did do their part to register them with one version of the CNA. The case for these families is legally very strong. But the resolution to this issue has been slow in coming. This forum has been opened to allow everyone impacted by this issue to get together, communicate, and work towards solving the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Yahoo Group name: CNAregistration

Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CNAregistration

Opinion Column in Prensa Libre

Today's Presna Libre has a worth-while OPINION column entitled "What happened to adoptions". It raises many of the issues faced when cash poor governments attempt to centralize and control adoption systems, at the behest of organizations like Unicef who are all too often more talk and pressure than help. This is a huge issue that Unicef ignores and that the world community (especially the Hague) needs to address to the long term implications of the saddening trend in intercountry adoption.

The story can be found here: Download file

A translation can be found by clicking on more.

What happened to adoptions?

BY:Manuel F. Ayau Cordon

A thankless unfortunately imposition imposed by a law to for Guatemalan children was the success that Unicef had (with its efforts and contributions juicy, bad languages mentioned in $ 900 thousand) to ensure an end to adoptions of abandoned children, who also had success in other countries they made their case histories phantasmatic, leaving thousands of children without families and in a state of miserable poverty, begging, prostitution and crime, if not aborted, for lack of homes willing to adopt them. (I remember that the U.S. Government. UU. Suspended aid to Unicef by indirectly promoting abortion).

Many surprised with phrases like "They do not love the children, since it ceased to be a business." It is cruel and cynical refer to those providing the service to receive, retain, give shelter, feed, providing medicines, dental services, medical and education to abandoned children, recoup these costs through voluntary contributions and the payment of compensation that give services to youths who are abandoned.

The term "trade in children" sounds so insidious as if they criticize the Press news that say "sells for money" or that diplomats from the Unicef charge money for their services. Unfortunately, for reasons that come from far away, even before Dickens earn money has had a bad name, but the entire world does so because it has nothing bad, and even churches seeking money ( "charity").

We know of isolated cases of theft of children in Europe, U.S. and other countries where the cure is not to punish thousands of innocent children, but a few offenders. But here in Guatemala it has been punished to some? Are you aware that foreign adoptions are carried out mainly (95%) for EE. UU. And that its government requires two DNA maternity tests and prior authorization? It is said that they abduct babies to extract organs, as if this does not require the facilities to do so, qualified medical personnel, compatibility testing and acceptance of origin and procedure by the recipient, a process difficult to achieve, especially in hiding. If the government knows this, why not apprehend the criminals? Meanwhile, while more yellow and the ghostly tale, more like a morbid minds.

Now it appears that only the government can handle adoptions and, consequently, have closed private homes for abandoned children, and, according to the Press, adoptions have stopped because the Government has neither the funds nor homes to care for these children. Care costs money that previously was paid voluntarily, without charge to a treasury. Now the new bureaucracy resorts to give them care in a "chosen" people who will have to pay to cover maintenance costs, and so on. We will have to finance the people with their taxes (Will trade?, Do business?, Did bribes?).

The greatest damage, which obviously do not care, has been depriving many young people abandoned a family, a home to grow and develop, an opportunity to be educated, and a promising future. This law constitutes cruelty, and should be repealed, but not like the ambassadors of countries and institutions to "help" and that only because they believe money is entitled to interfere and impose their ideological judgements on what is not incumbent.

----------------------------------
Another translation (which is probably clearer):
Ayau article on ADAGuatemala.org

ADA also posted a new article talking about their take on the recent events HERE.

Adoption Partners Uncovered by WYFF

Greenville, South Carolina NBC affilliate WYFF aired a story tonight about Adoption Partners and its owner, Joanne Mitchell.

What is interesting and disturbing is that despite numerous complaints to the Department of Social Services, it took WYFF's Emmy nominated investigative reporter Tim Waller to take action. I guess that's why his segment is called "Looking out for you".

Click here for the story. \.WYFF Story

It also worth noting that not too long ago, Joanne purchased the agency Adoption Resource Center of Florida. They also had other offices in Idaho, North Carolina and Maryland with the website: http://adoptresource.org that no longer works (you can find it via archive.org). There are other non-related agencies with the same name.

A View On The Current Situation

Guatadopt prides itself on allowing all opinions an equal voice and being objective. Obviously from my latest Writer's Corner post and how we covered the current situation, I have been more understanding of what the CNA is facing and the current course of action. With that said, Hannah Wallace is someone for whom I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration. In the piece below, she makes some very excellent points and hers is a voice that definitely deserves to be heard.

So PLEASE click on more to read her take.

Posted on behalf of Hannah Wallace, President of Focus on Adoption

Last Friday, the Press in Guatemala announced that the new Attorney General and the new director of the Adoption Unit at the PGN, in conjunction with the new CNA, were going to "audit" all cases, and investigate all cases including birthmother interviews. We know that the last PGN were selectively investigating all cases, including abandonments, and sent many abandonment cases -after months of investigating them -
to other courts to have them investigate the abandonment decrees for "validity".

Susana Luarca posted a response to these issues on www.adaguatemala.org that raises the legitimate legal question of whether the CNA has any legal jurisdiction over the grandfathered cases. It does not take a lawyer to know that the only role the CNA has in the grandfathered cases was in their registration and there are legitimate concerns about the abuses of authority which has characterized the last administration, where the rule of law was compromised by many parties: the President, the Department of State, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in arguing for the reinstatement of the Hague Treaty, the Congress in over riding the Constitutional Court in passing the Hague Treaty accession, and the Congress in passing an adoption law - under duress from Unicef and the U.S. Department of State - which violates the notarial process and birthfamily relinquishment rights, as well as putting children at great risk, while undermining the current child care system which is entirely private and relies on adoption fees. There are those who will argue that violations of the adoption law justifies asserting policies which are, in themselves, illegal. * It is a personal opinion that this is a slippery slope.It is easy to find some abuses in the former process, as well as to declare that they are more widespread than they might be, in order to rationalize actions which may have no legal precedent. I think that serious violations (not minor ones) have many LEGAL recourses to address them.

However, shortly after alerting CCAI to those issues and plans, with concerns that the CNA had not started doing the work of developing regulations for new cases, and were inappropriately getting involved in grandfathered cases, the PGN held a meeting with some adoption Attorneys and this meeting was reported as being mainly favorable by some observers and attendees. However, now we have a report in Siglo XXI which contradicts the substance of the meeting and creates a lot of anxiety about when the PGN will begin to approve cases, what authorities they will assume in order to do so, and what role the CNA will play in the grandfathered cases, a extraordinarily large number of which are being considered to have violations (650) by what standard it is hard to know.

There are some who in trying to "understand" the CNA and PGN are in some ways defending actions which are an abuse of authority, violates the current laws, and in so doing are giving the new Central Authority and other now powerful government officials a big benefit of "doubt", as it is not at all clear that those who are now in positions of power in regard to children and adoptions have "the best interests of the child" in mind.
In fact, I think that we need to find out more about the various individuals who now are in power in Guatemala, what their inter-relationships are, what roles they've played in the past, and determine what actually needs to be done in order to (1) assure that all legal adoptions in process get resolved as quickly as possible as many have been delayed for years with no cause (2) examine what the role of the courts are in this new "regime" and whether they are independent (3) examine the history of those who now comprise the power in the CNA (4) determine what has been accomplished by the CNA in developing the regulations which the law does enpower them to do (5) and have a more public dialogue about ways to replicate the services (albeit inconsistent) that were only being provided by private service providers and now are being provided by no one, or by the severely disadvantaged private hogar system of childcare. I call upon Guatemalans with knowledge of their politics to lend some insight into the positions, political alliances, and any prior consideration of child welfare issues to support these appointments.

How many of those orphanages have closed? or are closing? Where have the children gone when their Hogar closes? How many children have been born and not been able to be relinquished since Dec.31 ? What has happened to children all over Guatemala who might have gone into the adoption process if it were available.? With fewer hogares available, with many only able to care for the children already in their care, with few government alternatives and with no funding for childcare, one has to question the emphasis on former evils and lack of acknowlegement of current and future evils which are being visited upon the most disadvantaged in Guatemala.

It's time for all to stop feeding off the problems of the past and begin to try to find solutions within the current law, which the US Department of State and Unicef and other so called child advocates worked so long and hard to pass. Let's not emphasize finding past officials accountable on the backs of the current and pending adoptions; let's follow the law and complete those adoptions AND hold the current officials accountable for putting a new system into place that truly puts children first !!!! That would be a small miracle, IMHO.

Hannah Wallace, President, Focus On Adoption

Consider Glass Pachas

For those that don't know, in Guatemalan Espanol, "pacha" is the word for a baby bottle (it is "biberon" in most Spanish speaking countries). Sorry for not having proper accents and symbols - they don't always work on our blog program.

We don't usually post this kind of stuff but this one seems relevant. So here is a story worth readong and considering the use of glass pachas: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080415/sc_nm/plastic_bottles_dc;_ylt=AhxHUDqA1AXlz5eW47RsN6es0NUE

Preparing our kids for racism...

A few months ago I found a cool site about Anti-Racist Parenting. Actually, I found it because I was googling myself and this site had a thread on it about a quote of mine from a magazine story. In any case, I think many of you would be interesting in this site and in particular a thread I found on it today about preparing our kids for the racism they WILL face during their lives.

So here is the link: http://www.antiracistparent.com/2008/03/28/race-is-not-a-four-letter-word/#more-373

In light of recent comments...

We've received a number of questions and comments requesting clarification or assurances that our children are not going to be seized, extradited, or deported. This hysteria is stemming from statements attributed to Guatemala Solicitor General Mario Gordillo in an AP story about Casa Quivira.

The story says this:

If fraud is proven, whatever the reason, Guatemala would invalidate the adoption and try to recover the child, even one that has already become a U.S. citizen.
"We would have to do that, according to the law," Gordillo said.
Custody disputes with Guatemala for babies already in the United States would eventually land before a judge in the adoptive family's hometown, according to the U.S. Embassy.

First thing tomorrow I will see if I can get an official statement from someone. But come on, let’s be real and not freak out. There is no reason for concern, our children are our children. Our adoptions were and are legal. And no one is going to question that.

There is no precedent for otherwise. None. Not Cambodia. Not past Guatemalan scandals. Not Russia. Not even instances in El Salvador where it is known that the children of people suspected of being guerilla were taken by the government and adopted. In the Casa Quivira case, the issue seems to be false identities for the legitimate birthmothers. Hardly all that sinister in the context of other scandals.

Who do you think is going to knock on your door and take your child? Who is going to fly them to Guatemala? Who is going to meet them there? You get my point.

Other questions involve travelling and is it safe. My honest answer is that I am sure it is. Once again, our children are our children. Our adoptions are legal and legitimate. Our children are US citizens.

I do not think that anyone should take one statement as it was printed in an AP story, all of which is not a direct quote, and start hiring lawyers because the adoption cops are about to come kidnap your child. As someone who has been misquoted or quoted out of context many times in newspapers, it happens all the time. Don’t take everything you read at face value.

As I said, I’ll see what official statements I can get. But right now I think our thoughts are best spent directed toward supporting the families and children caught up in this Casa Quivira mess. They do have cause for concern and by god it would be a shame if children were denied loving families because of outdated US law and stupid, blatant disrespect for the rule of law. There is a lot of finger pointing going on about whom it was that falsified these identities. Whoever was responsible I am sure we can all agree on one thing – it wasn’t the children.

Please take a look - missing kids

The Prensa Libre today has a story about some children that are missing and suspected of being in-process for adoption.

I encourage everyone to go to http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2008/marzo/02/223477.html# and look to the right. Under the picture, click on "ver galeria" and look at the three pictures. A new window will pop up and then you click on "presione aqui".

If you recognize one of the kids, let us know.

The PAP community has helped before in locating kids and it is crucial that we show PAPs are vigilant about ethical adoption processes and part of the solution.

Don't trust everything....

Some times when something gets said enough it starts to sound like the truth...

One of the Guatemalan papers ran a story over the weekend about 100+ attorneys not registering cases. One of the cool things about our forums is that Marie posts stories of relevance from the Guatemalan papers. This is done often for cultural and educational reasons as well as for us to see what media the average Guatemalan does.

Just because it is in the papers and just because we posted the story DOES NOT mean it is true.

For the record: Guatadopt does NOT know of ANY attorneys who are refusing to register their cases. Some waited until their amaparo was ruled on. Even if you disagree with the fact that some waited until after the amapro, it is not reason to demonize anyone. To think that out of selfishness they’d prevent an adoption to be completed is crazy. The attorneys want the cases completed too.

In another story in the papers over the weekend, it was alleged that 500 of the in-process cases involve kidnappings. I do not want anyone to believe that any comments we have made imply this to be true because I am willing to bet it is not. The same story alleges that DNA tests are being carried out in an unethical manner. It even implies that tests are done via blood rather than saliva – also not true. Those of us in the adoption community know the rigorous process for DNA and the fact that tests are only done by a select few, embassy approved doctors.

I appeal to the DOS and CIS staff at the Embassy to try to dispel this myth.

In short, don’t believe everything that is in the Guatemalan papers. From my perspective, from Day One the Prensa Libre has tried to defend Berger’s appointees. We all know its history with adoption related issues. So it does not surprise me to see it continuing to be filled with half-truths or non-truths.

Remember, when something is an editorial, even the paper is saying it is an opinion, not fact.

Lastly, please EVRYONE let’s not search for saints and demons because we all lie somewhere between the two. Let’s everyone shed our positions and just stay focused on the immediate task at hand – getting cases registered. To attorneys that means having your paperwork buttoned up and the forms filled out completely and correctly. For the CNA it means being rational. For PAPs it means a bit of patience and faith. Anything that slows down the process at this point is a travesty.

Attn: Waiting Angels Clients

Suzan Sanford from the MI Attorney General's Office wants to hear from any clients with a grievance against Waiting Angels. Even if you have called or e-mailed her before, you are requested to do so again. Her contact information is: SanfordS @ michigan.gov (517) 373-1140 or Toll Free (877) 765-8388.

I do not believe she reads this stie so do not expect questions left as comments to be answered.

In-Process Support Group

Click on more for info on joining a Yahoo group specifically designed as a support group for in-process families. This has to be an incredibly stressful time for all of you and any help you can get is a good idea. Public forums and sites like ours do that in part but sometmes the less-public nature of an e-mail group is better. Guatadopt is not involved with this group, we're jjust spreading the word.

Posted on behalf of the group moderator:

This Group is primarily for those in-process in Guatemala. This Group is a safe place for you to vent, share and receive support so you can survive the huge amount of trauma in your life from this adoption! If you are not in-process, please let me know why you are applyng and we will determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to approve membership.

AGENCY/PROFESSIONALS: Normally, I would not open this group to professionals, but I will leave it up to the members. Your application will be put before the membership prior to approval.

This Group is moderated by a veteran moderator of the Yahoo Post-Adoption Depression Syndrome Group and a local Guatemala Adoption Family group. (I am a homeschooling mom of three children from Guatemala, two adopted in 1999/2000 and one adopted in spite of the 2003 Hague debacle. The picture is one of my sweeties!)
to join, visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EstamosEsperando/

Dateline NBC Website - Submit Your Pictures and Story

Dateline has launched parts of its website. I urge our readers to contribute to the discussion and "portrait" that will inevitably develop. In doing so, I can't urge you enough to walk (or type) the higher ground. Be very careful with your words and please be constructive and critical, yet also polite.

The debate following this show will undoubtedly get heated. There are rational people on all sides of the debate - people with firm beliefs. There are people who have been victimized; we can not ignore the reality in their experiences. Equally important though is the larger picture beyond individual cases. What should countries do about corruption in order to keep the positive aspects of adoption? In that debate, we families with children from Guatemala are the voice of the positive aspects of adoption.

We’re not bureaucrats. We’re not NGOs. We don’t earn our living though adoption. We are just ordinary families with children we love more than words could describe. Many of us now support children and other projects in Guatemala. Many of us know the story of children’s birthmother. Our experience is more than just paying someone in order to adopt a child from some easy country. I could go on but you get the idea.

On a site like Guatadopt, we engage in debate among a small niche in American culture – those involved with Guatemalan adoptions. But with something like Dateline NBC’s website, you are talking about all of e-literate America. With our words, each and every one of us becomes an ambassador for us all.

Links to what’s currently on Dateline’s website are below. Before going there, let me caution y’all that the things Victoria Corderi writes about were uncovered by Dateline. Victoria is not making baseless accusations. Remember that before commenting on the site.

Victoria Corderi's blog (where you can comment): http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/577517.aspx

Submit pictures of your children and tell your adoption story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22650538/

No matter what we may think of the Dateline piece that airs, NBC has given us an opportunity to speak about intercountry adoption. We have a chance to show the positive side of intercountry adoption. We have a chance to show the children thriving in loving families because of intercountry adoption from Guatemala. We always ask for balance. Well this is one time where a grassroots effort can tip the scales in a positive way. Tell your friends and family to post about the many blessings that have come through adoption.

But remember, you’re an ambassador!

Use Guatadopt and other forums as the place to discuss the nitty gritty. We can get a bit uglier here. Let’s all use this chance with Dateline’s website to demonstrate why we’re so passionate about Guatemala’s children deserving a chance to join a permanent family - a family just like our own.

Dateline Air Date - January 20

I just spoke with the producer of the long awaited Dateline NBC piece. The story will air on Sunday, January 20th.

First of all, for those of you with adopted children old enough to comprehend the show, you may wish to consider taping it or watching it without your children present. I am not at liberty to discuss the exact content of the show, nor do I know all of it. But some of it, IMHO, could be detrimental for children from Guatemala to see if they are old enough to understand it, but not old enough to put it into perspective.

In addition to the broadcast, Dateline will also be devoting some of its website to the Guatemala Adoption story. That won't go live likely until the show airs. Their programmers are hard at work right now building some sort of page where families can submit pictures of their kids and their stories. Once I have more info on that, and the URL, we will post it.

Lastly, I'd like everyone to realize upfront that this will not be a glowing story about the beauties and positives of Guatemalan adoptions. No media organization could do a story on Guatemalan adoptions and keep it all positive. Most of the story (which I have not seen) will most likely not be positive. However, I am very optimistic that all sides will be covered and the perspective, if not the ratio of air time, will be balanced. So be prepared for that.

Guatadopt did aid Dateline's producer with this story. Troy will be making his network television debut.... Realize that what we have found with the media is that while helping them does not make it a story we'd write, it does impact the net result. I have seen how talks I've had with reporters don't reult in lots of my brilliant quotes in their finished stories, but they do influence the overall tone of the story. So in short, everyone will obviously be free to criticize us for participating in this, but know that we did it knowing full well what the end result would be, with realistic expectations.

LA Times Op-Ed and On Milwaukee Piece

Today's LA Times has an Op-Ed witten by Elizabeth Larsen. I think it's an excellent piece that makes some good points and addresses a very important issue all of us must face - how will we explain everything to our kids given all the negative media exposure. You can find the story here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-larsen7jan07,0,6819256.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Here is another story written by Molly Edler for On Milwaukee about the challenges of waiting for homecoming: http://onmilwaukee.com/family/articles/motherfest010708.html?13680. I know many of you can appreciate it!

Misc Updates

A bunch of small stuff going so I figured I'd throw them all together in one post. So please read on....

1.) Prensa Libre yesterday ran a story about he Human Rights office requesting a suspension of adoptions. If you read the comments on our 'Update on In process Designation" thread. You will find alll we know about it. I amnot sure if this is meant to just not have anything to occur on in prcoess cases until Jan 1, if it is an attempt to prevent any new cases from starting, or exactly what it means. my OPINION is that it is irrelevant and this is nothing more than tehe PDH going after some media attention. So don't worry about this one to much. Cick here for the story.

2.) Calendars have shipped and arriving. We apoogize for the fact that we don't have tracking numbers easily available. If you received a confirmation of your order, don't worry they are coming. I've answered many inquiries and have yet to find one where the ordered calendars were not on hte ship list.

3.) Do Good UPDATE - I sent out our first payment for feeding operations yesterday. Since our launch, sales of Do Good items have paid for 10,000 meals for orphans in Guatemala!!!!

4.) The BBC News ran a few adoption stories. I think this one is especially important as it shows pictures of what the private adoption system provides so far as "institutional" care is concerned. This is important for the power barons to remember when they pass laws that give all power and authority to the government. Click here for the story.

5.) After tonight, I will be out of pocket until Christmas. So if you e-mail me (Kevin) and get no reply, it's becaue I have no e-mail access.

6.) FTGA sent me their Holiday Giving Update. As usual, FTGA families and adoptive families throughout the US stepped up to take part once again in the FTGA Holiday Giving Back Project with Behrhorst Partners for Development. To date, families from 17 states have participated raising $7300. Here are the sponsorships to date:

* Family gardens for 24 families
* Chicken farms for 22 families
* Fruit farms for 56 families
* Sponsorship for 60 women to join an embroidery cooperative

All told to date, 162 rural Guatemalan families will be given to opportunity to increase their ability to create family income by these sponsorships. Thanks for your continued support. If you would like to participate in the Holiday Giving Back Project, please visit www.ftga.net to learn more.

NPR Story on Adoptions

NPR did a very intersting segment on esteem and development of adopted children versus biological families. The study featured basically showed that adoptied children, even in interracial, families do not suffer from low self esteem. You can listen to it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16572430

Thanks to our friend Richrd for sending this on!

Editorial from FOA

Posted on behalf of Focus on Adoption:

On November 6, leaders of the Guatemalan Congress met in a symposium to discuss the pending adoption law. What has been reported in the newspapers, by JCICS, and other congressional observers is that they decided that new legislation is in order, which would provide:
*a strong grandfather clause
*designate April 30, 2008 as an effective implementation date of the Convention
*allocate $3 million quetzales for the creation of the Central Authority
*create a new government entity to act as the Central Authority
* provides for private, non profit accredited entities to provide services for children
*allows single adoptive parents to apply to adopt
* provides a functional process by which children can find permanent, safe and loving families

This reconsideration by Congress reflects a realistic and responsible assessment of the great needs of Guatemalan children to be provided with protections before birth, during birth, and after birth - especially if their birth families are unable to provide for them and are considering an adoption plan once the child is born, while also taking into consideration the standards and tenets of the Hague Treaty. They also took into consideration the serious constitutional issues raised by the Ortega Bill (#3217) which passed the third reading, as well as the very serious social and child welfare consequences of the Ortega Bill, which provided no funding, no way for relinquishing parent(s) to enter the "system", has children in state run orphanages for unspecified periods of time, and essentially would contribute to illegal and unsafe abortions, infanticide, anonymous abandonment, and put children at great risk. This is why the Ortega Bill had not gotten past the 2nd reading for 3 years, nor had its predecessor, the Valladeres Law, both of which were championed by Unicef and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague. By no stretch of the imagination can the Ortega Bill be considered to be " in the best interests of the child", except that it will stop current adoption abuses because it will stop adoptions. For several months, Congress has had an alternative bill, #3635 which is also Hague compliant, but provides for delivery of the necessary social services in a functional adoption system, with oversight and regulation. This bill has been virtually ignored by the governments of the US and Guatemala, as well as Unicef.

However, it is being reported that U.S. Consul General John Lowell and U.S. Ambassador Denham were highly instrumental in pushing the third reading of the Ortega Law and are now contacting members of the Guatemalan congress individually to ask them to vote for a January 1 implementation date and to pass the Ortega Bill as stands. The only good thing about this is that AT LAST we know where the U.S. Department of State stands, as the transparency which has been called for by the Hague Treaty has not characterized the DOS' interactions with the adoption community in regard to Hague implementation in Guatemala.

Since March of 2006, when the U.S. Department of State announced that they were considering Guatemala to be a Hague country (despite the accession of 2003 being declared illegal by the Constitutional Court) and would expect Guatemala to enact Hague Compliant legislation if Guatemalan children could continue to be adopted by U.S. families when the Hague Treaty goes into effect in the U.S., all participants in the Guatemalan adoption community - especially experienced adoption professionals - have provided input to the Guatemalan and U.S. Congress as well as the Department of State and various Guatemalan and U.S. officials, about creating a model of Hague compliance and regulatory oversight which also assures children the opportunity to gain permanent families as early in their lives as possible. However, while the U.S. is accrediting private adoption service providers to provide the broad range of services an adoption requires, as well as being held accountable for maintaining good practices, the U.S. seems unwilling to accept a similar model from sending countries. Considering that the sending countries also have minimal public social services (prenatal, natal and post natal assistance), - and that Guatemala has the highest infant and child mortality rate, highest child malnutrition rate, lowest education rate in the region -it appears that the sending countries need private services and the involvement of the private sector the most.

Instead of incorporating the concerns of the experienced, and used this opportunity to promote needed improvements to the Guatemalan adoption system, while keeping its strengths intact, the US Department of State has instead contributed to an increasingly chaotic and lawless process in their attempts to stop US citizens from adopting from Guatemala, and encouraged misinterpretations and misapplications of existing laws and contributed to increased polarization and politicization, none of which serves the best interests of the children they are purporting to protect.

Not only did the U.S. insist that Guatemala pass "Hague Compliant" legislation, but they insisted that the Guatemalan Congress vote to reaffirm the Hague Treaty, despite the Constitutional Court decision of 2003. In an effort to protect adoptions of Guatemalan children to the U.S., the Guatemalan Congress passed a law which would go into effect on Dec.31, 2007. The intention was that after that date, the new papers of accession would go to the Hague to take effect by April or May 2008. If the former accession papers could be used, why did the U.S. even insist that they vote again on the Hague? Now the Congress is restating its intentions, by stating that new adoption laws and the Hague Treaty effect date should be on or after April 30, 2008 and the U.S. Department of State, via Consul General John Lowell and the Ambassador, are trying to get the Guatemalan congressmen to set an implementation date for the Hague Treaty and the new legislation for January 1, 2008. They are also STRONGLY supporting the

Ortega Bill despite more than 10 constitutional problems and its serious and horrible consequences to children.
One only has to look at the intercountry adoption systems in all of Central and South America, who have models similar to the Ortega Bill, to see how dysfunctional such laws are in providing adequate adoption services. Thousands of children are in institutions or on the streets or living lives of unremitting poverty, thousands are without families while thousands of families all around the world would be willing to embrace them. These children have become the invisible victims of purported child protection bills. These bills do not provide for more family support services, nor child and family welfare services, they only create bureaucratic hindrances to intercountry adoption.

The Department of State needs to be accountable to the huge number of US citizen families who have been touched by intercountry adoption and those who can bear witness to the fact that children from our children's homelands cannot be adopted. While Congress celebrated the passage of the Adoption Law of 2000 and the US intent to ratify the Hague Treaty, lauding it as an achievement in child protection, we do not believe that this is what was intended. We don't believe that anyone who truly stands for child protections would approve of imposition of a short sighted and cruel policy, when reasonable and Hague compliant alternatives are being promoted. The U.S. has taken 14 years to implement the Treaty. Guatemala has asked for 4 months more. The U.S. is aware that private services with public oversight serve children best, so why prevent that in a country which needs services to children as badly as Guatemala does?
.
You can fax Ana Mary Coburn at the DOS Office of Children's Issues at (202) 736-9111

Guatadopt Interview with Consul General John Lowell

With Guatemalan adoptions in an increased state of turmoil, emotions are high. As a writer for a blog that is a combination of news, analysis and commentary, I've often had to work hard to balance my roles as journalist and editorialist. It's a lot of responsibility when I know how difficult daily life is for many of our readers, those whose sincerest ambitions and dreams rest on providing a home for a child.

Late Wednesday night, the journalist in me took over and on a whim, I decided to ask US Consul General to Guatemala John Lowell for an interview. It was much to my amazement when on Thursday he agreed to do it. He accepted so quickly, I honestly hadn't even thought of exactly what I'd ask him yet.

Preparing for this was no easy task. “Journalist or editorialist” kept going through my mind. On Guatadopt I’ve been quite outspoken in my criticism of his role in the state of affairs. This was a chance to get him! On the other hand, the fact that he accepted is impressive. Guatadopt has a large and loyal readership, but it’s just another blog. Do diplomats really worry about the grassroots? Families, mine included, have real questions. Maybe if I ask them directly I can have some answered. I decided the journalist was best suited to this job – especially if I ever wanted anyone else to accept.

So I set off to develop a list of questions. I’m a critic of the US media because when it comes to asking tough but honest questions they just seem to shy away. Determined to be tough but fair, I put together an interview that asked what I felt were the most prevalent questions as well as a few to lighten the mood.

What follows now is the interview I had with John Lowell. Since I have no way to record calls, I had to type as we went. I’ve done my best to keep things as close to word for word as possible, though admittedly I couldn’t always keep up. I’m quite confident that nothing is misstated and if it is, I encourage Lowell to correct me.

What exactly does a Consul General do? What is your role?

As Consul General I am the operational manager for the United States government in Guatemala. I do American citizen services issues – victims of crime. Overall half our work is dedicated to non-immigrant visa interviews and immigrant visa operation – 60% of those are adoption. I am also the local expert on consular affairs.

Can you tell me specifically, what is the US lobbying the Guatemalan Congress to do? And I must say upfront that by “specifically” I mean implementation dates, provisions/amendments? In detail, what is the official US position?

I’ve been here 2.5 years and one of the most important things on my plate is adoptions. I looked at two specific issues that might seem to some not to be in complete accordance with one another. (1) Support Guatemala’s efforts to be Hague compliant and provide appropriate protections for the children, adoptive parents and biological parents. Part of that effort has always been the focus on how to implement the Hague as a functional working adoption system – not something that shuts adoptions down. I continue to believe that ICA should remain an option as well as domestic adoption, but there is currently not a culture for domestic adoption in Guatemala. Hand in hand with that mission was the concern that in-process, pending cases not be harmed by implementation of the Hague. It is a balancing act.

Implementation – on May 22 (the Guatemalan) Congress said it would be Dec. 31, 2007. This would mean adoptions starting in 2008 would have to comply with the Hague. But the Hague allows many technical tactical setups to get there. The US has never said “this is how you have to implement the Hague”. We’ve offered help and technical experience, evaluated draft legislation, provided input on whether something seems compliant and provides adequate protections.

Referring to the recent discussion of an April 30th date, why is the date Guatemala chooses to implement important to DOS? The US has taken many years to implement the Hague, why do you believe Guatemala should only have a month to do it?

It’s not to effectively have only a month. You are correct in implying it will take more than a month. In fact, since 98% of all adoptions go to the US, I’d argue that putting it into effect Dec 31, realizing that US won’t implement until the expected date of April 1, definitely early 2008, (actually gives them four months). This is my argument and other will have different opinions of this. I have personally received some high level assurances that yes in process cases will be processed to completion under the notarial process. We, our guess right now, assuming it remains Dec 31, our guess is that we will have somewhere over 4,000 pending cases at that point. It’s going to take a long time, all of 2008 at the current rate they are processed, for those cases to be completed. We have very good reason to be confident that folks in the process now, that the matching will stay the same, I know it’s impossible for those matched to understand this but not all cases will be approved, the birthmother can change her mind at any point up until the very end. One practical point of extending it to April 1 or 30 is that there would be a significantly higher number of cases.

You’re right that they can’t be ready in a month, but they have also said that they will only process cases to Hague countries so practically that gives them a few months to get everything worked out.

How exactly have you and/or Ambassador Derham been lobbying for this position?

Ambassador Derham (addresses it) at nearly every opportunity, this is not strictly with members of Congress or government officials, when he talks about the key initiatives that are important to the US embassy he has always made it clear that adoption reform and the proceeding to a system that is to the best degree possible child centered is a very important goal of his mission. Of course he has a wide audience, whether in small meetings or larger ones.

Is it true that on the day the Ortega Law was approved that you and/or Ambassador Derham called the leaders of the major political parties represented in the Guatemalan Congress to express your support of the Ortega Law and encourage them to vote in favor of it?

On the Ortega Bill, I think there has been a lot of mischaracterization of the Ortega bill. It was presented to congress in 2005 and went nowhere for quite a while until 2007 when congress began to realize that they’ve been trying for adoption reform for 15 years with nothing. What happened was the Director of Congress made a request for evaluation of 3217 to the Hague Permanent Bureau, the HPB invited several interested countries including the United States to serve as technical assistance providers. The US sent a team, there were several people from Columbia, three from the Hague and other representatives there for about eight days at the end of July after having previous drafts submitted officially to them by congress. There were a number of seminars on what the Hague requires. There was also a group of representatives from congress, other interested parties - Bienestar, Unicef, PGN - based on these recommendations they looked at 3217 and said here are things that the Hague requires that are not addressed, here are things we thought might be inconsistent with the Hague. And we talked about ways to address those issues. The bill that had its third reading was very different from the original bill. One of the things we pointed to the need for was an appropriate transition clause for in process cases to be completed under the notarial process. That was certainly in the version at that time. Ensuring there is funding so that you don’t end adoption processing because there is no budget to actually move a case through in quick order and that is something that I am pleased people on all sides have recognized is necessary. A two year adoption process is not something that anyone wants to see.

We certainly thought that it was good thing to approve that law – yes that is correct. I recall being a bit surprised that it was passed so quickly.

Was the loan from the US that was approved the same day in any way connected to approving Ortega?

I don’t have a clue. (note: Mr Lowell did not appear to know about the loan in mention) I know we have a US AID budget of about 50 million annually (note: I had originally transcribed this figure incorrectly. So it had said 4150 million incorrectly). I would love to see it contain support for implementation for adoption institutions. There was one small project that US AID is funding which is assisting Bienestar with locating and registering children’s homes. One thing they are looking at is which children have already been abandoned so that they can be adopted. There are large numbers of “older children” (meaning 2+) who are in a handful of government orphanages, most of them are in a wide assortment of private charitable places and no body up to this point has much of an idea of which are where, how many. One figure that I’ve cited that I found impressive is that in 2005 the figure I have is that 1500 children where ruled abandoned by Guatemalan courts. Our 2005 figures for ICA would have been close to 4000 cases. Out of that we probably only did about 300 abandoned children cases, the rest being relinquishment. Kids that have already been separated from biological families are not being adopted.

How many hours a week do you spend working with Guatemalan officials on matters related to adoptions from Guatemala?

Varies. Not just with Guatemalan officials but working with folks in D.C., working with responses to people who write us like PAPS. I do tend to say I spend 70% of my work week on adoption issues. A small amount is with officials. There is a wide range of Guatemalans who are not officials to talk to about adoption related matters.

You are obviously an established diplomatic and bureaucrat. So you have experience with the degree to which the US exerts influence on other countries to pass certain laws or act in a certain matter. On a scale of one to ten, ten being highest, how hard did the US press Guatemala to pass the Ortega Law?

Oh good lord, I would correct you. I am an experienced US diplomat. In terms of pressing to pass a law, I can’t give you a scale of one to ten. I couldn’t come to guessing on it. As you point out, even though it took us 13 years to implement the Hague, we were at the table to create the treaty. We weren’t thinking about Guatemala at the time. At the time we were told Guatemala wasn’t an expressing sending country. There were other countries being thought about. But the principles seemed very useful to Guatemala.

One point I want to reiterate. Encourage Guatemala to pass the law. Work with appropriate people in congress to be able to offer advice as requested. With particular focus on (1) providing appropriate protections for the children and parents and I think that most of the versions do provide protections for adoptive parents that simply don’t exist today. But focus on the child and at the same time look for ways to ensure that cases already in process are not terminated and forced to start over. And look for ways to help Guatemala arrive at a system that could be functional and actually provide homes for children who need adoptive families.

If you were a betting man, what would you say the odds are of Guatemala approving an amendment to grandfather in-process cases?

I don’t think anyone opposes it. I’d put money down on that one. You might not get a law; that possibility exists. We’re getting short on time. (John Lowell tells me he has an appointment he has to get to).

Assuming it passes, what new requirements do you think there may be for cases in process at the time the law goes into effect? You have mentioned additional steps to confirm the origin of the child and the mothers consent. And would additional steps be just on the Guatemalan side or the US side as well?

I’ve been told specifically in the same meeting in which they said we recognized “in the best interests of the children already involved we need a procedure to complete these adoptions”. Very specifically they said they will be completed under notarial law and the idea is that there would be two steps (1) a required birthmother interview by PGN. A procedure to bring additional staff on board (is in the works and) would keep the current flow through rate (we see) now. It might take the better part of a year to complete all of that (2) somewhat fuzzier - specifically make sure of the origin of the child. In fact, at which point I jumped in to point to the double DNA testing (currently done and) that I was convinced that is part of our process (to ensure the origin of the child). Until you reach a point in which you have a electronic DNA database it will never be 100%. I think that is important. (John Lowell went on to tell me that this would not be too expensive to implement and that then, if a woman claimed her child had been kidnapped, they could swab her saliva and run it against the DNA database of children in the process).

If you could be any kind of donut, what kind would it be and why?
(Laughs). I like the kind filled with applesauce.

I’m fairly confident that they will be able to get a reasonable adoption system back within a few months. Obviously at the beginning the capacity to process large capacity of adoptions won’t be present.

I think that we see lots of healthy kids going through (the adoption process) who seem to be healthy, well cared for, and undoubtedly end up with great families in the US and have excellent chances for life. But the current system is (for some reason I can’t tell what he said here, but it was basically that the current system needs to be reformed, which I agree with).

END OF PHONE INTERVIEW

Over the weekend, Mr. Lowell replied via e-mail to the rest of questions I had written. Below are his verbatim responses.

I want to be fair and give you the opportunity to address assertions I’ve made on this site. So I’m asking these not to be confrontational, but to give you an opportunity to respond.

I have stated that the threat of a new law not ultimately grandfathering in process cases was a red herring. The Guatemalan constitution prevents a law from being applied retroactively unless it is a criminal law. And President Berger has denied ever saying in process cases would not be allowed to continue, which was the basis of the DOS notice. How do you respond?

Not a “red herring” at all. Until the version that was presented on Oct. 3, all previous versions that we had seen of draft legislation, called, in one way or another, for requiring preexisting cases to “conform to the new legislation”. While a wide open statement, it strongly appeared that such “conforming” would mean that parent/child matches made under the notarial “relinquishment” process would not be recognized, which would force adoptive parents (and the children they had been matched with) to start a brand new process, with totally new rules.
Neither I nor the DOS ever said that President Berger made such a statement. I think people misinterpreted a DOS web posting which stated (accurately) that a Guatemalan government official said that once Guatemala implemented the Hague (on 12/31/2007), no new adoptions would be initiated to non-Hague member countries, meaning that from 12/31/07 through 3/31/08, new adoptions to the U.S. could not be processed.
Also, we were much concerned that no implementing legislation would be passed, and were told by a number of officials that Hague implementation on 12/31/07 (without a law providing transition protection) would halt the processing of already initiated cases. Recent statements have now indicated that such cases will still be processed under the notarial process, but a final decision on the definition of “initiated” has not yet been communicated to us and that’s still an important concern..

Following the arrest of Mary Bonn last February, DOS began issuing a series of notices and FAQs about Guatemalan adoption that were “less than complementary”. In addition, DOS supposedly requested that agencies voluntarily shut down their Guatemala programs. Guatadopt has written that this has been part of an orchestrated move to prevent new families from entering the system. In addition we’ve stated that DOS has only pushed for laws, namely Ortega/3217, that have caused a cessation of intercountry adoptions in other Central American countries and globally because ultimately that makes DOS no longer having to deal with adoptions from Guatemala. Are these fair and accurate assertions we’ve made?

Actually, I think we started talking about a warning message in November 2006, as a suggestion that I made (and first posted a message in December). While I certainly then had concerns about the adoption process, my specific reason for raising the question at that point was my fear that we could see a large number of adoptive parents (and children) trapped in adoption processes that might be impossible to complete. That warning referred specifically to the pending changes in Guatemala’s adoption procedures, and the impossibility of being able to predict when and how such changes would be made. My understanding is that about 300 families were trapped when Cambodia was closed down; I was afraid then that 3000 families could be trapped in Guatemala by the impending change in procedures.

DOS didn’t participate in the drafting of 3217. The Guatemalan Congress did ask for assistance from the Hague Permanent Bureau in determining whether it would be Hague compliant. The HPB asked a number of interested countries to assist in that task, including the U.S. A team came to Guatemala in late July, and spent over a week with interested parties looking at a number of Guatemalan adoption issues, including the draft law. Some members of the team sat down with members of the Guatemalan Congress and other government representatives and made numerous suggestions designed to help the legislation meet Hague goals and meet the need for a functional program that could continue to keep adoption (both domestic and international) a viable option for Guatemalan children who don’t have families of their own. As I said when you and I talked, the U.S. government has always been concerned about the need to both provide adequate protection to children in the adoption process (and to both birth and adoptive parents) and at the same time help Guatemala create a program that can ensure that children who need international adoption can find adoptive families.

If the adoption system is as tainted as DOS’s statements have indicated, why hasn’t the US just shut the system down?

The legal authority permitting that to be done is not at all clear. And, once you shut down such a process, when can you be satisfied that the system has been reformed “sufficiently” to resume? It has seemed probable that Guatemala was in the final stages of implementing significant change, and we too were in the final months of our own Hague implementation process.

How did you feel the day Jerry Garcia died?

pass…

Is it your belief that private sector actors cannot be part of any adoption system in Guatemala? If so, what is this belief based on? It can’t be the Hague treaty, since that treaty clearly allows accredited private actors to provide adoption services, which is what the U.S. is currently implementing.

Currently in Guatemala people are searching the villages for women willing to/who can be convinced to give up their babies for adoption. That part of the process is subject to the greatest likelihood of abuse and probably can’t be done successfully in Guatemala by the private sector.

Many adoption advocates are critical of Ortega and proposals like it because they do not set aside specific funds to provide the social services inherent in the current private system. How do things like whether a bill provides social services factor into US support? Are social services DOS’s business?

Again, DOS supports a system that provides protection and that is also functional. The Hague Convention has multiple goals to both protect children in the adoption process and to encourage the building of a wider system of child protection, making it possible for more children to remain safely with birth families, to have adequate temporary protection when they cannot, and to eventually work to increase their hopes of finding permanent families.

Tell me the truth, what do you think of Guatadopt? We’ve slung some mud at you, now is your chance to fire back.

Often quite accurate, and with positions that seem valid to me. Other times not, but potentially because of information that you wouldn’t have been aware of.

What advice do you have for others that Guatadopt may interview?

None at this point.

END OF E-INTERVIEW
And the end of the phone interview we said our farewells with a gentlemen’s agreement to keep the lines of communication open.

Consul General John Lowell came through as a pretty normal dude and not a tightly buttoned diplomat. I think he genuinely wanted to have a direct line to families; though I remain baffled by at least one of his responses.

What kind of donut has applesauce in it? Is he talking about a bear claw or something like that? Oh, the need for follow up questions.

Seriously, one challenge I have found in taking the journalist or respectable advocate route is that sometimes you find yourself actually liking the enemy. This doesn’t mean that it changes my opinion on policy matters, just that I’m able to separate the person involved from it. Sometimes I realize that they are doing their job as prescribed to them. Lord knows many of us take routes in our professions that are not our decisions. I’m not saying that is the case with Lowell, just that it’s something to remember.

Some of the answers did not address the exact questions. And had we more time I likely would have grilled harder on them. Admittedly, I did on a couple occasions politely repeat the question to try to get a more direct answer.

But we did get insights into the US position and learn some new things. To those in process whenever a new law comes into effect, you are likely to face a new requirement that PGN interview the birthmother. My guess is that this would occur while you are in PGN before being released. We heard reassurances, as Guatadopt has been saying from day one, that in-process cases will be grandfathered and completed under the notarial system. I thought we learned the date expected date of US Hague – a hot scoop – until I received an e-mail about ten after the interview that Bush had signed the articles to join.

One interesting point from Mr. Lowell was about how he viewed a January versus April implementation date for a new Guatemalan law. He basically confirmed what Guatadopt has been reporting, albeit in a much less nefarious tone. It would reduce the number of pipeline cases and give Guatemala a few months to prepare for US implementation with no new cases being started. Good, bad, or indifferent – the pipeline cases were obviously a eminent tone in his responses.

All in all, I don’t think my personal opinions on the issues have changed. I still see err in how my government has handled this situation. And I am still upset greater effort on law enforcement does not get emphasized, though admittedly I did not ask a question on it.

Guatadopt hopes to do more such interviews in an effort to keep parents up-to-date and help us all to better understand those who hold the future of Guatemalan adoptions in their hands. We have feelers out for a few and hope that they accept and realize we will be fair and polite while not being afraid to ask direct, difficult questions.

Guatadopt Profiled "On Milwaukee"

OnMilwaukee is a daily magazine for the greater Milwaukee area (where I reside). Today's edition has a story on Guatemalan adoptions and Guatadopt.com. You can find it here:
http://www.onmilwaukee.com/family/articles/guatemalanadoptions.html

And for anyone wondering, my darling Isabel has a piece of a pizza puzzle over here eye in the picture. We were playing "pepperoni face" when the picture was snapped.

Guatadopt Pride Revisited

A while back, I posted a thread in my writer's corner called "Guatadopt Pride". As the current environment seems to continually sour, as more and more media read sites like this one, I think it is a good time to remember all the wonderful things about Guatemala, its culture, its people, and the things about its adoption system that should be maintained in any new law. The reason why I remain so involved in Guatemalan adoptions is because I love the country, the amazing bond that I now have with it, and most importantly the two happy, healthy children who have a permanent family through it. So I encourage all to go back here: http://www.guatadopt.com/WritersCorner/KevinsCorner/2007/03/guatadopt_pride.html#000587 and read that piece to remember what Guatemalan adoption is all about.

Adoption Ethics and Accountability Conference - Group Rate

Ethica and the Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute are holding a conference called "Ethics and Accountability:Doing it right makes a lifetime of difference" near Washington DC on Oct 15-16. I am planning to attend. They have offerered a group rate to us if we can put together a group of seven or more.

Information on the conference is available here: http://www.ethicsconference.net/. The group rate wil be equal to the early registration prices of $175 for one day, or $275 for both.

If you are interested in attending, please contact me, Kevin, here ASAP: http://www.guatadopt.com/MailMe.php or at kevin @ guatadopt.com (remove the spaces in my e-mail address).

Rep. Weller to "Retire"

News sources are reporting that Illinois Rep. Jerry Weller, husband of Guatemalan Congresswomen Zury Rios Sosa and son-in-law of the genocidal dictator Efraim Rios Montt (who was just also elected to their Congress in order to escape prosecution for his crimes against humanity), will not be running for re-election. Rep. Weller has been under investigation for various things and was recently named one of the least ethical members of Congress. Admittedly, I am happy regardless of who ends up replacing him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3283832.shtml

In other more-tabloid type news, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are reportedly considering another adoption, with Guatemala and Brasil being atop their list. Intersting for a UN Goodwill Ambassador. Angelina, please feel free to contact us for insight on Guatemalan adoptions!

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/565847,CST-FTR-zp20.article

Problems for Rep. Jerry Weller

Today's Chicago Tribune has a front page story revealing the results of an investigation into Rep. Jerry weller. The story can be found here.

While this story is not directly adoption-related, everything to do with Rep. Weller is indirectly adoption related. So read on and realize that this is not being posted for US political reasons.

Rep. Weller is married to Zury Rios Sosa. She is a member of the Guatemalan Congress and a leader of the FRG party that currently holds the most seats in the Guatemalan Congress. My understanding is that she has been no fan of adoptions. But more importantaly, she is the daughter and largest defender of a genocidal murdering animal named General Efraim Rios Montt. The links on the names will tell you much of what you need to know but they will leave out one important consideration.

It was Montt's short rule of terror that destroyed the villages, homes, economies and ability to survive for hundreds of thousands of indigenous people. This is without doubt a significant cause of the conditions in Guatemala today that ultimately lead to adoption. That is a fact that people on all sides of the adoption debate should be willing to accept.

To read an op-ed I wrote a few years ago during one of his re-election campaigns, visit My Writer's Corner.

Rumor, Fact, and Interpretation

Last night, many popular Guatemalan sites, ours included, received a post that detailed the results of a meeting/conversation between representatives of Casa Quivira and Josefina Arellano of PGN. Those posts are authentic in having come from Cliff, the Director of Casa Quivira. His full accounting of this is posted at the end of this thread. While we have no reason to question the validity of what was reported to be have been said in this conservation or even that it occurred, we weren't there so obviously we can't verify that this is what Josefina said or that everything was reported appropriately.

Since this information went out, there has been much speculation on what the content of it means for adoptions post Jan 1. Aaah heck, there are a lot of concerned and jittery PAPs out there – let’s face it.

I think everyone needs to take a step back and look at what it claims Josefina actually said. It does not mention a shutdown. It does not mention any impact to in-process cases. What it states is that Josefina does not believe PINA should be applied to cases that begin before January 1, 2008. So what could happen is that shortly the Guatemalan authorities could release that as of Jan 1, all cases need to be brought before a judge to be in compliance with PINA (which probably should not apply to adoptions anyway but that’s ultimately for Guatemalan legal experts to determine).

The mention at the end of “suspending” all the cases is a statement that they can not apply PINA to all in-process cases because they could not have happen to them what is currently occurring with Casa Quivira.

While I am not advocating for PINA in any way, my take on this is that IF the PGN is going to try to enforce PINA, they are looking to do it rationally in a manner that does not wreak havoc on all in-process adoption cases. And of course none of this is of any solace to the children and families of Casa Quivira.

We have heard rumors of Jan 1, 2008 shutdown. But I have to say that none has appeared to me to be anything more than rumor and possibly spin doctors at work regarding the possibility that some new regulations may be applied to the current adoption law. I am not saying that things are fine, dandy, secure and beautiful to begin an adoption right now. Guatadopt issued its warning months ago and it still holds true. The environment is volatile at best. But the needs of children have also not changed.

Updated 12:11 am. Saturday - If what this post says Josefina claims comes to fruition, it does not paint a pretty picture for post Jan 1 referals/relinquishments. Other countries have managed to virtually end adoptions because of how long it takes for them to determine that there is no biological family member or domestic adoption options for the child. I believe that anyone considering starting an adoption close to Jan 1 best pay close attention to what is going on. Jan 1 is four months away and I am certain we'll have more info on this before then.

Next Thursday Guatemala will elect a new Congress and most likely the field of Presidential candidates will be narrowed down to two. And it is these people being elected who will most likely have to sort out what happens to Guatemalan adoptions. For the time being, there is a struggle underway but it is worth noting that adoptions do continue to be completed. And once again, back to CQ, I offer my thoughts and prayers to the children and PAPs involved and hope that all the powers-that-be involved in it resolve the situation so that innocent children’s futures are not put at risk. It is always wrong for children to be harmed by the world of adults.

On a separate note #1: Guatadopt had server problems late yesterday afternoon through this morning. I received no e-mails and I believe that comments posted to the site during that period were lost. So if you posted something and it never appeared, don’t take it personally. And if you attempted to e-mail Kelly or myself, please resend.

Here is Cliff’s description of the conversation between two of his attorneys and Josefina Arellano:

Notes on the Interview of Josefina Arellano, Chief of Investigation
Division of the Procuraduria General de la Nacion – PGN, 29 Aug 2007

END

What Happens When Adoptions End

One of the rarely publicized aftermaths of adoption systems closing is a deterioration of care at orphanages. I have personally met people who described this to me regarding El Salvador (from those who volunteer at an orphanage). In short, adoptions fund the care for many children, not just those being adopted. While we hope this doesn't happen to Guatemala, and while in the months to come Kelly and I will be announcing plans to help in the event it does, this is a sad fact that should not be ignored.

With this in mind CNN has a story about this and how a Peruvian adoptive family decided to help. It's a heartwarming read and gives us all something to ponder.

Click here to read the story.

Sad But Accurate Story

ZNET today published a story on the vicious crimes being committed against women in Guatemala. While many such stories appear, I think this one does a great job of putting the current wave of violence into a sociological and historical context. Having been a long-time fan of the author, Michael Parenti, it does not surprise me that he was the one to do this.

Warning - while not overly graphic, this is a sad story to read. But it also puts into context why so many poor women decide that they would rather relinquish their children than risk them growing up in poverty in Guatemala. True, poverty is not deemed a valid reason for adoption. But this explains the impact of poverty in a different light.

Click here to read the story.

A Special Welcome Home

Welcome home Josephine!

We don't usually post about homecomings but this is a special case. Those who read our site and the Big List regularly have experienced the courage of Rick Spaulding who has posted as Adopting Papi. He and his wife were caught up in a case invovling Reaching Arms and Mary Bonn. This family not only refused to give up, they also refused to sit back and be victimized. Despite the fact that their case was pending, they helped organize families to file reports with authorities about the unethical and illegal activities of RAI. They went public in every way possible to show everyone that adoptive families have rights and can take a stand. It was gutsy, courageous, and admirable! And now they have their daughter home.

Congrats and kudos to you and I can't wait to meet y'all (especially Josephine!) in a couple weeks...

RAI - They're Done

We have learned that Reaching Arms International has opted not to appeal the repeal of their license. In short, they are out of business. The tactics they used are well documented by the MN authorities in past posts in our archives. Their removal from the adoption scene is undoubtedly a positive. While there is an admitted temptation to relish the moment, we must remember that these things don't occur in a vacuum. And they don't occur without a stream of unfortunate victims.

It took a great deal of courage from many families to make this happen. I applaud them all for speaking up and fighting. One such family recently went public with their story to the NBC affiliate in Milwaukee. These stories don't tell everything in their case, but they do give you an idea of what occured in their case. You can see those stories here:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7285181.html
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7326341.html

RAI - They're Done

We have learned that Reaching Arms International has opted not to appeal the repeal of their license. In short, they are out of business. The tactics they used are well documented by the MN authorities in past posts in our archives. Their removal from the adoption scene is undoubtedly a positive. While there is an admitted temptation to relish the moment, we must remember that these things don't occur in a vacuum. And they don't occur without a stream of unfortunate victims.

It took a great deal of courage from many families to make this happen. I applaud them all for speaking up and fighting. One such family recently went public with their story to the NBC affiliate in Milwaukee. These stories don't tell everything in their case, but they do give you an idea of what occured in their case. You can see those stories here:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7285181.html
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7326341.html

US Reps call for Arrest of Rios Montt

Over thirty members of the US House of Representatives have called upon Guatemalan authorities to order the arrest of former Guatemalan dictator Efraim Rios Montt. Efraim Rios Montt ruled with an iron hand for a short period during which there was arguably a policy of genocide against the indigenous people of Guatemala. Noticably missing from the list of representatives signing this letter was Illinois Reprentative Jerry Weller, who happens to be Montt's son-in-law.

To read a story in the Washington Post about this click here.

Here is a copy of the letter sent:Download file

NCFA Update

The National Council for Adoption has issued an update on Guatemala following its meeting with members of the State Department. You can read it by clicking on more.

We thank the NCFA for their dedication in support of Guatemalan Adoptions.

GUATEMALA UPDATE: NCFA meets with State Department Officials

On Monday, March 19, Tom Atwood and other representatives of NCFA met
with officials from the U.S. Department of State to discuss the
Department's March 14 "FAQs" statement regarding Guatemala adoptions and
NCFA's reaction to it. During the meeting, NCFA reaffirmed our
previously stated commitment to reform - including the establishment of
a government-run central authority in Guatemala, as required by the
Hague Convention, and increased regulation and enforcement of the
adoption process in that country. NCFA again supported State's decision
to impose appropriate added scrutiny to the approval process.

In the meeting, the State Department reported to NCFA that it had
corrected a factual error in the statement, which NCFA had pointed out -
namely, the assertion that notaries in Guatemala act as judges in their
own adoption cases. The State Department strongly affirmed its
commitment to continue processing I-600A applications to adopt from
Guatemala, albeit with added levels of scrutiny, and emphasized that
previously finalized adoptions are not in question. Department
representatives also estimated that there are enough applicant adoptive
parents in the system to adopt the children waiting in Guatemalan foster
care to be adopted internationally.

NCFA reiterated its concern that the statement is so unqualifiedly
negative toward Guatemalan adoptions that it seems to undermine the
legitimacy of adoptions the State Department has approved and continues
to approve. NCFA urged State to consider making other changes to its
statement, particularly to clearly affirm the legitimacy of Guatemala
adoptions.

Lee Allen
Director of Communications
National Council For Adoption

USA Today Story

A story on Guatemalan Adoptions is in Monday's USA Today. Well actually, I assume it will be in the actual paper but since it is right now only Sunday night, I can can only say for sure that it is on their website. I was interviewed for this story and, all in all, the writer did not misquote me and I am happy for that. My statement about Guatemala being quicker was taken slightly out of context but not horribly so. I'd like to thank the Steve Friess, the author, for including that DNA tests are done and that many of us like the aspect of private foster care. I guess that how I went on and on about how much we love our kids' foster families, the wonderful care they gave, and how they are an important part of our family to this day paid off.

I encourage people not to get upset by the negativity in any press coverage right now. Given the DOS, USCIS, etc statements out there, a journalist would not be doing his/her job if they didn't focus on it.

You can read the story here.

Chicago Tribune Story

Cox News Service has written a story about Guatemalan adoptions that was picked up today by the Chicago Tribune. There's nothing much to it but since I was interviewed by the writer, I figured I should post it. I am hoping he will follow up with something more though he admits that space is difficult. Needless to say, I gave him a lot more info. But, I compliment the reporter because for the first time, at least I wasn't misquoted!

You can find the story here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703010214mar01,1,7692942.story?track=rss

Like everyone else, we're anxiously awaiting word on the protocolo. We'll post when we know what was said. For anyone not aware, it is being announced as I type this.

View of an Adoptee - Introduction

I am very excited to have another writer onboard Guatadopt.com. While we have our own "perspective" on adoption, there was always a perspective that I felt was missing from the site...and that is of an adoptee. So, it is with great pleasure that we add Meredith's blog: View of an Adoptee. You can access her blog at anytime under the horizontal menu, Writers Corner. Please give her a warm welcome.

About Meredith:
Meredith is a 30-something Guatemalan who was adopted by her parents when she was 8 months old. She has always felt comfortable telling "her story", and at some point was asked to do so as a resource to prospective adoptive parents through such venues as parenting classes, group meetings, seminars, and conferences. She happily shares what a great way international (and specifically, Guatemalan) adoption is to build a family. So much so, in fact, that she's currently in the process of completing a lifelong dream - - to adopt a child from Guatemala herself! Meredith grew up in cities throughout the Midwest and is still in that part of the country. She is currently a Human Resources Manager for a Fortune 500 company and lives with her husband, stepson, and stepdaughter.
---------------------------------------------------

'Apocalypto'

Yesterday, I came across this article about Apocalypto: Apocalypto' a distorted view of Maya history

Quote from the article:
"Stereotypes of bloodthirsty savagery and moral degeneracy have been used to vilify indigenous peoples for 500 years--by every government that has sought to justify the denial of civil rights to native peoples."

This is certainly true....

"These "entertaining" images affect ordinary people too. Native Americans--like African-Americans, gays and lesbians--are at constant risk of hate crimes."

Hmmm...while I won't dispute this, I don't see a film dipicting that time (or distorting, depending on your point of view) having nearly the negative impact as other "political" statements and actions such as the contraversy of immigration. I certainly do NOT like history being re-written to accomodate a story, but is this the case, is it "creative license"? Mel Gibson states that one should not consider the movie as a historical document. But how much of the "creative license" is being taken....and are the viewers focusing on the history or the story? The problem is that it comes at a delicate time in Guatemala's history where the indiginous are still fighting for basic human rights. They have a right to be proud of their roots...the advances revealed in the ruins are fascinating and simply amazing.

To complicate matters, historians can't totally agree on the reasons for the demise of the Maya Empire. I recently saw a special on Discovery Channel which claims a mini-ice age might have been the culprit (which would have lowered the water supply). Many of us have heard that the civilization was violent *YET* one of the most advanced in areas of math and science.

Like our history books....the stories are still theories based on what has been left behind. There have been several recent discoveries in the ruins of Guatemala and Mexico which have uncovered more theories. In years to come, they may have another finding that conflicts with previous theories!

For now, the movie has exposed a "historical nerve" and we are publically learning a great deal about the historical theories through the criticism of the movie.
Here is an article from National Geographic: "Apocalypto" Tortures the Facts, Expert Says

Again, I can't really say that the movie does this or that....I guess I will just have to go see it.

Congrats to Tyler, Paula and Joe

The adoption process is gruelling and difficult. Sometimes it nice for those in process to read about how others have gone through it. Here is a story printed in a paper about a friend of mine I've known for many years who is finally a dad. It's been a long road but as I had been telling you, "there's a light at the end of the tunnel".

http://www.salisburypost.com/area/287427782182915.php

On UNICEF and ICA

Between Halloween promotions and Guatemalan adoption politics, UNICEF seems to once again be a hot topic. It is interesting that every year, a new group of families enter the Guatemalan adoption process, new to any knowledge of controversies surrounding UNICEF and Intercountry Adoption (ICA). And those of us who have been around a while say "here we go again".

The easiest way to become an expert on UNICEF and ICA is to read the entire report written by Families Without Borders. Both Kelly and I from Guatadopt were contributors to this report, and it is a great comprehensive study suitable for academic publication.

A search of our archives will also lead you to lots of information, press articles, petitions and more to give you a sense of it all. But read on here for a top-line assessment.

UNICEF has done many wonderful things during its history. It is impossible to argue with the merits of their feeding and immunization programs. But over its history, it has also had its fair share of controversy. The book, Lords of Poverty contains some of this.

Nowhere in criticisms should anyone assume or portray UNICEF as being an evil organization – it is not. But like anything in this world, it is far from perfect. And the area of Intercountry Adoption is one of them.

UNICEF’s official position would not in itself be a cause for concern. It sounds quite logical and hard to debate. However within it lies the question of implementation, pragmatism, reality, and idealism. In addition, it is worth noting that it was only in the last couple of years that UNICEF’s official position admitted that ICA was preferred to long-term institutionalization. To illustrate my point, it is hard to debate that it is best for a child to stay with his biological family. From there is it best if she stay within her country of birth. And after that, ICA should be considered. Sounds good, but let’s illustrate where the problems lie in the details.
1.) Stay with biological family – should a birthmother have the right to say that she does not wish for her child to grow up within her biological family. Should UNICEF pressure countries to pass legislation that would remove a woman’s right to develop an adoption plan? What if she knows her family would want to keep the child but not provide a safe, stable, loving environment?
2.) 2.) Stay in country – So just how long should a country, under law, have to search for a hypothetic domestic family to adopt the child? What happens to the child in the meantime? What if the country offers no good foster or institutional care?

The main issue with UNICEF’s position and formal lobbying efforts are that they are based on one universal standard that does not waiver or give consideration to the uniqueness of each country. Impoverished nations with poor government infrastructure, absent of social programs, do not have the ability to implement the UNICEF ICA model and end up with a clean, functioning system. Instead what we have seen time and time again in countries like El Salvador and Honduras is an end to ICA with no evidence of an increase in family unification or domestic adoption. This is what UNICEF calls “success”.

Those are the main issues with their formal, above-board position. The other strong points of contention are their more covert operations. I cannot say whether these tactics are endorsed by the HQ or just the actions of rogue in-country staff, but UNICEF representatives have been involved in activities such as instigating false media reports, spreading lies such as organ harvesting, trying to dissuade social workers from processing adoption work, and what could easily be construed as bribery. People can choose to believe or not believe these claims as they are very hard to prove. What I will say is that there have been more than enough false stories in the Guatemalan press with UNICEF officials quoted, reports from people I know who work on humanitarian causes, and more to lead me to these conclusions.

As I wrote at the beginning, reading the Families Without Borders report is your best bet to make an informed opinion on UNICEF and ICA, and then to use that to decide whether or not it makes you unwilling to support UNICEF in its entirety. I could write much more, but consider this a starting point.

A lesson and memoir

Exactly three years ago today and tomorrow. Hague survivors: do you remember? And for those of you struggling in-process today, read on to hear the story of your Guatemalan Adoption ancestry...

Guatemala had joined the Hague and since March 2003 everything had been virtually at a standstill. Even the “Pre March 15” cases that were to be completed under the old rules weren’t getting out of PGN. And no new rules had been established….

Those of us in “Post March 15” status were in limbo. All we knew was that our cases were going to have to meet some new Hague standard, though no one could say what that meant. And then a rumor spread that on the first of July the new rules would be announced.

For my wife and I, it was especially tough. We were going to visit our precious Isabel, only three months old, for the first time. We were leaving on the third and yet we still didn’t know if we’d ever be able to bring her home. What would these new rules say? If it looked bad, would we cancel our trip?

I woke up that morning wondering whether this would be the best or worst birthday of my life. Yes, it was going to be a memorable birthday for me one way or the other. The very first thing I did after waking up was run to the computer and check, you guessed it, Guatadopt.com. At the time, like so many of you, I was an avid follower of the site. It was my lifeline and only source of reliable information during this turbulent time in our adoption.

Anticipation gripped me as I logged on.

No news…

So I went on with my morning routine. Had a cup of coffee. Played with the dogs. Took a shower. As I was ready to leave for work, I checked Guatadopt.com again. There was news!

We were going to be able to adopt Isabel. DOS had made an announcement. It was the best birthday of my life!

By that afternoon, the story had changed somewhat and the news really wasn’t so great. Nonetheless, Sheila and I went on our trip and it was one of the most amazing experiences of our life. Obviously Isabel came home and 20 months later so would her bio-brother Samuel. Today, our family is complete.

To travel back to that day and read the Guatadopt archives,
DOS Announcement
The Gist of It

To all of you currently enduring your own adoption-process PGN hell, please realize that we Hague alumni empathize with you. We’ve been through the same kind of torture. The only difference is that we know the story has a happy ending. Look at this picture of my kids as testament that you will persevere!

Hang in there…

Adoption Grants

I know nothing about this organization but I came across the press release annoucing adoption grants and thought I'd pass it along...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb356892.htm

IAC TO ESTABLISH WORLD COUNCIL ON CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTS

A new council has been formed to address all options on children without parents. In my opinion, this is a very positive step on the road to creating viable options for children, consistent with their rights under international convention, and with a dose of reality attached.

For the first time since since my entry to the world of intercountry, a multinational group has been formed to look into things like concurrent solutions for children, where for example domestic and intercountry adoption options can be moved forward at the same time, with a preference for domestic without causing a child to live without permanency for an extended period of time.

While to some extent this carries the same theme as the Hague originally did, I'm cautiously optimistic, and enthusiastic, that the combined learnings from the Hague, its aftermath, and the parties involved in this council will have a better result.

Read on for a press release on this.

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

IAC TO ESTABLISH WORLD COUNCIL ON CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTS

Atlanta / Amsterdam, December 15 2005

International Advocates for Children (IAC) announced today that it has received unanimous support from 31 nations and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Chairman to form the World Council on Children without Parents. The Council, a membership organization with proposed financial support from all UN-countries, will focus on all available options for children without parents, including reunification, temporary care, adoption (domestic and international) and institutional care. The council will be named: "World Council on Child Welfare" for orphaned and abandoned children.

Ms. Lynda Lee Smith, Executive Director of IAC and 1st President - Elect of the World Council, said, “In the past we've made a lot of promises to children without parental care and we've signed a few "feels good" types of conventions and declarations but we are still struggling globally to deliver on our promises. The formation of this Council, made up of experts from diverse fields including government, child welfare representatives and non-governmental organizations working on the ground, is a huge leap forward in addressing the needs of these children throughout the world. The Council will move immediately to establish best practices and twenty-first century models for child welfare systems, collect critical statistics, and manage both the successes and conflicts between nations. IAC's new headquarters in Amsterdam, led by IAC's first International CEO, Maarten G.H. Brekelmans, will facilitate the World Council.

In support of the Council were officials from the USA, Italy, Germany, Romania, The Netherlands, Hungary, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Russia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Armenia, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Argentina, Lesotho, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Pakistan, Vietnam, El Salvador, Republic of Georgia, Bahamas, Mongolia, Ukraine, and Latvia. The unanimous vote, taken in Boston, USA, (in November 2005) at the 2nd World Conference on Children without Parents, founded by IAC, also included 30 different NGO's and other non-profit organizations.

A formal funding request is being prepared for the world community and the Council is now establishing the organizational structure for membership. Two expert committees, Legal and Science, will clearly define areas such as "best interest of child" and establish global best practices that serve children at all levels within the child welfare system.

It is estimated that over 100 million children are in need of permanent care around the globe. With the AIDS epidemic and natural disasters such as the tsunami, that number may increase over the next decade.

Looking for Interpreter

I came across a request for an interpreter who speaks an Indian dialect, "Conjabul" for a medical situation in the Atlanta area. If you have any information, please contact me ASAP.

Request from the Embassy

The BCIS at the US Embassy in Guatemala has requested some relief from the large numbers of e-mails and congressional inquiries they are receiving from adoptive parents. The reason being that they are receiving so many e-mails, sometimes multiple e-mail in one day about the same case, that attempting to answer them is preventing them from processing the cases. The same goes for inquiries from members of Congress since the Embassy is legally obligated to answer each of those in writing.

Understaffing has been an ongoing issue with the BCIS in Guatemala and is not something that they necessarily can control. To address this, three permanent staff members have been added and are now currently working in Guatemala. It is everyone's hope that they will be able to speed up the process of getting preapprovals issued.

Some professionals have requested that parents not contact the Embassy unless it has been sixty days since DNA results were received in order to give the Embassy a chance to get caught up.

Please don't shoot the messenger here. Having just been through the process, and having written to them myself in my adoption, I know how difficult the wait can be. However, it appears they have addressed the staffing issue, at least to some degree, and I can certainly understand their position on this.

An Evening with Susana Luarca

Please see below the invitation to download the registration form.

Click here for a registration form:
Download file

Don't Let Guatemala Be Next!!!

I post this story from the New York Times in hopes that Sra Berger, Casa Alianza, and the Guatemalan Congress may read it. It details what has happened in Romania since it passed its law essentially ending intercountry adoption. This is what hapens when good intentions and ideals overshadow the real, immediate needs of children.

To read the story, click here or hit "more"

The longer, original version of te story from the International Herald Tribune can found here.

Law Backfires, Stranding Orphans in Romania

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
Published: June 23, 2005

BUCHAREST, Romania - A new law here on the "protection and promotion of the rights of the child" has done little to protect Vasile, a 7-year-old who has lived his whole life in an orphanage in Botosani.

More than two years ago, Becky Hubbell, a pharmaceutical executive from Overland Park, Kan., submitted the required papers to adopt the wide-eyed, dark-haired boy, whom she and her husband had met during medical missions here.

But before that process was completed, the government passed its new child welfare law, which essentially forbids international adoptions. The measure has left hundreds of families without children they had counted as theirs. More important, critics say, the sweeping law leaves thousands of abandoned Romanian children stranded indefinitely in institutions or foster care.

"You have a child in your heart and you've made all the arrangements, and it's clear that child wants a family, too," Ms. Hubbell said. "But for Vasile, time is passing without the stability of a home. And that's harder and harder to make up for."

When, in 2002, officials in Brussels demanded that Romania clean up a chaotic and sometimes corrupt child welfare system as a condition for admission to the European Union, Romanian politicians jumped into action. Law 272, written in collaboration with European Union advisers, aimed to halt decades of mismanagement in just a few years, with edicts that many critics now say were overzealous and impractical.

In response to criticism that orphans were growing up in sterile institutions, the government mandated that no child under 2 could live in one; the new law, it noted, favored reuniting children with biological relatives or placing them in foster care. In response to charges that foreign adoptions were so poorly managed that they sometimes resembled child trafficking, the government declared there would be no more.

Experts applaud the central goal: to encourage Romanian families to stay together and to end the longstanding practice here of abandoning unwanted children. But many child advocates doubt that this poor country, just 15 years removed from a brutal dictatorship, will be able to find good living situations quickly for its huge population of orphaned and abandoned children. Many children currently in orphanages and hospitals, they say, will be stranded.

"There are good impulses behind the law - to provide more assistance to mothers, to keep children out of institutions - and we all felt the system needed more standards," said Gabi Mihaela Comanescu, program director of the ProChild Romania Foundation.

"But there are problems. For example, there are older children who are as adoptable as ever, but there is no one to adopt them now. Also, the law says every abandoned child under 2 should be in foster care, but as far as I know there aren't nearly enough foster homes."

The unintended result is that deserted infants are now passing their precious first years in a hospital ward. There are close to 10,000 children abandoned at hospitals each year in Romania, according to a new study by Unicef, and up to 50,000 children in the care of the state.

Romania's unusual tradition of child abandonment began with a ban on birth control imposed in 1966 by Nicolae Ceausescu, the former dictator, to increase the population. Within a year, women began dropping off unwanted children at state orphanages or hospitals. Their logic was that "the government wanted them, so the government should raise them," according to the Unicef report.

Child abandonment has continued at the same level for 40 years, said Pierre Poupard, head of the Unicef office in Bucharest, even though birth control is widely available in post-Communist Romania. Now, mothers desert babies because they feel they cannot afford to raise them.

Before Law 272 took effect on Jan. 1, politicians from France, Italy and the United States, among others, vigorously lobbied the government to rethink the ban on international adoptions, or at least to allow cases already started to proceed. In January the new Romanian prime minister, Calin Popescu-Tariceanu, said he would "not forget foreign families" who had taken steps to adopt Romanian children. To date, however, nothing has been done.

According to the Romanian Adoptions Office, 467 babies were adopted by foreigners in 2002, although a partial moratorium was already in effect. Before that, several hundred Romanian children were adopted annually by families in Italy, France, Israel and the United States, according to adoption groups in those countries. Today the number is zero.

Instead, Romanian county child welfare officials are now required to "reintegrate or integrate the children into their biological or extended families or to place them with a Romanian foster family," said Theodora Bertzi, head of the adoption office.

New families are being trained in foster care to meet the need, she said. Romanian couples (or grandparents living overseas) are being encouraged to adopt unwanted children. Orphanages, called "placement centers," can take children over 2 when no home is available.

Florin Catanescu, 28, grew up in the centers after being abandoned at birth by a schizophrenic mother. Handsome and articulate, he carries his past in one small photo album decorated with a child's glittery stickers. He is skeptical about Law 272, at least in the short term.

"I just don't think the resources are sufficient in our country for this new law, and attitudes will not change that quickly," said Mr. Catanescu, who is starting a nongovernmental organization to help graduates of the centers integrate into society: find jobs, rent apartments, order food in a restaurant. "Children will be stuck - there are still so many families who abandon children."

Because so many of the children are given up for economic reasons, they continue to have contact with their mothers even if they live in orphanages for years, making it hard to define their family status.

Under the old law, if a mother disappeared for more than six months, the child could be put up for adoption. But the new law, with its emphasis on maintaining biological families, stipulates that a mother's right to her child is indefinite, extending through years of separation.

In order for a child to be put up for adoption, the mother must sign a paper formally ending the relationship, which is impossible in cases like Vasile's, in which the mother has long since disappeared. Other relatives have to decline the child as well.

At the Sunbeam Complex of Community Service, a placement center 60 miles from Bucharest, 15 of the 16 children (aged 4 to 9) have had some contact with their biological families. Only one girl, who is 4, is technically adoptable. The tidy two-story house, lying amid dusty fields, is far superior to the huge, impe