The Latest - Campaigns, media, and legislative proposals

There is much going on, though not new news. So please click on more to get the latest and greatest as we see it.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 will be airing a segment on Guatemalan adoption tonight. I am very disappointed that they did not contact Guatadopt in order to get an unbiased, objective assessment. The show airs at 10 p.m. est.

We have learned that Josefina Arellano is no longer in her post at PGN. No news on what that means.

Other rumors – no, adoptions were not suspended. Agencies – read things more clearly! We don’t know if Barrios is on vacation. The process seems to be running in its usual slow pace.

Many of you have asked for info on where our old UNICEF halloween camapign are. You can find them here: http://www.guatadopt.com/archives/000228.html

As previously reported, the DOS has said they are lobbying for in process cases. The Guatemalan congress website shows that Consul General John Lowell met with Guatemalan officials on Sept 28. in regard to adoption law: http://www.congreso.gob.gt/gt/ver_noticia.asp?id=4266

As I have stated since DOS made its original announcement, even the pessimistic, anti-authoritarian Kevin can’t imagine either the Guatemalan authorities or DOS officials sitting by and allowing so many children to suffer by suspending in-process adoptions. So please, don’t make a liar and participate in the various campaigns to save in process adoptions. With that in mind, be sure to be a part of JCICS’s Guatemala 5000 Initiative: http://www.jcics.org/Guatemala5000.htm. I have been critical of JCICS in the past but I want to support this well coordinated effort. Now is a time to be united in one thing – that a suspension of in-process cases would be disastrous.

While you are planning your letters and talking points for the Guatemala 5000 Initiative, you should decide whether you wish to address legislation before Guatemala’s congress at the same time. As a US citizen, I am reluctant to endorse specific legislation. But I will say this. Ortega (3217) would be a travesty. Guatemala’s system would suffer the same fate as so many others before it. If the DOS is going to be lobbying for any specific piece of legislation, meddling in Guatemala’s affairs, then it should NOT be Ortega. Bill 3635 contains many improvements over the current system. If implemented and enforced, it would make Guatemala a benchmark for other countries. Of course, Guatemala’s current system, if legally enforced, does the same. Since UNICEF and the Hague seem to be more concerned about laws meeting “international standards” than they do about the impact of those laws on children, 3635 does achieve that goal.

Focus on Adoption has officially endorsed 3635. You can read their paper on it here: Download file
The first couple of pages are an great intro in case you haven’t time to read the whole thing. Of course, we all need to be experts so you should read the whole thing.

I'll end with one last thought. The adults of influence all need to get off of their relative positions and start thinking about children's best interests. It is time for all "established positions" to be thrown out the window and for a new day to be born in the world of intercountry adoption. It is time for politicians to remember that their job is really to do what is right, rather than to do what is politically relevant. It is time for NGOs and international organizations to re-think what they have created. Things like the Hague and the CRC were created with the best of intentions. But until things go into force, no one can predict what they will actually cause. In the case of ICA, they have been a failure in many ways. So please, everyone, throw away your weapons and let's all act like adults, look at the goods and bads of Guatemalan adoptions, and develop a system that EVERYONE can be proud of. The opportnity is here, if only the right voices can be heard.

New DOS Statement - Brace Yourselves

The US Embassy has issued what I will deem a very frightening statement. I will say that I have herd rumors of cases getting streamlined to clear the pipes cleared before Jan 1. In addition, this is all quite iffy and subject to change.

But I would take this as a serious warning to anyone considering starting a process right now.

I take one more thing from this and that is the DOS is stating that it does not have plans to stand by its citizens who have entered into good faith, legal process. In short, I find this "hands off" statement appalling. I am sure there will be more on this in the weeks to come as we learn more and strategize on what may need to be done.

Here is the statement: http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_389.html

Added 9:52 pm Tues 9/25 - click on more for my commentary, a response from Focus on Adoption, and a translation of an article on the Ortega Law that appeared to day in the Prensa Libre. It is worth noting since Guatemala faces a presidential election in a couple weeks that The Patriot Party, whose cadidate is Otto Perez, is suporting this legislation. The UNE (National Unity of Hope) party of candidate Alvaro Colom is much more tentative. Colom already had my support for reasons unrelated to adoption, now he may have it for adoption related reasons as well (which is not to say he "supports" adoption). Thanks to Chris Huber of Families Thru International Adoption for translating it.

A response from ADA can be found here: http://www.adaguatemala.org/English/news/ It has also been posted at the end of the main post.

Added Thurs 9/2: JCICS and NCFA have issued a press release. It can be found here: In addition, at the end of this now very long thread you can find the message they sent out to their agency members urging them to stop issuing referals as of Oct. 1.

Today was a very hectic day of meetings for me in the office. As such, I apologize for the short original post and the fact that it took quite some time to clear comments. That's unfortunately the real world where Kelly and I both have real jobs that feed our families and have to take precendence.

First of all, I am nothing short of appalled at what the DOS has stated. As you will read below in the FOA response, it is not only inconsistent with the Hague, it is also pathetic, cowardly, and immensely insensative to the thousands of in-process families. Granted, as has been stated many times, Guatemala is a sovereign nation and can do as it pleases. But this is also a matter of international affairs and our US government has the duty to defend its citizens. Moreso, ours is a reprentative government and I dare someone to show me how this statement in any way shows an executive branch dedicated to the principle "of the people, by the people, for the people".

I believe VERY strongly that this is political pandering designed primarily to prevent new parents from entering the system. In the end, and this is solely my OPINION, I do not believe that our government will sit around and allow thousands of in process adoptions, entered into in good faith, be disrupted to the detriment of living children in need of permanency and the checkbooks of US citizens. You damn well better believe that if Guatemala or any other country attempted to end good faith contracts on any corporate interest in this manner, there would be hell to pay. I'll point to Cuba after Castro took power, Iran's nationalization of oil industries, and Guatemala's purchase of lands from United Fruit as examples. Except in this case there is zero doubt in my mind that the matter could be handled through simple diplomacy rather than a Bay of Pigs, overthrow of Moussadeq, or genocidal 36 year civil war.

I do not believe this is all coming from the Guatemalan side with the US not raising a fuss. I believe that for some time our DOS, in what I consider its usual non-transparent, dishonest fashion, has not been upfront with the adoption community about its intentions. Instead of having some courage and acting on its own to just do what they ultimately want - to shut down Guatemalan adoptions - they have chosen to issue a series of prolific warnings and statements. Instead of actually prosecuting those who have broken laws, they have accepted plea bargains and not gone after others with vigor and determination. And now they issued a statement like this as yet another way to commit emotional terrorism on its own citizens. I don't think Guatemala on its volition plans to end in-process adoptions, I think the US is orchestrating this in its stereotypical fashion. And in addition, I don't think things will come down as described. I think in process cases will be completed and believe that the US would be better serving its citizens if it just issued a moratorium on new cases if that is what they ultimately want to happen.

I, of course, could be wrong. Moreso, it may take all of us to use our combined effort on an orchestrated campaign to prove me right. Formal plans are in the works for an official campaign and FOA has a call to action below. I did say not to freak out yet because as is being proved in Myanmar right now, as was proven by MLK and Gandhi before us, and as is chanted at many protests - "there ain't no power like the power of the people". We may need to fight. We may need to protest. We may need to threaten (non-violent of course!) all of our elected officials, many of whom are already in campaign mode . But IF somehow the DOS believes that they can just issue a "screw you" statement like this and get away with it, the solidarity of our adoptive community may need to bond together like never before to prove otherwise.

Lastly, since I know DOS reads this site - BUST THE SCUMBAGS, DEFEND CHILDREN, AND DON'T MAKE IT OUT AS IF YOU HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR CITIZENS!

Statement from Focus on Adoption:

Focus On Adoption Deplores DOS's position on Guatemalan Adoptions

Today, September 25, 2007, DOS announced several reasons why prospective adoptive families should not commence an adoption from Guatemala. Not least among them was the purported intention by unnamed Guatemalan officials that the Guatemalan government intends to ignore the clear requirements of the Convention and intends to disallow in-process cases from proceeding under existing law.

Any first year law student can read the Convention and immediately grasp why this "information" is, at best, misguided and, more likely, part of the consistent pattern of the existing (and soon-to-depart) Guatemalan administration's open hostility to constitutionally protected notarial adoptions in Guatemala. DOS is keenly aware of the provisions of article 46 of the Convention and is therefore likewise fully aware that this so-called "plan" is fundamentally at odds with the processes required by the Convention for its applicability. Yet, rather than identify and challenge the patent inconsistency and illegality of the "plan," and in lieu of consulting with the agencies that are left to manage the panic the warning will inevitably produce, DOS instead chose to publish this "plan" as part of a "warning." Why?

In issuing this warning, DOS, the "Central Authority" of the United States, has acted wholly contrary to the interests of U.S. adopting families. DOS should not be "warning" of this plan; DOS should be resisting this plan. American families who are already in process have the right to expect their government to do everything within its power to protect and preserve their rights as reflected in the Convention that the U.S. has been working toward implementing for over 15 years now. DOS's assertion that it is "working closely" with others "to support Guatemala's transition to meeting its obligations under the Hague Convention" is belied by the utter failure of its "warning" to announce U.S. resistance to a "plan" the implementation of which would be in clear violation of the Convention and would directly affect thousands of American families. Why?

Indeed there are changes happening in Guatemalan adoption. Currently, there are two bills pending in the Guatemalan Congress that would bring Hague compliance to Guatemalan adoptions. One, Bill 3635, would retain much of the current architecture, including many salutary features, of the Guatemalan adoption process, while bringing needed reform to parts of the process that all agree should be reformed. Another, the so-called "Ortega law," would render intercountry adoption theoretically possible but practically impossible. The mysterious "plan" that DOS warns of is fundamentally inconsistent with the Guatemalan Constitution, as it is only the Congress who can pass legislation and determine when and how this legislation will take effect. So far the Guatemalan Congress has NOT passed either proposal into law. However, it is a matter of interest to child advocates that DOS and the Hague are strongly promoting the Ortega Law, # 3217 and the Guatemalan congress is reporting on great international pressure to pass a law which includes no funding plan or possibility of practical implementation. Yet, DOS fails to so state. Why?
FOA challenges all adopting parents to flood the U.S. Government, in all its various forms, with questions for our "Central Authority" – Why? Why? Why? Why is DOS ignoring the clear requirements of the Convention? Why is DOS failing to protect the interests of Americans who have undertaken a process in good faith? Why is DOS failing its mandate under the Convention to ensure that adoptions proceed expeditiously and according to the terms of existing law? Why is DOS supporting passage of a law which will hinder adoptions and place children in jeopardy?

Please write to your two U.S. Senators, your U.S. Congressperson, the President of the United States, and directly to DOS. Hold DOS accountable.
You can find your US Senators and Representatives at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
You can write to DOS at: Main address:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000
TTY:1-800-877-8339 (Federal Relay Service)

Article from Prensa Libre

Adoption Law Ready

Parties agree to approve it with amendments but have not yet set a date.
By: Ana Lucía Blas

The amendments to the adoption law initiative were pacted yesterday in the Commission on Minors and the family of the congress and now should be included in the agenda of sessions so that this law will be approved before the 30th of next November as required by the application of the Hague Convention on this subject.

Rolando Morales, president of this working group, referred yesterday that they had already given their support to the law project and its amendments so that now they are only waiting for it to be programmed to discuss it in the third debate before the full body.

In this way, it would adequate the content of the Hague Convention on International Adoption to the legislation and it would facilitate putting it in practice starting next January.

Among the proposals presented by said commission, there would be created the National Counsel of Adoptions as the director of these processes, which would temporarily be assigned to the PGN and formed by the Secretary of Social Welfare, a representative of the Supreme Court of Justice, a member of congress and a member of the National Commission for Youth and Adolescents.

It was agreed that at the beginning it would be assigned to the PGN because they foresee that it will be difficult to assign resources for it to function as an autonomous entity from 2008. "We do not know not even how much money might be needed for which reason we decided that it will have to wait some time to become independent" explained Morales.

In the original initiative, that was stalled after the second reading in September of 2005, it designated the PGN as the only director of the adoption which generated divisions from various sectors including the Executive, that last July named, by a Governmental Accord, the Secretary of Social Welfare as being in charge of regulation the adoption processes.

Also in July, representatives of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, suggested that in order to avoid dissents, in the law, they should designate no just one institution but rather all who are involved in the process relatated to adoptions.

The Hague Convention, ratified by the congress last May, requires a directing body be defined to coordinate and approve all of the processes in this material.

REQUIREMENTS for ADOPTING

If the law is approved, persons interested in adoption a child would have to request it from the CNA. Once their petition is registered and they meet the requirements, the adoptive family could go to a notary to formalize the process.

A judge of Children and Adolescents would certify that the minor is adoptable before the procedures are authorized for it. The directing entity will decide if the petitioning family is suitable for the child, in accord with the best interests of the child, his right to a cultural identity, physical, medical, social-economic, psychological and other aspects.

The adoptive family and the child will have no less than 5 working days to live together and socialize while the adoption is approved. At the end of this period, a multidisciplinary team will emit an empathy report or quality of relationship established between the parents and the child.

With this, the goal is to avoid that adoptions be converted into a business which until now has generated the theft and sale of children. According to data from the Procuraduría of Human Rights, 203 minors where stolen this year by mafias in order to give them in adoption.

In 2006 there were 4496 adoptions in this country according to the PGN. Ninety eight percent were international, the majority process for US couples.

AWARE OF THE URGENCY

The majority of parties with a high representation in the congress are aware that it is urgent to approve an adoption law before the legislative period ends the 30th of November. "It cannot wait any longer" affirmed Francisco Barquín of the Patriot Party and member of the Commission of the Minor.

Another member of this commission, Conrado Garcia of the National Unity of Hope, agrees that it is necessary to regulate "such a noble action as adoption". Never the less this party has not decided if it would support the creation of the CNA.

Virna Lopez of the Great National Alliance, would support the Counsel and referred that she hopes that the law will be approved without holdups as soon as possible.

POSITIONS

INCOROPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS

Virma Lopez of the GANA party, commented yesterday that the amendments to the adoption law initiative had already incorporated the recommendations from the experts on the subject from the Hague for which it is hoped that the norm will be approved without problems.

IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ANALYZE

Eduardo Meyer of the UNE party said that in order to know if they will support the opinion of the Commission on the Minor, first they will analyze the modifications together with the other members of their party even though their representative on the Commission had already pronounced his position.

MEMBERS OF THE PP WILL SUPPORT IT

Gudy Rivera of the PP party, referred that the law is need because many people make money with the adoptions. He added that first they will socialize the amendments in their party and if all goes well, it will be able to be approved before this legislative period concludes.

REQUIREMENTS

The norm will fix the conditions to process adoptions.

A judge of Children and Adolescents must declare that the minor can be the subject of adoption.

The National Counsel of Adoptions, the controlling authority on the material, will approve the adoption after having confirmed the empathy of the minor with the adoptive family.

It must also be watched out so that the adoption responds to the best interest of the child which will be taken into account for physical, medical, social-economic, and psychological aspects among others, both for the minor as well as for the possible adoptive parents.

It must guarantee the right of the minor to a cultural identity.

Until now, it is the notaries and attorneys who process adoptions.

In 2006 there were 4496 adoptions in the country, the majority of them processed for US couples.

ADA Response posted with the permission of Susana Luarca

THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE US AND GUATEMALA AGAINST THE CHILDREN
Today, the US Department of State announced a new warning, urging the American citizens not to commence an adoption process from Guatemala at this time, because - they say - fundamental changes in both countries will take place within the next six months.

According to the DOS warning "Guatemala has stated that it will become a Hague Convention country on January 1, 2008". The DOS also says that Guatemala will no longer do adoptions with non Hague countries, and since the US is not a Hague Convention member, it will stop doing adoptions to the US, until it ratifies the Hague Convention. When the US ratifies the Hague Convention, - projected to occur in the spring of 2008 - there may be a period of time during which we will not be able to approve adoptions from Guatemala, until Guatemala’s adoptions process provide the protection for children and families required by the Hague Adoption Convention.

In 2003, when the PGN as Central Authority for the Hague Convention, paralyzed adoptions arguing that they did not comply with the Hague Convention, and the US did not do anything to prevent it, we urged the US to assert their Third Country Status, - as stated by the Vienna Convention - to remove from the scope of the Hague Convention the adoptions done by American citizens. The US DOS did not do it. It was in Guatemala, the Court of Amparo who ruled that not being the US a party to the Hague Convention, it should not be applied to the adoptions being done by citizens of that country. The PGN refused to obey the ruling of the Amparo Court and just because at that time the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the approval of Congress to the Hague Convention, that we did not proceed to press criminal charges against the PGN officers. The DOS did nothing then to help the American citizens whose adoptions were caught in the middle of the arbitrary and useless paralyzation of adoptions by the PGN.

The Hague Convention will not come into effect on January 1st., because that day is just when the approval of Congress to such convention becomes effective. The approval of Congress cannot by itself, make Guatemala a party to the Convention. The very same Hague Convention says that a country becomes a party the first day of the following month after a period of three months after the Secretary of The Hague Conference receives the document of accession or ratification. The document of accession sent by the Guatemalan president in November, 2002 cannot have effects internally in Guatemala, because the approval of the Congress to the Hague Convention in 2002 was ruled unconstitutional and therefore, such accession is null and void and cannot produce any effects in Guatemala. The US and the Guatemalan authorities know it, and that is why they forced the Congress to approve again the Hague Convention. If Guatemala would be bound by such convention, there would not have been necessary to violate again our Constitution, to become a party to the Hague Convention.

The US has been putting enormous pressure over the Guatemalan Congress to pass a proposal of adoption law known as the Ortega Law (Bill 3217), which eliminates the private care of the children, the right of the birthparents to relinquish their children or to choose who can adopt them, the notarial and judicial process of adoptions, limiting the intervention of the judge, to just ratify the administrative approval of the adoption. The appointment of the PGN as Central Authority is proven beyond any doubt that is a recipe for disaster. The role that would be played by the Secretariat of Social Welfare of the Presidency is mostly, to oversee what the private hogars would do, ignoring the fact that if they cannot charge for their services (undue benefits), not very many hogars will remain open to care for the children that no longer would be adopted. According to the UNICEF delegate, such entity will not provide anything for the children either, because the needy children are the problem of the local government, and all UNICEF cares about is that Guatemala passes laws that please the international community, according to the treaties that Guatemala is a party to.

We still have three months ahead of us to make our governments quit this game of "If you are Hague, I am Not and If I become Hague, You won’t". We used to oppose the Hague Convention because we thought that far from protecting the children and the families, it was a sand trap, where adoptions got stuck in every single country where it has been implemented. But something made us change our minds. When we read the proposal 3635, we were amazed at the way the Guatemalan Congress has found the way to implement the Hague Convention and at the same time, to keep the good features of the current system. There is a way for a country to keep adoptions open and be Hague compliant at the same time: it is with proposal 3635. But it has been ignored thus far by the US DOS, the Hague Conference and the Committee for the Child and the Family of Congress. Such proposal needs only ten million quetzals to be implemented, because the money to keep it working would come out of the processing fees of the adoptions, and the accrediting fees. The work would be done by accredited bodies and the Central Authority would be an autonomous entity, formed by delegates of the presidency (SBS and PGN), of the Judiciary, of the Congress, of the Bar Association, of the Medical Association and of the Procuraduria of Human Rights. This proposal, unlike the proposal 3217, establishes that the part of the law regarding the organization of the Central Authority, would become effective immediately, and the rest of it, six months later, to give time to the Central Authority to get organized. Also, it states that the processes of adoption started before the second part of the law becomes effective, would be finalized according to the current system as well as those processes where the authorization by the receiving country was granted before the coming into effect of the second part of the law. The Central Authority in this proposal would have the following departments: of accreditation of the different entities who would perform different tasks of the adoption proces; of orientation of the birth parents; of supervision of adoptions; of supervision of child care; of finances; and information. Those departments give the Central Authority the tools to delegate part of their functions and at the same time, to retain enough power to really supervise and oversee the processes, the children and the people who either want to adopt, or collaborate with the adoption.

The Ortega Law, besides being a maze, difficult to understand and to apply, does not have the resources to be implemented and continue working, and after depriving the private orphanages of any income, it does not clarify who will support the children who no longer be adopted. The grandfather clause tht used to be in former versions of the proposal, was eliminated in the last one. According to this ls version, the children must be presnted to Bienestar Social and after an abandonment process is finalized before a judge of the childhood and adolescence, Bienestar Social would choose the right family for each child. The law does not mention who will support the children during the years that it would take to to rule them abandoned and to exahust the possibility of placing them with the extended family or with a national family, in order to allow them to be adopted by foerign couples.

There is a way to become Hague compliant in a seamless way: the proposal 3635. To become Hague compliant just to prevent the children from being adopted, in order to stop the adoption professionals to make a profit out of the adoption, is like having a house on fire and locking the doors and windows to prevent anyone from leaving the house, because they could be mugged in the street. To protect the triad in the adoption process, the law has to be clear, easy to comply with and easy to supervise. Anything else is just a front to close down adoptions.

We are poised to file as many legal resources as necessary to prevent the Ortega Law from keeping the children to join the permanent families who are waiting for them and will do everything that is necessary to make the President understand that he has to send a new instrument of accession for the Hague to become effective. We urge you to what it takes to persuade your government to stop blaming the Guatemalan government for not being able to properly implementing the Hague Convention and at the same time, blocking any attempts at passing implementing legislation that could mean the difference between life and death for the children of Guatemala.

Message from Tom DiFilipo, President of JCICS to its members issued 9/27:

Dear Colleagues,

Based on dialogue with stakeholders in Guatemala intercountry adoption, including the Guatemalan government, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, adoption service providers, and Guatemalan attorneys, and with the support of the Joint Council Guatemala Caucus Co-chairs, the following represents Joint Council’s understanding of recent events, assessment of their impact, and immediate recommendations.

Recommendation and Call To Action

It is Joint Council’s strongest recommendation that all adoption service providers cease issuing referrals effective Monday October 1 2007. Similarly, it is our strongest recommendation that potential adoptive parents not accept any referrals issued by service providers choosing to ignore this recommendation.

Our recommendation is based on the recent announcement by the Berger administration, as reported by the U.S. Department of State. The Berger announcement clearly indicates that all intercountry adoption with the U.S. will be suspended January 1 2008.

We also strongly recommend that all potential adoptive parents and all adoption service providers join in the Joint Council effort in asking the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Congress to issue formal letters to the Guatemala government requesting that all pending adoption cases be processed through to completion under the existing process and law.

Announcement by Berger Administration

According to the U.S. Department of State, during a meeting of the international community sponsored by the Hague Permanent Bureau, the Berger administration announced the following:

* As of January 1 2008, (the date the Hague Convention goes into force in Guatemala), all adoption cases must meet Hague standards. This includes all pending (in-process) adoptions including those filed prior to January 1 2008.
* As of January 1 2008, Guatemala will not process adoptions for non-Hague countries including the U.S.

Assessment

Given that Guatemala does not currently have a functioning Hague process and the Hague Convention will not be in force for the U.S. on January 1 2008, implementation of the announcement by the Berger administration will bring all intercountry adoptions to a halt. Adoptions in process will be required to register under a new process which has yet to be identified or implemented. Should a Hague compliant system be in place on January 1 2008, the U.S. will not be a full Hague country until April 1 2008 or later and would not be permitted to participate in intercountry adoption until such time as the Hague Convention goes into force. This clearly indicates that a best case scenario is a resumption of adoptions in April 2008 through a process with unknown procedures or time-line.

In assessing the Berger announcement and its impact, Joint Council has considered the legislation pending before the Guatemalan Congress, the national elections, legal challenges and possible extension of the Hague effective date for Guatemala. We also considered the constitutionality of the President Berger’s planned actions and subsequent legal challenges. With none of these factors significantly altering our assessment, Joint Council remains confident in the prudence of our recommendation. Given the circumstances, we strongly believe that the suspension of referrals is in the best interest of children and potential adoptive parents.

There exist specific mitigating factors which could possibly preclude the suspension of adoptions. These include the possible push back of the date the Convention goes into force in Guatemala from January 1 to April 1 2008. It is also possible that one of the two pieces of legislation currently before the Guatemalan Congress will be passed prior to December 31 2007. Additionally challenges to the legal premise upon which the Berger suspension is based. Joint Council continues to strongly advocate and remains actively engaged in efforts to push the effective date to April 1 2008 and to pass Hague compliant legislation. If events occur that significantly alter our current assessment, we will revise this recommendation immediately. Until such time however, our current recommendation and Call to Action stand.

We again call on all adoption service providers and potential adoptive parents to join us in our call for a ‘grandfather’ clause covering all adoptions currently in process.

Best Wishes,

Tom

Election Day

Today is election day in Guatemala. While we often don't agree with its government, Guatadopt has a deep love and concern for the the country and its people. So here's a wish for a safe, calm, peaceful, and transparent election. It is hard for we Amerricans to understand what an accomplishment it is for Guatemalan citizens to be able to vote for their leaders and for that to be done in an environment free of intimidation and corruption. Not saying things are likely perfect in their system, just as they are not with ours. But the country has come a long way since the 1980s and here's hoping that continues.

Of more interest today than the presidential election, which will almost certainly come down to a Nov. run off between Alvaro Colom and Otto Perez Molina, is what happens in the congressional races. But whomever ends up in power, we sincerely hope that they focus the country's energies on ending corruption of all sorts, keeping the peace, and working to end the extreme poverty that plagues this beautiful, asset rich nation. I once met a guy in Antigua who was there learning Spanish after having spent three years with the Peace Corps in Africa. He told me that the poverty in Guatemala was more troublesome to him than that in Africa. He stated that "Africa is a desert with draught and few natural resources. But Guatemala is like the Garden of Eden. There's no reason why people should go hungry" (sorry if I mangled your exact words Steve). So my hope for Guatemala is that its new leaders work to address the basic inequities that exist so that all its people can enjoy the riches god blessed it with.

Peace!

Should Agencies Close Their Guat Programs?

A debate is underway among adoption professionals following an e-mail/notice issued by JCICS that essentially urges agencies to consider closing their Guatemala Programs. Without offering any opinions on this, I think everyone interested in Guatemalan adoptions should read it

First you will the notice from JCICS, followed by a reply from Hannah Wallace. Added 11:20 p.m. Friday: A response from the ADA (also posted on their website) has been added.

Please don't ask Kelly or myself the question of "what should we do". In all honesty, we have no answer or great insight. In addition, we are just adoptives parents who care a lot about children in Guatemala, their bioloigcal mothers, and the families who adopt them. These are such important, stressful life changing decisions that offering advice in any direction is quite frankly more responsibility than we can bear on our shoulders.

Statement from Tom DiFilipo, President of JCICS (Joint Council on International Children’s Services)
Dear Colleagues,

The right to permanency through intercountry adoption continues to be
challenged by a variety of factors in Guatemala. Hague
implementation, competing legislative initiatives, nation wide
elections, government raids on social service providers, negative
press, ethics concerns and pressure from the international community,
all give the immediate future of ICA in Guatemala a very unstable and
uncertain platform. Given the increasing uncertainties and in
assessing the current and future environment within the Guatemalan
adoption arena, Joint Council again strongly recommends that all
adoption service providers reassess their programming efforts within
the following context.

1. The Guatemalan Congress reaffirmed the Hague Convention
with an effective date of January 1, 2008.

2. The Berger administration continues to demonstrate a desire
to significantly alter or eliminate intercountry adoption; most
recently demonstrated through the raid on Casa Quivira.

3. The Berger administration leaves office on January 14,
2008, 13 days after the Hague Convention goes into force in Guatemala.

4. Based on the aggressive posture demonstrated by the Berger
administration and the 13 day window, the possibility exists that the
Berger administration may attempt to alter the ICA process.

5. The Guatemalan congress is currently reviewing adoption
legislation, most specifically 3217 (with the changes recommended
through the technical assistance provided by the Hague Permanent
Bureau and other governments such as Colombia). Passage of this
legislation, while not assured, would nonetheless significantly
alter the current ICA process. Current cases in the Guatemalan
process may or may not be "grandfathered" and it remains an uncertain
issue.

6. While the `grandfather' clause in the US IAA does provide
for the completion of `pipeline' cases, it does not provide any
protection against significant changes to the Guatemalan ICA
process.

7. Client families who have applied with USCIS can have their
cases transferred to another country program. The significant risks
to agencies, families and children begin when the referral is made
and accepted.

It can be noted that current efforts include amendments to both 3536
and 3217 providing for a continuation of the current ICA process
(a `grandfather clause'); however this assumes that either piece of
legislation is actually passed by Congress. It can also be noted
that separate legislation could be introduced which would extend the
effective date of the Hague Convention for a specific period of time
(i.e. 30-90 days).

In assessing this information, one can easily draw the conclusion
that the Guatemalan ICA process will be significantly altered as
early as January 2008 and no later than March 2008. Assuming that
most adoptions from referral to finalization can easily exceed 6
months and in some cases extend over 12 months, it can be concluded
that referrals issued in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 may
face a very uncertain conclusion.

Of significant concern is the potential for unresolved pipeline
cases. USCIS reports no slow down in new applications. Through
July, I-600A applications continue at over 400 per month with most
being identified with a small percentage of agencies. It is not
outside the realm of possibilities that should this pace continue,
over 2,000 cases may be unable to proceed to completion. This leads
to yet another concern related to an adoption service provider's
capacity to sustain services to children and adoptive parents over a
prolonged period which may include legal challenges.

It is the recommendation of Joint Council that all agencies again
reassess their programming and take the appropriate action to
minimize your organizational liabilities, to avoid the problems seen
in Cambodia, Romania and recently in Nepal and most importantly to
safeguard the best interest of client-families, birthparents and the
children we serve.

In a related matter, Joint Council, with the cooperation and support
of the Joint Council Guatemala Caucus, issued a letter to President
Berger regarding our significant concerns over the recent raid of
Casa Quivira. Joint Council called for an immediate halt to such
raids, a transparent accounting of all children and the prompt
resolution of each case."

Response from Hannah Wallace, President of Focus on Adoption and Director of Adoptions International in Philadelphia

I've struggled with a response to the recent posting re; Guatemala. On first reading, it is presenting a seemingly responsible and realistic course of action to the challenges facing us in Guatemala. And there is no doubt that the Berger government has stated intentions since last October to dramatically change adoption processing by planning to implement "executive orders" for the past year. Last September, the Embassy told the JCICS task force that the First Lady would be announcing her Protocol of Good Practices on October 1. There were alleged stated intentions from the President's office that this Protocol would be implemented by "Executive Order". In March, the Vice President announced the "Manual of Good Practices" in a public ceremony (which had been cancelled 2 or 3 times), and the government announced intentions to
implement the Manual in the near future, creating uncertainty about what impact that would have on processing.

In the meantime, there have been continued efforts on the part of JCICS, FOA, and the ADA and Instituto in Guatemala to develop Hague compliant legislation which would address the spirit and tenets of the Treaty and continue functional adoption services to the children who need them. Essentially, the two proposals which are before the Congress (Bill #3217, known as the Ortega Law which has been the law approved by Unicef and the Executive Branch, and gives the government greater control of the adoption process and Bill # 3635 which was developed more recently by Congressional advisers and maintains a balance of private accredited services and government oversight) reflects the real schism which exists in Guatemala and the polarization which has increasingly marked any attempt to come to agreement between the varying interest groups, all who purport to be working towards the best interests of the child.

However, while Tom is describing the very real power struggle which is going on and the possibility that the Berger government (the Executive Branch) will - in fact - do what they have threatened to do since last September, I don't think that he is fully pointing out how far the government (executive branch) has diverged from the rule of Law, most notably in their raid upon a respected Children's Home in the name of laws which don't exist or are being interpreted by the executive branch in a way that is far removed from their legal intentions when they were passed by Congress. And by taking the course that's been suggested by the DOS since March - not referring any more children from Guatemala -- how much this contributes to further destabilizing the system, and furthers the executive branch's agenda to get laws and policies in place which many adoption supporters think would spell the end to ICA to a great degree in Guatemala, thereby depriving the children of one of the few realistic opportunities to survive or grow to their full human potential. As well, it puts in the hands of the government the entire child care system which has been privately supported with NO government support. Many believe - and this is my belief - that this would bring on a child welfare crisis of dire proportions (similar to what has happened in many other Latin countries who under similar laws have almost no adoption services).

I have great disappointment in how the DOS has managed this significant issue as one of its first actions in implementing the Hague Treaty in the U.S. and dealing with the various issues of sending countries (mainly developing countries with various critical child welfare issues). Rather than taking the lead in bringing a new vision to the Treaty,(as was anticipated by the original participants from the U.S.) we apparently have joined with the Hague officials, who are heavily influenced by Unicef and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, who have a prevailing interest in abstract Child's Rights and seemingly little concern for the practical impact on the children they intend to protect. (Officials from the Hague, when confronted with the adoption statistics
over the past 12 years have stated: "The success of the Hague Treaty cannot be measured by the numbers of adoptions a country does." When asked what it can be measured by, the answer is usually something like : "Maintaining international standards". There has been NO accountability for what has happened to the children who "may" have been adopted, who are now in underfunded institutions, living on the streets, perhaps increasing slightly the high child mortality statistics already prevailing in these countries. There is little evidence of increased services to children and families in lieu of adoption services. The Hague officials have no budget to actually "police" the results of this treaty. And now, in Guatemala, the Hague officials and the DOS have all joined to "tweak" the Ortega Bill and are putting great pressure on the Guatemalan congress to pass this bill. They are virtually IGNORING bill # 3635.

How has DOS contributed to the instability in Guatemala? On March 15, the DOS published its FAQ which was meant to discourage adoptive families from adopting from Guatemala, by using recent information about scandalous and corrupt practices as reason to condemn the entire system. They also joined with the Guatemalan Executive Branch in demonizing the attorneys and marginalizing and ignoring all of the creative and practical suggestions which came from the attorneys (and many agencies). Several times, spokespersons for DOS have stated that the intention was to "hurt the attorneys in their pocketbooks" so that they would not "resist" the Hague. However, the attorneys have come a long way towards making peace with the Hague, but they ARE resisting the Ortega Law or variations of such which deprivatize the system, without any realistic way of replicating the current services available in the current system. Bill # 3635 actually provides a way for those ser vices to be continued and become more consistent, under government oversight through regulation and accreditation ... but the powers that be don't like this model, even though we have such a model in the U.S. Discouraging people from adopting from a country and undermining the current system for Agencies as well as attorneys is not mindful of the needs of the children in the system or coming into the system. As agencies we've had the moral struggle to soldier on for the sake of the children,or to just give up and move on to another country. (I personally believe that by doing the "politically correct" thing as suggested by DOS, we are failing in our responsibility to the children and in our responsibility to BEAR WITNESS and to support those in Guatemala who are laboring for a better system, though they;ve been disparaged and labelled as just reflecting 'self interest" and being "anti Hague".

In a few days, Focus On Adoption will come out with a position paper on bill #3635, which Hague experts have evaluated and find to be substantially Hague compliant. It's unfortunate that as soon as the pro adoption community in Guatemala started to support Bill #3635, the government came out against it and called it the "lawyers proposal". Supporters of the Bill consider it to retain the best of the Guatemalan adoption system and improve it through regulation, acceditation and accountability, while addressing the need for transparency. Its difference with other Hague compliant legislation is that it could be "workable", providing for accessibility to the system for those who need it. It does maintain the Notarial process and does not give full governmental control. All of the Latin American governments want to control the adoption process... but once they have that control, we can see what they have done with it.... under 20 adoptions a year, lengthy and bureaucratic procedures, because of lack of funding and infrastructure. However, this Bill has been virtually ignored by DOS, the officials at the Hague, and there has been an active campaign to discourage Guatemalan congressional support.

Finally, I want to state some legal realities about the current and future situation:

1. If the Executive Branch attempts to implement "emergency procedures" which go against the current law, the Congress and Lawyers will each have recourse to Constitutional and Legal remedies. By withdrawing and alloowing the Executive Branch to run over the law is, in my opinion, something that we should resist as undemocratic in what is supposed to be a democratic country. What is DOS' position in regard to this?

2. There is NO precedent in International Law or Guatemalan law to have NEW laws applied retroactively. We should be advocating for the best legislation possible; but also assuring that any legislation passed includes criteria for when a case is "grandfathered" (when the birthmother relinquishes to the notary?, when the adoptive family registers their POA?)). We DO NOT have to advocate FOR grandfathering as that is a part of any law. Therefore any referrals which have been made PRIOR to new legislation, should be defended by JCICS and DOS. We should assure that DOS is protecting the rights of US citizens under the law.

3. The Executive Branch is justifying its recent actions: raids on Children's Homes and foster homes by referring to TWO LAWS - one claiming that Children's Homes must be registered with the Bienestar Social in order to be legitimate; and the other the PINA law which requires a court order for children "at risk" prior to institutionalization.

The PINA law was never intended for children who are in the Notarial Adoption process (relinquished through the constitutional rights granted to biological parents). Those children are NOT considered "at risk". There are courts who have refused --despite great pressure upon them by the A.G., who is part of the Executive Branch not the Judicial -- to bend the law. The PINA law is designed to protect the rights of children who have been abused or abandoned by their biological parents by determining that a court order be required to place them in a registered Institution. When DOS sends out a notification to the adoption community that the A.G. was working within "the law" and that there are "conflicting laws" in Guatemala, (another reason for not adopting from Guatemala) it is overstating the case. There are conflicting INTERPRETATIONS of the law, which needs to be resolved by the legislature and the higher courts. We don't believe there are conflicting laws, as the PINA law, for instance, was never meant to apply to the children relinquished through the Notarial process. (the guatemalan government may want to change this law, but so far IT HAS NOT CHANGED.. THE NOTARIAL PROCESS IS STILL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.) I believe it is wrong for us to support one branch of government violating the constitution... even if it is Guatemala).

Until the current Berger government, the requirements for Private Institutions caring for children were for them to be registered in the Civil Registry and have an organizational structure complying with those registration criteria. The Bienestar Social does not have LEGISLATED POWERS to insist that Private, Humanitarian Aid organizations register with them. However, the Executive Branch has claimed that certain extra legal procedures should prevail and ARE ACTING as if they have the RIGHT to impose these. I believe it is wrong for our DOS to allow this deliberate "misinterpretation" togo unchallenged, especially when it is intruding on the rights of US Citizens who have entered into an adoption based on an understanding that it was legal.

What it means to have children who need families become the political football they have become, to see revealed (again, as in 2003) the indifference of the Guatemalan government to the very real children in order to force a legislative agenda, and how our DOS has tacitly supported this is something that all of us should be very concerned about. I'm very pleased that JCICS has written a strong letter to President Berger, but I think that we need to hold our DOS accountable as well.

RESPONSE OF ADA TO JCICS

JCICS: 1. The Guatemalan Congress reaffirmed the Hague Convention with an effective date of January 1, 2008.

ADA: Congress did not reaffirmed The Hague Convention. It gave authorization to the president to accede the convention, so the convention is not what takes effect on January 1, 2008. To take effect, the president has to send an instrument of accession to the Secretary of the Hague Conference and the effect will be the first day of the month after a period of three months, so if is sent in January, it will take effect until May 1st, 2008, way after the Bergers are gone.

JCICS 2. The Berger administration continues to demonstrate a desire to significantly alter or eliminate intercountry adoption; most recently demonstrated through the raid on Casa Quivira.

ADA: Yes, that is right, but it only proved how incompetent they are to care for the children, so if there was any doubt that the future of the children cannot be entrusted to the government, there is the answer.

JCICS 3. The Berger administration leaves office on January 14, 2008, 13 days after the Hague Convention goes into force in Guatemala.

ADA: Again, that is not true. It does not go into force, just goes into force the Congress approval of the Hague convention.

JCICS 4. Based on the aggressive posture demonstrated by the Berger administration and the 13 day window, the possibility exists that the Berger administration may attempt to alter the ICA process.

ADA: Berger has been trying to do so all this time, but he has not succeeded, so why help him, by closing down adoptions in Guatemala ourselves?

JCICS 5. The Guatemalan congress is currently reviewing adoption legislation, most specifically 3217 (with the changes recommended through the technical assistance provided by the Hague Permanent Bureau and other governments such as Colombia). Passage of this legislation, while not assured, would none the less significantly alter the current ICA process. Current cases in the Guatemalan process may or may not be "grandfathered" and it remains an uncertain issue.

ADA: That is not true either. As the law states all cases already started will be allow to be finalized. They only have to be registered with the Central Authority.

JCICS 6. While the 'grandfather' clause in the US IAA does provide for the completion of 'pipeline' cases, it does not provide any protection against significant changes to the Guatemalan ICA process.

ADA: Provided the US does not stop issuing visas, we will take care that all the adoptions already started (child born is enough) can be finalized.

JCICS 7. Client families who have applied with USCIS can have their cases transferred to another country program. The significant risks to agencies, families and children begin when the referral is made and accepted.

ADA: What country is risk free? Last time we checked, every country of origin of children was either implmenting changes or planning to do so. At least in Guatemala the families know that there is an organization that is poised to fight to restore the order if it is disrupted by an arbitrary decision of any authority .

JCICS; It can be noted that current efforts include amendments to both 3536 and 3217 providing for a continuation of the current ICA process (a 'grandfather clause'); however this assumes that either piece of legislation is actually passed by Congress. It can also be noted that separate legislation could be introduced which would extend the effective date of the Hague Convention for a specific period of time ( i.e. 30-90 days).

ADA: Yes, that could happen too, that the approval of the Hague Convention be postponed for months, until the US really ratifies the Hague convention.

JCICS: In assessing this information, one can easily draw the conclusion that the Guatemalan ICA process will be significantly altered as early as January 2008 and no later than March 2008. Assuming that most adoptions from referral to finalization can easily exceed 6 months and in some cases extend over 12 months, it can be concluded that referrals issued in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 may face a very uncertain conclusion.

ADA: That is a wrong assessment, based on a wrong assumption, that the Hague Convention will come into -force in January 1st. 2008. The earliest it can become effective is in May 1st., and only if the instrument to accede the Hague Convention is deposited sometime in January, 2008.

JCICS: Of significant concern is the potential for unresolved pipeline cases. USCIS reports no slow down in new applications. Through July, I-600A applications continue at over 400 per month with most being identified with a small percentage of agencies. It is not outside the realm of possibilities that should this pace continue, over 2,000 cases may be unable to proceed to completion. This leads to yet another concern related to an adoption service provider's capacity to sustain services to children and adoptive parents over a prolonged period which may include legal challenges.

ADA: Guatemala has a legal system that works, despite what the press says. The same legal system that restored the order in 2003, would allow us to finalize all adoptions started before a new adoptions law becomes effective.

JCICS: It is the recommendation of Joint Council that all agencies again reassess their programming and take the appropriate action to minimize your organizational liabilities, to avoid the problems seen in Cambodia, Romania and recently in Nepal and most importantly to safeguard the best interest of client-families, birthparents and the children we serve.

ADA: Since this statement is a way to suggest to turn your backs to the Guatemalan children, we suggest that each family who wants to adopt looks around and see if they can find a country where adoptions are risk free and no changes will be implemented ever. Since there is not such a thing, we remind you that the children of Guatemala do not have another choice and to help us to keep adoptions as an option to the birth mothers of Guatemala, to give their children a permanent and loving family.

Children Removed From Casa Quivira

Obviously, we need to add more threads. Last night at around 9:30 p.m., all of the children were removed from Casa Quivira. We do not know where they were taken and will update as we learn more. My heart goes out to all of the families living through this turmoil and I ask everyone to offer their prayers and thuoghts for the future and health of these innocent children.

Last Thread on Casa Quivira

As this story develops, we seem to have lots of updates. So rather than continuing to have new threads on it, from here on out I will just be editing this one and adding to it. In addition, I am closing the comments on the other threads so that all new comments come to the same place. I think that will make life easier on our readers!

News for today is that apparently the children are staying put for the time being. In addition, the tone of the allegations has been considerably softened. Here are link to two news stories as examples:

International Herald Tribune Story

BBC Story

Embassy Statement re: Casa Quivira

The Embassy has contacted some, if not all, CQ families. I applaud them for doing so as I know any piece of info is a help. I am posting the message here because it does bring something up regarding the controversy over CQ's "license". I am not familiar with the Guatemalan "Pina" law mentioned and hope that someone will shed some ight on it.

Click on more to read what they have to say.

On Saturday August 11, Guatemalan law enforcement authorities exercised a court
order and took control of the Casa Quivira children\'s center near Antigua. The
Guatemalan Solicitor General\'s Office (Procuradoría General de la Nación, PGN)
informed the Embassy that the operation was the result of an ongoing
investigation in response to complaints that the police and district attorney's
office (Ministerio Publico) had received against the center.

The U.S. Embassy is concerned about the well-being of the children at Casa
Quivira. At this time we are advising families directly affected by this event
to maintain close contact with their local lawyers in Guatemala in order to stay
abreast of the status of individual children in the adoption process.

When custody is granted to Casa Quivira parents with final adoptions, the
Embassy will expedite immigrant visa interviews for the affected adopting
families. For families without scheduled interviews, we will continue to keep
the most current information and warnings regarding adoptions on our website.
Please visit http://guatemala.usembassy.gov/adoptions.html for information
updates in the future.

As the Embassy and Department of State continue to advise, the adoption
situation in Guatemala remains volatile and unpredictable. Prospective adoptive
parents should be aware that the laws regulating intercountry adoption in
Guatemala are conflicting.

Nearly all intercountry adoptions in Guatemala are processed under a "notarial"
system. Information the Embassy has received so far indicates that the children
in Casa Quivira are in various stages of the notarial adoption process.
However, the 2003 "PINA" law for the protection of children and adolescents,
created additional requirements for adoption cases, including the obligation
that caretakers of children in adoption processing obtain court-determined legal
custody. These provisions established by the 2003 law have not been enforced
previously. The Embassy has been informed, however, that one factor in the
takeover of Casa Quivira is that no court custody orders were located for any of
the children.

The U.S. Embassy cannot act as legal representative for Americans in any legal
proceedings, including adoptions. However, we stand ready to consult with
parents on these cases and to provide the most current possible information
regarding the adoption cases of children at Casa Quivira.

The U.S. Embassy maintains a list of Guatemalan English speaking attorneys
available directly from the American Citizen Services Unit or the Embassy
website at
http://guatemala.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/ZRzQeBYTqu9t0Gy4PD-nbA/acseattorneys.pdf
The Embassy is unable to provide a listing of attorneys specializing in adoption
as there are currently more than 600 Guatemalan attorneys participating in this
process.

Adoption Unit
American Embassy Guatemala

Children To Be Removed From Casa Quivira

The Associated Press has released a story stating that the children will be removed from Casa Quivira and sent to "shelters". I have no further infomation at this time.

Here is a link to the story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUATEMALA_ADOPTIONS?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I am sorry to all the families.

Casa Quivira Raided

Casa Quivira was raided yesterday by the Guatemalan police and PGN. Based on the story, it appears as though the situation was that the hogar itself did not have whatever licensing is required and that there was not proof that the cases had been presented/registered to the government.

There is nothing written in the story on this that would indicate the relinquishments were invalid or illegal.

According the story, the children have been left at the hogar for the time being.

In the story it below, it states that one of the two attorneys arrested, Sandra Patricia Leonardo Lopez, is stated to be the wife of the hogar owner. This is incorrect, the director's wifes name is Sandra but this is not the person arrested.

We have no further information on this. As we learn more, we will share it.

Here is the link to the story in the Guatemalam Press: http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2007/agosto/12/179542.html

Here is a link to an English Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1126522820070812

DOS Issues FAQ on Second DNA

The DOS has issued a FAQ for adoptive parents. I think it makes clear and official many aspects. There are still a few unanswered questions. It does not list the exact document flow ("your attorney must bring X, Y, and Z to the second test" - stuff like that), but hopefully the attorneys and folks handling that stuff know. It doesn't say exactly what a PAP is to do in the event of a mismatch and what happens to the child, though technically and legally this is not DOS's responsibility. And of course, those situations, which may not even occur, may be handled as they happen.

I end with kudos to DOS for (a) issuing something like this for PAPs (b) showing a proactive stance on ensuring ethical adoptions.

Click here to read the DOS FAQ.

Free USCIS Extentions

On Monday, USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) announced some good news. Because of extended adoption processing timelines, they are offering free one time extensions on I-600As (your I171H) as well as refingerprinting when necessary. Below is the notice as well as a FAQ.

No one likes things taking longer, but at least this can make one part of it a little bit easier!

Notice: Download file

FAQ: Download file

DOS Announces New DNA Rule

I haven't read this yet myself. So more will come later. But here is the link to the official announcement.

http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/intercountry/intercountry_3751.html

Updated Th 6/2 11 p.m. est

Click on "more" to read the latest on how it will work...

Here are the new rules as explained to a group of agencies on a conference call today. We’ll have to wait and see if this is the final deal…

1.) Cases submitted to the embassy for pink before August 6 are exempt
2.) Abandonment cases are not impacted
3.) Testing is only on the child. Basically most of the logistics and paperwork requirements are as I wrote about last night
4.) The second DNA test will be an “interim” or new step between submitting all the docs for pink and actually getting it
5.) When cases are presented for pink, a second DNA test authorization will be issued
6.) The DNA test will then we conducted while the embassy reviews the paperwork
7.) Once the test results are back, the embassy will issue the pink slip and appointment date

What I don’t know, or questions that come to mind… Can they do the final doctor appointment the same time as DNA or will the child still need to go to the doctor after the pink slip is issued? Who will receive notification when the DNA test is resent to the embassy and how? Will there be a standard, “pink is issued 72 hours” (or some other time frame) after DNA results are in.

What I am hearing, and this is quite speculative, is that it will take a couple of weeks for the embassy to get the results once the test is conducted. I think that is a conservative estimate and believe a couple of days can easily be trimmed off of it. If we say it will then take the embassy 3 days to issue pink it seems like an added time of about two weeks. Given that pink slips have been taking a week or longer anyway, it may be less than that.

We’ll see what happens…

Second DNA Test

Guatadopt has learned that the US Embassy plans to implement a second DNA test. This second test would occur between the time of the Pink Slip being issued and parents travelling. We believe it is to be annoucend/go into effect August 1. As we learn more of the details and further verify this, we will post it. But we have received it from a few reliable sources so we're confident in posting it.

UPDATED WED 8/1 10:45 pm est: Click on more to read it. The original extended entry follows the update.

Update 8/1/07:

Here’s what we’ve been able to surmise as of Wed night.

A second DNA is going into effect. At the moment, it is not clear whether it has gone into effect or not. I can report:

1.) Embassy doctors (who take the DNA swabs) and DNA labs that process results have been informed of a new policy. They first learned of this late last week.

2.) JCICS made mention of this new policy on their site earlier today and then promptly removed it within hours. Their note merely said what we had, adding that the embassy would be issuing something later this week. We do not know why they removed it from their site.

3.) There seems to be much confusion over if it is in place or when and how it will go into effect. If there is/will be a second DNA does not appear to be in question.

4.) Initial notice to the how would work is as follows as best I understand it. And it is not good news. The second DNA would occur at the same time as the final embassy doctor appointment – after pink has been issued. The time between pink and parent’s appointment would be extended (by how long I can’t say). The doctor will need the following
a. Pink slip
b. Evidence of first DNA and payment – there is a document (DNA authorization?) stamped “Paid” from the first DNA test
c. Copies of passport and amended birth certificate
d. Proof of payment to the DNA lab for the second test. This MUST be the same that did the first test.
e. Photos of the child

5.) No one gets grandfathered in, unless I believe they already have pink and an appointment date

6.) Some are saying that the embassy is delaying implementation because they don’t have it figured out yet. I can’t say this is not the case.

7.) Some families have apparently completed the process above. I don’t know when they got pink or any further details.

8.) Cost is looking like $120 for the lab and $50 for the doctor.

Let me state that through our usual techniques of learn something and verifying it with a second sources, this is what we have heard. But don’t take it as the gospel as we have no official documentation at this time (though hopefully its coming soon).

Now for my obligatory (cough, cough) commentary…

As I have stated on this site, I wholeheartedly support initiation of a second DNA test. However, the plan mentioned above does not make sense to me.

Why not allow the test to be done before pink is issued?

Why not give authorization to do the doctor’s visit and the DNA before Pink so long as it is within some specified amount of time of the interview? I’ll just throw out 30 days as a viable example.

And why not just come out and say what you’re doing rather than this incognito stuff?

I’m the first to admit that there could be a valid reason for the way it appears to be getting set up. After all, we don’t know everything the embassy does - formal policies, cultural etiquette, ways people have attempted to circumvent the system, etc. We must keep these things in the back of our minds as we judge. However, I can also say that I’ve been pondering this and I unfortunately know more than I’d like to about how people have attempted to circumvent the system. And I can’t figure this one out.

Who knows, maybe the embassy realized this themselves. Maybe they read my prior suggestions (yes, ego setting in). Maybe they intended to go live today and actually did before realizing there was a better way.

We may have caused the hysteria somewhat by posting what we knew, but that’s what our site is about – news and information. Granted, as a blog style site we reserve the right to editorialize, just as I am doing here. But we also believe firmly in transparency by all parties in the adoption process and stand firmly behind the principle that parents have a right to know.

Whatever the case may be I sincerely hope that the reason for the immediate confusion and hysteria is because the embassy is rethinking the process for a second DNA test to one that does not cause unnecessary delays while still achieving its goal.

As always, we’ll post more when we learn it.

Original extended entry from Tues. 7/31:

While it may be very easy to worry about an additional cost and hassle in the process, we adoptive parents need to fully support this. In fact, Focus On Adoption and others have been calling on the embassy to enact this for years.

We have all seen the allegations about kidnappings, child swaps, etc. It is extremely important that EVERYTHING possible be done to eliminate the possibility of these sorts of activities from occuring. A second DNA test that makes sure hte child receiving the visda is hte same child from the first test would go a long way in this regard..

New USCIS Statement

Guatemalan adoptions to the US involve two departments of the government: DOS and CIS. CIS (Citizen and Immigration Services) has issued a new statement regarding Guatemalan adoptions. I believe the sixty days timeframe is referring to Pre-Approvals and the four days for Pink. We applaud the efforts on the part of the government to ensure ethical adoption practices, but also have to question whether extended timeframes could be avoided through additional staffing. Nonetheless, all to be expected and given the DOS warnings and severity of ongoing investigations, in reality these timeframes aren't all that bad compared to what I know I anticipated.

Here is the statement:
Download file

Guatemala News Watch: Congress: Laws go to Congressional Session

The following article appeared in this morning's GT newspaper, Prensa Libre:
http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2007/mayo/12/170520.html
"Congresso: Leyes van a la Congeladora".

Below is a translation c/o Maria, Guatadopt.com
"Congress: Laws go to Congressional Session"

Not less than 14 laws have been prioritized by the Executive and the Congress, last January, and they should wait until their return in August to further discuss the paln for the nation, due to the recess beginning after May 15. (opinion of the writer of the article) The article continues to then explain the Laws.

Planned in the next session, this Tuesday, we predict the overall approval of the "Convenio de La Haya", which would detail the process of adopting a child.

(the article then discusses other issues and laws not related to adoptions)

It concludes with-
Law of Adoptions- the Legislators have not reached a consensus.

Guat Congress Update

I suppose no news is good news. What I have heard is that nothing happened in the Guatemalan Congress today. There apparently was not a quorum (the mininum number of members of Congress necessary for a vote) so nothing happened. I do not have this 100% verified so I apologize if it is not accurate. But this is what I have heard.

On a separate note, I (Kevin) will be out of touch for the next 10 days or so, with very limited access to e-mail. I have a trade show to attend (yes, we have real jobs, Guatadopt doesn't pay the bills or any bills for that matter) and then my lovely wife and I will be escaping to Las Vegas for our first childless vacation. I hope my parents are up to the challenge of watching our darling, sweet, and perfectly sinister little rugrats!

Adoption Service Providers Banned

The USCIS in Guatemala has issued the below statement about adoption service providers being banned by the embassy.

To Members of the Guatemalan Adoption Community:

Please be advised that the following individuals have been banned from any involvement with any aspect of the I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, process by the USCIS Guatemala Office:

1. Mary Bridget Bonn
2. Monica Janeth Ruiz González de Castañeda
3. Rosa Claudia Juárez
4. Dora Amanda Zavala Navas
5. Gamaliel Sentes Luna
6. Aurora González Campo Menes
7. Lilian Ferrer de Letona

Any documentation submitted to the adoptions window found to have any connection with the above named individuals will be rejected out of hand. Cases that have already been submitted for adjudication that have a connection with any of the above named individuals will require a letter from the petioner naming a substitute for the banned individual.

Any person and/or entity trying to circumvent this proscription will likewise be subject to a similar action.

Sincerely,

Joseph T. Roma

Field Office Director

USCIS Guatemala

New "Adoption Registrar"

The Prensa Libre has a story in today's paper about a new office being established in Guatemala effective May 2. It is described as being accordance with the Protocol of Good Practices. The story can be found here.

It states that due to increasing kidnappings, falsifications of documents and unjust delays the creation of the "Adoption Registrar" has been formulated to insure safe and open adoptions in GT. Requested information include 42 new conditions that have to be met to proceed with an adoption.

Here are some:
-date of birth
-who was present at birth(doctor, midwives, etc.) names and info
-municipal incriptions
-current caretaker's name, address, religious affliation if any
-name of hogar, registration number/info, addresss, director's name, personal info
-photos at time of relinquishing including palm and foot print
-up to date photos of child
-name of lawyer/judge determining orphan status
-name of child
-birthplace
-hospital and directions/address
-Folio# and Book# of registered birth at Civil Registry and Date registered
-Bio-parents names, birthplace, reg. birth info at civil registry, cedula info and copy of,
-Current tel# and address of bio-parents
-Names of adoptive parents
-Country of origin, place of birth, tel# and address
-identification data, passport info
-name of agency and lawyers working with, their contact info

It does mention the ADA's legal challenge and we do not at this point know whether this would impact all in-process cases. But this also is just a gathering of information, much of which seems to me to be stuff already compiled.

As we learn more will post it.

Waiting Angels Raided

The Michigan Attorney General's office in conjucntion with the Michigan State Police yesterday raided the offices of Waiting Angels. The raid was defined as "Criminal Search Warrants" to me and all I know is that documents and equipment (presumably computers) were seized. We are waiting on more information on this and will post it as we learn more.

New DOS Notice

The DOS has issued a new notice about meetings they held with First Lady Berger. I'll just point out that it is wrong in implying that the Protocolo is constitutional and urge readers to read it realizing what it indicates about where our government stands on Guatemalan adoption reform.

You can read it by clicking on more below or here.

April 3, 2007

Assistant Secretary Maura Harty Meets with Guatemalan First Lady

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty met with the First Lady of Guatemala, Wendy de Berger, on March 15 to discuss adoption reform in Guatemala. They agreed that reform, which implements the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention, is urgently needed in Guatemala. Assistant Secretary Harty expressed appreciation to the First Lady for her leadership regarding the publication of the Manual of Good Practices based on existing Guatemalan laws for the protection of children. Assistant Secretary Harty and the First Lady agreed that additional resources will be necessary to fund the principal agencies responsible for the oversight of intercountry adoptions.

Assistant Secretary Harty reassured First Lady de Berger that the U.S. Government will continue to work closely with the Government of Guatemala on reform efforts. She also noted that the U.S. Government is using greater scrutiny in its processing of individual adoption cases.

Assistant Secretary Harty also took the opportunity to assure First Lady de Berger that the U.S. Government would ratify the Hague Convention by the end of 2007. They then reaffirmed their mutual understanding that the U.S. Government will not be able to continue adoptions in Guatemala once the treaty is in effect in the United States if the Guatemalan Government does not take the steps necessary to implement the Hague Convention.

Esteemed Houston surgeon hopes to be Guatemala's next vice president

This is an interesting article about Espada, who is running for Guatemala's Vice Presidency on Colom's ticket.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4660635.html

I often wonder if the next presidency will loosen the red tape on humanitarian aide coming from the US. This presidency cracked down on container taxes. This meant that many charities who relied on donated clothing and such had to pay taxes on any items they received. So charities had to cut out container shipments because they did not have the cash base to "guess" on imposed taxes. Naturally, this severely limited donors and donations!

JCICS Press Release

JCICS has issued a press release. While it is not on their website yet, we have verified that it is authentic.

While I am in no way questioning the validity of the content, the title line on the release may lead one to believe that everything is taken care of and all of the current uncertainties are over. That is certainly not the case, DOS's warnings remain real, and no legislation has been passed to date. It is certainly a positive step, I just don't want anyone to take the title to mean more than it should.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Guatemala To Keep Adoptions Open Through Reform

March 16, 2007- Alexandria, Virginia – Legislation intended to reform the current international adoption system will be introduced in Guatemala early next week. The legislation puts into place much needed oversight and is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, an international convention signed or ratified by over 60 countries. “This legislation gives children the legal protections they need and also the continued opportunity to find love and safety through adoption” said Thomas DiFilipo, President of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services (Joint Council).

International adoption in Guatemala has been criticized by numerous groups for unethical practices and a lack of governmental oversight. Such criticism has called into question whether intercountry adoption will continue in Guatemala. “Legislative reform is the key to continuing intercountry adoption in Guatemala” said DiFilipo. DiFilipo’s statement seems to echo that of many members of the Guatemalan Congress who met in early December and throughout the winter to address a range of issues related to international adoption and are now prepared to present their recommendations to Congress.

The Hague Convention on International Adoption will be ratified by the United States later this year. Since more Guatemalan orphans find loving families in the United States than in any other country, passage of this legislation in Guatemala appears vital to the protection of children’s right. The United States Department of State has clearly stated that adoptions with Guatemala will not be permissible under law unless such legislation is passed. According to DiFilipo “It is clear the Guatemalan Congress intends on passing the respective legislation this Spring. The best interest of each child is at the center of their efforts.”

Joint Council on International Children’s Services

New DOS FAQ

The US DOS has issued a new FAQ on Guatemalan adoptions. This is one more in a series of ominous notices coming from them that parents considering starting a Guatemalan adoption need to consider seriously. This should be appearing on their website soon but can be read below.

Guatadopt is working on some commentary for parents considering starting an adoption from Guatemala.

DOS FAQ
March 14, 2007

Frequently Asked Questions: Prospective Adoptive Parents of Guatemalan Children

Q: I have already begun the process of adopting from Guatemala but have not been matched with a child. After reading the information on your webpage, I am concerned. Do you recommend that I pursue adoption from Guatemala?

A: Although we understand many U.S. families have adopted children from Guatemala in the past, we cannot recommend adoption from Guatemala at this time. The situation in Guatemala has changed. There are serious problems with the adoption process in Guatemala, which does not protect all children, birth mothers, or prospective adoptive parents. The Guatemala government is planning to implement new adoption processing procedures to increase protections. The United States is also scrutinizing individual cases more closely than before. We recommend that you bear these facts in mind when choosing a country from which to adopt.

Q: What are the problems in Guatemala?

A: The major U.S. Government concerns about the Guatemalan adoption process include:

Conflicts of Interest: Guatemalan notaries may act as judges and determine a child’s eligibility for adoption and issue a final adoption decree. In the same case where he or she is acting as judge, the notary or his/her staff may also directly interact with birth mothers, solicit consents for an adoption, and handle the referral of the child to prospective adoptive parents. The Department of State does not believe that the notaries, given these multiple roles, can truly act objectively and in the best interests of the various parties.

Lack of Government Oversight: Despite these critical roles in the adoption process, the notaries are largely unregulated. Public oversight is minimal. Particularly in cases in which prospective adoptive parents are told that the birth mother relinquished her rights to her child voluntarily, the U.S. Government is concerned that social services to birth mothers are extremely limited and that their consents may have been induced by money or threats. Monetary incentives and high fees drive completion of the adoption more than protecting the children, the birth parents, and the prospective adoptive parents. The Department is aware of a growing number of cases of adopting parents who have told us that they are being extorted for very large amounts of money by their local representatives in order to complete an adoption.

Unregulated Foster Care: Like the notaries, Guatemalan foster care providers are not regulated or checked by the Guatemalan government for compliance with any standards. Many Guatemalan foster families have demonstrated their love and concern for the children in their care, and American adoptive parents have expressed gratitude for how the foster families cared for the children while the adoptions were in process. Unfortunately, however, the Department of State is also aware of instances of grossly inadequate care for young children in foster home situations. There are cases in which American adoptive families who have completed a Guatemalan adoption later learned that the foster care provider or others in the household had physically or sexually abused the children.

Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: Guatemala has been a party to the Hague Convention since March 2003, but it has never enacted Hague-consistent legislation or instituted Hague-consistent practices that would provide children the protections that are now lacking. Guatemala has not established the required “central authority” to oversee intercountry adoption processing under the Convention and has not yet taken numerous other steps the Convention requires. The U.S. Department of State, the Hague Permanent Bureau (which oversees the Convention) and other countries have consistently expressed concern about these and other problems with Guatemalan adoptions. In fact, many Hague Convention countries have stopped adoptions from Guatemala.

Q: If the United States sees so many problems in the Guatemalan process, why has it continued processing adoption cases and continued to permit Guatemalan children to come to the United States?

A: The U.S. Government continues to process adoption cases, but subjects each case to detailed review. For example, in 1998 the United States instituted mandatory DNA testing for Guatemalan women who stated intentions to relinquish their children. This measure was taken in response to numerous cases in which impostors who were not the children’s actual birth mothers attempted to relinquish rights to children who were not theirs.

Even with DNA testing, however, it has become increasingly clear that the current adoption process in Guatemala does not protect all children adequately. U.S. authorities have therefore increased their scrutiny of all adoption cases. This increased scrutiny means more time will be needed to conduct individual case investigations and that each case will take longer to process. Similarly, more cases may be denied because the facts uncovered during the investigation show the child is not classifiable as an orphan under U.S. law.

Q: My agency is very reliable and they tell me that the adoption process they use in Guatemala is good and transparent. Can I rely on their assurances?

A: The Department of State has long advised all prospective adoptive parents, irrespective of the country from which they are hoping to adopt, to fully research any adoption agency or facilitator they plan to use for adoption services. For U.S.-based agencies, prospective adoptive parents should contact the Better Business Bureau and/or the licensing office of the appropriate state government agency in the U.S. state where the agency is located or licensed.

Even if a U.S. adoption agency has an unblemished record with such offices, however, and even if the agency itself is operating completely with the best intentions, the lack of oversight and regulation over the other actors in the Guatemalan adoption process make it extremely difficult for even the most ethical agency to be completely certain that everything has been done in accordance with the law and in the best interests of all the parties.

Q: What if I have begun the process of adoption from Guatemala and my child has already been identified? I consider this child my child and I cannot walk away at this point.

A: At this time, the U.S. Embassy is continuing to adjudicate each adoption case based on the merits of the information provided in that individual case. The Embassy, however, will adjudicate each case with even more scrutiny than has been its practice in the past. In addition, Guatemalan authorities have recently indicated that they plan to look more closely at each adoption case. Guatemala has introduced a new manual of adoption good practices. At this time, we cannot predict the full effect of the new manual on current or future cases. We do expect that processing individual cases will take longer due to the necessity of government scrutiny.

Q: My agency tells me that it is unlikely that Guatemala will change its adoption laws this year, because of elections and other political factors. Isn’t this good for me, because my case may not be delayed?

A: Adopting a child in a system that is based on a conflict of interests, that is rampant with fraud, and that unduly enriches facilitators is a very uncertain proposition with potential serious life-long consequences. When you decide whether to move forward with adoption in Guatemala, you should consider factors beyond timing. Some American prospective adoptive parents are deciding against adoption from Guatemala now because they do not want to support negative child welfare practices. In addition, a child’s long-term psychological well-being may be affected if the child later learns that his birth family did not freely choose to give him up or that he, and perhaps siblings, were “produced” for the sole purpose of adoption. U.S. parents have also discovered that their adoptive children have undisclosed serious special needs due to inadequate foster care and/or fraudulent medical information.

Q: We only want to adopt a child who is truly eligible for adoption and most certainly a child whose birth parents have legally terminated their parental rights. With these goals, can we adopt in Guatemala?

A: For the reasons stated above, we cannot say that the system of adoption currently in effect in Guatemala provides any assurances that your goals can be met.

Q: I understand that the process in Guatemala does not adequately protect children, but there are children in the adoption process now who will be hurt if adoptions are stopped abruptly. Will there be a process to help those children?

A; A number of foreign governments and non-governmental organizations have pledged their willingness to help the Government of Guatemala with technical support for a new adoption process with reliable oversight. Many good practices have already been identified.

White House Release on Guatemala Visit

From the White House Release...
"We also talked about adoption. I don't know if my fellow citizens understand this, but there are a lot of U.S. families who adopt babies from Guatemala, thousands of babies. This year it is very important for the United States and Guatemala to implement the Hague Convention on adoptions to help protect children and families during the adoption process. We found common ground on that issue. And I appreciate your strong stand, Mr. President, and I assured the President we would follow through, ourselves. "

READ ENTIRE SPEECH

Protocolo Update - NO Immediate Shutdown

We've just gotten word that the Protocolo annoucement has been completed. The report says that there is NO immediate shutdown and that the protocolo will take some weeks to implement, especially because it has not been budgeted for. It is apparently an in-between phase until Guatemala can pass Hague compliant legilslation.

Yes, many questions still remain but I have no further answers at this point.

Stay tuned!

Protocolo on March 1???

There are a number of rumors passing around about what may happen March 1. Among them is that the Protocolo will be announced. We've been able to verify this and below you will find a copy of the invitation to this event. But let's remember this has happened before.

Another rumor is that anyone without a POA registered by March 1 will not be able to complete an adoption. While we know that some reputable agencies have been taking actions on this, we have not been able to verify it. This is not to say it is not the case, just that we haven't verified it yet.

We can not at this point state what the protocolo means and will of course post more as we know it.

New Statement From DOS

The Dept of State issued a new statement on the status of intercountry adoptions. You can read it here or it is posted below

http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/intercountry/intercountry_3147.html

These are obviously very turbulent times in Guatemalan Adoption. I wish that I had a better ability to analzyze it for everyone. I guess what I would say is that the Hague implementation has been looming for some time. The protocolo as well. Add to it a facilitator's arrest that it appears involved more than the single case and we have a firestorm.

As we are able to add any info or insight on this, we will.

On a side note: The primary members of the Guatadopt team are tied up this weekend. So I apologize for delays n getting comments approved.

DOS Statement:

Guatemala Status of Intercountry Adoptions

In light of a number of problems with Guatemala’s intercountry adoption process, the U.S. Department of State strongly cautions American prospective adoptive parents contemplating pursuing adoptions in Guatemala to carefully consider their options at this time. The arrest in the United States of a well-known adoption facilitator as well as concern about unethical behavior and practices by others involved with adoptions in Guatemala indicate that the adoption process in Guatemala is not adequately protecting all children.

In its investigation related to the arrest of the adoption facilitator mentioned above, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have found evidence of the smuggling into the United States of Guatemalan children who had been candidates for adoption. They have also found evidence of fraudulent documents concerning adoption and visa status, and misrepresentation of the health condition of children involved.

Separately, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office in Guatemala has denied adoption visa petitions for many reasons indicating wrong and unethical practices in Guatemala. These include cases where the purported biological mother of a child is not the true biological mother but an impostor and cases where the biological parent or parents have been deceived and there has been no true relinquishment of parental rights.

Activity of this nature is against U.S. law and also counter to the principles of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, which the United States will join this year.

The adoption situation in Guatemala is volatile and unpredictable. The United States, because of ongoing investigations that affect adoption cases, may be unable to process cases quickly and is likely to review all pending cases with more scrutiny. More detailed investigations may be warranted to determine that a child is truly eligible for adoption as an orphan, that any prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suitable to adopt, and that the child is ultimately placed in the custody of parents who have been accurately identified and evaluated through the home study and petition process.

The U.S. Government supports adoption reform efforts in Guatemala and is working closely with the Government of Guatemala to help encourage the implementation of reforms to protect children in the intercountry adoption process. The U.S. Government also supports Guatemalan Government efforts to implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and establish new case-processing procedures and an appropriate transition mechanism to the good practices of the Convention.

We will update our website (www.travel.state.gov) should new information become available. Our e-mail address is: AskCI@state.gov.

Mary Bonn Arrested

Guatemalan adoption facilitator Mary Bonn was arrested earlier this week on the charge of Harboring of an Illegal Alien. The charge does stem from the case of a LEGAL adoption that was completed in Guatemala. Rather than joining the adoptive parents, the child was allegedly illegally brought to the United States under a different name and had been living with Mary for approx. 9 months.

Guatadopt is receiving some scrutiny for not allowing anything into comments that we feel further victimizes the family involved. All I can say is “sorry”, that WILL remain a steadfast rule on this site and, yes, we get to decide what crosses the line. You are welcome to call that censorship if you like, but it doesn't change what our policy will be.

Guatadopt is not passing judgment on this case. Mary is innocent until proven guilty and will have her day in court, which she like anyone accused of a crime deserves. So let’s review the allegations and facts that are relevant:

1.) A US family legally completed the adoption of a child in Guatemala. The child’s birth certificate has that family’s name on it.
2.) That child, without the knowledge or consent of the child’s legal parents, was allegedly brought to the United States illegally under false pretence by a Guatemalan woman using a visitor’s visa with a name different than the child’s legal name.
3.) That child is alleged to have been living in Mary’s home for many months without the knowledge or consent of the child’s legal parents.
4.) To our knowledge, none of the adoption service providers working with Mary have been involved in this, charged with a crime, or had any knowledge of what is alleged to have occurred.

Mary may very well have believed that she was doing the right thing. She may have had reasons in her mind that make her feel justified in her alleged involvement. That does not change the reality behind the allegations.

If and when this story is picked up by the media, they will undoubtedly not cover it accurately so let me say it loud and clear: THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A CROOKED ADOPTION. THIS IS A CASE OF A PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY TOOK A CHILD THAT WAS NOT HERS AND SMUGGLED THE CHILD INTO THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE OF ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH ADOPTION ON A TOURIST VISA, NOT AN IR3 OR IR4.

The family involved is attempting to recover from the ordeal they have been through. Guatadopt is intentionally not saying too much about the case in order to respect their privacy. What I will say is that these are good people who have been put through a living hell trying to find their child.

There will be more to this story as it develops and it goes without saying that there are plans in the works to help families impacted. We will communicate those plans as they occur and will do our best to answer questions you may have, keeping in mind that much of the details are only the business of the victims.

Our Guatadopt team has volunteered to create a "Guatadopt Support Team" and assist parents who have RAI or Mary Bonn cases. We will be posting some forms (hopefully today) for those families to fill out in order to be assisted by our team or participate in a private support forum. We will not be able to assist families without this information, so please reframe from requesting anonymous information.

REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FORM

We will keep updated information on these cases in our Resource Center

Click here to read a statement from Focus On Adoption

UPDATE MON FEB 12:The State Department has issued a statment on the arrest. Click here to view it.

UPDATE TUES FEB 13: JCICS sent an e-mail to its members about Mary's arrest. Nothng in it is new except for that it does state that the investigation includes four other children wo were living in Mary's home, "none of whom were her biological or adoopitve children". It does of course state that JCICS deplores the events surrounding the case and is fully cooperatig with authorities.

Press Release Regarding Reaching Arms

A Press Release regarding the complaints and investigation of Reaching Arms International has been issued by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Guatadopt did ask the famiies mentioned in it (that we have contact with) for their approval before posting this.

While it is a matter of public record, we realize that posting it on this site brings it to the attention of people interested in Guatemalan adoptions. As always, and as may beome more crucial in the days or hours to come, Guatadopt is dedicated to serving the needs of adoptive families with accurate information, regardless of where the chips may fall. However, we are also EXTREMELY careful to respect the rights and privacy of families who have been victimized by alleged unethical providers. At times those goals create a challenge, but we do our best to stand by what we believe is best.

Click here to read the release.

Attorney General Auditing Reaching Arms International

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced today that her office is conducting a financial audit of Reaching Arms International, a non-profit adoption agency with a sizeable Guatemala program.

The audit stems from numerous clients who contacted Minnesota authorities regarding problems in their adoptions. Guatadopt has verified that complaints came from parents adopting through both their Guatemala and Russia programs.

We applaud the authorities in Minnesota for taking parental complaints seriously. Even moreso, we applaud the families' courage in not allowing themselves to be victimized, especially those who still have not brought home their children.

Links to coverage of the story (updated Feb 1, 2007):
WCCO TV
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
KARE 11 TV (contains video)
WKBT TV
KAAL TV
Pioneer Press

All adoption agencies have their fans and their detractors. Reaching Arms Interntional is no exception. I have often said that "the test of a good agency is not how they handle the easy cases, it's how they handle the tough ones that matters."

The manner in which we have grown our families is intensely personal and emotional, as well as being a point of pride. While I have personally tried to be a resource for many families unhappy with RAI, I am sure they have many happy former clients. As this investigation and story develops, there is the obviously the possibility for it to create rifts in the adoptive parent community. While spiritied debate is always encouraged, hopefully it can all be done in a constructive, respectful manner.

Comments will be left open on this thread, so here are some things for all to realize:

1.) So long as there are no personal attacks or comments deemed inappropriate, Guatadopt does not censor. Official disclaimer: Comments posted on Guatdopt.com are only the thoughts and opinions of the person who wrote them, they do not necessarily reflect the positions, opinions, or beliefs of Guatadopt.com.

2.) Some of the news coverage details responses from Nila Hilton, RAI's Director, which demonize some of the families who contacted MN authorities. I'm no lawyer but I have studied the part of the law that deals with libel and slander. In my opinion, some of the statements made by Ms. Hilton made do meet the legal standard of slander as I understand them (knowingly untrue and done with malicious intent). Guatadopt.com WILL NOT allow any comments that question whether the families involved were fit to be parents or delve into their personal lives. All of the famlilies involved had approved homestudies and I171H approval. In fact, many of the homestudies were conducted by RAI. So it seems irrational/hypoctritical to suggest that the parents were not fit to adopt.

3.) As I wrote above, let's also be respectful of all the families who completed successful adoption through RAI. In no way should this audit appear as though it questions the validity of their adoptions or their adoption experience.

The Executive Order- Back???

A Story has appeared in various Guatemalan Media, including the Prensa Libre, claiming that the Guatemalan government will/has ratified the Hague Convention. You can find the story, in Spanish, here.

Here is an assessment on what is happening in Guatemala:

Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court ruled that Pres. Berger could not be forced to formally withdraw from the Hague. Pres. Berger is using this decision as basis to claim that Guatemala must comply with the Hague. My understanding is that this is not true and that he is overstating what the decision actually was. But if you read the NYT story, it is clear to see that they are using the decision as I have described. Pres. Berger has reaffirmed all of this with the stories in the press today.

So what next? The story claims that if changes are not made this year, that next year adoptions will cease. Well we knew that from the US side anyway. However, the First Lady of Guatemala’s office has been telling some US officials that the Ortega/Berger proposal of earlier this year would become the policy of Guatemala formally in November.

I am very carefully choosing my words here. Here’s why… All indications we have are that the Ortega/Berger law proposal is not scheduled to be voted on in Congress this month. We are also confident that there is not enough Congressional support of it today for it to pass even if it were on the docket. So why is she so confident?

Remember that allegedly phony Executive Order that Guatadopt reported on. You know, the one that the DOS, Adoptive Families, and Lisa Novak (via Ethica) vehemently claimed was a fake. Well it now appears as though President Berger may be in fact issuing that Executive Order. And as we reported, it is basically just a rehash of the Ortega/Berger proposal. So while initially we believed that Sra Berger was in a dream world believing that she could pass this legislation in November, it now appears as though maybe she never said she could get the law passed, she just knew that they were going to do this Executive Order.

That is all I know right now and as always, we will keep you up to date as we learn things. What I will say is that IF Berger goes through with the Executive Order; it will create a stir in the Guatemalan Congress. The Prensa Libre Story quotes Ortega as saying that he believes it will push Congress to pass the legislation. Sources in Guatemala seem to feel that it will p*ss off Congress and make them fight Berger, not join forces with him.

For all of you in process… If you have read my rantings, you know that I am very critical and untrusting of our government. Despite that, I do not believe that there is any way the United States government will sit by and watch in-process adoptions be terminated. I am very confident (just my opinion of course) that whatever transpires in Guatemala, those of you with referrals will be able to complete your adoptions.

Finally, please do not send me personal e-mails on this. My family is going on a camping trip for the next week and I will NOT be checking e-mail. Kelly will keep you up-to-date on the news as it happens.

"Guatemala System is Scrutinized as Americans Rush to Adopt, by Marc Lacey" was my last interview.

By Susana Luarca, attorney at Law, Guatemala City.
Marc Lacey, who works for the New York Times, called me a couple of weeks ago, to talk about adoptions in Guatemala. He said that "everybody told him that he must talk to Susana Luarca". I have a soft spot for the New York Times, from the year that I lived in the Big Apple and read it every day, so - against my better judgment - I agreed and talked to him..

While talking to Marc, I could feel that something did not sound right about him, so I asked him if he was one of those journalists that come with an already written article, just looking for names to fill in the blanks. He assured me that he was "a serious journalist, of a serious newspaper". I almost believed him. It helped that he told me that he and his wife adopted their son in Kenya. From one adoptive parent to another, we talked over the phone for a long time. Marc asked me about the money that the birthmothers get for giving away their children. I told him that the people who oppose adoptions, tell the birth mothers that their children will be used for organ harvesting, to replace the organs of sick children of the adoptive parents, and by the same token, the adoptive parents are told that the birth mothers of their children sold them away, discrediting with those lies, the brave women who instead of aborting or abandoning their children, have the courage to make an adoption plan for them, and belittling the parents who adopt someone else’s child, to love him as their own flesh and blood. Marc insisted that money was the key factor in the relinquishments. I invited him to go to any street in Guatemala to look out for poor women with children and to offer them what he considered an attractive amount for their children, and see how many of them would accept. I am sure that even if he did, not a single mother would accept, because there is no amount of money that would make a woman * relinquish her child. Definitely, money is not the deciding factor. To say that all women sell their children into adoption, because Guatemala is a poor country, is the same as to say that all women in Guatemala get married to find someone to support them. Could be true in some cases, but it is certainly not the rule and should not be used as an argument to malign adoptions, because it stigmatizes all adopted children, which is totally unfair.

I told Marc that even though not everybody is entitled to raise a child, every child is entitled to be raised by a family, and that Guatemalans usually do not adopt, so it is a blessing that the Americans open their hearts and their homes to our children. Marc kept talking about the cost of an adoption. I told him that a successful adoption costs no more than a year of in vitro fertilization, and it is possible that in vitro may not produce the desired baby. I went on to say that the lawyers in Guatemala only collect if the adoption is successful, that if the mother changes her mind or the child dies, the lawyer gives the grieving family another child, and the lawyers take the losses and even pay the hospital bill or the funeral, if that is the case. In Guatemala, adoption professionals do not receive any help from the government, even though they provide the homes, the food, the health care and the daily care that keeps thousands of children sheltered, healthy and off the streets, regardless of the outcome or the duration of the adoption process. I invited Marc to visit an orphanage in zone ten, not far away from the American Embassy.

Some days later, Marc called me again, asking for an appointment. We met at my office, where we talked at length. I showed him an adoption process file, and all the documents that must be submitted to the American embassy to get DNA test authorization and if the result is positive, the visa pre approval document the consulate issues for the adoptive child. Marc was very impressed with the amount of paperwork needed for an adoption. I showed him the numerous times that the birthmother has to sign away her child during a period of some months and the groundless objections of the office of the State that has to give its approval to the adoption.

We also discussed at length the Hague Convention for Inter country adoptions. I informed Marc that Guatemala’s adoptions came to a halt during six months from March 2003 to September of the same year, until the Constitutional Court upheld the challenges against the approval by Congress and the accession by the President to such treaty. Without those challenges none of the children placed for adoption after March 5, 2003 would have been adopted. And many more would have died. It is not true – as Marc points out in his article - that “the Constitutional Court ruled definitely this year that the country must abide by it.” What is true is the Constitutional Court ruled that the Court cannot order the President to withdraw from or to denounce the Hague Convention, but internally, the judgment that ruled unconstitutional the approval by Congress is still valid and therefore, the Hague Convention cannot be enforced in Guatemala.

Now that the United States prepares to ratify the Hague Convention and have warned Guatemala that unless the laws of adoption comply with such treaty, it places our country at a crossroad. The adoption professionals and adoption advocates of Guatemala have expressed our desire to comply with the Hague Convention, to avoid compromising the lives of the thousands of children that if not adopted, will certainly face a very somber destiny. The arbitrary and abusive interpretation of the Hague Convention by the bureaucrats in charge of adoptions, has closed single handedly adoptions all over Latin American. We do not want that to happen in Guatemala. We trust that our legislators will find a way to take the good of the Hague Convention and the good of our legal system and merge it into an adoption law that would allow Guatemalan children to be adopted, by people who want to raise them with love and happiness.

After talking for a while at my office, Marc Lacey accepted to visit the orphanage around the corner of my office. He said he was very impressed with the orphanage. But I could not believe my ears when he asked me why the children were not moved to a less valuable property in the outskirts of the city, instead of having them in a house that should be very expensive. I told him that the generosity of many people is what made that house possible and that it is for the children, not for any other use. Its location is very convenient, because there are many doctors near by, also labs to run tests, and it is easy for the caregivers and other workers to go there. I mentioned to Marc that the children from 4 to 7 years old will receive at the orphanage, because of its convenient location, a Berlitz/Sesame Street English course, to ease their transition to their new families. Marc told me that the Berlitz method is the most expensive language teaching method in the world and for that reason, the orphanage should hire a regular English teacher familiar with the Berlitz method, and that it would save a lot of money. The impression it gave me is that he meant "why bother giving those adopted children the very best, when you can give them less.". I did not like that.

Today I read the article that Marc Lacey wrote and my worst fears were confirmed. He did not understand many things, or chose not to, like the process of adoption. If the adoptive parents do not need to be in Guatemala during the whole process, it is because a lawyer acts on their behalf, not because the system is less reliable or "handled in one visit" . Josefina Arellano is not the person in charge of the government department that signs off on all adoptions. She is instead, in charge of the office of the government that deals with abused, mistreated and abandoned children. Because of her personal perception that adoption is a "sale of the children" by the lawyers, not by the mothers, she and the lawyers of her section, make it as difficult as possible for children to be ruled abandoned by the courts, because they do not want those children to be adopted. Yesterday, a judge of minors told me that every time that she rules a child abandoned and orders that the child be placed for adoption to restore his right to have a family, Arellano files an appeal, demanding that the ruling be amended, stating that the child should be adopted "by a Guatemalan family", - knowing very well that it will not happen - "so the child would not be sold into foreign adoption". Because of people like Arellano, the new Adoption Law should be very clear and preclude the clouded perception of a bureaucrat, from causing much more harm than the proposed adoption professional abuses that it tries to stop.

According to the Guatemalan Constitution, it is the obligation of the State, to support orphans and abandoned children, and to provide them with health care, education, food, dress and home. That provision is ignored by every government, as well as the very existence of the needy children. They only are remembered in connection with adoption and "all the money that those who handle adoptions make". Nobody is stopping the government or anyone else from either supporting the children, or helping their illiterate mothers, teaching them a way to earn a decent salary to support their children, or to do cost-free adoptions. The explanation is very simple. The orphans and abandoned children, neither vote, nor have parents who vote, so why bother with them? So, "If it is not the Lawyers, who? And if it is not now, when? "

Even though I must admit that Marc Lacey treated me with respect in his article and did not distort any of my comments, I am appalled by the rest of his article. It is way below what I expected of a New York Times journalist and it was the last interview that I will give. Ever.

New Embassy Requirement

Many in-process families have been receiving an e-mail regarding a new requirement for supplying a copy of your passport. There was confusion about exactly what it is that needs to be provided. We inquired with the Embassy who informed us that all they need is the front page (with your pic, passport #, etc) and then the page where your passport would hae been stamped when you visited (if you did). This makes a lot of sense and is being done to streamline the process of determining whether your child will return home on an IR3 or IR4 visa. The embassy also stated that only one page needs to be notarized in which you state that it is a true copy of the passport.

The e-mail sent by teh Embassy is below:

In an ongoing effort to better serve you more efficiently, USCIS will now require that adopting parents submit notarized copies of their passports (every page that contains any information) with the final adoption packet and the fully completed I-600. USCIS is requiring these notarized copies in order to expedite the final adjudication process on the day of your "pink slip" appointment interview with the U.S. Consulate.

Please note that new requirement decisions are ones that are not made arbitrarily or capriciously, but are made in the interest of the adopting parent.

This is effective November 27, 2006.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Joseph T. Roma
Officer-in-Charge

Embassy Invites Attorneys for Seminar

Below is a copy of an invitation from the US Embassy. I was not informed of the meeting until after the deadline and for that I apologize. I am also wondering why agency representatives were not invited to attend, but then I do not know the purpose for the seminar.

{Posted to agencies by the US Embassy}

The Embassy of the United States of America is pleased to announce an upcoming seminar on The Hague Convention on InterCountry Adoption for Guatemalan Attorneys and Notaries.

Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Place: The Embassy of the United States of America, Avda. Reforma 7-01, Zone 10, Guatemala City, Guatemala

We request that your organization, as an adoption service provider representative of those serving Guatemala, nominate ONE Guatemalan Attorney or Notary with whom you work to participate in this Seminar.

This seminar is by invitation only. Due to space limitations, we can only accommodate one attorney or notary nomination per adoption service provider.

If your agency would like to nominate a Guatemalan Attorney or Notary with whom your agency works, please email us directly at consularguatem@ state.gov with the name and email address of the individual no later than Tuesday, September 19 and we will forward them an invitation.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

John A. Lowell
Consul General
Embassy of the United States of America

Attorney Banned

Guatadopt has just learned that the attorney Marta Marilu Martinez
Escobar has been banned by the US Embassy in Guatemala. Below is a communication that was sent to parents who had her registered as their attorney (and for whom the embassy had contact info). What appears odd in this is that with all other times someone has been banned, the Embassy has allowed in-process cases to be completed. That does not seem to be the case here.

We do not know why she was banned or have any other information regarding this. If we learn more, we will keep you informed.

Notice from DHS to clients of Lic.Martinez Escobar:

Please be advised that effective August 14, 2006, Marta Marilu Martinez
Escobar, your Guatemalan attorney of record, has been banned from involvement in the submission and/or processing of any adoption cases before this office.

Therefore, you need to provide us with the following documents:

1) New Case Informational Sheet stating the name of your new Guatemalan attorney that will replace Ms. Martinez, and his/her correct e-mail address and contact information. We will not accept to use the same e-mail address provided by Ms. Martinez previously.

2) New G-28 form.

This change must be reflected also in the documents submitted as part of the Final packet.

This office regrets any inconveniences that this may cause you, but this action was taken in order to protect your interests.

You need to take action as soon as possible in order to continue processing your case.

Sincerely,

Adoptions' Unit
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
American Embassy - Guatemala
Unit 3334/APO AA 34024
Guatemala.Adoptions@dhs.gov

US Embassy concerned about Security Issues - RESPONSE NEEDED

While I believe the problem cited below is very rare, apparently some families have been harassed by Guatemalan authorities while visiting. I know that we have visited many times without issue and that I have not been hearing of problems from families. So as you read this, please do not let it scare you or prevent you from having the wonderful experience of visiting during your adoption. To make this point, I added a picture of our family on our first visit to Guatemala. Those are cherished memories that I can only wish everyone has.

Focus on Adoption has been working with the US Embassy to address the
problem of US adoptive families being harrassed at the hotels, etc. while in
Guatemala with their adoptive children.

The US Embassy is taking action on these problems and has provided letters
to the hotels in Guatemala, to be able to give to adoptive families in case
of harrassment by the Guatemalan police.

If you find you are being harrassed in Guatemala by the Police, please
report this immediately to the hotel were you are staying. They will provide you
with a letter that has been prepared by the US Embassy and now have reporting
capability to report these incidents to the US Embassy.

ACTION NEEDED: Rudy Rivera, VP Focus on Adoption, is currently working with
the US Embassy to provide details of incidents that have occurred. We are
asking ANY adoptive family that has experienced harrassment - to respond to
this request as soon as possible, providing detailed information on harrassment
experienced (i.e. approximate date, location, extent of harrassment, etc.).

The US Embassy is continuing to work on this issue to seek security and
protection for adoptive families.

To report it, please e-mail ReachOutNJ@aol.com.

Jeannene Smith
Focus on Adoption

Stuck in PGN?

Please read to see an announcement from Focus on Adoption (of which I am a member of the Board of Directors)... Please send your info to ReachOutNJ@aol.com - DO NOT put your info into the comments section here.

Due to the continued problems of extremely long delays reported in the PGN,
and increased pressure by advocacy organizations seeking resolution to these
problems, US Embassy representatives, the Ambassador and Consul General, will
be meeting next week with the PGN director to discuss these issues.

We need to urgently gather information to provide to the US Embassy
representatives to aid in documenting the continuing problems and delays. The
following information is needed as soon as possible:

1. Documentation of cases with exceedingly long time frames in PGN (i.e.
over 3 months).
Please respond with TIMELINES and a very brief description (i.e. Name of Child, your name, entered PGN ____ date, kicked out with previos ____ date, or no movement since, etc.)
Please do not respond with long stories of all that has transpired on a case.

2. Documentation of "stupid" or illogical previos.
Please respond with a list of previos that did not seem to be well justified
(i.e. legitimate requests for information/corrections needed). Again,
please do not respond with a lengthy email about the entire case and speak solely
to the previos issue.

We would like to gather all responses and present them to the US Embassy
representatives so that they may speak to actual cases/facts at the meeting next
week. PLEASE RESPOND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Jeannene Smith
Focus on Adoption

The Guatemalan Perspective...CON'T

Prensa Libre strikes out again against adoptions. I think the sources of the anti-adoption folks have made themselves known: UNICEF and of course, First Lady Berger. I will warn you that it is rather upsetting to read. But it certainly explains the current delays prompted by an administration that is in its last term year.

My Sincerest thanks to Gregg who spent his time translating this article to share with other prospective parents....

The original article in Spanish can be found HERE.
Guatemala, baby-exporting country

Counts more than 160 adoption agencies. The easy process creates a business that rents wombs, that has law firms dedicated to the process, and produces more than $150 million USD in revenue per year.

By: Olga Lopez, Claudia Munaiz, Carlos Menocal

It is the second time that Laura (a fictitious name) visits the medical lab located on the third floor of a building in Zone 10. She isn’t nervous because she knows that she and her baby only need to give a blood sample to verify that neither are carriers of HIV, an essential requirement to initiate the process of adoption.

It is also the second time this 24 year old woman “rents” her womb to give light to a child she will give for adoption. “They’re giving me 5,000 Quetzales (a little more than $650 USD), and during my pregnancy they fed me, bought me medicines, and my childbirth was in a hospital”, she relates.

Children “a la carte”
The demand has grown, as the laws of the country favor notarial adoptions, and to a small extent, judicial adoptions.

Guatemala lists more than 160 international adoption agencies that tell their clients that the process will take less than nine months.

“Typically the children will be Hispanic looking, meaning light to medium brown skin with dark eyes and brown or black hair. All the children receive the regular well-baby check ups and are tested for HIV, Hepatitis B and other diseases. Pictures and medical reports are available upon referral.” Married couples and single women up to age 55 can adopt, states Adopt Abroad on its internet website (www.adopt-abroad.com).

They are children “a la carte,” assure the social service agencies. For the most part, they are adopted by citizens of the United States, Finland, England, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Israel, Canada, and Ireland, among others.

Each couple will have paid up to USD $40,000 to obtain a baby and will have generated for this industry some USD $200 million per year.

In the nine years since 1997, the country has given for adoption 23,474 minores, and more than 90 percent of these have gone to the United States.

On a per capita basis, Guatemala occupies first place in the world for exporters of newborns. Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, India, and Kazakhstan, also used by many agencies, all have larger population but none approve more than 2,000 cases each per year.

This year, the office of the Attorney General (PGN) has received more than 4,141 dossiers for adoption and has approved 1,544. En 2005 the country assigned 4,048 children, and 3,838 in 2004.

On average, 690 petitions for adoption enter the PGN monthly, and it is predicted to rise due to a warning that the U.S. government will suspend them next year if Guatemala doesn’t approve a law that protects children.

Victor Hugo Barrios, Assistant Attorney General, says that the agency lacks sufficient personnel to handle all the cases received by the PGN.

Alejandra Vasquez, from the Social Movement for Childhood, explains that there is an economic interest in this matter. “It is worrisome, because there is no law that follows-up on these cases” she advises.

Mario Taracena, member of the legislative commission on Childhood and the Family, affirms that there are proposed laws on this subject. “The first talks about an entity made up of various institutions, but with the participation of notarios. The second proposes that adoption should be a judicial process. Congress will revisit this subject”, he states.

Not abandoned
The number of international adoptions contrasts with the 3,000 orphans and abandoned children in hospitals, whom the state has under guardianship. The reason that these children are not attractive to the lawyers and agencies is that their situation is under the responsibility of a court.

Carmen de Wennier, director of “hogares comunitarios” (community homes), of the Secretary of Social Work of the First Lady (SOSEP), says that if they are declared as abandoned, orphaned, or subject to adoption, the process has to pass through the program of adoption and substitute families.

Nancy Amaya, director of adoption programs for SOSEP, indicates that international adoption agencies are not using this program because that they know that these children have been judicially declared as abandoned.

Josefina Arellano, lawyer for minors, attests that adoption has become a lucrative activity in which children who do not need to be born are given for adoption. “Abandoned children are not going to be adopted. There is a low incidence of judicial adoptions”, she states.

The Latin American Institute for Education and Communication (ILPEC) conducted an investigation at the request of UNICEF, concluding that adoptions are not focused on orphaned and abandoned children that need new families, but upon babies that are being produced for this purpose.

Laura admits: “When we went to for the exams, there were more than 50 women in the lab that were going to sell their child.”

The business has grown to such an extent that classified ads are placed, suggesting the possibility of an adoption resulting from a supposedly unexpected pregnancy.

“The economic engine of adoption has created a labor force in which the financiers, mothers, intermediaries, foster care providers, translators, lawyers, adoption agencies, and children’s homes receive benefits”, concludes ILPEC.

Fernando Linares Beltranena, criminal lawyer and adoption lawyer, claims that there is no proof that this supposed business exists.

“While there are more adoptions, good. There will be more lawyers that offer their services, more foster homes, more pediatricians. All of this will reduce the cost because there will be a larger offering of services”, he asserts.

Without regulation
Rosa Ortiz, a member of UNICEF, of the United Nations, states that the country is a paradise for adoptions because there is no intervention by the state.

Guatemala is the only country in Latin America in which a judicial process is not required. In fact, it is a process carried out by lawyers connected with the agencies.

The only contact that the judicial system has in this process is when the social worker interviews the mother in the Family Court. After that, the PGN approves the case.

According to investigators from the Minors Section of the national police, complex networks exist that could be linked to the international trafficking of children and child prostitution. In fact, there are recent reports saying that during this year thirty children of three years old has been stolen.

The case worries the social service organizations, concerned that these little ones could be placed for adoptions under suspicious circumstances.

Anomolies are also reflected in cases that have been filed with PGN. This year, 33 have been rejected after anomalies have been detected in the documents presented by the notarios.

Duplicity in birth certificates, falsification of documents and of the biological mothers, are some of the irregularities that have investigators from the section on Childhood of the PGN have detected.

“It has been established that many women use the identity of children that died some 20 years ago”, states Josefina Arellano, in charge of the section.

Indebted
En March of 2003, the government ratified the Hague Convention, concerning the protection of children, and anticipated that the state should control the process of adoption. In September of that year, several notarios pledged to lodge an appeal in the Constitutional Court against it.

Guatemala hasn’t completed the implementation of the agreement. For Byron Alvarado, lawyer with the Social Movement for Childhood, Congress should incorporate the Hague Convention. “Guatemala has committed itself to conforming with international treaties”, maintains Alvarado.

Nidia Aguilar del Cid, chief attorney for Childhood, of the office for Human Rights, affirms that the agreement confirms that in the adoption process there should be no thought of making profits.

“We’re not saying that the notario shouldn’t earn any money, but when we see what the adoption of a child entails, above all with the United States, the situation changes”, he says.

The assistant attorney expounds: “We would like to have a law that regulates the adoption process, in which the PGN will take part with central authority, but where the case would be judicial.”

The case hasn’t been dealt with by the Legislative body, and, according to Taracena, is awaiting a new brief to initiate the discussion. “This law has been in Congress for 18 years”, he says.

Study: Announcement and analysis of the case
Institutions are worried over adoptions.
ILPEC states that adoptions are not carried out with orphaned children that need substitute families, but with newborns that will be “produced” for this end.

Besides, he states that 60% of children given for adoption are less than 10 months old. Some 82% were confined to private homes, and 12% come from institutions that take in abandoned children.

The activity is developing with a parallel judicial procedure, in the form of ads in the press that say: “Unmarried woman, do you have problems because of your pregnancy? We will help you. We offer you a legal way out. Place (your baby) for adoption.”

One case: Testimony
Deceived
Three months ago, Jose and his wife Raquel Umpierre, from Puerto Rico, reported that they only needed to obtain a child’s visa and pay $6,500 USD to adopt the child. But the baby was already promised by a nursery to another couple from the United States.

“We went to the children’s home, paid $6,000 USD and signed a power of attorney. We began to share the life of our little Manuel with every trip”, he added.

His wife, Raquel, has lost about 13 pounds since they told her the news. “Araceli Reyes looked me in the eye and told me that my child would arrive the 17th of April”, she states.

Orphans await opportunity
Nancy Amaya, director of adoption programs for the Secretary of Social Works for the first lady of Guatemala (SOSEP), explains that as of this moment seven children, from a total of 3,000 orphans, are classified for adoption.

According to Amaya, SOSEP has a data base of families that want to adopt children under its guardianship.

“We look for a family for a child, and not for a child for a family”, she argues.

The Process
If a family wants to adopt a child, they should approach SOSEP. There, they will be given a form and will need to attach documents that prove their quality of life, pass a criminal background check, medical certificates, work history, tax information, and marital status.

Married people and single women can adopt.
The process is totally free, and the family can be considered as a candidate after being subjected to an evaluation of its profiles. Amaya states that they’re not looking for an ostentatious family, but rather one that will give a good life to the child.

In the state-run homes, there are children between the ages of one year and up to 11 years.

Carmen de Wennier maintains that adoption is a noble institution, when it favors needy children.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Response posted by Kelly:
While I could write a book on the faulty reasoning of these articles...I just don't have time. I'm appalled that reporters are more interested in shock value than in thinking through and researching their articles..but I will respond to a few things in no particular order:

* PGN claims fraudulant documents and duplicity: OK...I believe that their JOB is to prevent adoptions from happening under fraudulant circumstances. If they cannot handle or prevent such occurrances from happening (they certainly declare that they have "identified" them), then they are not suited to become a Central Authority. I would recommend that PGN be immediately replaced if they ARE allowing such adoptions to occur. Governments are quick to criticize the private sector (especially, if they are not in the financial loop)...yet they are somehow exempt when they are ineffective at their own government jobs??

* Birthmothers having children for money: While this claim would be hard to dispute (at least whether it happens), I am disgusted by the elitist blanket statements. In only a few visits to Guatemala, I met birthmothers where fathers had been murdered, killed or they were left on their own. I've watched them cry when they talk about wanting a better life for their children. This is a Catholic country where abortion is unthinkable...so, why is it surprising that women find themselves pregnant with children they are unable to support? Certainly, it is no surprise that the first Lady, UNICEF nor any other state organization is unwilling to assist them. Remember folks, poverty is extreme in many areas of Guatemala.

* Abandonments - I know plenty of families that pursue abandonment cases. Unfortunately for them, the process can be long and painful. There are no guarantees and there are judges who are unwilling to grant an abandonment decree regardless of the situation.The process for Relinquishments (whether or not you agree with the current system) is about the only process that has obvious safeguards against stolen children! So, it seems that our dear reporter is contradicting herself!

*State Run orphanages? Well, I have not visited Guatemala for a while. But one thing that was incredibly sad about Central American STATE run orphanages is the number of children shoved into overcrowded and severely underfunded orphanges. To say that a child has a higher risk of attachment and emotional disorders is an understatement. The Privatization is what has kept these children well cared for. I cringe to think of what might happen if the Guatemalan government was tasked with taking care of all orphaned children.

* Most distressing to me: My daughter is a human being with dreams and emotions. She is not an export nor should her biological families circumstances be minimized because of some elitist political views of adoption. I resent children being discussed as objects. Again, I feel there is a severe detachment from the upper class about the economic reality in more rural villages. Notice folks, that the focus of concern seems to be the industry, not what would happen to the many children who would likely have NO sponsors if it were not for open adoptions in this country.

In summary, I realize that it is easy to either dismiss or believe every newspaper article. But these views are a good lesson in the issues facing Guatemala and even adoptions worldwide. Since UNICEF has done very little in actually helping or assisting the poverty stricken in Guatemala but they spend billions on advocating to KEEP these children from having opportunities..They have collected billions of dollars in the name of saving children in Guatemala which is certainly FALSE advertisement because they spend it mostly to pressure governments to do their bidding.
....well, what more needs to be said?

The Guatemalan Perspective...

I decided to move this up to the top (instead of buried in the comments) because it is an important lesson in understanding in the Guatemala Perspective. The translation is in black and I added my comments in blue italics.

{English translation sent to us by Esperanza}

Esperanza wrote: What follows is my husband's translation of an article that appeared in the Prensa Libre newspaper in Guatemala City on Saturday, July 1, 2006. You can read the original article (in Spanish) at: http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2006/julio/01/145715.html. Perhaps it helps explain some of the reported slowdown in the PGN's processing of cases (?).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alarm over the theft of children By: Olga López

More than 25 children have been stolen in the first half of this year,and organizations that watch over this sector of the population are expressing fear that they are being illegally sold for adoptions. Groups supporting the welfare of children back up their perceptions with statistics from the National Civil Police (PNC), where it has been reported that the theft of minors from 0 to 3 years old has increased, on the streets and in public hospitals. Investigators say that these are the ages that child thieves prefer, because they are not yet able to speak well.

In Central America, children are often stolen for prostitution and slavery which is unrelated to adoption. The DNA test makes it quite difficult to steal a child for adoption since the majority of adoptions are to US citizens. If an attempt is made to process it as an abandonment, then it becomes a lengthy process where the court attempts to find the birth mother or birth family.

The PN has also received 10 reports from the la Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN), that it has detected irregularities in the processing of adoptions. Josefina Arellano, head of the office of Children, from the PGN, states that DNA tests have detected that many children are not the children of the women who have placed them for adoption.

I would love to know statistics here. I would not be surprised that there would be some findings of children who did not match with the relinquisher. However, this is why the DNA match is necessary to deter folks from such dispicable actions. I have also seen that sometimes birthmother's in fear have abandoned their children with relatives, with midwives or aquaintances in hopes that they will not be detected. In ANY case where there is a DNA mismatch, the adoption would not be allowed to go through and the child and case goes to the Court of Minors which is tasked with investigating. The point of any law or *test* should be in order to CATCH predators..but it cannot prevent attempts to circumvent the law.

As for the irregularities of PGN....well, yeah...seems that PGN has had a hard time figuring out what constitutes a legitimate adoption. Somehow, stalling the cases or inventing issues does not seem to be the answer. Seems to me that the biggest irregularity in PGN is PGN itself!

The Attorney General, Mario Gordillo, predicts that there will be an increase in the number of adoptions this year, due to the warning from the United States that it will suspend adoptions from Guatemala in 2007 if Guatemala does not approve a law that protects minors.

There has been an increase due to this threat. It may also play a part in the timelines we are seeing. Afterall, there are no increases in staff to handle them. The threat is legit. I just question the motives of all. Most seem more bent on stopping adoptions than they are protecting children.

Alejandra Vásquez, of the National Childhood Movement, says that because of this situation many children are at risk of falling into the hands of unscrupulous people who either purchase or steal them from their mothers.

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind is going to attempt stealing a child for the sake of adoption when it would be near impossible to process the adoption and being caught would ruin them. If PGN cannot handle investigating these cases, then they need to be replaced. In the past, while we have had our disagreements, one thing was true: They are in place to investigate each case and make sure it is legitimate. Moreover, our own Embassy takes a very critical eye to every adoption case. The statement only tells me that these people have no faith in THEIR own PGN. But really, it boils down to the fact that they want to stop adoptions because in their eyes it "looks bad".

On the rise "We believe that the number of missing children has risen in comparison to previous years", states Nidia Aguilar, of the office for the Defense of Children, from the department for Human Rights. Missing More than 25 children between the ages of 0 and 3 have been reported to the PNC as stolen, between January and June of this year. The thefts have occurred in the streets, and in the national hospitals of Guatemala City and the rest of the country. Many minors are stolen to be illegally placed for adoption.

This is yellow journalism. Again, how can you steal a child with a failed DNA and then place them for adoption anyway? I wonder about the intelligence of a reporter that can't put 2 and 2 together here. I also wonder who is making the connections...is it the reporter or these various organizations reporting the stolen children?

Guatemala's first lady, Wendy Berger, has a daughter who adopted from Romania. Ms. Berger has been very outspoken about enacting laws in Guatemala that would effectively end adoptions and would leave thousands of children homeless anually. Yet she has been heard stating that adopted children are not really wanted they are just easy to obtain. What is so sad about this view is not that she is so wrong, but that she apparently has an elitest prejudicial view HERSELF. She does not value them as human beings EQUALLY deserving than a Romanian child. I am curious what she would think if her grandchild was kept from her and her daughter for months just for the sake of displaying a political view! Well, Ms. Berger, you are wrong. These are very precious children and while it may be hard to fight those who want to take advantage of the system, it is only right to offer these children and their biological families the option of a loving home! Keeping them from their families is as criminal if not more than those who try to take advantage of the situation.

I pray that all may come to their senses and do whats right for the children!

 

PGN Waiters....take note

Well, after receiving 40+ private emails today asking about PGN timeframes and questions, I decided I NEEDED to address all the "PGN Waiters". While I CERTAINLY understand the frustration, there is only so much I can do to "help". Not to mention that I do not get paid while your agency DOES get paid...and its REALLY hard right now to keep a good attitude when I am jobless and wondering how I am going to pay the electric bill this month.

First off: If you don't see your question answered or you just want to gripe, moan or comment, please do not hesitate to email me anyway. I'm here to support families *AND* agencies...even if *I* need to gripe occassionally too :-) I just had to say something because there were TOO many emails and I would hate for ANYONE to think that I was ignoring them or didn't care.

Alrighty, here are some general comments about PGN:

1 - Make sure that before you email any of the Guatadopt writers, you refresh your Guatadopt.com site and read the latest entries. IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE KNOW, WE POST IT IMMEDIATELY....or as soon as we're sitting at a computer (Really! I promise!).

2 - TWO days ago, I posted about the meeting ADA had with the PGN director. Yet, 90% of the email I am receiving from the site is asking about timeframes. Since I doubt ANYONE has entered into PGN and exited within 2 days, the guestimate would have to be based on the EXTREMELY long timeframes PRIOR to Tuesday. Unfortunately, PGN has been so unpredictable, I couldn't even do that (Please read back SEVERAL posts if you want to have a history of what was going on!).

3 - YES, it appears some cases have been released. But I don't think the "floodgates" have opened. Its too early to establish ANY idea or average timeframe. We'll just have to wait and see!

4 - There has been some speculation among some attornies, that the most efficient and "clean" cases have been delayed more than most...by being thrown into investigation or kicked out for nonsensical issues (punished for being efficient?...yikes!). So, its not logical to judge your attorney by the length of stay in PGN right now (other factors? yeah, but not PGN timelines).

5 - Finally, a reminder....we are QUITE limited to what we can speculate or advise on an individual case. We are NOT privy to your case details (and interpretations of information differ). Nor is anyone on ANY forum outside your agency. You must take advice/comments from anyone (including Guatadopt) with a grain of salt!!!!

I'm still crossing my fingers for all of you....and again, we'll post news as we get it!

ADA Meets with PGN Director

{Posted on behalf of Susana Luarca, ADA}

Dear Friends,

Association Defenders of Adoption held a meeting last night to discuss the delays of the adoption files at the PGN. The audience was informed by the president of ADA, Enrique Urizar, of the contents of the letter that was sent last week by ADA to the director of the PGN, urging him to sign off all the cases that have been reviewed by the PGN lawyers and are waiting for his signature. The letter warned him that is he failed to do so, legal actions would be taken against him.

This past week, Barrios went to Bolivia and came back at the end of the week. This morning we were told he started signing off all files presented before May 15th. We assume that he is doing so, to prevent us from filing an Amparo (a legal resource where there is no other legal remedy) against him, for failing to give an opinion in more than a month. Although that is a good start, it is not enough. At the meeting, we agreed to file criminal charges against him, for not performing his official duties in the time that the law establishes (three days) and for sending many of the files for 'investigation' to the section of children and adolescents of the PGN, where the processes are paralyzed for many months. He has done a lot of harm and will have to answer for it.

For those of you who want to take an active role in the prosecution of Barrios, contact your lawyer and urge him or her to contact us. Criminal charges should be brought by the victims. Do not expect others to do it for you. Let us know that you support our actions and remember that united we will be stronger.

Best regards,

Susana Luarca, attorney at law
Assciation Defenders of Adoption
Vice President.

PGN Bottleneck continues

While this is the same ole news, I guess its appropriate to reiterate it. I know a number of people have written to ask for updates....Well, I feel like the budget weather guy who stands there saying "Uh, its currently raining!" DUH! Those of you waiting are WELL aware that you are STILL waiting!!!

So, lets talk about what agencies, attorneys and little ole me CAN tell you and what we CAN'T tell you.

1 - The bottleneck is PRIMARILY with the new PGN director. Yes, his job is to "review" or look over the files before they are released. The question is: To what extent? My opinion is that he is using this excuse to stall the release of files.
2 - Chances are you are not going to get a PGN "update" privately unless your case has been signed off OR it has been kicked out (with a previo). Keep in mind that the attorneys/agencies have NO CONTROL over PGN slowdowns nor Embassy slowdowns. Expected timelines are being thrown out the window and there was no way that anyone could have foreseen it.
3 - Your case is a private-unique case unlike any other case. So, when we talk about vague concepts like slowdowns, you must remember that PGN is not a queue (first in, first out)....no matter what the speed of the "average" case. We have no idea why one case may only spend X amount of time while another case takes 3X amount of time...because we are not privy to the details of that case. So, don't expect to find answers in "averages"...
3 - FYI: Guatadopt is updating you based on our own contacts in Guatemala and various agencies' experiences. What we lack is direct information from PGN, statistics, reasons or individual case information. Most agencies and attorneys are blind to case statistics NOT their own....so take it with a grain of salt.

I am aware that ADA has been putting some pressure on the director to release cases which have been approved by the reviewers but not signed. But the most we can do is wait and see.

As usual, I wish there was something more we could do....but I suspect that the reasons are somewhat political and we must be careful not to fan the flames!

ICARE added to Senate Immigration Bill

In just a few hours, the Senate is expected to approve an immigration reform bill. Everyone has seen the news coverage of the debate about the topic of undocumented immigration to the United States. Added to that bill is the ICARE bill. A search of this site will teach you quite a bit about ICARE.

This does not mean that ICARE will become law today! The House of Representatives has passed a very different immigration bill already and the two houses must still find a compromise before anything becomes the law of the land. Who knows if that will happen or if ICARE will be a part of any compromise.

Sen. Landrieu's Press Release is below.

Note 5/30: we have added the text of the bill to this posting after the press release

For Immediate Release
May 24, 2006

Landrieu Adoption Amendment Added to Immigration Bill
WASHINGTON – The Senate adopted today by voice vote the Inter Country Adoption Reform (ICARE) amendment offered by U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La. The amendment seeks to improve the international adoption process by affording children adopted internationally by American parents the same rights as children born abroad to American parents.

“We have millions of children around the world who need an opportunity for a family,” Sen. Landrieu said on the Senate floor. “Children should be raised in families, not alone.”

The ICARE amendment centralizes the current staff and resources working on international adoption into one office, the newly created Office of Inter-country Adoption (OIA). This allows for greater coordination, focus and expertise regarding international adoption, and enables the U.S. State Department to provide greater diplomatic representation and proactive advocacy in the area of international adoption.

“Every child should try to stay with the parents that bring them into the world, but when that is not possible and no parents in their home country can be found, then these children have a right to find a family somewhere in the world, and we must help them,” said Sen. Landrieu.

The ICARE amendment was originally introduced in 2003 by Sen. Landrieu and former Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., in an effort to improve the facilitation of the international adoption process as the numbers of inter-country adoptions increased. In 1990, Americans adopted more than 7,000 children from abroad. By 2004, Americans adopted more than 23,000 children from abroad.

“This legislation has taken us far too long to pass, but today we are helping eliminate barriers and provide a more effective international adoption system which will help the hundreds of thousands of children who are waiting for the safe and loving family they deserve,” said Sen. Landrieu.

Text of the Bill

TITLE --INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION REFORM

SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006'' or the ``ICARE Act''.

SEC. 02. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds the following:

(1) That a child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.

(2) That intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her country of origin.

(3) There has been a significant growth in intercountry adoptions. In 1990, Americans adopted 7,093 children from abroad. In 2004, they adopted 23,460 children from abroad.

(4) Americans increasingly seek to create or enlarge their families through intercountry adoptions.

(5) There are many children worldwide that are without permanent homes.

(6) In the interest of children without a permanent family and the United States citizens who are waiting to bring them into their families, reforms are needed in the intercountry adoption process used by United States citizens.

(7) Before adoption, each child should have the benefit of measures taken to ensure that intercountry adoption is in his or her best interest and that prevents the abduction, selling, or trafficking of children.

(8) In addition, Congress recognizes that foreign-born adopted children do not make the decision whether to immigrate to the United States. They are being chosen by Americans to become part of their immediate families.

(9) As such these children should not be classified as immigrants in the traditional sense. Once fully and finally adopted, they should be treated as children of United States citizens.

(10) Since a child who is fully and finally adopted is entitled to the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as a biological child, the law should reflect such equality.

(11) Therefore, foreign-born adopted children of United States citizens should be accorded the same procedural treatment as biological children born abroad to a United States citizen.

(12) If a United States citizen can confer citizenship to a biological child born abroad, then the same citizen is entitled to confer such citizenship to their legally and fully adopted foreign-born child immediately upon final adoption.

(13) If a United States citizen cannot confer citizenship to a biological child born abroad, then such citizen cannot confer citizenship to their legally and fully adopted foreign-born child, except through the naturalization process.

(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this title are--

(1) to ensure that any adoption of a foreign-born child by parents in the United States is carried out in the manner that is in the best interest of the child;

(2) to ensure that foreign-born children adopted by United States citizens will be treated identically to a biological child born abroad to the same citizen parent; and

(3) to improve the intercountry adoption process to make it more citizen friendly and focused on the protection of the child.

SEC. 03. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) ADOPTABLE CHILD.--The term ``adoptable child'' has the same meaning given such term in section 101(c)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(c)(3)), as added by section __ 24(a) of this Act.

(2) AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.--The term ``Ambassador at Large'' means the Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoptions appointed to head the Office pursuant to section __ 11(b).

(3) COMPETENT AUTHORITY.--The term ``competent authority'' means the entity or entities authorized by the law of the child's country of residence to engage in permanent placement of children who are no longer in the legal or physical custody of their biological parents.

(4) CONVENTION.--The term ``Convention'' means the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, done at The Hague on May 29, 1993.

(5) FULL AND FINAL ADOPTION.--The term ``full and final adoption'' means an adoption--

(A) that is completed according to the laws of the child's country of residence or the State law of the parent's residence;

(B) under which a person is granted full and legal custody of the adopted child;

(C) that has the force and effect of severing the child's legal ties to the child's biological parents;

(D) under which the adoptive parents meet the requirements of section __ 25; and

(E) under which the child has been adjudicated to be an adoptable child in accordance with section __ 26.

(6) OFFICE.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of Intercountry Adoptions established under section __ 11(a).

(7) READILY APPROVABLE.--A petition or certification is ``readily approvable'' if the documentary support provided along with such petition or certification demonstrates that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility requirements and no additional information or investigation is necessary.

Subtitle A--Administration of Intercountry Adoptions

SEC. 11. OFFICE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, there shall be established within the Department of State, an Office of Intercountry Adoptions which shall be headed by the Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoptions.

(b) AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.--

(1) APPOINTMENT.--The Ambassador at Large shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who have background, experience, and training in intercountry adoptions.

(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.--The individual appointed to be the Ambassador at Large shall be free from any conflict of interest that could impede such individual's ability to serve as the Ambassador.

(3) AUTHORITY.--The Ambassador at Large shall report directly to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.

(4) REGULATIONS.--The Ambassador at Large may not issue rules or regulations unless such rules or regulations have been approved by the Secretary of State.

(5) DUTIES OF THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.--The Ambassador at Large shall have the following responsibilities:

(A) IN GENERAL.--The primary responsibilities of the Ambassador at Large shall be--

(i) to ensure that any adoption of a foreign-born child by parents in the United States is carried out in the manner that is in the best interest of the child; and

(ii) to assist the Secretary of State in fulfilling the responsibilities designated to the central authority under title I of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14911 et seq.).

(B) ADVISORY ROLE.--The Ambassador at Large shall be a principal advisor to the

[Page: S4639] GPO's PDF

President and the Secretary of State regarding matters affecting intercountry adoption and the general welfare of children abroad and shall make recommendations regarding--

(i) the policies of the United States with respect to the establishment of a system of cooperation among the parties to the Convention;

(ii) the policies to prevent abandonment, to strengthen families, and to advance the placement of children in permanent families; and

(iii) policies that promote the protection and well-being of children.

(C) DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION.--Subject to the direction of the President and the Secretary of State, the Ambassador at Large may represent the United States in matters and cases relevant to international adoption in--

(i) fulfillment of the responsibilities designated to the central authority under title I of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14911 et seq.);

(ii) contacts with foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, and specialized agencies of the United Nations and other international organizations of which the United States is a member; and

(iii) multilateral conferences and meetings relevant to international adoption.

(D) International policy development.--The Ambassador at Large shall advise and support the Secretary of State and other relevant Bureaus of the Department of State in the development of sound policy regarding child protection and intercountry adoption.

(E) REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES.--The Ambassador at Large shall have the following reporting responsibilities:

(i) IN GENERAL.--The Ambassador at Large shall assist the Secretary of State and other relevant Bureaus in preparing those portions of the Human Rights Reports that relate to the abduction, sale, and trafficking of children.

(ii) ANNUAL REPORT ON INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION.--Not later than September 1 of each year, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to Congress an annual report on intercountry adoption. Each annual report shall include--

(I) a description of the status of child protection and adoption in each foreign country, including--

(aa) trends toward improvement in the welfare and protection of children and families;

(bb) trends in family reunification, domestic adoption, and intercountry adoption;

(cc) movement toward ratification and implementation of the Convention; and

(dd) census information on the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, and other types of nonpermanent residential care as reported by the foreign country;

(II) the number of intercountry adoptions by United States citizens, including the country from which each child emigrated, the State in which each child resides, and the country in which the adoption was finalized;

(III) the number of intercountry adoptions involving emigration from the United States, including the country where each child now resides and the State from which each child emigrated;

(IV) the number of placements for adoption in the United States that were disrupted including the country from which the child emigrated, the age of the child, the date of the placement for adoption, the reasons for the disruption, the resolution of the disruption, the agencies that handled the placement for adoption, and the plans for the child, and in addition, any information regarding disruption or dissolution of adoptions of children from other countries received pursuant to the section 422(b)(14) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)(14));

(V) the average time required for completion of an adoption, set forth by the country from which the child emigrated;

(VI) the current list of agencies accredited and persons approved under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.) to provide adoption services;

(VII) the names of the agencies and persons temporarily or permanently debarred under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.), and the reasons for the debarment;

(VIII) the range of adoption fees involving adoptions by United States citizens and the median of such fees set forth by the country of origin;

(IX) the range of fees charged for accreditation of agencies and the approval of persons in the United States engaged in providing adoption services under the Convention; and

(X) recommendations of ways the United States might act to improve the welfare and protection of children and families in each foreign country.

(c) FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE.--The Office shall have the following 7 functions:

(1) APPROVAL OF A FAMILY TO ADOPT.--To approve or disapprove the eligibility of a United States citizen to adopt a child born in a foreign country.

(2) CHILD ADJUDICATION.--To investigate and adjudicate the status of a child born in a foreign country to determine whether that child is an adoptable child.

(3) FAMILY SERVICES.--To provide assistance to United States citizens engaged in the intercountry adoption process in resolving problems with respect to that process and to track intercountry adoption cases so as to ensure that all such adoptions are processed in a timely manner.

(4) INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT.--To advise and support the Ambassador at Large and other relevant Bureaus of the Department of State in the development of sound policy regarding child protection and intercountry adoption.

(5) CENTRAL AUTHORITY.--To assist the Secretary of State in carrying out duties of the central authority as defined in section 3 of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14902).

(6) ENFORCEMENT.--To investigate, either directly or in cooperation with other appropriate international, Federal, State, or local entities, improprieties relating to intercountry adoption, including issues of child protection, birth family protection, and consumer fraud.

(7) ADMINISTRATTON.--To perform administrative functions related to the functions performed under paragraphs (1) through (6), including legal functions and congressional liaison and public affairs functions.

(d) ORGANIZATION.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--All functions of the Office shall be performed by officers employed in a central office located in Washington, D.C. Within that office, there shall be 7 divisions corresponding to the 7 functions of the Office. The director of each such division shall report directly to the Ambassador at Large.

(2) APPROVAL TO ADOPT.--The division responsible for approving parents to adopt shall be divided into regions of the United States as follows:

(A) Northwest.

(B) Northeast.

(C) Southwest.

(D) Southeast.

(E) Midwest.

(F) West.

(3) CHILD ADJUDICATION.--To the extent practicable, the division responsible for the adjudication of foreign-born children as adoptable shall be divided by world regions which correspond to the world regions used by other divisions within the Department of State.

(4) USE OF INTERNATIONAL FIELD OFFICERS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of international field officers posted abroad, as necessary, to fulfill the requirements of this Act.

(5) COORDINATION.--The Ambassador at Large shall coordinate with appropriate employees of other agencies and departments of the United States, whenever appropriate, in carrying out the duties of the Ambassador.

(e) QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING.--In addition to meeting the employment requirements of the Department of State, officers employed in any of the 7 divisions of the Office shall undergo extensive and specialized training in the laws and processes of intercountry adoption as well as understanding the cultural, medical, emotional, and social issues surrounding intercountry adoption and adoptive families. The Ambassador at Large shall, whenever possible, recruit and hire individuals with background and experience in intercountry adoptions, taking care to ensure that such individuals do not have any conflicts of interest that might inhibit their ability to serve.

(f) USE OF ELECTRONIC DATABASES AND FILING.--To the extent possible, the Office shall make use of centralized, electronic databases and electronic form filing.

SEC. 12. RECOGNITION OF CONVENTION ADOPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 505(a)(1) of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 note) is amended by inserting ``301, 302,'' after ``205,''.

SEC. 13. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 104 of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14914) is repealed.

SEC. 14. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subsection (c), all functions under the immigration laws of the United States with respect to the adoption of foreign-born children by United States citizens and their admission to the United States that have been vested by statute in, or exercised by, the Secretary of Homeland Security immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, are transferred to the Secretary of State on the effective date of this Act and shall be carried out by the Ambassador at Large, under the supervision of the Secretary of State, in accordance with applicable laws and this Act.

(b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITIES.--Except as otherwise provided by law, the Ambassador at Large may, for purposes of performing any function transferred to the Ambassador at Large under subsection (a), exercise all authorities under any other provision of law that were available with respect to the performance of that function to the official responsible for the performance of the function immediately before the effective date of the transfer of the function pursuant to this subtitle.

(c) LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF PENDING ADOPTIONS.--If an individual has filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Department of Homeland Security with respect to the adoption of a foreign-born child prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to make the final determination on such petition and such petition shall not be transferred to the Office.

SEC. 15. TRANSFER OF RESOURCES.

Subject to section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, upon the effective date of this act, there are transferred to the Ambassador at Large for appropriate allocation in accordance with this Act, the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to the Department of Homeland Security in connection with the functions transferred pursuant to this subtitle.

SEC. 16. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS.

The Ambassador at Large may make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in connection with such functions, as may be necessary to carry out this subtitle. The Ambassador at Large shall provide for such further measures and dispositions as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this subtitle.

SEC. 17. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) LEGAL DOCUMENTS.--All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, agreements, including collective bargaining agreements, certificates, licenses, and privileges--

(1) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become effective by the President, the Ambassador at Large, the former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their delegates, or any other Government official, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of any function that is transferred pursuant to this subtitle; and

(2) that are in effect on the effective date of such transfer (or become effective after such date pursuant to their terms as in effect on such effective date);

shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by the President, any other authorized official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law, except that any collective bargaining agreement shall remain in effect until the date of termination specified in the agreement.

(b) PROCEEDINGS.--

(1) PENDING.--The transfer of functions under section __ 14 shall not affect any proceeding or any application for any benefit, service, license, permit, certificate, or financial assistance pending on the effective date of this subtitle before an office whose functions are transferred pursuant to this subtitle, but such proceedings and applications shall be continued.

(2) ORDERS.--Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such proceeding shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

(3) DISCONTINUANCE OR MODIFICATION.--Nothing in this section shall be considered to prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if this section had not been enacted.

(c) SUITS.--This subtitle shall not affect suits commenced before the effective date of this subtitle, and in all such suits, proceeding shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been enacted.

(d) NONABATEMENT OF ACTIONS.--No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the Department of Homeland Security, or by or against any individual in the official capacity of such individual as an officer or employee in connection with a function transferred pursuant to this section, shall abate by reason or the enactment of this Act.

(e) CONTINUANCE OF SUIT WITH SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES.--If any Government officer in the official capacity of such officer is party to a suit with respect to a function of the officer, and pursuant to this subtitle such function is transferred to any other officer or office, then such suit shall be continued with the other officer or the head of such other office, as applicable, substituted or added as a party.

(f) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--Except as otherwise provided by this subtitle, any statutory requirements relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or administrative or judicial review that apply to any function transferred pursuant to any provision of this subtitle shall apply to the exercise of such function by the head of the office, and other officers of the office, to which such function is transferred pursuant to such provision.

Subtitle B--Reform of United States Laws Governing Intercountry Adoptions

SEC. 21. AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP PROVISIONS.--

(1) AMENDMENT OF THE INA.--Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 320. CONDITIONS FOR AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

``(a) IN GENERAL.--A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States--

``(1) if the child is not an adopted child--

``(A) at least 1 parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, who has been physically present (as determined under subsection (b)) in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years; and

``(B) the child is under the age of 18 years; or

``(2) if the child is an adopted child, on the date of the full and final adoption of the child--

``(A) at least 1 parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, who has been physically present (as determined under subsection (b)) in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years;

``(B) the child is an adoptable child;

``(C) the child is the beneficiary of a full and final adoption decree entered by a foreign government or a court in the United States; and

``(D) the child is under the age of 16 years.

``(b) PHYSICAL PRESENCE.--For the purposes of subsection (a)(2)(A), the requirement for physical presence in the United States or its outlying possessions may be satisfied by the following:

``(1) Any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

``(2) Any periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent.

``(3) Any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present outside the United States or its outlying possessions as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person--

``(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States; or

``(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288).

``(c) FULL AND FINAL ADOPTION.--In this section, the term `full and final adoption' means an adoption--

``(1) that is completed under the laws of the child's country of residence or the State law of the parent's residence;

``(2) under which a person is granted full and legal custody of the adopted child;

``(3) that has the force and effect of severing the child's legal ties to the child's biological parents;

``(4) under which the adoptive parents meet the requirements of section __ 25 of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006; and

``(5) under which the child has been adjudicated to be an adoptable child in accordance with section __ 26 of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006.''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 163) is amended by striking the item relating to section 320 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 320. Conditions for automatic citizenship for children born outside the United States''.

(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as if enacted on June 27, 1952.

SEC. 22. REVISED PROCEDURES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following requirements shall apply with respect to the adoption of foreign born children by United States citizens:

(1) Upon completion of a full and final adoption, the Secretary shall issue a United States passport and a Consular Report of Birth for a child who satisfies the requirements of section 320(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431(a)(2)), as amended by section __ 21 of this Act, upon application by a United States citizen parent.

(2) An adopted child described in paragraph (1) shall not require the issuance of a visa for travel and admission to the United States but shall be admitted to the United States upon presentation of a valid, unexpired United States passport.

(3) No affidavit of support under section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a) shall be required in the case of any adoptable child.

(4) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall require that agencies provide prospective adoptive parents an opportunity to conduct an independent medical exam and a copy of any medical records of the child known to exist (to the greatest extent practicable, these documents shall include an English translation) on a date that is not later than the earlier of the date that is 2 weeks before the adoption, or the date on which prospective adoptive parents travel to such a foreign country to complete all procedures in such country relating to adoption.

(5) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take necessary measures to ensure that all prospective adoptive parents adopting internationally are provided with training that includes counseling and guidance for the purpose of promoting a successful intercountry adoption before such parents travel to adopt the child or the child is placed with such parents for adoption.

[Page: S4641] GPO's PDF

(6) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take necessary measures to ensure that--

(A) prospective adoptive parents are given full disclosure of all direct and indirect costs of intercountry adoption before the parents are matched with a child for adoption;

(B) fees charged in relation to the intercountry adoption be on a fee-for-service basis not on a contingent fee basis; and

(C) that the transmission of fees between the adoption agency, the country of origin, and the prospective adoptive parents is carried out in a transparent and efficient manner.

(7) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take all measures necessary to ensure that all documents provided to a country of origin on behalf of a prospective adoptive parent are truthful and accurate.

SEC. 23. NONIMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CHILDREN TRAVELING TO THE UNITED STATES TO BE ADOPTED BY A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

(a) Nonimmigrant Classification.--

(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(W) an adoptable child who is coming into the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and a spouse jointly or by an unmarried United States citizen at least 25 years of age, who has been approved to adopt by the Office of International Adoption of the Department of State.''.

(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--Such section 101(a)(15) is further amended--

(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (U); and

(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (V) and inserting ``; or''.

(b) Termination of Period of Authorized Admission.--Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(s) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W), the period of authorized admission shall terminate on the earlier of--

``(1) the date on which the adoption of the nonimmigrant is completed by the courts of the State where the parents reside; or

``(2) the date that is 4 years after the date of admission of the nonimmigrant into the United States, unless a petitioner is able to show cause as to why the adoption could not be completed prior to such date and the Secretary of State extends such period for the period necessary to complete the adoption.''.

(c) Temporary Treatment as Legal Permanent Resident.--Notwithstanding any other law, all benefits and protections that apply to a legal permanent resident shall apply to a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a), pending a full and final adoption.

(d) Exception From Immunization Requirement for Certain Adopted Children.--Section 212(a)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(C)) is amended--

(1) in the heading by striking ``

10 YEARS'' and inserting ``18 YEARS''; and

(2) in clause (i), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``18 years''.

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 24. DEFINITION OF ADOPTABLE CHILD.

(a) In General.--Section 101(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(3) The term `adoptable child' means an unmarried person under the age of 18--

``(A)(i) whose biological parents (or parent, in the case of a child who has one sole or surviving parent) or other persons or institutions that retain legal custody of the child--

``(I) have freely given their written irrevocable consent to the termination of their legal relationship with the child, and to the child's emigration and adoption and that such consent has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind and has not been given prior to the birth of the child;

``(II) are unable to provide proper care for the child, as determined by the competent authority of the child's residence; or

``(III) have voluntarily relinquished the child to the competent authorities pursuant to the law of the child's residence; or

``(ii) who, as determined by the competent authority of the child's residence--

``(I) has been abandoned or deserted by their biological parent, parents, or legal guardians; or

``(II) has been orphaned due to the death or disappearance of their biological parent, parents, or legal guardians;

``(B) with respect to whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proper care will be furnished the child if admitted to the United States;

``(C) with respect to whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that the purpose of the adoption is to form a bona fide parent-child relationship and that the parent-child relationship of the child and the biological parents has been terminated (and in carrying out both obligations under this subparagraph the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may consider whether there is a petition pending to confer immigrant status on one or both of the biological parents);

``(D) with respect to whom the Secretary of State, is satisfied that there has been no inducement, financial or otherwise, offered to obtain the consent nor was it given before the birth of the child;

``(E) with respect to whom the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is satisfied that the person is not a security risk; and

``(F) whose eligibility for adoption and emigration to the United States has been certified by the competent authority of the country of the child's place of birth or residence.''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 204(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(d)) is amended by inserting ``and an adoptable child as defined in section 101(c)(3)'' before ``unless a valid home-study''.

SEC. 25. APPROVAL TO ADOPT.

(a) In General.--Prior to the issuance of a visa under section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section __ 23(a) of this Act, or the issuance of a full and final adoption decree, the United States citizen adoptive parent shall have approved by the Office a petition to adopt. Such petition shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as are applicable to petitions for classification under section 204.3 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Expiration of Approval.--Approval to adopt under this Act is valid for 24 months from the date of approval. Nothing in this section may prevent the Secretary of Homeland Security from periodically updating the fingerprints or an individual who has filed a petition for adoption.

(c) Expedited Reapproval Process of Families Previously Approved To Adopt.--The Secretary of State shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to provide for an expedited and streamlined process for families who have been previously approved to adopt and whose approval has expired, so long as not more than 4 years have lapsed since the original application.

(d) Denial of Petition.--

(1) Notice of intent.--If the officer adjudicating the petition to adopt finds that it is not readily approvable, the officer shall notify the petitioner, in writing, of the officer's intent to deny the petition. Such notice shall include the specific reasons why the petition is not readily approvable.

(2) Petitioner's right to respond.--Upon receiving a notice of intent to deny, the petitioner has 30 days to respond to such notice.

(3) Decision.--Within 30 days of receipt of the petitioner's response the Office must reach a final decision regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to adopt. Notice of a formal decision must be delivered in writing.

(4) Right to an appeal.--Unfavorable decisions may be appealed to the Department of State and, after the exhaustion of the appropriate appeals process of the Department, to a United States district court.

(5) Regulations regarding appeals.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall promulgate formal regulations regarding the process for appealing the denial of a petition.

SEC. 26. ADJUDICATION OF CHILD STATUS.

(a) In General.--Prior to the issuance of a full and final adoption decree or a visa under section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section __ 23(a) of this Act--

(1) the Ambassador at Large shall obtain from the competent authority of the country of the child's residence a certification, together with documentary support, that the child sought to be adopted meets the definition of an adoptable child; and

(2) not later than 15 days after the date of the receipt of the certification referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall make a final determination on whether the certification and the documentary support are sufficient to meet the requirements of this section or whether additional investigation or information is required.

(b) Process for Determination.--

(1) In General.--The Ambassador at Large shall work with the competent authorities of the child's country of residence to establish a uniform, transparent, and efficient process for the exchange and approval of the certification and documentary support required under subsection (a).

(2) Notice of intent.--If the Secretary of State determines that a certification submitted by the competent authority of the child's country of origin is not readily approvable, the Ambassador at Large shall--

(A) notify the competent authority and the prospective adoptive parents, in writing, of the specific reasons why the certification is not sufficient; and

(B) provide the competent authority and the prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to address the stated insufficiencies.

(3) Petitioners' right to respond.--Upon receiving a notice of intent to find that a certification is not readily approvable, the prospective adoptive parents shall have 30 days to respond to such notice.

(4) Decision.--Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a response submitted under paragraph (3), the Secretary of State shall reach a final decision regarding the child's eligibility as an adoptable child. Notice of such decision must be in writing.

(5) Right to an appeal.--Unfavorable decisions on a certification may be appealed through the appropriate process of the Department of State and, after the exhaustion of such process, to a United States district court.

SEC. 27. FUNDS.

The Secretary of State shall provide the Ambassador at Large with such funds as may be necessary for--

(1) the hiring of staff for the Office;

(2) investigations conducted by such staff; and

(3) travel and other expenses necessary to carry out this title.

Subtitle C--Enforcement

SEC. 31. CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Civil Penalties.--A person shall be subject, in addition to any other penalty that may be prescribed by law, to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 for a first violation, and not more than $100,000 for each succeeding violation if such person--

(1) violates a provision of this title or an amendment made by this title;

(2) makes a false or fraudulent statement, or misrepresentation, with respect to a material fact, or offers, gives, solicits, or accepts inducement by way of compensation, intended to influence or affect in the United States or a foreign country--

(A) a decision for an approval under title II;

(B) the relinquishment of parental rights or the giving of parental consent relating to the adoption of a child; or

(C) a decision or action of any entity performing a central authority function; or

(3) engages another person as an agent, whether in the United States or in a foreign country, who in the course of that agency takes any of the actions described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(b) Civil Enforcement.--

(1) Authority of attorney general.--The Attorney General may bring a civil action to enforce subsection (a) against any person in any United States district court.

(2) Factors to be considered in imposing penalties.--In imposing penalties the court shall consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of culpability of the defendant, and any history of prior violations by the defendant.

SEC. 32. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

Whoever knowingly and willfully commits a violation described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section __ 31(a) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both

PGN Update - Still not moving

The title says it all. While there has been a sprinkling of cases exiting, its a major bottleneck for most cases. To answer a few of the questions posed directly to me...

- I do not think the Embassy will step in for any particular case in PGN
- Nor will a State Representative/Senator be in a position to help individual cases.
- We have no information at this time of WHEN things will pick up.
- There are no average timelines and agencies are not in any position to tell you when you will get out...

I know how tough it is to wait and I wish there was something *we* could do. Keep your chins up and keep your spirits up. These children will come home...its just not on anyone's expected timeline!

Mother's Day and Updates

Yesterday, I had an incredibly busy day...but I wanted to wish all the foster mothers and birth mothers a THANKS on Mothers Day (Guatemala) for the care of the children, the sacrifices they have made and the dedication to providing a child with a loving family.

On a personal level, I would like to thank my attorney (and family) and Carol who brought my family together. I would also like to say thank you to ADA and those in Guatemala who have recognized and "stood up" for the rights of our children (to become our children). Without them, adoptions would have effectively shut down with the first attempted implementation of the Hague.

With that said, lets take care of some business.
1 - PGN is now releasing the cases that were held. I am bumping Susana's comment here, so that it is not missed:
------------------------------------------
{Posted by Susana Luarca, ADA}
The meeting was positive. It was the first time that the new authorities of the PGN accepted to talk to the adoption lawyers. The PGN admitted that they were waiting for Congress to aprove again the Hague Convention, and that was why they were not releasing the files. Because Congress will not approve the Hague Convention, the PGN will be releasing the files within the next days.

We are confident that the Hague Convention will not be approved again, because to do so would be illegal and the congressmen know it, but in just in case, we are poised to use all the legal actions that the situation requieres, in order to allow the children of Guatemala to find permanent homes.

Susana Luarca
----------------------------------------

2 - Please continue to send in your biographies of your family. We are going to bind these and distribute them to authorities in our own government and in Guatemala. The photos ARE important. We have given calendars in the past and recipients have taken those smiling faces to heart dispelling their worries. So we are confident that our collection will make folks think twice about implementing legislation that would hurt the children. You can submit your biography HERE. FYI: It is BETTER if you upload a document with a picture embedded.

PGN - Its slow, slow, slow....

I know we have had a number of parents who have been concerned with the lack of cases coming out of PGN and have asked us to post information about what is going on....well, that is the question, isn't it?!?

I believe that since the new director took over in March, things haven't exactly moved much. I couldn't tell you why...whether it is a lack of effort, political agenda or "newbie"ness. So about the only thing I can tell you is if you have been stuck in PGN for an outrageous amount of time....you are not alone.

Congressional Resolution Urges Romania To Amend Adoption Ban

For those concerned about possible implementations of the Hague, please take the time to read THIS ARTICLE as it addresses a ban that was put into place because of the pressures of the European Union after allegations of corruption.

Romania's story is not unlike some countries where the Hague Implementations have shut the doors to foreign adoptions. Shutdowns around the world have effectively left children in under-funded orphanages with little chance of finding a permanent family. This is why we must urge every government to consider HOW adoption laws affect the children they "supposedly" protect. The "INTENT" of a law is not enough!!! It is reassuring that the US has taken a position here that publically criticizes the "EFFECT" and urges Romania to rethink how reacted to pressures from the EU.

FFT (Food for Thought!)

ICARE Reintroduced

The ICARE was reintroduced into the Senate yesterday. I have not yet had a chance to read it but the full text is below. I also don't have time right now to reformat it so I apologize if anything is funky from my cut and paste.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S2741
April 3, 2006

LANDRIEU AMENDMENT SA 3225

TEXT OF AMENDMENT

SA 3225. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3192 submitted by Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. HAGEL) to the bill S. 2454, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for comprehensive reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

TITLE __-INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION REFORM

SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the "Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006" or the "ICARE Act".

SEC. __02. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.-Congress finds the following:

(1) That a child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.

(2) That intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her country of origin.

(3) There has been a significant growth in intercountry adoptions. In 1990, Americans adopted 7,093 children from abroad. In 2004, they adopted 23,460 children from abroad.

(4) Americans increasingly seek to create or enlarge their families through intercountry adoptions.

(5) There are many children worldwide that are without permanent homes.

(6) In the interest of children without a permanent family and the United States citizens who are waiting to bring them into their families, reforms are needed in the intercountry adoption process used by United States citizens.

(7) Before adoption, each child should have the benefit of measures taken to ensure that intercountry adoption is in his or her best interest and that prevents the abduction, selling, or trafficking of children.

(8) In addition, Congress recognizes that foreign-born adopted children do not make the decision whether to immigrate to the United States. They are being chosen by Americans to become part of their immediate families.

(9) As such these children should not be classified as immigrants in the traditional sense. Once fully and finally adopted, they should be treated as children of United States citizens.

(10) Since a child who is fully and finally adopted is entitled to the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as a biological child, the law should reflect such equality.

(11) Therefore, foreign-born adopted children of United States citizens should be accorded the same procedural treatment as biological children born abroad to a United States citizen.

(12) If a United States citizen can confer citizenship to a biological child born abroad, then the same citizen is entitled to confer such citizenship to their legally and fully adopted foreign-born child immediately upon final adoption.

(13) If a United States citizen cannot confer citizenship to a biological child born abroad, then such citizen cannot confer citizenship to their legally and fully adopted foreign-born child, except through the naturalization process.

(b) Purposes.-The purposes of this title are-

(1) to ensure the any adoption of a foreign-born child by parents in the United States is carried out in the manner that is in the best interest of the child;

[Page S2742]

(2) to ensure that foreign-born children adopted by United States citizens will be treated identically to a biological child born abroad to the same citizen parent; and

(3) to improve the intercountry adoption process to make it more citizen friendly and focused on the protection of the child.

SEC. __03. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) ADOPTABLE CHILD.-The term "adoptable child" has the same meaning given such term in section 101(c)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(c)(3)), as added by section __24(a) of this Act.

(2) AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.-The term "Ambassador at Large" means the Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoptions appointed to head the Office pursuant to section __11(b).

(3) COMPETENT AUTHORITY.-The term "competent authority" means the entity or entities authorized by the law of the child's country of residence to engage in permanent placement of children who are no longer in the legal or physical custody of their biological parents.

(4) CONVENTION.-The term "Convention" means the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, done at The Hague on May 29, 1993.

(5) FULL AND FINAL ADOPTION.-The term "full and final adoption" means an adoption-

(A) that is completed according to the laws of the child's country of residence or the State law of the parent's residence;

(B) under which a person is granted full and legal custody of the adopted child;

(C) that has the force and effect of severing the child's legal ties to the child's biological parents;

(D) under which the adoptive parents meet the requirements of section __25; and

(E) under which the child has been adjudicated to be an adoptable child in accordance with section __26.

(6) OFFICE.-The term "Office" means the Office of Intercountry Adoptions established under section __11(a).

(7) READILY APPROVABLE.-A petition or certification is "readily approvable" if the documentary support provided along with such petition or certification demonstrates that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility requirements and no additional information or investigation is necessary.

SUBTITLE A-ADMINISTRATION OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS

SEC. __11. OFFICE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS.

(a) Establishment.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, there shall be established within the Department of State, an Office of Intercountry Adoptions which shall be headed by the Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoptions.

(b) Ambassador at Large.-

(1) APPOINTMENT.-The Ambassador at Large shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who have background, experience, and training in intercountry adoptions.

(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.-The individual appointed to be the Ambassador at Large shall be free from any conflict of interest that could impede such individual's ability to serve as the Ambassador.

(3) AUTHORITY.-The Ambassador at Large shall report directly to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.

(4) REGULATIONS.-The Ambassador at Large may not issue rules or regulations unless such rules or regulations have been approved by the Secretary of State.

(5) DUTIES OF THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.-The Ambassador at Large shall have the following responsibilities:

(A) IN GENERAL.-The primary responsibilities of the Ambassador at Large shall be-

(i) to ensure that any adoption of a foreign-born child by parents in the United States is carried out in the manner that is in the best interest of the child; and

(ii) to assist the Secretary of State in fulfilling the responsibilities designated to the central authority under title I of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14911 et seq.).

(B) ADVISORY ROLE.-The Ambassador at Large shall be a principal advisor to the President and the Secretary of State regarding matters affecting intercountry adoption and the general welfare of children abroad and shall make recommendations regarding-

(i) the policies of the United States with respect to the establishment of a system of cooperation among the parties to the Convention;

(ii) the policies to prevent abandonment, to strengthen families, and to advance the placement of children in permanent families; and

(iii) policies that promote the protection and well-being of children.

(C) DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION.-Subject to the direction of the President and the Secretary of State, the Ambassador at Large may represent the United States in matters and cases relevant to international adoption in-

(i) fulfillment of the responsibilities designated to the central authority under title I of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14911 et seq.);

(ii) contacts with foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, and specialized agencies of the United Nations and other international organizations of which the United States is a member; and

(iii) multilateral conferences and meetings relevant to international adoption.

(D) INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT.-The Ambassador at Large shall advise and support the Secretary of State and other relevant Bureaus of the Department of State in the development of sound policy regarding child protection and intercountry adoption.

(E) REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES.-The Ambassador at Large shall have the following reporting responsibilities:

(i) IN GENERAL.-The Ambassador at Large shall assist the Secretary of State and other relevant Bureaus in preparing those portions of the Human Rights Reports that relate to the abduction, sale, and trafficking of children.

(ii) ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION.-Not later than September 1 of each year, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to Congress an annual report on intercountry adoption. Each annual report shall include-

(I) a description of the status of child protection and adoption in each foreign country, including-

(aa) trends toward improvement in the welfare and protection of children and families;

(bb) trends in family reunification, domestic adoption, and intercountry adoption;

(cc) movement toward ratification and implementation of the Convention; and

(dd) census information on the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, and other types of nonpermanent residential care as reported by the foreign country;

(II) the number of intercountry adoptions by United States citizens, including the country from which each child emigrated, the State in which each child resides, and the country in which the adoption was finalized;

(III) the number of intercountry adoptions involving emigration from the United States, including the country where each child now resides and the State from which each child emigrated;

(IV) the number of placements for adoption in the United States that were disrupted, including the country from which the child emigrated, the age of the child, the date of the placement for adoption, the reasons for the disruption, the resolution of the disruption, the agencies that handled the placement for adoption, and the plans for the child, and in addition, any information regarding disruption or dissolution of adoptions of children from other countries received pursuant to section 422(b)(14) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)(14));

(V) the average time required for completion of an adoption, set forth by the country from which the child emigrated;

(VI) the current list of agencies accredited and persons approved under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.) to provide adoption services;

(VII) the names of the agencies and persons temporarily or permanently debarred under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.), and the reasons for the debarment;

(VIII) the range of adoption fees involving adoptions by United States citizens and the median of such fees set forth by the country of origin;

(IX) the range of fees charged for accreditation of agencies and the approval of persons in the United States engaged in providing adoption services under the Convention; and

(X) recommendations of ways the United States might act to improve the welfare and protection of children and families in each foreign country.

(c) Functions of Office.-The Office shall have the following 7 functions:

(1) APPROVAL OF A FAMILY TO ADOPT.-To approve or disapprove the eligibility of a United States citizen to adopt a child born in a foreign country.

(2) CHILD ADJUDICATION.-To investigate and adjudicate the status of a child born in a foreign country to determine whether that child is an adoptable child.

(3) FAMILY SERVICES.-To provide assistance to United States citizens engaged in the intercountry adoption process in resolving problems with respect to that process and to track intercountry adoption cases so as to ensure that all such adoptions are processed in a timely manner.

(4) INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT.-To advise and support the Ambassador at Large and other relevant Bureaus of the Department of State in the development of sound policy regarding child protection and intercountry adoption.

(5) CENTRAL AUTHORITY.-To assist the Secretary of State in carrying out duties of the central authority as defined in section 3 of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14902).

(6) ENFORCEMENT.-To investigate, either directly or in cooperation with other appropriate international, Federal, State, or local entities, improprieties relating to intercountry adoption, including issues of child protection, birth family protection, and consumer fraud.

(7) ADMINISTRATION.-To perform administrative functions related to the functions performed under paragraphs (1) through (6), including legal functions and congressional liaison and public affairs functions.

(d) Organization.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-All functions of the Office shall be performed by officers employed in a central office located in Washington, D.C. Within that office, there shall be 7 divisions corresponding to the 7 functions of the Office. The director of each such division shall report directly to the Ambassador at Large.

[Page S2743]

(2) APPROVAL TO ADOPT.-The division responsible for approving parents to adopt shall be divided into regions of the United States as follows:

(A) Northwest.

(B) Northeast.

(C) Southwest.

(D) Southeast.

(E) Midwest.

(F) West.

(3) CHILD ADJUDICATION.-To the extent practicable, the division responsible for the adjudication of foreign-born children as adoptable shall be divided by world regions which correspond to the world regions used by other divisions within the Department of State.

(4) USE OF INTERNATIONAL FIELD OFFICERS.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of international field officers posted abroad, as necessary, to fulfill the requirements of this Act.

(5) COORDINATION.-The Ambassador at Large shall coordinate with appropriate employees of other agencies and departments of the United States, whenever appropriate, in carrying out the duties of the Ambassador.

(e) Qualifications and Training.-In addition to meeting the employment requirements of the Department of State, officers employed in any of the 7 divisions of the Office shall undergo extensive and specialized training in the laws and processes of intercountry adoption as well as understanding the cultural, medical, emotional, and social issues surrounding intercountry adoption and adoptive families. The Ambassador at Large shall, whenever possible, recruit and hire individuals with background and experience in intercountry adoptions, taking care to ensure that such individuals do not have any conflicts of interest that might inhibit their ability to serve.

(f) Use of Electronic Databases and Filing.-To the extent possible, the Office shall make use of centralized, electronic databases and electronic form filing.

SEC. __12. RECOGNITION OF CONVENTION ADOPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 505(a)(1) of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901 note) is amended by inserting "301, 302," after "205,".

SEC. __13. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 104 of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14914) is repealed.

SEC. __14. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

(a) In General.-Subject to subsection (c), all functions under the immigration laws of the United States with respect to the adoption of foreign-born children by United States citizens and their admission to the United States that have been vested by statute in, or exercised by, the Secretary of Homeland Security immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, are transferred to the Secretary of State on the effective date of this Act and shall be carried out by the Ambassador at Large, under the supervision of the Secretary of State, in accordance with applicable laws and this Act.

(b) Exercise of Authorities.-Except as otherwise provided by law, the Ambassador at Large may, for purposes of performing any function transferred to the Ambassador at Large under subsection (a), exercise all authorities under any other provision of law that were available with respect to the performance of that function to the official responsible for the performance of the function immediately before the effective date of the transfer of the function pursuant to this subtitle.

(c) Limitation on Transfer of Pending Adoptions.-If an individual has filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Department of Homeland Security with respect to the adoption of a foreign-born child prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to make the final determination on such petition and such petition shall not be transferred to the Office.

SEC. __15. TRANSFER OF RESOURCES.

Subject to section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, upon the effective date of this Act, there are transferred to the Ambassador at Large for appropriate allocation in accordance with this Act, the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to the Department of Homeland Security in connection with the functions transferred pursuant to this subtitle.

SEC. __16. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS.

The Ambassador at Large may make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in connection with such functions, as may be necessary to carry out this subtitle. The Ambassador at Large shall provide for such further measures and dispositions as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this subtitle.

SEC. __17. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Legal Documents.-All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, agreements, including collective bargaining agreements, certificates, licenses, and privileges-

(1) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become effective by the President, the Ambassador at Large, the former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their delegates, or any other Government official, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of any function that is transferred pursuant to this subtitle; and

(2) that are in effect on the effective date of such transfer (or become effective after such date pursuant to their terms as in effect on such effective date);

shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by the President, any other authorized official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law, except that any collective bargaining agreement shall remain in effect until the date of termination specified in the agreement.

(b) Proceedings.-

(1) PENDING.-The transfer of functions under section __14 shall not affect any proceeding or any application for any benefit, service, license, permit, certificate, or financial assistance pending on the effective date of this subtitle before an office whose functions are transferred pursuant to this subtitle, but such proceedings and applications shall be continued.

(2) ORDERS.-Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such proceeding shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

(3) DISCONTINUANCE OR MODIFICATION.-Nothing in this section shall be considered to prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if this section had not been enacted.

(c) Suits.-This subtitle shall not affect suits commenced before the effective date of this subtitle, and in all such suits, proceeding shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been enacted.

(d) Nonabatement of Actions.-No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the Department of Homeland Security, or by or against any individual in the official capacity of such individual as an officer or employee in connection with a function transferred pursuant to this section, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act.

(e) Continuance of Suit With Substitution of Parties.-If any Government officer in the official capacity of such officer is party to a suit with respect to a function of the officer, and pursuant to this subtitle such function is transferred to any other officer or office, then such suit shall be continued with the other officer or the head of such other office, as applicable, substituted or added as a party.

(f) Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review.-Except as otherwise provided by this subtitle, any statutory requirements relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or administrative or judicial review that apply to any function transferred pursuant to any provision of this subtitle shall apply to the exercise of such function by the head of the office, and other officers of the office, to which such function is transferred pursuant to such provision.

SUBTITLE B-REFORM OF UNITED STATES LAWS GOVERNING INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS

SEC. __21. AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Automatic Citizenship Provisions.-

(1) AMENDMENT OF THE INA.-Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 320. CONDITIONS FOR AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

"(a) In General.-A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States-

"(1) if the child is not an adopted child-

"(A) at least 1 parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, who has been physically present (as determined under subsection (b)) in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years; and

"(B) the child is under the age of 18 years; or

"(2) if the child is an adopted child, on the date of the full and final adoption of the child-

"(A) at least 1 parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, who has been physically present (as determined under subsection (b)) in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years;

"(B) the child is an adoptable child;

[Page S2744]

"(C) the child is the beneficiary of a full and final adoption decree entered by a foreign government or a court in the United States; and

"(D) the child is under the age of 16 years.

"(b) Physical Presence.-For the purposes of subsection (a)(2)(A), the requirement for physical presence in the United States or its outlying possessions may be satisfied by the following:

"(1) Any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

"(2) Any periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent.

"(3) Any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present outside the United States or its outlying possessions as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person-

"(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States; or

"(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288).

"(c) Full and Final Adoption.-In this section, the term 'full and final adoption' means an adoption-

"(1) that is completed under the laws of the child's country of residence or the State law of the parent's residence;

"(2) under which a person is granted full and legal custody of the adopted child;

"(3) that has the force and effect of severing the child's legal ties to the child's biological parents;

"(4) under which the adoptive parents meet the requirements of section __25 of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006; and

"(5) under which the child has been adjudicated to be an adoptable child in accordance with section __26 of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2006.".

(b) Conforming Amendment.-The table of contents in the first section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 163) is amended by striking the item relating to section 320 and inserting the following:

"Sec. 320.Conditions for automatic citizenship for children born outside the United States".

(c) Effective Date.-This section shall take effect as if enacted on June 27, 1952.

SEC. __22. REVISED PROCEDURES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following requirements shall apply with respect to the adoption of foreign born children by United States citizens:

(1) Upon completion of a full and final adoption, the Secretary shall issue a United States passport and a Consular Report of Birth for a child who satisfies the requirements of section 320(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431(a)(2)), as amended by section __21 of this Act, upon application by a United States citizen parent.

(2) An adopted child described in paragraph (1) shall not require the issuance of a visa for travel and admission to the United States but shall be admitted to the United States upon presentation of a valid, unexpired United States passport.

(3) No affidavit of support under section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a) shall be required in the case of any adoptable child.

(4) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall require that agencies provide prospective adoptive parents an opportunity to conduct an independent medical exam and a copy of any medical records of the child known to exist (to the greatest extent practicable, these documents shall include an English translation) on a date that is not later than the earlier of the date that is 2 weeks before the adoption, or the date on which prospective adoptive parents travel to such a foreign country to complete all procedures in such country relating to adoption.

(5) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take necessary measures to ensure that all prospective adoptive parents adopting internationally are provided with training that includes counseling and guidance for the purpose of promoting a successful intercountry adoption before such parents travel to adopt the child or the child is placed with such parents for adoption.

(6) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take necessary measures to ensure that-

(A) prospective adoptive parents are given full disclosure of all direct and indirect costs of intercountry adoption before the parents are matched with a child for adoption;

(B) fees charged in relation to the intercountry adoption be on a fee-for-service basis not on a contingent fee basis; and

(C) that the transmission of fees between the adoption agency, the country of origin, and the prospective adoptive parents is carried out in a transparent and efficient manner.

(7) The Secretary of State, acting through the Ambassador at Large, shall take all measures necessary to ensure that all documents provided to a country of origin on behalf of a prospective adoptive parent are truthful and accurate.

SEC. __23. NONIMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CHILDREN TRAVELING TO THE UNITED STATES TO BE ADOPTED BY A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

(a) Nonimmigrant Classification.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(W) an adoptable child who is coming into the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and a spouse jointly or by an unmarried United States citizen at least 25 years of age, who has been approved to adopt by the Office of International Adoption of the Department of State.".

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-Such section 101(a)(15) is further amended-

(A) by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (U); and

(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (V) and inserting "; or".

(b) Termination of Period of Authorized Admission.-Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(s) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W), the period of authorized admission shall terminate on the earlier of-

"(1) the date on which the adoption of the nonimmigrant is completed by the courts of the State where the parents reside; or

"(2) the date that is 4 years after the date of admission of the nonimmigrant into the United States, unless a petitioner is able to show cause as to why the adoption could not be completed prior to such date and the Secretary of State extends such period for the period necessary to complete the adoption.".

(c) Temporary Treatment as Legal Permanent Resident.-Notwithstanding any other law, all benefits and protections that apply to a legal permanent resident shall apply to a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a), pending a full and final adoption.

(d) Exception From Immunization Requirement for Certain Adopted Children.-Section 212(a)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(C)) is amended-

(1) in the heading by striking "10 years" and inserting "18 years"; and

(2) in clause (i), by striking "10 years" and inserting "18 years".

(e) Regulations.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. __24. DEFINITION OF ADOPTABLE CHILD.

(a) In General.-Section 101(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(3) The term 'adoptable child' means an unmarried person under the age of 18-

"(A)(i) whose biological parents (or parent, in the case of a child who has one sole or surviving parent) or other persons or institutions that retain legal custody of the child-

"(I) have freely given their written irrevocable consent to the termination of their legal relationship with the child, and to the child's emigration and adoption and that such consent has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind and has not been given prior to the birth of the child;

"(II) are unable to provide proper care for the child, as determined by the competent authority of the child's residence; or

"(III) have voluntarily relinquished the child to the competent authorities pursuant to the law of the child's residence; or

"(ii) who, as determined by the competent authority of the child's residence-

"(I) has been abandoned or deserted by their biological parent, parents, or legal guardians; or

"(II) has been orphaned due to the death or disappearance of their biological parent, parents, or legal guardians;

"(B) with respect to whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proper care will be furnished the child if admitted to the United States;

"(C) with respect to whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that the purpose of the adoption is to form a bona fide parent-child relationship and that the parent-child relationship of the child and the biological parents has been terminated (and in carrying out both obligations under this subparagraph the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may consider whether there is a petition pending to confer immigrant status on one or both of the biological parents);

"(D) with respect to whom the Secretary of State, is satisfied that there has been no inducement, financial or otherwise, offered to obtain the consent nor was it given before the birth of the child;

"(E) with respect to whom the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is satisfied that the person is not a security risk; and

"(F) whose eligibility for adoption and emigration to the United States has been certified by the competent authority of the cou