Comments: Developments in Anyeli/Karen Abigail Case

Too bad the family did not go for a mediation opportunity. Burying your head in the sand does not make these things go away!

Comment by karenms1 at August 8, 2011 08:44 PM



What would mediation look like? Would it involve bringing the child to Guatemala? Would you trust that the child wouldn't be detained in Guatemala? I wouldn't.
Would mediation be a real option here?

Comment by sjbj at August 9, 2011 10:18 AM



The family could have had the child DNA tested while she is here, to compare with the results in Guatemala to verify whether or not the child is Anyelli.

Comment by EB at August 9, 2011 03:25 PM



Yes, I get that they could have done the DNA test here. But doesn't mediation mean where the various parties get together and work out an agreement about how/where the child is going to be raised (like in divorce mediation)? And work out things like visitation? And that would likely involve returning the child to Guatemala. I'm not saying the child shouldn't be returned to Guate or to her bmom, but just questioning whether mediation, as I understand what that means, is a real option here. Was it offered? Could it really be done?

Comment by sjbj at August 9, 2011 09:57 PM



Well, since none of us know what the heck was going on behind the scenes we only have what we saw in forums and in press and through other outside parties. What I saw was reason for both sides to distrust each other, accusations flying back and forth, attacks, and emotional responses with two main camps of which both would not allow middle ground it was either you were in their camp or must be in the other. Anyone else remember that? So why is it any surprise that this only got worse instead of attempting to get the parties to work together?

Comment by Lisa at August 10, 2011 06:31 PM



Well, the idea of "protest too much" comes to mind and ultimately polarized positions takes us to a new place--a court ordered return and 'abduction' rather than legal 'adoption'. This is not over and I seriously doubt that anyone is putting a child onto an airplane anytime soon. However, what parent (adoptive or bio) would argue against this child and her bio family's right to know one another, share in family life, and live with integrity and justice?

Yes, mediation could have been possible but stone walling was counter productive.

This is not over. The US Government has obligations here. However, I'd bet in Vegas upon the following: the lawyers are going to tie this up for quite some time. That is just the next stage of strategy.

I hope I am proven wrong here. I can only imagine what this young girl will have to unravel and cope with as an adolescent when she learns about her adoption circumstances/controversy/and bio family grief.

Comment by karenms1 at August 10, 2011 10:56 PM



I just saw a CNN video piece on this case where mother Loyda is interviewed. The link is on front page CNN.com today, 15 August.

Comment by karenms1 at August 15, 2011 09:40 PM



why is it that no one is talking about the person submitting for the original dna test being the aunt this time around?

Comment by mommy at August 17, 2011 11:31 PM



Kevin, thank you for the courage to post this and thank you to everyone who has contributed such excellent comments. It is clear the Associated Press has been heavily influenced by the Peter Mirijanian Public Relations firm in Washington, DC, which has a history of supporting lobbyists, fallen politicians, and celebrities. (Do Google Mr. Peter Mirijanian. He is really someone special.)

We are just an ordinary family living in Liberty, Missouri. The Monahans are considered by most here to be kind and loving. Our community originally reached out in support of the Monahans. But as the sordid details of their behavior become apparent, more and more are questioning this couple and their motive. Dr. Timothy and Jennifer Monahan knew from nearly the beginning of their adoption process that Anyelí was not legitimately offered for adoption. If the Monahans had done the right thing years ago - refused to be in any way involved in the adoption of Anyelí, reported to the US and Guatemalan authorities the DNA results and sham operation, stopped immediately their association with the Florida adoption agency Celebrate Christian International - the Monahans would not be in this 'devastating situation'. Indeed the hundreds of thousands of dollars they invested in owning this child could have been invested in, and probably for 1/50th of the cost, in reuniting the child with her mother and family. Mike and Leslie Harmoning of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota, have publicly stepped up to the Monahans' defense. They too adopted a child from Guatemala using Celebrate Christian International. They have gone on record as saying they had are enormously displeased with CCI and no longer in contact. They have indicated that the National Attorney General's Office (PGN) ruled negatively on several occasions regarding their adoption of Daphne, but they have not disclosed the reasons.Leslie Harmoning is now 'not concerned about the legality of her adoption'. There is much more already known about the facts of Anyelí's case. But we fail to see where the Monahans or those who have supported them have acted with clear heads, sympathy for the child's mother, and genuine love for the child. We see rather emptiness being addressed with greed, obsession, and a very questionable kind of love for the children being bartered.

The more I understand about the activities of the Monahans, the sadder I become. So many people have been hurt by their actions, both good people and bad people. They abandoned all the people who helped get them Anyelí as soon as they had their new possession in their house. For good or for bad, couples still waiting to complete their adoptions in Guatemala now need to wait even longer. Mostly, however, our thoughts go out to the thousands and thousands of Guatemalan children brought to the United States over the past 30 years - What effect must this have on them? The Monahans could have discussed and negotiated the good and safe return of Anyelí to her mother years ago. They were offered mediation, and this could have happened in Guatemala or in Liberty. Instead they dug in their heels to hold on to 'their daughter', refused communication, and forced a torturous court process. They claim to want 'to protect' 'Karen Abagail' from 'further trauma'. This is so hard to believe when they have traumatically turned the lives of so many people upside down to keep what does not belong to them. Perhaps other adopted children from Guatemala today are asking: Are my adoptive parents like the Monahans?

The Monahans now claim to be 'protecting their daughter' and 'searching for the truth'. This week Tim Monahan has been in Washington, DC, working with the Peter Mirijanian Public Affairs firm. Peter Mirijanian is a DC lobbyist and media expert. I invite you to Google him - it seems the Monahans have made another horrendous decision. The Monahans would have us believe that they woke up one sunny Tuesday morning two weeks ago and were broadsided with the news that a stolen child was living in their house. Now they want to know the truth? Why do they hide behind lawyers, PR firms, politicians, cardboard signs on their front door, and even the children they claim to love. What have the Monahans done to find out the truth? Where is the truth of the meticulous records they kept?

Many want to think that we should have compassion for this couple: because they are 'adoptive parents', because they are wealthy, because they are respected members of their community, because they are Americans. So many parents of adopted children have referred to Anyeli's mother, Loyda Rodríguez, as the child's 'birth mother' or 'biological mother' or even 'b-mother'. Perhaps no insult is intended, but it is certainly insensitive and cruel. Loyda is Anyelí's mother, by nature, by law, and in the eyes of God. In our community those who show compassion for Anyelí's mother are attacked as lacking sympathy for the Monahans 'and how terrible it must be for them'. Jennifer Harmoning's solution, fed to the Associated Press by Peter Mirijanian, seems to sum up well how delusional people in the adoption community have become: "I would pay my life away to move the birth mother up here before I would let my child go. She's my baby." This is neither reasonable or compassionate; it is simply ludicrous.

People claim that a six year old cannot remember the first two or four years of her life. They think Anyelí memory starts on a plane ride from Guatemala to America. Children separated from their mothers do remember, be they stolen or legally adopted. They remember no matter how young they were at the time of separation.

What will the Monahans tell Anyelí ('Karen Abigail') when she is 12, 16, 18, 21 and asks 'Tell me where I came from. Tell me how you got me. Tell me about my mother and family.' Will the Monahans say: 'Karen Abigail, we loved you so much that we changed your name. We gave you a new birth date. We erased your childhood history. We loved you so much that we kept you from your mother and father and sisters and cousins and grandparents.'

Loyda, Anyelí's mother, not only carried this child in her womb for 9 months and gave birth to it, she held it, fed it, washed and clothed it, gave it all it needed and more, carried Anyelí in her arms, played with her, educated her, went shopping with her, worried about her, took care of her when she was sick . . . and, in the wink of an eye, her child was gone, stolen . . . . And after years of searching and so much so struggle and pain - but never giving up on her child, imagine her happiness to discover where her child was . . . that was more than two years ago! And instead of the Monahans then really caring about Anyelí and returning the child to her mother and family, they shut down all communications and forced the court case. Who would have thought a Guatemalan court would rule against a powerful and influential American family? Miracles happen.

In the end this case is not about the Monahans, not about corrupt adoption agencies, not about governments and courts of law, not even about Loyda or Anyelí's father and sisters. It is about Anyelí and that is where our sympathies and compassion should lie. A six year old child separated from her mother and those who love her by greed, politics, and pride. So I am thinking about 10 years from now, about Anyelí's 16th birthday. She is at the table with her parents, her siblings, her birthday cake, and . . . there is a present too. She opens the present and finds a scrapbook of her life, of her first 16 years. What does that scrapbook contain?

Comment by LauraLyn at August 18, 2011 07:55 AM



I’ve been watching this case pretty closely over the last couple of years, and I think there needs to be a bit more attention to separating facts from opinions.

First, I do have an opinion: the little girl in Missouri is probably Loyda’s daughter, and the US couple (and I see no need to further compromise their privacy by naming them) should be giving serious thought to how they will eventually deal with that.

Second, however, there are some questions that need answers—in the form of facts, and not opinions—before there is a final resolution in this case. I can’t imagine that a US court would agree to the Guatemalan court’s order without these questions being addressed.

There needs to be a new DNA test, for Loyda and the little girl in Missouri, with a clear chain of custody for the samples. I’d expect that this test would prove that they are indeed mother and daughter, but too much time has elapsed from the initial tests, and too many hands have gone through the files, for the previous results to be sufficiently trustworthy.

There also must be an explanation for the apparent close genetic relationship between the woman who took the original DNA test, as the last commentor brought up. My understanding is that the initial DNA test showed that the little girl in the picture was (who is probably Loyda’s daughter and the little girl in Missouri) the niece of the woman holding her. If there is a close family relationship, it raises obvious questions.

Lastly, there have been a number of opinions expressed about the family in Missouri, and these appear unfair and unsupported by the facts. (Their privacy has also been invaded in ways that certainly complicate their little girl’s attempt to sort through all of this later in life.) They have been branded as complicit in fraud, without (to my eyes, at least) facts and evidence. They were faced with a very uncertain situation, and a clear threat (via email) that the little girl they were seeking to adopt could be harmed if they did not continue with the process. Labeling them as accomplices to human trafficking given the nature of their situation is more that unfair; it’s slander.

There have also been numerous charges thrown at Susana Luarca and Primavera. From some perspectives, Susana is an easy target, for obvious reasons. But from the evidence I’ve seen on the internet, there isn’t proof that Susana had reason to believe that this little girl was abducted. Again, there are plenty of opinions about Susana, but I have yet to see facts that show her guilt.

However, at the end of the day, it’s entirely possible that the questions about the family in Missouri and Susana are irrelevant. It’s entirely possible that they were not complicit in fraud (and worse) but that the little girl in Missouri is Loyda’s daughter. One doesn’t need to prove their guilt and complicity in order for that to be true. My opinion (as yet unconfirmed by all the facts) is that they are indeed mother and daughter, and deserve to be reunited. But let’s make sure that all of the questions are addressed, and all of the facts established. That’s in everyone’s best interest.

Comment by Grey at August 18, 2011 11:04 AM



We don't have as many readers as we used toand this thread is driving some folks to our site for the first time.

As such, for numerous reasons I'd like to make sure everyone reading this understands that Guatadopt does not censor or validate the accuracy of comments posted to the site. Opinions written by readers in the comments are their's alone and do not necessarily coincide or negate with the opinions of Guatadopt. We are not resposnible for what anyone may comment nor do we vougue for its accuracy.

We've always been focused on allowing all opinions to express their views, encourage spirited debate, and allow that to help peple decide things for themselves.

Just please keep it all courteous and we'll be okay.

Thanks in adavance,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Comment by Kevin at August 18, 2011 12:26 PM



LauraLyn,

The failed DNA test would have been something 100% transparent to the US Embassy as soon as the negative match was discovered. The DNA lab sends the results directly to the US Embassy. Guatemalan officials in PGN would know as well.

In the event of a failed DNA test, the key thing would be to determine the "why" and at that time determine what's best for the child.

As an example, if a woman is married then the child could not be adopted by an American under US law. The most common reason (per US gov and Unicef as I recall) for failed DNA tests was because of this and the birthmother thinking that a relative's DNA might be "close enough".

Point is that in such a event, it's easy to say that they shoud not have persued the adoption but in reality that could be wrong to a child who has no place to go because there's no telling if the people involved in any case could or would get the child back to his/her family. In short, the child could become an indefinite ward of the state - abandoned.

The route taken in this case is what the law would say should happen. Go before a judge with the facts, search for biological family members, and allow a judge to determine if the child is truly orphaned/abandoned.

In this case, the question is wether that process was legally followed or whether the judge was paid off (and by whom) to approve the abandonment decree without sufficient investigation.

I persoanlly don't agree with the approach being taken by the Monahans but none of us knows what they knew/understood and when. Having spoken to hundreds or thousands of PAPs over the years, trust me that we can make no assumptions there (for the record, I don't believe I ever had any contact with the Monahans).

What really scares and where sadly this child's best interests may not be relevant is to where this can lead. The longer this drags on the easier it is to say that it is in Anyeli's "best interests" to stay in the US. That creates a precedent to say that if you can drag it out in the courts long enough, we need not worry about the origins of the adoption. That is patently wrong.

In short, I guess I am coming to the opinion - mine personally and mine only - that if the parties can't or are unqilling to try to work out an agreement and if it is 100% certain this child was kidnapped then she should be returned no matter what. Even though it may not be in her "best interests" by some defintions, the precedent is crucial.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Comment by Kevin at August 18, 2011 12:45 PM



Kevin, thank you for guiding us through this discussion with both reason and compassion. Everyone here is to be congratulated for the genuine concern they are showing for Anyelí's plight. I know I have written too much, but I just feel so sad for this child and her under representation.

Unfortunately, this is not a TV soap opera and we will never get all the facts, all the details. We do know that by July 2007 Timothy and Jennifer Monahan knew that the DNA did not match for their reference child. This is 18 months before the child was taken out of the country. We do know that morally and legally they were obligated to report this to both the US and Guatemalan authorities, and we do know that they did not. In fact, it was only after the child was transported out of the country that the Guatemalan officials at the PGN and US Embassy became aware of the buried DNA result and other criminal activities around this adoption, thanks to the child's mother. Much to the credit of the Guatemalan authorities, they then carried out the necessary investigations and eventually arrived at the truth of the matter.

We also know that after the failed DNA test in 2007, the Monahans hired a high profile and expensive lawyer in Guatemala, Susana Luarca, to find a way to still get possession of Anyelí. And we do know that the route taken in this case by the Monahans was not according to the law: it was a sordid affair that included conspiracy, abduction, fraud, and deception. There are thousands of pages of documented evidence and a court decision establishing this fact. The Monahans never informed the US Embassy or the Guatemalan authorities of the failed DNA test before transporting Anyelí across international borders.

And we do know too that for more than two years the child’s mother, Loyda Rodríguez, pleaded with the Monahans to have her daughter returned. We know too that the Monahans refused any mediation, in the US or in Guatemala. They simply cut off communication. They even turned their backs on those who had helped them get this child into their house: their lawyer, Susana Luarca, their adoption agency, Celebrate Christian International (CCI), and even all the other children left behind at the Primavera Orphanage. Susana Luarca begged with the Monahans two years ago to allow another DNA test. She did so for the sake of Anyelí, for the sake of Anyelí’s mother, for the sake of the other children in the orphanage, and quite possibly for her own sake as well. The response from the Monahans was . . . . stone cold silence.

The result? Susana Luarca is in prison. Her adopted child is without her mother. The judge the Monahans took this case before has been arrested and charged. A host of other figures associated with this fraudulent adoption are jailed or wanted by the law. CCI is the subject of numerous complaints and investigations. Primavera Orphanage is shut down and the children there who were waiting for adoption have become wards of the state. American families waiting for the last processing procedures in the last adoptions coming out of Guatemala have had to wait longer. A long and costly and traumatic court case was needed because the Monahans refused to discuss, negotiate, or accept mediation. The Monahans have contributed to an international crisis in adoption that now casts suspicion over all adoptions from Guatemala over the last 30 years. (And, of course, the adopted children and the mothers of kidnapped children are the ones who live daily with these suspicions, even more than we can imagine.) Perhaps worst of all (“perhaps” because there is already so much bad in all of this) Anyelí is still being held thousands of miles from her mother, father, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, friends, neighbors, playground, first grade teacher, . . . from the life that she surely misses and she surely deserves.

It is difficult to see in all this the “kind and loving” couple the Monahans are said to be. Likely they are in many ways similar to other truly kind and loving folk; but they are also reckless is their desires, blinded to truth, and indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Some people believe that after seven months of Anyelí being their reference child they had somehow “fallen in love” with that child and could not abandon her and felt “threatened” that the child would be “abandoned” and made a ward of the state. (There is no evidence that anyone ever threatened to ‘harm’ the child. If there was, the Monahans should have immediately reported this to the authorities.) Yes, it is possible they felt some kind of love for Anyelí at that time. People fall in love regularly on the Internet or by corresponding with prisoners. Even the victims of kidnappings develop at times a certain affinity for their kidnappers. Some people even claim to have fallen in love after reading a personal advertisement in the newspaper. If the Monahans truly loved Anyelí, there were many options open to them that did not include corruption and fraud. A good beginning would have been to have gone directly to the US and Guatemalan authorities and report what they already knew.

It does not seem the Monahans loved Anyelí after seven months of seeing her picture and perhaps even meeting her once; it seems they wanted Anyelí. Love does not include conspiracy and fraud. It does not include not reporting evidence and engaging in shady business. It does not include hiding behind cardboard signs, lawyers, and the children you claim to love. Does love require hiring an expensive PR firm? A lot of people are being hurt so the Monahans can keep what does not belong to them, possess what never can be possessed: a child.

A validated DNA test has established that Loyda Rodríguez is Anyelí’s mother. A court has ruled that the adoption was a fraud and the child must be returned to the mother. Perhaps the series of horrendous decisions by the Monahans could be forgiven if this past week Tim Monahan had taken a plane to Guatemala and sat down with Loyda to discuss what was in the best interest of Anyelí. Perhaps then people would be willing to believe that it was only all the others the Monahans paid to be involved in this “adoption” that knowingly made mistakes people, and they were truly the ones that loved Anyelí and simply the innocent victims of other people’s greed.

Instead Tim took a plane to DC to discuss with a lobbyist and an expert in controlling the media how to bend public opinion. For the first time the Monahans spoke publicly. What did Peter Mirijanian, the Monahans’ new PR man, say on their behalf: "The family will continue to advocate for the safety and best interests of their legally adopted child. They remain committed to protecting their daughter from additional trauma as they pursue the truth of her past through appropriate legal channels." Is Anyelí’s safety a concern? Why then do the Liberty Police not investigate? Or the Missouri Division of Family Services? Perhaps we should be advocating for this, at the very least, as long as the child is being kept from her family and her safety is in question? They state that it is ‘their legally adopted child’. Yet a court has ruled unequivocally that no legal adoption ever took place and no public official has challenged that decision, in Guatemala or in the US. What actions have the Monahans taken over the past 4 years to find out the truth about “their daughter”? Is it really reasonable to believe that those keeping a child from her mother and family are “committed to protecting” that child?

Perhaps the cruelest part of this sentence is the Monahans’ use of the possessive: “their legally adopted child”, “their daughter”. The Monahans know that Loyda will be reading this, as will Anyelí’s father, grandparents, and neighbors. This is so insensitive, so cruel, so much beyond the pale. It is not only this single sentence, the only one the Monahans have ever willingly released to the public, it is the entire article fed to the Associated Press and sent around the world that is full of spin, half truths, and ludicrous statements. It represents the underbelly of our nation’s capitol that so many have come to despise.

Much is made of the Monahans need for privacy? Is hiring a DC public relations firm and sending out press releases an indication of a desire for privacy? Or is it rather a desire for secrecy? The Monahans seem to have decided that since the law is clearly against them (no law anywhere ever supports kidnapping and child trafficking), they want this played out in the court of public opinion. They seem to believe that the minds of the American people can be bought by lobbyists and spin doctors. And clearly they are succeeding to a certain extent.

So many people have rushed to protect the Monahans, so few seem to care genuinely about Anyelí and those who love her. Some commentators will not mention the Monahans’ name even after their press releases. They say it is for the sake of the Monahans’ privacy. But these same commentators do not hesitate to name in the same place Anyelí’s mother, Loyda. It is so difficult to believe someone when then show compassion for those who are clearly wrong and disregard for those who have gone through so much pain because they genuinely love the child. Susana Luarca, the Monahans’ former lawyer in Guatemala, began a smear campaign again Anyelí’s mother and father two years ago. Many people from the adoption community have made insinuations about the worthiness of Loyda, the “birth mother”, to have her kidnapped child returned. Frankly, this is sickening. One begins to fear that a new campaign will be launched to sully and discredit Anyelí’s family.

Our hometown newspaper has suggested that the only way the Monahans might allow Anyelí to go home will be for federal marshals to show up at their front door and drag the child away kicking and screaming. We can only hope and pray it will not come to this. The State Department, the Department of Justice, and Congressman Sam Graves are all involved with the Monahans in this case. Let us hope that somewhere reason and compassion prevail.

It is difficult to muster sympathy for the behavior of this couple. Perhaps pity. Probably they do have some sort of feeling for Anyelí. More likely their feelings are for a certain “'Karen Abigail”, a child without a true identity and without her past. But it is hard to call this feeling love. It must come from a very deep and empty place in their souls. Besides the kidnapping, the being bartered around, the orphanages, being transported about and not knowing from one day to the next who was coming to take her, Anyelí now needs to be the object that fills the emptiness. It must be terrible for her to feel this daily. Anyelí has been the true victim of this story and she will remain the real victim until she is returned to her mother and family. Enough is enough. Let the child to go home.

Comment by LauraLyn at August 19, 2011 05:05 PM



It is interesting to see the various theories and the evolution of these ideas and even people coming to terms (or not) about Susana L. and the more than problematic (previous) intercountry adoption system. Fundamentally, as a US citizen I am 99% certain that lawyers and people paid to 'spin' this WILL drag this on and on and on. Then, IF a US court ever gets involved--the "best interests" will be argued against return of the child who will be over 10 years old by then. Interesting thing is that the principle of best interests relates to child custody based on ordinary custody cases. This is an alleged kidnapping and thus the applying the 'best interests' is a distortion of the concept in and of itself. Treated as a kidnapping--and only a kidnapping--all the arguments in favor of "Karen Abigail" staying in the US are ridiculous. Can any parent reading this board EVEN THINK OTHERWISE? Can you imagine spending years (5 to be specific) searching for your child with little more than a photograph? Searching including hunger protests and then being told, by a FOREIGN COURT, that the child's interests are to stay in the foreign country that was complicit in the abduction in the first place! Wow. And, before anyone argues against complicity of the US--everyone knows the US Embassy/DOS allowed Guate adoptions to remain open when other nations such as Canada closed the system until it was reformed. And, when Canada was 'open' they had a very different DNA process than the USA--a far more reliable process mindful of the fact that Guate has deep roots of corruption! The US Embassy knew far more than made public record. I can say that based on private conversations that I've had with a number of Embassy staff. They were under extraordinary pressure to keep the system open due to the sheer number of prospective parents initiating 'congressional investigations' and the demand that their case come out of Guatemala regardless of the mounting evidence of a HIGHLY problematic system. Let's all be honest about that!

Comment by karenms1 at August 19, 2011 07:21 PM



LauraLyn,

You have one thing factually incorrect. You will have to trust me on this one and Karen, please validate.

The US Embassy and PGN were aware of the failed DNA test before the adoption was completed. Both ultimately approved the adoption in full knowledge of the failed DNA.

Trust me of one other thing and it is not intended as a defense of anything. Guatemalan adoptions were incredibly complex and it is impossible to understand the complexities without having lots of experience with the system.

In my opinion, it is not fair to make any assumption that the Monahans had any inkling of impropriety until after the child was in the US and was identified as Anyeli. I'm not saying it is impossible they did, but based on my experience and what Loyda says herself, the Monahans deserve the presumption of innocence there.

How they have handled it from there is "fair game" for a nice philosophical debate. And we all would like to believe we'd be different. But what you undoubtedly have here are two sets of parents who truly love the same child and in their hearts know her to be their daughter. A tragedy of epic proportions with no winners and an inevitable end result of heartache and pain.

As a parent of two kids from Guatemala, it is unfathomable to imagine what the evils of the adult world have brought upon both families. In the end, someone will have ended up having their child stolen from them. At least that is how it is for one now and improbably the Monahans in the future.

It is not with simple thought that I posted before that no matter what, my belief is that what is right is to undo the original evil. But if I was in the Monahans shoes, there is no telling how my mind might have reached a logical different conclusion.

So please to all. I'm not defending or agreeing with the route taken by the Monahans. But by god let's be thankful that we haven't walked a mile in their moccasins.

Tonight at dinner somehow the topic of bank robbers came up. After hitting on the obvious bad guys stuff I actually did le my kids know that while obviously robbing a bank is wrong, someone could do it for the right reasons. The example I gave was "what if one of you needed surgery to save your life". I explained how I would do anything to earn the money for it. But if I was left with no other options, I love them so much that there's no telling what I'd do to save them.

Of course then we went on to discuss how I would have to use a water gun (my son suggested orange) because Daddy hates guns and could never use one.

Peace,

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Comment by Kevin at August 19, 2011 10:08 PM



I just cannot understand how or why ANYONE would side with human traffickers. This child was kidnapped and sold. Period. How can this not end here? How can you know that your adoption is illegal, this child's mother has been desperately searching for her for years, and still say "oh well, who cares, it's what *I* want that matters"?

Even if they didn't know all along that the adoption was fraudulent, even giving them the complete benefit of the doubt, they know NOW what happened, and they still show zero desire to do the right thing and follow both the law and the basic principles of morality and ethics.

Comment by Marie Heart at August 20, 2011 01:26 AM



Kevin, apologies for a slightly different understanding:

Fact: The US Embassy and the PGN did not know of the false DNA until after the Monahans had transported Anyelí out of the country.

Fact: Dr. Timothy and Jennifer Monahan never reported the kidnapping or corruption, including the failed DNA test, to any authority.

Fact: The Monahans have knowingly kept a stolen child from her mother and family for more than two years.

Fact: Many people in America cannot afford life-saving operations for their children. These people do not rob banks (or condone theft for any reason).

Fact: Many couples in America have not had the gift of children. These people do not buy stolen children and knowingly keep them.

Fact: Loyda loves Anyelí. This is why Loyda and the Guatemala court had the wisdom not to make accusations against the Monahans.

Fact: Threatening people with guns, water pistols, lawyers, or DC PR heavy weights is wrong: the threat is wrong in and of itself.

Fact: Sympathizing or condoning in any way the cruelty of the Monahans is not only immoral and indefensible, it is also contributing to the ongoing suffering of an innocent child and innocent family.

Fact: Blaming the government, blaming the system, blaming the victims is what criminals do all the time. The Monahans were and are responsible for their actions. Their past and ongoing unscrupulous actions to satisfy a consummate and selfish desire to possess a child at any cost does not make them any less accountable before the law than is the case for kidnappers, bank robbers, and corrupt politicians.

Apologies, again, for being so direct and so strong. But there is a truly loving mother, father, and family of a kidnapped child out there whom the rich and powerful are ignoring alongside a growing community of complicit supporters of this wrongdoing. And there is a child who corrupt people declared abandoned and still is being kept from the healthy and wholesome love of her family.

Let the child go home.

Comment by LauraLyn at August 20, 2011 08:24 AM



Fact: The US Embassy and the PGN did not know of the false DNA until after the Monahans had transported Anyelí out of the country.

This is incorrect. They would have known. The failed DNA test was sent directly to the US Embassy when first done. The abandonment proceeding and subsequent PGN approval would have had it in the file as well.

I have not defended anyone or anything. All I have tried to do is give some perspective and frankly humanity before organizing a lynching mob.

Kevin
guatadopt.com

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Comment by Kevin at August 20, 2011 09:59 AM



There is a lot of researched information on Erin Siegal's site, findingfernanda.com. She has done years of solid research on this case and the corruption in Guate adoptions.

A few things:

-A new DNA test has been done, and proves that in fact Loyda Rodriguez is the mother of Anyeli

-The Monahan family had knowledge of an original failed DNA test while Anyeli was still in Guate, and asked to "bury" these results according to Jennifer Monahan's personal notes

-Allegedly the Monahans were approached in spring of 2009 to work out the situation outside of court (by several persons, on several occasions) and they were informed that Anyeli was identified by Loyda as her daughter, who was stolen

-It is my opinion that Norma Cruz and Loyda are not addressing issues of the Monahan's knowledge and/or complicity due to the new PR/legal firm the Monahans hired

Many of us know that when a child we desperately wanted to adopt "failed" the DNA test, the option of going the Abandonment route to adopt the child was there. In fact, it was encouraged. And as many of us know, PAPs who did not push, press and pursue the adoption (by any means necessary), were criticized, ostracized, or worse, labeled as "baby abandoners". This was chanted the loudest by adoption profiteers and agencies, who fanned these flames for years.

Let's be realistic about the climate in 2007, when the Monahans were adopting. This is just part of the reason the system got out of control: the pressure to look the other way or not address "irregularities" (as they were called) was huge. Anyone who addressed fraud, whether it be on boards or in the press, were marked as troublemakers "who really didn't want the baby". It wasn't the revered adoption system that was flawed: it was the prospective mother.

Further, those that discussed the fraud were often viewed as the reason for any slow down for everyone else. And of course, those that addressed fraud were the cause the shut down of Guatemalan/Ethiopian/Vietnamese adoptions. This was the spin by the agencies that most PAPs and APs drank up for years. The common sentiment was that it was those that spoke out about the fraud that caused problems, not the fraud itself.

That said, it's my personal opinion (having been faced with fraud in an adoption case and having been labeled a "baby abandoner" by our former agency owner Tedi Hedstrom for reporting the fraud), the Monahans certainly weren't going to win any friends if they had reported the fraud in 2007. But that doesn't mean that they took the right road. They didn't. But, the Monahans were no doubt encouraged to look the other way I suspect, by their agency, by the posts on boards for years, by their attorney.

I wanted to add one other thing. I think it's important to note when reading Jennifer Monahan's personal notes on the Finding Fernanda site, that she alleges that LabCorp used to bury test results. I think this is indicative of how deeply corrupted the whole system was, and I find it extremely troubling. I agree with Kevin, the USe most likely got the negative results. But why on earth would that be any protection? There are far more children than the 3 stolen daughters who passed through the "scrutiny" of the USE over the years. Sad. I hope if anything comes of these cases, that maybe APs will gather together to fix the problems and prevent this from ever happening again.

I continue to hope that the Monahans will find it in their hearts to work something out with Anyeli's mother in Guatemala. They have the opportunity to turn this around and make it right. Anyeli needs to go home, not go through years of court battles.

Comment by Jen H at August 20, 2011 12:00 PM



wow, that's a lot of information to post by an "ordinary family" living in liberty, mo.

Comment by mommy at August 20, 2011 03:14 PM



"mommy"... let LauraLyn say what she needs to say. Hasn't there been enough silencing tactics used by APs over the years by snarky comments like yours? The time of silencing the truth should be long over! This isn't a debate anymore, is it? The facts are in, and there is no covering up or deflecting what happened in Guatemala. We were all involved, to a degree, for how disgustingly corrupt the system got. We can all walk away from the scene of the crime, or HELP FIX THINGS and make it right. Don't we owe that to Guatemala? Or, do we just say, "oh, what a shame, so glad that wasn't MY case..."?

And for the record, there are 2 more cases pending annulment in Guatemala, the adoptions of Arlene and Heidy. The man who physically abducted Heidy (Raquel Par's daughter) just got 12 years in prison yesterday. This story is far from over for all three of these stolen daughters, and the US APs who have Arlene and Heidy should be aware.

I have no idea who LauraLyn is (I sure would like to know!) but I for one appreciate her perspective, candor, and value her obviously well-researched opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

Comment by Jen H at August 20, 2011 07:11 PM



LauraLyn, as an "ordinary family" living in Liberty, MO, and not God, you have no grounds whatsoever to judge what is in the the Monahans' hearts, when you claim that they don't love Anyeli/Karen Abigail. And karenms1, you argue against the claim that the child's interests are to stay in the foreign country that was complicit in the abduction in the first place--yet Guatemala was also complicit, in that they approved the adoption along with the US embassy.

I happen to agree with both of you that (if the facts are as have been publicly stated)the child should be returned to Guatemala, no doubt. But arguments such as these do nothing to support the case for returning the child.

And LauraLyn, if you are truly just an ordinary family, presumably with no experience in adoption, I can tell you that you simply don't know what you are talking about when you so glibly dismiss the possibility of an AP falling in love with a child by receiving a photo and info about them over a period of months. I can tell you from personal experience that this is indeed possible. Our first referral was "lost"--the baby's mother decided to raise him herself, with the help of her mother. This was the best possible option for him and I knew it. However, it also broke my heart, after spending 5 months receiving pictures and updates on his condition. Carefully shopping for little clothes and then receiving photos of him wearing them. Yes, I was in love with this child and I still think about him regularly and pray for his and his family's wellbeing.

None of this is to support the Monahan's behavior nor to make light of what Anyeli's mother, Loyda, has gone through (my heart aches for her). But no one should presume to know , never mind mock, what is in someone else's heart.

Comment by sjbj at August 20, 2011 08:10 PM



First of all, does anyone know for sure that she was kidnapped? Or did she get paid by attorney willingly and now see the oppurtunity for more money? I have been involved with a 4 1/2 year adoption in Guatemala and have learned that everyone talks out of both sides of there mouths. Everyone is corrupt. They say they have a new DNA test- Well where did they send it to? Because we had 4 different tests and they all went to different labs over the 4 years and they all were in our favor, but yet they keep doing them and sending them to North Carolina, Spain. There own government officials do not trust the labs so why should the Monahans trust what the Guatemalan government is saying. I would not trust anyone after what we have been through. The Monahans should not be scrutinized and judged. They love THEIR Daughter. I say THEIR daughter, because legally she is!!! They went through the process, brought her home and have raised her. They are her parents. Like I said we have been doing this for 5 years and our son just turned four and after so much money and corruption we still do not have our son and it is because everyone is corrupt. Run Monahans Run. Do not trust them and bring her there

Comment by Jkarmele at August 21, 2011 08:08 AM



As a mom of two adopted sons from Gua, my heart goes out to all those involved. I have followed this case closely and followed the Gua system for 10+ years. There are parents in the adoption community who seek out birth families. There are parents who choose not to consider it. Yet we all must admit that we have wondered what we would do IF our children wish to pursue that journey or IF the birth families do. True love for this precious child is reconciliation between all of those who love her.

We have all received comments about our kids and their birth country. The most compelling comment I ever received was from my son's first teacher. She said that he has a strength and spirit that celebrate life...that he would be just as happy in Gua as in the USA. I see that loving spirit in the Gua children while serving as a missionary in Gua and often wonder what I took away from my children by adopting them. This should NOT be about economics.......

To prevent discussion/mediation and keep this child from her family in Gua is morally wrong. It is a disservice to all adopted children, their birth families, their adoptive families, and the true loving spirit of adoption itself.

But for the grace of God.....

Comment by Meg at August 21, 2011 08:57 AM



I have NOT followed this case extremely closely. So, while what I have read as greatly disturbed me, I am not in a position to judge with certainty.
But as an adoptive parent who went through the process with a comparably "ethical" ageny, I do feel that so many of the tragic problems we see today are rooted in a mentality back then that it was ok to accept or explain away irregularities, and also to bend the rules to our liking when it seemed the Guatemalan rules made no sense. Married women can't relinqush? No worries, just bend the rules and make it work. I do understand that some of these rules did not make a lot of sense and needlessly excluded wonderful parents. But who were we to make that call?
As I write this my daughter is playing at my feet - my greatest gift, love, the person around who my whole life is centered. i am so grateful for the opportunity to be her mother. My own search has confirmed that ours was a "legal" adoption with all the proper identities: Some comfort yes, but I still feel deeply unsettled about the things I will have to explain to her, the pain this may cause and the fact that I may have been indirectly part of such upspeakable corruption.
Another commenter referenced "the atmosphere in 2007" and I must say I agree. My "ethical" agency showed us how to work the system, was able to locate birth mothers when they needed to have them in court, but then promptly lost them when it was no longer convenient to make contact. Such a mess.
One other complicating point that I haven't seen anyone else raise is that of NUTRITION. While I agree wholeheartedly that adoption should not be about economics, I look at the statistics on malnutrition and stunting in Guatemala, especially among the indigenous population, and I wonder if we can not say that in some cases, these children ARE better off in the U.S. if only because they will have the opportunity to grow out of childhood and reach their full physical and mental potential. Does such a concern justify kidnapping? Never! But the issue of "economics" is highly complex, and means a lot more than having your own bedroom, and more toys.

Comment by Anon at August 21, 2011 02:12 PM



Anon,

Just as an FYI, no married moms was a US requirement in order for the child to meet the US orphan definition. It was not something on the Guatemalan side.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

Comment by Kevin at August 21, 2011 03:22 PM



A lot of people have posted a lot of good comments. Right now, I'm tending to agree with Kevin that even if it isn't in a child's best interest, a kidnapped child should be returned because of setting the precedent. If a precedent is set on this case, that a child can be kidnapped, then things could get really out of hand. If criminals realize that there is a high probability of getting caught, then crime will be greatly deterred.

I do believe that a 6 year old could remember back to when they were 2. Further, I suspect that most 6 year olds can remember back to when they are two. My daughter remembers to when she was 1 and even before. My understanding is that children can remember way back until their brain goes through a pruning process that starts I think around 10-11 years of age. Experts feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope that more brilliant minds than mine are working on this.

On another note, one poster stated that we know certain facts because Erin Siegel has copies of Monahan's personal notes. I read the finding Ferdinand web site (assuming this is the same one) and it said that the author got copies of these Monahan's notes from the guatemalan authorities. How would the guatemalan authorities get copies of Monahan's personal notes? This part doesn't make sense to me.

Best, Cheryl

Comment by cheryl at August 21, 2011 08:00 PM



um...i'm pretty sure i didn't stop anyone from talking....and i never said i agreed or disagreed with anyone or that i appreciated or didn't appreciate what was posted. but....i think many people will see the post from an ordinary family living in MO and wonder what the agenda is. it isn't often that someone visits these boards unless they are a partner in guatemalan adoptions, or have an agenda.....and if that is just a neighbor who happens to have taken an interest...well then....they have done a lot of research to just be an ordinary family.

and...if people want to talk truth....i am still very seriously wondering what happened to the parts of the story no one is talking about anymore. if you go back and read this SAME discussion from 2 years ago...there is alot of talk about the person presenting the child as her own and failing the dna test being the child's aunt...the mother's sister. there is also talk about there being multiple accounts of what happened that night by the mom. until those things are addressed...i just can't stop seeing this as an *alleged* kidnapping bc i can't get passed that information from last time around.

of course....if those things were rumors, and there was one solid story and the aunt was not involved or she is now in jail, then i agree the child should be returned.

Comment by mommy at August 21, 2011 08:36 PM



To best of my knowledge based on court documentation, Anyeli (laundered name Karen Abigail) was 2 and a half years old when she was kidnapped. She has only spent two and a half years with the family raising her now, known as the Monahans, the child is 6 and a half now. The two years after the kidnapping and before she came to the US, she spent with kidnappers or at Casa Primavera.

Regarding the "aunt" theory, there is no evidence that the woman is even known to the family. We had only heard of the theory of the "aunt" from the attorney, which she may have just been repeating what the woman who relinquished and failed the DNA test initially had told them who she was.

For the record, Anyeli's father has denied that that said woman is the child's aunt, authorities also have supported that statement, as the woman has ties with other laundered cases. For verification please see the Sobreviventes site for details, for those of you who cannot read Spanish, Erin Siegal has kindly translated information on her site, Finding Fernanda, both found on the web and on Facebook.

Comment by marie slattery at August 22, 2011 09:17 AM



Kevin stated, "All I have tried to do is give some perspective and frankly humanity before organizing a lynching mob."

I am reminded of the Mary Bond case several years ago. There were strong opinions on both sides. When the dust settled and the facts were known, I don't think even one poster had predicted everything correctly.

As several posters have pointed out, we the readers are still not in possession of all of the facts in this case either.

Kindest Regards, Cheryl

Comment by cheryl at August 22, 2011 09:50 AM



thank you marie!

Comment by mommy at August 22, 2011 07:41 PM



I thought one of the things claimed by Susanna is that the dna testing failed, but showed enough of a percentage link to be from a blood relative or "aunt" was this not the case? I also thought I saw that the girl's actual aunt claimed that her identifying information was stolen. Has there been any further word on the status of charges pending against Susanna etc?

Comment by Bibbo at August 22, 2011 11:00 PM



So, where to from here?

I’ve been reading the comments on this site with interest, and have learned a few things. The resolution will turn on a number of the points debated here, and I’m interested in what information people have (facts, not opinion) about two questions.

My sense is that this case is headed to an American court. The case is likely to turn on whether the court sees the situation as a disputed adoption (probably leading to the child staying in the US) or a kidnapping (which would mean she goes back to Guatemala.)

There’s a strong case to be made that this is indeed a kidnapping, which is how I view the case. That said, there are a couple of factual points that the court will need to resolve before reaching the same conclusion, and I’m wondering if anyone has solid information.

First, was there a DNA test done on this child while she was at Primavera? We know that there is a DNA evidence proving that Loyda is the mother of the child at the DNA test, but is there similar evidence proving that the child at the DNA test is also the one who went to Primavera and later to Missouri?

Second, there is the matter of the woman whose DNA was taken at the test. I’ve read that the test showed her to be a close relative (on Susana’s blog, with great detail) and that there is no relation (stated in prior comments.) Has anyone actually seen any evidence supporting either view?

I think the case may eventually turn on the answer: if the woman at the DNA test is unrelated to the child or her parents, there’s probably enough evidence to conclude that this was indeed a kidnapping, and that the child should go home. If not—that is, if there’s a close family relationship—a court could conclude that this is a disputed and uncertain adoption. Does anyone know?

Comment by Grey at August 23, 2011 03:46 PM



Grey- Just to recap: By all reports including the court hearing and trial in Guatemala, the neg DNA test was done prior to the child arriving at Casa Primavera. Susana Luarca was not the first attorney in the case, she was not the referring attorney, that was Marvin Bran Gallindo, who was found guilty yet is on the run.

The child was brought to Susana Luarca who initiated went the abandonment route as was the norm when a child had a negative DNA result. Usually the negative DNA is reported to the authorities,

After the parent located the whereabouts of the child by viewing files, a DNA test was done with the mother and the child in Missouri and it was a match.

The parents have stated that they are not related to the woman who failed the DNA test.

The Guatemalan Court has annulled the adoption, annulled the passport and annulled the BC issued to Karen Abigail Monahan Vanhorn because the documents were faked and the case was deemed a kidnapping. The Judge ordered the return of the child back to the parents. Two months were given for this to happen, if not, then Interpol would be contacted, as of now the case has been turned over to the US Department of Justice.
You can google the briefings and it will show up. Also other sites may have more detailed and translated documentation that you are looking for.

Comment by marie slattery at August 23, 2011 08:07 PM



Still a bit confused, maybe its me but the question posed by several folks in this thread has still not been answered or maybe we just dont know.

-Was it determined that the person who presented this child and took the DNA test in fact a distant relative, an aunt or sister? Did the failed DNA test prove this relationship?

Comment by MOM at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM



Mom,

I think I understand your question and I don't have an answer. I think you may be asking two different questions:
1) did the report actually state that the DNA sample for the woman was for a close female relative of the childs?
2) the father said he didn't know the woman in the picture and investigations show that woman to have been involved in other kidnappings. So it is possible that the picture and the DNA sample are not for the same person?

Comment by anonymous at August 25, 2011 02:07 PM



Reading all of this discussion, I am struck by how complicated this is and, even more--I just want to say CONGRATULATIONS Loyda and Go Norma Cruz Go! Now, we'll see if Senator Landrieu stands by her commitment to transparent and ethical adoptions and REALLY responds as her trip to Guate this past week most certainly intersected with this case. There is no way to avoid the issue for the Senator and the State Department has an obligation to respond related to TWO different Hague Conventions that the US has ratified!

Comment by karenms1 at August 26, 2011 03:00 AM



Marie said,

"After the parent located the whereabouts of the child by viewing files, a DNA test was done with the mother and the child in Misouri and it was a match" .

Someone earlier said that there was NOT a DNA test done on the child while she lived at Primavera.

Are you saying that there WAS a DNA test done while she was at Primavera?

Or, are you saying that the AP's consented to a DNA test of the child while she was already in Misouri?

I have not read anything about either of these two situations taking place. I DID hear about a DNA test being done on Loyda and being compared to the DNA test of the child that had failed to match the woman who presented her for adoption.

But, just becasue I read about something, or didn't read about something, does not make it any more true or untrue. People can post pretty much anything on a website or in a blog.

Anonymous, MOM, Bibbo and Grey,
I have the same questions as you do.

Jkarmele,
very good points about DNA testing and corruption.

Cheryl,
I have also been wondering how anyone got the AP's personal notes.

My opinion is that
1. the child in Misouri and Loyda should again be tested under a very controlled and supervised situation, but I do now know how they would do that, I mean control the corruption or possible switching of the samples, etc.

2. it should be determined whether the first DNA test that was failed was indicated to be a close relative of the child that she presented

3. "evidence" should be a lot more than what you can read on a website--you can write whatever you want on a website

Jen,
What did you mean about Labcorp burying DNA test results? How can they "bury" something in a file in another country? Do you mean that they failed to report the results to the US embassy and the PGN? Can you be more specific? How would the adoption case continue through the embassy and PGN without DNA test results being in the file? Wasn't that a requirement of both the PGN and the US Embassy?

We can all present "facts" and "opinions" here, but do any of us really know if the "facts" we are reading on either side of the issue are really "facts"?

Facts need to be carefully determined here by those that have the power to do it, not us who only know what we read. If this precious child was kidnapped, then she should be returned, but only based on solid facts.

anonymous

Comment by anonymous at August 30, 2011 12:23 AM



Hi anonymous-

It is documented that Anyeli failed a DNA test while she was referred to the Monahans and the attorney was Marvin Bran Galindo. The Monahans then brought the child to a new attorney, Susana Luarca, who then processed the case and took the abandonment route.

Yes you are correct that a match was made of Loyda (the mother in Guatemala) with that of the DNA of the child in Missouri.

You are also correct that anyone can say anything on the web or in a blog, that is why I stress to read documentation.

Many of your questions are addressed in the site "Finding Fernanda", both on the web and on FB. You will find the documentation and lab results that you are inquiring about, as was presented in court.

Comment by marie slattery at August 30, 2011 12:15 PM



The Monahan's have failed to return Anyelí to her mother and family by the court ordered deadline. They are again breaking the law.

There is a serious concern with the US position on this. This quote is from the US Embassy in Guatemala in 1995:

“We can now state unequivocally, but sadly, that there are instances of child stealing in Guatemala. In recent meetings with Emboffs (Embassy officials), Guatemalan Deputy Attorney General for Children’s Issues Carmela Curup Chacon, and Director of Criminal Investigations for the Public Ministry, Estuardo Solorzano Elias, acknowledged such trafficking, noting their individual experiences. Based on our experience with the strident, personal attacks on initiated by adoptive parents and their supporters, including in the Congress, upon individual consular officers in cases that turn sour, it would certainly be expedient of us to ignore such facts and issue orphan visas without hesitation. It would also be dead wrong.”

This quote is just as true today.

How many mothers and families in Guatemala have suffered horridly over the past 30 years.

The Guatemalan adoption community has an obligation to work to set these wrong rights. Time to take the heads out of the sands and stop pretending it was all done 'in the interest of the children'.

So shameful for our community and our country.

What will we tell these children when they grow up?

Comment by LauraLyn at October 9, 2011 10:08 AM



Actually, the Guatemalan court order is not automatically enforceable in the U.S. so the birth mother and the human rights group will have to hire an attorney here and go through the U.S. court system. So, LauraLyn whose law are the Monahans breaking? The State Department cannot force the Monahans to abide by the Guatemalan court and Interpol is actually made up police organizations from countries around the world so to think they can enforce the Guatemalan court order in the U.S. is ridiculous.

Comment by Anonymous at October 16, 2011 01:43 PM



From this morning's GMA broadcast:
"We actually believe that DNA testing is a very important part of the process, but unfortunately in Guatemala, it's the only part of the process that holds preeminence. And because they use property rights arguments to declare Karen, as we understand it, like DNA is sort of viewed as a title, and we strongly feel that Karen isn't property ... it's very important that we know the whole truth, and not just DNA, and that that be done in a safe context.

Interesting. How could one ascertain the appropriateness of this birth Mother except by her subsequent actions to find her child?

Comment by Kala Kaminsky at October 24, 2011 11:20 PM



In reading over these different comments, it strikes me that some may be advocating for the birth mother, some for the adoptive parents, and some for the integrity of the system, but no one should be claiming to advocate on behalf of the best interests of the child. Her life will be turned upside down no matter how this plays out. I don't have any answers to this one, but I do know that no one can know whose child this is "in the eyes of God" except God, and to my knowledge, He doesn't regularly post here.

Comment by Dave S. at October 26, 2011 02:43 PM



I've been reading about this case since it hit the international media. There are several sites where you can find excellent information about both sides of the case. Many news articles, interviews and documents can be viewed on them. I have found one recurring thing though. Any site where you can leave a post, message, blog etc, LAURALYN is always there. I'm beginning to think this is someone with a vendetta against the Monohans or someone close to the Rodriguez-Hernandez family. Check out the other sites before "debating" with this person who seems to have no compassion for this child and what her life is going to be like from here on out. Forget about "birth" or "adoptiive" families. Think of the child. No matter what happens in this case, whoever is right or wrong, at the heart of the case is a little girl whose life is going to be torn apart. The SHAME is not for our community or country, it is for judgemental people who have never been in this situation and only seem to want to make it worse. We should tell these children the truth NOW, not when they grow up to keep them from getting hurt by thoughtless people who leave biased and accusatory messages, who might live in the same community and be doing their best to make their current lives miserable. COMPASSION for all involved is the answer.

Comment by Jane at November 16, 2011 06:34 AM



I have been trying to play "catch up" ----and have a question.

back in 2009 Susana was saying that the photo of Karen that was taken at her original DNA test did NOT match the child that was in the orphanage -and she was asking the MO parents to get their child DNA tested to establish that a 'switch' had taken place.

The family never did that (correct?) so its STILL possible that the child in MO is NOT Anayeli...is that right? Or am I missing some piece of info???

Comment by Linda at December 23, 2011 02:49 PM



There's an essential question here that hasn't been answered. It seems to be that there was only one DNA test done on this poor child, and that was before she arrived at Primavera. That test established that: a) the woman who presented Anyeli at the DNA test was not her mother, but was a paternal aunt; b) Loyda is the actual mother of the child at the DNA test.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that there was no second DNA test, when the child who ended up in Missouri was at Primavera. There's no genetic proof that the child at the DNA test (who is definitely Anyeli) was the child at Primavera, and now presumably living as Karen Abigail in the US.

As any of us who read this site know, lots of things (good and bad) are possible in Guatemala. It's possible that Anyeli went to another family in the US, or stayed in Guatemala, while another child ended up at Primavera and subsequently to Missouri. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised either way.

A DNA test for Karen Abigail would address that, of course, but that's not likely to happen. And, at this point, two people associated with this adoption and Primavera are in jail, and Susana is in custody pending trial. Anyeli and her daughter are separated, and numerous lives are in tatters. What a mess.

Comment by Grey at January 18, 2012 03:57 PM



Grey stated in the first paragraph of the post January 18, 2012 that the woman at the DNA test was the aunt. There have been statements to the contrary in here. For further discussion, take a look at the following:
1) marie slattery's post on august 23, 2011 (4th paragraph).
2) mom August 24th, 2011
3) anonymous at August 25, 2011

Best

Comment by anonymous at January 24, 2012 01:03 PM