Several Recent US DOS Announcements Concerning Guatemala & also US Hague Implementation

The US Department of State recently released three intercountry news announcements of interest to US adoptive families and adoption providers.

First:

Guatemala Update

November 8, 2007

The Department of State has received inquiries about the status of anticipated adoption reforms in Guatemala, and the outlook for adoption cases which are currently pending. Whether the Guatemalan government elects to implement the Hague Convention on December 31st or later in the spring of 2008, pending cases would not be affected if, as expected, the final legislation includes a transition provision that allows pending cases to be processed to conclusion under current law. We continue to advise American Citizens not to initiate new adoptions until the Government of Guatemala has completed its implementation of the Hague Convention.

Adoption reform legislation remains under discussion in Guatemala’s Congress. We continue to advocate for a law that complies with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and that includes transition provisions for cases already filed under the current system of law.

Passage of a new adoption law is only the first step. The next, urgent priority will be for Guatemalan officials to establish a Hague compliant system. Designing and implementing the necessary structural reforms will take time.

The Guatemalan Government has said it will assume its obligations as a Hague Convention member on December 31, 2007, a decision we support, because Guatemala’s children -- indeed all parties to an international adoption -- deserve the protections afforded by the Convention as soon as possible. When the Hague Convention goes into force for the U.S. in the spring of 2008, both the U.S. and Guatemala must have Hague-compliant adoption procedures in order for new adoption cases to be filed. Thus in the interest of long-term adoptions from Guatemala, responsible, prompt reform of the current law and procedures is critically important. The U.S. is committed to provide assistance and support to the Guatemalan authorities for this task.

Guatemala Update, US Department of State, 8 November 2007

Next:

Notice: Department of State Plans to Deposit the Instrument of Ratification in December 2007

The United States and the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention

We are pleased to announce that the United States has nearly completed all the domestic requirements necessary for the deposit of its instrument of ratification for the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (The Hague Adoption Convention) in December 2007.

As the US Central Authority under the convention and the lead Federal agency for its implementation, the Department of State eagerly anticipates the moment when we can join the more than 70 other countries who believe in strong international norms for protecting the best interests of children, as well as the interests of birth parents and adoptive parents in the intercountry adoption process.

According to the terms of the Convention, it will go into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the instrument of ratification.

The Convention strengthen protections for adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoptions. Its key principles include:

1) Ensuring that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of children; and
2) Preventing the abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children; and
3) Facilitating communication between Central Authorities in countries of origin and destination countries

The Hague process in the United States will require that adoption service providers show that they meet Hague standards in an accreditation process. Adoption service providers who do not meet the standards will not be permitted to provide adoption services in Hague member countries. Our Hague regulations also require transparent fees, home studies that are approved by an accredited adoption service provider and mandatory training for prospective adoptive parents.

The United States signed the treaty in 1994.

In 2000, Congress passed the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA), the implementing legislation for the Convention. The Senate gave its advice and consent for ratification of the Convention on the condition that the United States was prepared to meet its obligations under the Convention as provided in IAA.

We are proud to say that we are very close to completion of those preparations.

For more information please see our website at travel.state.gov
Or contact the US Central Authority at AdoptionUSCA@state.gov.

Notice: Department of State Plans to Deposit the Instrument of Ratification in December 2007, US Department of State, November 2007

And finally:

U.S. on Track to Join the Hague Adoption Convention in December
November 19, 2007

A message from the U.S. Department of State

The U.S. Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues, is pleased to announce that the President signed the U.S. instrument of ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention on November 16. The legal requirements for ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) have been completed, and we plan to join with our deposit the instrument of ratification on December 12, 2007! The Department will announce the official date the Convention will go into force for the United States—projected to be April 1, 2008—in the Federal Register. The Hague Adoption Convention protects children and their families against the risks of unregulated adoptions abroad and ensures that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of children. The Convention also serves to prevent the abduction of, sale of, or traffic in children.

Once the treaty is in force, the new processing requirements for Hague adoption cases will take effect for adoptions between the United States and more than 70 Convention members. The new process protects the rights of children, birth parents, and adoptive parents while promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical practices among adoption service providers.

U.S. on Track to Join the Hague Adoption Convention in December, US Department of State, 19 November 2007

Desiree

Part I of Accountability to Families of Origin: Before Adoption: Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Families--Workshop 1.2

The following are detailed notes. They do not constitute the exact words of the speakers, but a--hopefully accurate--summary of the ideas. If any of the panelists or attendees take issue with any of these summaries, please let me know so that I can correct them.

Because the notes on this Workshop were so lengthy, I divided the notes into separate posts. This post is the first of two from Workshop 1.2.

Desiree

Ethics and Accountability Conference
Sponsored by Ethica and Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
October 15-16, 2007

Bullet points for discussion during this workshop:

1. Do current practices, even when handled carefully, create for some expecting women/couples, a sense of obligation to go forward with the adoption?
   
2. What are the most appropriate ways to cover expectant mothers' expenses so that risks of coercion or exploitation are minimized or eliminated?
   
3. What is the role of open adoption arrangements in planning for adoption? Should contact agreements be explored in all situations? Should they be enforceable?
   
4. Is it ethical to search out children to place for adoption and what role should professionals play in this endeavor?

Panelists:

Lynn Franklin is a birthmother who was reunited with her birthson, a book author, a current board member of the Evan B. Donaldson Institute, an eleven year board member of Spence-Chapin, and an elected “lifetime” Honorary Director of Spence-Chapin.

Sania Metzger is director of policy for Casey Family Services, the direct service agency of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. She works to influence and track policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Ms. Metzger is on the Board of Directors for Prevent Child Abuse America and the Center for Family Representation.

Dr. Teresa “Tesi” Kohlenberg M.D.is a child psychiatrist, who had previously worked as a developmental pediatrician with teenage mothers and the urban poor. She is an adoptive parent, a co-founder of Guatemala Adoptive Families Network which promotes ethical practices in Guatemalan adoption, and finally a contributor to various adoption books.

Annette Appell is a law professor who has authored multiple articles, books chapters, etc. on adoption. She serves on the editorial board of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal and the Adoption Quarterly, and has extensive experience representing representing children and parents involved with the child welfare system, including providing legal representation in termination of parental rights cases and adoption proceedings.


Lynn Franklin: Opening Remarks

• As a society we have a responsibility to families who are at risk of becoming “families of origin”
  
  • that responsibility is one of practice, not just of rhetoric
  
  
• Ethics must include sensitivity to race & economic factors in both IA and domestic settings
  
• I’ve heard a lot of stories, but one that sticks with me that is germaine to the current topic is this one: I had returned from Columbia and was telling a US "adoption professional" about conversations with birthmoms in Columbia, when the US adoption worker said in surprise::
  
  • “Oh, I guess I haven’t thought of them [the Columbian birthmothers]like OUR birthmothers.”

• Do we think of women in these (other) sending countries in a different light?
  
  • Certainly many in private adoption don’t consider women in the public welfare system to be like “our birthmothers” either.
  
  
• We really need address the cultural and economic forces that operate in all forms of adoption
  
• The mother who relinquishes in Columbia isn’t fundamentally different from birthmothers in the private US system or the public welfare system.
  
• The mission must be for providers to provide quality services.

Sania Metzger

• There is a documented need for birthmothers from indigent families for legal representation in the Child Welfare System (CWS) process
  
  • The TV show, Judging Amy, as good as it was, never had an episode that focused on inadequacy of legal representation of birthparents in the Child Welfare System (CWS)

• Federal /State policies
  
  • Mandate the termination of parental rights if the allegations/issues against the parent by CWS aren’t resolved
    
  • The process to terminate parental rights is set into motion early in the process with CWS
    
  • Yet these parents who are at risk for losing their parental rights are not given quality legal representation
    
  • It’s a serious ethical issue that the statutes that threaten to take away parental rights do not also provide them with legal representation

• Parent may face a termination of parental rights, but there is no balancing act to provide legal representation of parents who stand to their rights lose rights
  
  • we value the process to sever rights
    
  • but we don’t value a fair process or making sure that parents’ rights in the process are protected

• There ought to be moral outrage at this situation,
  
  • and yet we don’t see or hear it and that concerns me.

• The American CWS process removes children from their families and promises to give them new ones
  
  • Children who are abused and neglected enter the system,
    
  • and move forward in a process that ultimately results in the severance of parental rights
    
  • This system holds out the promise that these children will be adopted
    
  • And yet many aren’t adopted

• The American CWS severs parental rights and holds out the promise of new homes
  
  • In 2002, there were129,000 legal orphans (children whose parents had had their parental rights severed) in the US system
    
  • These kids become orphans through the Child Welfare System
    
    • Not because of wars, or natural disasters, or HIV, or other catastrophes
      
    • These kids are orphans because we severed parental rights
      
    • So that the kids could be adopted into families that legally speaking, could “better” care for them
    
    
  • We terminate parental rights with the HOPE that children will be placed
    
  • We say to their parents--sorry you can’t raise them, but it will be better for them because they will be raised in a loving family and have the things that children should have
    
  • But we fail to come through for these kids
    
  • Where is the court and child welfare accountability in this?

• It is NOT good enough to hold out a promise to child or parent
  
  • Plan to make sure child is raised in loving, caring family
    
  • And then violate that mother’s trust; violate that family’s trust
    
  • The child continues to languish; the child is not adopted

• On an annual basis more than 22,000 children who have become orphans through the CWS system exit the system without ever having been given that promised permanence in their lives
  
  • We are failing miserably to place children
    
  • Failing miserably to fulfill promises to parents and children
    
  • The birthparent failed to keep child, but now has to struggle with the painful reality that:
    
    • Her child not deemed worthy
      
    • Her child is not adoptable,
      
    • Her child was never embraced by another loving family.

• We, especially those who understand the richness of adoption when it works as it should, should be feeling moral outrage that this is happening. That these children are failing to get homes and that our promises to these parents whose parental rights have been severed have not been kept. This is a serious moral and ethical issue.

• WHO are these children/families that we are failing?
  
  • Disproportionately they are people of color and poor people
    
  • The same people who face/have faced historic and current discrimination; structural racism, ethnic discrimination, etc.
    
  • Those involved in CWS processes are disproportionately the poor and persons of color
    
    • Those whose income is under $15,000 a year are 22 times more likely to be in CWS
      
    • These are indigent parents who can’t afford legal help
      
    • They should be getting quality legal representation from the time of the first knock at door of CPS
    
    
  • Racism and ethnicity overlays WHO is in the system
    
    • Disproportionately includes those who have experienced historic stereotyping, marginalizing, under representation, and the undervaluation of their families
      
    • We undervalue families from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds
      
    • We SHOULD be paying special attention to these children—so they don’t automatically end up in the system

• It is a symptom of the problem that we automatically consider children from these families, special needs children simply because of who they are.

• Horrendous disproportionality in system
  
  • Inequities begin at front end, but the disparities continue; the disproportionality continues throughout system and process
    
  • Kids Count figures show that on one day--30 Sept 2006:
    
    • 15% of US kids were African American
      
    • Yet, 34% in US kids in the Child Welfare System were African American
      
    • 36% of children in CWS waiting to be adopted were African American
      
    • Only about 30% of those adopted are African American
    
    
  • Likewise Native Americans are about 1% of population, 2% waiting of those waiting to be adopted, and only about 1% of those adopted who are adopted

• We TALK about adoption and protecting needs of birthparents on front end, but we don’t challenge our ourselves enough
  
  • We present a view of adoption that is one sided
    
  • We separate out from our understanding of adoption and don't speak about the horrendous struggles that indigent birthparents face to contest termination of parental rights petitions from our understanding of adoption

• Positive developments
  
  • Several states have new legislation permitting children to petition the court to reinstate their parents' previously severed parental rights
    
  • One of these states is California where legislation was the result of the Jared H case
    
    • Jared H was a 14 yo child whose mother was substance abuser, and he was deemed to be at risk for coming into the CWS system. In a preemptive move, Jared H asked that his stepfather be allowed to adopt him
      
    • As a precursor to the anticipated adoption, Jared's mother's parental rights were severed. But then the stepfather adoption was not allowed to take place because of “unsanitary conditions in the home.”(that is another issue for another day)
      
    • Jared H's wish to be raised in the loving family (that he had chosen) was aborted and he was inadvertently thrown into the foster care system where it is now likely that he will remain until he is emancipated (reaches legal adulthood)
      
    • Unfortunately, the court couldn’t undo the parental rights termination because it had no general legislated mandate to reinstate parental rights that had been severed.
      
    • The court, realizing the bad situation it was in, subsequently invited the CA legislature to create a law which would allow children to petition the court to reinstate parental rights (when it’s safe to do so).
      
      • The CA legislature responded with the 8519 legislation which allows for a child to bring a petition before the court to have his/her parental rights reinstated
        
      • This is an attempt to deal with creation of orphans in this country without the corresponding ability to place children in adoptive homes

• Model programs for providing quality legal services to families who come into the CWS system
  
  • Center for Family Representation, in NY City
    
    • Attorney working out of an office with an interdisciplinary staff
      
      • Parent advocate, paralegals, investigative staff, caseworkers, etc.
      
      
    • Contrast this with the usual legal representation (when it happens) of an attorney "working out of a briefcase" and often meeting his/her client for the first time in the courtroom
      
    • Better outcomes result because the representation begins earlier, often before petition is filed
      
    • Program has reduced numbers of kids who need to be removed from their homes
      
      • Of 51 cases handled by center, in 32 of them children were able to remain in the home or be reunited with parents shortly after the process began

• Parent advocacy as a developing trend that I recommend that we support
  
  • Team decision making that involves bringing parents to the table
    
  • Parents SHOULD be there when important decisions are being made concerning their children
    
  • Including parents shows respect for those in the system and those whose rights are at risk of being terminated
    
  • We should be supportive of the rights of parents to maintain appropriate ties with their children as long as it's safe to do so

Tesi Kohlenberg
(Tesi provided a printed handout with bullet points which I am seeking permission to reprint on fleasbiting)

• When my husband and I started the process to adopt from Guatemala, we spent a number of months researching the situation and we thought we knew what was going on in Guatemala with our adoption. We thought we'd be:
  
  • adopting a child whose parent truly couldn’t care for her, parents who had truly and freely chosen adoption for their child
    
  • a part of a system that was helping women
  
  
• And to some degree we were

• We had been in correspondence with Bruce Harris at Casa Alianzaand he had assured me that ethical adoption from Guatemala was possible
  
• I knew a lot (from working with teen mothers in NY and Boston for 15 years) about the effects of chronic poverty, racism, substance abuse, and trauma on decision-making
  
• I also knew something about the US role in Guatemala’s 36 year civil war and the genocidal attacks on the native Maya, and the effects these things might have had on the people who would be the parents of my child
  
• I had some doubts, but preadoptive parent hope and longing tended to override those doubts
  
• In the past 8 years I have learned a lot more

• The more I learn, the more race, culture, and class stand out as the key issues behind ethical problems in adoption both domestically and internationally—the same issues play in both
  
• Our relationship with my daughter’s birthmother has put my mind to rest to some degree
  
• But I also know too many people whose adoptive children were stolen or sold or whose children’s first mothers were coerced into relinquishing
  
• The shadow of this fact falls on all of us adoptive parents even if we know that our own adoptions were relatively clean
  
• Ethical issues in IA are the same ones as in domestic adoption, only more so. -
  • The disparities--the power differential issues--are worse in IA than domestically
    
  • Relinquishing families in IA are most often poor,illiterate,and disenfranchised
  • Desperate poverty leads people to do truly desperate things
    
    • The level of desperation distinguishes poor people in other countries from people in this country. This has to be acknowledged.
• In most IA sending countries:
  
  • The rule of law is weak
    
  • Families have little recourse if they are victims of unethical adoption practice
    
  • Many families may face retribution if they do report crimes
  
  
• In most traditional sending country societies, orphanages are traditionally a part of a temporary care system (Vietnam, Cambodia, India)
  
  • Families place their children temporarily and some return to find that their children have been adopted out overseas
  
  
• Many sending countries are recovering from war—often wars financed by the US
  
  • Traditional cultural structures that might have been called upon to support families under stress have been eroded and compromised
  
  
• What rights are we talking about? Basic human rights, such as:
  
  • Food, housing, healthcare, work,
    
  • Freedom from an atmosphere of war, persecution, and violence
    
  • Civil rights; equality across racial, gender, class, caste, etc.
    
    • Not achieved here, but significantly worse in sending countries
    
    
  • Access to supports for vulnerable populations are often nonexistent in many sending countries
    
    • Access to a functioning justice system for remediation should something bad happen
    
    
  • Psychological rights in adoption: the rights to connection, belonging, continuity,identity, recognition by society of your value, ability of adopted persons to have access to their families of origin when it makes sense
    
  • The most basic human rights for children as enumerated in the Convention on the rights of the Child

• There are big questions about how these rights play out in international adoption
  
  • Do we believe that women in poor countries have the same rights of choice over what happens to their children as are given to them in developed nations?
    
  • Do we believe that nations have rights—almost property rights of a sort—in their children that supercede a woman’s right to decide where her child grows up?
    
  • How meaningful are our ideas of the rights of families for families living in a different cultural context in which they don’t have access to the most basic civil human rights?
    
  • Can we or should insist on those rights when they are not culturally understood and can we asked that they be enacted between persons who are interacting in a culture different than our own?
    
  • Can we ascribe these rights to people who are fundamentally powerless?
• These are issues to think about—I don’t have easy answers—only questions.

• A story about powerlessness and cultural disconnect: When we went to Guatemala to meet our daughter’s family (after we had pushed consistently to be able to do so)we finally met with the mother and mother’s sister—-We asked her, "What would you like us to tell our daughter when she is older about why you chose adoption for her?"
  
  • My daughter's Guatemalan birthmother looked straight at me and at my white husband who is 6 ft 3 and blond (and who looks like a kindly Viking),and said that she hoped the girl would never need to know that she was adopted.
  
  
• Guatemala is in crisis. There are not enough publicly funded orphanages in Guatemala. Most orphanages are privately funded. There is some domestic adoption. Domestic adoption in Guatemala is private, informal, and easy, but it can’t provide for all the children who need help. Private orphanages and the private relinquishment system (funneling children into IA)handles the vast majority of cases.
  
  • The strengths of a private relinquishment system are:
    
    • Maternal choice
      
    • Excellent foster care
      
    • Babies finding homes relatively quickly at young ages
    
    
  • The Problems with a private relinquishment system are:
    
    • It's very vulnerable to corruption
      
    • It's very vulnerable to develop unethical and illegal practices
    
    
  • Many of us are in agony about this
  
  
• The situation is this: There is a rapidly increasing demand for adoptable newborn babies and so
  
  • A class of baby finders has sprung up who are paid a great deal to locate babies
    
  • Finders are paid between $6,000 and $10,000 per baby
    
  • And so they produce, find, or locate babies for adoption
    
  • In a significant nontrivial proportion of the cases, the finders are paying a portion of that finder’s fee to Guatemalan parents to relinquish their children (payments are at initial relinquishment and final signature)
    
    • Parents are being paid anywhere from a few hundred dollars up to $3,000 to relinquish their children
      
    • In a country where a third of the population lives on $2 a day or less, this is money to provide a powerful incentive for relinquishment

• Guatemala is unusual in IA because contact between adoptive and first families is possible, although it is often discouraged and sabotaged by the Guatemalan adoption attorneys
  
  • AP’s who make contact with Guatemalan birthfamilies, and there are something on the order of 500 of us now, usually find that adoption is truly what the first mothers chose for their children. They felt it was what was needed and what was best for the child. This fact is really important to note in the context of these other stories which follow. We are finding that:
    
    • Some women were coerced to relinquish by their male partners
      
    • Some women are also often coerced by adoption workers (I will NOT call them “adoption professionals”)
      
    • Some extended families would have wanted to parent the child but were not given the option by the mother
      
    • Some Guatemalan women are even getting pregnant repeatedly in order to earn a living selling by selling their babies
      
    • There is some involvement in adoption by gangs that run guns and drugs
      
    • There are reliable reports that women who change their minds during the waiting period are told that they must pay back the monetary costs of childcare for their child during the waiting period and also any money they had been previously given (which is illegal) and because they don't have the money, are not getting their babies back
    
    
  • NO one is sure how widespread these problems are
    
    • But the US Embassy says these problems are “frequent”
    
    
  • No one knows whether of those mothers who receive money at relinquishment--the money was the reason they relinquished their children or whether the money simply represented something good that happened to them in the midst of tragedy
    
    • And as for money, Guatemalans have often said, "Why does everyone else get money and the mother doesn’t?" I have my own answer as to why they shouldn’t, but I understand the psychology behind the question.
• The crisis in Guatemala right now has its roots
  
  • In seriously unethical practices,
    
  • The intransigence and denial of agencies (and their representatives in Guatemala) that have steadfastly denied that there has ever been an ethical problem
    
  • The polarization of the dialogue in which both UNICEF and Casa Alienza have played a role by painting an extreme and unrealistic pictures of what is going on in Guatemala
  
  
• Solutions that are being looked at now are politically attractive in the abstract, but are likely to close the country to IA in practice
  
• Adoption has become a business bringing powerful amounts of money into poor countries.
  
  • If adoption funds leak into excess profits, unethical practice can practically be guaranteed.
    
    • Even in China where there is less structural vulnerability than in Guatemala, we are learning of adoption corruption and child abduction.
• This all can not be stopped without bringing about profound social changes beyond the scope of this panel. In terms of vulnerable families, we can not protect them without first ensuring the rights of families to survival and social justice
  
• We need to be working hard to minimize the need for international adoption.
  
  • The steps I recommend to work towards this are laid out in the handout.
  
  
• However, until social justice and human rights are addressed, the right of a child to grow up in a stable and loving family must still be honored and set higher than abstractions about systems.
  
  • For this to happen ethically in countries beset by poverty and corruption, we and our adoption representatives will have to be very careful indeed.

To read notes from the rest of this session see Part II of Accountability to Families of Origin: Before Adoption: Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Families of Origin--Workshop 1.2

Desiree

America: Waiting Angels Prosecution, Part I: The Story

It's as sensational as the story line of a TV crime show. And the characters--at least as they appear on TV--are every bit as colorful.

But unfortunately, it's real life.

A night club dancer turned "adoption professional" and her business partner "hang out their shingle" as Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. and begin facilitating adoptions from (well, where else, but) Guatemala.

Their clients?

According to a local TV station: "Desperate would-be parents." Some of whom, profiled by the TV station, longed for a baby after lengthy struggles with infertility. Parents who were so eager to have a baby in arms that they took out second mortgages on their homes, forked over their life savings, signed contracts with, and then placed their hopes in the hands of these same Waiting Angels "adoption professionals."

Lest you think these parents didn't do their "homework" in checking out Waiting Angels Adoption Services before signing on, think again. Prospective adoptive parents (PAP's) recently testified in criminal court that they had asked Waiting Angels for (and received from the same) client references--the email addresses of satisfied former Waiting Angels' clients.

How were these PAP's to know that the email addresses of these "satisfied clients" were apparently (according to allegations in criminal court) owned by one of the adoption agency principals, Joe Beauvais? And that the replies they received--glowing recommendations for Waiting Angels--were allegedly, according to evidence presented recently in criminal court, simply Joe, pretending to be several former clients?

As if that isn't enough to turn your stomach, an undercover investigation by a local TV station using a hidden camera, reveals a peek, in sordid detail, into the alleged way in which at least some "adoption professionals" procure Guatemalan children who are then offered for adoption here in the U.S. The descriptions come from the couple's own lips, captured on tape for all the world to see. It's not pretty. Like seeing the proverbial way sausage or laws are made. Not for the faint of heart or those who want to preserve their adoption-is-an-absolute-good belief system.

Despite this procurement system and for reasons, at this point, known only by agency principals, Boraggina and Beauvais, Waiting Angels apparently failed to deliver babies to many waiting PAP's. PAP's allege they were given many technical reasons for the failure of their children to "come home" and that, as a result of their complaints, more promises were made and, for whatever reasons, those promises too were allegedly broken.

The trail of adoptive parents with broken dreams, empty savings accounts, and second mortgages for which they had nothing to show but payment books and empty nurseries, allegedly grew.

Refunds of adoption fees, like the promised babies, allegedly also failed to materialize.

In publicly available legal documents, prospective adoptive parents allege a pattern of increasing unresponsiveness by Waiting Angels to their requests and questions.

Eventually, in 2005, a class action law suit was filed against Waiting Angels by several families.

But, as we all know, the wheels of the justice system turn slowly.

Meanwhile, the children that eager families had hoped would be their own, continued to grow and and develop. Babies outgrew layettes they never wore. Tiny babies promised to adoptive families, babies with whom some heart-sick PAP's had previously bonded on trips to Guatemala and with whom others had bonded through photos and video updates, grew into toddlers without ever seeing the dream nurseries their would-be parents had lovingly and lavishly outfitted months, and now years, earlier.

Monthly payments on second mortgages served--and continue to serve even now--as painful reminders of what does not lie behind closed nursery doors where dust gathers on dead dreams.

A local TV station's investigative team had earlier taken up the cause of the weary, teary-eyed, and empty-armed PAP's. In a series of investigative reports, it explored and then made public the case against the agency and its principals.

Evidence mounted and finally, in the face of sympathetic public outrage, law enforcement moved in with search warrants against Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. and its principals, Simone Boraggina and Joe Beauvais.

The local TV station covered the raid of the two homes from which Waiting Angels and its principals ran their adoption agency. Footage shows policemen carrying out computer hard drives and crates of paper files--to be gone through and kept as evidence.

But no one was prepared for what turned up in one of the houses.

In one of the two homes of the "adoption professionals," police were astonished to find A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH. Indisputably, there it is, caught on camera--$500,000 in cash in neat stacks of bills stored in multiple, neatly sealed zip-lock baggies.

Where did this money come from? Why was it there?

Had Simone and Joe ever sent the money given them to Guatemala to procure the children they had promised the couples? If they had, what was this money?

More generally, why would anyone--and specifically why would Simone and Joe--keep this huge amount of cash in a private residence instead of putting it into a bank?

Only Simone and Joe know where the money came from and why it was there. Only they know what they did or didn't do to procure the children they had promised adoptive parents.

Shortly thereafter, Simone Boraggina and Joe Beauvais--the principals of Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc.--turned themselves in and were arrested as local TV cameras rolled and astonished TV investigators looked on.

Desiree

News Video That Introduces Allegations Against Waiting Angels:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Shocking Details About Adoption, Channel 4 Detroit,

News Video Announcing Arrest of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Arrests Made in Adoption Case, Channel 4 Detroit, arrest and search

New Video Showing Confrontation with One of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Karen's Confrontation, Channel 4 Detroit, short confrontation

News Video Detailing Waiting Angels' Alleged Modus Operandi:
Rescue 4 Undercover: The Desperation Behind Selling a Baby, Channel 4

News Video (which is mostly audio) in whichAttorney General Mike Cox Alleges What Joe & Simone were doing and what he intends to do as Attorney General in Response:
Adoption Scam, 9 & 10 News.com, 4 May, 2007

Most Recent News Video Showing First Day of Trial:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Waiting Angels Adoption Scam, Channel 4 Detroit, 13 Sept 2007

Law Firm Summary of Earlier 2006 Class Action Law Suit against Waiting Angels: The Quisenberry Law Firm Newswire, Michigan, "Class Action Says Adoption Agency Just Keeps Demanding More Money," 23 October 2006

IBL, Class Action Reporter, Headlines List, alphabetical under W for Waiting Angels (scroll down for a detailed summary), 27 Oct 2007

PDF of Class Action Law Suit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US Court:
Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

PDF of 2007 Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US District Court:
Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

Legal Counsel's Summary and Update Page for Waiting Angels Lawsuit: Waiting Angels FAQ: Waiting Angels Litigation, Fixel Law Offices, last updated 12 September 2007

And the Adoption Agency's own website, still up and running and advertising adoption services:
Waiting Angels Adoption Agency Website

America: Waiting Angels Prosecution, Part II: The Legal Cases

Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., an American adoption agency out of Michigan, and its principals, Simone Boraggina and Joseph Beauvais, have been and are now the subject of several lawsuits, including:

1. A Federal class action suit brought by at least ten named plaintiffs
   
2. A civil lawsuit brought in US Federal District Court by at least six adoptive families
   
3. And finally a criminal case currently being actively pursued by the Michigan State Attorney General.

1. The Federal Class Action Suit
The essentials of the class action suit, Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), filed in October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of "ten named plantiffs" (all adoptive parents who were clients of Waiting Angels), is explained in the legal publication, Class Action Reporter, as follows:

"The suit specifically alleged violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, 18
U.S.C. Section 1961, and various other Michigan statutes and
common law doctrines.

[and...]

"The suit alleges the adoption agency defrauds vulnerable, would-
be foster [surely using the word "foster" here is a typographical error?] parents by demanding extra money for unspecified fees,
and threatening they will never get their babies unless they
pay."

Class action suits have their own special procedures beyond the usual ones for most law suits:

After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In some cases class certification may require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Upon the motion to certify the class, the defendants may object to whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions.

It is not clear from public documents (at least those that we could find), what exactly the current legal status of the Waiting Angels Class Action suit is. If anyone has any information on this, especially in a publicly available form, we at Fleasbiting would certainly like to know.

Barring any real information, one could speculate that either the process to certify the class is ongoing or else, the plaintiffs failed to convince the court to certify the class so that the case could proceed as a "class action suit."

A link to the actual text of the Class Action suit as it was filed with the Federal Court is available both below and also here at Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

2. The Federal Civil Suit against Waiting Angels Services, Inc.
Whatever happened with the 2006 Class Action Suit against Waiting Angels, this much is clear: A Federal civil lawsuit was brought by the same plaintiffs plus an additional family which joined shortly after filing, using the same lawyers, on March 27, 2007. This second suit seems to be one and the same case in a slightly different incarnation, for certainly the cases have the same court case numbers and the texts of the complaints are almost exactly the same.

The families allege that they "have all been victims of fraud, misrepresentation, and various violations of Federal Laws." According to court documents the defendants are being charged with four counts (two against Waiting Angels as an entity, one against Boraggina and Beauvais as persons; one against both Waiting Angels and Boraggina and Beauvais) of a scheme to defraud, solicit bribes, extort, and defraud under the Federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)Act; one count of unjust enrichment (Waiting Angels, Boraggina, and Beauvais); one count of conversion; one count of civil conspiracy; one count of concert of action; one count of fraudulent misrepresentation; one count of innocent misrepresentation; and finally one count of exemplary damages explained thus: "Defendants Waiting Angels, Boraggina and/or Beauvais representations were made intentionally and maliciously and have caused Plantiffs...to suffer humiliation, outrage, indignation, sleepless nights, and emotional distress.

As to the current status of this suit, the law firm maintains a public web page to apprise Waiting Angels families and the general public of the status of the law suit. This website explains the current status law firm that brought the suit on behalf of the families involved:

"After the police raid in April 2007 and while criminal charges were pending, the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit (6 families) were granted a Stay of Proceedings placing the lawsuit on hold until the completion of all criminal proceedings."

A PDF of the 2007 Civil Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels in US Federal District Court is available online at Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

3. The Michigan State Attorney General's Criminal Case Against Waiting Angels Services, Inc.
The allegations that resulted in the criminal case are easy to understand if you take the time to watch the four linked videos at the end of this blog post.

Anyone who wants to understand just how unprotected and at the mercy of entrepreneurial adoption agencies adoptive parents are in the current under- and un-regulated adoption climate in the US should definitely take the time to watch them. As the saying goes--a picture is worth a thousand words.

The latest video from the Detroit's Channel 4 Investigative Team gives the latest update on the criminal proceedings. Although the prosecutor on this video mentions a few of the crimes with which Boraggina and Beauvais are likely to be charged, to my knowledge no comprehensive list of these crimes has yet to be published (again someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

According to an update to the lawsuit information page referenced earlier, the status of the criminal case as of October 16, 2007 was as follows:

"Preliminary Hearings were held for Joe Beauvais and Simone Boraggina on September 10 & 11, 2007. The Michigan Attorney General's Office was successful in convincing the Macomb County District Court that probable cause exists and Joe & Simone were bound over to the Macomb County Circuit Court to face criminal charges. Details are not yet known but there will be an arraignment hearing later and a future trial date will be set."

Of interest, in the last Channel 4 video update was Simone's lawyer's plea to the judge to please let Simone, as she awaits criminal trial, forego her court ordered house arrest and tether, so that she could "return to night club dancing" as that was her only means to support herself now that she had lost her only other means of support.

The unsympathetic judge said, "NO WAY."

What I want to know is why the Waiting Angels Services, Inc. web site advertising Simone and Joe's business is still up on the internet. Are they still fielding adoption inqueries from PAP's?

Desiree

News Video Announcing Arrest of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Arrests Made in Adoption Case, Channel 4 Detroit, arrest and search

New Video Showing Confrontation with One of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Karen's Confrontation, Channel 4 Detroit, short confrontation

News Video Detailing Waiting Angels' Alleged Modus Operandi:
Rescue 4 Undercover: The Desperation Behind Selling a Baby, Channel 4

News Video (which is mostly audio) in which Attorney General Mike Cox Alleges What Joe & Simone were doing and what he intends to do as Attorney General in Response:
Adoption Scam, 9 & 10 News.com, 4 May, 2007

Most Recent News Video Showing First Day of Trial:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Waiting Angels Adoption Scam, Channel 4 Detroit, 13 Sept 2007

Law Firm Summary of Earlier 2006 Class Action Law Suit against Waiting Angels: The Quisenberry Law Firm Newswire, Michigan, "Class Action Says Adoption Agency Just Keeps Demanding More Money," 23 October 2006

IBL, Class Action Reporter, Headlines List, alphabetical under W for Waiting Angels (scroll down for a detailed summary), 27 Oct 2007

PDF of Class Action Law Suit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US Court:
Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

PDF of 2007 Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US District Court:
Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

Legal Counsel's Summary and Update Page for Waiting Angels Lawsuit: Waiting Angels FAQ: Waiting Angels Litigation, Fixel Law Offices, last updated 12 September 2007

And the Adoption Agency's own website, still up and running and advertising adoption services:
Waiting Angels Adoption Agency Website

Guatemala: CNN's AC360 "Guatemala Adoption Controversy"

CNN's show, Anderson Cooper 360 (AC360) recently featured a segment on the troubled Guatemalan adoption scene.

Harris Whitbeck and his crew traveled first to Boston to visit Sean and Ellen Darcy. The Darcy's are adoptive parents to a little boy from Guatemala, and prospective adoptive parents to a little girl named Carolina who is still in Guatemala.

Unfortunately, Carolina was one of the babies seized in August raid on Casa Quivera. For details on this raid see Fleasbiting blog entry: Guatemala: Big Picture--The Need to Clean Up International Adoption, Fleasbiting, Friday, 7 Sept 2007 and the article links contained therein.

The CNN AC360 crew traveled to Guatemala to try to understand a little of the Casa Quivera story and the Guatemalan adoption controversy by trying to track down the facts of Carolina's story. What exactly was going on in Guatemalan adoption and as a representative of Guatemalan adoption, at Casa Quivera in particular? Could they better understand it all by tracking the adoption story of Carolina and her birthmother?

The crew first tried to find Carolina's birthmom by going to the address on Carolina's relinquishment papers. They searched for quite awhile and found that there was no such address.

Next they talked to the midwife who supposedly delivered Carolina.

Finally, at an apparent dead end, they simply asked Casa Quivera to produce Carolina's mother so that they could talk to her. Amazingly, Casa Quivera did so.

Trouble is, the woman who was presented to them didn't seem to recognize Carolina's photo and seemed mixed up about the date of birth, where the birth took place, etc.

The crew clearly took note of the fact that Carolina's mother's "translator" was doing far more than simply translating--she was telling Carolina's mother what to say.

"Tell them you were not paid any money for the child. Tell them that you want the baby returned to Casa Quivera."

This was the woman who had supposedly passed the first DNA test? One wonders. No mother forgets the details of any her own labors and births--and certainly not a birth that took place only months ago.

If this was Carolina's mother, was she simply remembering--telling--what she knew, or was she slow to "remember" because she was being careful to be **correct** in her "memories"--the implication being that there were things that should and should not be said. Did she fear what might happen if she gave a "wrong" answer--one that her "translator" didn't like?

Or was this woman in fact, not really the birthmother of Carolina? If she was not, why was she presented as being the birthmother? Would that not be an outright lie for Casa Quivera to produce a woman whom they claimed was Carolina's mother, when she was, in fact, not Carolina's mother? If they would do this for a TV crew, would they do it in other circumstances?

And if this woman in fact WAS Carolina's mother, how did Casa Quivera know where to find? Remember that the address on the papers had proven to be not only incorrect, but in fact, to not exist at all? If her address had changed since the papers were filed or had been recorded incorrectly, why had Casa Quivera not given the correct address to Harris Whitbeck and his crew earlier? And why had the address not been corrected in the files?

It all leaves me wondering whether Casa Quivera offered any proof that this was indeed Carolina's mother or whether AC360 asked for any proof? One wishes that a DNA had been done to prove that the woman before them was indeed the same woman who had shown up for the first DNA test of the adoption process. Or that this woman's DNA had been right matched against Carolina's under the watchful gaze of AC360.

The question also remains--who gave the incorrect and non-existent address that was in the files? Was it, as many might claim, the mother who wanted to protect her anonymity and who didn't want anyone coming to her community to track her down--because of issues of shame? Or was it someone else, who didn't want anyone to be able to follow the trail back to the mom where they might find out more than someone wanted them to find out--where the birthmom and her community might tell all--if there was something to tell--that others wanted hidden?

The answers are not clear. We are left to speculate about all of the above.

No conclusions are drawn in the show--which I think was wise. It would have taken much more in the way of investigation to understand the things that weren't making much sense--perhaps more investigation than AC360 was willing to do.

Leaving things murky is leaving the viewer exactly where things are in Guatemala these days--murky. Truth here. Truth there. But the truths don't add up. Even logically, they are simply contradictory. Where exactly does the truth lie and who exactly will figure it out?

The crew concludes its Guatemalan trip with a visit to a foster home where children who are destined for adoption--if they can get out before the coming train wreck--are housed and cared for. We see an impossible number of healthy babies being cared for by one very calm woman (whom we hope has help) who has her own questions about the facts she's been given about some of the babies in her care.

On her lap she balances two babies that she believes are identical twins, but whose paperwork says differently. The paperwork says they are unrelated children of different parents. The suspected twins will be irrevocably separated the next day when an adoptive family comes to claim one of them. The foster mother is clearly troubled by this. Adoption agencies claim that they do not separate twins. The agencies say these children aren't twins, but she is pretty sure they are.

Once again the viewer is left in a world where truth is murky and lingering doubts trouble. Life moves ahead accepting the official line as truth whatever the real truth might be. She, like all the rest of those watching the events play out in Guatemala, must simply helplessly watch the script--whether real or fictional--play out. She is, in this drama, merely a minor character without the ability to control the plot line.

Watching this video leaves one feeling troubled. We are underwater and visibility is a few inches in front of our faces. Particles and debri float by. Outlines are murky. We can't quite make them out. It looks this way or does it look that way? Whatever is going on, we have the distinct feeling that something is decidedly not right. But we can't make it out clearly. Where are we? Where do we go from here? We are only left to guess.

And what becomes of the babies should adoptions stop processing in the first part of 2008?

Why are many adoption agencies still going forward with their Guatemalan programs--continuing to take new parents and start the process with them? Google Guatemalan adoption and take a look at the programs still operating. Some have closed, but many have not.

I recommend that everyone watch the video, read the accompanying article (both are linked below), and feel the murkiness that is Guatemalan adoption.

Desiree

Video: Guatemala Adoption Controversy",CNN's AC360, 4 October 2007

Article: Guatemala seeks to slow exodus of babies to U.S., CNN.com, 4 October 2007

Like Watching a Train Wreck

The Department of State has issued its strongest warning ever “urging” American citizens not to commence an adoption from Guatemala at this time.

According to the DOS warning, Guatemalan officials have informed the DOS that Guatemala intends to require cases “pending” or filed after December 31, 2007 to meet Hague standards, “even if the adoption procedures commenced before that date.” Guatemalan officials have also informed the DOS that Guatemala will stop processing adoptions to the United States beginning January 1, 2008 until such time that the U.S. accession to the Hague Convention has taken effect.

In turn, the DOS states that there may be a period of time when it will not be able to approve adoptions from Guatemala, until Guatemala becomes Hague compliant.

The DOS notes that some American citizens are already experiencing delays in the Guatemalan adoption process and references the several dozen children at Casa Quivira who were to be adopted by Americans and who were taken into custody by Guatemalan authorities "because of alleged irregularities in the adoption process and concerns about the care of the children." Once again, the DOS warning also cites the current investigations of adoption services providers for Guatemala adoption in the United States. According to the DOS, “prospective adoptive parents face the real possibility that current, pending cases may be disrupted by legal investigations.”

Usha

Department of State Warning on Guatemala Adoptions, September 2007

Guatemala: Big Picture--The Need to Clean Up International Adoption

Time Online "in partnership with with CNN" recently published an article entitled "Cleaning Up International Adoption."

The recent raid of the Guatemalan orphanage Casa Quivera provides the context for a rare and thoughtful exploration of different perspectives on the problems current in Guatemalan adoption, and also, of some of these problems' "bigger picture" causes.

The article begins by describing the recent raid of a Guatemalan orphanage, Casa Quivera, in which the Guatemalan government took custody of 46 infants destined for international adoption in order to scrutinize their paperwork and determine if they had been legally relinquished. The article follows the different ways that this raid is perceived by different parties within Guatemala and the US.

For Carmen de Wenner, Guatemala's Secretary for Social Welfare, the essential thing is to determine if the children were trafficked and if therefore, they are legitimately available for adoption:

"'If these children were bought in the womb,' de Wenner says, 'that is a crime."

For Ana Escobar, a Guatemalan mother whose six month old was stolen from her at gunpoint and who believes that her child was likely conveyed into the thriving international adoption system where the infant could fetch a small fortune for Guatemalan middle men, the raid on Casa Quivera offered hope. At first that hope took the form of hoping that her own beloved Baby Esther was among the children of Casa Quivera; when that hope was dashed, it morphed into a more abstract, political one--a hope for the future safety of fellow Guatemalan families and children.

For Guatemalan citizens, the raid on Casa Quivera represents hope that the Guatemalan government might finally be starting to take serious measures to investigate and control an international adoption trade that many Guatemalan citizens have come to feel threatens in a very real way, their own families' and children's safety.

In Guatemala, where 1 of every 100 children born last year was sold in adoption to Americans, the threat can feel—and be—very real.

So real, in fact, that some Guatemalan citizens are beginning to fight back...

There have been an increasing number of cases, especially in small towns in Guatemala, where suspected child traffickers have been beaten or even killed--by lynching or being burned alive--by angry mobs seeking to protect themselves and their children from becoming victims of the child trade.

"We are not animals to be bought and sold," [Ana Escobar] says, clutching [her stolen baby] Esther's photo.

For American adoption agencies whose posture in this increasingly difficult situation seems to be to deny all wrongdoing and declare that reports of corruption are simply “political” and/or a figment of the imaginations of the ever-present forces of evil—those “anti-adoption” activists who would groundlessly, needlessly and coldly deny homes to worthy orphans around the world and a livelihood to themselves, the Casa Quivera situation has become yet another thorn in the side—a harbinger of the even more troubled days ahead for international adoption from Guatemala.

Although many agencies fear an eventual, serious country-wide Guatemalan slow-down or shut-down, the likes of which have taken place in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, or Nepal, still, American adoption agencies plunge ahead, continuing to do business with Guatemalan adoption attorneys who can supply them with the ever-in-demand-healthy-young-paper-adoptable-infants ….and continuing to offer referrals to American adoptive parents--adoptive parents, who are assured of the fact that they are giving needed homes to the legitimate orphans of Guatemala. Parents who are assured that the reports of corruption are unfounded (and certainly don't involve their own agencies or its suppliers).

De ja vu... I seem to recall similar assurances from our agency before we adopted our stolen children.

"The activity is driven largely by surging US demand. With adoption in the U.S. still a bureaucratic nightmare and with few babies available in distant places like China and Eastern Europe, Guatemala has become an increasingly popular source for U.S. couples. Almost 5,000 babies were adopted last year from [Guatemala, a] nation of 13 million--the world's highest per capita adoption rate--and 95% of them went to the U.S. Since 1990, in fact, more than 25,000 Guatemalan children have been placed in American homes."
--from the Time Online article listed below

Despite agency reassurances, some adoptive parents have already been caught up in corruption related problems in Guatemala. Having already paid their money and accepted their Guatemalan referrals, many have experienced various administrative delays in "bringing their [Guatemalan] children 'home'," as the U.S. and Guatemalan governments have put additional checks and system-wide controls in place to try to stem fraud and corruption.

As for the perspective of adoptive parents caught in the midst of slow-downs---this is the favorite stuff of American media adoption coverage. Parents who have spent their life savings plus more, cast their lots with an agency that promised smooth sailing, became emotionally attached to referred children, and who are now left with empty wallets, empty cribs, empty promises, and broken dreams--the disappointment and heartache of these parents is real and understandable.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, [Ann]Roth had been waiting with her husband David to adopt a boy and a girl from Casa Quivera--but now, after having paid half the $30,000 fee, she finds everything in a precarious state of limbo. "I feel, says Ann, 37, "like someone has kicked me in the stomach ten times."

What has not been so prevalent in the American media and which makes the Time article stand out as different--perhaps a harbinger of change for the American media, in a way similar to the way that Casa Quivera is a harbinger of hope to Guatemalans citizens worried about losing their children--is its willingness to look at:

• the perspective of other international adoption stakeholders, including the Guatemalan people and those who have been the victims of corruption


• the "big picture" reasons for Guatemalan adoption problems
  

Of the "big picture" reasons, Time says this:

[The]feeling, which more and more Guatemalan mothers and adoptive mothers in the U.S., are experiencing these days, reflects the growing awareness that adoption Guatemala is all too often a multi-million-dollar underworld trade. The nation's ill-regulated adoption business, run by private lawyers and notaries, is rife with corruption, including forged paperwork, payoffs to women who agree to hand over their children and, in some cases, newborns stolen from hospitals or mothers' arms, according to the government human rights ombudsman's office. One U.S. couple spent almost two years and $50,000 to find out later that her biological mother "was essentially a baby factory" who had sold many of her eight children to a dealer, says the adoptive father. "It felt dirty, like we were involved in a child brokering deal."

From all accounts, including those of the American government, the Guatemalan adoption trade has indeed become a "dirty" one. Still, American agencies doggedly continue to convey children in adoption from Guatemala to the U.S. even amidst such overwhelming evidence of corruption.

Agencies don't seem to see--or rather, perhaps don't want to see--the bigger picture; remarkably they apparently see nothing but unfounded and irrational fear and anti-adoption hysteria.

"Florida resident Clifford Phillips, who runs Casa Quivera with his Guatemalan wife, insists they're victims of the spreading anti-adoption hysteria and persecution. 'This [this hysteria and persecution] is an injustice that needs to be stopped now.'"

Injustice?

Myopic American agencies apparently accept no responsibility for the climate they've created in Guatemala; for the fact that they and their Guatemalan agents have made Guatemalan children pricey commodities, the procurement of which can make Guatemalan middle men into rich men overnight. Agencies see only individual orphans whom they faithfully believe were legitimately relinquished and who are "in need" of homes. Publicly they "see" only their humanitarian good deeds in "finding" these children homes.

Calls from Guatemalan citizens and Guatemalan government officials for an end to their country, their citizens, and their children being ravaged by the international adoption trade fall on agency ears that hear only meaningless, unfounded "political motivations."

Things will certainly get worse in Guatemala before they get better--for everyone concerned. Already, the US and Guatemala are working on implementation of Hague regulation (due to go into effect on January 1, 2007).

Guatemalan press reports allege that child-traffickers are stepping up their efforts to procure children for international adoption and get them processed before the new regulations take effect.

This alleged step-up in the illegal acquisition of children will doubtless cause more suffering for Guatemalan mothers and families.

According to press reports, reports of the alleged step-up in illegal procurements has already caused Guatemalan citizens to be more aggressive in protecting themselves against child traffickers and has led to more mob violence.

It will doubtless also lead to American adoptive parents being further cautioned to be careful as they travel to and in Guatemala to claim their adoptive children. Already the press has reported that at least one traveling adoptive couple was attacked for their adoptive activities while in Guatemala.

As the governments of both countries clamp down in an effort to convince the citizens of Guatemala that someone is watching, that someone cares, and that it is not simply open season on Guatemalan children, there will doubtless be more orphanage raids and additional layers of administrative procedures to control corruption. It already seems that each new layer is simply another layer to be circumvented; every circumvention needs its own new layer of protection.

These added layers of safeguards will result in more children being caught up in investigations and in more delays in homecomings.

Some safeguards may even result in some children never being permitted to leave Guatemala.

According to some perspectives, this may be a good thing. According to these people, trade in children from Guatemala needs to slow or even come to a stop.

Certainly most would agree that some individual children should not be permitted to leave Guatemala--children like Ana Escobar's Esther.

"I won't give up until I find my daughter, says Escobar. "There are a lot of people who adopt children without really knowing if the mother wanted to give them up or if they were stolen. Without knowing if the mother is suffering."

The real question is, does anyone--adoptive parents looking at their referral photos, adoptive parents gazing on the longed-for child sleeping in their arms, the American agency who has stayed in business another year and been honored for their humanitarian work, the US government that has responded to the demands of a vocal voters that demand that adoption remain open despite problems--ANYONE--care about the grief of a Guatemalan mother?

And if they do care, what are they willing to do about it?

As a mother who has indeed cradled in her arms children stolen from a Third World mother, I say, you'd better hope that you care.

Care or not care, eventually there *will* be a day of reckoning. Guatemalan adoptive children will someday no longer be cuddly infants and toddlers, but a new, very large generation of adult adoptees, full of questions about the reported injustices that brought them to their families. You have but a few years to come up with your answers, for children grow quickly into independent adults.

I hope that your answers are good ones.

There is, in the end, nothing more awful than looking your adoptive son or daughter in the eye and having to give them an accounting for their adoption. (except maybe having to do that with their birthmother from whom they were stolen and who has mourned long years for them)

There are no adequate excuses.

Only apologies and guilt and sorrow for the pain that you, in your ignorance and gullibility, caused another human being.

Desiree

Cleaning Up International Adoption, Time online, 29 Aug 2007

and its reprint at Yahoo News.com:
Cleaning Up International Adoptions, Yahoo! News, 31 Aug 2007

To read fleasbiting blogposts about Guatemalan adoption: Fleasbiting Blogposts about Guatemalan Adoption

Ireland Suspends Adoption From Guatemala Because of Child Trafficking Concerns

The Adoption Authority of Ireland has said that it will no longer permit applications for adoption from Guatemala to Ireland because of serious concerns about the corruption of the Guatemalan adoption process.

Previously approved Guatemala adoption petitions will, however, continue to be honored and those Guatemalan adoptions still-in-process will be allowed to be completed.

This temporary action is based on several stated concerns including the following:

• the lack of a prohibition in Guatemalan law against improper payments at various stages of the adoption process


• lack of a system in Guatemala to accredit adoption service providers


• lack of a Guatemalan central authority to oversee and safeguard the integrity of intercountry adoption process

Guatemala to Ireland adoptions are not yet governed by the Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoptions because neither party has both signed and fully implemented the treaty requirements.

Ireland has signed the Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoption but has yet to ratify and implement it.

Although Guatemala had signed the Hague Treaty, its legal status within Guatemala was questioned in a series of Guatemalan court cases. On May 16, 2007, the Congress of Guatemala clarified Guatemala's status within the Hague and affirmed its intentions to implement it. However, implementation has been slow and Guatemala continues to fall seriously short of the standards of the Hague Treaty.

Desiree

More about Guatemala's status in regard to the Hague Convention

Temporary suspension of adoptions from Guatemala, The Irish Times, 16 August 2007

US DOS: U.S. Embassy in Guatemala Uses DNA Testing to Protect it's Adopted Children

As long as there is a literal fortune to be made supplying the developed world's growing demand for adoptable children, all the safeguards in the world will not stop the criminals.

The more hurdles in place to prevent corruption, the more hurdles jumped....

Sigh.

Time to take away the money incentive...

And time to consider trimming down the demand for adoptable children by making the myth--that there are an almost endless supply of young healthy infants out there needing to be adopted--reflect the reality--that there isn't.

But anyway, that is my thought this day....and below is the US DOS document.

Some of you may remember my recent post about the kidnapped Guatemalan baby. I wondered how those who kidnapped him were going to get around the DNA requirement. The answer must lie in switching one child for another part way through the process. At least, the following announcement from the US DOS would lead one to believe so...

Desiree

U.S. Embassy in Guatemala Uses DNA Testing to Protect it's Adopted Children
August 2, 2007

Effective August 6, 2007, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala will require a second DNA test, to verify that the adopted child for whom an immigrant visa is being requested is the same child matched at the beginning of the adoption process with the birth parent. The Embassy is taking this step in response to concerns about the unregulated adoption process in that country. The Embassy already requires one DNA match between a relinquishing parent and prospective adoptive child as part of the immigrant visa process for Guatemalan children adopted by American citizens. This new procedure will apply to adoption cases finalized by Guatemalan authorities and submitted to the Embassy on or after August 6th.

The United States supports the highest standards of practice in international adoption. Due to concerns about the Guatemalan adoption process, the U.S. government must apply an extraordinary level of scrutiny to adoption cases there. This second DNA test will confirm that the child applying for the visa is the same child originally matched with the birth mother who voluntarily consented to the adoption. The first DNA matching test typically occurs a number of months before the adoption process is completed and the visa is issued.

We support the efforts of the Government of Guatemala to reform its adoption process to meet its obligations as a member of the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. The Hague Permanent Bureau’s international advisory group of experts, including U.S. representatives, are providing technical assistance to the Government of Guatemala as it works toward implementation of a Hague Convention-compliant adoption process.

U.S. Embassy in Guatemala Uses DNA Testing to Protect it's Adopted Children, August 2, 2007

Guatemala: Stolen Baby Rescued

Much US media attention is being paid to the rescue from an orphanage in Guatemala of a two month old child stolen from his Guatemalan family's home last month.

A false birth certificate was found in the orphanage where the child was being held.

Four people--the orphanage director and three orphanage employees--were arrested upon discovery of the child.

It is assumed that this baby was being prepared for illegal adoption, although just how those who were supposedly planning this might have been hoping to dodge the DNA testing requirement and offer him for adoption, remains unclear.

"Our investigations indicate that they were already at the stage of processing the adoption," [assistant chief of criminal investigations for the police] Esquivel said.

However, Guatemala's Attorney General's office, the institution that oversses adoptions, said that so far no application for the baby's adoption either under his real or false name, had yet been found. The baby could have had another fake birth certificate or the suspects may have not yet filed the application."

The multitudenous articles covering this case--as far as I can tell, more than 50 (so many in fact, that I gave up trying to list all the URL's below)--go on to explain the current state of adoption in Guatemala:

The U.S. State Department, citing rampant problems of fraud and extortion, said in March it no longer recommends that Americans adopt children from Guatemala. U.S. officials have said there were frequent cases of birth mothers pressured to sell their babies and adoptive U.S. parents targeted by extortionists.

Guatemalan police rescue stolen baby, Yahoo News, July 18, 2007

Guatemalan Police Rescue Stolen Baby, Forbes.com, July, 18, 2007

Guatemalan Police Rescue Stolen Baby, Newsvine.com, July 18, 2007

Guatemalan Police Rescue Stolen Baby, Washingtonpost.com, July 18, 2007

etc. etc. etc.

(if you want to see them all, google "Guatemala Stolen Baby Rescued)

Desiree

Guatemala: Citizens Outraged by Reports of Baby-Snatching for IA Hold 11 Policemen Hostage

The violence began the week of July 11, 2007 in the jungle town of Sayaxche when Guatemalan citizens, wielding sticks and machetes, and outraged about reports of babies being snatched to be sold for international adoption, apprehended a man and a woman rumored to be running a child trafficking ring.

The man, 45 year old Leopoldo Cahuil, was allegedly beaten to death, and the woman "detained." Roads were blocked and the mayor's house burned.

A week later on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 the citizens, still concerned about newspaper reports of Guatemalan children being snatched to be sold for international adoption again took to the streets in protest.

Eleven police officers were being held hostage by an angry mob of about 3,000 concerned Guatemalan residents.

At least 100 policemen and 125 soldiers had been dispatched in an effort to free the hostages and disperse the angry crowd.

"'Right now, the hostages, who are being held in the town square, are not hurt,' police spokesman Carlos Calju said. Officials are trying to convince the mob to release the the police officers in exchange for four men who were arrested for the alleged murder [of the suspected child trafficker].

'If not, we will take them out by force,' Calju said."

--quote from WashingtonPost.com

This community is not the only one to erupt into violence at the perceived threat of child traffickers preying on the families and children in Guatemalan communities:

"Several [Guatemalan] communities have attacked suspected [child-trafficking] culprits, sometimes beating and burning them alive."

--quote from WashingtonPost.com

Angry Villagers Hold 11 Police Hostage in Guatemala, WashingtonPost.com, July 18,2007

Desiree

Guatemala: Baby Farming

Martha lives in Guatemala.

She is a 14 year old unwed mother who lives in a house for unwed mothers.

Sometime in the last year, Martha gave up her baby up for adoption.

If you adopted a young infant from Guatemala in the last year and were told that your child was given up for adoption by an unmarried teen, Martha or one of her unwed housemates could possibly be the birthmother of your son or daughter.

If you think that you understand something of Martha's story based on the above description...think again. It is NOT what you think.

Martha's story is the not the archetypal story of a teenager who became pregnant by accident.

In fact, Martha doesn't even have a boyfriend.

And no, her pregancy can't be blamed on a failed teen marriage.

Nor was Martha pregnant by a violent act--not by rape or even incest.

Martha was, in fact, even at age 13, pregnant by design. And before she ever became pregnant, she understood that she would not keep her baby. Her firstborn son or daughter, would have to be surrendered for adoption.

Martha knew that once she had given birth, she would likely never see her child again.

Two years ago when she was 12, Martha's father was approached by a man who came to their slum in a car.

For what it's worth, you should know that Martha's father is a man who works very hard--back-breakingly hard--and long hours on a nearby coffee plantation in order to try to support his family. Unfortunately, however, Martha's father's hard work falls woefully short of supporting his family. This is because he earns very low wages--wages so low that they have his family living in a cardboard box, wages so low that he has watched six of Martha's eleven siblings die from starvation and the related ravages of severe and grinding poverty. Martha's family's poverty dogs them like a lion guarding its prey. It is always there, watching them, lying in wait until the right moment--and then one by one, it leaps forward and devours them.

Anyway, this man in a car offered to take Martha away to live with him and his wife in their little house. It wouldn't be just the three of them, but Martha and the man and his wife would be living with several other young teen-aged girls. Martha would be looked after and be well fed. In terms of manual labor, Martha's work load would be light--she would be given household tasks like caring for the couple's garden and doing their and the other girls' laundry. However, the financially valuable work that Martha would be doing--the work for which this man in the car was willing to pay Martha's father-- would be unseen, showing only over the months as her belly grew to bulging proportions.

And if and when Martha succeeded in producing and successfully giving birth to a live, healthy baby, then the man in the car, would then pay Martha's father $300--the equivalent of a year's salary (at his coffee plantation wages). In fact, Martha could continue to live with this man for several years, producing babies, one after another. There would be money for Martha's father for every baby that Martha produced.

This kind of parental "choice"--the choice between helplessly watching all your children continue be in grave danger of dying or betraying one of them to possibly save the lives of the other(s)--is the kind of hellish choice that a movie called Sofie's Choice made famous.

Here it was in Martha's father's face.

What should he do? Should he prostitute out his 12 year old daughter to be a kind of brood mare for the adoption industry? Should be arrange to have his own grandchildren created and sold off like farm animals in an attempt to save his own remaining six children from dying from the ravages of poverty?

Or should he take the moral high ground and risk having his children--including Martha--die of starvation?

It was a Sophie's Choice, and in the end, like the tortured Sophie, he chose to gamble one child away to save the others.

What could he do but say yes?

And so, there it was. Martha's father said yes.

Martha was taken away at 12 years of age. A man whom she didn't know came shortly thereafter and impregnated her. Martha's valuable work happened over the months that followed as she lived in the little house with the man who had come in the car, the man's wife, and six other young teen girls. Those six other girls are also doing the same valuable work as Martha.

I guess it is what you call a home business. A clever way to keep a man and his wife and the families of the girls who do this valuable work for them, out of completely abject poverty.

A "cottage industry" for the new millenium.

A realistic business for the brave new world where the right to nurture a child from infancy through adulthood--the privilege of becoming a child's forever family--is worth thousands of dollars--a literal fortune by the time you take account of exchange rates in poor countries--on the world market.

A business for the global economy that finds and supplies whatever the global market demands without regard to local ecology, local suffering, or theoretical and unseen things like human rights and human decency.

In a world where adoption angels abound....the Martha's of the world simply do not exist. Period. End of story.

In regard to this particular example of the cottage industry, to save money and keep out of trouble (doctors can ask pesky questions sometimes), the girls are not provided with prenatal care. Neither are doctors or midwives provided when it comes time for the girls to give birth; in Martha's home, the man and his wife are the ones who assist with the girls' births.

Of course, there is a sometimes a high cost for do-it-yourself medical care. One of the girls recently died in childbirth.

I guess that death got Martha a little worried, because she secretly (against the rules) wandered into a nearby doctor's clinic, a humanitarian clinic operated by a US physician, to ask for some minimal prenatal care and some prenatal vitamins.

Which is how the outside world began to get the first real clue that she and this presumed cottage industry exist in Guatemala. How many Martha's and how many of these "cottage industries" churning out human children for adoption exist or don't exist is anyone's guess. The numbers may be large or small. Those who know about such things aren't talking about them.

The doctor that she approached became so disturbed at Martha's situation and her story that he decided to do something about it. He decided to start by telling someone local whom he trusted. He got nowhere with that. In fact, he was instead warned that he should drop it because frankly, no one cares and those who care, care because they are (literally) *invested* in seeing the practice continue. It might be dangerous to him to pursue justice.

The doctor was disturbed enough to be brave and take his knowledge to others--to human rights groups in both Guatemala and in the US. To his horror, no one seemed to care about the exploitation of Martha and her housemates. Well known human rights groups simply said the equivalent of SO WHAT??

The doctor wrote up an account of what he found and it was published on the last page of the newsletter for a non-profit group which works to better the lives of Guatemalan children through education.

The doctor's account is a plea for someone, somewhere to care about Martha and her friends and family and their situation.

It is a plea for the human community to care about Martha's exploitation as a human baby machine activated to keep her family from starving to death.

It is a plea for justice and human decency.

I write this account of his account because I think that is time for the world and the adoption community to be aware of the voiceless Martha's and Martha's fathers of the world.

As American adoption agencies scramble to assure prospective adoptive parents that Guatemala, a country that places more children per capita for international adoption than any other country in the world and thus has a $150,000,000 a year adoption industry to show for it--is not nearly as ethically risky a place from which to adopt as the US DOS states that it is (see my blog entry of March 15,2007 , "US DOS Issues Notice About Guatemalan Adoption"), the question is....is it?

Is Guatemala simply a country, that, for whatever reason, is so chock full of healthy young orphans in need of homes so that it is, with the help of an agency and a Guatemalan attorney, a prospective adoptive parent's dream come true?

Or is it a place where prospective parents, with their expendable $$$, have come to expect to find healthy, young baby orphans, and so there are those in Guatemala who are consequently continuing "to find" healthy, young baby orphans?

NOTE: I do not mean to imply that Guatemala produces no legitimate orphans, I am merely questioning their continuing goodly supply of orphans. And asking the world and us adoptive parents to start demanded answers. Investigations. Whatever it takes to ensure that we aren't receiving our adoptable babies on the backs of the Martha's of the world.

When the adoption of a single Guatemalan child involves up to $30,000 (the equivalent of more than a lifetime of wages for those who are producing the children), and a country is filled with poor people eaking out a living on $300 a year, could there maybe be some real incentive for corruption in adoption. And where there is that kind of incentive for corruption, is it reasonable to believe that it doesn't exist and it isn't gobbling up girls like Martha?

Desiree

GSSG News, Volume IV, Number 1, March 2006

Guatemala: Children Kidnapped from Orphanage/Some Returned

According to news reports, armed kidnappers forced their way into a Guatemalan orphanage in Guatemala City in the middle of the night on Sunday, March 11 and abducted five of the orphanage's youngest children.

The children were presumed to have been kidnapped in order to be sold on the black market.

Don't know if it means anything, but the kidnappings took place the day before US President George Bush was to arrive in Guatemala City.

Among the children stolen was a baby (M) with a cleft palate, whom an American couple, had "nearly finished adopting." The couple had spent several days with her on several different trips and had been expecting final clearance on the adoption "any day now."

Concerned that the child might not be adoptable on the black market because of her condition (which the kidnappers may not have noticed during the nighttime abduction), M's prospective parents were especially worried about what might become of her.

Being told that:

"...no children stolen by black-market adoption brokers in Guatemala had ever been recovered"

...only added to their worries.

Therefore, it was with much relief and surprise that they learned that M and two others of the five abducted children, were returned to the orphanage two days later--again, in the middle of the night.

"That three of the children were returned so quickly after being kidnapped, 'is very unusual,' said Audrey Leonard, director of international adoptions at The Family Network, "But we still have two children missing."

The US State Department has reportedly confirmed the kidnapping and confirmed that three of the kidnapped children have been returned. However, confidentiality policies have prevented them from giving any details of the events, any details about the orphanage involved, or details about the children themselves.

Details about the kidnappings have not been available anywhere in the press. Indeed the only general news source that seems to have covered the kidnappings is the local newspaper in M's prospective parents' hometown.

Lock those doors, post those armed guards. Human children are now as valuable as gold or cash in the markets of the world.

A 2 A.M. Call Brings News of Kidnapping To Adoptive Couple, The Oregonian, 03/14/07

Two Days of Agony Over Reportedly Kidnapped Girl End: 'She's OK,' 03/15/07

Desiree

US DOS Issues Notice About Guatemalan Adoption

The US Department of State has just posted this notice about adoption from Guatemala on its website. The notice is quoted in its entirety below.

US Department of State, Notice of March 14, 2007:
Frequently Asked Questions: Prospective Adoptive Parents
of Guatemalan Children

1.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.


2.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.


3.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.


4.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.


5.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.

6.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.

7.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.

8.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.