[sak9645]

Although I am not a Guatemala parent, I am upset about the article, too.

Yes, a lot of kids are being adopted from Guatemala. But look at the facts about the country.

Guatemala has a very, very high birth rate, especially among the indigenous ("Indian") population. No one is paying birthmothers to conceive children. They are having lots of children because they often lack education about reproduction, because marrying young and having lots of children is the norm in their culture, and because birth control is viewed negatively, both by their religious leaders and by their spouses.

The indigenous women are often desperately poor. They may not speak Spanish; their language is often derived from ancient Mayan languages. Often illiterate in any language, or with just a grammar school education, they and the fathers of their children cannot get good jobs. The women, if they are lucky, wind up doing domestic work; the men wind up doing manual labor, if they can find work at all. The men often do not help with child care, and a young woman with six or eight children often winds up shouldering the whole burden of their care.

The earnings of these people do not allow them to support the housefuls of children they may have by age 30. Placing their children for adoption is often the only way that they can guarantee that their children will have enough to eat. They don't need to be bribed to give up their children; they know that they have no money for food, medicine, and such. They don't want to see the children die.

Certainly, it would be wonderful if the indigenous women could be helped to get an education, and to get good jobs, so that they can support their children. Certainly, it would be wonderful if the indigenous women could be taught about reproduction and contraception, and could be empowered to tell their boyfriends and husbands that they must use condoms, because they can't afford to raise more children. But these kinds of changes aren't going to happen any time soon. Even if there were organizations trying to do these things, cultural change happens very slowly.

It would also be wonderful if a woman who had to place a child for adoption could place that child with a domestic family. But the fact is that it isn't going to happen, in most cases. Guatemala is sharply divided between "haves", who are largely of European origin, and "have nots", who are largely of the indigenous population. The light skinned Guatemalans of European heritage simply do not want to adopt the dark skinned indigenous babies, even if they support adoption. And many Guatemalans, like people in many cultures around the world, won't adopt any child, because they believe in the importance of the "blood tie."

Again, it would be great if the leaders of Guatemala would advocate for cultural change, so that well to do Guatemalans would want to adopt. However, even if they had this mind set, which they do not, it could take decades till meaningful numbers of domestic adoptions began to occur.

The bottom line is that, unless foreigners are allowed to adopt, Guatemalan children who cannot be supported by their birthparents will wind up living on the streets, or dying of malnutrition and other issues. And, in fact, we know that plenty of Guatemalan kids are already living on the streets -- immersed in a culture of theft, prostitution, violence, drugs, and so on. These are the kids who WEREN'T adopted. Contrast them with the children who WERE adopted overseas -- kids who are able to go to school, have loving families, have enough to eat, have the prospect of good jobs when they are older, and so on. Which option, pray tell, is better? I think the answer is clear.

Certainly, wherever there is misfortune, there are people who try to take advantage of that misfortune for personal gain. There are undoubtedly people who buy and steal babies from birthmothers, then try to sell them to the highest bidder. And there are undoubtedly people who prey on the desperation of infertile couples in the U.S. and other countries, offering them illegally acquired children for enormous fees.

But the U.S. government and the Guatemalan government have worked fairly aggressively to reduce the likelihood that such people will succeed in their nefarious schemes. As an example, the Guatemalan government requires birthmothers to sign relinquishment papers on four separate occasions, giving them ample opportunity to change their minds about adoption. And the U.S. Embassy requires DNA testing of the children and the putative birthmothers, to ensure that the women relinquishing the babies are, in fact, the actual birthmothers, and not folks who have stolen children.

Certainly, more could be done. If Guatemala would make a good faith effort to implement Hague Convention #33, which it ratified, it would be of some help. And if organizations like UNICEF, instead of trying to prevent adoptions, would focus on SUPPORTING ETHICAL INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION, that would go even farther to help the country.

Wishful thinking isn't going to solve Guatemala's problems. The fact is that the country has a problem with too many children who can't be supported by their families. That problem is not going to be addressed by banning international adoption. It should be addressed, short term, by doing everything possible to get rid of the unscrupulous lawyers and facilitators, and to promote international adoption conducted in a highly ethical manner. And, of course, longer term, it should be addressed through efforts to improve the wellbeing of the country's indigenous population.

Sharon