[calikismet]

I am going to start by saying that I am simply repeating what I have been told firsthand by the Dept of State, as well as the Joint Council (JCICS). If you disagree with me, please don't take it out on me...

As some of you may know, I am an immigration attorney, and my work includes international adoption. About a month ago, I posted a summary of the Hague (and the US' passage of that) that I can link if anyone wants me to.

As a part of my work, I consult an agency that does Guat adoptions. One burning question is how the US' recent passage of the Hague Convention (HC) will impact Guat adoptions. I have done lots of research, and kept getting differing reports, positions, etc.

So I decided to go straight for the horse's mouth with the Dept of State and the Joint Council. Here is what I have been told.

As many know, Guatemala acceeded to the HC in 2002. A challenge was immediately put before the Supreme Court in Guat, and the eventual ruling was that the method of accession was improper, and was thus against the constitution of Guatemala. Many here remember the near total stoppage of adoptions during that time.

Until now, this has never been an issue again. However, in Feb, the US finaly signed on to the Hague. Again, there are a myriad of changes, but most principally, it will demand that any adoptions which occur between 2 HC countries must be done only by an accredited agency (the actual process of acceditation is a work in progress), and has all sorts of other safety nets, aimed at the protection of the kiddos. If the adoption is between a HC country and a non-HC country, no changes will be affected.

So now the odd news:

The US considers Guatemala to be a HC country. Note that Guat is a non-member HC country, as they are not members of the Hague's permanent board. BUT, in the eyes of the US, Guat is a HC country. The Dept of State said last week that it did not recognize the "constitutional challenge," as that only pertained to domestic law, not internatonal law. The US seems to feel that the actual logistics of HOW the HC was aeceeded makes no difference in determining whether the country is a signatory to the HC.

However, the Dept of State also said in the very same breath that the adoption procedures in Guatemala were NOT in compliance with the HC. In short, this means that the US questions the procedures and safety nets.

So this presents an interesting problem: if the US considers Guat to be a HC country, then it will demand that any adoptions that occur after the effective date (which is slated, presently, to be January 1, 2007) MUST comply with the HC. However, at the present time, Guatemala does not comply.

The Joint Council has confirmed that is indeed the US' view.

The Joint Council as well as the Dept of State are presently encouraging Guatemala to allign itself with the Hague regs. Form a central authorization, etc. Guatemala does not seem so inclined to act.

The Joint Council confirmed to me that they do not believe that the US will halt adoptions with Guatamala -- and the Dept of State also stopped short of making that suggestion. BUT, it seems that problems may be ahead on the horizon if no one steps up and makes some decisions.

There is very little anyone can do about this now.. it is a bit of a wait and see. But I would encourage you all to remain in contact with your agencies and ask them about this -- press them on the Dept of State's position. I know that agencies are prone to say that Guat is not a HC country. But last week's public forum by the Dept of State seems to say otherwise, at least as far as the US is concerned.

It is my hope that I can provide this info and have everyone go back to their agencies with questions. I plan to attend the JCICS annual conference next month and there are 2 panels on the Hague, as well as an open meeting with the Dept of State. Hopefully I will come away from THAT meeting with more clarity.

[candkss]

Thank you for your post keep us informed!

[caltaylor]

bump bump bump

[calikismet]

BTW, I just realized that this is not new news here... it was on GuatAdopt.com, as well as mentioned under the thread about a letter writing campaign to UNICEF. Sorry for the repeat news, then!

[brink]

Thanks for your clear explanation, if any of this can be very clear at this point.

[kelleymac]

I would second asking agencies (or potential agencies) about this issue. We just received word from our agency (the one we used for our son's adoption) about their take on this issue and further information.

Kelley

[LMG]

Thank you for posting this. It is news to me. I hadn't seen this or heard about this yet.

[jennandsteve]

Does anyone have additional info on whether cases would be grandfathered in etc. I read Kevin's post but just wonder if you heard anything about that Kalikismet?

I think we will be done, at least I hope, but I have some friends who plan on starting adoption number 2 this summer so are wondering if they should speed up the process...

[gdbe]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why doesn't Guatemala just officially withdraw, if they donot want to be part of the Hague. From some of the reading I have done, it seems that they need to put it in writing, but haven't yet done so???


Gail

[calikismet]

Originally Posted by jennandsteve

Does anyone have additional info on whether cases would be grandfathered in etc. I read Kevin's post but just wonder if you heard anything about that Kalikismet?

We can likely only go off of precedence. Countries like Romania, Republic of Georgia, and Ukraine suspended/ shut down adoptions from within - meaning that those countries decided to halt them. However, the US was the main factor in terminating adoptions from Cambodia and Vietnam: we felt that baby selling was going on. However, the US grandfathered a number of adoptions that had reached certain points. I am not certain of what that determined point was, but I do know that the US allowed a certain number to complete before halting everything completely.

I can thus only assume that the US would do the same for Guatemala. I do not know what that cut-off point would be, though ... in my opinion, I do not agree with GuatAdopt that it would be the I-171H, as that simply states that Mr. and Mrs. American are suitable parents for an international child. However, it may be something like PA at the Embassy, DNA, etc... something well short of actual completion of the adoption.

[calikismet]

Originally Posted by gdbe

Maybe I'm missing something, but why doesn't Guatemala just officially withdraw, if they donot want to be part of the Hague. From some of the reading I have done, it seems that they need to put it in writing, but haven't yet done so???


Gail

I agree - that would the easiest solution. However, in reading the HC website, a withdrawal requires a formal presentation of the withdrawal, acceptance, then a 1-year waiting period. In other words, the withdrawal become effective 1 year after being presented. Guatmala has not yet written and presented that letter -- they simply stated publically in 2003 that the passage of the HC was done in violation of the Guat constitution. But as I said above, the US considers that to be a domestic issue, and thus not relevant until and unless Guatemala formally withdraws according to HC regs.

Guatamala needs to go down one of 2 clear paths:

formal withdrawal from the HC, OR
modification of adoption procedures to fall in line with the HC

[kelleymac]

Originally Posted by calikismet

W.

I can thus only assume that the US would do the same for Guatemala. I do not know what that cut-off point would be, though ... in my opinion, I do not agree with GuatAdopt that it would be the I-171H, as that simply states that Mr. and Mrs. American are suitable parents for an international child. However, it may be something like PA at the Embassy, DNA, etc... something well short of actual completion of the adoption.

Our agency is saying from prelim information from the state dept that adoptions would be gradfathered from postmark date of the I-600A, just an FYI.

[erinberry]

Thank you for posting this - I will look forward to your updates.

[calikismet]

Originally Posted by kelleymac

Our agency is saying from prelim information from the state dept that adoptions would be gradfathered from postmark date of the I-600A, just an FYI.

That is great news!! I am very happy to hear that they would include that as the cut-off date. That should give famiies plenty of time to make decisions to move forward.

[Jett's Mama]

Thank you for your post.