[StefB]

How many of you woke up to a horrible Associated Press article in your local papers this morning? A neighbor has already clarified with me that, yes, I'm adopting from Guatemala, and that he feels sorry for me. How do we live with this shadow over what should be joyous, and what we went into with pure hearts?

Stefanie

[aleandgreysmama]

I woke up to the same thing including a phone call from a friend. It really does taint the feel of joy, that's for sure. I also can't help thinking about the time that our daughter maybe will do research about the time she was born and come across this. How do you handle that? I just don't have any answers yet, and it makes me sad.

[gwenrenee007]

I know where you guys are coming from. It wasn't an article in our local paper, but a segment on our local news. When I went to work on Monday I was bombarded by 4 people (almost before 8 am and my coffee) saying that they saw this segment. It said that we are basically "buying" our babies. The birth mother's just have babies to place them for adoption. They even said it was a supply and demand issue, like our children are an export. UGHHH!!! I was very defensive and try to educate them, but I am not sure that it got through. It is very hard because we aren't "buying" our babies we are paying for attorney services.

Anyway this is hard, but lets not let this get to us because we know that the media never really reports the truth when it comes to any adoption.

[joepegcamp]

Good grief. This is ridiculous.

I now must spend my Saturday writing something for the blog we set up for family. My mother will just die if she sees this. She's so excited for us and I don't want anything to diminish the love and hope they have for the child we're adopting.

The best thing we can do is to write letters to the editor of all the papers that run this story.

We also must remember that this will blow over. When our children are old enough to ask questions about how our families came to be, "corruption" won't even be on the list.

And as far as what people say to you in the weeks of turmoil, just say:

"This is a child. Not a commodity. And this child deserves to become the person God intends him to be without any preconcieved notions."

And then just walk away. Let's get the attention off of possible corruption and back to the child -- where it belongs.

[SKL]

I saw the AP story on the news Website I read last night. I assume it's the same one. It had more of the thoughtless, inflammatory language than some of the other stories we've been seeing lately.

We have to have a plan for dealing with this in the short run (answering questions asked by friends / coworkers / families) and in the long run (when our children become aware of the controversy).

Here's my plan at the moment:

1) Download copies of all the positive stuff that does a great job of countering these negative, uninformed stories - Q&A from ADA, that US adoption assoiation's response to the US DOS' negative Q&A, families without borders' response to UNICEF's charges, and even the detailed Guatemalan adoption process laid out on the USCIS Web page (the US government's own statements regarding governmental oversight contradict each other greatly). This information is for my children when they are old enough to understand. But it can also be used to counter any immediate attacks that might deserve a response.

2) Keep my family and close friends very informed of the Guatemalan climate, the law change proposals and the reasons for them, the motives behind UNICEF's attacks, the real facts of the process, and the extremeness of the news stories that keep coming out. That way, when they see something negative, they will know to take it with a grain of salt, or ask me what the real truth is.

3) For others who may ask me about this, my current plan is to tell them:

(a) These stories are sensationalist just like most news stories on the major networks. Don't believe everything you hear.

(b) Yes, we know there are some cases of problems in Guatemala, but nothing that doesn't also happen here in the US.

(c) There is much more government oversight in Guatemalan-to-US adoptions than in US domestic adoptions. Some people have waited over a year while the government is reviewing their cases. If it were true that the attorney / notary I hired handled the whole adoption without government oversight, I could have had my children home already, instead of waiting several more months.

(d) There are safeguards such as DNA testing, birth mother interviews, and four sign-offs by the birth mother, that prevent the vast majority of the alleged problems. I have documents to prove that these safeguards have been applied to my case.

(e) The laws are currently being changed to further reduce these problems, and I have been closely following and supporting these changes that protect the birth mothers and children.

(f) Of course I would never take part in an action that stripped a mother of her child just so that I could have the happiness that she is denied. I and my agency are watching these matters closely and making sure that my adoptions are carried out legally.


(g) The reason so many Guatemalan children are available for international adoption is that Guatemala is a poor and conservative country; the Guatemalan government provides no relief for destitute women, children, or orphans; and prosperous Guatemalans don't want to adopt indigenous children. The immediate alternative to international adoption is deeper poverty, institutionalization, illiteracy, and possibly death for these children.

[CurlysGirly]

It was in our paper today too and my mom called me bright and early all upset. She was reading it to me because she thought that I did not know what was going on. I told her that I did but didn't share it with her because I did not want her to worry. I also reminded her how "news" can be sensationalized. Great

[Mindybeth6]

It was in our Canton Repository and as usual, I have already wrote a letter to the editor. I always do this and they always post my letters. I am sick of it and I am tired of having to defend my adoption to people who don't know any better then what they read in a one-sided article. I am looking out for us...HEY...maybe I will invite the paper to come to our luncheon next week. Maybe seeing these beautiful children with their families will make them print a GOOD article. I may do that....hmmmmmm. Think they would come???? Probably not but it;s worth a try and I am willing to do whatever to put some POSITIVE light on this situation.
Hugs

[Pipercub]

Wait, what story are we talking about? There was one written by David Crary in my paper that I thought did a GREAT job of explaining the situation (statement the State Department made) and the valid concerns of adopting parents and adoption advocates. We can't change that the State Department has announced that they don't recommend adopting from Guatemala- they did. Everything quoted comes from the Department of State - and the author did a wonderful thing by interviewing and quoting a source who is pointing out why they disagree with what the Dept of State has done. Maybe I am not reading the same story? I was plesantly surprised at how well the one I read was written. It was nice, for once, to have some sources quoted who stated the Department of State's actions seemed inflammatory and question how the State Department's actions will affect children in Guatemala. This is good! This is the one I read:

Written By David Crary/AP
NEW YORK — Citing rampant problems of fraud and extortion, the State Department says it no longer recommends that Americans adopt children from Guatemala — the No. 2 source of orphans coming to the United States.

Some adoption officials are outraged, calling the move a de facto suspension and an overreaction that will cause more harm than good, leaving hundreds of children stranded in Guatemalan foster homes.

"It's inflammatory, it's insensitive to people's feelings," Thomas Atwood, president of the National Council for Adoption, said Friday. "People all across the country in the process of adopting from Guatemala are frightened right now."

Adoptions from Guatemala are popular because of relatively swift procedures and have increased steadily in recent years, reaching 4,135 in 2006 — second only to China. Yet U.S. officials have pressed Guatemala for anti-corruption reforms, saying there were frequent cases of birth mothers pressured to sell their babies and adoptive American parents targeted by extortionists.

This week, the State Department issued a new, detailed advisory saying, "We cannot recommend adoption from Guatemala at this time. ... There are serious problems with the adoption process in Guatemala, which does not protect all children, birth mothers, or prospective adoptive parents."

The advisory stopped short of imposing a ban on adoptions from Guatemala, but said cases would be scrutinized more closely than before and reviews would take longer.

"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 lifelong consequences," the advisory said. "When you decide whether to move forward with adoption in Guatemala, you should consider factors beyond timing."

Atwood said the advisory amounted to a "de facto suspension."

"What parent now is going to enter an adoption program for Guatemala?" he asked. "What's going to happen to 2,000 kids waiting in foster care there?"

Atwood said his council, one of the nation's largest adoption advocacy groups, shared the State Department's concerns about Guatemala, but wanted to continue adoptions to the U.S. while encouraging in-the-works reforms. Pending proposals would create a central authority in Guatemala to tighten regulation of an adoption industry long dominated by notaries who function as baby brokers.

"We ought to give the reform process time to work," Atwood said. "For the children's sake, with appropriate added scrutiny, let's get as many of them adopted as we can."

Catherine Barry, deputy assistant secretary of state for overseas citizens services, said the State Department had not given up on the prospect of reforms in Guatemala and would continue to review — with extra scrutiny — adoption cases already in the pipeline.

But for parents just considering an adoption from Guatemala, the message should be clear, Berry said.

"If you're at a preliminary stage talking to adoption agencies, then we think you can draw the fair conclusion not to start a new application," she said in a telephone interview.

The notary system was one of the major problems cited by the State Department; it said these officials often have conflicts of interest and are poorly regulated. The notaries recruit birth mothers, handle paperwork and often complete proceedings in less than half the time it takes in other countries.

"The U.S. Government is concerned that social services to birth mothers are extremely limited (in Guatemala) and that their consents may have been induced by money or threats," the advisory said. "Monetary incentives and high fees drive completion of the adoption process more than protecting the children."

Americans adopted 20,679 children from abroad in 2006, including 6,493 from China — where authorities have proposed tighter restrictions on overseas adoptions. Russia and South Korea currently trail Guatemala as the No. 3 and No. 4 sources of adopted children; some experts expect a surge in adoptions from Africa and Southeast Asia.

Among the parents alarmed by the State Department advisory was Kellie Porter, a single woman in Atlanta who has already traveled to a Guatemalan foster home to meet the 6-month-old girl she hopes to adopt.

"I have not experienced any of the problems they're talking about," she said of the State Department advisory. "Everything has been very transparent."

She now worries her planned adoption will be delayed or rejected.

"I'm fearful for my daughter's future," Porter said. "If her adoption is not finalized, she's going to end up in an institution or on the street."

Pressure for reform in Guatemala has been mounting because of a pact called the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, which is to be ratified in the United States later this year. The U.S. will then require all foreign adoptions to meet the tougher standards demanded by the pact, which Guatemala ratified in 2003 but has yet to implement.

Already, several countries that observe the Hague Convention have stopped adoptions from Guatemala.

In its advisory, the State Department addressed the argument that some U.S. adoption agencies perform honorably in Guatemala.

"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," the advisory said.

[airstar98]

My family in California got a message to me this morning about this. I've looked online for the article but could not find it. I think it comes from Palm Springs. I'd like to read it. Does anyone know how to find it?

[Gabri]

I also didn't find it this morning.. there was another postitive article (already mentioned) and a press release from the Joint Council that our agency forwarded. I'm guessing Detroit didn't pick it up or else all the grandparents would have called already. Last week I did a lot of PR on our blog and at the office as well after some news last week. Hoping to not go through that again.

[SKL]

The article posted by Pipercub is the one I read.

I considered the article very negative because it implies that nearly all adoption cases involve coersion, extortion, and adoptive parents who are willing to accept all the bad practices just to get a short adoption time frame. The comments quoted in response mostly said it was bad that Americans were being scared, not that the extremely negative statements were not true of the vast majority of adoptions. Even the way they say the DOS is not recommending Guatemalan adoptions (setting the tone for the whole article) is more negative than the actual DOS statement taken as a whole - which was already too extreme in my opinion.

[Pipercub]

That is exactly what the Department of State said. ??Anyone who has not accepted a referral, they are recommending not to adopt from Guatemala. The article does not state that all Guatemala adoptions involve coersion, extortion; it states that the Department of State has concerns about this. It does not say that adoptive parents who are willing to accept all the bad practices just to get a short adoption time frame; it says "Guatemala are popular because of relatively swift procedures." The process IS typcially fast (even with PGN delays - Adoptions from China are taking 2+ years and may go up to 3!) and as such this (and other reasons like private foster care) ARE reasons many families have chosen Guatemala. There is no denying how popular adoptions from Guatemala had become. The numbers have skyrocketed over the last six years.

I really think this writer got it right. The Department of State's latest comments are very negative. I am very unhappy with the DOS statement. This is a HUGE shift in what the DOS has told us in the past - and as such, it is news. But reporting negative news doesn't make an article negative. It was terrific that the writer took steps to get an adoptive parent's reaction and the reaction of an adoption advocacy council. It's not going to be a feel-good story; DOS made some really inflammatory comments. But at least the inflammatory comments were credited to the right party. I think this is a case of "Don't shoot the messenger!" Be upset with the DOS. It's rotten the way they worded things. I'm upset about that too. But this guy just reported what the DOS said. It wouldn't be right to censor the DOS message just because we don't like it.

Oh well...guess we all read things differently.

Respectfully,

<3
Piper

[sld]

I just got off the phone with my mom who at times is like the character Debbie Downer from SNL.. She wants to make sure that I call my agency to let them know of the story in the paper. She asked do you think they know about this? After I hung up, I had a good laugh.

[StefB]

Hi Piper,

I'm glad you posted the article, because my paper cut it right after, "what's going to happen to 2,000 kids waiting in foster care." Also the headline and subheading were: "Guatemalan adoptions faulted" and "State Department promises scrutiny of process it calls corrupt". So you can see a couple of the statements that balanced the article you read were absent in mine. After I read it, I felt that my baby and I were going to be wearing scarlet letter G's for the rest of our lives.

Stefanie

[SKL]

Maybe it's my reading comprehension or biased attitude, but what I recall from the DOS statement is that, in response to a hypothetical questions, they said "we cannot recommend that you do" something. But this is not the same as saying "we recommend that you do not" do something, as was stated by someone that today's article quoted (if I remember right).

To me, the "we cannot recommend" is more of a CYA "don't blame me, it wasn't my idea" kind of statement. Not "we think nobody should do this." It was actually warranted since prospective adoptive parents who are still weighing the pros and cons of Guatemala adoptions should be aware that the upcoming law changes do make the process unpredictable. It was other parts of the DOS statement that upset me more.

I agree, it's all in my interpretation, so I could be completely wrong.

But if the article was really positive, I don't think all the above posters would be getting the calls they are getting from family and friends.