Birthday photos of Antonia Cubillas' children suggest better days, before the desperate Guatemalan woman sold five of her ten children into adoption.

Banana Republic to Baby Republic

Guatemala could shut down its massive adoption industry

BY Jacob Wheeler

On any given day in Antigua, a touristy colonial town in Guatemala, as many as a dozen American couples can be seen lounging with their soon-to-be-adopted Mayan children in the Parque Central or dining nearby in posh restaurants.

The couples enjoy the leisurely Latin American lifestyle–constant spring-like temperatures, drooping bougainvillea plumage and stunning views of Volcán de Agua to the south. But lately, fear has set in among the Guatemalan adoption industry. The Guatemalan government is threatening to wrestle control of adoption away from the private sector and either slow it to a crawl or shut it down completely.

Last year, at fancy Antigua hotels or in the lobby of the Marriott in Guatemala City’s upscale Zona 9, Guatemalan foster mothers or adoption attorneys passed many of the 4,135 babies adopted from this country into the eager arms of teary-eyed couples from El Norte. In other words, one percent of all babies born in Guatemala in 2006 ended up in American cribs.

Guatemala is the only Latin American country that doesn’t exercise stringent state control over international adoptions. Adoptions there fall under the notary system, which means they are essentially privatized and run by attorneys who, critics claim, traffic in impoverished, malnourished and sometimes stolen babies.

Adoptive parents can spend approximately $25,000 to $30,000 to adopt from Guatemala, and most of them leave days or weeks later with their little ones cradled in their arms, and with no questions asked as to how the attorneys acquired their babies.

But this trade in babies could soon be shut down. Led by outgoing First Lady Wendy Berger, an American-educated aristocrat, many in the Guatemalan government view the current adoption system as a baby-selling industry, in which unscrupulous lawyers recruit, coerce and bribe desperate women into giving up their infants. These lawyers often make tens of thousands of dollars “selling” them to American couples.

Berger’s concern is shared by UNICEF, which believes that abandoned or orphaned children should remain in their villages with extended family members or be adopted by other Guatemalans. UNICEF views international adoption as an unfavorable last choice.

“Our focus is on the best interests of the child,” says Dora Giusti, a UNICEF assistant program specialist previously based in Guatemala. “Only as a last resort do we look to international adoption if there’s no other alternative. We think international adoption is a good option … if it’s well regulated.”

As the most open and vocal critic of international adoption from Guatemala, UNICEF has taken heat from adoption-advocacy groups, social workers, attorneys and adoptive parents, both in Guatemala and the United States. Shutting down the lifeline between impoverished Guatemala and families in the United States who are unable to have children, they claim, will deprive these kids of their inalienable right to a home, loving parents, food and nurture, as well as the support they need to thrive in life.

These children aren’t the property of Guatemala, says Hannah Wallace, executive director of Adoptions International. If the state can’t provide for them and guarantee that they won’t die as infants or end up as prostitutes, in gangs or sniffing glue in the streets to quash their hunger, then the state should welcome outside help.

As much as 60 percent of Guatemala’s population is considered poor by international standards, and 20 percent of Guatemalans are extremely poor, living on less than $1 a day.

In the indigenous western highlands, this means that many Guatemalans pray to the gods that the next corn harvest will be a good one; it means many nourish their babies with watered-down coffee in lieu of breast milk; it means some travel to faraway regions to find work, usually on the finca plantation of some wealthy landowner. It also means high infant mortality rates (around 30 per every 1,000 live births) and little chance of education for those children who do survive.

The Catholic and Evangelical churches that rule here all but forbid birth control. The average Guatemalan woman has more than six children in her lifetime–and some more than 10–giving adoption lawyers a nearly unlimited supply to choose from.

Those adoptive parents who are already in the process, or in some cases have already met and fallen in love with their would-be adopted children, are hoping their paperwork will run its course through the Procuradoría General de la Nación, the Guatemalan Solicitor General’s Office, and that the U.S. Embassy will grant their child a visa to the United States before the laws change.

Currently, more than 3,000 applications for adoption from Guatemala are being processed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Guatemala government, according to the U.S. State Department.

On GuatAdopt.com, a popular adoption advocacy and networking website for adoptive parents, posts like this one capture the mood of many parents: “I am already attached to the children that have been assigned to us. I have certainly written my letters, called my senators and called the [State Department]. I also sent an email to UNICEF. I would be prepared to march in Washington.”

In September, the U.S. State Department issued a press release, discouraging Americans against adopting from Guatemala: “Fundamental changes in Guatemalan and U.S. adoption law will take effect over the next six months,” the release stated, referring to changes to the Hague Convention, which governs international adoption.

“The Government of Guatemala has informed us that they will not process adoption cases that do not meet Hague standards after Dec. 31, 2007. We understand this to mean that Guatemala will stop processing adoptions to the United States beginning Jan. 1, 2008, until U.S. accession to the Hague Convention takes effect.” The Guatemalan Congress ratified the convention this year, but the United States has yet to do so.

Throughout Guatemala, international adoption has become a contentious issue. Earlier this year, in several villages in the western highlands, townsfolk attempted to lynch local women whom they accused of stealing babies.

On Aug. 11, the paranoia reached a fever pitch when Guatemalan authorities raided the Casa Quivira adoption foster home outside of Antigua under suspicions of “irregularities” in the adoption process. The government seized 42 kids waiting to be adopted and placed them in homes that don’t focus on adoption, according to industry sources who wish to remain anonymous.

Casa Quivira was run by Clifford Phillips, an American who now lives in Florida, and his wife Sandra Gonzalez, a Guatemalan adoption attorney. They were among the first to capitalize when Guatemalan adoption became a booming business in the ’90s.

The raid sent shockwaves through the adoption community, both in Guatemala and the United States. Hundreds of opinions poured onto GuatAdopt.com. Parents who had adopted through Casa Quivira posted mostly favorable opinions of Phillips. Others described the foster home as clean and efficient.

But Casa Quivira has allegedly employed people in the past whose unscrupulous practices have gotten them blacklisted from the payrolls of U.S. international adoption agencies. One such employee was arrested in July for smuggling a Guatemalan child into the United States without a visa.

In 2006, I helped reunite a teenage adoptee named Ellie with her biological mother in Guatemala–seven years after her relinquishment. During the emotional reunion, Ellie’s adoptive mother, Judy, learned from the biological mother, Antonia, that Casa Quivira’s Gonzalez had offered to pay for Ellie, then refused to pay once the girl was in the home’s custody. Antonia had a change of heart and returned to Antigua three months later to try and reclaim Ellie but was ridiculed and refused access to her daughter. In the adoption dossier, Sandra Gonzalez wrote, “Mother of child presents a troublesome and conflicted personality that makes her interpersonal relationships difficult.”

Ellie was already seven years old at the time, and the fifth of 10 siblings who Antonia had given up for adoption.

————————-

In Tiquisate, a dismal, one-street industrial town near Guatemala’s southern coast where Ellie was born, and where the United Fruit Company once ran its southern port of operations, the public record keeper, Geronimo Méndez, offered a bleak assessment of why thousands of Guatemalan children were sent into adoption, even though they weren’t orphans.

Next page »Page 1 of 2

Jacob Wheeler is a contributing editor at In These Times.

More information about Jacob Wheeler

  • Reader Comments

    I see that Jacob Wheeler has a degree in “creative non-fiction” which is, unfortunately, what this article most certainly is.

    In his unbalanced account of “baby-stealing,” Mr. Wheeler neglects to mention that in response to concerns about the adoption system in Guatemala, the U.S. embassy instituted two DNA tests to make sure that children are not “stolen” for adoption.  A positive match between relinquishing mother and child is required for a child to be adopted to the U.S.

    His selective quotes from GuatAdopt and his references to American couples spending $25,000 to $30,000 and leaving “days or weeks later” (it took nine months for my son) “with no questions asked” and “lounging with their soon-to-be-adopted Mayan children” enjoying “the leisurely Latin American lifestyle” is an unfortunate caricature and does a disservice both to the many adoptive families who ask questions and push for reform and to the readers of In These Times.

    Mari

    Posted by meshopsi on Nov 5, 2007 at 9:30 AM

    Perhaps one might be happier if they merely aborted the children (better dead than in El Norte?)?

    Posted by wolf on Nov 5, 2007 at 9:41 AM

    Some of what Mr. Wheeler wrote is accurate but taken out of context and twisted to his own agenda.  I have to agree with the above two posters, is abortion more of an option or how about birth control? And the statement that we Americans spend $25,000 to $35,000 and leave days and weeks later is inaccurate and totally misrepresented.  You fail to mention the homestudy, background checks both on the state and federal level, INS approval process that can take months to complete as well as the two DNA tests that are done on baby and mother, Guatemalan family court and finally if all is right and in oder PGN approval and then you get submitted for a pink slip and then you can travel the few days to complet the adoption.  We are in the midst of our second adoption from Guatemala and I can assure you and your readers that the process is anything as simple as handing over money and you get your child. 

    Also, the stance by UNICEF that the children of poverty stricken countries not just Guatemala should have to languish in a system that doesn’t work just because they believe they should stay in their “own culture” and use international adoption as a last resort is absurd to me.  Children should be guaranteed a right to a family and permancy regardless of race, creed, or religon.  UNICEF’s beliefs are misguided and frankly border on racist in my opinion.

    I am not niave enough to believe that there isn’t some corruption that goes on in international adoption but the irregularities they speak of are few and far between as the old statement goes “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” sure holds true here.  The system needs to be addressed but what about the children who live in poverty?  Maybe addressing the fundamental aspects of the societal issues that plague third world countries like malnutrition, family planning, education etc should be addressed and not attacking a vital role that international adoption plays here.  International adoption is not a cure-all to the woes of these countries and it can’t save them all but it has a role.
    Mary

    Posted by mpna on Nov 5, 2007 at 10:57 AM

    “Adoptive parents can spend approximately $25,000 to $30,000 to adopt from Guatemala, and most of them leave days or weeks later with their little ones cradled in their arms, and with no questions asked as to how the attorneys acquired their babies.”

    WHAT A PIECE OF GARBAGE REPORTING!!!!  Seriously!  Do you honestly think that the US would issue visas to children obtained in the fictitious way as you describe?  PLEASE, I want to slap sense into you.  Obviously you have no care in writing the truth.  Don’t you even have fact checkers?  We have been waiting for nearly a year to adopt a child from Guatemala.  Why so long?  Because of the rigorous red tape on both the US side and the Guatemala side.  To top it off, our adoption may never happen and a child may remain homeless.  You obviously did NO research. 

    YOU MAKE ME SICK!  You should be fired for this type of garbage.  To top it off in the “post your comments” section, it states “please be respectful in your comments”... yet you can report this kind of bull.

    Posted by Waiting Mommy on Nov 5, 2007 at 11:24 AM

    How sad. You have written (like most other media outlets) a poorly researched, one-sided, anti-adoption piece.You have jumped on the media bandwagon of bashing International adoption. Is there no such thing as balanced, well-researched, truthful journalism any more?

    This statement in particular is ridiculously innacurate: “Adoptive parents can spend approximately $25,000 to $30,000 to adopt from Guatemala, and most of them leave days or weeks later with their little ones cradled in their arms, and with no questions asked as to how the attorneys acquired their babies.” It took us 12 months to compete our adoption and we have a detailed report prepared by a Guatemalan family court appointed social worker that clearly details the origin of our adopted son and the reasons why his first mother chose relinquish him. We also have a photo of his first mother and the DNA lab results that prove she was indeed his biological mother.

    I could go on, but will let others correct the additional misleading and poorly reported information in this article.

    Creative non-fiction, indeed.

    Posted by Tomm on Nov 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.