This story - which at the core stands an innocent 6 year-old girl who has already undergone so much trauma in her short life - is so unbelievably heartbreaking on just about every possible level. I hurt so much for this young child - who has already been through hell - and who will undoubtedly be subjected to additional imminent pain, suffering and losses of enormous proportions and scars to last a lifetime, regardless of the final outcome.
Clearly, there are details of this story that we as a public will never be privy to and the intricate legalities, the deep corruption and the red tape in both of the represented countries adoption system's is beyond the scope of what I am able to speak to. What I can say however is how utterly shocking - yet unfortunately not surprising - the reaction is from some of my fellow APs regarding this tragic event.
Overwhelmingly what I have read on the various adoption forums and blogs is the notion that there is NO way on God's green earth would most of these APs allow their adopted children to be permanently returned and reunited with their biological families.
Let me say that again. There is a large contingent of APs (at least from the sampling of those who have posted to weigh in on the situation) who, if they found out that their adopted child had been kidnapped from their first family, would NOT be willing to allow their (adopted) child to return to his/her first mother and father. Kidnapped. As in, against their parent's will. Abducted, as in wrongfully taken. Kind of gives a new meaning to the phrase "Gotcha Day", huh?
Putting my snark and obvious frustration and bewilderment aside for just a moment, I do appreciate that these APs are at least asking the fundamental question "What is in the best interest of this little girl?" Unfortunately, from my perspective, the answers that these APs are offering to that question appear only to have one party's best interest in mind, and it isn't the little girl's or her biological family's.
One AP offered to "pay for a plane ticket" so that the girl's Guatemalan mother could come and visit. How generous, indeed! One even said that she'd "allow for the girl's biological family to be in regular contact with the girl". What an overwhelming gesture of kindness! One remarked that while she is "sad for the birth mom", she "could NEVER let her daughter go" as losing her daughter "would be the worst nightmare imaginable". Hmmm. Irony, much?
The very same APs who declare that they would "fight tooth and nail" and "until the bitter end" to find their child if s/he went missing are in the very next breath saying that they would never allow for a parent of a kidnapped child to rightfully reclaim her son or daughter. I'm honestly not trying to be dense or purposely combative here, but I just don't understand this line of thinking. It sounds to me that too many APs want it both ways - they want an outcome that will benefit their own personal situation and one that would cause the least disruption, the least inconvenience and the minimal amount of pain and hardship for them. Based on what I've read so far, many of these APs feel that they are entitled to this type of decision. I think this is why I'm having such a visceral reaction to this story - the accompanying unapologetic sense of entitlement that permeates so much of the AP-centric adoption experience and narrative.
I honestly believe that some of these APs are deluding themselves into thinking that their (adopted) child's well-being would be irreparably compromised if s/he was ripped away from the home that s/he's known for the past several years and remaining with them (the APs) is the only way this child could have a life worth living. Couldn't the same be said for any child that is removed from his home, regardless of his age? What really gets me is that nowhere outlined in the proposed "solutions" that I've read about thus far reveal any evidence that the AP would be willing to make any real sacrifice to work towards what really WOULD be in the best interest of their (adopted) child.
Why are none of these APs suggesting that they would fight tooth and nail to do whatever they could to make their child's transition to his rightful family the very best it could be? Instead of offering a plane ticket to their child's first mother, why not uproot themselves to go live in their child's birth country and BEG, PLEAD and do whatever it takes to see if the first family would be willing to have them a part of their lives?
Clearly, this story has struck a chord. I have been doing some deep soul-searching about why I am so upset over the reaction by some of these APs. (The operative word here being "some" as I know they of course do not represent all APs, including myself and my husband.) The adoptee in me says that I'm pissed off that yet again adoptees are never given a choice in what happens to us when it comes to determining "what's in our best interests". The adoptee in me is enraged that yet again first families are relegated to being treated as after-thoughts and ancillary roles in an adoptee's life.
I'm angry because I've seen this attitude play out in too many adoptive families before: That what an AP wants forever trumps what an adoptee needs.
It's because it's a double standard. The first/birth family are The Other, the people who Did Give Up A Child. The adoptive parents couldn't - wouldn't *ever* do such a thing.
Because no one EVER gives up a child. All the logic as to WHY doesn't matter - the kid was abandoned as a baby, the first/birth family clearly didn't want him/her, and if they did, they obviously didn't want him/her *enough.*
So there is no actual good reason for giving up a child, because no AP could ever imagine ending up a scenario where you'd be jailed or evacuated for not having enough support to keep your child.
"I could NEVER give up my child!" they say.
Right. So why do you think it's any different when it comes to the first/birth family? Just because you would "never" give up your adopted child doesn't mean the first/birth family "wanted" to do so, either.
Posted by: Mei Ling | August 09, 2011 at 07:06 PM
This story is heartbreaking on every level. And truth be told, my worst nightmare would be to be in the shoes of any of this little girl's parents (I have two kids, one bio, one adopted). What is in the "best interest" of the child here? To be rent, again, from a family she loves, to return to a land and culture, language and family she probably barely remembers? To stay where she is, deprived of her first family, who love her wholeheartedly and have fought tooth and nail for her return? As always, the truly guilty will no doubt go unpunished, but even that pales in comparison to all the hurt and loss here. I just wish there was *some* way for all involved to come together in their shared love for a little girl, but is that even possible?
Posted by: Mary | August 09, 2011 at 09:48 PM
Oh, I would object to the assertion that it's ONLY because the first/birth family are "the other".
As APs - long before this story came out - my husband and I talked about this (in the context, at the time, of realizing that our adopted kids had not yet bonded to us; they since have.).
Little kids are very in-the-moment. They don't consciously remember their toddler or preschool years, for the most part. This little girl does not remember her first family, and she most recently and most fully feels like a U.S. American. And unless there's some other issue about which none of us are aware, she is fully attached to her most recent, adoptive family.
Does that mean her first family doesn't have the right to re-gain their daughter? No.
But it's not so simple. Reunifying her with her biological family to the exclusion of her current family will be traumatic for her. And she WILL feel "foreign" to her Guatemalan family. She no doubt has forgotten Spanish and all the cultural nuances and is accustomed to her life in the U.S.
The conclusion we came to (hubby and I) was that if our children were ever taken (God forbid!) and we found them, and they were attached to their new family, and that family was a loving and supportive one, we would appeal for shared visitation rather than disrupt what they had with their new parents. As hard as that would be, as much as we would want to assert our "rights" to "our" kids.
And probably that's what the adoptive and birth parents need to do -- at least for the coming few years -- come up with a shared solution, so this little child doesn't have to be ripped from ANY of the parents to whom she feels attached.
Because it's supposed to be about HER, right?
Posted by: American Mamacita | August 09, 2011 at 09:54 PM
American Mamacita, I've had the same thoughts re: a joint, cooperative parenting arrangement that would first and foremost address the emotional, social, physical and psychological needs of this little girl.
I immediately think of "First, do no harm" and agree with you that any immediate severed contact with her adoptive family would only re-traumatize her. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that ultimately she should be with her Guatemalan family. I hope and pray that both families do whatever they need to do to support this young girl in the many years to come by putting her needs first.
Posted by: Paula O. | August 09, 2011 at 10:30 PM
"The conclusion we came to (hubby and I) was that if our children were ever taken (God forbid!) and we found them, and they were attached to their new family, and that family was a loving and supportive one, we would appeal for shared visitation rather than disrupt what they had with their new parents"
Who does that? Because it's not the way adoption works, and it's not the way adoption has been socially standardized.
Adoption transfers immediate rights and legal ownership.
Posted by: Mei Ling | August 09, 2011 at 10:45 PM
"Reunifying her with her biological family to the exclusion of her current family will be traumatic for her."
And... being transitioned as a baby has no traumatic effects? Being transferred from biological parents to adoptive parents has no repercussions?
The "only family a baby has ever known" at the time IS the biological parents. But this defense, funnily enough, also *only* comes up when there's talk of a child being transferred from adoptive parents back to biological parents.
A baby knows its mother prior to adoption.
Posted by: Mei Ling | August 09, 2011 at 10:48 PM
Mei Ling - you hit upon a recurring theme that I've read in many of the comments regarding this case - the whole notion that time spent with one's adoptive family bears greater importance than being carried by one's own mother for 9 months. I'm not saying that being with one's adoptive family for a signficant amount of time doesn't carry weight - of course it does. But so does being with the first and only woman you've ever known.
Posted by: Paula O. | August 09, 2011 at 10:59 PM
I'm an adoptee and also an adoptive mother of a child from Guatemala. When these stories were starting to hit the news, my heart broke. Mostly for these poor (and they are terribly poor), helpless women who had their children forcibly removed from their care only to be sold to a dirty adoption attorney.
Our attorney in Guatemala was one of the few left standing after the investigations and she's still able to conduct adoptions in the country because she was very ethical. That does give us some peace. If we discovered that our son was stolen, we'd be devestated. I guess we'd have to go to Guatemala and sit down with the first parents/family to discuss how to proceed. We could see about moving there or, if they'd rather, we'd sponsor their visa to come here and set them up. I could never see myself excluding the people we have so much love and respect for from our son's life and if he was stolen.... my Gd I just can't even imagine.
Posted by: Julie | August 10, 2011 at 07:20 AM
My heart aches at the thought of my daughter being removed from me. I can only imagine the pain the birth mother went through. The adoptive mother would also go through this same ache. There is no good answer. I'm not going to speculate what the answer is because I don't feel I as an outsider can even guess what that might be. It is heartbreaking. The only thing I can think is the adoptive parents need to fly there and talk in person without the adoptive child present. I'm a adoptive mom and often wish I had the privilege to know my daughters birth mother and knew if there was an adoptive plan or some sort of intent.
Posted by: Beth | August 10, 2011 at 04:11 PM
Suggesting that the adoptive parents 'fly there' to hash out child ownership with the bio parents assumes that the adoptive parents are culturally competent enough to have a conversation with someone who speaks a different language and has a completely different world view based on geography and life experience. It is possible that the Guatemalan parent would not try quantify (i.e. compare resources like money, etc) what is right for the child, but rather take a qualitative stance that represents the values and mores of Guatemala.
The adoptive parents may feel like the loss of the child would be similar, yet they are technically (unknowing) accesories to a crime.
Posted by: Heidi | August 11, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself! AMEN to the writer of the story!
Posted by: Jan | August 11, 2011 at 01:24 PM
@ Mei-Ling & Paula - I didn't mean to minimize her first attachment to her first family and the subsequent trauma of being kidnapped (1), moved around in Guate as a trafficking victim (2), and then being adopted by strangers (3). Of course that was all trauma. I just meant that, given the past, it would be ideal if there wasn't a 4th sudden separation. She's only 6, and it would be great if her a-parents and b-parents could work this out to ease her back into her first family, rather than another rending of her heart.
But as for "who does that?" - I think more and more of us, thanks to many of you out there who have given us fuller perspectives on adoption. It's the difference between thinking of parenting as "guardianship for a season" versus "possession." Our family is doing our best to keep the boys' tie to their first country as strong as we can and to find their first family, so that when they're adults, they have the reasonable opportunity to pick where they want to live and work and to move between their families as they want. It'll be harder for them to "feel" Guatemalan than if they'd never left, certainly. But if you ask them where they're from, they don't answer with our city or state. They say "Guatemala." And that's fine with us. We're "just" their adoptive parents, but that's blessing enough!
@ Beth - I'm there with ya! If I'd only known THEN what I do now, I would have insisted on contact with the bio family from the start.
Posted by: American Mamacita | August 11, 2011 at 03:09 PM
@American Mamcita: Just speaking for myself, I didn't get the feeling that you were marginalizing the attachment to the first family. I was just underscoring something that Mei Ling touched upon - a sentiment that basically asserts that the time spent with one's adoptive family automatically entitles them to be more of a parent than the woman who gave birth to their child.
@Julie - thank you for sharing your perspective - I feel you on all of it.
Posted by: Paula O. | August 11, 2011 at 09:08 PM
"It'll be harder for them to "feel" Guatemalan than if they'd never left, certainly."
They won't be seen as Guatemalan. Not unless they have legal Guatemalan parents who have parented them. The law places priority upon the adoptive parents.
Posted by: Mei Ling | August 16, 2011 at 01:50 PM
What I can't fathom is why people aren't imagining what you'd do or want done if your child were kidnapped and then illegally adopted to a family in another country.
Could anyone imagine the adoptive parents coming visit you without your child to negotiate over who gets to parent the child, who gets to visit the child, etc? Inviting or even paying for you to come visit them (with the idea that you'd return home without your child)? Would there be any chance you'd believe that because your child spent a few years with the other family that it would be better to leave the child with them? (In this case, the child has spent about equal time in Guatemala and in the US.)
Also, consider the child as she grows up and learns that her APs kept her from her biological family from whom she was kidnapped. In that child's place, what would any of us do as we learned the truth? What would we feel was in our best interest if we were the child grown into an adult in this situation?
If this child had been kidnapped from a middle-class US family and was being raised by wealthy people in Guatemala would the same discussions be happening?
I can't imagine any alternative to reuniting the child with her biological family from whom she was kidnapped AND doing anything I could to develop a relationship with that family in order to hopefully maintain a relationship with the child and help ease the transition for her.
Posted by: Cathy | August 26, 2011 at 01:17 AM