Adoptions from Guatemala

Madam, - As an adoptive parent of a child from Guatemala I have been dismayed at the way the news has been reported that the…

Madam, - As an adoptive parent of a child from Guatemala I have been dismayed at the way the news has been reported that the Adoption Board has temporarily suspended adoptions from Guatemala - "Temporary Suspensions of Adoption from Guatemala" (August 16th).

The most disturbing aspect of the reporting was to combine the news with another story from the wires detailing how 46 children were seized from an orphanage in Guatemala where it was reported no paperwork existed for those children.

This served to create a link in the reader's mind between Irish inter-country adoptions from Guatemala and abduction. This link completely undermined the statement that "the board of the Adoption Authority said yesterday that it was satisfied with the adoption of Guatemalan children previously under domestic legislation" .

As anybody who has undergone the domestic re-adoption process would know, the Adoption Board requires the following: the full consent of the birth mother, sworn before the Adoption Board's authorised person in Guatemala, DNA test results, confirming maternal relationship to the child, a socio-economic report on the mother's circumstances, which includes her name, address, family details, etc.

READ MORE

From my perspective, all of the stringent procedures, in Ireland and Guatemala, gave certitude concerning the propriety of our son's adoption, a certitude enhanced by our current contact with our son's birth mother and her happiness that her most difficult decision was indeed the right one for him and her.

In regard to the orphanage "raided" in Guatemala city last week, the follow-up news that, so far, no improprieties at all have been found has not been as widely reported as the first story. This is most likely because it is not as emotive a story as the first and therefore not attractive enough for such high-profile treatment. I would welcome any constructive debate about inter-country adoption which recognises the reality that the children concerned are subjected to.

However, I think that anyone who wishes to see the practice of inter-country adoption stopped, should answer an important question: will these people accept any measure of responsibility for the children who will subsequently be consigned to orphanages, or worse, and who otherwise would have been adopted abroad? - Yours, etc,

DAVE GRAHAM, Kilcock, Kildare.