Senator Landrieu Responds

Senator Landrieu Responds
May 24th, 2011 Erin Siegal

After contacting Senator Mary Landrieu’s office last week, her Deputy Press Secretary, Ellie Atkins, emailed me on Friday May 20, 2011 with a response from the Senator:

“I am in direct communication with CICIG and have submitted for their review a list of my questions and concerns about some of the findings in their report. Many people in good faith are working to resolve the several hundred adoption cases “in transition” as well as establish for Guatemala a model child welfare system which includes domestic and international adoption for children in need of a family.

I want to restate that both the governments of Guatemala and the United States, and all governments for that matter, must have a “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to allowing for illegal or unethical conduct in the processing of adoptions. Compliance with a “zero tolerance” policy requires the government of Guatemala to both craft and enforce laws which criminalize any and all activities that go against the very nature and purpose of adoption, which is to protect and support a child in need of a family.”

The bold-faced, italicized font is the Senator’s.

So what next? I’ve asked a CICIG source what this list of “questions and concerns” looked like. I’m very curious about the inclusion of the “zero tolerance” bit– does this mean that Senator Landrieu might actually get involved in helping come to a resolution- or help facilitate an American investigation- into the alleged kidnapping-for-adoption cases that the Guatemalan authorities are trying to figure out?

Posted in Breaking News, Reporting Tags: CICIG, court cases, criminal impunity, Mary Landrieu, Reopening adoption in Guatemala, reports, US Politicians
« Open letter from Fundación Sobrevivientes to Senator Mary Landrieu



I love the one-sided nature to zero-tolerance in if all corrupt ills can only be found on the side of the sender, never the receiver.

Compliance with a “zero tolerance” policy requires the government of Guatemala to both craft and enforce laws which criminalize any and all activities that go against the very nature and purpose of adoption, which is to protect and support a child in need of a family.”

An interesting twist to ethical/moral adoption practice is this -- what happens once the child is received?  Is there a zero-tolerance towards any poor treatment against the adopted child and their living extended family members?

No.  Instead, there tends to be deaf ears and blind eyes to all the shady-shenanigans that can take place, once an adoption agreement (pact) has been made between two countries.  (Hey... many critics don't call it "child trade" for nuthin....)

Nevertheless, in my mind, nothing illustrates the dark-side to a humanitarian effort gone-astray better than what was seen during the era in which child migration schemes were used to help un-crowd over-crowded streets.

Britain and Australia are saying sorry to thousands of British children who were promised a better life overseas, only to suffer abuse and neglect thousands of miles from home.

The British government said Sunday that Prime Minister Gordon Brown will apologize for 20th-century child migrant programs that saw thousands of poor British children sent to Australia, Canada and other former colonies until the 1960s. Many ended up in institutions or were sent to work as farm laborers.

Brown's office said officials would consult with representatives of the surviving children before making a formal apology next year.

The Australian government says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will offer his own apology Monday to the child migrants, as well as to the "forgotten Australians," children who suffered in state care during the last century.

Sandra Anker, who was sent to Australia from Britain when she was six, said the British government "have a lot to answer for."

"We've suffered all our lives," she told the BBC. "For the government of England to say sorry to us, it makes it right – even if it's late, it's better than not at all."

The British government has estimated that a total of 150,000 British children may have been shipped abroad under a variety of programs that operated between the early 19th century and 1967.

A 2001 Australian report said that between 6,000 and 30,000 children from Britain and Malta, often taken from unmarried mothers or impoverished families, were sent alone to Australia as migrants during the 20th century. Some of the children were told, wrongly, that they were orphans.

The migration was intended to stop the children being a burden on the British state while supplying the receiving countries with potential workers. A 1998 British parliamentary inquiry noted that "a further motive was racist: the importation of 'good white stock' was seen as a desirable policy objective in the developing British Colonies."

British Children's Secretary Ed Balls said the child migrant policy was "a stain on our society."

[From:  Britain, Australia saying sorry to child migrants, November, 2009 ]

Although it's true the use of "institutions" is far more limited these days, we have yet to see, statically, how many children adopted through ICA are put "in-care" post adoption agreement.  In addition, thanks to underground networking APs, we have no idea how many "adopted orphans" are being shuffled around, from state to state, only to end-up, years later, with no home, no "forever family" to go and turn to, as promised by pro-adoption advocates.... but end-up with a police/criminal record and a bad "undesirable" reputation, instead.  [See:  comment, The ol "Dump and Run" Routine?  to see what does happen when the lucky adopted child is not the merchandise the AP planned and prepared to buy. ] 

As long as Senators and the State Dept. in the US continue to comply with the wishes/demands of the PAP (paying adoptive parent), and whitewash illegal activity in ALL of Adoptionand, the US will continue to be as complacent and involved in illegal and corrupt adoption practice, as it always has been, throughout the history of child placement.


Who informed Sen. Mary Landrieu in the first place about these pending adoptions? Whomever it was, gave her MISINFORMATION.

Hmm...let me think...JCICS? Or the Guatemala 900 group (made of up APs awaiting their cases to be finished).

I wonder if Sen. Landrieu's response will be posted on certain PAP sites?

Pound Pup Legacy