VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGT #0824/01 2401658
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281658Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7990
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS GUATEMALA 000824 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL CASC KOCI CVIS GT
SUBJECT: GUATEMALAN ADOPTION CONTROVERSY: POLITICS, HUNGER 
STRIKES AND AMCIT CHILDREN 
 
REF: GUATEMALA 262 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  In a move that generated front-page 
coverage in Guatemala, prominent human rights defender Norma 
Cruz recently completed a 10-day hunger strike to demand that 
three children adopted by U.S. couples be returned to 
Guatemala.  She is the recipient of the Secretary's Women of 
Courage Award.  Cruz, First Lady Sandra Torres and other 
supporters claim the children were stolen from their birth 
mothers.  The three children are now AMCITs.  Torres raised 
the issue with Secretary Clinton at the Summit of the 
Americas in April, and subsequently met with the Ambassador. 
Cruz joined with the women who claim to be the children's 
mothers and other supporters in the hunger strike to demand 
that the adoptions be nullified and the children returned;the 
Guatemalan judiciary subsequently accepted the case.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
-------------- 
The Background 
-------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Prior to a new adoption law compliant with the Hague 
Convention on International Adoption, which went into effect 
on Dec. 31, 2007, Guatemala was one of the leading sources of 
children for U.S. couples seeking to adopt.  In FY 2007, over 
4,000 Guatemalan children were adopted by AMCIT couples.  In 
Guatemala, lawyers or notaries served as intermediaries 
between birth parents and adopting couples.  Typically 
notaries plus the agencies were paid around USD 50,000 for 
their services.  The Solicitor General's Office (PGN) was the 
Guatemalan agency responsible for ensuring that children put 
up for adoption had been willingly relinquished by their 
birth parents.  Guatemala did not require DNA testing to 
ensure that the relinquishing parent was a child's actual 
parent.  In the 1990's the Embassy began requiring DNA 
testing before going forward with an adoption case. 
 
¶3. (U) Before 2008, the procedure for adopting a child in 
Guatemala started with a notary serving as the point of 
contact between an adopting couple and a woman who wanted to 
relinquish her child.  The notary would start the adoption 
process at his office and request the competent family court 
in Guatemala to perform a home study.  At the same time, the 
prospective adoptive parent(s) or their Guatemalan attorney 
would go to USCIS for the adoption pre-approval.  At this 
stage, the USG was the one requiring the DNA test.  With 
USCIS pre-approval, the notary would go to the PGN in order 
to submit the adoption file and obtain a favorable 
resolution.  Although the USG was the one requiring the DNA 
test, PGN would then use the DNA results as part of their 
review and favorable opinion.  Once PGN issued a favorable 
opinion, the notary would authorize the final adoption deed 
in his "Protocolo."  After the adoption was finalized, the 
adopting parents would apply for and receive a new Guatemalan 
birth certificate and passport in the baby's new name.  At 
this point, the final paperwork would go to USCIS for 
approval.  The child would be brought into the Consular 
Section for the final adjudication of the I-600 (Petition to 
Classify an Orphan as an Immediate Relative) by USCIS and the 
issuance of an immigrant visa.  In most cases the child would 
then become an AMCIT upon admission into a U.S. Port of Entry 
(POE).  For an abandoned child, the notary would initiate the 
adoption process at his office once the judicial resolution 
of abandonment was issued.  The case would then be referred 
to PGN for an opinion once USCIS had issued its pre-approval 
(following the procedures mentioned in the relinquishment 
cases, minus the DNA test.) 
 
¶4. (U)  Although there were probably cases of some babies 
Q4. (U)  Although there were probably cases of some babies 
being stolen and put up for adoption, most observers believe 
these cases were a small minority, and that the majority of 
the birth mothers involved willingly relinquished their 
children, in many cases, for a fee.  We have heard that these 
women were paid USD 500 to 1,000 and had all their living and 
medical expenses paid for during their pregnancy. 
 
--------------- 
The Controversy 
--------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) It was against this backdrop, in 2006 and 2007, that 
three AMCIT couples begin the process of adopting the three 
Guatemalan children in question.  These children are: 
-Kimberli Azucena Jimenez, born Nov.8, 2006, issued a visa 
December 2007 under the name Kimberli Azucena Ocheltree. 
-Cindy Garcia, born Aug.10, 2006, issued a visa December 2006 
under the name Cindy Colwell Thomas. 
-Karen Abigail Lopez Garcia, born Jan.14, 2005, issued a visa 
December 2008 under the name Karen Abigail Monahan.  (This 
child originally started as a relinquishment case, failed the 
 
DNA test, and then later went through the Guatemalan legal 
system as an abandonment case.) 
 
¶6. (U) The new adoption law implemented in December 2007 
resulted in the creation of the National Council on Adoptions 
(CNA).  The new agency, in coordination with the PGN, 
initiated a mandatory review of all in-process adoption cases 
still allowed to move forward under the notarial system.  PGN 
began conducting interviews with all birth mothers.  During 
this process a group of women who had filed reports of stolen 
children were allowed access to adoption records.  Three 
women claimed to have identified their stolen children based 
on photos from these records.  It is unclear if the records 
were provided by the Attorney General's Office (MP) or PGN. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The three women identified the following children as 
having been stolen: 
-the Ocheltree baby allegedly is Heidy Sarahi Batz Par, 
kidnapped Apr.4, 2006. 
-the Thomas baby allegedly is Arlene Escarleth Lopez Lopez, 
kidnapped Sep. 27, 2006. 
-the Monahan baby allegedly is Anyeli Liseth Hernandez 
Rodriquez, kidnapped Nov.3, 2006. 
(Note: We do not know the birth dates of the stolen children. 
End Note) 
 
¶8. (SBU) Sources within CNA have told Emboffs that they have 
significant doubts that these women have actually identified 
their stolen children.  Moreover, the timeline raises 
questions about the validity of their claims: 
-the Batz Par baby would have been born early in 2006, 
sometime prior to her kidnapping in April.  The Ocheltree 
baby was born in November 2006 and issued a visa 13 months 
later, in December 2007.  For this to have been the stolen 
baby the adjudicating Conoff would have had to fail to notice 
that a child being presented as 13 month old was actually 
closer to two years old. 
-the Lopez Lopez baby was kidnapped Sep.27, 2006.  According 
to Conoffs here, it took a minimum of four to five months, 
and often much longer, to process an adoption once a child 
had been identified.  So in order to have finalized the 
proceedings by December 2006, the Thomas family would have 
had to start the adoption process immediately after the birth 
of the child in August.  It would not have been possible to 
have finalized an adoption that only began after the child's 
kidnapping on September 27.  It is possible, however, that 
the notary began the process with another baby and then 
switched them after the kidnapping, although this seems 
unlikely. 
-the Hernandez Rodriquez baby was kidnapped in November 2006. 
 The Monahan baby's parents began adoption proceedings eight 
months prior to the kidnapping, in March of 2006.  It is 
troubling that in this case the DNA failed to match the woman 
who claimed to be the child's birth mother and the adoption 
eventually went forward as an abandonment, but this does not 
link this child to the woman now claiming to be the baby's 
birth mother. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) On April 27, the Ambassador, Conoff, ARSO-I and 
USCIS' Field Office Director-Guatemala and District Director 
met with Guatemala's First Lady to discuss these cases. 
During the meeting, Torres stated that she felt a moral 
obligation to help the women who claim to have had their 
children stolen.  She also said she had requested that the 
Guatemalan Attorney General's office begin the process of 
having the adoptions annulled.  The Ambassador replied that 
the Embassy would provide any assistance to the investigation 
allowed by law, but that this issue was now being handled by 
DOJ. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Cruz has long been a champion of human rights and 
women's rights in Guatemala.  She and her NGO took up the 
Qwomen's rights in Guatemala.  She and her NGO took up the 
issue of the many problems with the Guatemalan adoption 
system about four years ago as an outgrowth of their concern 
over women's rights.  In the past she has called for a "truth 
commission" to examine all adoptions that have taken place in 
the last decades in Guatemala.  Approximately two years ago 
she led a protest over the adoption issue in front of the 
Embassy.  More recently, there have been reports in the press 
that Cruz engineered the ouster of PGN head Baudilio Portillo 
Merlos because of the irregularities with the adoption 
process.  In March, the Secretary recognized Norma Cruz as a 
Woman of Courage (REFTEL).  Cruz was recognized for her and 
her organization's work countering sexual and domestic 
violence in Guatemala.  Since January 2008, USAID has 
financed a USD 25,000 sub-contract to Cruz's organization to 
provide legal support to victims of homicide, particularly 
female victims. 
 
¶11. (U) On July 15 Cruz announced that she was organizing a 
hunger strike to raise awareness and demand justice for the 
 
three women who claim their children were stolen.  Eight days 
into her hunger strike, Guatemalan authorities announced the 
arrest of a man and women in connection with the kidnapping 
the Batz Par baby.  On July 25, Cruz called off her strike 
after the Guatemalan judicial system agreed to accept her 
petition to review the case.  Although this action was 
reported in the press as, "the beginning of the process of 
nullifying the adoptions," and Cruz cited it as a legal 
victory, under the Guatemalan legal system, the judiciary is 
required to accept a petition from a citizen.  However, the 
publicity from her hunger strike may well have sped up the 
process of having the judiciary grant a review of these 
cases.  As the children were stolen in different geographical 
areas, three separate lower courts are each examining a case. 
 After a period of review, the individual courts will decide 
whether the cases should be accepted for further legal action 
or rejected. 
 
¶12. (SBU) In March and April, the Guatemalan Attorney 
General's office, through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 
(MLAT), requested DOJ cooperation in obtaining DNA samples 
from the children in the US.  These samples would then be 
compared to those taken from the three women in Guatemala to 
determine if they are the children's birth mothers.  This 
request is currently under review by DOJ. 
 
McFarland