Intercountry adoptions prevent institutionalization but may erode children’s rights to their families and cultural heritage. Family group conferencing offers a culturally adaptable intervention that looks for domestic solutions before turning to out-of-country placements. Guatemalan social work education offers a hospitable environment in which to promote its extension to adoptions.
BunkersK.GrozaV. (in press) ‘Intercountry Adoption and Child Welfare in Guatemala: Lessons Learned Pre and Post Ratification of the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption’, in GibbonsJ.RotabiK. (eds) Intercountry Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes. London: Ashgate Press.
2.
BunkersK.GrozaV.LauerD. (2009) ‘International Adoption and Child Protection in Guatemala: A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog’, International Social Work52(5): 649–60.
3.
BurfordG.HudsonJ. (eds) (2000) Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in Community-centered Child and Family Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
CarrollV. (1970) ‘What Does ‘‘Adoption’’ Mean?’, in CarrollV. (ed.) Adoption in Eastern Oceania, pp. 3–17. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
6.
Casa Alianza, Myrna Mack Foundation, Survivors Foundation, the Social Movement for the Rights of Children and Adolescents, Human Rights Office of the Archbishop of Guatemala and the Social Welfare Secretariat (2007) Adoptions in Guatemala: Protection or Business?, November. Guatemala City, Guatemala: Author.
DubinskyK. (2010) Babies without Borders: Adoption and Migration across the Americas. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9.
FalckS. (2008) Do Family Group Conferences Lead to a Better Situation for the Children Involved?Oslo, Norway: NOVA (Norwegian Social Research), Ministry of Education and Research.
10.
GibbonsJ. LWilsonS. L.SchnellA.M. (2009). Foster parents as a critical link and resource in international adoptions from Guatemala, Adoption Quarterly, 12, 59–77.
11.
GreshamK.NackerudL.RislerE. (2004) ‘Intercountry Adoption from Guatemala and the United States: A Comparative Policy Analysis’, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies1(3/4): 1–20.
12.
HassallI. (1996) ‘Origin and Development of Family Group Conferences’, in HudsonJ.MorrisA.MaxwellG.GalawayB. (eds) Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice, pp. 17–36. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
13.
HollingsworthL.D. (2008) ‘Commentary: Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Address the Protection of Adoptees’ Cultural Identity? And Should It?’, Social Work53(4): 377–9.
14.
KumpferK.L.AlvaradoR.SmithP.BellamyN. (2002) ‘Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-based Prevention Interventions’, Prevention Science3(3): 241–6.
15.
McKinneyL. (2007) ‘International Adoption and the Hague Convention: Does Implementation of the Convention Protect the Best Interests of Children?’, Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy361: 368–412.
16.
MorrisK. (2007) Camden FGC Service: An Evaluation of Service Use and Outcomes. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
17.
National Council on Adoptions website (Consejo Nacional de Adopciones) (2011) Available online at: www.cna.gob.gt/portal/Documentacion.html (accessed 25 February 2011).
18.
PennellJ. (2006) ‘Stopping Domestic Violence or Protecting Children? Contributions from Restorative Justice’, in SullivanD.TifftL. (eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective, pp. 286–98. New York: Routledge.
19.
PennellJ.AndersonG. (eds) (2005) Widening the Circle: The Practice and Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing with Children, Youths, and Their Families. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
20.
PennellJ.BurfordG. (2000) ‘Family Group Decision Making: Protecting Children and Women’, Child Welfare79(2): 131–58.
21.
PennellJ.KossM.P. (2011) ‘Feminist Perspectives on Family Rights: Social Work and Restorative Justice Processes to Stop Women Abuse’, in BeckE.KropfN.P.LeonardP.B. (eds) Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation, pp. 195–219. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
PennellJ.BurfordG.ConnollyM.MorrisK. (in press) ‘Introduction: Taking Child and Family Rights Seriously: Family Engagement and Its Evidence in Child Welfare’, in special issue of Child Welfare.
23.
PennellJ.EdwardsM.BurfordG. (2010) ‘Expedited Family Group Engagement and Child Permanency’, Children and Youth Services Review32: 1012–19 (doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.02910.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.029).
24.
PerezL.M. (2008) Situation Faced by Institutionalized Children and Adolescents in Shelters in Guatemala. Guatemala City: USID and Holt International Children Services.
25.
RangihauJ. (1986) Pau-te-Ata-tu (Daybreak): Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Social Welfare, Government Printing Office.
26.
RobyJ.L. (2007) ‘From Rhetoric to Best Practice: Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption’, Children’s Legal Rights Journal27(3): 48–71.
27.
RobyJ.L.IfeJ. (2009) ‘Human Rights, Politics, and Intercountry Adoption: An Examination of Two Sending Countries’, International Social Work52(5): 661–71.
28.
RobyJ.L.MatsumuraS. (2002) ‘If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall Islands–US Adoptions’, Adoption Quarterly5(4): 7–31.
29.
RobyJ.L.WyattJ.PettysG. (2005) ‘Openness in International Adoptions: A Study of US Parents Who Adopted Children from the Marshall Islands’, Adoption Quarterly8(3): 47–71 (doi: 10.1300/J145v08n02_0310.1300/J145v08n02_03).
30.
RotabiK.S. (2008) ‘Intercountry Adoption Baby Boom Prompts New US Standards’, Immigration Law Today27(1): 12–19.
31.
RotabiK.S. (2009) ‘Guatemala City: Hunger Protests Amid Allegations of Child Kidnapping and Adoption Fraud’, Social Work and Society News Magazine, August. Available online at: http://www.socmag.net/?p=540.
32.
RotabiK.S. (2010) ‘From Guatemala to Ethiopia: Shifts in Intercountry Adoption Leaves Ethiopia Vulnerable for Child Sales and Other Unethical Practices’, Social Work and Society News Magazine, June. Available online at: http://www.socmag.net/?p=615.
33.
RotabiK.S.BergquistK.J.S. (2010) ‘Vulnerable Children in the Aftermath of Haiti’s Earthquake of 2010: A Call for Sound Policy and Processes to Prevent International Child Sales and Theft’, Journal of Global Social Work Practice. Available online at: http://www.globalsocialwork.org/vol3no1/Rotabi.html.
34.
RotabiK.S.BunkersK.M. (2008) ‘Intercountry Adoption Reform Based on the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: An Update on Guatemala in 2008’, Social Work and Society News Magazine, November. Available online at: http://www.socmag.net/?tag=adoption.
35.
RotabiK.S.GibbonsJ.L. (in press) ‘Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Adequately Protect Orphaned and Vulnerable Children and the Families Who Gave Birth to Them?’, Child and Family Studies.
36.
RotabiK.S.MorrisA.W. (2007) ‘Adoption of Guatemalan Children: Impending Changes under the Hague Convention for Intercountry Adoption’, Social Work and Society News Magazine, July. Available online at: http://www.socmag.net/?p=171.
37.
RotabiK.S.MorrisA.W.WeilM.O. (2008) ‘International Child Adoption in a Post-conflict Society: A Multi-systemic Assessment of Guatemala’, Journal of Intergroup RelationsXXXIV(2): 9–41.
38.
SheetsJ.WittenstromK.FongR.JamesJ.TecciM.BaumannD.J.RodriguezC. (2009) ‘Evidence-Based Practice in Family Group Decision- Making for Anglo, African American and Hispanic Families’, Children and Youth Services Review31: 1187–91.
39.
SilkJ. (1980) ‘Adoption and Kinship in Oceania’, American Anthropologist82: 799–820.
40.
SmolinD.M. (2008) ‘Child Laundering and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: The Future and Past of Intercountry Adoptions’, University of Louisville Law Review48: 441–98.
41.
SmykeA.T.DumitrescuA.ZeanahC.H. (2002) ‘Attachment Disturbances in Young Children I: The Continuum of Caretaking Casualty’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry41: 972–82.
42.
StregaS.EsquaoS.A. [CarrièreJ.] (eds) (2009) Walking This Path Together: Anti-racist and Anti-oppressive Child Welfare Practice. Halifax and Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
43.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (1993) The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993). Available online at: www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69 (accessed 28 February 2010).
44.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (2008) The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention, Guide To Good Practice, Guide No. 1, Family Law, p. 15, Bristol.
45.
ThomasK.L.BerzinS.C.CohenE. (2005) ‘Fidelity of Family Group Decision Making: A Content Analysis of Family Conference and Case Plans in a Randomized Treatment Study’, Protecting Children19(4): 4–15.
46.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2003) A Situational Analysis of Children, Youth and Women: Republic of the Marshall Islands. Majuro, RMI: Author.
47.
United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights (2000) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography: Report on the Mission to Guatemala of Ms Ofelia Calcetas-Santos. New York: United Nations.
United States Department of State Office of Children’s Issues (US DOS) (2010) ‘Adoption Alert: Guatemala’, October. Available online at: http://adoption.state.gov/news/guatemala.html.
51.
University Rafael Landivar (2010) Proposal Design for the Diploma Course in Alternative Care Guidelines and Family Preservation. Guatemala City: Author.
52.
University Rafael Landivar and UNICEF (2010) Third Activity Report for the Diploma Course on the Alternative Care Guidelines and Family Preservation. Guatemala City: Author.
53.
WalshJ. (1999). ‘Adoption and Agency: American Adoption of Marshallese Children’, available online at: http://www.rmicaa.com/walsh.pdf (accessed 23 February 2011).
54.
WileyM.O.BadenA.L. (2005) ‘Birth Parents in Adoption: Research, Practice, and Counseling Psychology’, The Counseling Psychologist33: 13–50 (doi: 10.1177/001100000426596110.1177/0011000004265961).
55.
YemmL.M. (2010) ‘International Adoption and the “Best Interests” of the Child: Reality and Reactionism in Romania and Guatemala’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review9: 555–74.
56.
ZeanahC.H.SmykeA.T.KogaS.CarlsonE. and the BEIP Core Group (2005) ‘Attachment in Institutionalized and Community Children in Romania’, Child Development76: 1015–28.
