Family group conferencing as a culturally adaptable intervention: Reforming intercountry adoption in Guatemala

Abstract

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.

Keywords

adoption child welfare family group conferencing Guatemala Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption indigenous Marshall Islands

Intercountry adoptions (ICAs) in Guatemala have raised questions about removing children from their families without fully exploring opportunities for care arrangements within their communities. Providing care in the family group, including immediate and extended family and kinship group, is not only important but it is also consistent with standards of human rights (Roby, 2007; Roby and Ife, 2009) and conceptions of the best interests of the child as per Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other agreements such as the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (HCIA) (Hollingsworth, 2008; McKinney, 2007; Rotabi, 2008; Rotabi and Bergquist, 2010; Yemm, 2010). Also, because as much as 50 percent of Guatemala comprises indigenous Mayan Indians (Rotabi et al., 2008), special consideration must be made for this particularly vulnerable group of children and families (Rotabi and Gibbons, in press), as per the United Nations (2007) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There is an urgency for culturally adaptable interventions (see Kumpfer et al., 2002), and family group conferencing (FGC) appears to be a particularly promising avenue. FGC invites the family group members to make decisions about the care of their young relatives, and the deliberations are flexibly shaped to their traditions and encourage cultural practices for solutions (Pennell and Anderson, 2005).

Guatemalan history and problems of previous system

From 2000 to 2007 more than 30,000 Guatemalan children were placed in foreign adoptive families. This sending pattern was almost exclusively to the USA, partly due to the fact that Canada and other nations imposed a moratorium related to concerns about unethical child adoption practices in the Central American nation (Dubinsky, 2010; Rotabi et al., 2008). Gresham et al. (2004) outline the systemic concerns and human rights abuses in their early exploration, using a United Nations (2000) report on the problem of ICA fraud as a starting point. Rotabi et al. (2008) make a detailed analysis of the social-ecological circumstances that led to problems in the ICA system, including high fertility rates, poverty, gender inequality, and other systemic problems in the nation. Further analysis was made by Rotabi and Morris (2007), Rotabi and Bunkers (2008), Bunkers et al. (2009) and Bunkers and Groza (in press), in which specific problems in ICA processes are discussed, including the different actors involved in the transaction, delineating functions and roles and outcomes For example, Gibbons, Wilson and Schnell (2009) investigated the role of and perceptions of Guatemalan foster mothers who provided care for children waiting to depart the country as adoptees. Findings include evidence about poverty as the primary reason for a birth mother’s relinquishment.

Starting in the 1990s, and until the 2007 passage of a new adoption law in the nation, Law 77/2007 (National Council on Adoptions, 2011), a small group of Guatemalan attorneys took the lead in the adoption processes. Some attorneys collaborated with birth-mother recruiters, who were paid handsomely (estimated in the range of US$5000–7000) for identifying and arranging healthy infants for adoption in coordination with adoption facilitators and others involved in the agency side of the system (Bunkers et al., 2009; Rotabi, 2008; Rotabi and Bunkers, 2008; Rotabi and Morris, 2007). The system became highly efficient and because the vast majority of children who originated from Guatemala were infants or toddlers, claims of a ‘baby business’ were lodged. Guatemalan experts agree that the system had deep problems which translated into human rights abuses in an unknown number of cases, especially related to ethical child relinquishments with dynamics of both coercion and financial enticement for birth mothers (Casa Alianza et al., 2007).

The child relinquishment process in Guatemala was very problematic and nested in an array of system failures; problems were pervasive, including allegations of child theft (Rotabi, 2009). After years of controversy and international pressure related to poor practices with birth mothers (Wiley and Baden, 2005), Guatemala ratified the aforementioned Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption in 2008 (Bunkers et al., 2009; Rotabi et al., 2008; Yemm, 2010). This international agreement (henceforth the HCIA) was developed to promote the best interests of the child and to prevent abduction, sales or traffic of children under the guise of ICA (The Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1993; Rotabi, 2008; Smolin, 2008). Guatemala joined approximately 80 signatory nations who agreed to develop systems of care to ensure the best interests of their citizen-children (Yemm, 2010). This includes taking active steps to prevent vulnerable children’s entry into illegal ‘adoption’ networks and a national commitment to domestic child care options.

Guatemala has been developing a new system and in 2009 it was announced that a small group of pilot countries would be selected to begin receiving ICAs from the nation, mainly placing children having ‘special needs’, such as older children and sibling groups (Bunkers and Groza, in press; Rotabi, 2010). There was a great deal of hope that Guatemala would resume ICA as a viable intervention for its orphaned and vulnerable children (Bunkers et al., 2009; Perez, 2008). However, a fall 2010 announcement from the US Department of State (US DOS) indicated a withdrawal from consideration as a pilot nation because ‘the United States believes that more safeguards for children should be in place before the CNA [Central Adoption Authority called Consejo Nacional de Adopciones or CNA] could start processing new intercountry adoptions’ (US DOS, 2010). Although other nations such as Spain have not withdrawn their petitions to participate, this step by the US DOS is a bad indicator for the future of Guatemalan ICAs, especially when one considers that there are several hundred children, mainly considered ‘special needs’, who have been identified as eligible for ICA (Perez, 2008).

Implications for long-term child institutionalization are profound. Languishing in an institution is not only a hindrance to child growth and development (Smyke et al., 2002; Zeanah et al., 2005), but the social deprivation found in many institutions can be considered inhumane. As such, there is an urgency at hand that requires thoughtful social intervention in the context of reform related to the HCIA.

Subsidiarity principle of the Hague Convention as it relates to Guatemala

The ‘safeguards’ referred to in the announcement of the US DOS are related to the subsidiarity principle found in the second clause of the HCIA, which states that an adoption shall take place only if the competent authorities of the state of origin ‘have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due consideration, that an ICA is in the child’s best interests’. In other words, this requires that a Hague Convention nation make an effort to keep the child in his or her community and nation, specifically giving preference to family and kinship care and then domestic adoption as a priority before making the child eligible for ICA. While guidance is general, good practices have been developed as recommendations (The Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2008), and basically the idea is that a continuum of care options must be crafted to safeguard subsidiarity rights. Ideally, this means that birth families are counseled appropriately when possible, including fair and informed relinquishment and consent processes (Article 2, Chapter 4), and options are explored to identify the ‘best interests’ of the particular child. The assessment process may yield a decision by the nation’s Central Authority that ICA is in the best interests of the child. If and when this occurs after attempts for domestic care, ideally the child would be appropriately identified as available for ICA and only then would the case interface with approved adoption service providers in foreign countries.

This range of care options translates into the need for the Guatemala Central Adoption Authority (CNA) and social welfare department to develop child welfare systems at the regional level of Guatemala. In other words, this means provision of systematic child welfare responses at the state or departmental level. Guatemala is a relatively small country, the size of the US state of Tennessee; nevertheless, providing such a system and with standards of practice is not insignificant. At this time, there is a very nascent child protection system and often privately run children’s homes fill the void. Unfortunately, these group homes and institutions only focus on the basic and immediate needs of children rather than a family preservation strategy.

While important steps have been taken to support Guatemalan social workers in making this transition to family support and family preservation, including training and other capacity-building strategies (Bunkers et al., 2009), further safeguards are needed for the development of culturally appropriate social interventions. Family group conferencing is a promising intervention with relevance to the cultural context as well as to child welfare problems in Guatemala.

Family group conferencing: Cultural origins and theory of change

FGC reflects the traditional practices of many societies by involving kinship networks in making and implementing plans for the care and well-being of the children and young people (Burford and Hudson, 2000). This empowerment model is based on a theory of family rights as both respecting diverse cultures and upholding universal human rights (Pennell and Koss, 2011). Its approach is in line with an ecological framework placing children within a nexus of family and community relationships, with a system of care principles of wrapping supports around children and their caregivers, and with rights-based practices engaging children and their families to make decisions concerning their lives and to maintain their kinship and cultural connections (Pennell et al., in press).

Post-colonial states, however, have historically sought to sever children from their cultural roots, and to the benefit of dominant groups, including by making children available for adoption (Strega and Esquao, 2009). In reaction to Eurocentric approaches that undermined their families and tribes, the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Maori, advocated for major reforms to the child welfare and youth justice systems (Rangihau, 1986). In 1989, this nation became the first to legislate FGC for serious situations of child maltreatment and youth offending across all its population. Its aim was to put into action principles of cultural affirmation, familial responsibility, children’s rights and government–community partnership (Hassall, 1996). Since then, countries around the globe have taken up the model and adapted it to their local contexts (Burford et al., 2010).

In keeping with the indigenous influences shaping the model, cultural responsiveness is built into its practice. In the case of child welfare, this means that state agents invite rather than order family groups to participate; in an iterative manner, reach agreement with them on the purpose of the conference; follow their lead on whom to invite and how and where to hold the conference so that the proceedings are culturally appropriate and safe for participants; assist with arrangements such as food, travel, and interpretation; offer information without dictating action steps; remove themselves from the deliberations so that family groups have privacy (‘alone time’) in which to make their plans; authorize the plans as long as they protect children; provide needed resources to implement the family groups’ plans; and reconvene as needed to update plans (Pennell and Anderson, 2005).

Repeatedly studies have found that FGC encourages participation by and contributions from different sides of the family (e.g. Norway: Falck, 2008), is carried out safely even in situations of domestic violence (e.g. USA: Pennell, 2006; Canada: Pennell and Burford, 2000), and generates plans reflecting the children’s cultural background (e.g. USA: Thomas et al., 2005) and the families’ ethic of caring for their young relatives (UK: Morris, 2007). Not surprisingly then, a recurring and striking finding is that involving the family group increases the likelihood that children will stay with their families or relatives or, if placed in care, return more quickly to their families (USA: Pennell et al., 2010). In the USA, this effect is particularly the case for Hispanic and African American children, whose exits from care have typically been delayed compared to those of White children (USA: Sheets et al., 2009). Thus, the evidence from child welfare points to the promise of FGC in encouraging familial or local care of children before resorting to ICAs. We turn now to the experience of the Marshall Islands, which legislated FGC to stop exportation of its children as adoptees to the USA before consideration of domestic arrangements. As a case example, the Marshall Islands is important for our consideration as it is the only state known to have legislated FGC when reforming its alternative child care and adoption system.

Marshall Islands as a case example

The Republic of Marshall Islands (the RMI) is a small Micronesian island country in the Central Pacific. The 66,000 inhabitants largely lead a subsistence-based life style (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011) and share a proud tradition of oceanic navigation and sailing. Since land is held in trust through generations extended families tend to live on closely-knit compounds, and every Marshallese has a known lineage (Walsh, 1999). However, governmental child welfare services are non-existent (UNICEF, 2003) and many who have migrated to the urban areas often lack the immediate support of the extended family. Fewer than nine percent of the population have household phones and even fewer (3.6%) have Internet services (UN Statistics Division, n.d.), making intra-family communication difficult.

In the RMI the boundaries of a child’s ‘family’ are often fluid. Aunts and uncles are referred to as mothers and fathers, and cousins as brothers and sisters. Raising children is the collective responsibility of the entire extended family, and foster care and adoption have been widely practiced largely within the kin system or clan (Carroll, 1970; Silk, 1980). Typically children are sent to relatives to provide labor or comfort, attend school or learn skills or trades. These arrangements are often open-ended, many lasting until the child’s adulthood, but no legal steps are taken to terminate or transfer parental rights. The child belongs to the clan, and is expected to care for birth parents in their old age (Walsh, 1999).

Western-style adoptions began in the RMI during the early 1990s as USA military families and expatriates began adopting Marshallese children. Due to the visa-free entry to the USA extended to Marshallese citizens under the Compact of Free Association – the aid package compensating for damage done to the Marshall Islands by USA atomic tests before and during the Second World War, bringing Marshallese children into the USA required only a routine RMI passport. This visa-free policy soon ignited a free-for-all for USA adoption service providers looking for healthy infants delivered at record speeds (Roby and Matsumura, 2002). Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children left the RMI without proper documentation or determination of their best interests, with their adoption and citizen statuses still largely unknown (Roby et al., 2005). Some US agencies facilitated adoptions in the RMI under court-made procedures, and some 500 children were adopted between 1996 and 1999 in the RMI courts. This number alone, excluding those who left the RMI without adoption procedures, represents the highest per capita for children adopted into the USA in 1999 (Walsh, 1999) and places the RMI in the top 20 source countries for the USA, although no entries were recorded as ICAs.

In late 1999 the RMI government imposed a moratorium on ICAs, and efforts were begun to create a legal framework. Utilizing the principles of cultural competence and strengths-based solutions, it was recognized that the extended family must be a part of the permanency equation. Thus, the adoption code mandated the Central Authority to meet with both sides of the extended family as part of the counseling process. The pertinent part of the law read:

The Central Authority shall . . . provide services to the natural parents and their children, including . . . i) Birth parent counseling as to options for realistic and effective parenting, including the possibility of traditional or foreign adoption; ii) Facilitating meetings with both sides of the family to explore options for the child. (Pub. Law 2002-64, Republic of Marshall Islands, Section 6)

In 2004, part (ii) was deleted under the rationale that FGCs could be conducted under the first part of the statute, under the ‘possibility of traditional . . . adoption’ phrase (Marshall Islands Revised Code [MIRC], §26-806 (1)(c)(i)). The Central Authority, however, has continued to provide FGCs as a routine part of pre-decision counseling resulting in a significant number of children being absorbed into the extended family, or families receiving necessary assistance.

The steps to incorporating an FGC are quite straightforward. Information on the extended family is collected at intake with a birth parent, with a particular emphasis on the family leaders who have power to make decisions – typically the grandmothers, uncles and aunts, defined as part of the ‘birth family’ under the law (MIRC §26-803 (1)(f)). The format utilized can vary, but the end goal is to empower the extended family to have a voice in the placement of their young relatives. At the beginning of an FGC, there is usually some socializing and refreshments before the eldest relatives introduce the participants. The birth parents are encouraged to describe their situation and the different options being contemplated. The social worker may provide additional information regarding available resources or services, depending on the needs of the child and the birth family. The family then has ‘alone’ time to discuss the situation, and notifies the social worker when they have reached a decision. If some relatives are unable to attend they are invited to call in or write letters regarding their willingness and ability to foster or adopt the child. When contact is difficult the social worker may visit the relatives or communicate through a third party.

Although it is premature to determine the long-term effectiveness of FGCs in the RMI, early signs are encouraging. According to Central Authority staff, ICA placement has been prevented in about 70–80 percent of the cases through extended family involvement; unfortunately, however, resources are not available for a systematic follow-up with the kin placements. Birth parents, for the most part, have welcomed the intervention; however, some choose ICA regardless of the extended family’s offers. Rarely, extended families cannot be located or choose not to participate.

It should be noted that RMI has not ratified the HCIA; however, the conception of subsidiarity is embedded in the law and respect for cultural practice. As a result, the example of the RMI child welfare services integration of FGC is a best practice which emerged without pressure from international agreements.

Implications for capacity building of social work education in Guatemala

FGC is a flexible intervention that has been used globally, in a variety of cultural contexts, and it fits with the planning and current efforts in Guatemalan social work education and training programs. Because FGC involves a natural group (the family group) and formed group (the addition of the service providers), social workers need to pay attention to intra-familial and family–practitioner dynamics. With the family, the FGC coordinator needs to attend to issues of age, generation and gender, including checking on abuse of women and children. With practitioners, the FGC coordinator needs to offer guidance on how to word their statements in a clear and non-threatening language and to listen to participants rather than arriving with preset opinions. The work is not only at the family level but also the organizational level so that policies, procedures and resourcing support the FGC process in a range of areas, including adoptions (see Pennell and Anderson, 2005).

As part of developing a new child welfare system in Guatemala post-Hague ratification (Bunkers et al., 2009), improved programming, service delivery and capacity building of social work professionals were identified as key areas targeted for strengthening. The current university-based social work curriculum at the national university, San Carlos, is a three-pronged approach covering individual and family social work, group social work and community-based social work (personal communication, Marielos Quintanilla, 2011). The School of Social Work focuses on developing practitioners with a foundation in social justice issues and specialized knowledge of current challenges faced by Guatemalans. Many of the graduates go on to work in community-focused interventions and with non-governmental organizations (Bunkers and Groza, in press). Up until Hague ratification, there were very few formally trained social workers involved in child welfare within government structures (Bunkers and Groza, in press; Bunkers et al., 2009). To date, there has not been a specific course or module related to alternative care of children. The School of Law at San Carlos has a course on the family and adoption within the curriculum and it addresses both the HCIA and the national legal framework (personal communication, Marielos Quintanilla, 2011).

As a response to the increasing need to have a dedicated and trained workforce with the knowledge, skills and appropriate tools to actively engage in the strengthening of the national child welfare system, a private Guatemalan university, Rafael Landivar, with UNICEF support, developed a diploma course with an integrated curriculum entitled ‘The Alternative Care Guidelines and Family Preservation’ (University Rafael Landivar and UNICEF, 2010). The interdisciplinary course highlighted key international and national legal frameworks, specifically the UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (United Nations, 2009), and the role of the state, the family and civil society in the protection and care of children (University Rafael Landivar, 2010). The diploma course was attended by 24 social workers, psychologists, lawyers and judges working for governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations working within child welfare (University Rafael Landivar and UNICEF, 2010).

FGC is present within the curriculum of the National University and is referred to in Spanish as auto-ayuda familiar, family self-help groups. This methodology is taught in the Individual and Family Social Work curriculum and currently focuses on family preservation tactics with especially vulnerable children (personal communication, Marielos Quintanilla, 2011). Students learn how to bring family members together to find a commonly agreed-upon solution to an identified problem affecting the family. The social worker is responsible for overseeing the orientation, assessment and support of the family as they find a commonly agreed-upon and accepted solution (personal communication, Marielos Quintanilla, 2011). It appears that to date, this type of family group work has not included cases of relinquishment, either temporarily or permanently, as in the case of adoption (personal communication, Marielos Quintanilla, 2011). As the social work curriculum shifts from a community practice focus to include family support and child welfare intervention components, FGC is a practice model which is a natural fit for Guatemala. And, as the nation shifts from intercountry adoption as the child welfare intervention of choice to exploring family and kinship care options prior to adoption, FGC and its value for family systems is also a good fit. While community and tribal systems in Guatemala have always taken an active role in child welfare, intercountry adoption supplanted some of these natural supports (Bunkers et al., 2009). Now, FGC may be used by social workers to reinitiate family and kinship engagement and support in determining the best interests of the child.

Culturally adapted intervention

ICAs, in Guatemala and elsewhere, have played a vital role in deinstitutionalizing children or preventing their placement in orphanages. This role is beneficial as long as the process respects the rights of children and their families in decision-making and looks for domestic solutions before turning to out-of-country options. FGC is a vehicle for reinforcing both human rights and cultural practices and preventing the exportation of children, especially indigenous children. The model is designed for adaptation to local cultures while protecting the well-being of children and has repeatedly proven effective in enlisting the support of extended family, whatever their backgrounds, around their young relatives. Social work education in Guatemala has already adopted FGC, making for a hospitable environment in which to extend its practice to deinstitutionalization and adoptions.

Footnotes

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

References

Bunkers

Groza

(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 Gibbons

Rotabi

(eds) Intercountry Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes. London: Ashgate Press.

Bunkers

Groza

Lauer

(2009) ‘International Adoption and Child Protection in Guatemala: A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog’, International Social Work 52(5): 649–60.

Burford

Hudson

(eds) (2000) Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in Community-centered Child and Family Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Burford

Connolly

Morris

Pennell

(2010 [2009]) Annotated Bibliography on Engaging the Family Group in Child Welfare Decision Making. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association. Available at: http://www.americanhumane.org/children/professional-resources/program-publications/family-group-decision-making/bibliographies.html

Carroll

(1970) ‘What Does ‘‘Adoption’’ Mean?’, in Carroll

(ed.) Adoption in Eastern Oceania, pp. 3–17. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

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.

Central Intelligence Agency (2011) The World Fact Book: Marshall Islands. Available online at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rm.html

Dubinsky

(2010) Babies without Borders: Adoption and Migration across the Americas. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Falck

(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.

Gibbons

J. L

Wilson

S. L.

Schnell

A.M.

(2009). Foster parents as a critical link and resource in international adoptions from Guatemala, Adoption Quarterly, 12, 59–77.

11.

Gresham

Nackerud

Risler

(2004) ‘Intercountry Adoption from Guatemala and the United States: A Comparative Policy Analysis’, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 1(3/4): 1–20.

12.

Hassall

(1996) ‘Origin and Development of Family Group Conferences’, in Hudson

Morris

Maxwell

Galaway

(eds) Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice, pp. 17–36. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.

13.

Hollingsworth

L.D.

(2008) ‘Commentary: Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Address the Protection of Adoptees’ Cultural Identity? And Should It?’, Social Work 53(4): 377–9.

14.

Kumpfer

K.L.

Alvarado

Smith

Bellamy

(2002) ‘Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-based Prevention Interventions’, Prevention Science 3(3): 241–6.

15.

McKinney

(2007) ‘International Adoption and the Hague Convention: Does Implementation of the Convention Protect the Best Interests of Children?’, Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy 361: 368–412.

16.

Morris

(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.

Pennell

(2006) ‘Stopping Domestic Violence or Protecting Children? Contributions from Restorative Justice’, in Sullivan

Tifft

(eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective, pp. 286–98. New York: Routledge.

19.

Pennell

Anderson

(eds) (2005) Widening the Circle: The Practice and Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing with Children, Youths, and Their Families. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

20.

Pennell

Burford

(2000) ‘Family Group Decision Making: Protecting Children and Women’, Child Welfare 79(2): 131–58.

21.

Pennell

Koss

M.P.

(2011) ‘Feminist Perspectives on Family Rights: Social Work and Restorative Justice Processes to Stop Women Abuse’, in Beck

Kropf

N.P.

Leonard

P.B.

(eds) Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation, pp. 195–219. New York: Oxford University Press.

22.

Pennell

Burford

Connolly

Morris

(in press) ‘Introduction: Taking Child and Family Rights Seriously: Family Engagement and Its Evidence in Child Welfare’, in special issue of Child Welfare.

23.

Pennell

Edwards

Burford

(2010) ‘Expedited Family Group Engagement and Child Permanency’, Children and Youth Services Review 32: 1012–19 (doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.02910.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.029).

24.

Perez

L.M.

(2008) Situation Faced by Institutionalized Children and Adolescents in Shelters in Guatemala. Guatemala City: USID and Holt International Children Services.

25.

Rangihau

(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.

Roby

J.L.

(2007) ‘From Rhetoric to Best Practice: Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption’, Children’s Legal Rights Journal 27(3): 48–71.

27.

Roby

J.L.

Ife

(2009) ‘Human Rights, Politics, and Intercountry Adoption: An Examination of Two Sending Countries’, International Social Work 52(5): 661–71.

28.

Roby

J.L.

Matsumura

(2002) ‘If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall Islands–US Adoptions’, Adoption Quarterly 5(4): 7–31.

29.

Roby

J.L.

Wyatt

Pettys

(2005) ‘Openness in International Adoptions: A Study of US Parents Who Adopted Children from the Marshall Islands’, Adoption Quarterly 8(3): 47–71 (doi: 10.1300/J145v08n02_0310.1300/J145v08n02_03).

30.

Rotabi

K.S.

(2008) ‘Intercountry Adoption Baby Boom Prompts New US Standards’, Immigration Law Today 27(1): 12–19.

31.

Rotabi

K.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.

Rotabi

K.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.

Rotabi

K.S.

Bergquist

K.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.

Rotabi

K.S.

Bunkers

K.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.

Rotabi

K.S.

Gibbons

J.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.

Rotabi

K.S.

Morris

A.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.

Rotabi

K.S.

Morris

A.W.

Weil

M.O.

(2008) ‘International Child Adoption in a Post-conflict Society: A Multi-systemic Assessment of Guatemala’, Journal of Intergroup Relations XXXIV(2): 9–41.

38.

Sheets

Wittenstrom

Fong

James

Tecci

Baumann

D.J.

Rodriguez

(2009) ‘Evidence-Based Practice in Family Group Decision- Making for Anglo, African American and Hispanic Families’, Children and Youth Services Review 31: 1187–91.

39.

Silk

(1980) ‘Adoption and Kinship in Oceania’, American Anthropologist 82: 799–820.

40.

Smolin

D.M.

(2008) ‘Child Laundering and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: The Future and Past of Intercountry Adoptions’, University of Louisville Law Review 48: 441–98.

41.

Smyke

A.T.

Dumitrescu

Zeanah

C.H.

(2002) ‘Attachment Disturbances in Young Children I: The Continuum of Caretaking Casualty’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41: 972–82.

42.

Strega

Esquao

S.A.

[ Carrière

] (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.

Thomas

K.L.

Berzin

S.C.

Cohen

(2005) ‘Fidelity of Family Group Decision Making: A Content Analysis of Family Conference and Case Plans in a Randomized Treatment Study’, Protecting Children 19(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.

48.

United Nations, General Assembly (2007) ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Geneva, Switzerland: 107th Plenary Meeting, 13 September. Available online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.

49.

United Nations Statistics Division (n.d.) ‘Country Profile: Marshall Islands’, available online at: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Marshall%20Islands.

50.

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.

Walsh

(1999). ‘Adoption and Agency: American Adoption of Marshallese Children’, available online at: http://www.rmicaa.com/walsh.pdf (accessed 23 February 2011).

54.

Wiley

M.O.

Baden

A.L.

(2005) ‘Birth Parents in Adoption: Research, Practice, and Counseling Psychology’, The Counseling Psychologist 33: 13–50 (doi: 10.1177/001100000426596110.1177/0011000004265961).

55.

Yemm

L.M.

(2010) ‘International Adoption and the “Best Interests” of the Child: Reality and Reactionism in Romania and Guatemala’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review 9: 555–74.

56.

Zeanah

C.H.

Smyke

A.T.

Koga

Carlson

and the BEIP Core Group (2005) ‘Attachment in Institutionalized and Community Children in Romania’, Child Development 76: 1015–28.