Edited by Casey J. Skeens
First Kidnapped, Now Imprisoned
The United States decided not to repatriate the Guatemalan girl, Anyeli Hernandez, who was kidnapped over five years ago by a band that snatched her from her parents, held her in captivity and sold her to an American couple residing in Missouri, where she currently is. Now that country should analyze and understand the reasons behind the negative consequences of such a decision in Guatemala and in other countries that thrive from the robbing of infants only to turn them into merchandise that is sold to the highest bidder.
The illegal adoptions in Guatemala have turned into an industry. Consequently, the Guatemalan and United States authorities have decided to act together to avoid illegal adoptions. Ever since the decision was made, the number of cases has notably declined, as was hoped. There have also been remarks about it being better for the children, not for the legal systems, since the future for them outside of Guatemala, at least in theory, is better because it affords them more opportunities to improve their lives.
But the adoptions cannot be the product of an abduction, the forcible taking a young infant from the arms of the mother. Anyeli has a mother. The case has been cleared up by the intervention of police officials. There are people accused of the kidnapping in prison. And nevertheless, it now seems that bureaucratic criterion are preventing her return to her family in Guatemala.
The United States position is that it cannot extradite given that the Hague Convention, although it was not in effect when the case occurred over six years ago, has little basis for the additional defense of the application of a criterion that does not take into account the direct victims of the abduction, the biological mother and the girl. The adoptive parents benefit from the decision and in effect are also victims because there is no reason, until now, to doubt the good faith with which they acted and the positive effect of Anyeli living in a home in the United States where she is now.
In fact, the girl in the United States has a tacit prison. This is the opposite case for children who were born in that country: children of illegal Guatemalans that were later sent out of the country and find themselves in Guatemala in spite of having a U.S. passport and citizenship. These are matters that have a human factor that is impossible to avoid and diminish its importance.
In Anyeli’s case, the mother from whom the girl was taken has the fundamental right. Certainly, it is difficult to decide that it is the most convenient [decision] for the young girl, since she does not know her biological parents and relatives, does not speak Spanish and is familiar with the United States. But in practice not solving this case on the correct bases, which are not exclusively legal, constitutes a sort of reward, an incentive to those who wish to earn money this way: Once stolen children arrive in the United States, it is almost impossible to return them to where they belong.
The illegal adoptions in Guatemala have turned into an industry. Consequently, the Guatemalan and United States authorities have decided to act together to avoid illegal adoptions. Ever since the decision was made, the number of cases has notably declined, as was hoped. There have also been remarks about it being better for the children, not for the legal systems, since the future for them outside of Guatemala, at least in theory, is better because it affords them more opportunities to improve their lives.
But the adoptions cannot be the product of an abduction, the forcible taking a young infant from the arms of the mother. Anyeli has a mother. The case has been cleared up by the intervention of police officials. There are people accused of the kidnapping in prison. And nevertheless, it now seems that bureaucratic criterion are preventing her return to her family in Guatemala.
The United States position is that it cannot extradite given that the Hague Convention, although it was not in effect when the case occurred over six years ago, has little basis for the additional defense of the application of a criterion that does not take into account the direct victims of the abduction, the biological mother and the girl. The adoptive parents benefit from the decision and in effect are also victims because there is no reason, until now, to doubt the good faith with which they acted and the positive effect of Anyeli living in a home in the United States where she is now.
In fact, the girl in the United States has a tacit prison. This is the opposite case for children who were born in that country: children of illegal Guatemalans that were later sent out of the country and find themselves in Guatemala in spite of having a U.S. passport and citizenship. These are matters that have a human factor that is impossible to avoid and diminish its importance.
In Anyeli’s case, the mother from whom the girl was taken has the fundamental right. Certainly, it is difficult to decide that it is the most convenient [decision] for the young girl, since she does not know her biological parents and relatives, does not speak Spanish and is familiar with the United States. But in practice not solving this case on the correct bases, which are not exclusively legal, constitutes a sort of reward, an incentive to those who wish to earn money this way: Once stolen children arrive in the United States, it is almost impossible to return them to where they belong.
Next article![]( "Royalties and Taxes to Governments, the Silence of Oil Companies")
