THIS POST IS FOR PARENTS WHO HAVE LOST A CHILD TO "THE STATE"

By Tim Rohr

As posted at Kandit News:

“This AG’s Office is pro-parents and believes parents must have discretion to raise their children. Raising your kids is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.  Both non-corporal and corporal punishment will be supported by this AG’s Office. There is a difference between child abuse and firmly raising one’s children to make them respect the rules.  All parents are welcome to contact me directly if they are faced with an allegation by Child Protective Services or any law enforcement officer / prosecution for my personal review.  This AG’s Office is a work in progress to  bring balance back to conservative, time-proven values.” 

While Moylan's comments are in the context of parents disciplining their children, Moylan's reference to the right to parent as a "fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution" speaks to the larger issue of  when and by what authority can the state deprive a parent of this fundamental right.

Said "fundamental right" is inherently set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in the family law context to protect parents from undue intrusion by the state, and the American Bar Association in "Parental Rights Cases to Know" sets out several cases relative to parental rights, the most recent and definitive of which is Troxel v Granville (2000):

the “liberty interest…the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children— is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this [Supreme] Court…It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents…”

Troxel is of particular interest because the parents of the children were not married and even did not live together at the time of the father's death. Copying here from the case:

Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel shared a relationship that ended in June 1991. The two never married, but they had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents, and thus the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. After Tommie and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his daughters to his parents' home for weekend visitation. Brad committed suicide in May 1993. Although the Troxels at first continued to see Isabelle and Natalie on a regular basis after their son's death, Tommie Granville informed the Troxels in October 1993 that she wished to limit their visitation with her daughters to one short visit per month.

What is important in Troxel is that the Constitution trumped "best interest of the child factors," - a common legislative denominator in almost all custody cases involving minor children - including Guam.

Note: Even though Troxel is the critically relevant case pursuant to the content of this post, Santosky v Kramer is even more impactful given that (per this summary): "even after parents are found unfit in a contested court proceeding, they retain constitutionally protected parental rights."  

This finding is major given how the lower courts continually ignore "constitutionally protected parental rights" if and when - per "the best interest of the child," the parents - or a parent - is found "unfit." 

In fact, family law attorneys (and I know this from experience) will tell you NOT to mention "constitutional rights" otherwise you will "p*ss off the judge.")

MEANWHILE - BACK TO TROXEL

It is clear throughout Troxel that the best interest of the child would have been better served had the children's grandparents (Troxel's) had the access to their grandchildren that they sued for. Nevertheless, the Court, said "no." The Constitution must stand. 

Many parents have lost their children (and the children have lost at least one parent) due to the very vague legislative standard of "best interest of the child." 

As an example, the Guam Code states this:

Custody should be awarded to either parent according to the best interest of the child. 19 GCA § 8404(a)(1)

That's it. The law sets out no "factors." So who and what determines what is in the "best interest of the child?" 

The seminal case in Guam which established the so-called "best interest of the child factors" is Howerton v Howerton (2004). 

However, even in Howerton, the Guam court had to reach out to an obscure 20 year old opinion (1984) from a Tennessee court to set out what "should be" the "best interest factors:" 

For instance, in Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984), the court found that in determining where the best interests of a child lies when awarding custody, the lower court should consider many factors including, but not limited to... (see this link for the factors set forth in Bah.)

In short, no one really knows what are these "best interest factors," a "factor" which opens up the whole matter for the court to use its "discretion" - functionally an open door for the judge to do whatever he or she chooses. 

Actually, despite being on the losing end of some significant "judicial discretion" decisions in my own case, I sympathize with the judges in family law cases given that the legislature has provided such nebulous guidance - and guidance which functionally ignores, if not contradicts, the Constitution. 

Here's an example of how the Court is forced to rule based on the vagaries of the law relative to the "best interest of the child:"

The primary consideration when determining custody is the best interests of the children. See 19 GCA § 8404; Flores, 1998 Guam 30. The purpose of a custody hearing is "to determine the best interests of the child and not that of the parents." Flores, 1998 Guam 30 at P 23. "The issue is not what is in the best interest of the family unit consisting of the custodial mother and the minor children." Riley v. Riley, 45 Ark. App. 165, 873 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). Once a court finds that a change in custody is necessary, the sole issue before the court is "determining the best interests of the children, not the children and their mother, and not the children and their father." Id. - Lanser v. Lanser, 2003 Guam 14, 2003

The Court is caught between a rock and a hard place. The parents are fighting, so the Court "in the best interest of the child" steps in as the parents patiae. 

HOWEVER. 

And this is a big "HOWEVER." In the absence of better or more detailed legislation, the Court can and should fall back on the Fourteenth Amendment and NOT deprive a parent of a child (nor the child or a parent) without Due Process. 

In family court, this would translate into NO CUSTODY DETERMINATION - even temporary custody - without an evidentiary hearing. 

As it stands now, judges can and do make custody determinations based solely on filings...and not hearings (functionally mini-trials). 

And - given the ubiquity of gross lying in domestic cases (even under penalty of perjury), AS WELL AS ATTORNEY NEGLIGENCE AND ERROR (aka "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel"), innocent children can be - and are  - severely harmed. 

Without getting into details...

...one of the five judges in my own case made a custody determination based solely on filings. The filings were deficient due to my then-attorney's refusal to file a reply to very damaging allegations. 

Based on the filings and the lack of a reply from me, the judge awarded temporary custody to the other side. 

HOWEVER, due to some very strange anomalies relative to my case, compounded by the Covid shut down of the courts, what should have only been a few months turned into 5 very long years during which time two of my children were irreparably damaged by being deprived of their father during the most formative years of their lives.

Thus, I go back to a letter to the editor I sent to the Guam Daily Post in November 2022, and which I re-posted here in JW relative to what the Legislature and our Courts can and must do if "Our Children (really) Are Our Future" - as so many politicos are wont to say.

Copying here from the original post. 

Here are three recommendations:

1. After criminal matters, domestic cases involving children should be pushed to the top of the judicial calendar. Children are only children for a very few years and even temporary orders can last years given that the courts often look at domestic cases as simply unsavory spats between parents. Interestingly, Guam law fast tracks child support but not custody. It should do both.

2. Relative to awarding custody, even temporary custody, an evidentiary hearing should be automatically calendared. As court rules stand now, one of the parties must request a hearing, and even then the court has the authority to waive the hearing and grant custody based solely on the filings. This is dangerous. It is not uncommon for parties in domestic disputes to outright lie - even under penalty of perjury. And it is much easier to lie on paper than in the full view of a black-robed judge. Also, attorney neglect, if not outright malpractice, may result in the court awarding custody to the parent who is most dangerous to the child. Our laws make much of “the best interest of the child,” but unless a judge engages both parties, in-person, and in a full evidentiary hearing, the child is at risk - sometimes severe risk.

3. Guam needs a unique version of a “child-kidnapping” law. Given Guam’s remote location it is not uncommon for a disaffected - but still legally married - spouse to relocate to a faraway state or territory with a couple’s minor children without the other parent’s knowledge or consent. To address such a scenario, Guam adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. However, for the abandoned parent to take action under the Act, he or she must usually initiate an action for divorce and then await the peculiarities of the court’s calendar relative to domestic cases. Meanwhile, a child might remain functionally kidnapped and in the custody of an abusive parent…for years.

I hope you get your children back. 

SCREW THAT

By Tim Rohr

A partial headline from the Pacific Daily News is "GEC to hold abortion referendum if injunction lifted."  

Local radio talk show host Bob Klitzkie tries to make sense of the story - which you can catch here.

Meanwhile, I'll just interject that none of this drama over a thirty year old piece of legislation that was left hanging in the Guam Code Annotated like a forgotten appendix in an appendectomy gone bad is necessary if the lawmakers we just elected and/or re-elected, would just do their job. 

The pro-aborts, like Sen. Parkinson, could simply introduce a bill to make the 1990 law, aka Belle's Law, null and void, and replace it with a bill requiring easy abortions for all. 

And the pro-lifers in the legislature, whoever they are, could introduce a bill to make Belle's Law null and void and replace it with a bill to fully ban abortion as Belle's Law did, but without the 30 year old baggage. 

Meanwhile, we don't hear from either side and we are now probably forced to endure months of expensive litigation at our expense and even more stupid news stories. 

Screw that.

Call your senators and tell them to do their job. Let's end this. 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 5: HON'S INQUISITION

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 4

Initially Hon (Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai) gave all the right cues. Shortly after arriving in Guam in his appointed capacity as Apostolic Administrator to the Archdiocese of Agana, Hon stated the following on June 26, 2016:

I would like to reassure the faithful and all people of good will that Church has taken into serious consideration the allegations made against Archbishop Anthony Apuron, OFM Cap., in recent months by Mr. Walter Denton, Mrs. Doris Concepcion, Mr. Roy Quintanilla, and Mr. Roland Paul Lizama Sondia, and that all of the relevant documentation received by the Church related to these allegations has been duly sent to the Holy See, which has final authority in cases related to Bishops. I would further like to assure everyone that I have recognized the issues raised by all those concerned and, being deeply moved by the way they expressed themselves, am earnestly praying for them, without prejudice to both the alleged victims and the accused and ask for the prayers and support of the entire Church community.  -  SOURCE

However, Hon's comments during some of his homilies indicated that he thought otherwise, and on Jul. 10, 2016, Hon let slip what he really thought:

Modern societies have sharpened the tools of the law and people may be led to the belief that wrongdoings can be solved simply by lawsuits or the passage of certain Bills.  SOURCE (Note: At this point, Hon was referring to the introduction of legislation that would lift the civil statute of limitations on sexual abuse of minors.)

Within a few weeks, Hon (most likely at the direction of his Kiko-affiliated boss, Cardinal Filoni - aka "The Red Pope") had gone from "praying for them" to vilifying legislation - the sort of legislation that would bring real justice to the aggrieved persons Hon had said he was praying for. 

I wasn't surprised. 

I had appeared before Hon's "inquisition" - otherwise called an apostolic visitation - in January 2015:

(Note: This video is a screenshot recording of the original KUAM video which can be found here. The video shows Hon and his Vatican entourage arriving in Guam and being met by then-Archbishop Apuron and two mayors.)

After the niceties, Hon wasted little time in accusing me of carrying out a vendetta against Apuron for personal reasons. 

I held up my hand to his face and stopped him. I then said - and I remember every word: 

"Look, I'm the father of 11 children and I'm trying to help them go to heaven and I have to fight against priests and bishops like you." 

Needless to say "my" inquisition was over at that point. 

Another bishop escorted me out of the building (the former Carmelite monastery in Tamuning). I'll withhold his name but I will tell you what he said: "That was great. Thank you." 

That bishop knew the real story, but he wasn't allowed to say anything at Hon's inquisition. So he took the opportunity to see me out and encourage me (and others) to keep up the fight - which we did.

(Note: This whole thing, once consolidated into a comprehensive story, would rival "The Name of the Rose" - a novel founded in history, or "The DaVinci Code" - which wasn't.) 

So it was quite clear to me from January 2015 that Hon had not come to Guam to learn the truth and fix the problem. 

Hon had been sent to Guam to get rid of those of us who had exposed the problem. 

And a year and a half later (June 2016) when Hon was assigned to Guam as the Apostolic Administrator after Apuron had fled, I had every reason to believe that he had come back to finish the job: shut down the troublemakers, me, the CCOG, the LFM, etc...and save the NCW and specifically: RMS. *

TO BE CONTINUED

*Redemptoris Mater Seminary

SOME NOTES ABOUT THE "DECLINE IN LOCAL ATTORNEYS"...AND "THE BOOK"

By Tim Rohr

'It's a signal': Arriola concerned about decline in local attorneys

Guam Daily Post, Feb. 16, 2023

This is a strange news story. 

And I probably would have nothing to say about it except for my recent 5 year long experience with multiple Guam attorneys and the local courts. 

Beyond what appears to be a hit-piece by Atty. Jay Arriola on Attorney General Douglas Moylan (read the story), the issue is really about "free market economics." 

The real question is why are so many attorneys abandoning the practice of law (in Guam) or not aspiring to it?

Arriola says that there were 400 practicing attorneys in 2010 and there are now less than 300:

“There are only approximately 284 licensed members, active members of the Guam Bar (as of this month). … Say 2010, say around then, we were at our peak with over 400 lawyers,” Arriola told The Guam Daily Post.

While Arriola appears to blame both the court (for lack of pay) and AG Douglas Moylan (see the story), the bottom line free market factor is that if attorneys are worth their pay, not only would they would be getting it, there would be a waiting line at the entrance door to the Guam Bar. 

But there isn't. 

In fact, at least according to Arriola (per the news story), the only waiting line is a line at the EXIT. 

I am not going to drag the details of my particular case into this, but in short, I was ignorantly drug through "the system" at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, unnecessary and tragic personal loss - both to myself and my children, and five terrible long years, before I fired my fourth attorney and launched out on my own and into what the system calls "pro se" (self-representation). 

I would have happily paid even more tens of thousands of dollars to any of those four attorneys had they answered my phone calls, replied to my emails, or showed the slightest interest in my case after they spent my initial retainer. But they DID NOT. In fact, my fourth attorney... well, never mind. 

Meanwhile, I would have happily paid Atty. Arriola himself all those tens of thousands of dollars had he taken my case. But he DID NOT. For reasons I do not know and he did not say. So never mind that as well. 

In the end, thanks to very special help from friends who I choose not to name, my own research, and my retaining a 5th attorney who at least let me file what I wanted to file...I got what I wanted - though I lost 5 years of my life, my children's lives, and my life savings on the way. 

From what I've read, Atty. Jay Arriola would have been an awesome advocate and could have saved me years of hell and tens of thousands of dollars. But he did not. And I wasn't given a reason. 

And that's okay. In fact, I thank him for refusing me. In the end I learned how to win on my own. And maybe that's why people are not willing to pay attorneys what Mr. Arriola thinks they are worth - anymore. 

PS. 

There are several PS's. To be fair Doug Moylan, when in private practice, also turned down my case. But at least he gave me a reason: "too busy" he said. Thanks Doug. That's a very good reason. The last thing I wanted was an attorney who was "too busy." That's an honest answer. Ethically, attorneys should not accept cases they cannot properly commit time to. 

Another PS:

In addition to the special counsel I received from friends who I choose not to name, I found much help from a fellow who represented himself for eight years in a custody case and who not only got full custody of his child but got court-ordered termination of the mother's parental rights. 

Also - and I share this for anyone who is despairing as I once was - I was helped much with a rather inexpensive subscription to How To Win In Court Without a Lawyer. 

There is one more PS. 

Not only did I go through 5 local attorneys, I also had to "go through" 5 local judges, 2 of whom recused themselves, and one of whom - though he did not state this - was the first cousin of the now EX-Fr. Adrian Cristobal. 

And that's a story I am saving for "The Book." 

NOTE: AG Doug Moylan responded to Atty. Jay Arriola here.

RECOMMENDED READING

Tyranny and Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Jesuit Tragedy

Dr. John R. T. Lamont

In the light of new revelations about sexual abuse in the Church, many Catholics are asking how the situation that these revelations have disclosed can possibly have come about. The first question that occurs, a question of long standing, is; why did bishops deal with sexual abusers by concealing their offenses and moving them to new assignments, rather than by removing them from ministry? No sufficient answer has yet been given to this question. FULL ARTICLE

An excerpt from the article describing a situation that sounds familiar to us in Guam:

James said he had tried to tell his father that he was being abused when he was 15 or 16. But Father McCarrick was so beloved by his family, he said, and considered so holy, that the idea was unfathomable. … James says that as a boy, he had no safe place to discuss what was happening to him. “No place. No place. My father was just not going to hear it.” … “I tried a couple of times with my mother, but she would say ‘I think you’re mistaken.’ My father was born in 1918, my mother was born in 1920. They were raised in a way that the Catholic Church was everything. My father was a holy guy. He’d walk around with a rosary in his hand all day. My parents were very holy, and their parents were very holy. Their whole idea about life was that way.”[1]

MY NOTE: 

While there is much to agree with in this article, there is, in my opinion, a much simpler answer to the "first question," as set out above. The real answer as to why and how all this horror could happen is not due to a warped development of the concept of authority as the author theorizes, but because of the warped development of those in authority, i.e. the bishops

As the McCarrick debacle exemplifies (and closer to home, the Apuron scandal), the bishops were the actual bad actors. The infamous 2002 "Dallas Charter" is a prime example. The Charter was drafted by bishops to discipline wayward priests but not themselves. More thoughts on this another time. 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 4: THE ROLE OF THE RED POPE

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 3

As the Archdiocese of Agana moves forward to a resolution in the matter of its bankruptcy and we watch many church properties, including certain parish churches, placed on the legal chopping block, it is understandable that some, if not many, may resent the most visible players in the outing of decades of clergy sex abuse in this diocese that led to the bankruptcy - including myself and the Concerned Catholics of Guam ("CCOG") as led by David Sablan.

However, it continues to be critical to tell and retell the real story of how this bankruptcy came about since neither I, nor the CCOG, nor any other lay person who came to be involved in this matter began our involvement with the intent to expose clergy sex abuse - since none of us, despite years of rumors, truly had any idea of the depth of the horror that we all later were forced to face. 

No. 

We came to be involved because we saw a gross abuse of power in this archdiocese, which, on the surface, appeared to be the actions of then-Archbishop Apuron, but - as we would quickly discover - were really the actions of foreign agents via the now ex-Fr. Adrian Cristobal.

How Cristobal came to be the actual catalyst in this power drama is a story for another post. For now it is enough to once again demonstrate that it was these same "foreign agents," i.e. "The Kikos," who infiltrated and perverted "the temple" that once was the Archdiocese of Agana. 

For those who need to be reminded, "The Kikos" are the big boys at the top of the Neocatechumenal Way, and so named (by this blog) after their founder, Kiko Arguello. 

On JW, we use the term "The Kikos" to differentiate the "big boys" from the regular folk in the Neocatechumenal Way ("NCW") who simply joined the thing in response to a promise of a deeper faith. (Note: Why that was never possible in the NCW is a topic for another post.)

And so we continue:

The bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana and the loss of many beloved and valued church properties began with the decision by The Red Pope to send his lieutenant to Guam to take over this archdiocese after Apuron ran away in May 2016. 

"The Red Pope" is (or was) Cardinal Fernando Filoni, then-Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples:

...currently Cardinal Fernando Filoni – is known as “the red Pope”. SOURCE 

(Note: It is curious that this SOURCE also notes that the same Filoni was opposed to the Vatican financial reforms then-led by the now-dead Cardinal Pell. Soon after Pell initiated his reforms, Pell was falsely accused of sex abuse of minors and was locked up in Australia for a time. Upon those accusations being found false, Pell's release, and Pell's return to Rome to attend the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI...Pell died "after undergoing hip surgery at Rome's Salvator Mundi hospital...")

Really?

(Another Note: The moniker "The Red Pope" doesn't belong to Filoni. It's a quip used to characterize a particular cardinal (cardinals wear red) who has undue influence in the Vatican. In fact, the current "Red Pope" is Cardinal Tagle, Archbishop of Manila.)

But back to 2016 and when all hell was breaking loose in the Archdiocese of Agana, Filoni was the Red Pope and his lieutenant was Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai ("Hon"), who was then Secretary to Filoni. In Vatican lingo, a "Secretary" isn't a typist or a notetaker, he is more like a vice-president. A powerful guy.

There isn't time to link all the previous JW posts wherein Filoni is clearly identified as The Kikos' godfather in Rome. But he was. (And you can search for all that in this blog.) 

And, it didn't take long for us (myself, the CCOG, etc.) to see that Hon was not sent to Guam to be just an "Administrator" in the absence of Apuron. Hon was sent here to put down the "uprising" that threatened the future of the Neocatechumenal power structure in Guam and more specifically - threatened its Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

TO BE CONTINUED - PART 5

LATIN MASS CATHOLICS ARE "VIOLENT EXTREMISTS" ACCORDING TO THE FBI

An ABC News story reports: 

...the FBI suggests that there are Catholics who are “radical-traditionalists” and could be “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” The memo further says that “violent extremists” include Catholics who prefer a Latin Mass. 

Go here for the full story.

Go here for the press release from the Virginia Attorney General.

Go here for letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice and the FBI from the Attorney Generals of 20 states.

From the letter:

After defining which Catholics are the dangerous ones, the memorandum proposes dealing with those Catholics through “the development of sources with access,” including in “places of worship.” In other words, the memorandum proposes recruiting Catholics to enter a sacred house of worship, talk to their fellow Catholics, and report those conversations back to the FBI so that the federal government can keep tabs on the bad Catholics.

Go here for the story by the Catholic News Agency.

PARKINSON IS A COWARD

A Guam Daily Post news story shows a picture of Sen. William Parkinson joining the protest against Atty. General Doug Moylan who recently filed papers with the District Court of Guam to remove the injunction on "Belle's Law." 

What a joke.

Parkinson is the one person on that sidewalk who actually has the power and the authority to make Moylan's action entirely moot. 

As a sitting senator, Parkinson can and should introduce a bill to make abortion as legal as he and his abortion buddies want it to be. 

But Parkinson is a coward. 

Which is why he would rather stand on a sidewalk and wave. 

MOST POPULAR POSTS OVER THE LAST 7 DAYS

 

IT'S CRAP LIKE THIS...

It's crap like this that makes me regret how much I and many others gave up and even suffered for crybaby cowards like this guy who won't even use his real name:

“Nobody is praying for us. Nobody cares, man. Nobody cares. It is so sad. It’s sad because I’m alive, I'm 50 and I could use that money. I could really use that money man,” M.B., a clergy sexual abuse survivor, told The Guam Daily Post, days before he was on the brink of having his power cut off.

Later in the article we find that this coward, M.B. already scored $150k off the Capuchins but now he's crying about not getting more because:

“I used that $150,000 to make my kids happy. Everything. Bought them cars, all that stuff, because I’m coming with other money. I’m going to pay off the house and we’re going to live good,” he said.

WTH 

NOTE TO PARISHIONERS

A detailed list of properties owned by the Archbishop of Agana (aka Archdiocese of Agana) transferred to the Trust (established for the benefit of certain claimants) includes several properties currently operating as parishes. 

Those properties are of no use to the claimants unless they are converted into cash, so presumably the Trust will put the properties up for sale. 

Now is the time for parishioners who want to save their parishes to organize, incorporate, and make every effort to purchase their parish properties back and keep them under the control of their own corporation. 

And Canon Law is on your side.

During the bankruptcy hearings, there was an attempt by the defense to make the case that individual parishes were not "owned" by the Archbishop, but were individual entities in the control of the pastor and by extension the people of the parish. 

Unfortunately, the lay people who testified in support of this position based their testimony mostly on stories and hearsay and (per my recollection) received very little (if any) help from the church's attorneys to support their argument.

I remember being astounded at the church's silence on this matter given what was at stake and given that church law was and is on the side of those who testified trying to save their parishes. Consider the following:

Though some dioceses in the United States are set up as civil “corporations sole”, this civil legal construct is not appropriate for the Ordinariate, nor does it accurately reflect the Church’s understanding that each individual parish is its own separate public juridic person.

...the parish or mission is designated as a public juridic person to give it a formal canonical status. The juridic person as a canonical “corporation” then assumes all of the obligations and privileges of an established parish or mission. If it owns property, the property becomes part of the public juridic person of the parish and its administration must be governed by canon law. This means that all parish property is controlled by the parish (in the person of the pastor (c. 532)), and its civil incorporation must reflect that reality. 

- Parish Property Ownership in the Catholic Church 

Instead of making these arguments, the defense let themselves be beaten into a box with one word and the one word was itself "One." 

The question from the plaintiff's to the defense was "is the Catholic Church one?" This question was asked over and over and it was aimed at well-meaning lay people who should have been defended by the highly paid lawyers for the archdiocese, but weren't. 

The lay people answered from a "belief" perspective, i.e. the "One" Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Obviously "One" in this context only means "One" in belief, not "one" in worldly ownership. 

But that distinction was never made, and our church leadership simply caved:

According to the vicar general, (Fr. Romeo Convocar) following a ruling from District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, “the archdiocese is essentially one body, which means all the liquid and real property assets of all parishes and schools owned by the archdiocese are part of the bankruptcy estate.” - SOURCE

Even though I wanted to see justice for the true victims - especially those who came forward and put their names and faces to the cause, I also wanted to see justice for the Catholics in the pews, most of whom are also innocent victims in this matter, given that they would be made to pay the bill, not the perpetrators.

Perhaps the "archdiocese" so weakly defended itself because not a single member of the clergy would be made to pay a dime. What a shame. 

AOA REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUST

 This is a list of church property that will be transferred to the Trust. JW will work to match the lot numbers with identifiable locations. The full document from which this list was extracted is here. 

FEB 8, 2023 UPDATE

A more detailed list of properties has been posted on the AOA website. It can be accessed here. 

VICAR GENERAL'S MESSAGE ON BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION

The following is copied from a Facebook post by the Umatuna - the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana:

 

February 6, 2023                                                                                 Protocol No. 2023-013

A TIME FOR UNITY AND HEALING

The Vicar General’s Pastoral Message on Implementation of Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

The peace of Jesus Christ be with you. I wish to supplement the short pastoral message that was read at our churches on Sunday, February 5, 2023, with this longer message updating the faithful.

Our archdiocese reached a significant milestone in the complex and emotional journey of bankruptcy that we embarked on four years ago. On October 4, 2022, Chief District Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood approved the confirmation of the Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. It means that our archdiocese reached a formal agreement of reparation and compensation with the victim-survivors of clergy sexual abuse who were harmed by former members of our archdiocese.

The judge’sruling defines the final conditions or terms under which the bankruptcy status for our archdiocese will be lifted.  It is a major achievement and provides the guidance we need to fulfill our part.

It is also the time for healing to begin. As we march into 2023, let us be strong and united in Christ, knowing that our Almighty God is with us every step. We are one in the Body of Christ. Our loving Lord has been with us in calm waters and turbulent seas. He is always present in our journey.

In this new chapter, we ask for your prayers for all members of His Church, that we bear all together and, with His grace, emerge together with leaner but healthy parishes and schools which make a stronger archdiocese.  Please pray, too, that in all instances, everyone will rise to know the Lord and the peace that He gives through his mercy and love.

It must be the providence of Our Lord that in this month of February, we welcome the International Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, enter the Holy season of Lent on February 22, 2023, Ash Wednesday, and mark the 42nd anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s historic visit here on February 22 & 23, 1981.

In this longer pastoral message today, we will share some details of the progress of implementing the court-approved Joint Plan of Reorganization.

Since the judge approved the Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization last October, our archdiocese has remained extremely busy attending to the many details and its obligations to resolve the claims of the victim-survivors of clergy abuse as well as the Archdiocese’s creditors.

What are the final conditions or terms that must be met?

Replacement Mortgages – The archdiocese will effect replacement mortgages in the amount of $4,700,000 less payments made since the petition date, with the Bank of Guam on the real property amortized, using a thirty (30) year amortization schedule at 3% fixed interest with a 20-year maturity.  The first payment will be due six months after the effective date. Payments may be made prior to the 6-month extension to assist in lowering the actual balance.

Real Estate – The archdiocese will transfer the parcels of real property with an estimated value of $18,358,034 to the Trust, free and clear of all claims, liens, and encumbrances. 

Cash Contribution from All Entities - The archdiocese will transfer in total $6,609,998.29 to the Trust.

Settling Insurer Contributions - The insurance companies will transfer $18,000,000.00 to the Trust.

Unknown Claims - The archdiocese will establish the Unknown Tort Claim Reserve Fund in the minimum initial amount of $200,000.00 with equal annual payments over a period of five years and a total of $1,500,000.

Tuition Vouchers – The archdiocese will provide the Trust with 150 vouchers for kindergarten through 12th-grade Catholic education.  The school vouchers shall cover 100% of the cost of tuition each year for a total of not more than 13 years at any Catholic school in Guam.

Cemetery Vouchers – The archdiocese will provide the Trust with 50 vouchers. The cemetery vouchers shall cover 100% of a cemetery plot easement at a Catholic cemetery in Guam.

Proceeds of Real Property Sales – The archdiocese will market and sell the FHP/TakeCare and Chancery properties. The FHP/TakeCare property has officially been listed. The proceeds of the sale will fund the following:

·       $2,000,000.00 to First Hawaiian Bank.

·       $200,000.00 to fund the Unknown Claims, paid to the Trust.

·       $250,000.00 to fund Administrative Claims.

·       $500,000.00 to renovate and outfit the museum space at Cathedral-Basilica for use as the Chancery.

·       The remaining proceeds will be distributed to the Trust for the victim-survivors.

Child Protection Protocols - The Trust and the archdiocese, within 60 days after the effective date, must file the finalized version of the Child Protection Protocols currently before the Creditors Committee.  These protocols will reaffirm and strengthen the existing archdiocesan policies for the Protection of Children and Young People from Sexual Abuse, the Safe Environment Program, and the Independent Review Board.

The list of real properties claimed by the plaintiffs is extensive and affects many parishes and schools, including some consecrated and historic spaces. You may recall the earnest attempt of parishes and schools to demonstrate their autonomy related to the management of properties.  The February 26, 2022 ruling by Judge Tydingco-Gatewood was in favor of the victim-survivors’ Creditors’ Committee and determined that the archdiocese is essentially one body, which means that all liquid and real property assets of all parishes and schools owned by the archdiocese are part of the bankruptcy estate. 

One of the historic spaces is the Chancery compound on San Ramon Hill in Hagåtña.  In 2016, Archbishop Michael Byrnes announced that the Chancery would be included in the list of assets to be sold for settlement with the claimants. However, the facility's immense historical, spiritual, and cultural significance has come to the fore in the expressions of concern from the faithful, many of whom witnessed the 1981 visit of St. John Paul the Great.  His visit included an overnight stay at the bishop’s residence of then Bishop Felixberto C. Flores. 

In the weeks to come, we sincerely hope and pray the new owners of the Chancery property and other church properties will be considerate of the sacred purposes and historical significance of these beloved and treasured structures.  As a primary example, the potential loss of the Chancery property will have an impact on the entire archdiocese as we will need to relocate the office, residence, and chapel of the archbishop, the central offices, the offices of the Metropolitan Tribunal, Office of Catholic Education, and other essential ministries.

As we continue meetings with the respective pastors, administrators, and leaders of our archdiocesan parishes and schools, they, in turn, will meet with their communities to further discuss their respective property lots that will be relinquished and the process and timelines that will be involved.  The Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization is posted on the archdiocese’s website at https://archagana.org/bankruptcy under “Updated Documents.”  The joint plan lays out the summary we provided here in detail and the real properties listed in the settlement.    

Further to the responsibilities of the archdiocese already mentioned in this letter is the payment of attorney fees and other unforeseen expenses associated with the implementation of the joint plan.  The joint plan specifically requires the archdiocese to pay all unpaid professional claims accruing through the effective date and within seven days after the effective date. 

Reparation and healing, a small measure of justice, for the victim-survivors of sexual abuse in our archdiocese is no longer just a possibility but will be fulfilled at the proper time. Thank you for remaining united and recognizing the great sacrifices the Church must make collectively in atonement for our sins of the past and the sake of those gravely hurt by former clergy and laity of the past.  As she has over the millennia, our Church will survive because she lives in the hearts of believers. 

Our archdiocese will have fewer material resources, but by the grace of our Lord, we will still be focused on fulfilling our mission of proclaiming the good news of salvation, teaching the Gospel, sanctifying God's people with His grace, and helping the needy and vulnerable.

Again, we sincerely thank the faithful for the tremendous sacrifices and contributions each of you has made. We thank the families, couples, individuals, and organizations who have helped to build our churches and schools and those who continue to provide support and contributions in a multitude of ways.

As we near the holy season of Lent, we encourage everyone to turn to the Lord in prayer for comfort and peace. Together, we will also pray in all our churches and at every Mass the attached new Prayer for the Archdiocese as we move forward as one Church in Guam under the protection of Santa Marian Kamalen, our Patroness.

“Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.” ~Psalms 51:10-12

The love of Jesus Christ be with you,

Rev. Fr. Romeo D. Convocar

Vicar General

Archdiocese of Agaña

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 3

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 2

According to an October 2022 Pacific Daily News story: 

"Attorney Edwin Caldie, representing the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, said the Lujan law firm, which led the filing of lawsuits against the archdiocese and priests, played a major role in assisting the first survivors to come forward."

Mr. Caldie can't be faulted for not knowing that this wasn't the case. Caldie only became involved in the matter some years after the "first survivors" came forward, and well after there was a law in place that made it possible for survivors to retain attorneys and sue for damages.

So here's the real story:

When the "first survivors" came forward, namely four - Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, Roland Sondia, and Doris Conception in the name of her deceased son, Joseph (Sonny) Quinata - those first four came forward without legal representation. 

In May - June 2016, Roy, Walter, and Roland publicly presented what happened to them, but they had no lawyer at the time. True, all three were accompanied at their public presentations by Atty. David Lujan, but Lujan did not represent them, nor did Lujan organize their presentations. 

Much of what really happened is already set out in the JW series ORCHESTRATED, but it is important to review so that we keep what really happened in full view. 

In May - June of 2016, when Roy, Walter, and Roland came forward and publicly shared what had happened to them as boys, there was no law to protect them and thus nothing a lawyer could do.

Apuron (or more specifically his handlers) knew this, thus the immediate response from Apuron to sue his accusers both civilly and canonically. 

We also knew this, which is why we had to work smart. When I say "we," I refer to myself and a few others, who I will call "The Group," and which had become involved in helping these first four after The Group became aware of who they were and what had happened to them. 

How The Group came to know these first survivors has already been set out in ORCHESTRATED, but in short it was John Toves who put me (Tim) in touch with Walter Denton and then information from Walter led to Roland and Roy, with Doris surfacing on her own after she heard the news from Guam at her home in Arizona.

At the time, there was no thought of suing Apuron personally or the Church, since there was no way to do that anyway. The only thing these four wanted was to meet with Apuron and share how he had hurt them and perhaps procure an apology or some sign of remorse from their tormentor. 

In fact, Roy, Walter, and Roland did not want to go public with their stories at all. They only wanted to meet with Apuron privately. 

I will take the "blame" for convincing them to go public. I was so alarmed by the horrific stories from these three men that I figured there had to be more victims, many more - who were probably suffering for decades in the dark as these three had. I suggested to the three that a public revelation of their stories could help many others like themselves. And so they agreed.

The question was how to do this since The Group knew that Apuron would be sure to sue given that at this point (May 2016), Apuron had ousted Fr. Paul Gofigan (2013) and Msgr. James Benavente (2014) and was pretty much stomping on and destroying anyone who stood up to him and his Kiko-backed machine. 

Again, see ORCHESTRATED for more in depth detail, but once again, in short, a decision was made to arrange for the three men to publicly present their stories on the street across from the DNA building (I forget why we chose that spot), with each man presenting his story at intervals so there would be three separate presentations. I'll explain why we broke it up like this in a minute. 

A decision was also made to "retain" David Lujan to stand next to each of the men and say nothing. And he didn't. Because there was nothing he could say anyway. He was there only for a photo-op. A photo we knew Apuron would see. Note: I put "retain" in quotes because I don't know exactly how Mr. Lujan was recruited.

Again, I must remind the reader that The Group had asked the three men to do something that placed themselves at grave risk of being sued by Apuron. And the only way we could provide some cover for them was to send a message to Apuron that he better think twice. And placing Lujan - one of the best known lawyers in Guam - next to each of these men would "send a message" - we hoped.

In short, it was a bluff, because Lujan had no role but to stand there - as one of The Group liked to put it - like a "cigar store Indian." In fact, even the press fell for the ruse reporting: "Quintanilla was flanked by his attorney David Lujan and others." 

The Group was willing to bet that the bluff would work because we had inside intel that Apuron had known for years - especially given all that had been happening in the states regarding the revelation of clergy sex abuse - that one day his chickens would come home to roost, and in fact, had told his then Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, to "get ready."

Now, let me address why we brought each of the three men forward separately and the timing of each.

The Group decided to essentially work backwards from Roland Sondia. Roland would be the last to present. And I will share why in a minute. 

Walter's story was the most damning because not only had he been raped (per his account), but he had run into Apuron many years later in the states as an adult and had confronted Apuron with what he had done to him - which made for an even more damning story. So we didn't want to play our "Ace" first. 

So we went with Roy. Roy had left Guam many years previously and was mostly unknown to anyone in Guam other than his family. But we knew Apuron would know him. And we knew that Apuron, having Roy show up on Guam after 40 years would be the equivalent of Scrooge's "Ghost from Christmas Past." 

In other words, we suspected that the sight of Roy on Guam would unnerve Apuron and he would respond erratically. We were right. Apuron fled Guam the next day after leaving a video message attacking Roy. 

Roy came forward in mid-May 2016. The Group opted not to bring Walter forward until the first week of June and for a practical reason. FestPac was happening right then and we didn't want our spotlight to be compromised by other news. So we waited. 

Walter's story was absolutely damning, as The Group expected it would be, not just because of the horrid details, but because "now there were two." At this point, Apuron surfaced in Rome where he had run to Francis for cover. 

As an aside, it was Apuron's fleeing Guam and running to Rome that essentially incriminated him in the eyes of the public in Guam. Had Apuron simply stayed in Guam and calmly addressed the matter with an "I didn't do it and I'm sorry these men think I did," it probably would have been over as quickly as it started. But Apuron incriminated himself by running away, and especially by running to the pope where a Vatican camera caught him trying to get the pope's attention in St. Peter's Square. 

LINK

Roland's story was the third and final public presentation, and while not as sensational as Walter's, it was the final piece in the credibility question because while Roy and Walter had grown up in Guam (in Agat - thus "The Agat Boys"), both had been absent from Guam for many years and were not familiar names or faces. However, Roland, who had also grown up in Agat, still lived not only in Guam, but still in Agat, and was very well known. 

So there were three stories, all corroborating the one story - that Apuron was an altar boy molester - and it was cemented solid by Roland.

Remember now that this all happened in May - June of 2016. The law lifting the civil statute of limitations that would permit lawyers to get involved would not be enacted until September 2016 - at which point Lujan and others would finally "play a major role."

To be continued - Part 4

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 2

From a PNC news story: 

Cardinal Paul Cordes and Professor Giuseppe Gennarini are on Guam to teach courses at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona.

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 1

It is quite a public matter that I (Tim Rohr) had much to do with what ended up being the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana. However, it's time for some history. 

Initially, this blog, JungleWatch, did nothing other than repost stories already in the news. And those stories were not about clergy sex abuse. They were about Archbishop Apuron's actions against Fr. Paul Gofigan and later about Apuron vs Msgr. James Benavente. 

In short, those stories were about Apuron's abuse of episcopal power to crush his own priests. But that is not even the real story. The real story is why Apuron did this. And of course that led JW to begin exposing the actors behind Apuron, the NCW power bosses, the Gennarini's et. al (which heretofore - in this series - shall be labeled "The Kiko's" - so named after NCW founder, Kiko Arguello, and to distinguish the NCW power bosses from sincere NCW members). 

There was no thought of clergy sex abuse in the early going. The only thought was Apuron's abuse of his office, which probably still wouldn't have been an issue but for the fact that it was becoming well-known that Apuron did not have control of his office and that his office - or rather Apuron personally - was in the control of The Kiko's.

All of this was laid out in the JW series ORCHESTRATED, but it is important to bring this back into focus because while the clergy sex abuse matter has almost completely obfuscated the original controversy with the The Kiko's, the matter with The Kiko's has never gone away. They are still here. And waiting. Waiting for another bishop they can control. 

GIUSSEPE GENNARINI: "PERSECUTION (IN GUAM) IS A GRACE

Giuseppe Gennarini: "Persecution" on Guam is a grace. from UndercoverGuam on Vimeo.

To be continued - Part 3

KEYWORD: APURON. WHERE IS HE?

By Tim Rohr

Within mere hours of this posting, there were 118 views. 

Despite all the controversial matters addressed here in JW over the last few weeks, no other post has attracted so much attention so quickly. 

Even I was surprised. 

But not for long.

There are certain keywords that trip search engine algorithms. The words "Neocatechumenal Way" is one of them. I thought maybe I had used those words in the subject post, but upon review, I didn't. 

The only keyword that could have tripped the immediate large number of views is "Apuron," which occurs several times in the post. 

There's a lot of interest in Apuron. And there should be. 

Apuron's personal case is separate from the Archdiocese of Agana bankruptcy case. And for some reason any mention or reference to Apuron's personal case has fallen silent in the Media.

Every time his name comes up, people ask me "Where is he?" 

That's a question The Media should be asking...and investigating. 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 1

By Tim Rohr

Per a message from Fr. Romeo Convocar, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agana, it appears that an agreement in its bankruptcy case has been reached and the judge has approved.  

The bankruptcy matter was brought about by the explosion of clergy sex abuse cases, which, per capita, amounted to 14 times the number of cases than what surfaced in the Archdiocese of Boston, a story that led to the movie, "Spotlight," which was nominated for six Academy Awards and won two. 

Given the exponentially larger number of cases in Guam, the high drama of Apuron's public threats to sue those who dared reveal this filthy history, the personal damage to the victims and their supporters wrought by Apuron's "mobsters," and the Pope himself being forced to act directly on removing a bishop - what happened in Guam would make a much better movie. 

The real story in Guam though is not the expose of decades of clerical sex abuse, that's quite a common story these days. No, the real story here is how Guam's faithful lay people, the Catholics in the pews, took it upon themselves to make this happen - even though they knew they would have to pay the bill. 

It wasn't the press, like it was in Boston, and it wasn't lawyers, as it has been in so many places. In fact, in the early going, the press, despite its insatiable appetite for sensationalism, had to be drug, half kicking and screaming, into the ugly matter, and, even then, basically limited its "reporting" to what was already news. In fact, some media people refused to even talk about it. And the lawyers? Well no lawyers came forward until there was big money in it for them. But no surprise there.

No. It was regular people, the Catholics in the pews, who for 54 Sundays in a row, in 2016 to 2017, silently marched in front of the Agana Cathedral during the 9:30 a.m Mass, symbolically "Apuron's Mass" - and labeled "symbolically" because Apuron - who for decades celebrated the 9:30 a.m Mass, had long since fled Guam after his first accuser came forward in May 2016. 

But not only did the common folk march, it was the common folk who pushed through the legislation necessary to pursue justice for the aggrieved - even though not a single perpetrator, including Apuron, would ever have to pay a cent.

So here's a thought, given that the lawyers in the bankruptcy case have already pocketed around Nine Million Dollars off the backs of the common folk who did the heavy lifting in the first place, let's "suggest" that all lawyers involved in this matter give at least 10% of their booty back to the people they took it from - the people who created the opportunity for justice in the first place. 

Their checks can be made payable to Concerned Catholics of Guam, a registered Guam non-profit corporation, which will then, through its board and its members, determine how best to help their Church with those funds - since we can't trust anyone in the chancery to do it. 

And we can even have one of the newspaper photos with a large reproduction of the check being handed to the CCOG officials with large grins all around. 

To be continued - Part 2

Note: The picture is from a PDN news story with the caption: "Leo Tudela, left, whose testimony was instrumental in bringing the scope of Guam’s clergy sex abuse to the public eye, with Edwin Caldie, attorney for the creditors committee, after the Archdiocese of Agana bankruptcy exit plan was approved on Oct. 4, 2022.

DIANA GIVES A CLUE - BLOCKLEY CLAIMS BIG EXPOSE

By Tim Rohr

A "Diana" Selfie

On Jan. 30, 2023, in SO WHERE DOES ROHR FIT IN?, I ended the post with: "a story I will save for another day." 

In the same post, I copied the following paragraph from a 2017 story from the Italian "Catholic" Tabloid, "La Stampa:"

In 2012, a blog called “Jungle Watch” was created online, attacking Archbishop Apuron and the Neocatechumenal Way, accusing them of manipulating the prelate and “colonizing” the entire Agaña diocese. The site is managed by Tim Rohr, a real estate agent employed by Msgr. Benavente and involved in the projected sale of the seminary. 

I followed the foregoing from La Stampa with this note: 

La Stampa does not identify its source, but of course it could only have been Apuron's people.

However, a recent post by Kandit News caused me to recall serious speculation about who the informant may have been - and probably was. 

From THE DIANA blog:

After being notified about Blockley's "big expose," I contacted someone who had the inside on Blockley and received the following response:

VATICAN INSIDER is LA STAMPA:

There's more...which I will save for another day...though I'm tempted to out the other turncoats now - since I know they are reading this. 

I'LL HOLD OFF ON THE REST OF THE STORY ----- FOR NOW

As a BTW, and with due respect to Troy - whose work and opinions I personally respect - priests are not "just regular guys who have different commitments than non-priests." They are consecrated persons who have special commitments that "non-priests" do not have. 

I'll hold off on the "rest of the story".... for now. BTW "David" is not smiling. 

MOYLAN POKES THE TOAD

By Tim Rohr

The Pacific Daily News headline reads: 

AG asks court to let 1990 abortion ban take effect. 

At the risk of sounding technical or even trite, the headline is wrong. Attorney General Doug Moylan did not "ask" to the court to do anything. In fact, no party to a court action - who knows what they're doing - ever "asks" the court to do anything. 

What Moylan did do was "move" the court to do something, and it's right there in the first sentence of the filing:

"...the Attorney General of Guam moves this Court for an order vacating the permanent injunction entered in this matter on August 23, 1990..."

While "move" vs "ask" may seem a non issue to lay people (which is probably why the PDN phrased it that way), the difference is not unimportant. 

The courts serves the people and not the other way around. Using "ask" instead of "move" implies that the court is some sort of royalty. It isn't. Judges sit on benches, not thrones. 

As Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, consistently points out: "the court is like a big toad that just sits there until you poke it." 

Moylan's filing does not ask or beg the court. It pokes it. 

ABORTION IN GUAM: SOME HISTORY

Abortion

Timing dictates a variety of procedures

By JEANNE SCHULZ, (Pacific) Daily News Staff

August 24, 1979

“I’ve seen abortions in girls from 12 years old to women in their early 50’s,” said Dr. Thomas Gibson, an obstetrician-gynecologist at a Tamuning clinic. * “I can’t be very enthusiastic about them. But we live in an ugly world. Sometimes ugly measures are necessary.”

*SDA Clinic

Gibson, who performs only therapeutic abortions for women whose pregnancy endangers their lives or mental health, performed elective abortions until his clinic discontinued the service in 1976. 

“Having an abortion is safer than having a baby,” Gibson continued. “And it is much less traumatic to have an abortion than to give a baby up for adoption.”

Women seeking an abortion on Guam normally go through the procedure at Guam Memorial Hospital or Family Health Program/Guam Medical Center. Only FHP members or long-standing clinic patients are eligible for the service there, according to Dr. Pieter Huitema, FHP medical director.

Abortions are not performed at FHP after the 10th week of pregnancy Huitema said. 

“Sometimes an abortion is the best way out,” Gibson said. “I don’t like it. As doctors we’re trained to save life, not take it. I haven’t met anyone who really likes abortions. And no one wants to do them,” he continues. “Those less adamant are the ones who do them.”

“Those who do perform them include Dr. Vivien Batoyon, Dr. Vallop Boonprakong, Dr. Fong Shou Chang and Dr. Pat Sagisi. Boonprakong, Chang and Sagisi are given as referrals to women who call Seventh-day Adventist Clinic asking about abortions. Baton, Boonprakong and Sagisi are names given by Guam Memorial Hospital when called about abortions.

The earlier the abortion is performed, the less psychological strain is suffered, Gibson says. And the earlier an abortion is performed, the shorter the hospital stay.

If an abortion is done during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a dilation and evacuation usually is performed. In this technique a narrow tube is inserted into the cervix and the fetus is removed by suction.

The procedure is done under local or general anesthesia and is completed in about 10 minutes, with a two or three-hour rest period afterward.

After 12 weeks, the fetus is too large for this procedure so the dilation and curettage method is used up to the 15th or 16th week. During dilation and curettage, the cervix is dilated and the fetus removed when the uterus is scraped with a spoon like instrument.

The procedure is relatively simple, according to Annie Bordallo, director of nursing at GMH. All abortion patients are admitted to the hospital at 5 a.m. and usually are able to leave the hospital by 4 p.m. the same day, she said.

The dilation and curettage is done under general anesthesia and takes about 15 to 20 minutes to complete, Bordallo said.

The third type of abortion performed at GMH is the saline abortion. It is the only method available to women more than 16 weeks pregnant.

A 16-week old aborted fetus requires a death certificate and burial. The saline abortions “are more painful than a regular delivery” because labor is forced, according to Trinidad Santa Ana, assistant nursing director at GMH. The also are quite controversial. 

Saline abortions involve the injection of a saline or salt solution into the uterus while equal amount of fluid is withdrawn.

The high concentration of salt kills the fetus and contractions occur until the fetus is expelled. Saline abortions occur rarely at GMH, Bordallo said.

Women undergoing a saline abortion are injected with the saline solution and remain in the hospital until labor is induced and the fetus is expelled. The process takes from two to three days with the woman usually going home the day the fetus is aborted.

The medical complications of the saline abortion given after 16 weeks are risky, according to Chang, chief of obstetrics/gynecology at GMH and one of the physicians who perform abortions there.

“The fetus is formed by then,” he said. “If the saline can stop the baby’s heartbeat, it can stop the mother’s too (if it gets into her blood stream). The bleeding and infection rates are higher also.” 

According to Hawaii Planned Parenthood, the saline solution is being replaced in most hospitals with a hormone called prostaglandin. The hormone is injected into the uterus, stimulating contractions and causing miscarriage to occur more rapidly than with saline abortions. The risk of complications is decreased with prostaglandin. 

Here on Guam, patients can expect to pay about $710 for a dilation and curettage, according to Santa Ana, who completed a study on abortions along with other students during a University of Guam course on fertility and reproduction. Approximate cost of this method includes a $250 surgeon’s fee, $69 anesthesiology fee and a $400 hospital fee covering the cost of the recovery room, operating room and lab tests. GMH requires the $400 payment before the patient is admitted to the hospital. Costs increase if overnight stays are required. 

Medicare or Medicaid does not cover the cost of abortions.

In Hawaii, the cost of an abortion ranges from $100 to $350, said Baily R. Center, executive director of Hawaii Planned Parenthood. Dilation and evacuations usually re done in a doctor’s office for women from six to eight weeks pregnant “In a matter of minutes,” Center said, and cost about $100.

After eight weeks, abortions are done in hospitals and cost about $350, including doctor’s fees and hospital costs. Center said. Twenty weeks is the cutoff point for abortions in Hawaii, he added.

Here on Guam, according to a bill passed by the 13th Guam Legislature in 1976, an abortion may be performed “within 13 weeks after the commencement of pregnancy; or within 26 weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy if the physician has reasonably determined using all available means that the child would be born with a grave physical or mental defect or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest; or at any time after the commencement of pregnancy if the physician reasonable determines using all available means that there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother.”

Before that bill was passed, Guam’s abortion law was patterned after California’s 1923 penal code. Under the old Guam code, still on the books in 1976 in spite of apparent contradiction with Supreme Court guidelines set in 1973, abortions could only be provided in order to preserve or protect a woman’s life or health.

Physicians and their attendants not adhering to those guidelines were subject to fines up to $5,000. A woman undergoing an abortion could have been fined up to $200 under the pre-1976 ordinance.