What child is this?


Ernestina Herrera de Noble, flanked by adopted son Felipe and adopted daughter Marcela. Both adoptees’ natural parentage is now under suspicion.

Or should we say, Whose children are these?

A tribunal has ordered DNA testing on the adopted children of the president and shareholder of the daily newspaper, Clarín, Ernestina Herrera de Noble, to determine whether the children are from parents who “disappeared” during the last military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983).

According to adoption facilitators, Herrera found her adopted daughter, Marcela, on her doorstep in May of 1976, while her adopted son, Felipe, was given up by his biological mother two months later.

“However, we have found many irregularities in the adoption process,” said Alan Iud, attorney for the association of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo. “In the case of Marcela, two ‘witnesses’ came forward claiming to be neighbors, but who turned out to be Herrera’s chauffeur and a woman who did not live in that neighborhood.”

The woman said to be the biological mother of Felipe, on the other hand, “is a nonexistent person”, said Iud. “The identity card number given was that of a man, and the name given is false.”

Clarín alleged yesterday on its own pages that the case corresponds to a request filed privately by Marcela and Felipe in 2003. Iud denies this. “These tests have been ordered by the Federal Chamber of San Martín in response to a suit filed by the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo and the public prosecutor’s office.”


Herrera has been implicated since 2002 in an investigation over falsification of public documents in the process of the adoption of her children. The case was paralyzed because there was not enough evidence to prosecute her or to close the case.

The Clarín director’s children must now submit to DNA testing. If they refuse, the Supreme Court has ordered that genetic samples be obtained from their personal effects.

Translation mine.

Certainly the timing of these adoptions alone makes them hinky. The Argentine military coup happened on March 24, 1976; any adoption taking place between then and 1983 has the potential to be a case of child-stealing (as well as murder, since the natural parents of all known stolen children have never been found; the dictatorship “disappeared” them permanently.) Since the two children in question were “adopted” in May and July of 1976, both under highly questionable circumstances, the odds are strong that they, too, are children of the disappeared.

Or to put it another way: Isn’t it interesting that the same rich, well-connected, right-wing woman would just so happen to find a “foundling” on her doorstep less than two months after the military coup–and then, two months after that, become an adoptive parent for a second time, to a son whose natural mother had a fake name and a man’s ID card? Lightning may strike twice in the same place, but all of that is just a little too coincidental to be a true coincidence.

Legal obstruction of the case pressed by the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, along with the public prosecutor’s office, only serves to compound the general smell of rotting fish about the whole affair. The son and daughter–possibly acting on the “advice” of their adoptive mother–have previously refused to come forward and let a doctor swab their cheeks for a few epithelial cells, claiming instead to have had their DNA privately tested. But then there’s another catch: They didn’t release those purported private test results. Why not, if there is nothing to hide? Wouldn’t they be eager to lay this case definitively to rest, instead of obstructing and obfuscating matters further? Such transparent delaying tactics are not exactly a convincing show of innocence.

In the meantime, compulsory DNA testing is now required of all orphans and adoptees generated by the Argentine Dirty War. There are about 500 of them in all, and so far, 98 have been conclusively identified, all with the help of DNA tests. One such adoptee has sued her adoptive parents over the deception in which they participated. It’s very likely that she endured psychological trauma as a result of growing up amid what she knew to be a pack of lies. Many Dirty War stolen children have been emotionally and physically abused by their strict, fascistic adoptive parents, and it’s very possible that we will hear of other suits like this one.

It’s not likely that the Herreras will do the same to their wealthy and powerful adoptive mother, but it will be interesting to see what other bugs shake out of this very creepy family tree.

This entry was posted in Don't Cry For Argentina, Fascism Without Swastikas, Isn't That Illegal?, Law-Law Land, She Blinded Me With Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What child is this?

  1. Jim Hadstate says:

    Y’know, ‘Bina, as I read this creepy story, I kept having the urge to scroll back up and look at the picture. I gave in a couple of times, then finished the story. After finishing, I scrolled up to the picture again and stared. Isn’t that just the creepiest picture evah? The smiles are plastic, Mommy Dearest is making sure that she is the Alpha Male of the picture and a host of other skin-crawling details. Weird!
    Great story BTW!

  2. Jim, you should have seen the picture that came with the original on Aporrea. I had to google for this one because I wanted one that showed the kids. The one on Aporrea is even creepier–it’s obvious that Mommie Dearest is a candidate for AwfulPlasticSurgery.com. Plastic smile–and eyes–and much much more, I’m sure. Things like that reveal something about one’s character, no doubt. Something I’m sure this woman would want to keep hidden.

Comments are closed.