What A Tangled Web We Weave…

I’m sitting here with the after Christmas blahs, dreading the return back to the workaday world and life as normal. I was saddened that for Carri and Camden, Christmas just wasn’t what it should have been with her son Camden’s future still in limbo because of Adoption by Gentle Care and their decision to continue to pursue this matter for the sake of their adolescent ego. As I sat here, a small bit of information happened to cross my path that really triggered memories of the scheming and double-dealing that happened in the ‘Baby Veronica‘ case a few years ago. Who would have thought the drama and deception in these adoption cases could be more intriguing and even more dramatic than an episode of ‘Real Housewives’? 

Adoption by Gentle Care has tried their hardest to keep their dealings private to this point. You know the whole saying about things done in the dark coming to light? I guess this is their year. Their dealings could only stay in the dark so long. I guess too, if you aren’t very wise and can’t leave well enough alone, you are asking for it to come to light too. You see, allegedly, after having lost the Grayson Vaughn case and all the publicity that came along with that, rumor has it, Adoption by Gentle Care got a quick infusion of funds or a helping hand from American Adoptions bailing them out. At least that’s how the story goes. I had no idea of the truthfulness of this info but it was a little tidbit buried in the back of my mind, stored there for if ever I needed it. 

Recently Senate Bill 250 came before the Ohio Legislature. The primary proponent for this bill was Pat Hamilton. This bill sought to reduce the time a father has to register with the putative father registry, reduced the time within which an adoption could be contested, dealt with ‘living expenses’ paid to birth mothers, allowed adoption agencies a hand in the money and increased tax benefits for adoptive families. It seems in anything adoption related there in the Columbus area, Pat Hamilton is involved. I wondered how someone could live with themself having done so much damage to families…and all in the name of strengthening families. You see, much of what he does is bundled as securing families and futures for adoptive children and strengthening the foundation the families are built upon. Yet, with all he does, much the opposite is happening. 

This bill sought to make sure a biological father had little to no time to ‘claim’ his child in the case of deception regarding the birth. Or making sure that once dad found out, there was little he could do to stop the adoption. It also put more money in the hands of adoption agencies as they could now get their hand in the pot by dictating how, when, how much and to whom any moneys for birth mother would be paid. They’d be the intermediary in this money between adoptive couples and birth mothers. (As if Adoption by Gentle Care was even giving any of it to birth mom in the first place. We’ve heard from birth mothers and their medical bills weren’t ever paid anyway. So where’d that money go? Often these agencies encourage birth mothers to apply for Medicaid while collecting money for their medical expenses from adoptive couples and never passing it on to birth mothers.)

Anything ‘adoption’ in the Columbus area or Ohio in general always seems to involve Mr. Hamilton. I realized though, this isn’t about strengthening families. I was asking the wrong question. To ask how he can live with himself implies he has a heart and I was thinking with MY human heart. I completely forgot the truly evil don’t think the same way. He can’t possibly care or even have a heart. I forgot adoption is often presented as a feel good story, a heartfelt moment much the same as adopting a puppy for Christmas while in reality it’s an INDUSTRY…..A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY.  It becomes a lot easier to live with one’s self while rolling in the money acquired from it. After all, with the money fore-front on one’s mind, it becomes a little easier to forget about all the families you destroyed to get there. 

Seeing that Adoption by Gentle Care seems to relish in their dirty deeds being spotlighted, with the question of Pat Hamilton and his conscious in my mind, I did a little digging. I was curious as to why these folks at Adoption by Gentle Care and Mr Hamilton would be so willing to throw themselves to the wolves over one child (or a second child if you count Grayson Vaughn).

Pat Hamilton is Andrew Patrick Hamilton, ESQ, a Columbus area attorney. He is currently an attorney representing Adoption by Gentle Care in the case of Camden Stearns. 

And here’s Adoption by Gentle Care….

AGC sits at 370 S 5th Street. You see that little dot below them? The one that says Adoption Circle? That’s 400 S 5th Street. That’s the building Mr. Hamilton is out of. 

And here’s a picture of that property there at 400 S. 5th Street. Some pretty nice digs right? 

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is the Hamilton Adoption Empire right here. Well at least that first floor, or suite 103. 

You see, what I thought was some rumor of the bailing out of Adoption by Gentle Care by American Adoptions could very well be and most likely is truth.  Based on their 2007 returns, American Adoptions co-founders Ted and Susan Mars were on the board of Adoption by Gentle Care also.

And after checking, it seems in any and all aspects of adoption in the area, if there is money involved, Mr. Hamilton seems to get a slice of that pie. 

Here’s his slice of the American Adoptions pie. 

And his slice of the Adoption Circle pie. 

And in what seems to be common among all these companies, if they don’t first succeed, try, try again. Or, oh hell, if they get sued or their names get drug through the mud, just close shop, reopen, recycle and use another name next week. 

I can’t imagine family reunions for some of these adoptive families. “Well, let’s see…we got little Susie from AGC but her brother came from AC or was it AAAC? Or were they Gentle Care Adoption Services then?”

Oh but wait, not only is he the man to go to for adoption, but he’s got you covered like some late night Sham Wow salesman. He can hook you up even pre conception! His surrogacy slice of the pie….

So far you have Pat Hamilton with a hand in Adoptions by Gentle Care and in Adoption Circle, who by the way went to great lengths to distance themselves from this case last year. I wondered why that was! 

And we have founders of one on the board for the other while they all pretend they don’t even know one another. And Pat Hamilton has his hands in all of them while he pushes for legislation that helps to net them even more. One way to make yourself richer is to legislate all your competition out of business, that’s for sure! Kudos on that little plot Pat! Push biological families off the cliff, leaving the poor little children needing homes and you and your cohorts can play the hero. 

The law firm of Tucker Ellis is another key player in all this. A law firm out of Cleveland representing many of the Fortune 500, with so much to lose, I wonder why they’d involve themselves in this mess if not for the BILLIONS! It always seems to come full circle back to that word. BILLIONS. I wondered when families and children and all that heart warming rhetoric jumped off the train but then I remember, it was BILLIONS, the crazed engineer driving the train.

The firm of Tucker Ellis represents Gentle Care in this mess as well. And partner, Matthew Moriarty there is also President on the Board of Directors of……you guessed it! Adoptions by Gentle Care. And in what I’m loving right now, also had a speaking engagement by a name very similar to the title of this blog coincidentally, speaking on (irony) ethics. Tucker Ellis’ attorney Jon Oebker also represents Adoption by Gentle Care alongside Pat Hamilton. 

And you see, somewhere there’s some little piece of paper or whatever it is, Articles of Incorporation and all that pesky business paperwork. They all have that legaleeze in them. Like with most companies, they have a little something in there, the gist of which is they cannot hire anyone or do any company business for personal gain and bunch of other things about the mixing of business and so forth. They aren’t supposed to do business with the other businesses in which their members have a personal interest. But I guess they just ignored that whole section when it came to all this. Mr Moriarty I’m sure sees no problem with sitting on AGC’s board and being a partner for Tucker Ellis while Tucker Ellis attornies represent them or with putting Attorney Oebkers on the case as well. 

And we’re back to BILLIONS! What other explanation is there for a Fortune 500 law firm getting in bed with an adoption agency? Businesses normally remain neutral on social and political topics just so they don’t push away any potential or existing clientele but again, BILLIONS is the only explanation for why they’d jump into the game.  So Tucker Ellis comes out pro adoption in their race for the billions too. 

And do you remember that 2007 return you were shown earlier in this post? Remember some of the names from it like the Mars family? That’s because they seem to be the driving force behind American Adoptions and huge players in the adoption industry. In fact, as early as these returns, you can see old Matt Moriarty was on the board there rubbing elbows with the Mars family. From what I can see, American Adoptions is active in Kansas, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Arizona, Louisiana, and Lord knows where else because my computer almost crashed trying to track them all. And all of them non-profit yet raking in the BILLIONS! All for the little children to have a home.  All hoping for a home for those poor kids in time for Christmas. All while Camden sat waiting in a foster home in Ohio while he HAS a home, a home Adoption by Gentle Care, Patt Hamilton, Matt Moriarty and the rest of the board there and their cohorts won’t let Camden go to. That one child didn’t need to be with his mother for the holiday. That one child is worth at least $30,000 to them and if they let that $30,000 go, that might mean a little less in their coffers. 

I wonder what old Ted would think of what Adoption by Gentle Care is doing in this case concerning Camden? 

The Flood Gates Open Slowly

As a result of Camden’s case, other women are coming forward. I must say I’m delighted to see the support and see them feel empowered enough to speak out. I’m saddened though that other women had to be treated this way and their children will be the victims. 

• 2 Days Ago via Pissed Consumer

“This is my opinion.I have been following the unethical business decisions of Gentle Care Adoption for several years and have found the adoption agency to make poor business decisions.

Gentle Care has been holding a baby by the name of Camden hostage for several months now. If anything should happen to Camden during the time that Camden is in the custody of Gentle Care Adoption, I would think that Gentle Care Adoption would be help liable. By holding Camden hostage AND against his mother’s will, this is causing Camden extreme damage. But again, this is only my opinion.

If you have been affected by the unethical actions of Gentle Care Adoption, please tell your story on this web site, it is completely annoymous. We would love to hear your story.

I found the link below on the web, that tells Camden’s story.Let’s help get Camden back to his mom, who deeply loves her baby boy and misses him more than words could describe.”

• 7 Hrs. ago via Pissed Consumer

another victim 7 hours ago Grove City, Ohio

“I have been following Camden’s story for months and was really hopeful he would get to go home in the beginning. I’m disgusted this agency has bounced him from home to home instead.
I was coerced by this agency last year and wanted my baby back immediately but I didn’t have support and inevitably I gave up. They scared me with intimidation and I fell apart. I’m mourning the loss of my baby. I wish I could come forward but they have threatened some of their clients that we could lose the little bit of communication we have with our children. I’m afraid.
I hope Camden’s mom sues gentle care for negligence. This is surely crime to purposely inflict harm on this baby.
Everyone wants Camden to come home, even the original family who had him. What part of adoption does this fall under, AGC? Explain.
Camden needs to go home now.”

• 2013 Via Yelp and other forums

“I am writing this review years after my experience with Adoption By Gentle Care. At first, my case worker seemed very helpful. However the financial situation that I found myself in after both parties (the adoptive parents and the adoption agency) got what they wanted is very upsetting, and what this adoption agency did to contribute to the situation seems unethical to me.  I was 19 and kept the pregnancy from my father. I was assured by my case worker that Medicaid would take care of everything. She was well aware that I had insurance underneath my father, but because I didn’t want him to know she encouraged me to use Medicaid. Medicaid accepted me and paid for everything, including an ultrasound midway through the pregnancy and my c-section at OSU hospital.  

Months after I handed the child over, I got my first bills from OSU. They told me that Medicaid denied my claims, since I technically had insurance under my father. I got into contact with my case worker, but couldn’t find the office I was given directions to (to drop the bills off) and she never answered her cell phone. I didn’t have a car and that trip downtown was so frustrating, especially knocking on the unmarked door that was supposed to be their office. I wish now that scanning, emailing, and faxing were as easy then for me as they are now. I didn’t have a computer, I didn’t have a smart phone- this as 2007, but I was young, poor and very naive.

Shortly after I received a phone call from a man trying to collect a payment for the hospital. I told him that the adoption agency was supposed to pay anything that the insurance didn’t cover. He thanked me and never called again- I (once again naively) assumed he was researching the matter to insure the bills would be taken care of.  I was being young and irresponsible, and ultimately had absolutely no guidance.

The next time I heard about the bill was 3 years later. I called Adoption By Gentle Care, and they explained it was too late and they were no longer legally bound to pay for the hospital bills. I even contacted the adoptive parents (it was an open adoption) and explained the situation- after all, they have the child, maybe they would help me with the cost of delivering the baby? But the mother told me that they only moved forward with the adoption because I was supposed to be covered by Medicaid.  My insurance company won’t accept claims that are older than one year.

Ethically, it doesn’t seem right that the adoption agency misled me in my insurance choice. It also just seems wrong that even though they aren’t legally bound to assist with bills after one year, they would still allow a teen (who couldn’t afford to give birth to a child and raise him) to be stuck with a $13,000 medical bill.   I had the c-section because I was encouraged BY THEM to set a date to be induced (only 3 days after my due date). This adoption agency encouraged me to do so to allow the adoptive parents to schedule their flight from California in order to be there when the child was born. In case you aren’t familiar with the risks of inducing a birth rather than letting it occur naturally, this means the risk of a c-section increases dramatically.

So 36 hours after being induced, I was told I had no choice but to have an expensive, life-altering surgical cesarean when the induction didn’t work (which is very common, but I did not know this at the time). And I am still paying this medical bill. I understand that much of this had to do with my ignorance and lack of responsibility, but also THEY PROVIDED ME WITH THE WRONG ADVICE THAT HAS LEFT ME IN DEBT EVER SINCE, AND THEY MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT CARE ONE OUNCE FOR ME ONCE THEY MADE THEIR MONEY FROM MY CASE.”

Many others continue to come forward. I urge others to do the same. Father’s too. They can also reach out to Musings of the Lame to tell their stories which can either be published or kept confidential. If only more would reach out, then maybe something could be done. 

Why Are We Helping Unethical Adoptions?

Where do we draw the line? I’ve stated before, adoption agencies and the world of adoption generally prey on birth parents under duress. No middle class, white picket fence having, happily married woman just up and decides to put a baby up for adoption when things in her life are perfect. It just isn’t the norm.  And in order to get infants for adoptive couples, adoption agencies then have to skillfully find their supply, pluck these babies out of the arms of less advantaged mothers. They need a healthy supply of womb-wet infants because adoptive couples generally don’t want to be bothered with other people’s troubles or older children slightly damaged and in foster care. They can’t be bothered with the scratch and dent, societal trash that they see older children in the system as. But the bigger question is WHY DO WE HELP THEM? 

Why do we say things like “…but she has a criminal record!”, “…he got busted for smoking pot in 2001!” or “…she’s on welfare and has two other children already!”  Does this really matter? Does someones history prevent them from changing their future? Does their past negate all wrongdoing on the part of the adoption industry? Who makes these decisions? And why are we more willing to give violent criminal offenders a second chance at life than we are birth parents? Who are we to sit in judgement? And where is that line drawn? Should we judge based on a person’s past? What happens next if we begin to makes these judgements on people, determining their worthiness based on their history and lifestyles soon leads to making those determinations based on any and all criteria. One can then be ‘too stupid’ to raise their children, or ‘too ugly’, or ‘too poor’. Maybe a couple is ‘too Jewish’ to adopt next. Or maybe it really is God punishing that adoptive couple with infertility because they were ‘too Evangelical.’ 

We get going down a really slippery slope and can take this just about anywhere. But the law in this country is founded on the idea that one’s right to raise one’s child is a God-given right. The law should never interfere with that unless a person is found by a child protection agency and the courts to have been severely neglectful or abusive. And really? Isn’t that how it SHOULD be? We lose sight of that and we forget that same finger can then be turned back to ourselves. 

As a parent, I’ve gotten frustrated, lost my cool, made some bad choices. I’ve let bathing a child slide because being ill made me feel utterly drained and well, they weren’t going to die from being a little grubby for one day. I’ve let them have cake or cold pizza for breakfast when depression really had a hold on me at times. I’ve let them wear a dirty shirt when life was so overwhelming and schedules too tight to get the laundry done and it slipped my mind. A doctor’s appointment or two had to be pushed back a while because I didn’t have the money to pay for the service. Should my children be taken then? Can the law step in, call me neglectful and whisk them away? Should they? Do we get to decide this in the court of public opinion? 

You see, Carri is no different from the rest of us. Yes, she has five children and now six with little Camden. And yes, she has a past and yes, even some past issues with the law. But does that make her a bad mother? Has she been in less than stellar relationships? Yes, but does that mean she should lose her children? 

And while we’re here, let’s take a deeper look at some of what she is being judged on. Carri admittedly does have a past. But she also lives in small town, Ohio. And small towns being what they are, word travels fast…so does gossip and pettiness. And Carri has dated police officers from her area and has friends on the police force and friends who have friends on the police force. In fact, her child’s father is a police officer there. And another of her ex’s is a friend of several officers there. And with that has come problems.  A slew of her past issues have been related to traffic stops. 

And in looking, one thing becomes abundantly clear. Most officers start their reports more like this one. 

Notice the vehicle description at first rather than the name of the person? That’s because as police begin to make a traffic stop, they usually don’t know who the person inside the vehicle is. Unless of course they really do know the person like in the case of maybe Ms. Stearns who lives in their town and they may or may not have been harassing her so they are abundantly clear on who she is. 

And notice that these stops are years ago. Is this worth our time and judgement? 

Regardless, it is still traffic incidents and a number of them. Do we take her kids away for traffic stops? She crossed a line. Do we take that middle one? Or the little one? Certainly not ALL of them for traffic stops. One child should suffice right? 

Well then there’s also some issues with her exes and the police. Certainly this needs some looking into. I’m sure we can crucify her on this. 

Aha! She’s a child abuser! I’m sure that deserves society removing another TWO children from her for this! Or is she? 

So is she an abuser or a woman who’s had some problems with an ex? IF Carri were abusive to her children, she’d have been prosecuted or have lost her children. None of that has happened. In fact the children were never removed from her and the case was closed.  It is also evident from this that there was a custody dispute and they had some issues, that there is a new woman in Mr. Merrick’s life at that point and the two ladies do not get along. Maybe some accusations were made for better legal standing in that dispute. Carri also said some things about the new Mrs. Merrick but didn’t say them to her. Who hasn’t had problems with an ex? Who hasn’t said they’d like to kick a little butt? But what’s clear is she didn’t say these things TO Mrs. Merrick. She said them to a third-party. Was she venting? Just unleashing some pent-up feelings and verbalizing how she felt about the new Mrs. Merrick? 

Does it change anything if you were to know that Mr. Merrick is also friends with Mr. Constable? Who’s Mr. Constable you ask? Another former gentleman in Carri’s life who also happened to be a local area police officer. 

You see, in yet another twist, a certain group of ladies on the internet have decided that with this little bit of information on Carri, it has now become their life’s mission to protect society from her by informing the world of what a horrid person she is. And the information gleaned on her is alleged to have come from Mr. Constable including police reports from which we’ve taken snippets here, her children’s report cards, her children’s private HIPAA protected medical information, etc. Aside from it being harassment and slander, one has to ask, why does someone go to all this trouble to gather up all this information on one woman in a case about a child that doesn’t concern them? Why are they personally reaching out to every single ex in her life, every person she’s ever had a disagreement with, every person she’s ever come in contact with? And how was this information gathered? In order to get police records, court dispositions, tax records, investigation notes, etc (and information not readily available to Joe Public) wouldn’t an officer have had to gather this info on Carri? Maybe an officer who was willing to abuse their power and dig up the dirt on her? 

We have several officers in her town, several exes, all contributing to the fray. And for what purpose other than a dislike for personal reasons of this woman? There’s nothing to gain other than self-gratification over a personal vendetta. And are the sources here even credible? Exes? The ex’s new wife?

Well if the Columbus Dispatch is to be believed, the answer is an astounding NO!

 (Article found HERE and HERE)

Frankly, it all adds up to a whole lot of trees dying for nothing. Carri has already exorcised her demons. Other bloggers have already written of her past. 

And is the information itself even credible? Well, it depends. If one is given all the information then it can be. But if we are only being shown the accusations and not the outcomes, then no. What we are seeing most often is, these were civil and traffic matters and they were closed. Carri also has never been found to have nor charged with ever having abused or neglected her children. 

What you also aren’t being shown is a balanced or fair account of who Carri Stearns is, that she was a frequent volunteer at a local food pantry, that she was part of the PTO for two schools her children attended, she coached their soccer team for six years, or that she was an elected member of the board of directors for her children’s local soccer league. 

You aren’t being told Carri is currently employed or that she’s a great mother. You aren’t being shown that her children are her life. You aren’t being shown that she is a loving mother to her other children and they adore her as much as she adores them. Because this is the Carri that shines through to those who know her.

If you haven’t seen THIS Carri, then are you informed enough to talk about THAT Carri? Is any information gathered via a few exes with a grudge unbiased and accurate? Does any of it even matter? I’d say no. Carri has not put her children in jeopardy. She’s never been found to be abusive or negligent in their care. Anything she has done wrong has not involved her children and is in her past. So why are we sitting here in our judgy pants playing Judgy McJudgerson being judge and jury about her life and her worthiness to parent her own children? WHY ARE WE HELPING AN ADOPTION AGENCY BY SITTING HERE IN JUDGEMENT OF HER? Their modus operandi in all of these cases has been to discredit and slander bio-parents, skirt the law and make a profit off of the child. WHY ARE WE HELPING THEM GET RICH AT THE COST OF YET ANOTHER CHILD? 

Camden currently sits with yet another family in foster care after at least three earlier placements. Carri has little information about him and he shows signs of vision problems which means he could already be blind. He’s shown signs of depression at less than a year old likely from being bounced around and being taken from his mother. He is at risk of RAD or Reactive Attachment Disorder. If this continues, Camden’s outlook is not bright not to mention, his disability dimishes his value to Adoption by Gentle Care as he will likely be harder to place. They have the choice to return him to his mother but to this point, have refused to show even the smallest amount of compassion. They haven’t allowed a picture, an update or any contact whatsoever. This is what we should be focusing on. Focus on Camden! 

UPDATE: Since some are so all consumed by Carri’s life, I guess it’s absolutely necessary that every report be issued. Carri really does not need to dignify this with a response and the fact that SOME can’t read between the lines and follow the logic is ridiculous. If it weren’t for crazed stalker types, there’d be no need for this. But those types insist on taking apart every single moment in Carri’s life. As well, it is hoped that her other children could be spared in all of this. Some documents were just so useless to publish and dealt with sensitive information about her other children (names, birthdates, etc.). There is absolutely NO NEED to continue to harass her and her other children in this matter. So spelling it out for you, let’s address this FIVE YEAR OLD REPORT and get it over with……

As was noted earlier, Ms. Merrick and Carri obviously did not get along and there was an abuse allegation made against Carri. The above are from that report. Notice as mentioned earlier (and should have been enough) that the police noted that the children were staying with the Merricks that night (due to the visitation schedule). Children’s Services were notified. A case worker came to the home and spoke with the girls. The police also note there wasn’t even a reason to speak to Ms. Stearns that night. They simply said they would follow up with the school and with Ms. Stearns after that. 

Had this actually been a case of abuse, Carri would not only have been contacted but would have been arrested the same night most likely. So not only did they not feel this was worth waking her for, she was never arrested, charged or convicted at any date on this matter. Further, she still has all of her children. And even if the rumors her not having custody of all her children were true, the gossip mongers at least imply she has SOME of her children further contradicting themselves. Had Children’s Services found her guilty of or suspected her of abusing ANY of her children, then she wouldn’t have custody of ANY of them. Children’s Services does NOT come to the house to protect one or two and not the the rest. And further, she has shared custody arrangements with the children’s fathers. Lots of children have shared custody plans. Please forgive Carri for not having these plans coincide with your obsessive need to follow her every movement. 

And this would be a recent photo of her with ALL 5 of her children and unnamed child. 

Correction

We recently published a post alleging that Camden was with an adoptive couple from the Amish community. It’s come to our attention that this is not correct and we’d like to apologize to that couple for the mistake.

We’d also like to clarify that the publisher of this blog has not been notified of this matter via any legal notice and has no connection to possible other bloggers in the blogging community. While we do enjoy the writings of Mrs. Darcy,  she does not operate this blog.

And for those who cannot see past their nose, while you may not have the intelligence to figure out the plot, it’s okay. You can still look at the pretty pictures.

8th Annual Demons of Adoption Award

The 8th Annual Demons of Adoption Award Winner has been announced and ……drum roll please! …This year’s award winner is ADOPTION BY GENTLE CARE of Columbus, Ohio. Yes, the very one and the same agency involved in THIS case! 

For those of you wanting to read more on these awards and past recipients, you can go to the Pound Pup Legacy site and check them out. They have oodles of information on ground breaking cases and other unethical adoptions. 

Pound Pup Legacy presented the award this year to Adoption by Gentle Care of Columbus, Ohio with the following: 

For eighth year in a rows, Pound Pup Legacy has asked its readers to choose the worst person or organization in Adoptionland as the
recipient of the Demons of Adoption Award. Today we announce this year’s recipient.

We started the Demons of Adoption Awards, back in 2007, as a parody of the Congressional Angel in Adoption Award , annually awarded by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI). Although humorous in form, it was serious in intent.

At the time, little attention was given to serious issues like abuse in adoptive families, child trafficking, coerced relinquishmentand re-homing., while at the same time, Members of Congress were busy praising adoption attorney’s and executive directors of adoption agencies, by honoring them a Congressional award.

Something was very wrong with this picture. Abuse in adoptive families and re-homing often are the result of bad screening practices and insufficient preparation of prospective adopters, if not the result of withholding information about the conditions of the child, important to make a proper decision whether to go forward with an adoption. Coerced relinquishment often is the result of having no well-defined protocols to guide the adoption process. Child trafficking is often the result of working with unreliable partners in sending countries and the profit motif that can easily become the driving factor behind the adoption process.

Members of Congress should worry about these issues and provide regulation that curtail what is wrong in Adoptionland. Unfortunately they much rather look the other way and sail on the feel-good sentiments that surround adoption.

The Angels in Adoption Award gala is mostly an adoption agency’s love fest, organized with congressional allure It openly shows the intimate embrace of special interest groups and federal government, more so than in any other field of business.

Congress is often said to be ruled by special interests, but nowhere is the intimate embrace of politics and business so blatant as in the field of adoption.

There are no congressional awards for members of the petrochemical or financial industry, nor is there a defense contractor of the year award. When it comes to these branches of business, members of congress at least presume to maintain a certain distance.

Adoption is an entirely different matter. Members of Congress don’t view it as a business, after all, as defined by law, no children are being sold. And even if viewed as a business, it dwarfs in comparison to Wall Street, the oil industry, insurance, and the pharmaceutical industry.

For members of congress the political value of adoption is not economical, but sentimental. Members of congress like to present themselves in favor of adoption, because it superficially shows a virtuous side, something as much needed to get elected as having well filled campaign coffers.

For members of the adoption industry, adoption certainly has economic value. Their livelihood depends on it. Of course the industry likes to present itself as virtuous and charitable, but at the end of the day salaries need to be paid and the cost of doing business needs to be recouped.

The Angels of Adoption Awards shamelessly shows the exchange of sentimental political capital for the economic and religious interests of the adoption industry. Members of Congress get the opportunity to demonstrate their virtuous side, and the industry gets Congress’s seal of approval,and  minimal federal oversight.

This cynical trade of feel good sentiments for economic and religious interests made us start the Demons of Adoption Awards, seven years ago.

As a parody of the Angels of Adoption Awards it only highlights the worst. Just like no agency or attorney is as angelical as Members of Congress want us to believe, neither are the demons of adoption exceptionally evil. For every nominee there are several others equally guilty of unethical practices.

The Demons of Adoption Awards shine a light on the darkest corners of Adoptionland, but they don’t tell us much about the overall darkness of the adoption industry.

Business methods, used by the worst agencies of our time, are the same as those used by “demons of adoption” a century ago. Coerced relinquishment, fraudulent paperwork, the use of jurisdictional mazes, illegal payments, all of that is not a recent invention; it has been part and parcel of the adoption business since its inception.

This year’s recipient of the Demons of Adoption Award is a good example of being among the worst in an industry that thrives on bad practices.

Founded, in 1978 by attorney James S. Albers, Adoption by Gentle Care has been in the spotlight before. Already in 2011, the agency was nominated for a Demons of Adoption Award for their handling of the case of Benjamin Wyrembek.

In that case Adoption by Gentle Care placed a boy with an Indiana couple, in November 2007, knowing that the paternity of the child was not established. Benjamin Wyrembek, the father of the child contested the adoption and after a long court battle, the adoption was dismissed.

As a result, the child was officially in custody of Adoption by Gentle Care, which was ordered to show the child to his father on February 8, 2010. The agency failed to comply with the court order and through it’s executive director John Cameron was held in contempt on July 2, 2010.

The Indiana couple appealed all the way up to the US Supreme Court, but eventually October 30, 2010, the boy was handed over to his father.

Adoption by Gentle Care quickly dismissed executive director John Cameron, who was replaced by Trina Saunders. This change of leadership however didn’t change the way Adoption by Gentle Care operated.

In March 2014, Adoption by Gentle Care was involved in the placement of Camden, the son of Carri Stearns. Carri Stearns found herself in a crisis situation after getting pregnant as the result of a one-night-stand. Her partner, and father of her five children, wasn’t exactly pleased and told her to choose between the baby and the family they had together, a reaction he later regretted.

Carri Stearns contacted Adoption by Gentle Care days before she was due, to discuss the placement of the child. Adoption by Gentle Care was very eager to assist in the placement and their counseling was geared to only one option, to make sure the child was being placed for adoption.

In the process Adoption by Gentle Care ignored all red flags. The mother was financially capable of raising the child, she herself wanted the child, and she had proven to be a good mother for her other children.

When the issue of paternity came up, the agency coached Carri Stearns to list the father as “unknown” on the birth certificate, even though the father was known.

The case worker, having learned her lesson from the case of Dusten Brown (baby Veronica) asked if Carri had any Native American blood. When she answered truthfully that she did, the case worker responds: “Carri, you can’t say that. If we name Native American blood, then this adoption won’t happen. He’ll go to foster care.”

Apparently the fear of the child going into foster care was enough for Carri Stearns to lie, something Adoption by Gentle Care apparently found entirely acceptable.

Three days after the initial intake and only counseling session, Carri gave birth to her son Camden by means of a c-section. Four days later, she signed off on the adoption.

During the relinquishment she had to testify that she was of “sound mind and body”. In such testimony one must state that they are not under any mind altering substances and are making this decision of their own free will, independently of any coercion of duress. At the time Carri was still under doctor’s prescription for Vicodin and Dilaudid, but was advised by Adoption by Gentle care worker to say “no” to the question whether she was using any medication.

Three days after the relinquishment, reality what has transpired set in and Carri came to the conclusion she had made a terrible mistake.

Adoption by Gentle Care refused to revoke the consent and pushed through with the placement of Camden. However, the family chosen to adopt the boy, returned him to the agency and he has been in foster care ever since.

Adoption by Gentle Care, with this case proved to be anything but gentle, and it seems all they cared about is the quick placement of children. They didn’t seem to care about proper procedures, proper counseling and it wasn’t even beyond them to instruct someone to lie.

We believe our readers made an excellent choice by declaring Adoption by Gentle Care this year’s Demon of Adoption, and with sadness realize next year we will most likely have another recipient just as deserving.

The Sanctity of Adoption

A recent statement by Adoption by Gentle Care on the Camden Stearns case came to light. And in reading it, it suddenly struck a chord. Did they suddenly admit Carri Stearns was right? Or did they lose their marbles? Or maybe fall and bump their heads? 

Recently, albeit in poor taste, AGC took the time to slide in some disparaging remarks towards Carri in various forms of communication on the internet. And they went on to issue this, their official statement on the matter. Seems the line they’d like to tow on this is ‘Carri is mentally unstable, don’t listen to her! We acted completely ethically in this matter!’ But let’s examine this….

If Carri were mentally unstable so much so today that we shouldn’t believe her according to them, then why shouldn’t we also believe she was so mentally unstable as a result of prescription medications immediately after the birth of her child then that they were able to allegedly coerced her into giving him away for adoption? I’d think a person on medication would certainly be grounds for mental inclarity and I’d be more inclined to believe a person had a temporary lapse due to medication than I would be to believe a person is mentally unstable all the time. Isn’t ‘mentally unstable’ and ‘stalker’ the new ‘online black’ or the new catchphrase online for when we don’t like a person? They’re such a stalker! They’re mentally unstable! But they weren’t ‘mentally unstable’ while they were on several prescriptions of pain and anxiety medications directly after the birth of their child? They are only crazy now when we need to discredit them and we want to win against them in court? Gotcha! 

And SANCTITY? Did they pull that card? Listen, I can understand when a child has no home and a family takes them in, adopts them, that in that situation the family who is taking the child needs to know that the bond they form is a stable one. That no man, no wish, no dream, no deeds, no act of God is going to rip that child from them. And deservedly so if that baby is legitimately placed for adoption and a caring family came forward to take the child in. But can we hide behind sanctity when or if a placement is based on coercion? Or as in other cases, on frauding a birth parent out of their right to raise and love their own child? When they’ve hid a child’s birth or paternity from a father and circumvented his rights? Is there no situation where not holding to the ‘sanctity’ of adoption is okay? Because if there isn’t then you are condoning some pretty serious crimes if all is okay in the end and the end justifies the means. 

But to make matters worse, what kind of ‘sanctity in adoption’ exists when there is no adoption? No adoptive family? When a sick child rots in agency run, private foster care? Camden as mentioned before has a serious medical condition and could already be blind as a result. (We’ll never know Camden’s medical condition either because the ‘sanctimonious’ agency will not give updates on his care or condition.) Gentle Care thus far has placed him with the first adoptive couple who its assumed that upon hearing his mother was begging for his return, did the right thing and returned him.  Still not wanting to lose, the win to them apparently being so important, Camden still languishes in foster care, having been bounced around more times than one can count.

And the whole “But the outcome is this:”…..yeah, toss that! Because they fed us a bunch of lies! If the Grayson Vaughn case is any indication of their ethics, I’m afraid to say they wasted the time it took to type that statement. And in actuality, the truth is THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS has taken on the case. Appeals courts do NOT take on cases they feel are frivolous, cases where birth mothers are lying and ‘mentally unstable.’ They don’t take cases typed up and argued by unqualified attorneys and used car salesmen. They don’t take cases based on absolutely no merit because the adoption agency (despite all alleged past wrongdoings in past cases) is just so flawless that they are above any scrutiny. SOMETHING has to be circumspect and some case or argument of legal merit has to be made in the petition to have the case heard. 

So it then seems their smoke and mirrors, their discrediting and vilifying of yet another birth mother, is all a game. Don’t be fooled. In adoption, cash is king. Any adoption agency who loses a chance to place a child also loses fees that can be upwards of $30,000 per caucasian child per placement. Non refundable of course. So is what we’re seeing just more of the same? More of the vilification of a birth parent for the almighty dollar? Because I wonder, is the adoption what’s so sanctified or is it the money? 

The Not For Profit Adoption Agency Myth

This was such a great look into the finances and foolishness of adoption agencies that it deserves a second look. This post does a great job at explaining why the term ‘non profit’ doesn’t mean well-meaning , charitable or honest.

THE NOT FOR PROFIT ADOPTION AGENCY MYTH at Musings of the Lame

Infant Acquisition and the Adoption Cycle

The underbelly of adoption, the flip side of the coin, is what many of us aren’t aware of. It’s the side to adoption that no one wants to discuss. While there are a some honest agencies who truly want to see children in need of a home actually placed in loving homes, for most of them adoption is not only big business but also an entirely legal child trafficking conglomerate.

Where less than ethical agencies are concerned solely with profits, babies are outright sold.  Many would have you believe these agencies are simply charging a fee for the cost of services provided but that is not the case. If that were true, a child’s race would have no bearing on the cost of the adoption because court costs, home studies, etc… would be the same regardless of race. Instead agencies actually put a price on the child based on market conditions, supply and demand and race.

If birth mom and baby are caucasian, the stakes are raised as that seems to be not only the rarer commodity but the most sought after infants as well.

 

Supply and demand in the adoption market depends on tragic conditions. Is the birth mother poor? Is she in an unstable relationship? Does she have a drug history? Does she lack a support network? Is she alone in her pregnancy? Is she single? Does she have a medical or psychiatric condition? Is the child the product of rape? The more of these questions we can answer yes to, the higher the likelihood that the birth mother can be convinced that adoption is the only option for her child, the higher the likelihood that her baby can be acquired and placed for adoption.  And it’s in these tragedies that the adoption industry benefits. 

Ohio’s Adoption by Gentle Care then would seem to be no exception. As yet another adoption agency seemingly guided by the mantra of loving homes for needy children, they too are in the business of adoption and like any other agency are dependent on the need to acquire infants to stay in business. No infants, no business right? They too then would be dependent on the ‘YES women’ for business purposes. Sadly, for women in crisis adoption is often their only solution, albeit permanent, to a temporary problem. 

Besides preying on women in need, what makes the whole acquisition of children even more disgusting is that not only are they primarily concerned with womb wet infants as they are easier to blend into a family but, that adoption agencies have society to help them. When we hear of these women or even the biological parents who fight to get their children back, what do we think? We hear of a story like this and we automatically think things like “Well she has a drug history so she doesn’t deserve that baby!” or “This is only her 7th baby by the 5th father! They need to take that baby off of her!”  

Cases today are often fought in the court of public opinion via the media. The case of Veronica Brown taught us whoever could best manage the media could win the case. And so the bio parent is often vilified simply because the nature of the business is one where wealthy, stable couples are on the ‘wanting’ end with resources while poor, unwed, often in-crisis birth parents are on the ‘giving’ end. And of the two, which would you guess usually has a higher level of education? A higher income? Greater access to our courts and lawyers? Greater access to the media? And who would you think would gain the greater level of sympathy from the public? You probably guessed it….the infertile couple who’s only desire is to make their family complete….the middle class to wealthy, often white couple looking to adopt. 

And let’s think about that for a minute. If you were white, middle class, comfortable, with a stable marriage and you suddenly found yourself pregnant, what reason would you have for giving up your child? Life is great, there is no crisis in your life. And if you are among those for whom children aren’t in your plan, you likely have access to health care and preventatives. You probably aren’t going to find yourself in that situation anyway. 

And so it goes, we hear about these cases and we follow the highly contested ones in the news. We judge. We’d like to think ourselves a society where every parent has a right to raise their own children completely free of the interruption of custody by others except in the most severe cases of abuse and neglect. Yet in the case of birth mothers, we blame and heap misfortune on her shoulders, her punishment for a marred past or her assumed promiscuity.  We judge not realizing there just isn’t such a thing as the seraphic birth mother, the all American Allison willing to give her child up despite her normal upbringing, charmed life and wonderful husband. We aren’t looking at the obvious….that the birth mother who leads the wonderful life often does not carry a child for nine months only to decide on a whim that she doesn’t want it. Most often, there is some desperate situation that leads her to that choice. And even if that mother did exist, we’d probably crucify her too because she lived such a wonderful life and decided on a whim that she didn’t want her child. 

And while we busy ourselves with crucifying the birth mother, these babies have to grow up. And grow up they do, often only to be upcycled into the ‘rehomed’, a whole other business where adoption agencies get a second crack at a piece of the pie when little Johnny or little Suzie is deemed ‘not a good fit’, ‘has behavior problems’ or ‘severe psychiatric issues’ a.k.a. is too much work to deal with and thus carted off to another home to wait on yet another adoptive family. 

Is there any other situation where any one side can be perceived as so altruistic while the victim, the real altruist is so vilified as is in adoption? 

Adoption Malpractice?

If an adoption agency places children who don’t have homes in homes, then why would there be a need to fight with a biological parent? A child available for adoption technically has no parent and no home right?

If they don’t have homes, why would one need to forcefully terminate the parental rights of a biological parent unless of course that biological parent maybe wanted their child?

One has to wonder what’s the motivation that would cause an agency to throw morals to the wind, risk their company’s reputation, want to fight biological parent’s for the right to place their child and take on the burden of lengthy and costly litigation. Why would a business risk so much? Or is the payoff so great that it’s worth it? And what is that payoff? Money perhaps?

In the case of paternal father Benjamin Wyrembek, minor child Grayson Vaughn and his prospective adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn, again Adoption by Gentle Care was involved and again, a child spent countless months involved in litigation that caused him to be in legal limbo. Grayson, now Thaddeus, born October, 2007 spent years of his life away from his family only to be reunited at three years old with his biological father. Again, it was time spent fighting a birth parent, time spent from a child’s life that could have been better spent with the child forging familial bonds. Instead, Thaddeus became a poster child in adoption circles both for mistakes made in adoption cases and for horror stories of hopeful adoptive couples. 

It’s unknown what recourse the Vaughn’s had in this case with respect to the money spent fighting for Grayson/Thaddeus. Were they refunded their money spent for placement and home studies? Was it known that Thaddeus’ father intended to contest the adoption prior to the day he was placed with the Vaughns? If this were the medical industry, would this not be considered malpractice? Is it adoption malpractice to place a child with an adoptive family  knowing a biological parent wants the child and therefore, it is an at risk placement from the start? Is it fair to the adoptive couple to put them through that type of turmoil emotionally? Is it fair to put the child through the psychological trauma of the uncertainty of that type of situation? The agency must have considered Thaddeus’s adoption a risk to be taken even though they were likely aware of the contested adoption plan. Completing a risky “treatment plan” and without consent of the affected/treated parties would be nothing short of malpractice in any field. In other words, an unnecessary procedure with great risk to all.

Click here to read more on the heartbreaking transfer of Thaddeus Wyrembeck. 

A transfer like this should serve as a reminder to us all that where a birth parent wants to raise their child, no matter the animosity between birth mother and father, that they should be able to do so. One parent’s desire to place the child for adoption should never trump the other parent’s desire to keep the child. 

In Camden’s case, we have to wonder why they’d want to do this to a child again? A business would have no good reason to take on the risk of another contested case except for a good payoff – money or pride.

On Adoption…

I have experienced abortion and placing a child for adoption. The abortion never bothered me but the adoption haunts me.  You can grieve for the death with an abortion but how can you grieve for a child who isn’t dead yet may as well be to you? 

-M. (FirstMother)