SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:31471.wais]
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET:
FOLLOW-UP ISSUES TO THE MASHA
ALLEN ADOPTION
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
Serial No. 109-145
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-471 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202)
512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director
DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel
REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART STUPAK, Michigan
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi Ranking Member
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
(EX OFFICIO) (EX OFFICIO)
CONTENTS
Page
Testimony of:
Wallace, Keith, Chief Executive Officer, Families Thru
International Adoption 14
Dymtchenko, Serguei 19
Baird, Jr., Richard L., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Adiago Health, Inc. 22
Smith, Jeannene, Founder, Reaching Out Thru International
Adoption 31
Eiferman, Carol, Social Work Supervisor, Reaching Out Thru
International Adoption 34
Maskew, Trish, President, Ethica, Inc. 73
Rolsky, Jared, Board Member, Joint Council on International
Child Services 77
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET:
FOLLOW-UP ISSUES TO THE
MASHA ALLEN ADOPTION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in Room
2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(Chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Walden, Ferguson,
Burgess, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Stupak and Inslee.
Staff present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel, Karen Christian, Counsel; John
Halliwell, Policy Coordinator; Ryan Ambrose, Legislative Clerk; Edith
Holleman, Minority Counsel; and Elizabeth Ertel, Minority Senior Staff
Assistant.
MR. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order. This
afternoon we are going to explore some issues on the behalf of the
committee relating to a young girl from Russia whose name today is
Masha Allen. Unfortunately she never had an opportunity to defend, to
protect herself, or have questions answered into the process that led to
her being adopted by a pedophile named Matthew Mancuso when she
was 5 years old. And we are here today to find out if there were any red
flags in the adoption of Masha that could have and maybe should have
been picked up by one of the various agencies and people involved in
this adoption. What we have learned in the course of this investigation is
extremely troubling on many fronts.
First, the evidence shows that Jeannene Smith, the founder of an
adoption agency called Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, was
the placement agency for Mancuso's adoption of Masha. Mrs. Smith
attempted to mislead committee staff about her role in Masha's adoption
and withheld documents in an attempt to minimize her role. I believe the
reason she sought to minimize her role is because with that role came
certain responsibilities. Ms. Smith did not live up to those
responsibilities and as a result, Masha was left in the hands of a
pedophile for many years. The primary responsibility that I am referring
to is one that Masha rhetorically asked the committee in her testimony
when she was here and she said, "Why didn't anyone ever come to check
on me?"
No one came to check on Masha because Ms. Smith's agency, the
agency responsible for the placement of the child, never told the home
study agency that Mancuso had a child placed in his home, so the home
study agency never followed up. Mrs. Smith also, in my view, shirked
her responsibility to obtain three post-placement reports required by the
Russian government, from Mancuso. These reports required exactly
what Masha asked about; a licensed social worker to come see her at
Mancuso's home; to see how she was doing and progressing; and to talk
to her.
Instead of, at a minimum, calling a licensed post-placement agency
in Pennsylvania, which is where Mancuso and Masha were living, and
asking them to contact Mancuso and set up a meeting, she went ahead
and had one of her social workers call Mancuso and write a report based
on a phone call. This report was then sent to the Russian authorities as
an official post-placement report. Notably, nowhere in the report does it
say it was based on a phone call. It is my understanding that a telephonic
post-placement report is almost worthless and more importantly, a social
worker can only do a post-placement report in the State in which they
were licensed.
Jeannene Smith and her social worker were not licensed in
Pennsylvania. I would like to know why they did not take their
responsibility seriously and in the fact of documentation to the contrary,
why she has repeatedly tried to mislead committee staff into believing
she had a minor role and that her agency did not have contact with
Mancuso after Masha was brought to the United States.
It is clear, from all the documents we have reviewed, that from the
start of Mancuso's adoption in August of 1997, all the way to the last
contact with him, the infamous telephonic post-placement report in
November of 2000, Ms. Smith and her employees were the only people
Mancuso was contacting about his adoption of Masha. While certain
official forms that Mancuso submitted may have had her former
employee's company's name on it, an agency called Families Thru
International Adoption, at all times Mancuso was a client of Ms. Smith.
I will certainly have some questions about why Families Thru
International Adoption was not more stringent in their overview of these
adoption applications that Ms. Smith was handling, but that doesn't take
away from her central role in Mancuso's adoption of Masha. And we
expect to get some answers here today. One of the things that is also
disturbing about this international adoption process is the lack of and
absence of any Federal guidelines or Federal regulations. And so it
appears to me this is an area that certainly this committee and the Energy
and Commerce Committee, as a whole, needs to look at very closely.
This whole episode is particularly disturbing to me and I know it is
to other members of the committee, and we were looking forward to this,
to the testimony of all members of the panel today. We hope to get to
some answers and we want to make sure that we have minimized the
opportunity of this kind of thing to ever happen in the future. And at this
time, I call on Mr. Stupak for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
GOOD AFTERNOON. TODAY'S HEARING FOLLOWS-UP ON
ISSUES RAISED AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S MAY 3 HEARING
INVOLVING THE ADOPTION OF A LITTLE GIRL FROM
RUSSIA-NAMED MASHA-- BY A PEDOPHILE, LIVING IN THE
UNITED STATES. ON MAY 3RD, WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM
MASHA ABOUT THE HORRORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE SHE FACED
DAY AFTER DAY, BEGINNING WHEN SHE WAS 5 YEARS OLD-
BY A PEDOPHILE WHO ADOPTED HER, NAMED MATTHEW
MANCUSO. IT WOULD SEEM MANCUSO MUST HAVE SHARED
MANY OF THE TRAITS IDENTIFIED BY OUR PANEL OF
EXPERTS ON PEDOPHILES THAT WE HEARD FROM
YESTERDAY-TRAITS THAT ALL SUCCESSFUL PEDOPHILES
MUST HAVE LIKABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS, FRIENDLINESS
AND INTELLIGENCE. BECAUSE, HOW ELSE COULD ALL OF
THESE VARIOUS ADOPTION AGENCIES THAT HAD SOME
SORT OF ROLE IN MANCUSO'S ADOPTION OF MASHA BEEN
FOOLED BY HIM ABOUT HIS ACTUAL INTENTIONS? PERHAPS
IT WAS BECAUSE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS IT IS NOT
UNUSUAL FOR THE AGENCIES INVOLVED TO NEVER MEET
THE PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENT. PERHAPS HE WAS
JUST 'TOO SMART' TO BE DETECTED DURING THE ADOPTION
PROCESS. OR PERHAPS IT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE DID NOT
LOOK CLOSELY ENOUGH AT THE PAPERWORK DURING
VARIOUS STAGES OF THE PROCESS AND RAISED THE
QUESTIONS WE WILL BE RAISING HERE TODAY.
THE LOOMING QUESTIONS I HAD AFTER HEARING
MASHA'S TESTIMONY WERE-HOW COULD THIS ADOPTION
HAVE HAPPENED AND WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE?
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO FIND OUT IF THERE WERE ANY
RED FLAGS IN THE ADOPTION OF MASHA THAT COULD
HAVE-AND MAYBE SHOULD HAVE-BEEN PICKED UP BY
ONE OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES AND PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
THIS ADOPTION. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IN THE COURSE
OF THIS INVESTIGATION IS EXTREMELY TROUBLING ON
MANY FRONTS. FIRST, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
JEANNENE SMITH, THE FOUNDER OF AN ADOPTION AGENCY
CALLED "REACHING OUT THROUGH INTERNATIONAL
ADOPTION," WAS THE PLACEMENT AGENCY FOR
MANCUSO'S ADOPTION OF MASHA. MS. SMITH ATTEMPTED
TO MISLEAD COMMITTEE STAFF ABOUT HER ROLE IN
MASHA'S ADOPTION AND WITHHELD DOCUMENTS IN AN
ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE HER ROLE. I BELIEVE THE REASON
SHE SOUGHT TO MINIMIZE HER ROLE IS BECAUSE WITH
THAT ROLE, CAME CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES. MS. SMITH
DID NOT LIVE UP TO THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES AND AS A
RESULT, MASHA WAS LEFT IN THE HANDS OF A MONSTER
FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY THAT
I'<B style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff66">M</B> REFERRING TO IS ONE THAT MASHA RHETORICALLY
ASKED THE COMMITTEE IN HER TESTIMONY: WHY DIDN'T
ANYONE EVER COME TO CHECK ON ME?
NO ONE CAME TO CHECK ON MASHA BECAUSE MS.
SMITH'S AGENCY-THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD-- NEVER TOLD THE HOME STUDY
AGENCY THAT MANCUSO HAD A CHILD PLACED IN HIS
HOME. SO THE HOME STUDY AGENCY NEVER FOLLOWED
UP. MS. SMITH ALSO SHIRKED HER RESPONSIBILITY TO
OBTAIN 3 POST-PLACEMENT REPORTS, REPORTS REQUIRED
BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, FROM MANCUSO. THESE
REPORTS REQUIRED EXACTLY WHAT MASHA ASKED ABOUT:
A LICENSED SOCIAL WORKER TO COME SEE HER AT
MANCUSO'S HOME, TO SEE HOW SHE WAS DOING AND
PROGRESSING AND TO TALK TO HER. INSTEAD OF, AT A
MINIMUM, CALLING A LICENSED POST-PLACEMENT AGENCY
IN PENNSYLVANIA-WHICH IS WHERE MANCUSO AND
MASHA WERE LIVING-- AND ASKING THEM TO CONTACT
MANCUSO AND SET UP A MEETING-SHE WENT AHEAD AND
HAD ONE OF HER SOCIAL WORKERS CALL MANCUSO AND
WRITE A REPORT BASED ON A PHONE CALL. THIS REPORT
WAS THEN SENT TO THE RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES AS AN
OFFICIAL POST-PLACEMENT REPORT. NOTABLY, NO WHERE
IN THE REPORT DOES IT SAY IT WAS BASED ON A PHONE
CALL. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A TELEPHONIC
POST-PLACEMENT REPORT IS WORTHLESS AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY, A SOCIAL WORKER CAN ONLY DO A POST-
PLACEMENT REPORT IN THE STATE IN WHICH THEY WERE
LICENSED. JEANNENE SMITH AND HER SOCIAL WORKER
WERE NOT LICENSED IN PENNSYLVANIA. I WANT TO KNOW
WHY JEANNENE SMITH DID NOT TAKE HER RESPONSIBILITY
SERIOUSLY AND--IN THE FACE OF DOCUMENTATION TO THE
CONTRARY-WHY SHE HAS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO MISLEAD
COMMITTEE STAFF INTO BELIEVING SHE HAD A MINOR ROLE
AND THAT HER AGENCY DID NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH
MANCUSO AFTER MASHA WAS BROUGHT TO THE UNITED
STATES.
IT IS CLEAR FROM ALL THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE
REVIEWED THAT FROM THE START OF MANCUSO'S
ADOPTION IN AUGUST 1997 ALL THE WAY TO THE LAST
CONTACT WITH HIM-THE INFAMOUS TELEPHONIC POST-
PLACEMENT REPORT IN NOVEMBER OF 2000-MS. SMITH
AND HER EMPLOYEES WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE MANCUSO
WAS CONTACTING ABOUT HIS ADOPTION OF MASHA. WHILE
CERTAIN "OFFICIAL FORMS" THAT MANCUSO SUBMITTED
MAY HAVE HAD HER FORMER EMPLOYER'S COMPANY NAME
ON IT-AN AGENCY CALLED "FAMILIES THROUGH
INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION"-AT ALL TIMES MANCUSO WAS
A CLIENT OF MS. SMITH. I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY "FAMILIES THROUGH
INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION" WAS NOT MORE STRINGENT IN
THEIR OVERVIEW OF THESE ADOPTION APPLICATIONS THAT
MS. SMITH WAS HANDLING, BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY
FROM HER CENTRAL ROLE IN MANCUSO'S ADOPTION OF
MASHA. I EXPECT TO GET ANSWERS TODAY.
PERHAPS THE OTHER OVERARCHING PROBLEM THAT I
BELIEVE IS EXEMPLIFIED BY MASHA'S ADOPTION IS THE
PIECEMEAL NATURE OF THE INFORMATION FLOW-EACH
AGENCY INVOLVED, WHETHER IT'S THE HOME STUDY
AGENCY, OR THE PLACING AGENCY OR THE POST-
PLACEMENT REPORTING AGENCY-IS RELYING, IT SEEMS,
ON THE "OTHER" ONE TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY. FOR
EXAMPLE, IT IS OBVIOUS FROM LOOKING AT DOCUMENTS IN
MANCUSO'S FILE THAT THERE ARE FORGED NOTARY
SIGNATURES. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE QUESTION THIS?
MANCUSO SUBMITTED 6 REFERENCE LETTERS IN SUPPORT
OF HIS ADOPTION-AND YET NO ONE EVER CALLED ANY OF
THE REFERENCES TO FIND OUT IF THEY ARE REAL. WHY?
TYPICALLY A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER CALLS REFERENCES
PRIOR TO HIRING A NEW EMPLOYEE-WHY WOULD THE
PROCESS BE LESS DILIGENT WHEN A CHILD FROM A
FOREIGN COUNTRY IS BEING PLACED IN A HOME? WE ALSO
NOW KNOW THAT HIS BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER-WHO WAS
20 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF MASHA'S ADOPTION AND
ESTRANGED FROM HIM-WAS ALSO SEXUALLY ABUSED BY
HIM FOR YEARS. YET, NO ONE CONTACTED HER TO FIND
OUT WHAT KIND OF PARENT HE WAS. AGAIN I ASK WHY?
I DON'T EXPECT AN ADOPTION AGENCY TO ACT AS A
POLICE AGENCY-HOWEVER, I DO EXPECT THAT WHEN YOU
ARE BRINGING A CHILD INTO A NEW COUNTRY, WHERE
THEY DON'T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE AND HAVE NO SUPPORT
SYSTEM AROUND THEM WHATSOEVER, THAT YOU PERFORM
DUE DILIGENCE. CALLING REFERENCES, ENSURING THERE
ARE IN-PERSON FOLLOW UP VISITS WITH THE CHILD, AND
SPEAKING TO THE CHILDREN OF THE PROSPECTIVE
ADOPTIVE PARENT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF MINIMAL
DILIGENCE IN MY BOOK. I POSE THIS LAST QUESTION TO
ILLUSTRATE HOW THE LACK OF FOLLOW-UP WITH
MANCUSO WAS SO CRITICAL: HAD JEANNENE SMITH'S
AGENCY ACTUALLY READ THE 1ST POST PLACEMENT
REPORT FOR MASHA, SUPPOSEDLY DONE BY A COMPANY
CALLED "SOCIAL SERVICES OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA,"
AND BOTHERED TO CALL THE PHONE NUMBER LISTED ON
THE AGENCY'S LETTERHEAD-THEY PROBABLY WOULD'VE
DISCOVERED PRETTY QUICKLY THAT THE AGENCY DIDN'T
EXIST, THE ADDRESS DIDN'T EXIST, AND THE PHONE
NUMBER WAS DISCONNECTED. PERHAPS THAT WOULD
HAVE TIPPED OFF MS. SMITH THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT
RIGHT HERE. THAT REPORT WAS DONE IN MARCH 1999---
IMAGINE HOW MANY YEARS OF TORTURE AND ABUSE
MASHA WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM?
I THANK ALL THE WITNESSES THAT ARE HERE TODAY TO
SHED LIGHT ON THIS SITUATION. I BELIEVE THE WITNESSES
ON OUR 2ND PANEL CAN GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO
OVERALL INDUSTRY PRACTICES AND STANDARDS THAT
SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR TESTIMONY AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding
this hearing. In May we heard the horrifying story from Masha, herself,
about her adoption, as a 5-year-old Russian girl, by Matthew Mancuso, a
pedophile now in jail for what will likely be for a very, very long time.
Masha lived through 5 years of abuse before she was rescued. A police
officer in Illinois, talking to Mr. Mancuso on the Internet, thought
something was wrong and alerted two agents of the FBI, who went to her
home and found this abused child. After that hearing, several of us asked
how could this adoption have happened? Whose fault was it? Could it
have been prevented?
Today we have before us many individuals who were responsible for
placing Masha in this abusive situation with a sexual predator. We will
hear from representatives of two adoption agencies who worked with Mr.
Mancuso; the Russian facilitator for the adoption; the home study
agency, which deemed him to be an acceptable adoptive parent; and
representatives of organizations who can explain what the Federal and
State rules for international adoptions were at the time, how they have
changed, and whether they have changed enough.
What we will hear is that international adoption is a very loosely
controlled international business based on the premise that poor children
from poor countries are better off in the United States with adoptive
families than they are growing up in poverty or bleak institutions or on
the streets of their own countries. The people who work for adoption
agencies believe that they are saving these thousands of children. To be
fair, most of the time they are bringing them to a better and safer life in
America. However, we will also hear today that there are very few
safeguards in place to stop people like Mr. Mancuso, who appeared
acceptable, but who planned to adopt a child to exploit for his sexual use
and on the Internet by other pedophiles.
In Masha's specific case, there were two agencies involved. Neither
one of them ever laid hands on Mr. Mancuso before he left for Russia.
There were pre-adoption questions that weren't asked, a lack of pre-
adoption education classes that might have eliminated Mr. Mancuso as
an adoptive parent and follow-up reports on Mr. Mancuso's home that
weren't done. The agency called Reaching Out Thru International
Adoption, which actually completed the adoption, never told the original
home study agency that Mr. Mancuso had adopted a child and needed to
have post-adoption reports under the requirements set by the Russian
government.
Mr. Mancuso was never told by the agency that he was required to
re-adopt Masha in Pennsylvania, which would have then allowed the
State access to Masha and could have put in place court-required post-
adoption visits and reports. The agency improperly and perhaps
illegally, did a follow-up report by telephone, claiming that Masha was
in a warm and loving home. In fact, the social worker who filed this
report had never actually met Masha or Mr. Mancuso or been in their
home. Would these steps have changed the outcome? Would they have
shortened the time of abuse or allowed Masha to be rescued earlier? We
don't know. We do know, however, that these agencies never gave
Masha the opportunity to live in a safe and truly loving home. Despite
the fact that these adoptions by pedophiles are rare, one is too many.
When Americans take children from other countries, we promise
them a better and safer life and we must do everything we can to fulfill
that promise. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the Chairman
of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, for his
opening statement.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Stupak. Last May this subcommittee heard testimony from a very brave
young girl, Masha Allen. Masha was adopted from Russia by a man
from the Pittsburgh area, one Matthew Mancuso. She was only 5 years
old. Once Mr. Mancuso brought Masha home to Pennsylvania, he began
raping and molesting her and placing images of those actions on the
Internet. At that hearing, Masha and her attorney raised serious and
troubling questions about the circumstances surrounding her adoption.
Like all the members of this subcommittee, I was deeply troubled by
the pain and the suffering that she had endured. I was also troubled by
the possibility that the adoption procedures supposedly intended to
protect her actually failed her. The purpose of the hearing today is to
bring some much needed resolution and transparency to the questions
that were first raised by members of this subcommittee 4 months ago.
Specifically, it was unclear, at that hearing, which adoption agency had
worked with Masha's adoptive father to place Masha with him. There
were also questions about the home study of Mancuso.
Mancuso was a divorced man who admitted, at the time of the
adoption proceedings, that he had little or no relationship with his adult
daughter from a previous marriage. He also specifically requested a 4 or
5 year old in his adoption application. Members of the subcommittee
questions whether some of those facts should have warranted additional
review and possibly rejection of Mr. Mancuso's adoption application.
Finally, after Masha arrived in the United States, no one visited her or
Mr. Mancuso's home to conduct the follow-up post-placement reports
that were required by Russian law in order to learn whether Masha was
adjusting to her new home and family. As Masha, herself, put it in our
hearing, she could not understand why no one came to check on her to
make sure that she was okay.
Before this subcommittee, as witnesses this afternoon, are the
individuals who were involved in Masha's adoption from start to finish;
the adoption agencies, the home study agency, the social workers, and
the facilitator who assisted in conducting the adoption proceeding in
Russia. I look forward to hearing their full story about their involvement
in Masha's adoption. Answers to the questions first posed at our hearing
in May are long overdue. We want to know which agency was
responsible for placing her with Mr. Mancuso. We want to know why
the post-placement reports were not conducted after Mancuso brought
Masha from Russia to his home. We want to know if something could
have been done to prevent her adoption by a man who seemed to have no
interest in being a father, but only a sexual exploiter.
This committee is entitled to answers to these questions, but more
importantly, so is Masha. I want to thank you, Mr. Whitfield and Mr.
Stupak, for holding this hearing. With that, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for convening this hearing.
Last May, this Subcommittee heard testimony from a very brave
young girl, Masha Allen. Masha was adopted from Russia by a man
from the Pittsburgh area, Matthew Mancuso, when she was only five
years old. Once Mancuso brought Masha home to Pennsylvania, he
began raping and molesting her and placing images of that abuse on the
Internet.
At that hearing, Masha, and her attorney raised serious and troubling
questions about the circumstances surrounding Masha's adoption. Like
all the members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I
was deeply troubled by the pain and suffering that Masha has endured,
but I was also troubled by the possibility that the adoption procedures
that were intended to protect her, ultimately failed her.
The purpose of today's hearing is to bring some much needed
resolution to the questions raised four months ago at our hearing.
Specifically, it was unclear at that hearing which adoption agency had
worked with Masha's adoptive father, Matthew Mancuso, to place
Masha with him. There were also questions raised about the home study
of Mancuso. Mancuso was a divorced man who admitted at the time of
the adoption proceedings that he had little or no relationship with his
adult daughter from a previous marriage. He also specifically requested
a four or five year old girl in his adoption application. Members of the
Subcommittee questioned whether some of these facts should have
warranted additional review or possibly rejection of Mancuso's adoption
application by the adoption or home study agency. Finally, after Masha
arrived in the United States, no one visited her or Mr. Mancuso's home
to conduct the follow-up post-placement reports that were required by
Russian law in order to learn whether Masha was adjusting to her new
home and family. As Masha herself put it at our hearing, she could not
understand why no one came to check on her to make sure that she was
okay.
Before this Subcommittee as witnesses this afternoon are the
individuals who were involved in Masha's adoption from start to finish:
the adoption agencies, the home study agency, the social workers, and
the facilitator who assisted in conducting the adoption proceedings in
Russia. I am looking forward to hearing the full story from each of you
about your involvement in Masha's adoption. Answers to the questions
posed at our May hearing are long past overdue. We want to know
which agency was responsible for placing her with Mr. Mancuso. We
want to know why the post-placement reports were not conducted after
Mancuso brought Masha from Russia to his home. And we want to
know if something could have been done to prevent her adoption by a
man who seemed to have no interest in being a father, but only in
sexually exploiting her. This Committee is entitled to answers to these
questions, but more importantly, so is Masha.
I thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding this important hearing
and I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I
recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for her
opening statement.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank
you and your staff for the work on this issue and I want to thank you and
our committee Chairman for allowing this hearing today. To the
witnesses that will be before us, I thank all of you for your time. As my
colleagues have said, this is a hearing that is one in a continuing process
for us as we review the vulnerabilities that exist that affect our children,
that affect the environment in which they live every day and trying to do
our best to be certain that that environment is safe and secure for them.
As illustrated in the adoption of Masha, there are significant
deficiencies in the process of international adoption. In February, the
State Department began an important step with reviewing many of these
deficiencies and working through the implementation process,
implementing the Hague Adoption Convention process. As yet, I believe
that there still can be further improvement in international adoption and
we need to be very thoughtful in this process.
Recently, I had the opportunity to visit with some Guatemalan
leaders and to talk with them about the issue of child trafficking and
adoption, and one of the things that continued to come up with them was
the reliability of information that was provided by the adoption agencies
to the United States. We must ensure that these are in place, that there
are proper safeguards that are in place that will not allow some of these
practices that have taken place in the past to continue to take place. But
we must work towards standards that streamline adoptions for American
citizens who want to genuinely adopt foreign-born children.
Mr. Chairman, when these children go through the final phase of that
adoption process, they do become United States citizens with all of the
rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. It is our responsibility to
protect them from those such as Mr. Mancuso, who would seek to do
them harm. So I thank our witnesses. I again thank our Chairman and
the staff for their continuing work on this issue and I yield back.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for 5 minutes.
MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and Mr. Stupak
for your continued leadership on this issue. As we all know, this is the
second part of our eighth hearing on the Sexual Exploitation of Children
over the Internet. Today's hearing is particularly disconcerting for me,
because of the role that my home State of New Jersey played in the case
of Masha Allen. In May, our committee heard the heart wrenching story
of 12-year-old little Masha, who was adopted by Matthew Mancuso, who
abused her in his home in Pennsylvania for 5 years. Thankfully, Mr.
Mancuso was apprehended and is now serving a lengthy prison sentence.
However, this is an adoption that never should have taken place. In
our previous hearing, we learned that Mr. Mancuso did not have a child's
bedroom set up in his home, forcing a 5-year-old girl to share a bed with
him and that he had an ex-wife and a daughter with whom he had no
relationship. Later we learned that his biological daughter had also
suffered abuse at his hands. What is most disturbing to me, personally,
however, is the fact that much of the adoption process took place in New
Jersey and one of the key players in this adoption is still practicing. I am
anxious to learn what, if any, role the New Jersey Department of Youth
and Family Services had in this adoption and what can be done to correct
the obvious flaws in this system.
I am glad that Chairman Whitfield and Mr. Stupak have decided to
follow up on this investigation. The first time we heard about this, when
Masha was here, was absolutely heartbreaking. When children are put
up for adoption, especially those coming to the United States from other
countries, they expect to be put in loving and caring homes. Some of
these children want nothing more than a peaceful and loving family and a
warm bed to sleep in. In Masha's case, this didn't happen.
What is even more frightening, however, is the number of times that
her situation was overlooked. Numerous reports were filed after her
adoption, yet it is my understanding that not a single person paid a visit
to the home. No one called to speak to her, no one made sure she was
getting along with her new father, no one seemed to really care if she
was being taken care of, at all. Surely, this is not the example that we
want to send to parents here or overseas, who give their children up for
adoption with the hope that they will have a better life and a stable home.
Luckily, we have a number of individuals who can help us to answer
these questions that have arisen from this investigation of the Masha
Allen situation. I am particularly looking forward to hearing from our
witnesses today from New Jersey. I hope that they can enlighten us not
only to the flaws of the system in our State, but what can be done to
correct these problems across the country.
Again, thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Mr. Stupak, for giving us
the opportunity to learn more about this horrible, horrible situation and
how we can address this issue in the future. I yield back.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. And now I
would like to call the witnesses on the first panel. We have with us this
afternoon, Mr. Keith Wallace, who is the Chief Executive Officer of
Families Thru International Adoption, Evansville, Indiana. We have Ms.
Jeannene Smith, Founder, Reaching Out Thru International Adoption
from Somerdale, New Jersey. We have Mr. Richard Baird, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Adiago Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We
have Ms. Carol Eiferman, who is the Social Worker Supervisor for
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
We have Mr. Serguei Dymtchenko, who is from New Jersey. We have
Ms. Marlene <B style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #a0ffff">Seamans-Conn</B>, who is a former Executive Director of
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, from Sewell, New Jersey,
and we have Ms. Hannah Druger, Social Worker, Reaching Out Thru
International Adoption, from Medford, New Jersey.
I want to thank all of you for joining us this afternoon as we delve
into this disturbing episode regarding Masha Allen and we look forward
to your testimony. As you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee and we do take
our testimony under oath and I would ask each of you, do any of you
have any difficulty of testifying under oath today? Do any of you want
to be represented by legal counsel today? Okay, then if you would
please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Okay, all of you are under oath at this
time and I am going to recognize each of you for 5 minutes and we have
seven of you there, so this is going to take about 35 minutes or so. But
anyway, I will note that when you speak, if you would be sure and press
the microphone button so that we can hear you so that your microphone
is on, and when your time is expired, a little red light will appear in the
front there, so I hope that you can keep it within that timeframe. But
your testimony is very important and we do want to hear what you have
to say.
So Mr. Wallace, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KEITH WALLACE, ESQUIRE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAMILIES THRU
INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION; SERGUEI DYMTCHENKO; RICHARD BAIRD, JR., PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ADIAGO HEALTH, INC.; JEANNENE SMITH, FOUNDER,
REACHING OUT THRU INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION; CAROL EIFERMAN, SOCIAL WORK
SUPERVISOR, REACHING OUT THRU INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION;
MR. WALLACE. Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak,
members of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
thank you for providing me with an opportunity to share my experience
in the field of child welfare. I am pleased to be here today and hopeful
that the subcommittee will continue their good work against exploitation
of children.
My name is Keith Wallace. I reside in Evansville, Indiana and I
have the privilege of directing Families Thru International Adoption. I
attended Valparaiso University School of Law and became a member of
the Indiana Bar in 1983. I am admitted to practice before both State and
Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. I practiced
law for many years before establishing or creating Families Thru
International Adoption, FTIA. After starting FTIA, I continued to
actively practice law for several years before pulling back from the
practice of law and becoming Of Counsel with the law firm of Bowers
Harrison. I also taught law as a foreign expert at Peking University in
Beijing, China in the International Law Department in 1990.
When FTIA joined the Joint Council on International Children's
Services, JCICS or Joint Council, I began urging Joint Council to adopt a
system to enforce the Joint Council Standards of Practice more
stringently. While my plan was originally rejected, I argued that without
an enforcement system, the standards were meaningless. I am pleased to
say that I am now serving on the Board of Directors of Joint Council and
Joint Council has an enforcement system for its Standards of Practice. I
am hopeful these Standards of Practice will one day be the highest
criteria for ethical and inter-country adoption practice, although they
could always be stronger. The creation of enforcement system and
disciplinary policy is a first step.
My father, who is the man I admire most on Earth, taught me many
things. One of the many things he taught me was that if you are going to
do anything, do it right, and that means with honesty, integrity, and
commitment to perfection. As I spent more time directing FTIA and
working with adoption professionals in several States, I have been
disheartened to learn that the social service field has no similar
professional standards nor enforcement system like the bar associations.
I understand that I was invited here today to provide the committee
with all the information I have about the adoption of Mr. Mancuso.
Since FTIA did not complete Mr. Mancuso's adoption, I don't have
much information, but I am here to share what I do know. I was
contacted by Ms. Jeannene Smith in the second half of 1996. Ms. Smith
asked if she could work with FTIA. I contracted with Ms. Smith to work
as a northeast regional coordinator for FTIA. Her main responsibilities
were to hold informational seminars for prospective adoptive parents,
provide education about adoption, and network with other professionals
to get out the word about services available from FTIA.
Initially, I agreed to let Ms. Smith receive some original paperwork
for adopting parents in New Jersey and directly forward them to certain
overseas representatives, but after discussions with Anna Montez, the
New Jersey State licensing authority, I withdrew that permission and that
would have been very early on in our relationship. Ms. Montez
explained that if Ms. Smith was to have responsibility with foreign
representative or process paperwork in New Jersey, FTIA would need a
New Jersey license and we had no intention at that time of obtaining a
New Jersey license.
Through 1997, FTIA encountered many difficulties working with
Ms. Smith. The main problems in Ms. Smith's performance were
promising time frames to prospective adopting families that were not
realistic, not following the procedures FTIA had established for her, and
misrepresenting her relationship with FTIA. For these reasons and
others, I personally provided Ms. Smith verbal notice that I was going to
terminate her contract with FTIA. As a courtesy, I advised her about a
month before I actually terminated her contract so she could either find
another agency to work with or establish her own agency.
Ms. Smith was sent formal notice of her termination by letter of
February 13, 1998. Ms. Smith then founded Reaching Out Thru
International Adoption. Because Ms. Smith continued to misrepresent
her relationship with FTIA, FTIA sued Ms. Smith in Federal court in
December 1998 and the law suit was settled in June 1999. Ms. Smith
recruited Mr. Mancuso to adopt while she was an independent contractor
for FTIA. FTIA does not know how, when, or where Ms. Smith first had
contact with Mr. Mancuso. FTIA did receive an application from Mrs.
Smith, excuse me, Ms. Smith for Mr. Mancuso in 1997. The application
had FTIA's name, a New Jersey name and address which were Ms.
Smith's.
FTIA later received a copy of Mr. Mancuso's dossier or paperwork
and a check in 1998. The copy of the dossier and the check were sent to
FTIA by Ms. Smith. However, FTIA never received an original dossier
from Mr. Mancuso. When Mr. Mancuso submitted his dossier to Ms.
Smith in January of 1998, I believe I had already advised her that her
contract was going to be terminated with FTIA. All files of adoptive
families that complete their adoption through FTIA have several contact
notes, copies of referral information on a child, copies of travel letters,
travel itineraries, and other documents. None of this is in Mr. Mancuso's
file because he did not complete the adoption through FTIA.
Soon after FTIA terminated its contract with Ms. Smith, FTIA sent a
notice to the families that Ms. Smith had originally recruited. FTIA
advised the families that wanted to continue with FTIA, all subsequent
contact would need to be with FTIA, meaning in Evansville, Indiana.
Applicants in the process of adopting that did not respond to the letter or
perhaps a phone call in addition, had their files closed. Mr. Mancuso
was such a client, with no record of any direct contact with Evansville or
the Evansville coordinator. Although we had received an application and
a copy of the dossier from Ms. Smith, our records had no direct contact.
I concluded that he and others that did not respond to the letter from
FTIA, advising Ms. Smith's termination, had completed their adoption
with Ms. Smith's new agency. These applicants' files were closed,
including Mr. Mancuso.
FTIA is currently licensed or accredited in Russia by the Ministry of
Education. FTIA has a 100 percent record of submitting post-placement
reports to Russia. As far as I can recollect, I do not know one that has
not been submitted and that is in 10 years. I have worked very hard to
make certain all post-placements were submitted. Most families
cooperate, but I have had to threaten legal action against some families to
secure their cooperation because I have to remind them of a document
they signed at the beginning of the process.
I do not know for certain what adoption agency completed Mr.
Mancuso's adoption other than the assumption it was Ms. Smith, based
on her correspondence to me dated April 21, 1998, which has been
submitted to this subcommittee. I don't know for certain, from my
perspective, if anything was done wrong in the procedure allowing the
adoption; however, from what I have seen and heard, something went
very wrong with the required post-placements. To hear her story is
heartbreaking beyond words. I offer my full support to this committee's
efforts to prevent another child from having to endure what Masha
endured. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Keith Wallace follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH WALLACE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, FAMILIES THRU INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION
My name is Keith Wallace. I reside in Evansville, Indiana and I
have the privilege of directing Families Thru International Adoption, Inc.
("FTIA"). I attended Valparaiso University School of Law and became a
member of the Indiana Bar in 1983. I am admitted to practice before
both state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. I
practiced law for several years before creating FTIA in 1995. After
starting FTIA, I continued to actively practice law for several years
before pulling back from the practice of law and becoming Of Counsel to
the law firm of Bowers Harrison Llp. I also taught law as a foreign
expert at Peking University in Beijing, China in the International Law
department in 1990.
FTIA is a member of Joint Council on International Children's
Services ("JCICS"). When FTIA joined JCICS, I began urging JCICS to
adopt a system to enforce the JCICS Standards of Practice. While my
plan was originally rejected, I argued that without an enforcement system
the standards were meaningless. I am pleased to say I am now serving on
the JCICS Board of Directors and JCICS has an enforcement system for
its Standards of Practice. It is not what I hope it will become but it is a
first step.
I have been honored by Senators Lugar and Bayh who nominated me
as an "Angel in Adoption" with the Congressional Coalition on Adoption
Institute. Prior to that I was honored by the late Governor O'Bannon in
Indiana as a Sagamore of the Wabash. I have also received an award
from the local Habitat for Humanity in my community. I have worked in
the learning center of my church for several years and I have served on
the board of an inner city ministry for more than 10 years.
I am currently a member of the Indiana Bar Association, Kentucky
Bar Association, American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, American
Immigration Lawyers Association, the Christian Legal Society, and the
American Inns of Court.
When first incorporated in March of 1995, the name of the non-profit
corporation was Children of China because when I started in
international adoptions, I was only thinking about helping some children
of China find a family. In 1996, the name was changed to Families Thru
International Adoption because I decided to consider working in
additional countries. FTIA has placed children from China, Russia,
Vietnam, India, Brazil, Guatemala and Kazakhstan. Currently, we work
in all of those countries except Kazakhstan.
I have directed FTIA according to the same code of professional
standards that govern attorneys. FTIA was one of the first exclusively
international adoption agencies to receive accreditation from the Council
of Accreditation for Child and Family Services (the "COA") in 2000.
The COA is, I believe, the only national accrediting body of social
services organizations. COA requires the agencies it accredits to comply
with best practices, something FTIA has always committed to. To
become accredited, there is an extensive self-study. Also, the agency
must have independent financial audits, comprehensive policies, and
demonstrate that it adheres to the polices through a site visit.
My father, who is the man I admire most on this earth, taught me
many things. One of the many lessons he taught me is that if you are
going to do anything, do it right - and that means with honesty, integrity
and commitment to perfection. As I spent more time directing FTIA and
working with adoption professionals in several states, I have been sad to
learn that the social service field has no similar professional standards
nor policing like the state bar associations.
I understand that I was invited here today to provide this committee
with all information that I have about an adoption by Mr. Mancuso that
was completed in Russia. I have already provided this committee with
documents from FTIA that concern his adoption. Since FTIA did not
complete Mr. Mancuso's adoption, I have little information. I am here to
share what I do know.
When I first started with Children of China, I learned of another
agency in St. Louis also working with Chinese adoptions. At the
invitation of this agency, I agreed to cooperate and partner with this
agency. As I said earlier, I was practicing law full time and was not in it
for glory. I thought cooperating with other agencies would be a good
idea. After maybe six (6) months, I terminated the cooperation with this
agency for several reasons having to do with what my father taught me.
During my brief time working with the St. Louis agency, I met several
other individuals also working with the St. Louis agency.
I was the first to terminate my relationship with the St. Louis agency
and later several other individuals and agencies stopped working with
this group. One such person was Ms. Jeannene Smith.
FTIA's working relationship with Ms. Smith was interesting, to say
the least. Ms. Smith is very industrious and very intelligent. It was
partially through her urging that FTIA developed some of its foreign
adoption programs. Even if I had done research in starting a new
program, Ms. Smith would always have additional and helpful
information. I even traveled with Ms. Smith several times when starting
a new program.
I was contacted by Ms. Smith in the second half of 1996. Ms. Smith
asked if she could work with FTIA. I contracted with Ms. Smith to work
as a northeast regional coordinator for FTIA. Her main responsibilities
were to hold informational seminars for prospective adoptive parents,
provide education about adoption, and network with other professionals
to get the word out about FTIA and the services we provide.
Initially I had agreed to let Ms. Smith receive some original dossiers
from adopting parents and forward paperwork directly to our foreign
representative for either Guatemala or Russia. But, after discussions
with Anna Montez of the New Jersey state licensing agency, I withdrew
that permission - that would have been very early on, most likely in late
1996. Ms. Montez explained if Ms. Smith was to have responsibility
with a foreign representative or process paperwork (dossiers) in New
Jersey, FTIA would need to obtain a New Jersey license. At that time
FTIA had no interest in a New Jersey license.
The problems of FTIA's working relationship with Ms. Smith were
several. At the very beginning of her work in August of 1996, I
submitted a short agreement for her to sign. She would suggest a
change. I would make the change and resubmit the agreement to her
only for her to come up with an additional change.
Through 1997, FTIA encountered many difficulties with Ms. Smith.
The main problems in Ms. Smith's performance were promising time
frames to prospective adopting families that were not realistic, not
following the procedures FTIA had established for her, and
misrepresenting her relationship with FTIA. For these reasons and other
reasons, I personally provided Ms. Smith verbal notice that I was going
to terminate her contract with FTIA. As a courtesy, I advised her about a
month before I actually terminated her so she could either find another
agency to work with or she could get her own license. Ms. Smith was
sent formal notice of her termination by letter dated February 13, 1998.
Ms. Smith then founded an agency Reaching Out through International
Adoption (Reaching Out). Because Ms. Smith continued to misrepresent
her relationship with FTIA - after she created Reaching Out - FTIA sued
Ms. Smith in federal court in December 1998. The lawsuit was settled in
June, 1999.
After terminating her relationship, then we actually signed some
agreements. We signed more than one agreement to settle our
outstanding issues because after an agreement was signed, all the sudden
there were new issues according to Ms. Smith or issues I thought had
been settled but Ms. Smith did not understand it that way. During this
period, I even wrote a letter of recommendation to the New Jersey
licensing authority on her behalf. I had concluded that she could not
work for FTIA, but I knew she was smart so I thought maybe she can run
her own agency.
It was not until later that I finally said enough is enough and filed
suit against Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith recruited Mr. Mancuso to adopt while she was an
independent contractor for FTIA. FTIA does not know how, when, or
where Ms. Smith first had contact with Mr. Mancuso. FTIA did receive
an application from Ms. Smith for Mr. Mancuso in 1997. The
application had FTIA's name, but Ms. Smith's email address and
physical address. FTIA received a copy of Mr. Mancuso's dossier and a
check in January 1998, which represented the second of three (3)
payments for the FTIA agency fee. Again, the copy of the dossier and
the check were sent to FTIA by Ms. Smith. However, FTIA never
received an original dossier from Mr. Mancuso. When Mr. Mancuso
submitted his dossier to Ms. Smith in January of 1998, I believe I had
already verbally advised Ms. Smith that her contract with FTIA would
soon be terminated.
The way FTIA has always processed applications is: after receiving
an application it would be reviewed to determine if it was complete and
the applicant(s) appeared to be qualified candidates for international
adoption based on the information in the application. If approved, a
coordinator is assigned to assist the family from start to finish with their
adoption. The assigned coordinator would typically call the new
applicant to introduce his/herself and to explain he/she was available to
answer questions as they worked on INS (now CIS) approval and their
dossier. Ms. Smith, as a regional coordinator, would provide some
support and guidance during the dossier preparation, however, once the
dossier was submitted all subsequent contact was to be with the FTIA
coordinator in Evansville. This would include sending the referral
information of a child to the family, arranging travel to the foreign
country, providing travel letters and instructions and follow-up with all
required post placement reports.
All files of adoptive families that complete their adoption through
FTIA have several contact notes, copies of referral information on a
child, copies of travel letters, and travel itineraries, etc. None of this is in
Mr. Mancuso's file because FTIA did not complete his adoption.
Soon after FTIA terminated its contract with Ms. Smith, FTIA sent a
notice to the families that Ms. Smith had recruited. FTIA advised that if
the family wanted to continue with FTIA all subsequent contact would
need to be with FTIA. Applicants in the process of adopting that did not
respond to this letter had their files closed.
Mr. Mancuso was such a client with no record of any direct contact
with an Evansville coordinator. Although we had received an
application and a copy of the dossier from Ms. Smith, our records
indicate no contact directly with Mr. Mancuso. I concluded that he and
others that did not respond to the letter from FTIA advising of Ms.
Smith's termination had completed their adoptions with Ms. Smith's new
agency. These applicants' files were closed.
Thus, in Mr. Mancuso's case, even though he completed an FTIA
application (with a New Jersey address) and FTIA appears on some of
his dossier documents, FTIA did not complete his adoption. Of
particular note about Mr. Mancuso's file - the home study prepared by
Family Health Council, Inc. dba Family Adoption Center of
Pennsylvania identifies FTIA as a New Jersey licensed agency. Mr.
Mancuso submitted his original dossier to Ms. Smith, but FTIA never
received his original dossier. If Evansville had received an original
dossier, we would have record of (1) receiving it, (2) reviewing it, (3)
sending it to one of the Russian coordinators/facilitators we worked with
at the time. In addition, we would have record of receiving the last
payment of his FTIA agency fee as well as a copy of the international
fees. There are no such records and FTIA still has possession of all
records from the inception of FTIA in 1995. Our policy was and is to
keep a copy of all checks received at FTIA in the adoptive parent's file.
FTIA is currently licensed/accredited in Russia by the Ministry of
Education.
Russia has long required four post placement reports after an
international adoption is completed. Prior to the rule of four post
placement reports, I believe Russia required three post placement reports.
FTIA has a 100% record of submitting post placement reports to Russia
as far as I can recollect. I have had to work very hard to make certain all
post placement reports are submitted. In fact, I had to threaten legal
action against a few families to secure their post placement reports. I
have always had families sign documents agreeing to submit all required
post placement reports and that if FTIA had to go to court to force
compliance, FTIA would also be entitled to attorney fees. Most families
willingly submit post placement reports. But a few families are not
cooperative with the post placement report for a number of reasons.
I do not know for certain what adoption agency completed Mr.
Mancuso's adoption. I do know it was not FTIA, and I assume it was
Ms. Smith based upon her April 21, 1998 communication to me when we
were trying to settle outstanding issues of her termination. I do not know
if anything was done wrong in the procedure allowing Mr. Mancuso to
adopt. However, from what I have seen and heard something went very
wrong with the required post placements.
September 25, 2006
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. And Mr. Dymtchenko,
you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. My name is Serguei Dymtchenko. I was born
in Russia in 1957. I am married and I have a daughter.
MR. WHITFIELD. Would you move the microphone up closer and
make sure it is turned on?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. I have a Bachelor's degree in architecture. I
came to the United States for the first time in 1989 and after that, I
returned several times for business purposes. Me and my family
immigrated as permanent residents in 1992, so in 2002 I became a
United States citizen. Initially, I became involved in international
adoption when I helped a friend who was interested in adopting a child
from Russia in 1995-1996. I believe that she is the person that provided
me with the contact information for Jeannene Smith, who was very
interested in opening an adoption program in Russia.
At a later date, Jeannene Smith introduced me to Keith Wallace and
that meeting took place in her home office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey
and I started working with FTIA. Please note that I was not involved
with the actual placement of the children. My responsibilities were to
ensure that all of the documents submitted by the prospective parents
were up to date and in compliance with Russian laws and regulations.
These responsibilities included managing and providing the
following services: Arrange for the translation and notarization of all
documents in Russia; ensure all the necessary documents were submitted
to the Russian authorities; receive the invitation for the prospective
parents to travel to Russia from the Russian authorities; arrange for the
prospective parents to be met upon their arrival at the airport in Moscow;
provide airport transfers; purchase domestic plane tickets from Moscow
to the region; arrange for the prospective parents to be met upon their
arrival at the regional airport; provide transportation, translation services,
lodging accommodations, meals, et cetera; ensure that the prospective
families had telephone, fax and Internet so they could contact their
doctor in the U.S. for the medical evaluation of the child; ensure that the
case was submitted to the court house for the proper filing; arrange for
the preparation of all necessary documents for the court hearing; provide
a translator for the court session.
After the adoption was granted by the judge, arrange for the
obtainment of the certificate of adoption, the child's new birth certificate
and the child's passport for the adoptive parents; arrange for the
translation of all documents into English; arrange for the purchase of
domestic plane tickets from the region to Moscow for the adoptive
parents and their child; make the interview appointment at the United
States embassy in Moscow; arrange for the registration of the adopted
child with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation;
arrange for the translation and submission of four post-placement reports
to the Russian authorities for the first 3 years after the adoption.
Jeannene Smith formed her own adoption agency by the name of
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption and I continued to fulfill my
obligations to her and her clients until the year 2000. Unfortunately, I
was involved in Mr. Mancuso's adoption case because he was one
Jeannene Smith's clients. I never had any direct communication with
him throughout his entire application process, since all communications
with prospective parents had to be through Jeannene Smith.
I had not had any contact with Mancuso prior to greeting him at the
regional airport in Russia. It was just a coincidence that I was in Russia
at the time of his arrival. I was there for a business trip and since I was
available, I provided the translation services myself, including at the
visits to the regional administration, the orphanage, and to court session
and after.
Regrettably, no one found anything suspicious about his paperwork
or in his behavior or in his demeanor. Mr. Mancuso was able to deceive
everyone, including me, my staff, the officials at the administration, the
director of the orphanage, the judge, and the prosecutor, into believing
that he was a good person and a loving father whose daughter was
grown, and so he wanted nothing more than to provide a loving home for
a Russian orphan. I wish that there was some way that I could have
known what this man was truly like so that I could have prevented any of
this from happening. Sadly, the only people who knew the truth,
Mancuso's wife and daughter, chose to keep silent.
That is it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Serguei Dymtchenko follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SERGUEI DYMTCHENKO
My name is Serguei Dymtchenko. I was born in Russia in 1957; I am
married and I have a daughter. I have a Bachelor's degree in architecture.
I came to the United States for the first time in 1989, and after that I had
returned several times for business purposes. Then, in 1991-1992, I,
along with a partner, established two New Jersey based companies, and
my family and I immigrated here as permanent residents. In 2002, I
proudly became a U.S. citizen.
Initially, I became involved in international adoption when I helped a
friend who was interested in adopting a child from Russia in 1995-1996,
and I believe that she is the person that provided me with the contact
information for Jeannine Smith, who was very interested in opening an
adoption program in Russia. At a later date, Jeannine Smith introduced
me to Keith Wallace, and that meeting took place in her home/office in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey and I started working with FTIA.
Please note that I was not involved with the actual placement of the
children; my responsibilities were to ensure that all of the documents
submitted by the prospective parents were up-to-date and in compliance
with Russian laws and regulations. These responsibilities included
managing and providing the following services:
<bullet> Arrange for the translation and notarization of all documents
in Russia
<bullet> Ensure that all necessary documents were submitted to the
Russian authorities
<bullet> Receive the invitation for the prospective parents to travel
to Russia from the Russian authorities
<bullet> Arrange for the prospective parents to be met upon their
arrival at the airport in Moscow; provide airport transfers; purchase domestic
plane tickets from Moscow to the region
<bullet> Arrange for the prospective parents to be met upon their
arrival at the regional airport; provide transportation, translator services,
lodging accommodations, meals, etc.
<bullet> Ensure that the prospective families had telephone, fax and
the Internet so they could contact their doctor in the U.S. for a medical
evaluation of the child
<bullet> Ensure that the case was submitted to the court house for
proper filing; arrange for the preparation of all necessary documents for the
court hearing
<bullet> Provide a translator for the court session
<bullet> After the adoption was granted by the Judge: Arrange for the
obtainment of the Certificate of Adoption, the child's new Birth
Certificate and the child's Passport for the adoptive parents
<bullet> Arrange for the translation of all documents into English
<bullet> Arrange for the purchase of domestic plane tickets from the
region to Moscow for the adoptive parents and their child
<bullet> Make the interview appointment at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow
<bullet> Arrange for the Registration of the adopted child with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
<bullet> Arrange for the translation and submission of four Post
Placement Reports to the Russian authorities for the first three years after
the adoption.
Jeannine Smith formed her own adoption agency by the name of
Reaching Out Through International Adoption. I continued to fulfill my
obligations to her and her clients until 2000.
Unfortunately, I was involved with Mr. Mancuso's adoption case
because he was one of Jeannine Smith's clients. I never had any direct
communication with him throughout his entire application process, since
all communication with prospective parents had to be through Jeannine
Smith. I had not had any contact with Mr. Mancuso prior to greeting him
at the regional airport in Russia. It was just a coincidence that I was in
Russia at the time of his arrival - I was there for a business trip - and
since I was available, I provided the translation services myself,
including at the visits to the regional Administration and to the
orphanage, the Court Session and after.
Regrettably, no one found anything suspicious in his paperwork, or
in his behavior or in his demeanor. Mr. Mancuso was able to deceive
everyone, including me, my staff, the officials at the Administration, the
Director of the Orphanage, the Judge and the Prosecutor, into believing
that he was a good person and a loving father whose daughter was
grown, and so he wanted nothing more than to provide a loving home for
a Russian orphan. I wish that there was some way that I could have
known what this man was truly like, so that I could have prevented any
of this from happening. Sadly, the only people who knew the truth - Mr.
Mancuso's wife and daughter chose to keep silent.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Baird, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
MR. BAIRD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Richard Baird. I am the president and CEO
of Adiago Health in Pittsburgh. Adiago Health is a non-profit
organization providing services in 23 counties in western Pennsylvania.
We promote the reproductive health and overall well-being of women of
all ages, their families, and their communities. Our programs include
gynecology, pre-natal care, cancer screening, nutrition, preventive health
education, adoption, and applied research. We serve over 100,000
clients a year, many of whom have limited resources.
Our adoption program, called Family Adoption Center, has been
placing infants with adoptive families since 1983. Our adoption program
is the Pennsylvania statewide training subcontractor under the Infant
Adoption Awareness Program. Through this program, we train
healthcare and social service workers to better explain adoption to their
pregnant clients. Over the past 24 years, we have placed 276 infants
with adoptive parents enrolled in our program. For these direct agency
placements, Pennsylvania law requires that Family Adoption Center's
process included pre-placement home studies and post-placement
supervisory visits, and requires that they be conducted by a licensed
social worker.
A home study is a written assessment of prospective adoptive parents
to determine their capacity to be adoptive parents. The post-placement
supervisory visit entails a visit to the adoptive home to assess the child's
well-being and adjustment. In addition to those 276 direct agency
placements for which we have conducted home studies, we have also
conducted another 37 home studies for prospective adoptive parents who
are not seeking an adoptive placement through us, but who are planning
to adopt domestically or internationally through private attorneys or
other agencies.
We have always followed Pennsylvania laws and regulations
concerning adoption. Our adoption program has been licensed by the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare since 1983. For each of the
past 24 years, the Department of Public Welfare has renewed our license
following their annual on-site audit of our program. These audits include
a review of the home studies conducted both for direct agency
placements and for placements through attorneys and other agencies.
The requirements for home studies for international adoption are
virtually the same as required by Pennsylvania law.
Our role in the Matthew Mancuso adoption was limited to
conducting the home study. We did not determine that Mancuso was
eligible to adopt. We did not place a child with him for adoption. We
were never notified that he had adopted and we were never contacted to
provide post-placement supervisory visits. In 1997 Mancuso contacted
us because he needed a home study to be conducted by a Pennsylvania
licensed adoption agency. On September 29 he submitted a completed
application to us with all the required information. His application stated
that he was working with Families Thru International Adoption, a New
Jersey agency, to adopt a child from Russia.
Our social worker contacted that agency and received confirmation
that Mancuso was their client and that he was eligible to adopt. Our
social worker also obtained that agency's home study requirements. She
had an interview session with Mancuso in our office in Pittsburgh on
October 9th and a second session at his house on October 22nd. It is
important to note that Pennsylvania regulations governing home studies
consider interviews of prospective adoptive parents conducted by a
licensed social worker to be the primary source of information for the
home study.
Our social worker also received Mancuso's child abuse and criminal
clearances and letters of reference. Based upon her interviews and the
information that she received, our social worker gave Mancuso a
favorable recommendation for adoption and stated that Family Adoption
Center agreed to provide post-placement reports for a period of 3 years.
By letter dated November 24, 1997, our social worker forwarded the
completed home study to Mancuso. That ended our involvement in this
matter. We were neither contacted to prepare post-placement reports or
even advised that Mancuso had adopted a child.
It was incumbent upon the placing agency which had first-hand
ongoing contact with Mancuso to initiate the proper post-placement
supervisory process either by contacting us directly or by having him
contact us. I want to reiterate that Family Adoption Center's role in
Mancuso's adoption process was limited. We did not facilitate the
adoption or have any other involvement with Mancuso other than what I
have outlined here.
In conclusion, please note that Adiago Health deplores what
occurred here. We want to make sure that this kind of tragedy will never
happen again. We fully support the committee's investigation and will
assist in any way that we can. The system is undoubtedly complicated
due to the different countries and States involved, but nonetheless, every
effort should be made to ensure that every adopted child is placed in a
safe and loving home. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Richard Baird, Jr. follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD BAIRD, JR., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ADIAGO HEALTH, INC.
In 1997, Matthew Mancuso contacted our adoption program, Family
Adoption Center. He explained that he was working with a New Jersey
agency to adopt a child from Russia and that he needed a home study. In
late September Mancuso submitted a completed application to us.
Our Social Worker then contacted the New Jersey agency, Families
through International Adoption, to verify that he could adopt as a single
man and to obtain its home study requirements. She reviewed the
materials submitted, including criminal and child abuse clearances and
letters of reference and conducted two interviews with him, one in our
offices and one in his home. At that time, our Social Worker had
conducted 193 home studies over the previous 14 years. Based on the
information she received and her interviews and home visit, she provided
him with a favorable home study and recommendation. As required for
Russian adoptions, the recommendation included our agreement to
provide three years of post placement supervisory visits.
After our Social Worker provided the home study to Mancuso in
November 1997 we had no further involvement. Neither Mancuso nor
the New Jersey placement agency ever contacted us to initiate post
placement supervisory visits as would be expected. We had no
knowledge that he had adopted until the criminal investigation began in
2003.
Introduction and Background of Company
My name is Richard Baird, and I am the President and CEO of
Adagio Health. I have been with Adagio Health since 1978. I was
Director of Finance until 1994 and Executive Vice President from 1994
until 2003, when I began my current position. My educational
background includes a bachelor's degree in sociology and an MBA.
Adagio Health is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, incorporated in
1971. Our mission is to promote the reproductive health and overall
well-being of women of all ages, their families, and their communities by
providing health care services and educational programs that are
responsive and creative. We provide health and educational services for
women and families in a 23 county area of Western Pennsylvania.
Over the years we have developed a number of programs and
services to more fully meet the needs of the communities we serve. We
serve over 100,000 clients annually in our programs, which include:
1. complete gynecological care;
2. comprehensive pregnancy care from the initial prenatal visit
through delivery;
3. cancer screening, including breast and cervical cancer screening
through mammograms and Pap tests, clinical breast exams,
education on breast self-exam, and diagnostic testing;
4. community education on health-related topics, including diabetes
and tobacco use prevention and cessation, and adolescent
pregnancy prevention;
5. nutrition services, including WIC in five counties, and
comprehensive nutrition counseling to individuals and groups
with health care needs such as diabetes, weight management, and
cardiovascular disease;
6. domestic and international adoption services including special
needs adoptions, through our Family Adoption Center program;
7. transitional housing for pregnant women and mothers who are
homeless or at risk for becoming homeless; and,
8. applied health research in the areas of reproductive health,
tobacco cessation, states of behavior change, obesity, and
domestic violence.
Many of the programs we provide are targeted to low income women
and families who would not receive these vital health services without
our assistance.
Over the past 35 years, we have changed our name four times in
order to better position our organization for community and client
recognition. Since 1971, we have operated under the following names:
<bullet> Family Planning Council of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Inc.
(1971-1974)
<bullet> Family Planning Council of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.
(1974-1985)
<bullet> Family Health Council of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.
(1985-1988)
<bullet> Family Health Council, Inc. (1988-2005)
<bullet> Adagio Health Inc. (2005 - present)
Our most recent name change was made in October 2005. Following
a visioning session and a restatement of our mission, vision, and values
in 2003 and 2004, our board of directors and staff determined that
"Family Health Council, Inc." was difficult to distinguish from several
other non-profit Pittsburgh area non-profits with "family" in their name,
and that this caused confusion regarding our services. We decided to
create a unique and easily recognizable name. After an eight month
effort in 2005, we selected our new name. We are currently in the
process of branding our new name for client and community recognition.
Family Adoption Center
In the early 1980's, we established an adoption program to assist our
clients experiencing infertility. Family Adoption Center has been
licensed to provide adoption services by the Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare since 1983. Our adoption program assists prospective
adoptive parents in creating families while addressing the needs of
women experiencing unintended pregnancies by offering them
information and counseling on adoption.
Adagio Health also provides infant adoption educational training as a
subcontractor in Pennsylvania for the Infant Adoption Awareness
Training Program. This training is provided to family planning,
community health center, and hospital staff throughout Pennsylvania to
enable them to understand and positively present the option of adoption
to a woman experiencing an unintended pregnancy.
Family Adoption Center has placed 276 infants in adoptive homes
during the 24 years it has operated, and has conducted 37 home studies
for parents pursing domestic or international adoption through other
agencies or private attorneys. The Pennsylvania Adoption Code and the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ("DPW") require that its
adoption placements include home studies and post placement
supervisory visits.
I will discuss the home study process in greater detail later.
However, a brief summary of the process is warranted now. A home
study is a written study of prospective adoptive parents "for the purpose
of determining their capacity for adoptive parenthood." 55 Pa. Code
3350.12(a). The Pennsylvania regulations governing home studies states
that an adoption agency conducting a home study shall use "interviews
between an agency representative and the prospective parents as the
primary source of information." Id. In keeping with this mandate, our
social workers extensively interview prospective adoptive parents and
require them to submit lengthy autobiographies. Pennsylvania
regulations also require that the home study include a description of the
visit to the home and community. 55 Pa. Code 3350.12(a)(3). In
accordance with this requirement, our social workers visit the adoptive
parents' homes as part of the home study process.
With regard to post-placement visits, when our agency is the placing
agency, we are required to make at least three supervisory visits with the
child and the adoptive parents over a six month period. 55 Pa. Code
335013(i). Our home studies and post-placement visits are conducted by
licensed social workers who adhere to the requirements of applicable law
and follow industry standards.
In addition to our infant adoption program, Family Adoption
Center's social worker conducts home studies for non-Family Adoption
Center adoption placements. Over the last twenty-four years, we have
prepared thirty-seven pre-placement home studies for adoptive parents
pursuing private adoption or adoption through other agencies. In 20, or
more than half, of those cases, Family Adoption Center was contacted to
do post-placement supervisory visits and conducted those visits.
Background on Masha Allen's Case
As Committee members are aware from previous Congressional
hearings, I am here to discuss Family Adoption Center's involvement in
a particular case - the case of Masha Allen. The Committee has heard
testimony on this before, and I hope to lend some further insight as to
how something this horrible and tragic could have happened to a child
and how we can work together to prevent it from occurring again.
For those of you who don't know the background, Masha Allen was
adopted from a Russian orphanage when she was five years old by a man
who horribly abused her. His name is Matthew Mancuso, and he is now
in prison. Ms. Allen has been re-adopted and now resides with her new
adoptive mother. She has shown tremendous courage in providing
testimony and acting to assure that no other child is subjected to what she
had to endure.
Family Adoption Center's Role in Masha Allen's Adoption
Family Adoption Center played a limited role in Ms. Allen's
adoption. We prepared the home study that Matthew Mancuso was
required to have as part of his adoption. However, we did not determine
that Mancuso was eligible to adopt as a single man, and we did not place
a child with him for adoption.
We became involved in this matter in late summer or early fall, 1997
when Mancuso contacted us and requested that we perform a home study
on his behalf. He lived in the Pittsburgh area and needed a local agency
to conduct the home study. At that time, our Social Worker had been
conducting home studies for over 14 years and had performed at least
193 home studies. She was a member of the Three Rivers Adoption
Council, the National Council for Adoption and the North American
Conference on Adoptable Children and regularly attended conferences of
these organizations. She was experienced and respected in the adoption
field.
Upon Mancuso's inquiry, our Social Worker sent him an application
package. On September 29, 1997, we received his completed application
package which included the following completed documents:
<bullet> Background Information Form: Family Study Application
<bullet> Medical Certificate for Prospective Adoptive Parent
<bullet> Pennsylvania Child Abuse and Criminal History Clearances
<bullet> Medical History Form
<bullet> Financial Form
<bullet> his 1996 federal tax return
<bullet> an employment verification letter
<bullet> three letters of reference from non-relatives
<bullet> a letter of reference from his mother
<bullet> a lengthy autobiography
Mancuso's home study application stated that he was working with
Families Through International Adoption in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, to
adopt a child from Russia. On October 2, 1997, our Social Worker
contacted Families Through International Adoption and confirmed that
he was a client of that agency and that he could adopt as a single parent.
She also obtained from Families Through International Adoption a list of
that agency's requirements for a home study. Our Social Worker had an
interview session with Mancuso in our office in Pittsburgh on October 9,
1997, and a second session at his house on October 22, 1997, as part of
the home study process. Following her review of the material submitted
to her and upon completion of her interviews, our Social Worker gave
Mancuso a favorable recommendation for adoption. She also stated that
Family Adoption Center agreed to provide post-placement reports for a
period of three years.
By letter dated November 24, 1997, our Social Worker forwarded
the completed home study to Mancuso. We were neither contacted to
prepare post-placement reports nor even advised that Mancuso had
adopted a child. In fact, we had no further involvement in this matter
until June, 2003, when the FBI contacted us to request a copy of our
Mancuso file. Family Adoption Center did not facilitate the adoption or
have any other involvement with. Mancuso other than what I have
outlined here.
Relevant Laws Applicable to Adoption Home Studies
As I have already explained, Family Adoption Center typically
provides home studies for clients adopting through our domestic infant
adoption program. We have also performed 37 home studies for adoption
placements handled by other adoption agencies or private attorneys for
both domestic and international adoptions.
The home studies Family Adoption Center performs for international
adoptions are governed by Pennsylvania law, regulations from the United
States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the
Department of Homeland Security (BCIS or USCIS), the foreign country
in which the child resides, and sometimes the state of residence of the
adoptive parent.
Organizations performing home studies must be licensed by the state
to do so and must follow general requirements. As a general matter,
requirements for a home study in an international adoption under
Pennsylvania law and federal regulation include the following:
<bullet> interviews with adoptive parents;
<bullet> a written autobiographical statement;
<bullet> letters of reference which come from persons who have
observed the applicant in situations that may indicate his or her capacity
for parenthood;
<bullet> a criminal and child abuse background search;
<bullet> interviews with other adult occupants of the household;
<bullet> evidence of financial ability to support a child;
<bullet> statement by a physician discussing medical history and
status as evidence that the applicant is in good physical and mental
health and able to undertake the responsibilities of parenthood;
and
<bullet> a home visit
Many of these requirements are set forth in Pa. Code 3350.12 To
the best of my knowledge, these requirements were in effect in 1997 and
have not changed since that time. Also, as noted above, our Social
Worker obtained from Families Through International Adoption its
requirements for a home study, which include those set forth above.
Furthermore, DPW conducts annual on-site audits of our adoption
files. As part of its review, the DPW representative conducting the audit
actually reads many, if not all of the home studies prepared during the
previous year and informs our Social Worker of any omissions from or
deficiencies in the home studies reviewed. The annual audit is required
for renewal of Family Adoption Center's license. Following the audit,
DPW may place conditions upon license renewal if it discerns deviations
from state requirements. Family Adoption Center's license has always
been renewed unconditionally. To the best of our knowledge, the
Mancuso home study was made available to DPW during its annual
audit, and DPW did not make any comment regarding the home study
Description of Our Home Study Process
As I have discussed above, all of Family Adoption Center's adoption
placements require home studies and post-placement visits. On
occasion, we also conduct home studies and post-placement supervisory
visits in adoption placements not made through our agency as was the
case in Ms. Allen's adoption. For example, in international and interstate
adoptions, adoptive parents are required to have home studies and submit
to post-placement visits. Also, some courts require home studies in
private, independent adoptions that do not involve adoption agencies.
Typically, parents looking to adopt a child will contact our agency
after they have started the adoption process to request that we prepare the
home study. At times the parents are referred by their adoption agency,
other times parents find us on their own, and on occasion, the attorney
for the adoptive parents contacts us. After a prospective adoptive parent
requests a home study, an adoption caseworker performs the study.
These individuals are social workers licensed by the state. The case
worker will conduct the interview and fulfill all of the requirements
listed above, as provided by law, and then will make a recommendation.
Proof of completion of a home study and the attendant recommendation
are required in every interstate and in most international adoptions before
an adoption can proceed.
Family Adoption Center charges a fee to prepare the home study and
conduct post-placement visits. Adoptive parents pay our fee when they
submit their application for the home study, and the payment is made
before the home study is completed. Thus, payment of the fee is not
contingent upon a favorable recommendation.
Specifics of Mancuso Home Study
In the case of Matthew Mancuso, the procedure outlined above was
followed. To the best of our knowledge, the requirements regarding
home studies were the same then as they are now. As I stated, Mancuso
contacted Family Adoption Center and requested that we perform a home
study. We could not turn him down because he was a single man; as I
will discuss shortly, Pennsylvania law provides that any individual may
be an adoptive parent.
Our Social Worker sent Mancuso an application, which he
completed. He stated in his application that he had extensively
researched adoption through internet web-sites and news groups and had
talked with friends who adopted. He explained in his application that he
collected information from different agencies.
Mancuso completed the application, provided a lengthy
autobiography, provided financial information evidencing his ability to
support a child, provided criminal and child abuse clearances showing
that he had no criminal charges or convictions, and gave us credible
letters of reference.
As I have stated, after our Social Worker received his application,
she called Families Through International Adoption and received
confirmation that he was a client of that agency and that he could adopt
as a single parent through them. Our Social Worker then conducted two
intensive interviews with Mancuso, one at our offices and the other at his
home. She saw that he had a bedroom that he designated for a child, and
was not concerned that it was not furnished for the child. Experienced
adoption professionals will tell you that adoptive parents frequently do
not get a room ready until an adoption placement is about to occur. It
can be extremely painful for an adoptive parent to have a vacant room
furnished with children's furniture awaiting an adoption placement that
may or may not transpire. Most importantly, Mancuso had a bedroom
available for the child and stated that it would be furnished with
appropriate furnishings for a young girl.
Now let's address the fact that Mancuso, a single man, wanted to
adopt a young girl. It should be noted that we did not make the
determination that he was eligible to do so; that was made by the agency
that placed Masha Allen with him for adoption. Nonetheless, we
recommended him for an adoption knowing that he wanted to adopt a
girl. Why did we do so? His almost six page, single spaced
autobiography gives compelling reasons for his desire to adopt a girl.
Mancuso explained that he had a daughter, from whom he grew distant
through his divorce and as she grew up and wanted to spend more time
with her friends. He described a close, but not abnormally close,
relationship with his daughter prior to and even after the divorce, until
she was in high school and chose to spend more time with her friends.
Mancuso discussed the void that he felt in not maintaining a close
relationship with his daughter. It seemed as though he wanted a second
chance at parenting a daughter, and from all outward appearances, he
was well suited to do so. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Adoption Code
states that "any individual may become an adopting parent." 23
Pa.C.S.A. 2312. Thus, the Pennsylvania law that regulates our agency
placed no restriction on Mancuso's ability to adopt a girl.
You may ask why we did not contact his daughter and ex-wife. It is
not our practice to contact ex-spouses and adult children not residing
with the adoptive parent, and the Pennsylvania adoption agencies with
whom we are familiar do not do so either. In fact, such contacts would
violate our obligations of confidentiality to prospective adoptive parents.
Many divorced people adopt after their divorces have occurred. Many of
them have children from prior marriages or relationships. If those
children reside with the prospective adoptive parents, they become part
of the home study process. If they are adults residing with the
prospective adoptive parents, they must provide criminal and child abuse
clearances. If adoption agencies conducting home studies are to contact
ex-spouses and adult children, this requirement should be clearly stated,
since it is a substantial change from existing practices.
Additionally, we had three letters of reference from non-relatives of
Mancuso, one from a married couple and two from individuals, attesting
to his ability to parent a child. Those references appeared to be
legitimate. We recently verified that the individuals who signed these
letters do exist. We did not contact them when we received the letters of
reference for several reasons. First, it was neither our practice, nor
common practice in the adoption field, at least in Western Pennsylvania,
where we are located, to contact authors letters of reference unless the
letters themselves indicated concerns. Second, there was no requirement
that we contact references. Third, DPW, our licensing agency, was on
notice that we did not contact references, and never told us that we were
remiss in not doing so. Finally, the letter of reference requirement was a
requirement of Families Through International Adoption, Mancuso's
adoption agency. In other international adoptions for which we have
performed home studies, we have been advised that the placing agency
contacted the authors of letters of reference to confirm their contents.
Now we know that Matthew Mancuso had ulterior motives in his
adoption. He used our agency to accomplish his malevolent objectives.
We feel terrible that we aided him, albeit unwittingly, in any way.
However, we firmly believe that our home study was conducted in
accordance with all applicable requirements and standards and that there
were no red flags to indicate this man's true intentions.
Post-Placement Visits
Normally, when Family Adoption Center prepares a home study for
an adoption placement from another agency or in an independent
adoption, after the adoption placement has been made, we perform post-
placement supervisory visits and prepare post-placement reports. In fact,
we agreed to do so for Mancuso's adoption. However, what triggers our
obligation to perform these visits is some communication from either the
adoptive parents or the placing agency to inform us of the placement.
Without that communication, we have no way of knowing whether an
adoption placement has occurred. In this case, neither Mancuso nor
Families Through International Adoption contacted us to apprise us of
the placement or request that we perform post-placement visits.
I want to emphasize that it is extremely unusual for us not to be
notified of an adoption placement by either the placing agency or the
adoptive parents. We are aware that Russian law requires post-
placement supervisory reports to be completed at 6, 12, 24, and 36
months after the adoptive parent returns home with the child. Families
Through International Adoption's web-site states that these reports are to
be prepared "by the home study agency that prepared the original home
study." Since no one informed us of the adoption placement, we could
not fulfill our commitment to perform these visits and prepare the
required reports.
You may ask why we did not periodically call Mancuso and inquire
as to the status of his adoption plans. I am not aware of any adoption
agency that does so. In fact, given how upsetting the waiting period can
be for adoptive parents, the fact that international adoptions can take one
to two years before a placement occurs, and that not all prospective
adoptive parents actually go through with an adoption, agencies do not
routinely check up on the progress of adoptive parents for whom they
have performed home studies. It is unlikely that Mancuso, given his
deceptions, would have been honest with us anyway, but we expect when
we complete a home study and commit to performing post-placement
reports that the placing agency and/or adoptive parents will contact us as
they are required to do so that we can complete our piece of the adoption.
If we had conducted post-placement visits, we certainly would have
expected to see a bedroom furnished for a young girl. A child of five or
six years of age would be asked to show the social worker where he or
she slept. Whether in this case we would have received honest answers
again is speculative.
I want to note that in January, 1998, the Social Worker who
performed the Mancuso home study was let go. The reason for her
discharge did not relate to her job performance in conducting home
studies and post-placement visits. Rather, we had conducted an
assessment of changes that we believed were warranted in our adoption
program and made a business decision to find new leadership.
This evaluation occurred because, in the late 1990's Family
Adoption Center had experienced a significant decline in its infant
placements. In its early years, we were the only agency in the Pittsburgh
area offering direct infant placement to adoptive parents without using
foster care. By the mid-1990's, most local agencies offered this option.
Our program attempted various outreach efforts to improve our
recruitment processes, without success. In the first thirteen years of
operations, through the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995, we placed an
average of twelve infants per year. In the next two fiscal years, ending
June 1996 and June 1997, our placements dropped to 5 and 3, and in the
six months ending December 31, 1997 we only had 2 placements. We
had serious concerns about our program's marketing and recruitment
efforts, and made the difficult decision to make a staffing change. We
did not have concerns about our Social Worker's proficiency and quality
of work in her social worker role, but we were concerned with our low
number of placements, and our program's inability to accommodate the
needs of birthmothers whose infants were not a potential match for the
preferences of our clients wishing to adopt.
However, we had a new social worker in place immediately in
January, 1998. Our program did not miss a beat. That new social
worker took over the files of the previous social worker. If Family
Adoption Center had been notified of Ms. Allen's adoption by Mancuso,
she would have been ready, willing and able to conduct the post-
placement visits.
Conclusion
In conclusion, please know that Adagio Health deplores what
occurred here. We want to make sure that this kind of tragedy will never
happen again. We fully support the Committee's investigation and will
assist in any way that we can. The system is undoubtedly complicated
due to the different countries and states involved, but nonetheless, every
effort should be made to ensure that every adopted child is placed in a
safe and loving home. Thank you so much for your time, and I welcome
any questions you may have.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Ms. Smith, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
MS. SMITH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Stupak, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. My name is Jeannene Smith and I am the founder of
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption. I appreciate this opportunity
to share what I understand to have occurred in the adoption of Masha
Allen and discuss what I know about international adoption, both as it
was then and how it has changed since.
My personal experience as an adoptive parent and the joy that it has
brought to our family instilled my desire to improve the future for other
children who, like them, have found love and security in a permanent
family. As an international adoption advocate, it is my goal to help
orphaned children find permanent loving families who can nurture these
children and help them achieve their potential. The adoption of Masha
Allen by someone who has been proven to be a pedophile represents the
most unimaginable breach of social conscience. More disheartening is
that his admittedly criminal enterprise continued for over 6 years.
The fact that he was able to perpetrate this fraud upon all sectors of
our society demonstrates the need for additional safeguards for the most
vulnerable members of our society. It is also true that since Masha's
case, many changes in procedures have occurred which address these
issues. However, it is legally difficult, if not impossible, to gain
compliance for post-adoption supervision from an adoptive family after
they return home with a full and final adoption order from a foreign
country. Current laws do not exist that require and provide enforcement
mechanisms for post-adoption supervision for inter-country adoption.
While I cannot unequivocally state that post-placement supervision
would have detected the nature of abuse in this case, while every other
professional in this child's life did not, not her doctors, dentists, teachers,
and others; I continue to believe that the lack of post-adoption reporting
tools are a critical gap in the process and leaves the children placed
through inter-country adoption with no protection upon placement. It is
the smallest voices that deserve every protection we can offer them.
On a final note, I want to add that the adoption process is a human
process and that those human judgments, even by professionals, will
always be a necessary part of the process. I continue to believe in the
mission and purpose of international adoption and in laws that give
children opportunities to achieve their personal potential as human
beings. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jeannene Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEANNENE SMITH, FOUNDER, REACHING OUT
THRU INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Eiferman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
MS. EIFERMAN. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. My name
is Carol M. Eiferman. I received both my bachelor's degree and master's
degree in social work from Rutgers University. I received my BSW in
1983 and my MSW in 1989. I became a licensed clinical social worker
in 1991. I am licensed to practice only in the State of New Jersey.
Prior to receiving my graduate degree, I worked in the field of
alcohol and drug abuse, counseling both youth and adults between 1978
and 1981. From 1983 to 2000, I worked in three different medical
systems. I held a number of positions, including medical social worker,
director of a social services department and social worker in a
specialized psychiatric and addictions unit of a hospital.
My involvement in the field of international adoption grew out of the
fact that my husband and I were fortunate enough to internationally
adopt both of our children in 1994 and 1997. As part of that process, I
was a co-founder of a parent support group for international adoption. In
the spring of 1999, I began practicing social work as an independent
contractor with Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, Inc. My
duties were to perform international home studies for residents of New
Jersey who wished to adopt. In early November 2000, I became an
employee of Reaching Out. My job title was casework supervisor. I
remain in this position today.
I would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may
have.
[Testimony of Carol Eiferman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL EIFERMAN, SOCIAL WORK
SUPERVISOR, REACHING OUT THRU INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Seamans-Conn, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. Good afternoon. My name is Marlene
Seamans-Conn. I was employed as the Executive Director of Reaching
Out Thru International Adoption from July 1999 through of 2001. In
that position, I didn't have any contact with Mr. Mancuso. I was not
aware of his adoption as part of my position there. I was aware that there
was a post-placement report completed and I actually believe I saw that
report and possibly even filed that in his adoption. I never had contact
with Mr. Mancuso. I would be happy to answer any questions that the
committee has.
MR. WHITFIELD. Mrs. Druger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
MS. DRUGER. My name is Hannah Druger. I just wanted to make
one correction. When I worked for the agency, I was not a social
worker. I have a background in human services, but I was not a social
worker. Currently, I am a certified social worker, so in light of the
situation, I do want to make that clear. I initially worked with Jeannene
when she was still--I don't know what relationship she had with FTIA
exactly, but I walked into that situation and I assisted her.
I started out as a volunteer and then I started part-time and mostly
in a clerical capacity. What we are going to hear today is extremely,
extremely important. I, myself, would like to hear all the facts. I didn't
have enough time to really prepare a long statement because I was only
issued this request a couple of days ago, but if there are any questions, I
am more than happy to answer anything I can.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony. Mr. Wallace, in your testimony, one of the things you
mentioned was that Ms. Smith was an independent contractor for you for
a period of time and then I believe that you sent her a letter of
termination in 1998, maybe February of 1998, is that correct?
MR. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, Ms. Smith, you received a letter of
termination from Mr. Wallace in February 1998?
MS. SMITH. I received a letter from Mr. Wallace. I am unsure of the
exact date.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. But you understood that you were
terminated from being a contractor for him?
MS. SMITH. I received a letter saying he was closing the office.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, are you a licensed social worker?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Is it required that you be a licensed social
worker in the State of New Jersey to have an adoption agency or to
operate an adoption agency?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. WHITFIELD. What is the legal requirements in the State of New
Jersey to operate an adoption agency?
MS. SMITH. You must have a licensed social worker on staff.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes.
MS. SMITH. And an executive director with certain credentials, as
well.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes. And when did you receive your license to
operate as an adoption agency?
MS. SMITH. The physical paper license came in June. We received
notification that we were approved somewhere the end of April or May.
MR. WHITFIELD. Of what year?
MS. SMITH. I am sorry, 1998. 1998, yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. All right. So you were licensed in April or May of
1998?
MS. SMITH. We received verbal that everything was approved and
we would be receiving our paper license shortly.
MR. WHITFIELD. And when did you--
MS. SMITH. We got that in June.
MR. WHITFIELD. You got that in June.
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. And you were terminated in February.
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. So for a period of time there you were operating
without a license?
MS. SMITH. We submitted our documentation for licensure in
February, as well.
MR. WHITFIELD. How did you meet Mr. Mancuso?
MS. SMITH. I don't believe I have ever met him.
MR. WHITFIELD. Well, all of the paperwork was submitted through
your office initially and then I think it went to Mr. Wallace's company.
How did you ever come in contact with him?
MS. SMITH. The file indicated that he contacted our office when we
were a branch of FTIA and that he had heard about this through the
Internet on AOL.
MR. WHITFIELD. So did he contact you or did he contact the
Evansville office?
MS. SMITH. No, he contacted the Cherry Hill office and requested
information.
MR. WHITFIELD. He contacted you?
MS. SMITH. Yes. My office, yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. How many people worked in the office?
MS. SMITH. At the time it was just myself and Hannah.
MR. WHITFIELD. All right, so he contacted your office, so he must
have talked to you.
MS. SMITH. I don't know that. I would assume that.
MR. WHITFIELD. Now, I understood you to say that you were the
only person working in the Cherrydale office, is that correct?
MS. SMITH. No, myself and Hannah were working there at the time.
MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Druger, you worked there with her. Did you
talk to Mr. Mancuso?
MS. DRUGER. Generally, I think the way it happened was a list came
out as to people that were requesting information packets and we would
mail information packets to those interested parties. I don't remember
speaking to him in person.
MR. WHITFIELD. Well, where did the list come from?
MS. DRUGER. I think we were posted on Rainbow Kids. I think
there were a couple of Internet sites that the agency was listed under.
MR. WHITFIELD. That your agency was listed under?
MS. DRUGER. I believe. I am not sure.
MR. WHITFIELD. So are you saying that--
MS. DRUGER. I don't know the relationship between FTIA and
Jeannene's office.
MR. WHITFIELD. Did the information ever come to you directly
from Mr. Mancuso?
MR. WALLACE. No, sir. Part of the controversy I spoke of was it
was not until we had worked together quite a while that I found out that
FTIA was listed on several adoption websites with the New Jersey
address. That goes to the misrepresentation of the relationship. People
did not know FTIA was an Indiana-licensed agency.
MR. WHITFIELD. You were not licensed to do business in New
Jersey?
MR. WALLACE. No, nor had I authorized Ms. Smith to go on sites
and post our name and a New Jersey address.
MR. WHITFIELD. And did Ms. Smith do that?
MR. WALLACE. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. Is that correct, Ms. Smith? Did you do that?
MS. SMITH. It is correct that I did that, but everything that was done
was with Mr. Wallace's authorization. Every bit of literature, every bit
of information that was disseminated.
MR. WHITFIELD. Let me ask you a question. Briefly, just explain
the process. I specifically want to get to these post-placement home
studies and when a child is placed, and you were the only one involved
when the child was placed. I mean, Mr. Wallace, at that point, was out
of it. The $2,500 or so, I think, was paid to you by Mr. Mancuso, the
final payment. Well, there is a payment of $400, a payment of $2,500
and then a payment of $1,800 that was paid to you. Did you notify any
appropriate authorities in Pennsylvania that the child had been placed
with Mr. Mancuso?
MS. SMITH. I don't have direct knowledge of that.
MR. WHITFIELD. Was there anyone that works for you or was
working for you at the time that has a knowledge of that? You don't
have any knowledge of it, so I am taking it to mean you did not notify
anyone. Did any of the others that worked for her notify anyone, that the
child had been placed?
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. I wasn't employed at the time.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay.
MS. DRUGER. I don't remember notifying anybody.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, isn't it a legal responsibility to notify
appropriate agencies when a child has been placed?
MS. SMITH. That is our standard of practice.
MR. WHITFIELD. So you violated your standard of practice?
MS. SMITH. Again, I was not the caseworker on this, so I--
MR. WHITFIELD. Well, you owned the company, didn't you? Didn't
you own the company?
MS. SMITH. I am the founder of Reaching Out.
MR. WHITFIELD. And the check was paid to you? $1,800?
MS. SMITH. That is correct.
MR. WHITFIELD. And so basically, what you are saying is you don't
know or you don't recall, and I am taking that to mean that you all did
not do it?
MS. SMITH. I don't know that it was done.
MR. WHITFIELD. Did you have an obligation to--well, Mr. Baird,
you have testified that you were not notified, didn't you?
MR. BAIRD. That is correct. We were not notified.
MR. WHITFIELD. So you did the initial home study and you were
never notified that the child was placed there.
MR. BAIRD. That is correct.
MR. WHITFIELD. Now, if you had been notified, what is the
significance of that? What would that mean, from your perspective?
MR. BAIRD. Had we been notified, we would have scheduled to do
the post-placement visits, supervisor visits for--
MR. WHITFIELD. And under Pennsylvania law, how many visits
would that have been?
MR. BAIRD. Well, under Pennsylvania--well, this would be the part
under Russian law.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay.
MR. BAIRD. I think it is--
MR. WHITFIELD. Three?
MR. BAIRD. It is 3 years of visits and I think there are four visits.
Three months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay, so you didn't do any of that?
MR. BAIRD. That is correct.
MR. WHITFIELD. Because you didn't know about it.
MR. BAIRD. That is correct.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, it is my understanding that Social
Services of Western Pennsylvania, on March 23rd, 1999 prepared a post-
placement report on Masha and sent it to Families Thru International
Adoption in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and from what we have been able
to find out, this is totally fake. There is no Social Services of Western
Pennsylvania. The phone number didn't work. It has never been in
existence and so can anyone tell me, does anyone know Frances White?
Ms. Smith, have you ever seen this document?
MS. SMITH. I have seen the document.
MR. WHITFIELD. How did you get it, the document?
MS. SMITH. It was something that was submitted. It was sent to our
office.
MR. WHITFIELD. And who sent it to you?
MS. SMITH. I don't know.
MR. WHITFIELD. You don't know who sent it to you?
MS. SMITH. I don't, no. I have seen the document.
MR. WHITFIELD. Did you understand that under Russian law there
were three post-placement studies that were supposed to be conducted?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. And did you conduct any or did you notify anyone
to conduct any of these studies?
MS. SMITH. I have seen documents in the file that notified Mr.
Mancuso of the schedule of post-placement that was due. At that time, it
is typically standard that a copy of that goes to the home study agency, as
well. Again, I can't answer as to exactly what occurred. I was not the
case worker.
MR. WHITFIELD. So Mr. Dymtchenko, you were involved in this
and I think Mr. Mancuso paid you over $4,000 for his expenses related to
the Russian government adoption process. Did you receive any post-
placement reports from Ms. Smith on Masha Allen?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Yes, I did.
MR. WHITFIELD. How many?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Two.
MR. WHITFIELD. And do you have copies?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. One that you just showed and the other one was
on the letterhead of Reaching Out Thru International Adoption.
MR. WHITFIELD. Now--okay, let me just--
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Translate them both and submitted to Russian
authorities.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, my time is running out, but Mrs.
Seamans-Conn, I understand that you have some knowledge of this post-
placement report from Reaching Out and that this was conducted by
telephone, is that correct?
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. Yes, I was employed at the time that that
post-placement was conducted and I recall that that was conducted by
telephone by Ms. Eiferman.
MR. WHITFIELD. And that is not the way these are supposed to be
conducted, is it?
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. Traditionally, that is not the way that it--
MR. WHITFIELD. You are supposed to have an in-home site visit, is
that correct?
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. Usually it is the same agency that conducts
the home study, but not always, but it should be a licensed--
MR. WHITFIELD. But who did this telephone report?
MS. SEAMANS-CONN. I believe that was Carol Eiferman.
MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Eiferman, is that true? Did you do this by
phone?
MS. EIFERMAN. I conducted a follow-up telephone call to Mr.
Mancuso at the direction of Ms. Seamans-Conn, who was our Executive
Director at that time.
MR. WHITFIELD. So according to your testimony and the testimony
of others who are involved in international adoptions, it is the accepted
practice that it is an in-home visit, not a telephone call? Do you
recognize that?
MS. EIFERMAN. At the time, of course, best practice is to see
children in the home. It was considered acceptable practice. If you
needed to conduct a telephone interview to glean the information, if
families were reluctant.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes.
MS. EIFERMAN. There are even very rare cases of agencies using
self reports. A form is mailed to the family, the family--
MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Wallace, do you agree with that?
MR. WALLACE. I would not think it would be acceptable best
practices to complete what we call a post-placement over the phone.
MR. WHITFIELD. What about you, Mr. Baird?
MR. BAIRD. I don't agree with that. Pennsylvania regulations
require that post-placement supervisory visits be conducted by a social
worker in the home.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Stupak, you are recognized for 10
minutes.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baird, you indicated
in your statement that your agency determined that Mr. Mancuso was
eligible to adopt?
MR. BAIRD. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. What did that mean?
MR. BAIRD. Our social worker contacted--well, would you repeat
the question?
MR. STUPAK. Sure. What does eligible to adopt mean?
MR. BAIRD. Are you talking about the conclusion of the home study
or the call that she placed to the New Jersey agency?
MR. STUPAK. Well, let me--your agency made the determination, so
what went in to make that determination initially to adopt?
MR. BAIRD. Right. He contacted us and said he was working with a
New Jersey agency. After he submitted his application package to us,
our social worker contacted the New Jersey agency and spoke to
Jeannene Smith and got her verification that he was eligible to adopt
through them.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, to be eligible, is it just merely filling out some
paperwork or do you do--
MR. BAIRD. The question she presented to the New Jersey agency
was is he eligible, as a single man, to adopt and she got the answer back,
yes, he was.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Now, that--
MR. BAIRD. Of course then we went and did the home study and
came up with a favorable recommendation after reviewing all the
information.
MR. STUPAK. So you did do a home study in this case?
MR. BAIRD. Yes, we did.
MR. STUPAK. Did anyone ever contact the ex-wife or the daughter?
MR. BAIRD. No.
MR. STUPAK. Is it common that single--did your agency, at any
time, look into or probe into why a 41-year old man, divorced man,
would want to--who already had a biological daughter and you know, by
looks of things, had some income and was capable of having more
children with a second wife, but chose just, instead, to adopt a child, a 5-
year-old child?
MR. BAIRD. Well, I think the home study addressed that. He
provided an autobiography that gave several reasons why he wanted to
adopt. He missed having a child. He had been divorced for 11 years.
He enjoyed parenting.
MR. STUPAK. Well, autobiography, that is his own words, isn't it?
MR. BAIRD. Well, she interviewed him, also, and verified and
probed and verified that that seemed to be his coherent story of why he
wanted to adopt.
MR. STUPAK. And you don't think that is unusual?
MR. BAIRD. I can't comment on that. All I know is that there are
currently over two million single men parenting children in the United
States. I don't know how many are adoptive parents, but it is not unusual
for a single man to be a parent.
MR. STUPAK. Well, but in reading this report that your agency
submitted, if a person who wants to adopt, prospective adoptive father
tells you he is not able to maintain a meaningful relationship with his
teenage daughter who lived nearby, doesn't that sort of make you
wonder?
MR. BAIRD. Not necessarily. He did provide reasons that she had
become more active with her friends and she was very busy in her own
life and that their visits had become less frequent and that he did not have
an ongoing relationship with her, but he made it sound like it was a
normal developmental thing. He did not say he was estranged from her
or vice-versa. Nothing in his write-up about it or his responses, that I can
tell, became a red flag.
MR. STUPAK. If that is normal, won't that same thing happen then
after he adopted, once that child became a teenager, won't that child
want to spend more time with friends and not necessarily with Mr.
Mancuso?
MR. BAIRD. Well, he had gone through a divorce and it is possible
that he, the estrangement from his wife had factored in.
MR. STUPAK. But he never really said that, did he?
MR. BAIRD. No, he didn't.
MR. STUPAK. So I guess I am really wondering why you didn't talk
to the wife and the--
MR. BAIRD. He did say he and his wife had moved apart. They
parted their ways.
MR. STUPAK. Oh, sure. Those are his self-serving statements, but
no one ever checked in with the ex-wife or the child, that was all. I just
thought it was strange, that is all. Let me go to Ms. Smith. You have a
book, I believe, there in front of you, there? Now, there is a document
book there. I want you to look at this document that we have. One
minute, here. I have it here, but I don't have it in the book. Number 2,
please. Now, this is a form that Mr. Wallace's had or was this your
form, your agency's form?
MS. SMITH. That was a form we used in our office in Cherry Hill.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. It is 1997, so this would be Mr. Wallace's
form?
MS. SMITH. I am sorry?
MR. STUPAK. It says on top 8/4/1997. Would this be Mr. Wallace's
form?
MS. SMITH. No, that was a form we used in Cherry Hill.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. While you were an employee of Mr. Wallace?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Whose handwriting at the top here, where it
says family name, whose handwriting is that?
MS. SMITH. That would be mine.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. So how did you interview Mr. Mancuso? By
phone or in person?
MS. SMITH. Under the source, it is listed as AOL, so it appears that
this was an information request that came in through the Internet.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Where it says notes here, prefer female, 4 to 5
years old. Whose handwriting is that?
MS. SMITH. That is mine.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Underneath that, 12/23/97, received dossier.
Whose is that?
MS. SMITH. Hannah Druger.
MS. DRUGER. Mine.
MR. STUPAK. Ms. Druger? Okay. And then you called him to let
him know that he had to do certain things, right?
MS. DRUGER. These things were not included.
MR. STUPAK. I am sorry, what?
MS. DRUGER. Not included. Power of attorneys--
MR. STUPAK. Right.
MS. DRUGER. We need a separate agency licensed--
MR. STUPAK. Okay. And then there is a 12/24/97. Whose
handwriting would that be? Would that be yours again, Ms. Druger?
MS. DRUGER. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. And then, if we go on the next page, second
page here, in the lower right-hand corner, never cashed, signature torn
off, per Mr. Mancuso request. He then reissued check to FTIA
coordinator. Whose writing is that?
MS. DRUGER. That is mine.
MR. STUPAK. That is yours. How about the agency fees in the upper
right-hand corner, page two. Whose writing is that?
MS. DRUGER. On the upper right-hand corner is mine.
MR. STUPAK. Where it says agency fees? Okay. So agency fees
here now, just so I make sure I have this right, this would be your
agency, right, Ms. Smith?
MS. SMITH. At the time, they were fees that were received through
Families Thru International Adoption. The top fees and that form was
initiated at the time as FTIA.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. So when did he become your agent? I am
sorry, your client?
MS. SMITH. I don't really know.
MR. STUPAK. Well, you agree you were terminated in February of
1998 with Mr. Wallace's company?
MS. SMITH. Yes, that is correct.
MR. STUPAK. So anything after February of 1998, he would be your
client then, right?
MS. SMITH. No. When families switch to our agency, they signed a
form indicating they wished to switch and they would fill out Reaching
Out contracts.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. How about going to Exhibit Number 8 for me,
then?
MS. SMITH. I am sorry?
MR. STUPAK. Exhibit Number 8, please.
MS. SMITH. Eight.
MR. STUPAK. Eight. Okay, did you have a chance to review that?
And that is dated April 21st, 1998 and in there specifically, you talk about
Mr. Mancuso to Mr. Wallace and you say therefore, the entire fee, which
was remitted to your office in the amount of $2,050 is due at this time.
Mr. Mancuso has received his referral and will be traveling soon. And
Mancuso has decided to remain with our office and Russia program.
And that is on the letterhead of Reaching Out Thru International
Adoption, so April 21st, 1998, as far as you were concerned, he was your
client, right? Mr. Mancuso.
MS. SMITH. I am looking at this document, but I don't recall this.
MR. STUPAK. Mr. Wallace, could you take a look at that document?
It is in Tab Number 8. It would be in the white books there. There are a
couple of them there.
MR. WALLACE. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Do you remember receiving that at all? That
document, Number 8?
MR. WALLACE. I don't recall the day I received it.
MR. STUPAK. What is your understanding of that document?
MR. WALLACE. I keep that in my file.
MR. STUPAK. It came out of your file?
MR. WALLACE. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MR. WALLACE. And I have the copy that was sent with the fax
confirmation on it that prints out with the fax.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MR. WALLACE. So it has the date and so forth.
MR. STUPAK. So is it fair to say that after April 21st, 1998 Mr.
Mancuso was no longer your client?
MR. WALLACE. Yes, and I would actually say before that, but yes,
by that time, without question, it is black and white that she is saying that
he is completing his adoption through her.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Ms. Smith, how about Tab Number 9? Would
you take a look at that, please? It is on Reaching Out Thru International
Adoption, Inc. stationery.
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. And it says acknowledgement and agreement?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Now, is that from Mr. Mancuso with your agency?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. And he has paid you a fee in the amount of $1,800?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. And parent's signature, would that Mr. Mancuso?
MS. SMITH. I have no way of knowing that.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Do you have any reason to dispute the day of
May 1st, 1998?
MS. SMITH. No, not that I would have a reason to.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Mr. Chairman, hopefully we will be having
another round of questions.
MR. WHITFIELD. We will.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you.
MR. WHITFIELD. And at this time I recognize Mr. Ferguson of New
Jersey.
MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually want to pick
right up where Mr. Stupak left off. Ms. Smith, let me ask you a simple
question first. This is an easy yes or no. Were you and your agency the
adoption agency responsible for the adoption of Masha? Yes or no? It is
real easy.
MS. SMITH. I think we all were.
MR. FERGUSON. That is a remarkable answer. I think that would
probably catch a lot of people by surprise. I think perhaps some of us in
this room were more responsible than others. Is the answer to that--
legally, were you the responsible adoption agency for this adoption? Did
you place her with Mr. Mancuso?
MS. SMITH. I think we had a role in it, yes. I don't know who,
ultimately.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay, well then let us get into that, then. We have-
-you know, we had Tab 8, which Mr. Stupak just had us looking at,
talking about you requesting the money for it. We have Tab 9 that Mr.
Stupak just had us looking at on your letterhead with his signature, as
further documentation. Also in Tab 9, we have an announcement with a
picture of little Masha. "Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, Inc.
is happy to present to Matthew A. Mancuso," picture underneath.
Masha. And you told Mr. Wallace's organization that you had the
referral in the document. Does that refresh your memory? Were you
legally the adoption agency responsible for Masha's adoption, for her
placement?
MS. SMITH. I don't know, but I would like to explain that.
MR. FERGUSON. This is a real easy question.
MS. SMITH. It is not an easy question.
MR. FERGUSON. Well, I realize it is not an easy question for you,
but it has either, there is an answer that it is either yes or no, and the
preponderance of evidence here seems to suggest that you, at every turn,
and your organization, were responsible for placing her. At this point,
you still will not acknowledge that?
MS. SMITH. No, I think that we definitely had a part in that and--
MR. FERGUSON. Then the answer is yes, is it not?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. Thank you.
MS. SMITH. But I would like to clarify that further, if I can.
MR. FERGUSON. Go ahead.
MS. SMITH. We were a part of FTIA. We had no knowledge that
office was going to be shut down and there were a lot of families that
were caught in that. When they were caught in that, families turned to us
for help and continued to turn to us for help for many months after that.
We did the best that we could to get the families through that.
MR. FERGUSON. Why did you ask for your money back from Mr.
Wallace?
MS. SMITH. Did Mr. Wallace ever give that?
MR. FERGUSON. That is not the question I asked you. I have asked
you a question. Why did you ask for the money back?
MS. SMITH. I don't know. I don't recall--
MR. FERGUSON. We are getting a lot of "I don't knows" and "I
don't remembers" and "I don't recall" and "I'm not sure" and "we are all
responsible" and we are not getting a lot of straight answers here. Now,
you have known you were going to testify here.
MS. SMITH. I understand--
MR. FERGUSON. You have got a lot of documentation. You don't
know why you requested the money back?
MS. SMITH. This is the first I have ever seen that document in this
whole investigation.
MR. FERGUSON. Your document? This is a document on your
letterhead.
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. But you have no knowledge of it? You have no
idea?
MS. SMITH. Not of that document.
MR. FERGUSON. That is a pretty remarkable thing. That is it. That
is just--it is tough to believe. It is tough to believe. Let me go on. Ms.
Smith, your organization, is this true, never notified any home study
agency that Mr. Mancuso had a child placed with him, is that true?
MS. SMITH. I don't know the answer to that.
MR. FERGUSON. Why don't you know the answer to that?
MS. SMITH. Because, as I said, our standard practice, when a client
comes home, a letter is sent that indicates the post-placement schedule
and the home study agency is typically notified at that time. I am not the
case worker on that file. I don't know what occurred.
MR. FERGUSON. That is a very lame answer. To say I am not the
case worker, someone who runs an organization saying well, I am not
responsible for the things whether my employees do their job or not.
You are absolutely responsible.
MS. SMITH. There is a letter in the file that indicates the post-
placement schedule and that letter did go out to Mr. Mancuso. I do not
know if the home study agency was copied. There is not a specific note
to that. Again, I didn't perform the service.
MR. FERGUSON. Were you licensed in April and May of 1998 when
you said that Mancuso was your client?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. FERGUSON. How do you explain that? Why did you say he was
your client when you were not licensed to be doing what you were
doing?
MS. SMITH. We received notification that we were approved and
everything was in order. We received our paper license in June.
MR. FERGUSON. That looks pretty bad at this point, doesn't it, after
a child's been abused and a man is in jail? That is a pretty flimsy
explanation to say well, we had verbal approval, but we actually--I mean,
technically you weren't licensed. You weren't licensed. You were
collecting money. You were representing to another organization that
this person was your client. You said that you take responsibility for
placing this girl in this man's home and today we are hearing a lot of "I
don't remembers," "I am not sure," "Aren't we all really responsible for
this?"
What is your understanding of what a post-placement report is?
MS. SMITH. Post-adoption supervision.
MR. FERGUSON. Yes.
MS. SMITH. Typically, when a social worker goes into the home and
meets with the adoptive family and verifies the child's placement and the
well-being of the child.
MR. FERGUSON. Did that happen here? Did that happen here?
MS. SMITH. Not to my knowledge.
MR. FERGUSON. And you are the responsible placement agency, so
why didn't it happen?
MS. SMITH. Apparently, Mr. Mancuso did not comply.
MR. FERGUSON. Why not?
MS. SMITH. I don't know. The file indicates that there were requests
made. The file indicates than were attempts--
MR. FERGUSON. Mr. Wallace, what would happen if you were
trying to do a post-placement report and someone didn't comply? You
referenced it in your opening statement.
MR. WALLACE. We send out several notices. The person
responsible for the file, if they do not get the post-placement, brings it to
my attention. I start calling, contacting, and take all appropriate action to
ensure that it is turned in and it sometimes takes a lot of time, but every
time I do it.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Smith, who is the case worker? You said
several times I am not responsible, I don't know, I wasn't the case
worker on this particular case. Who was the case worker? Ms. Smith?
MS. SMITH. It looks like Hannah.
MR. FERGUSON. Hannah was the case worker?
MS. SMITH. Most of the case notes were signed by Hannah.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay. Let us ask your employees, then. Who ran
the show here? Go ahead, you take a turn.
MS. EIFERMAN. Were you directing that at--
MR. FERGUSON. All three of you, each of you.
MS. EIFERMAN. In my experience as Executive Director, Jeannene
Smith really ran the agency on a day-to-day basis and on every level,
every function.
MR. FERGUSON. Hannah?
MS. DRUGER. I agree.
MR. FERGUSON. I am sorry?
MS. DRUGER. I agree. I was involved when the agency became
licensed as an agency when she went through the licensing process with
Anna Montez, so you know, I guess you would say I was there.
MR. FERGUSON. Can you answer the question that I asked?
MS. DRUGER. About post-placements?
MR. FERGUSON. Yes.
MS. DRUGER. We definitely had definite guidelines for when those
were to take place, no question about that. I don't recall about sending a
copy to the agency. I don't remember that part, but there was a time
table for the adoptive parents to follow. I don't think there was anything
formal about non-compliance that I know of, that I am aware of.
Nothing formal.
MR. FERGUSON. So you had guidelines that just simply weren't
followed?
MS. DRUGER. That may happen, especially during a certain period
of time when things were in limbo because of some things, some issues
between FTIA and Reaching Out.
MR. FERGUSON. Last question. Last question, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the indulgence. Ms. Druger, was Ms. Smith familiar and
knowledgeable about these different cases?
MS. DRUGER. Every case.
MR. FERGUSON. Every case, every situation? The details of the
situations, the details of the cases?
MS. DRUGER. Absolutely.
MR. FERGUSON. That is remarkably tragic.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. At this time, I
recognize Dr. Burgess for 10 minutes.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wallace, do you
have one of these evidence binders in front of you? Or can you get one?
MR. WALLACE. No, sir, I don't, but I will.
MR. BURGESS. Can I ask you to open that up to Tab 6 and this starts
off with a fax cover page.
MR. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
MR. BURGESS. Now, that is your organization, correct? The
Families Thru International Adoption?
MR. WALLACE. The name of our organization is Families Thru
International Adoption, yes.
MR. BURGESS. And was Ms. Druger working for you at that time?
MR. WALLACE. Ms. Druger never worked for FTIA.
MR. BURGESS. Why is this like this? Is this just an error? Oh, this
was addressed to Serguei. But through your company.
MR. WALLACE. As was explained earlier, FTIA had retained Ms.
Smith as an independent contractor, a northeast regional coordinator, to
contact families about international adoption, network with other
professionals, and that relationship went on for about 16 months. It was
somewhat turbulent. She was given far advanced warning that this has
got to change; it didn't and she was terminated. During the time she
worked with us, she would have access--well, she also changed--we had
an application that we had prepared and submit for her to use and she
would change it and then send it out.
MR. BURGESS. All right, I think I understand the gist, but Ms.
Druger, you did not actually work for Families Thru International
Adoption?
MS. DRUGER. No.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Dymtchenko, if I have pronounced that
correctly, you made the statement, in your opening statement, that you
wish that Mr. Mancuso's wife and daughter had been more forthcoming
with information. Under this same tab, we actually have a letter from
Mr. Mancuso's daughter that looks pretty benign. Have you become
aware of evidence from Mr. Mancuso's older daughter or ex-wife that
would have led you to believe that he was an unsuitable candidate for
parenthood?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. The only letter that I saw, it was a letter of his
daughter that he included as a reference in his adoption file, which was
translated and also presented to the Russian court and Russian judge
asking Mr. Mancuso, along with the prosecutor, a lot of questions about
his relationship with his biological daughter.
MR. BURGESS. But you referenced, in your opening statement, that
you wish that Mr. Mancuso's ex-wife and adult daughter had been more
forthcoming with information and we got information from--
MR. DYMTCHENKO. I believe that would be helpful.
MR. BURGESS. Yes. Well, we got information from his daughter
that, again, looks pretty benign. What about--are you aware of any
information from Mr. Mancuso's ex-wife?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. No, I saw their interview on television.
MR. BURGESS. I am a little bit troubled that this tab--why don't we
pass that all the way down to the end of the table, if he has just got one
book there? It shows some pictures of some family outings, some
pictures of the house. I guess it was a three bedroom house. One of the
bedrooms was converted to an office. One of the things, the most
troubling things that we heard during Masha's testimony was that from
day one she didn't have her own room. She slept in Mr. Mancuso's bed
from day one.
I mean, someone somewhere along the line had to know about that,
that this little girl wasn't being provided her own bedroom. Wouldn't
that be just one of the--I mean, I will admit. I have never heard of a
single man adopting a 5 or 6-year-old child. Maybe it does happen and I
am just not aware of it, but boy, it would seem to me to just be so basic.
Does this child have her own bedroom? We have got three world-class
social workers at the end of the table. Is that an unreasonable question to
ask? Ms. Eiferman, let me just ask you. Is that an unreasonable question
to ask?
MS. EIFERMAN. When I conduct in-home post-placement interviews
with my New Jersey families, we certainly review the whole home and
we look at the child's bedroom. Usually, the child will take me to their
bedroom and perhaps proudly show me their new things, so it is
intricately part of an in-home post-placement visit.
MR. BURGESS. Now, in this case, the in-home post-placement visits
that we have, at least the ones we have to look at for the purposes of this
hearing, are Tab 13 and Tab 15, is that--do you have that?
MS. EIFERMAN. Hang on a second.
MR. BURGESS. Do you have that available?
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes, here it is.
MR. BURGESS. Okay, Tab 13, Social Services of Western
Pennsylvania.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. You are pretty familiar with these people, you work
with them all the time? A good group? Straightforward?
MS. EIFERMAN. First of all, I was not employed in the office. I was
not an employee of Reaching Out when this was done in March of 1999.
MR. BURGESS. Okay, fair enough.
MS. EIFERMAN. Since my--if you are asking since my employment
there? Since November of 2000, this is not an entity that I have heard of
before.
MR. BURGESS. Okay. Well, Frances White, who is a licensed social
worker, is she someone, he or she someone who is known to you?
MS. EIFERMAN. I would have to say the same; same reply.
MR. BURGESS. Ms. Smith, you were working at the company March
23rd of 1999, is that correct?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. Okay. Social Services of Western Pennsylvania, are
they a stand-up group? They do a lot of work for you?
MS. SMITH. I do not handle any home studies or post-placement
reports whatsoever.
MR. BURGESS. Who does?
MS. SMITH. All of that goes to our social work supervisor.
MR. BURGESS. Who is that?
MS. SMITH. Right now, it is Carol Eiferman.
MR. BURGESS. Who would that have been March 23rd of 1999?
MS. SMITH. That, most likely, would have been Leslie Breslau.
MR. BURGESS. And she is not with us today?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. BURGESS. Okay. Are you familiar with Frances White,
licensed social worker?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. BURGESS. Why--I mean, this is so sad. Here is where it could
have been stopped, right here, and no one really takes ownership of the
report and no one knows the social worker. Whose responsibility is it
when arranging an adoption and whose responsibility is it to receive
these types of reports? I mean, is Serguei's group over there in Russia, is
he going to be happy to send you more cases if this is the caliber of
report that comes in? Nobody knows who the company is, nobody
knows who the social worker is. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we
subpoena Frances.
MR. WHITFIELD. We have tried to find her and we don't think she
exists.
MR. BURGESS. Well, then that calls into question just the whole
validity of this report. Ms. Eiferman, let us look at the other report that
we have available, which is under Tab 15, and this was done--I want to
be sure I have got it during your time of employment.
MS. EIFERMAN. Right.
MR. BURGESS. This was done July 7 of 1998. Would that be under
your jurisdiction or is that someone else, also? You signed it, so I
presume that this is your report.
MS. EIFERMAN. I am looking under Tab 15. There is a report dated
November 15, 2000.
MR. BURGESS. Yes.
MS. EIFERMAN. Which--you mentioned a July date. I am confused.
MR. BURGESS. I beg your pardon. It is the date the child was
received, July 7, 1998.
MS. EIFERMAN. Okay.
MR. BURGESS. So you made this report yourself in November of
2000.
MS. EIFERMAN. This report was generated when Marlene, who was
our Executive Director and also worked with families adopting from
Russia as our in-office country caseworker, came to me and said this is
an urgent matter. The Russian courts, and the Russian officials are
requesting information about this child, Masha. Could you finish up on a
report a predecessor of mine started? And at first I said, well, I am a bit
uncomfortable with this, because I am licensed in New Jersey and I
really practice in New Jersey. I was given the understanding and given
the information that best practice is, of course, in-home; that at the time
it was acceptable practice if families could not meet with the agency for
some reason, that telephone interviews could be conducted. So I went
and I found the initial scratch notes done by a predecessor and I did
indeed then telephone Mr. Mancuso to verify information, to get a little
more detail, and then I did prepare the report that you have here.
MR. BURGESS. From testimony that we received from Russia, as I
recall, and anyone feel free to correct me, as I recall, the abuse started
basically the night she arrived in Mr. Mancuso's home, so around July of
1998. So we are 2 and a half years later, November 2000, but I don't
think the abuse was actually discovered for another several years. So
here is a point at which had someone gone to the home and had an
opportunity to interact with the child, it might have been a red flag to
someone, that the little girl didn't say come and see my room, come and
see my stuff--
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. --come and see my things. And a logical question
might have been, can you show me where you sleep.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. And that might have uncovered a lot of this stuff.
You know, it is so frustrating for us up here, because we have had to sit
and listen to hours and hours of testimony from the child herself.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. And I mean, almost all of us here are parents and it
was extremely--it was a bad, bad day. Let us just leave it at that. Ms.
Druger, I would like to ask you one other question and we will go back
to Tab 6, the very last page of that, after all of the photographs showing
things that just reek of normalcy, you penned a note there, or Mr.
Mancuso, I beg your pardon, has penned a note back to you and says, I
hope this helps explain my position and plan on the feminine needs
question. Now, I am not trying to embarrass anyone, but for the life of
me, I don't see where--number one, I guess I really don't know what was
asked, but I suspect that I know. I mean, I am a physician, I am an Ob-
gyn physician. I suspect that I know what the question is addressing, but
for the life of me, I don't see how it was addressed in any of these
photos. Can you elaborate on that at all?
MS. DRUGER. Are you talking to me?
MR. BURGESS. Yes. The note was addressed to you.
MS. DRUGER. Right, right.
MR. BURGESS. I assume that you are the woman the note was
addressed to was you.
MS. DRUGER. Right. No, I have absolutely no idea what it meant,
but I assumed that maybe it had something to do with when, during the
home study process, when certain questions are asked regarding how he
would address issues with her, at some point that is what I took as
feminine needs, that is the way I interpreted it.
MR. BURGESS. Right. Boy, if we could have followed that up in
February of 1998--
MS. DRUGER. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. --we would have stopped this problem a lot sooner.
MR. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize--
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WHITFIELD. --Mr. Walden for 10 minutes.
MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been
listening to this panel and our colleagues here questioning the panel of
witnesses and it is most disturbing. I am unfortunately engaged in a
couple of other meetings at the same time and so I would like to yield,
however, to my colleague. Mr. Ferguson from New Jersey has been very
much involved in trying to get to the bottom of this and Mr. Chairman,
with your permission, I would yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Ferguson.
MR. FERGUSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually want
to continue on what Dr. Burgess was talking about. Mr. Baird, as part of
the home study, Mr. Mancuso submitted reference letters, three reference
letters. All of them were from coworkers of his. They are attached to
the home study in Tab 5. I don't if you can pass the binder around. If
you could take a look at the binder and Tab 5. I am pretty sure it is Tab
5. Is it 5 or 6? Okay, we will find them. I think they may be in Tab 5.
They may be near Tab 5. These recommendation letters are short. Two
of them are about half a page in length. Did anyone talk--from your
agency talk to these references to delve a little deeper and learn more
about their opinion of him, as he might be an adoptive parent?
MR. BAIRD. Not from what I can tell from the file.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay. Any idea why?
MR. BAIRD. No. Typically, we did not check references. We did
not verify letters of reference.
MR. FERGUSON. So these could have been from anybody. He could
have written them himself.
MR. BAIRD. I suppose so, but that is right. It is not part of the
requirements, the regulations, to verify letters of reference. So we don't
typically do it unless there is some inconsistency that we see.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Smith, do you verify letters of
recommendation?
MS. SMITH. Carol, can you address that?
MR. FERGUSON. Wait, wait, wait. Ms. Smith, do you know if you
do it or not?
MS. SMITH. I don't handle the social work, no.
MR. FERGUSON. So you don't know if you verify letters of
recommendation or not?
MS. SMITH. I don't know that, but can I ask my social work--
MR. FERGUSON. Sure.
MS. SMITH. --supervisor to address that?
MR. FERGUSON. Okay, I just wanted to establish that you don't
know that. You do know that?
MS. EIFERMAN. At the present time we do. Whether that was a
policy of the agency when this adoption took place, I can't speak to that.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay. That strikes me as unsettling, that nobody
seems to--didn't, anyway, seem to even check letters of recommendation.
Okay, back to Mr. Baird. So even though neither the State nor the
adoption agency required you to follow up on the references, your
agency attached them to the report. Why would your agency want to
include information on the report if it wasn't actually verified?
MR. BAIRD. It was required by the page that we received from
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption on what they needed to have
accompany the home study.
MR. FERGUSON. So you submitted information that--did you tell
them it wasn't verified? It just seems--
MR. BAIRD. I don't know, from the files, whether we did. We sent
them as part of a package.
MR. FERGUSON. So you got these letters. By even any kind of
objective observation, they were sort of skimpy looking. A couple of
them are a half a page, all from coworkers, no verification whatsoever,
but you just submitted them with the report, as if you believed they were
completely bona fide.
MR. BAIRD. That is right.
MR. FERGUSON. You said in your testimony that it was your
agency's experience that the planning agency in international adoptions
contacted an applicant's references. Did you verify that Jeannene Smith
or her agency checked his references?
MR. BAIRD. No.
MR. FERGUSON. Mr. Mancuso's references.
MR. BAIRD. No.
MR. FERGUSON. Why?
MR. BAIRD. We don't typically verify references ourselves, so there
is no information in the file that we asked them to verify if they had
checked the references.
MS. EIFERMAN. Mr. Ferguson, may I add something here? I mean,
this was not a home--under the New Jersey standards which we operate
for home study. It is not a standard of the State of New Jersey that when
families submit--in New Jersey it is for letters of reference. The
standards of practice for adoption agencies do not indicate that then the
agency must contact each person that wrote those letters and submitted
them. So it is not a State standard in New Jersey and perhaps not in
Pennsylvania. So that is an issue for an agency--
MR. FERGUSON. Sure.
MS. EIFERMAN. --to decide.
MR. FERGUSON. And I wouldn't argue with you if we are going to
agree that that is a problem. That is a serious flaw in the law.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes. Okay.
MR. FERGUSON. But I am just trying to get to like a mindset here,
sort of in good conscience.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. What would someone--
MS. EIFERMAN. I understand.
MR. FERGUSON. What if it was your child?
MS. EIFERMAN. Right.
MR. FERGUSON. You know, why wouldn't--I mean, and particularly
if you are getting letters of recommendation from someone. You have
no idea who they are and that is why you asked for letters of
recommendation. You get three from three coworkers and there is no
verification that they were even done by them.
MS. EIFERMAN. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. No follow-up, no conversation. I mean, it is
skimpy to begin with. No nothing. Hannah, yes, that is--Hannah, I am
sorry.
MS. DRUGER. Right.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Druger, you, in a letter--we have a letter from
Mr. Mancuso. This is Tab 6, I think, still. Yes. You had actually asked
for additional letters of recommendation. Based on his response, our
assumption is that you had asked for additional letters of
recommendation.
MS. DRUGER. Where are you?
MR. FERGUSON. This is Tab 6, page 2. The first page of Tab 6 is a
fax cover page. The second page is a letter from--Dear Hannah, enclosed
are some other references letter that you asked for, along with another
statement from me concerning my reasons for adoption. I hope this what
you were looking for. Matthew Mancuso. Why did you ask for
additional letters of recommendation?
MS. DRUGER. I am wondering if I was asked by the social work
supervisor to cover a category such as a neighbor, someone, maybe a
person that knew him better. I don't remember, but I don't know if--I
really don't remember specifically, but usually I would think that the
reference letter would have to incorporate a certain familiarity, not just
coworkers. So I don't know.
MR. FERGUSON. Who was working at the company at the time, at
the agency?
MS. DRUGER. I was. I was there with Jeannene and we had a social
work supervisor as well. Every agency has to have an executive director
and a social work supervisor. She is not here.
MR. FERGUSON. And you weren't licensed, so you didn't
necessarily have a social worker there.
MS. DRUGER. At this time, I think she was licensed May 1998. I
don't know.
MR. FERGUSON. This is February.
MS. SMITH. At the time of that letter, it is before Mr. Wallace states
he delivered the letter to us.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay.
MS. DRUGER. FTIA.
MR. FERGUSON. The point is, this isn't a big bureaucracy. There
aren't thousands of people and it kind of got lost in a shuffle. There is
three people in an office. No one knows why there was a request for
additional letters of recommendation. This is the mystery. It is another
mystery. What was the problem?
MS. DRUGER. There is nothing--
MR. FERGUSON. Someone wanted more letters of recommendation.
A red flag went off. Somebody's conscience said there could be a
problem here. I want to know who thought of that, what the red flag
was, and why these additional letters of recommendation were requested.
Ms. Druger, can you answer that question?
MS. DRUGER. I am sorry, I can't.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Smith, can you answer that question? Do you
agree that this is an important question to have an answer for?
MS. SMITH. Yes, I do.
MR. FERGUSON. Serguei, can you tell me why?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Unfortunately I cannot, but I can tell you that
the letters of recommendations were not required by Russia, so they are
not recognized as official documents. It could be prepared by anyone, so
it is not official document. I don't know why they asked for it.
MR. FERGUSON. If the post-placement reports are not done, what
does the Russian government do to that agency?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Then it was a different procedure, but I
personally send some of the request letters from the Russian minister--
MR. FERGUSON. Okay, let me rephrase. I am sorry to interrupt you.
I am very short on time. How did the Russian government feel about this
particular situation, where the post-placement report was not done?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Usually, we used to--in writing post-placement
reports and some of those letters I send personally to Jeannene Smith--
MR. FERGUSON. Were they--
MR. DYMTCHENKO. --because she was not complying with some
other cases as well.
MR. FERGUSON. Were they pleased with what was going on here or
displeased?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Of course displeased.
MR. FERGUSON. Displeased.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. The post-placement report is the most
important tool in supervision of the living of the child after adoption in a
new family.
MR. FERGUSON. For very obvious reasons, yes.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Yes, of course.
MR. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's time has expired.
MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Dymtchenko, the Russian government is
aware that Mr. Mancuso was convicted of child molestation and is in
prison today, is that correct?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. I personally was investigated by general
prosecution office of Russian Federation twice on this case.
MR. WHITFIELD. So they are aware.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. And not just me, every single person who was
involved the case in Russia.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. The judge, the prosecution, the Minister of
Education, every single one.
MR. WHITFIELD. Now, I would assume that if these post-placement
reports were not conducted, that the government of Russia may be less
interested in using that agency for adoption purposes. Would that be
accurate or not accurate?
MR. DYMTCHENKO. Oh, I believe so.
MR. WHITFIELD. So I mean--
MR. DYMTCHENKO. But--
MR. WHITFIELD. --everything seems so hodge-podge here and
without any strict regulations and everything being very nebulous and
arbitrary, it almost appears that the only reason that any of these adoption
agencies would even ask for a post-placement report is they want to
make sure they get additional adoptions opportunities from the Russian
government.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. But since 2001, Russia requires the agencies
operating in Russia be accredited by the Russian government.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, yes.
MR. DYMTCHENKO. The procedure has changed.
MR. WHITFIELD. Well, you seem to be further along than we are in
this country. I mean, if there ever was an area that needs to be regulated
by the Federal government, this is the area. And I would just ask Ms.
Smith, what is your gross income per year at your agency?
MS. SMITH. Me personally?
MR. WHITFIELD. Your agency. What is the gross revenue?
MS. SMITH. I have no idea.
MR. WHITFIELD. You don't know? Mr. Wallace, what about you?
MR. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman--
MR. WHITFIELD. You don't know how much your gross revenues
are with your fees? I mean, I can't believe you can sit there and say that
you own this agency, you are licensed, and you don't know what your
income is.
MS. SMITH. I have an accountant that does that and we file, but I
don't--
MR. WHITFIELD. I am not asking you to--
MS. SMITH. Put a range.
MR. WHITFIELD. I am asking you just a range of your gross revenue.
MS. SMITH. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Wallace, what about you?
MR. WALLACE. Which year?
MR. WHITFIELD. Any year. I guess the most recent.
MR. WALLACE. Well, we started out with probably $50,000 in gross
revenues and we have been blessed to do well and at this point, calendar
year 2006, we will probably have about two and a half million dollars in
revenue.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, I would hope that the other members
of the subcommittee, even though Oversight and Investigations is not a
legislative subcommittee, we do make recommendations on legislation,
and I hope that all of us maybe could agree that this is an area that we
need to explore some Federal legislation on this area. I yield to Mr.
Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wallace, are you
aware of any adoption agencies being shut down by State officials?
MR. WALLACE. I am sorry. Am I aware of any adoption agency
being shut down?
MR. STUPAK. Sure. You are in Indiana, right?
MR. WALLACE. I am in Indiana.
MR. STUPAK. Do you know of any Indiana?
MR. WALLACE. I cannot--there is one in Florida that I am aware of,
because I read adoption news.
MR. STUPAK. Yes, one in Florida.
MR. WALLACE. And there was one in a lot of trouble that I think
was on probation maybe a year ago in Indiana. Unfortunately, I don't
know of more.
MR. STUPAK. Well, it sounds like there is no standards and there is
no enforcement in the world of adoption, is that right?
MR. WALLACE. I think it is very, very, very poorly regulated on a
State by State basis. Some States have a little better oversight and
regulation; many States have poor regulation. When there are problems,
the agency usually has reasons why and promises not to do it again and--
MR. STUPAK. And that is about it.
MR. WALLACE. -there are very few consequences.
MR. STUPAK. I find it amazing that no one checks references. But
before you hire someone, do you check their references?
MR. WALLACE. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. So you check references for hiring but not for
adoptions?
MR. WALLACE. I am sorry?
MR. STUPAK. So you check references for hiring someone but not
for references to place someone in a home?
MR. WALLACE. I would say it is absolutely not a common practice
for adoption agencies to verify letters of reference. As I sit here today, it
certainly--hindsight seems like it would be a great idea, but I do see a
couple of issues. First of all, adoptive parents do have to jump through
many hoops. There are sex abuse checks, child abuse checks, criminal
checks.
MR. STUPAK. Well, then why did all of those fail here?
MR. WALLACE. The system isn't perfect. I am not here to defend it-
-
MR. STUPAK. Right.
MR. WALLACE. --but I am just saying adoptive parents have to work
very hard to become adoptive parents. Thankfully, I hope and pray that
Mr. Mancuso's case is one isolated incident. It may not be. And we do
need a good standard and as I said--
MR. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this question. Would you agree
with Mr. Dymtchenko that the most important thing is the post-adoptive
report?
MR. WALLACE. Yes. I mean, I think making sure the person--
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
MR. WALLACE. --as a qualified candidate, according to current
standards, and there is a Federal FBI fingerprint check and everything,
but yes, after that child is placed in the home, the most important thing is
the post-placement.
MR. STUPAK. So even the most important thing in this case was
never done, right?
MR. WALLACE. It was--from what I have heard and listened to--
MR. STUPAK. Right.
MR. WALLACE. --and so forth, no.
MR. STUPAK. Well, Ms. Smith, can you tell us why it was never
done, the post-adoption report?
MS. SMITH. It seems evident that there were--
MR. STUPAK. Pardon?
MS. SMITH. It seems evident that there were attempts to have it
done.
MR. STUPAK. What attempts were they?
MS. SMITH. There was notification sent. There were reports
submitted that we have since found are probably fraudulent reports. We
need tools and we need laws that will enforce this.
MR. STUPAK. Well, let me go to--go to Tab 12 for me, would you?
Go to Tab 12. Do you have it there, a two-page report?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, go to the second page. You sent Matthew a
welcome home letter and the post-placement schedule and the dates are
on there, 11/98, 3/99, and 7/99.
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Who wrote that out there?
MS. SMITH. I don't know.
MS. DRUGER. I did.
MR. STUPAK. Ms. Druger?
MS. SMITH. That is her handwriting, yes.
MS. DRUGER. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. And then how about the next one, 9/25/98,
received letter and photos from Matt. Sent to--
MS. DRUGER. That is mine, too.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Now, was that a post-adoption report, then?
You received a letter and photos?
MS. SMITH. I think it was referring to that note that came with the--
that handwritten note that he wrote to me.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, but that is not a post-placement report, right?
MS. SMITH. No.
MR. STUPAK. Correct? This note from him is not a post-placement
report?
MS. SMITH. No, it is not.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. 2/24/99, the next entry. Left a message
requesting a post-placement report. Who is L.B.? Whose handwriting
would that be?
MS. SMITH. That is Leslie Breslau, the social work supervisor.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. So how about 3/30/99, filed copy of post-
placement and gave to Leslie to mail to Serguei? Filed copy in chart.
MS. DRUGER. That is mine.
MR. STUPAK. That is yours again, Ms. Druger?
MS. DRUGER. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Then how about this one, 11/16/2000, sent PP?
That is post-placement report, I take it, Number 4, to Matt Mancuso.
The next is dated 7/2/01, correct?
MS. DRUGER. That is my handwriting.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. What does that mean?
MS. DRUGER. That means that the report that I generated with him, I
sent him a copy as well.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, the report you generated with him, is this the
one you did by phone?
MS. DRUGER. Correct.
MR. STUPAK. Why would you call it PP Number 4?
MS. DRUGER. That was a way to keep in chronological order.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, but--
MS. DRUGER. Also, I believe in--
MR. STUPAK. Well, are you telling me there is four post-placement
reports on this case?
MS. DRUGER. No, that is my way of keeping in chronological order.
The one that I--
MR. STUPAK. Okay. What does Number 4 mean then?
MS. DRUGER. The one that I was involved with would have been the
fourth post-placement report requested.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. So you have a person with four requests for a
post-placement and as far as we know, he only filed one, correct?
MS. DRUGER. When I last saw the file, there was only one there.
MR. STUPAK. Well, did you follow up on it then, when you only
saw one there?
MS. DRUGER. The follow-up I did was the report.
MR. STUPAK. Was the telephone call?
MS. DRUGER. Yes, it was the report in 2000.
MR. STUPAK. What about the one that was due in July of 2001, did
anyone follow up on that?
MS. DRUGER. When I completed the report, then I gave it to our
Executive Director, Marlene.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MS. DRUGER. And my best recollection is, I said to her, I am really
not comfortable with doing these. I don't want to do another one.
MR. STUPAK. Not comfortable doing what, these reports?
MS. DRUGER. A telephone post-placement with someone who was
living out of State.
MR. STUPAK. So why didn't you have someone go visit the home
then, if you are not comfortable with it?
MS. DRUGER. Well, the reports are voluntary. He could have
perhaps let someone. At the time--
MR. STUPAK. Well, how can a report be voluntary when it is the
critical aspect? The post-placement report, that is the critical part, the
most important document that we have in adoption. How can that be
voluntary? You said the reports are voluntary.
MS. DRUGER. The reports are voluntary. The State statutes do not
speak to completed adoption post-placement supervision. The
requirement--
MR. STUPAK. But does a Russian law?
MS. DRUGER. The Russian law does, but the State laws do not.
MR. STUPAK. So when you are sitting in your office when you are
doing an adoption with a Russian child, what laws do you give credence
to, the State of New Jersey or Russian?
MS. DRUGER. I give the New Jersey laws credence.
MR. STUPAK. How about Russian?
MS. DRUGER. And I tell the families that this is a requirement of the
country you are adopting from, whichever it may be.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MS. DRUGER. And that these are--it is now in the agency contract.
MR. STUPAK. So the bottom line is now--
MS. DRUGER. That is something we are going to require of you. But
if you look carefully at the New Jersey adoption standards, even to this
day, finalized adoption reporting--
MR. STUPAK. Well, you are talking about--
MS. DRUGER. --are silent on.
MR. STUPAK. You are talking about the--
MS. DRUGER. To put this technically, yes.
MR. STUPAK. When you talk about this New Jersey adoption, did
you have any policy in your office on how you are supposed to do this
stuff? You talk about these standards.
MS. DRUGER. To do the reports?
MR. STUPAK. Or the adoption or your aspects. Did you have any
written policy? In this office of Reaching Out Thru International
Adoption, Incorporated, did you have written policies in that office?
MS. DRUGER. Of course.
MR. STUPAK. You did. Did they require you to do a post-placement
report?
MS. DRUGER. They require us to make every single attempt that we
can to get the information. When I was requested--
MR. STUPAK. Then what did--
MS. DRUGER. --to do the one report I did, and I did let the director
know at that time I was not going to be doing another one.
MR. STUPAK. And then what did you do after July 21, I am sorry,
July 2001, to get one from Mr. Mancuso?
MS. DRUGER. The subject never came up again.
MR. STUPAK. It never came up again until--
MS. DRUGER. No.
MR. STUPAK. --today?
MS. DRUGER. No, not until today, but I mean, it never came up
between us at that time.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. But has your--
MS. DRUGER. My understanding was that perhaps other avenues
were handling this.
MR. STUPAK. Who told you other avenues were handling this?
MS. DRUGER. No one told me that, but I--
MR. STUPAK. So you just assumed?
MS. DRUGER. I made it clear that that was not something I was
going to do. I am licensed in the State of New Jersey to work with New
Jersey families. I felt that if anyone should be doing that report, it should
be someone in Pennsylvania.
MR. STUPAK. So did you contact anyone in Pennsylvania?
MS. DRUGER. No, I let the director know I wasn't going to do it and
it never came--
MR. STUPAK. And the director--
MS. DRUGER. It was never discussed again as, okay, we have to get
X, Y, and Z completed, done, finished. I never heard from--to the best of
my recollection, I never heard from any other entity regarding this case.
MR. STUPAK. How would any other entity know about if you didn't
tell them? So why would some other entity notify you about this case if
you never notified them?
MS. DRUGER. The entities I refer to are the foreign officials.
MR. STUPAK. The foreign officials?
MS. DRUGER. Yes. There were no further requests ever made.
MR. STUPAK. Well, did your agency ever tell Pennsylvania that this
child you helped to pursue the adoption with was now in Pennsylvania?
Is that one of your requirements?
MS. DRUGER. If you are speaking at the time of the child's
homecoming, that I--
MR. STUPAK. I am talking about Masha Allen.
MS. DRUGER. No, I understand.
MR. STUPAK. When you know she is going to Pennsylvania, aren't
you supposed to notify Pennsylvania? Isn't that one of your
requirements of your license?
MS. DRUGER. I was not in the employ of Reaching Out at the time
of the child's homecoming, so I can't speak to that standard or that
practice, what they did at that time. It is clear that there is a letter here
from the previous casework supervisor outlining what was necessary to
the adoptive parent.
MR. STUPAK. But wasn't Reaching Out Thru International Adoption
required to contact Pennsylvania officials to tell them that this person has
moved to their State? So the State adoption laws, as Mr. Baird testified,
that would have been critical there.
MS. DRUGER. I am not versed in the Pennsylvania adoption laws.
MR. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's time has expired.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a panel of see no evil
and hear no evil and speak no evil.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, yes. Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Walden yielding you
his time and we ware going to recognize you again for 5 minutes, then
we will go to Dr. Burgess, and then I still think we will have time to go
to the floor for a vote and then after your questions, we can dismiss this
panel.
MR. FERGUSON. Mr. Wallace, how many kids--how many children
have you all placed for adoption over the years?
MR. WALLACE. About 3,000.
MR. FERGUSON. Three thousand. Do you still talk to any of them?
MR. WALLACE. Many?
MR. FERGUSON. Yes?
MR. WALLACE. We have a reunion every year. We had about 2,000
people this year. We have an East Coast picnic. We get cards and
letters. We let people know we are available if they need resources. We
have had families call us and say, I think this other family has an issue or
a problem, and we will take it and run with it.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Smith, how many children have you and your
organization placed for adoption over the years?
MS. SMITH. A few hundred.
MR. FERGUSON. A few hundred. Do you have activities like that or
do you ever see them? Do you ever talk to them?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. In what circumstances?
MS. SMITH. We have had reunions and gatherings.
MR. FERGUSON. Would you just pull the microphone closer? Sorry.
MS. SMITH. We have had some reunions, gatherings. We are much
smaller. But yes, we see the families and the kids and that is a very big
part of what we do.
MR. FERGUSON. Rewarding, isn't it?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. In the case of Masha, as far as we can tell, once she
was placed in Mr. Mancuso's home, am I wrong about this, did anybody
talk to her or Mr. Mancuso at all since that day? Has anyone? Ms.
Smith, have you?
MS. SMITH. The file indicated that two of our social work
supervisors spoke with Mr. Mancuso.
MR. FERGUSON. Okay.
MS. SMITH. And again, there was a post-placement report in the file.
We did not know it was fraudulent at the time.
MR. FERGUSON. Ms. Eiferman, was it you who--did you speak to
him?
MS. EIFERMAN. I had perhaps a 30-minute conversation with him
once.
MR. FERGUSON. Post-placement?
MS. EIFERMAN. Correct. Post-adoption, correct.
MR. FERGUSON. Did you talk to her?
MS. EIFERMAN. This was conducted during work hours or
work/school hours, so I spoke only with the father.
MR. FERGUSON. Did anyone else, either of you? You didn't speak
to him. Did you ever wonder how she was doing, Ms. Smith?
MS. SMITH. We always wonder how the kids are doing.
MR. FERGUSON. How frequent is it that you have an adoptive parent
who will not communicate, will not have someone come to the home,
essentially nonresponsive, other than a phone conversation? Is that very
frequent?
MS. SMITH. The problem has been pervasive in the industry. We
have taken--
MR. FERGUSON. No, I am just talking about you. Is it common at
your agency to deal with adoptive parents where you have placed a child-
-
MS. SMITH. It has happened.
MR. FERGUSON. Is it common?
MS. SMITH. It is less now, because we have taken steps to try and
make it forcible. We make them prepay in advance now and we put it in
a contract.
MR. FERGUSON. No, no, that is good, that is good. Good. If you
have a parent who sort of wants nothing to do with you after placement
of the child, how does that make you feel? Do you wonder about what is
going on?
MS. SMITH. We do, but there is nothing we have been able to do
about it. We have had cases like that.
MR. FERGUSON. Does it bother you?
MS. SMITH. It does. We have tried contacting DYFS, State
agencies, and they want nothing to do with it. You are left helpless.
MR. FERGUSON. You were left helpless?
MS. SMITH. Yes.
MR. FERGUSON. That is quite a statement to make after we know
what happened to Masha, isn't it?
MS. SMITH. It is.
MR. FERGUSON. There was definitely somebody left helpless here. I
yield back.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Dr. Burgess, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wallace, this is a
bad case, isn't it?
MR. WALLACE. I am sorry?
MR. BURGESS. I said this is a bad case, isn't it?
MR. WALLACE. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Baird, and I appreciate the very thorough report
that you have given us. You would agree, too, this is a bad case?
MR. BAIRD. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. And bad cases make bad law, but you know, we are
left with a situation here that we just can't help but react to. You said
that it is not unusual to have a single man adopt a female child, is that
correct, or that does occur? Was that your testimony where I heard that
comment made?
MR. BAIRD. I said it is allowed in Pennsylvania. I mean, I should
have said it is allowed in Pennsylvania. Anybody can adopt in
Pennsylvania. There is no--
MR. BURGESS. Will you give me an idea of how many?
MR. BAIRD. How many?
MR. BURGESS. What kind of numbers we are talking about.
MR. BAIRD. I have no idea how many single men have adopted. I
know there are over two million single fathers who are parents in the
United States.
MR. BURGESS. But I don't mean to cast any aspirations on that
group, but we heard testimony yesterday from a psychologist that 20
percent of men fantasize about a pedophilic relationship and 10 percent
act on it. The numbers actually may be more toward the 20 percent with
the advent of the Internet. I would submit that it may be something that
whoever keeps these records and keeps tabs on these children, really may
want to pay some attention to. We have no idea. I don't. Does anyone
on the panel have an opinion as to whether or not this just such an outlier
that we don't really need to worry about it, or is happening tonight?
Does anyone have an opinion on that? Mr. Wallace, what do you think?
MR. WALLACE. I think that there is about 20,000 kids adopted every
year internationally and that is the past several years. It has gone up and
down over the years. And my hope and pray is that--in the opening
statement by the Chairman, he said about bringing kids to the United
States. To me, adoption is not about bringing kids to the United States.
Adoption is about bringing kids into a loving permanent safe home.
There are kids that leave this country that are adopted overseas into
hopefully loving safe homes. My comment is I am not a big fan of
regulation, but I have often said I wish no one could bring a child into
their home, biological or adoption, without a home study, because nine
times out of ten a home study is a good tool. It helps people prepare for
parenting and it does catch some folks that aren't prepared. People are
rejected. That being said--
MR. BURGESS. Well, it is the practice of your company to do a home
study and these post-placement events would have occurred had the
adoptions stayed through your agency.
MR. WALLACE. Absolutely.
MR. BURGESS. Well, should an agency that gets a post-placement
report from any agency that they don't know, should you require that
they produce a license or some type of documentation or verification that
they are, in fact, an agency of record?
MR. WALLACE. We would require with a post-placement a copy of
the agency's license.
MR. BURGESS. Ms. Smith, what do you think about that? Do you
think if your firm contracts with an agency for a post-placement review,
that you don't know that firm, they are new to you, should you require
any additional documentation, a license, something to show that they are
bona fide firm?
MS. SMITH. I would like to ask my social work supervisor on that.
MR. BURGESS. But I am really interested in your response because
you are the owner of the company. I mean, I have owned a company and
I know, the buck stops here. Are you going to accept this or should you
get further documentation that this is indeed a reputable company?
Because it looks like you had two post-placement checks on this child,
one was fraudulent and one was phoned in, and the third wasn't done.
And it was the worse of possible circumstances that you left this baby in.
MS. SMITH. It is my understanding that we get copies of licenses.
Again, I can ask Carol to verify that, when we get post-placement.
MR. BURGESS. Yes, but Carol didn't work for you then, when we
got this fraudulent one from whoever it was. Now I have forgotten
which tab it was. We have been through this so much. Tab 13, Social
Services of Western Pennsylvania, March 23, 1999. Carol, you didn't
work there then, did you?
MS. EIFERMAN. No, I did not, but I can speak only to the current
practice.
MR. BURGESS. All right, the current practice.
MS. EIFERMAN. I can't speak to the practice at that time.
MR. BURGESS. But the current practice is?
MS. EIFERMAN. Well, the current practice is that when--it is
traditionally done, that the agency that home studies a client is also the
agency that will return for post-placement visits. And we do give the
family--
MR. BURGESS. But that didn't happen in this case.
MS. EIFERMAN. Okay.
MR. BURGESS. Southwest Services of Western Pennsylvania,
apparently it is a company nobody has ever laid eyes on.
MS. EIFERMAN. There is occasionally--in the current practice,
occasionally we will have a family that, for whatever personal reason,
will leave their home study agency and have a different person or agency
do their post-placement reporting. We have built into our system at the
present time, that they must either prepay--
MR. BURGESS. What about requiring records from their doctors and
their teachers, do you ever ask for things of this nature? I cannot believe
a child would have sustained this degree of abuse over and over again
and not have some medical difficulties on account of it. I mean, I just
can't believe that that would happen.
MS. EIFERMAN. When myself and our social workers conduct the
in-home post-placement reports in the State of New Jersey, yes, we do.
We ask for a letter from either the pediatrician or perhaps the family
practice physician to attest that the child is receiving care and to write a
statement about the child's health at that time.
MR. BURGESS. I don't know about New Jersey or Pennsylvania. In
Texas it is a law that if a doctor suspects something going on, they have
to call CPS--
MS. EIFERMAN. Correct.
MR. BURGESS. --the Child Protective Services, before the sun sets. I
mean, it is not an option, it is not negotiable, it has to happen. I am
assuming it is the same in your State as well.
MS. EIFERMAN. We have the same law here and it extends past
physicians.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what to say. The
system failed this child repeatedly for a number of years. A statement
was made that perhaps all of us bear some responsibility. I don't know,
maybe that is true, but I got a feeling from this panel in front of us, some
people are more responsible than others. It is a bad case. I will be
surprised if there wasn't litigation. I don't understand why someone is
not in jail. And I will yield back.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. With that, I would like to
excuse this panel. We appreciate your being with us this afternoon. We
have two votes on the House floor, then we will be coming back and I
would say we will be back at about, at the latest, 15 until 5:00 and then
we will call up the second panel. And I apologize in advance to the two
panelists on the last panel, and we will be back as soon as possible. So
we are in recess until 4:45.
[Recess]
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay, we will call the hearing to order, and we
appreciate you all being with us, Mr. Rolsky, who is a board member of
the Joint Council on International Children's Services in Alexandria,
Virginia, and Ms. Trish--is it Maskew?
MS. MASKEW. Maskew.
MR. WHITFIELD. Maskew--President of Ethica, Incorporated in
Silver Spring, Maryland. As you know, this is an Oversight and
Investigations hearing and we do take testimony under oath, and do
either or you object to testifying under oath?
If you would please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn]
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. You are both under oath
now and, okay, Ms. Maskew, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF TRISH MASKEW, PRESIDENT, ETHICA,
INC.; AND JARED ROLSKY, BOARD MEMBER, JOINT
COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
MS. MASKEW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Trish Maskew, President of Ethica, a
nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to improving ethics in adoption.
Ethica was founded in 2002, in the wake of the Cambodian adoption
crisis, as an independent voice for reform. And to maintain our
independence, Ethica does not accept monetary support from anyone
who places children for adoption.
Before founding Ethica, I worked for an adoption agency and I also
served on the board of directors and as interim director of Joint Council.
When the problems in Cambodia came to light, I had recently been asked
by my agency's director to take over the program there. In the year that
followed, I became disillusioned and shocked at the unethical and illegal
activity that some were engaged in. I entered the world of adoption
believing what I had always heard, that most agencies operated ethically
and that there were a few bad apples. I know longer believe that is true.
While I believe that the vast majority of adoption professionals are well
intentioned, the unregulated environment they work in, the money that
can be made, and most often their are concern for children and their
desire to help encourage bad practices and lead some to employ
situational ethics, believing that the end justifies the means. Some try to
excuse the situation in Cambodia by noting that all of the cases were
cleared and only two people were convicted of illegal activity. But the
truth is that agencies were falsifying home studies, bending the rules and
engaging in willful blindness, ignoring the red flags that signal
trafficking, bribery, and visa fraud. Perhaps most shocking to me was
the realization that other professionals who stood side by side with me
throughout that crisis were able to walk away and continue operating in
the same fashion in other countries.
As I became increasingly aware of these problems, I knew I would
never again be able to work in an agency and be responsible for families
and children until practices improved. I became convinced that adoption
needed an entity that was free of the financial interests that encourage
bad practices, and so I resigned and 6 months later I founded Ethica. I
have also parented several children, including two sons adopted
internationally. And in 2003, I was invited to The Hague, where I
researched and wrote the first draft of an implementation manual of the
Adoption Convention.
Adoption is one of the most unregulated industries in America today,
and as a parent and an adoption professional, I don't use that word
lightly, but adoption is big business and regulation hasn't changed with
the times.
Recently Ethica, in cooperation with the National Association of
Attorneys General, conducted a survey on adoption regulation, and while
the full report is still in progress, the preliminary data shows that only
three States require specific licensure for international adoption. Only
two require that agencies provide educational background information on
their overseas employees. The reality is that most States did not
acknowledge the vast differences between adoption from foster care and
international adoption. One area that is greatly impacted by this is post-
placement monitoring. In adoption from foster care, a family might have
lengthy visits with a child and a long post-placement period before
adoption, and so regulations generally only require monitoring until an
adoption is finalized. But a family adopts internationally, they might
find themselves the legal parent of a child within hours of their first
meeting. There is virtually no time to assess the rightness of the
placement and no guarantee the foreign staff has any child welfare
training. These parents return to the State with a finalized adoption and
no post-placement monitoring. Some States, however, require that
adoptive parents readopt the child, because the State doesn't recognize
the foreign adoption decree. And in those States there is more
opportunity for monitoring, because regulations can be applied to parents
adopting internationally.
The lack of appropriate regulation in adoption today means that the
driving force between decisions and policies is often the market and not
the best interest of children. Too often an adoption is done in the best
interest of the adoptive parent. And while we all recognize that the child,
and sometimes birth and adoptive parents are victimized by this, Ethica
also recognizes that there can be a fourth victim, adoption agencies who
try to operate in the best interest of children. There is sadly too many
agencies that cut corners in ways that are dangerous, as we have seen
today, and they should be stopped. But there are other agencies that
acknowledge that more services are needed than are mandated by law. If
an adoption agency were to place an older child from Russia, for
example, and know that it is in the best interest of the child that they
monitor that family, even if the State doesn't require it, they could
choose to require the family to sign a contract, saying that they would do
post-placement monitoring, and some agencies do this. But if an
adoptive parent has three agencies in their town who will do a home
study and only one requires post-placement monitoring, the parents are
most likely going to choose the easiest and fastest route.
The same principle holds true for home studies. When I did my first
home study in 1994, my agency required us to complete the same
training program required for families from foster care, which was 10
weeks of classes in addition to home study visits. Those classes were
invaluable to me as a parent and no doubt helped my agency get a better
sense of me as well. Since that time, however, agencies have been
moving to fewer and fewer requirements, because regulation doesn't
require them and because they are in constant competition with other
agencies that will do home studies without education, sometimes in only
3 to 4 weeks. One has to wonder if 10 weeks of classes would have
allowed time to interview Mr. Mancuso's birth daughter, or maybe to
probe his motivations for adopting. Likewise, we have to wonder
whether a single post-placement visit would have said Masha years of
abuse. While I believe it is impossible for anyone to design a home
study that would be 100 percent effective in protecting children, I also
believe it would help to require that parents adopting internationally have
the same training and post-placement supervision as those adopting from
foster care.
Some believe that the hate regulations will fix this problem, but we
are not so optimistic. Among the many problems in the regulations, they
mandate that every parent undergo 10 hours of training, but they allow
such training to be done in the form of on-line classes or video tapes. I
do not see how requiring Mr. Mancuso to watch 10 hours of videotapes
in his own home would have protected Masha. The regulations also
require post-placement monitoring, but only until an adoption is
finalized. And finally, the regulations will only apply to adoptions
between Hague countries, leaving many children, currently all those
adopted from Russia, unprotected. By failing to adequately regulate this
industry, we do a grave disservice to children. It is our hope that
someday that will change. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Trish Maskew follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRISH MASKEW, PRESIDENT, ETHICA, INC.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Trish Maskew,
president of Ethica, a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to improving
ethics in adoption. Ethica was founded in 2002, in the wake of the
Cambodia adoption crisis, as an independent voice for reform. To
maintain our independence, Ethica does not accept monetary support
from anyone who places children for adoption.
Before founding Ethica, I worked for an adoption agency and I also
served on the Board of Directors, and as interim director, of Joint
Council. When the problems in Cambodia came to light, I'd recently
been asked by my agency's director to take over the program there. In
the year that followed, I became disillusioned and shocked at the
unethical and illegal activity that some were engaged in. I entered the
world of adoption believing what I'd always heard-that most agencies
operated ethically and that there were a few bad players that were ruining
it for everyone. I no longer believe that is true. While I believe that the
vast majority of adoption professionals are well intentioned, the
unregulated environment they work in, the money that can be made, and,
most often, their concern for children and their desire to help, encourage
bad practices and lead some to employ situational ethics believing that
the end justifies the means.
Some tried to excuse the situation in Cambodia by noting that all the
cases were cleared and only two people were convicted of illegal activity
(a subject I explored in depth in an article entitled "Child Trafficking and
Intercountry Adoption: The Cambodian Experience, Cumberland Law
Review, 2005) but the truth is that agencies were falsifying homestudies,
bending the rules, and engaging in willful blindness, ignoring the red
flags that signaled trafficking, bribery and visa fraud. Perhaps most
shocking to me was the realization that other professionals who stood
side by side with me through that crisis were able to walk away and
continue operating in the same fashion in other countries. As I became
increasingly aware of the problems, I knew that I would never again be
able to work in an agency, and be responsible for families and children,
until practices improved. I became convinced that adoption needed an
entity that was free of the financial interests that encouraged bad
practices. I resigned and six months later, I founded Ethica.
I've parented several children, including two sons adopted
internationally. In 2003, I was invited to The Hague where I researched
and wrote the first draft of an implementation manual on the adoption
convention.
Adoption is one of the most unregulated industries in America today.
As a parent and an adoption professional, I do not use that word lightly,
but adoption is big business and regulation has not changed with the
times.
Recently Ethica, in cooperation with the National Association of
Atttorneys General, conducted a survey on adoption regulation. While
the full report is still in progress, initial data shows that only three states
require specific licensure for international adoption. Only two require
that agencies provide educational background information on their
overseas employees. The reality is that most states do not acknowledge
the vast differences between adoption from foster care and international
adoption.
One area that is greatly impacted is post-placement monitoring. In
adoption from foster care, a family may have lengthy visits with the child
and a long post-placement period before adoption, and so regulations
generally only require monitoring until finalization. But when a family
adopts internationally, they may find themselves the legal parents of a
child within hours of their first meeting. There is virtually no time for the
parents to assess the rightness of a placement, and no guarantee that the
foreign staff has any child welfare training. These parents return to their
state with a finalized adoption and no post-placement monitoring.
Some states do require that the adoptive parents re-adopt a child
because the state does not recognize the foreign adoption decree. In those
states, there is more opportunity for monitoring because regulations can
be applied to internationally adopting parents.
The lack of appropriate regulation in adoption today means that the
driving force behind decisions and policies is often the market, not the
best interests of children. Too often, an adoption is done in the best
interests of the parent. And while we all recognize that the child, and
sometimes birth and adoptive parents, are victimized, Ethica also
recognizes that there can be a fourth victim-adoption agencies that try
to operate in the best interests of the child.
There are sadly too many agencies that cut corners in ways that are
dangerous. Yet there are other agencies that acknowledge that more
services are needed than are mandated by law. If an adoption agency
places an older child from Russia and knows, unequivocally, that it is the
best interests of the child to monitor that family even though the state
doesn't require it, they could choose to require the family to sign a
contract mandating post-placement monitoring. Some agencies do. But if
an adoptive parent has three agencies in their town that will do
homestudies and only one agency requires post-placement services, the
parents will most likely choose to go the least expensive, easiest route.
The same principle holds true for homestudies. When I did my first
homestudy in 1994, my agency required us to complete the same training
program required for families adopting from foster care--10 weeks of
classes in addition to homestudy visits. Those classes were invaluable to
me as a parent, and no doubt helped my agency get a better sense of me
as well. Since that time, however, agencies have been moving to fewer
and fewer requirements because regulation doesn't require them and
because they are in constant competition with other agencies that will do
homestudies without education, sometimes in only 3-4 weeks.
One has to wonder if 10 weeks of classes would have allowed time
to interview Mr. Mancuso's birth daughter, or to probe his motivations
for adopting. Likewise, one has to wonder whether a single post-
placement visit would have saved Masha years of abuse. While I believe
it is impossible for anyone to design a homestudy that would be 100%
effective in protecting children, I also believe that it would help to
require that parents adopting internationally have the same training and
post-placement supervision as those adopting from foster care.
Some believe that the Hague regulations will fix the problem. We are
not so optimistic. While the regulations mandate that every parent
undergo ten hours of training, they allow such training to be done in the
form of online classes or videotapes. I do not see how requiring Mr.
Mancuso to watch ten hours of videotapes in his own home would have
protected Masha.
The regulations also require post-placement monitoring only until an
adoption is finalized. And finally, the regulations will only apply to
adoptions between two Hague countries, leaving many children,
currently including all those adopted from Russia, unprotected.
By failing to adequately regulate this industry, we do a grave
disservice to children. It is our hope that someday that will change.
MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Maskew. Now, I understand that
you may or may not have to leave before we finish, so if you do, we will
understand and thank you for being here. Mr. Rolsky, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
MR. ROLSKY. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
Member Stupak. I am pleased to be here to talk to the subcommittee
about exploitation of children, and I hope the hearings will result in the
goal of helping promote safe, loving and permanent homes for all
children. I am going to address today something about the Joint Council
on International Children's Services, what the Council believes and
specific areas of home study preparation and post-placement services in
adoption and how these definitions have evolved over the years,
interstate adoption standards and lastly, the importance of post-
placement and post-adoption reporting.
I have a Masters Degree in social work from the University of
Pennsylvania. I have been working in the field of mental health and
adoptions for over 35 years. I am currently the Executive Director of
Golden Cradle Adoption Services, who serves both domestic and
international adoptions, and we are located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
which, I guess, says something about some of these issues. I am also a
recent member of the Board of Directors of the Joint Council on
International Children's Services and last year was chair of the Ethics
Committee, whose job was to establish standards of practice, to revise
and establish new standards of practice for our member agencies.
JCICS has been involved in international child welfare since 1976
and over that time has developed an appreciation of the complexity
related to the processes and approaches that serve to protect children
while hopefully meeting their needs of permanency, safety, and love.
Collectively, we have over 240 members and those organizations serve
approximately 80 percent of all the international adoptions in the United
States. JCICS, as a value, believes that all children need to have a
permanent home, deserve to have permanent, loving homes when the
child cannot be safely cared for by their birth families, or in permanent
adoptive homes within their country of birth.
We believe that inter-country adoption can be a positive option for
these children. It is one of the largest child welfare organizations around
and the mission is to advocate on behalf of children in need of
permanent, safe, loving homes, promote ethical child welfare practices,
strengthen professional standards, and educate adoptive families, social
service professionals and government representatives throughout the
world. International child welfare agencies, child advocacy groups,
parent support groups, and international medical clinics choose to be
members of the Joint Council.
All of our member agencies are required to subscribe to and establish
standards of practice which is designed to protect the rights of children,
above all else, as well as birth parents and adoptive parents. Some of the
definitions of the things that we have been talking about today have
changed over the years, especially since the 1990s, when this incident
occurred and I just want to address that. Post-placement services today
is defined by, as a result of the Hague Treaty; it means services to the
child and the family from placement through finalization. Post-adoption
services, which was referred to today without a definition, basically
means services after the finalization to that family and that child.
Prior to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-
Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, there was little
differentiation between those two definitions. All services after the
placement of the child, whether finalized or not, were considered post-
placement services. Every State, country, and commonwealth creates
and enforces the post-placement requirements for the adopting families.
The purpose of this is always to ensure the safety, well-being, and
optimal development of the child.
The most usual consequences of a family's failure to meet post-
placement requirements, which means the mandated ones, can ultimately
be the removal of the child from the home by the adoption agency, and I
want to clarify that that is when it is a post-adoption service mandated by
State law. Post-adoption, there is no consequence that is backed up by
law. Home study is the education and investigative process that
determines the suitability of a family for the placement of a child. As in
post-placement services, every State creates its own specific standards,
but they are all looking to ensure that the family will provide a home that
is safe, loving and caring.
Just as an example, New Jersey, which is one of the, whether for
good or evil, today obviously, is one of the more stringent, highly-
regulated States when it comes to specifying issues around adoption,
requires--and it was mentioned earlier--four references; one neighbor,
one person who knows them for more than 5 years, one employer, and
one other. No family members can be a reference. Other States,
Pennsylvania requires three and they don't specify much more beyond
that. Interstate--JCICS's standards of practice have been submitted for
the record and you have them there, require all agencies to be licensed in
the State which they incorporated.
Many agencies, to facilitate working across State jurisdictions, have
inter-agency service agreements. In New Jersey, a licensed agency is
required to have an interstate adoption agreement, or we call it a service
agreement. If my agency in New Jersey works with a family in
Pennsylvania, we are required to have a written service agreement, it is
not a contract, it is a service agreement, with the Pennsylvania agency
who is licensed to do those services in that State. In addition, we have to
get a copy of their license.
In particular, post-placement supervision, in this kind of a situation,
would have to be done with a licensed Pennsylvania agency when it is
interstate with these two States. The frequency and the content and the
specifics of the post-placement report would be governed by the most
stringent of the State's requirements. For instance, when we do a
placement of a child for a family in Pennsylvania, the home study has to
meet Pennsylvania and New Jersey requirements. New Jersey
requirements are more stringent.
The other thing that wasn't mentioned today but needs to be looked
at is re-adoption. Re-adoption is something that most families, certainly
back then, would have done, and that would have fallen under the State
of Pennsylvania's requirements. When re-adoption is required, the
county judge makes a statement as to how many post-placement visits
need to be done. The weakness here, though, is there was no State
definition of what that should be. Some counties will just say just give
me the papers; others will say I want all three visits. I want it just like
the full adoption. There is no consistent legal process for re-adoption in
any State, I might add, and the trend is to make them easier.
The country of origin also has post-placement requirements; we have
heard about that. Over the period of time that we have been talking
about it, they vary from two to four visits from Russia over a 1 to 4-year
period. Because the adoption is finalized in the country, when they come
here, there is no legal backing for an agency, for an individual or
whatever, to require, enforce except through the contract that they
signed, the post-placement supervision.
I won't go into the details, but you probably already heard testimony
about Ukraine and Russia's problems with unfulfilled post-placement
reports. JCICS has been strongly trying to get involved with these two
countries to try to do some enforcing, getting to the agencies and so on,
but at this point, we haven't been given that information to do it. But
certainly, JCICS has offered their resources in that regard.
I just want to, since I am way over, on behalf of all the members and
all the colleagues in the adoption community, I think, I know we
appreciate the Congress's interest in this and especially the
subcommittee, to try to give us some resources, some tools in order to
enable us to provide the kind of safety net that is required and necessary
for children who come here from other countries. It wouldn't hurt, at the
same time, to encourage all the other States who have very lax adoption
laws, to raise to a standard, to rise to a standard that would be a real
protection to children today.
[The prepared statement of Jared Rolsky follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JARED ROLSKY, BOARD MEMBER, JOINT
COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, Members of the
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, thank you for
providing me with an opportunity to share our experience and
recommendations on best practices in the international adoption field.
I am pleased to be here today and hopeful that the Subcommittee can
take action against the exploitation of children and help promote safe,
loving and forever homes for all children.
Today, I will address who Joint Council on International Children's
Services is and what we believe; the specific areas of home study
preparation and post placement services in adoption and how the
definitions have evolved over the years; interstate adoption standards;
and lastly, the importance of post placement reporting.
Introduction
I received a Masters Degree in Social Work from the University of
Pennsylvania in 1968. I have worked in the field of child and family
mental health and domestic and international adoptions since that time.
I have been the Executive Director (Chief Executive Officer) of Golden
Cradle Adoption Services since 1997. Golden Cradle Adoption Services,
established in 1980, is a provider of both domestic and international
adoption services, located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
I am on the Board of Directors of the Joint Council on International
Children's Services (JCICS) and the Chair of the Ethics Committee
whose job is to establish Standards of Practice for our member agencies.
Through our involvement in international child welfare since 1976,
JCICS has developed an appreciation of the complexity related to the
processes and approaches that serve to protect children while
expeditiously meeting their need of finding permanency, safety and
love. Collectively our members, over 240 organizations, serve
approximately 80% of all international adoptions in the United States.
JCICS believes that all children - regardless of race, ethnicity, gender,
medical limitations or other conditions - deserve a permanent, safe and
loving home. When children cannot be safely cared for in their birth
families, or in permanent adoptive homes within their country of birth,
we believe that ethical intercountry adoption provides the most positive
option for children.
As one of the oldest and largest child welfare organizations, Joint
Council on International Children's Services is the lead voice on
intercountry children's services. With a mission to advocate on behalf of
children in need of permanent, safe and loving families, Joint Council
promotes ethical child welfare practices, strengthens professional
standards and educates adoptive families, social service professionals
and government representatives throughout the world. International
child welfare agencies, child advocacy groups, parent support groups and
international medical clinics choose membership in Joint Council as a
means to address the critical issue of parentless children and creating
permanent solutions and promote best practices in our field. Joint
Council Member agencies subscribe and are held to an established
Standards of Practice, designed to protect the rights of children above all
else, as well as birth parents, and adoptive parents.
Post Placement Reports and Home Studies
I would like to address the specific areas of home study preparation
and post placement services in adoption. Some of the definitions have
changed over the years. As of 2006:
Post Placement Services means those services provided to the
adopting family and placed child from physical arrival of the child in the
adopting household until legal finalization of the adoption.
Post Adoption Services means those services provided to the
adopting family and placed child after the legal finalization of the
adoption
Prior to The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-
Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, there was little
differentiation between the two definitions above. All services after the
placement of the child, whether finalized of not, were considered post
placement services.
Every country, state and commonwealth creates and enforces the
post placement requirements for adopting families. The purpose of this
is to ensure the safety, well being and optimal development of the child.
The most usual consequence of a family's failure to meet post placement
requirements can ultimately be the removal of the child from the home
by the adoption agency.
Home Study is the education and investigative process that
determines the suitability of a family for the placement of a child in their
home/family. As in post-placement services, every state creates its own
specific standards but they all are looking to be sure that the family and
home will provide a safe, caring and loving environment for the child.
Interstate adoption standards:
JCICS Standards of Practice, which have been submitted for the
record, require all agencies be licensed in the state in which they are
incorporated and in which they do their business. Many agencies, to
facilitate working across state jurisdictions, have inter-agency service
agreements. This means that a New Jersey licensed agency, in order to
place a child with a Pennsylvania family will work with a Pennsylvania
licensed adoption agency. This arrangement is also required by New
Jersey adoption regulations.
In particular, the post placement supervision would have to be
conducted (based on the above mentioned written service agreement)
with a Pennsylvania licensed agency. The frequency, content and other
specifics of the post placement report would be governed by the most
stringent of the state requirements. The only exception to this is if the
placement is already finalized (as is common in international adoptions).
In that situation the sending county and the state where the family lives
would determine the frequency content, etc. of the post placement
supervision.
Re-adoption is used in International Adoptions to obtain a birth
certificate from a US state which is then used to obtain US citizenship
for the child. This was the process used for international adoption
placements before the United States changed the law granting citizenship
based on the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (H.R. 2883), which was
signed into law on October 20, 2000. In January 2004, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services launched the Certificate of
Citizenship Project which automatically issues certificates to
children entering the United States on an I.R. 3 visa. Prior to this
federal law change re-adoption was frequently used by families who
adopted internationally. Under current U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services regulations, children who were not seen by all relevant parents
prior to their overseas adoptions are not considered to have full and final
adoptions. They must be re-adopted in the State where they will be
residing.
Despite the frequency of re-adoption, there has been no consistent
legal process used to achieve this end. Pennsylvania State regulations
still do not address this issue. Individual county courts (who do the re-
adoption) have differing requirements which can include no post
placement supervision to a full schedule of visits, similar to a domestic
adoption, which consist of 3 visits over a 6-month period.
The country of origin also has a post placement requirement. Russia,
since 1997, has required from 2 to 4 visits over a 1 year to 4-year period.
When this is done for the country of origin it is conducted voluntarily by
the family, as there is no US legal requirement for them to carry through.
The adoption is already finalized and the agency can only cajole and
appeal to their commitment to the best interest of this and other children
who might come to this country. This has been a concern to both
agencies and sending countries as there has been a number of families
who have refused to allow post placement visits after returning to the
US. Despite their being told in writing and verbally of the need, some
just refuse.
Many sending countries have expressed concerns over the missing
post-placement reports and have taken action by limiting the
accreditation of agencies who can work in their country, closing regions
of their country to adoption and limiting the number of placements of
intercountry adoptions. The Ukraine government has voiced their
concern over missing post placement reports from 900 children out of the
4,907 that were adopted from that country between 1996 and 2004.
Russia is also concerned over the alleged approximate 1,700 missing
reports from the 45,034 children adopted from their country between
1996 and 2005.
JCICS strongly encourages adoptive families to comply with their
agency's and the child's country of origin required post-placement
reports. These reports are becoming increasingly more important as
many foreign officials assume the worst if they do not receive a report
and are left wondering what happened to the child. Furthermore, failure
to comply with these requirements can negatively impact other
intercountry adoptions from that country. JCICS has been working very
closely with the U.S. Department of State and the foreign countries to
explore solutions. JCICS also has specific information on our website
educating and encouraging families to complete their post placement
reports.
These post placement services should provide counseling for the new
family, observe the child's adjustment to the new home, and supply
parents with information and referrals that might be needed for an
optimal family adjustment. Many foreign countries also require post-
placement supervision for six months to four years to ensure that the
child has been well-placed and is receiving adequate care and love. For
this reason, agencies may ask parents to furnish photographs, written
reports and medical reports to send to the child's country of origin. As
part of post placement, many agencies have organized support and
education groups for new adoptive parents.
Conclusion
On behalf of our members and colleagues in the adoption
community, I would like to convey our appreciation for the interest and
support from the U.S. Congress, and especially this subcommittee, on
ethical intercountry adoption and best practices in the child welfare field.
Providing a loving, safe family for children in need around the world
must be a priority of the U.S. Government and a priority for all of us, as
citizens of a global community. With your assistance, we hope that more
children around the world will find the safe, permanent families they
deserve.
Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before the
subcommittee today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Rolsky, thank you and we appreciate your
testimony. I am assuming both of you and your organizations, perhaps,
would you support an effort at the Federal level to provide some Federal
standards for adoption of children internationally?
MR. ROLSKY. Yes.
MS. MASKEW. We would welcome them, actually.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. So you see it as a significant need?
MS. MASKEW. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, I found it a little bit interesting that
the parents are, the adoptive parents, are the ones that appear to be
responsible for paying and selecting the agencies that do the home
placement and the post-placement. Is that normally the practice? I
mean, it appear to me that someone, some other agency should have that
responsibility of selecting the agency to do the study. Am I wrong
about?
MS. MASKEW. The standard practice is that parents choose their
agencies and the people who do their home studies.
MR. WHITFIELD. Why is that? I mean, it looks like that if they are
the one paying directly for the home study, there is every incentive for
the home study to be good.
MS. MASKEW. I would agree that that is probably a problem. I
mean, one of the things that we hear continuously from social workers is
that it is very difficult for them to deny somebody a home study.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes.
MS. MASKEW. Because if they do, people--if they don't have a very
good, solid, say based on a police record or something, then they can
actually be sued for not--
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes. I mean, it just appears that, in this Federal
legislation, if we can do it, there will be some other mechanism for
selecting the group to do the study. Would you agree with that, Mr.
Rolsky?
MR. ROLSKY. I think we would get accused of steering people to
agencies and then the whole other issue of whether we have under--
agreements and kickbacks would be an issue of the kind of--as long as
they are going to a licensed agency, that should be the requirement.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes.
MR. ROLSKY. The problem is that licensing across States is not
equal.
MR. WHITFIELD. I must say that the panel, the first panel with Ms.
Smith and her firm, didn't give anyone any confidence that anything was
being done in a significant way to protect the child. You all heard the
testimony. Did you come away with that same feeling or not?
MR. ROLSKY. Well, by New Jersey standards, they were not met.
New Jersey standards were not met in much of what was discussed
today.
MR. WHITFIELD. Yes. Well, I am surprised that New Jersey hasn't
taken some steps to take their license away from them.
MR. ROLSKY. That surprises me, too.
MS. MASKEW. We would actually like to address that. We did this
survey with the National Association of Attorneys General and one of
the things that we have been looking at is how many complaints do
licensing entities get and how many people can they discipline and the
States that responded to the NAAG survey almost uniformly said they
get complaints that they can't do anything about because it is not in the
specific licensing standard. They have to be able to point to a standard
and say this was violated.
MR. WHITFIELD. Oh, okay.
MS. MASKEW. And so those standards don't address the most
common problems.
MR. WHITFIELD. How many adoptions would you say normally or
on the average, occurs each year where an American citizen is adopting a
child from another country? What is the total number?
MS. MASKEW. I believe it is about 22,000 now.
MR. WHITFIELD. Twenty-two thousand per year?
MS. MASKEW. Yes.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Stupak, you are recognized.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for staying
with us this afternoon. Can anyone open an adoption agency?
MS. MASKEW. Pretty much, yes.
MR. STUPAK. And there are no requirements, no qualifications?
MS. MASKEW. Well, there are requirements for people to have
certain qualifications to hold certain positions.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, but if I want to open one, I can go open one?
MS. MASKEW. Yes, if you were to hire a supervisor or an executive
director that has the qualifications that are required by law, then pretty
much anybody can be the principle that opens it.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. And Mr. Rolsky, do you want to say anything
on that?
MR. ROLSKY. Well, I don't think it is quite that simple. New Jersey
has very specific requirements as to who the staffing has to be.
MR. STUPAK. Right.
MR. ROLSKY. Pennsylvania does not. I mean, it is so variable and
that is where the problem is.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MR. ROLSKY. I make jokes sometimes that a plumber can run an
agency in Pennsylvania. It cannot happen in New Jersey. I am not
holding up New Jersey as the highest paragon, but compared to
Pennsylvania--
MR. STUPAK. But even in New Jersey, if they had standards, we just
saw here today if there is no enforcement of those standards because
there are no guidelines or base line on which to judge against to
determine there is a violation, how do you enforce anything? And there
is really no way to do it.
MR. ROLSKY. We get bi-yearly, every other year visits from our
regulators. They read our records, they point out stuff that we might be
not doing correctly.
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
MR. ROLSKY. We have never been denied a license, we have to
remediate. It is minor stuff. I am shocked that--because the stuff that
was testified to today is blatant.
MR. STUPAK. Yes, it is.
MR. ROLSKY. I don't know where that fell apart.
MR. STUPAK. Give me an example of what was blatant here today.
MR. ROLSKY. They were operating without a license. They did a
post-placement report in a State that they couldn't do. They had no
service agreement with a home study agency, with an agency to do a
home study.
MR. STUPAK. And one of the reports was fraudulent.
MS. MASKEW. And those are the kinds of things that are routinely
covered by regulation, so there should have been some way to--it is
possible that DYFS doesn't know.
MR. STUPAK. So if we were looking for a State that had the best
adoption rules and regulations, whether it be domestic or international,
which State would that be if we wanted to look at a model as we draft
legislation?
MS. MASKEW. Right now, Florida is redoing theirs. They have been
the most active in disciplining agencies, to our knowledge, and they have
sought input from us and from others on how to tighten their regulations
up. They are having problems with the fact that people can then--they
actually took a license away from somebody who then crossed the State
line into Georgia and got another license.
MR. STUPAK. Do you think, Ms. Maskew, do you think the Joint
Council's standards of practice and disciplinary policies will be strong
enough to weed out the bad agencies or will they just run over to another
State?
MS. MASKEW. I think they are stronger than they used to be, after
the rewrites that we participated in last year with them. But the problem
is that they are not strong enough, if you will, to really regulate the kind
of problems that we need because even if all the Joint Council agencies
were to follow those, all the ones who aren't members of Joint Council,
if they don't, they still have that race to the bottom, which is a problem
for agencies as much as it is for children and families.
MR. STUPAK. Mr. Rolsky, do you agree with that?
MR. ROLSKY. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Because you are from New Jersey and know both
New Jersey and Pennsylvania adoption law. Can you tell us what is
wrong with a New Jersey licensed social worker doing a post-placement
for a Pennsylvania family?
MR. ROLSKY. Well, there are two issues. A New Jersey licensed
social worker cannot do social work in Pennsylvania unless they are
licensed in Pennsylvania. That is a licensing board issue.
MR. STUPAK. Right.
MR. ROLSKY. And the other part is that you need a license in
Pennsylvania, an adoption license to do adoption work in Pennsylvania.
I mean, it is very organized in that regard, so we can only do adoption
services within the State in which we are licensed, period. I mean, that is
not unique to Pennsylvania. That is the way it is. I am sorry, New
Jersey.
MR. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this. When a child is in a State
that has a re-adoption requirement, and I think Pennsylvania did here,
right? A re-adoption requirement?
MR. ROLSKY. Re-adoption is voluntary and certainly, back then it
was used in order to obtain American citizenship and it was the only way
to get citizenship.
MR. STUPAK. Re-adoption?
MR. ROLSKY. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay, by today's standards, if I internationally
adopted a child, in order to get a U.S. certificate, do I have to get--I
mean, birth certificate, do I have to get a re-adoption?
MR. ROLSKY. No. If you went to that country, saw the child before
the adoption was finalized, you would then come back to this country
and based on the law that was just changed, the citizenship law of 2000,
the child becomes a citizen upon landing in this country.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MR. ROLSKY. No further supervision of any kind is necessary for
that. So families do not have to do re-adoption.
MR. STUPAK. Based upon the citizenship law of what?
MR. ROLSKY. Of 2000.
MR. STUPAK. 2000.
MR. ROLSKY. There is a specific citation number in my written
testimony.
MR. STUPAK. There is a lack of memory here or whatever you want
to call it today, from our witnesses, but in this case here, who should
have notified Pennsylvania that Masha was in the State and who would
be responsible for making sure the re-adoption requirement is
completed?
MR. ROLSKY. It is the placing agency's responsibility to notify the
home study agency when the placement is made.
MR. STUPAK. So in this case, New Jersey should have notified
Pennsylvania?
MR. ROLSKY. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MR. ROLSKY. That is a best practice issue. I don't think it is a
regulation.
MR. STUPAK. Right, I don't think it is a regulation. Well, under
State re-adoption statutes, if they have them, home visits and reports can
be required after placement, but it is my understanding that these sort of
requirements to do this are basically being abolished and why is that?
MS. MASKEW. Most States are moving toward laws that make it
easier for adoptive parents to adopt and this is an extra step that many
consider unnecessary because of the immigration regulations that are in
effect for international adoptions and so certainly, the most well-
organized lobby, if you will, is the agency lobby and I think that this is
something that--and even attorneys that do independent adoptions, it is
something that they continue to--the standards continue to move and we
see this across the board, even in domestic adoption.
MR. ROLSKY. I think we shouldn't ignore the other lobby, which is
parents who want to adopt. They are wanting to go through fewer hoops
and they are not an insignificant factor. They all vote. Agencies don't
vote. I mean they are not part of a constituency in that regard and they
are a very forceful voice for modifying some of the requirements.
MR. STUPAK. And it seems to me, though, since I have been here,
we have had a number of bills where they want further tax breaks for
adoptions and then things like that, which, I don't think anybody has any
problem with that, but shouldn't they, before they have a chance to
receive that financial benefit, if you will, shouldn't there be some things
like post-adoptive reports being filed with somebody and proof of filing
the State law or certification or something? I mean, how many children
are adopted and we don't hear from them again in the United States? Is
this a problem? I am talking about international. I mean, not hear from
again. How do you track after a year, 2 years, 3 years?
MR. ROLSKY. It is voluntary, I think.
MS. MASKEW. It is voluntary.
MR. ROLSKY. Yes. They come to picnics, the families come to
educational programs or they run into a problem and they need resource,
help with finding resources.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MS. MASKEW. I would say, too, that I think the families that ask for
minimum requirements are those who expect that someone's out there
watching the hen house and when they find out that there isn't somebody
protecting them, certainly the people that all come to us are always
asking how come we don't have more regulation, so I think that probably
goes both ways. I think there is a general perception among the public
that somebody is doing this.
MR. STUPAK. Right. I mean, we were shocked at the answers we
were hearing today.
MS. MASKEW. And they don't find out until they are in a problem,
until they call us in the middle of the night from Russia.
MR. STUPAK. Not that we got a lot of answers today, but I mean, do
either of you see any interest by the State Department or Immigration
Service to impose post-placement reports as a legal requirement? I
mean, from what I am getting, you are seeing just the opposite, less post-
placement.
MR. ROLSKY. We just went through this with The Hague. There
was no indication that--I mean, I don't know if anybody raised it. I was
certainly not part of those negotiations, but it certainly didn't come out in
any of The Hague standards, The Hague regulations from the State
Department.
MR. STUPAK. Have you known--like, Russia is not one of The
Hague signators to that agreement, so that agreement would not cover
them. Have you known of any countries come back and say we want this
child back because you have not followed proper procedure or things like
this?
MS. MASKEW. Actually, Russia is a signatory. They just haven't
ratified yet.
MR. STUPAK. Okay.
MS. MASKEW. But the countries that have tried and that have come
to The Hague conference and asked for this, there are standards of
international law that once an adoption is finalized there are privacy
concerns and all kinds of things that make it very difficult for the Federal
government to impose that and to force anybody to do it, so it is a
problem with post-placement issues. But I think, as a whole, what we
have seen, and I think if there is one thing I could say that we need in this
country, is the political will to regulate this industry. We just don't see
that. And when The Hague regulations came in which--and we
submitted our comments along with my testimony today, in every
opportunity that they had to choose between standards that were more
lax or things that parents have asked for, they chose to go with the things
that were more favorable to agencies. We were very disappointed with
the regulations.
MR. STUPAK. I see my time is up. Thank you and thank you again
for being with us today.
MR. WHITFIELD. I just have one other question. You said there are
about 22,000 of these adoptions a year, roughly, and what would you say
the average fee is for an adoption agency? Does it range--I mean,
Mancuso paid the agencies involved here around--I am not talking about
the Russian part of it, around $5,000 or $6,000, I would say. What
would you say the average fee is for an agency?
MS. MASKEW. I think that is pretty for the agency fee.
MR. WHITFIELD. Okay.
MS. MASKEW. The overseas fee can be $20,000 and up.
MR. WHITFIELD. Well, then what that amounts to, that is about $132
million a year industry that basically is unregulated, at the Federal level,
certainly, and which says a lot, I think. But thank you all so much for
your testimony, for being here and you all are excused. And I want--of
course, I ask unanimous consent or without objection to enter into the
record all documents of this hearing, subject to committee staff
redactions. Also and without objection, I would like to enter Dr.
Hernandez's report from yesterday's hearing into the record and also
documents at the hearing on September 21st that were held on the
financial industry's efforts to combat on-line child pornography and the
record will remain open the requisite 30 days. And is there any objection
to that? Okay.
MR. STUPAK. The only question we would have is you are going to
place the documents in the proper hearing or are you just going to put
them all in this one?
MR. WHITFIELD. In the proper hearing.
MR. STUPAK. No objections, then.
[The information follows:]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
MR. WHITFIELD. This hearing is adjourned and thank you all again.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]