Jeannene Smith fires back
In September we reported about a lawsuit filed on behalf of Masha Allen against Families Thru International Adoption Inc., Child Promise Inc., Reaching Out Thru International Adoption and Jeannene Smith.
Recently Jeannene Smith filed a motion to dismiss in an attempt to counter the lawsuit filed against her.
For those not entirely familiar with the Masha Allen case: Jeannene Smith was working for Families Thru International Adoption as their New Jersey representative when Matthew Mancuso first applied for adoption. Shortly after, Jeannene Smith and Families Thru International Adoption terminated their collaboration. Jeannene Smith founded Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, which took over the Mancuso application eventually resulting in the adoption of Masha.
After the arrest of Matthew Mancuso, on account of sexual abuse and production and distribution of child pornography, Masha was placed in the care of Lynn Ginn aka Faith Allen. This placement is not without controversy, as can be read in Masha Allen betrayed again.
In September 2006, Masha Allen appeared before a congressional hearing, which in a second term, among others, questioned Jeannene Smith, who at the time seemed to suffer from temporary partial amnesia.
Some time after these hearings Reaching Out Thru International Adoption changed its name in Child Promise. In early 2008, this adoption agency closed shop.
So now Jeannene Smith fires back, claiming the lawsuit filed by Faith Allen as plaintiff's guardian is not valid, alleging Faith Allen is no longer the legitimate and legal guardian of Masha. Smith bases these allegations on several sources including a Notice of Claim filed by Masha’s former attorney James R. Marsh, whom she wants to see subpoenaed together with Faith Allen for an evidentiary hearing to determine the status of Faith Allen as legal guardian.
The entire motion is 73 pages long and contains several documents not previously available in public domain.
The case against Jeannene Smith et al. is an important one, because it relates to the responsibilities of an executive director. In the affidavit supporting her motion to dismiss, Jeannene Smith tries to clear herself on grounds that she had no personal involvement in the decision-making process of placing Masha. She claims to have had only administrative duties, no social work duties.
It remains to be seen how the judge in question will weigh in that argument. In my opinion, an executive director is eventually responsible for the performance of the entire organization. Why else have management? Failing to know what goes on in ones organization, we believe is a sign of mismanagement and in the case of child placement a form of neglect. But it's not our opinion that eventually counts, in the end it's all in the hands of Judge Donio. Let's hope in his judgment the safety of children in placement prevails.