Bush, the U.N. and Adoption Victims

from: americaheldhostage.com

by W. David Jenkins III    February 14, 2003

"Before We Get Started . . ."
In the recent aftermath of Presents Missing From Under the Christmas Tree, it has become quite clear that the subject of illegal and coerced adoptions is as volatile with some people as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion or Christianity in the hands of the religious right. I obviously had no idea what a Pandora's Box the subject is. See, I, like many other people - up until a few months ago - thought the idea of adoption was all pastels, teddy bears and happy endings. (I have two cousins who were adopted.) And the practice of adoption - in its original intent - is just that. However, the adoption industry is another matter entirely.

Those who had a problem with many of the things I alluded to in the first article were either willing or un-willing participants in the adoption process. They were children who had been adopted into loving families or people who had given up their children - willingly. One was even a Gladney Center supporter who figured that, since I mistakenly stated that Gladney was in Austin, Texas instead of the correct location of Fort Worth (a cross-reference error in my notes, and I stand corrected), everything else I said about Gladney must be a lie too.

Well, not quite.

The fact is is that The Edna Gladney Center does have close ties to the Bush family. Besides being supporters of Dubya's 2000 campaign, there is also the fact that Laura and "Babs" are honorary representatives for Gladney. There is also the fact that Marvin Bush has adopted children through Gladney. (This fact was confirmed, strangely enough, by an angry email from a Gladney supporter.) Not to mention the fact that members of Gladney served under Governor Dubya in Texas and also lobbied in Florida to shorten the allotted time for natural parents to grieve over what they felt was a coerced adoption proceeding - with Jeb's blessing. Not to mention the close ties Gladney has with a little financial corporation called MBNA out of Wilmington, Delaware.

Actually, MBNA owns about half of Wilmington. It is a huge operation offering folks a credit card much like the airlines. Instead of getting frequent flyer miles with your purchase, a portion of your purchase price goes to Gladney to help offset the price of an adoption. By the way, MBNA was Dubya's largest financial contributor back in 2000 - over a million dollars in soft money and over a half-million dollars to Republicans in 2002. That should be enough to cause your "red flags" to go way up.

I promised last time around to go into specifics about the injustices practiced by the adoption industry, so let's look at the story of the person who started the wheels to turn. Her name is Tarin.

Tarin was near the end of her junior year of high school when she became pregnant. She was a homecoming queen candidate who demanded the best grades from herself. She was a high achiever and never dreamed she would be in the situation that would change her life forever. She was also lucky enough to be able to hide her "situation" from her mother until she was practically ready to deliver - although that fact did nothing to lessen the shock once the news was learned by her mother. But that was just the beginning of the struggle they would share to this day.

Tarin had never once considered adoption as an alternative. She also didn't know that the receptionist at the doctor's office she went to, two weeks before her daughter would be born, was on a "mission" to find a baby for a friend.

Tarin was about to be blindsided by friendly faces and smiles which would hide darker intentions. Keep in mind that all of the following happened in a span of two weeks. Also keep in mind that this is the story of a teenage girl caught up in the emotions and confusion of trying to do what she felt was right for her and her child.

On the evening of Tarin's visit to the doctor, she met with the receptionist's friend who was looking for a baby to adopt. The meeting was friendly (it was held in a restaurant) enough but Tarin hadn't decided on the option of adopting out her baby. She was pressured by her hosts to meet with their lawyer the next evening - and Tarin agreed.

The adoptive parents' lawyer was friendly and seemed to truly care for Tarin and her situation. She offered to represent Tarin free of charge and stressed that the first order of business was to get her to sign a pre-birth consent. Tarin was assured that this consent was "non-binding." All this document would, they said, do was to show "intent" on Tarin's part. They also wanted her signature the next day or as soon as possible. It was signed on December 20 with Tarin stipulating that she desired an open adoption so that she could maintain visitation with her daughter. All parties seemed to be in agreement so Tarin, figuring the consent was non-binding after all, signed the consent.

Then things started to change.

The mood in the restaurant went from teddy bears to legalese.

Tarin's lawyer turned to the adoptive mother and stated that "we got the judge I wanted. He is an adoptive father." Then the lawyer turned to Tarin and informed her that it was up to the judge to decide on the validity of her signed consent should she decide not to sign the final documentation 12 hours after the birth of the baby. What the lawyer failed to mention was that this restriction regarded only the

. She was told she would have to sign again after the birth and if she changed her mind it would cost her a "huge amount of money." She was also warned that if she tried to back out, then there would be a contested adoption hearing and she would most probably lose all contact with her daughter.

Tarin's daughter, Katelynn, was born a week later and Tarin knew she had to have that little angel in her life. The thought of giving her up tore her heart to pieces. As the 12- hour deadline approached for the signing of the second relinquishment, Tarin became more and more distraught. The thought of losing her daughter was more than she could bear, yet she thought she was committed to "signing Katelynn away" for fear of losing her completely. With tears in her eyes and false reassurances by her lawyer echoing in her ears, she signed.

Three weeks later Tarin's visitation was cut off. A lawyer was hired and the adoption was contested.

Tarin and her mother, Melinda, were about to witness first-hand exactly how corrupt the adoption industry was.

What transpired in the court hearings exposed "doctored" documentation, lying under oath and altered evidence. Even the judge, on record, noted certain discrepancies within the submitted documentation.

It still made no difference.

Even though testimony showed that Tarin's lawyer had been evasive and had lied about various statements made to Tarin, the judge ruled in favor of the adoptive parents.

The following are Melinda's statements concerning what happened next - in her own words:

We filed a complaint with the disciplinary administrator, because the lawyer had signed the statement stating that the adopters had agreed that she could testify against them, and yet no such signed agreement was turned over under s[ub]poena order. This is fraud, if she claimed to have their signed consent in order to get Tarin to agree to the terms, but in reality did not have their consent. The lawyer admitted that she did not have their signed consent, but claimed that at the time she signed that paper, saying that they had agreed she could testify against them in the event of conflict, she did have it, but later lost it. The disciplinary administrator saw this as a reasonable explanation for what occurred. Tarin went on to the Kansas State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, both of which denied her petition for their review. A rehearing request was also denied by the United States Supreme Court in January, 2002.

Immediately following the US Supreme Court denial for review, the United Nations, Human rights Commission was contacted and were interested in hearing more. They had established the office of Special Rapporteur of the sale of children in 1990 to address international adoption fraud problems. In those past 11 years, they had been able to establish that the primary source of the problems in the international adoption industry was the high demand for children by USA citizens. For this reason, they were interested in USA domestic adoption fraud and coercion.

We were able to send the United Nations, a full copy of the court transcripts of everyone's testimony and piles of other evidence. From this they could see that fraud and coercion were not even in dispute. Much had been admitted to, crimes had been clearly proven and not denied, and yet, still, four separate courts declined to return Katelynn to her mother, including the highest federal court in the country. With this much evidence, Dr. Juan Miguel Petit, special Rapporteur on the sale of Children for the United Nations, Human Rights Commission, decided that if evidence could be gathered to show this was not an isolated incident, action could be sought.

For the complete transcript: Click Here

With all the evidence submitted by Tarin and her mother, the U.N. established the Human Rights 1503 Committee.

Brenda stayed at the Gladney home from October 1973 to January 1974. where her son was born on December 29. She stated that her labor was induced and she was placed in a room with three other girls. They were all given a drug which "knocked them out" so when they awoke, they were no longer pregnant. When Brenda came to, she asked the staff what she'd had but they refused to tell her. In fact, natural mothers were not permitted to see the babies until after they "signed them away."

As Brenda signed away her son, she was reassured that he'd be placed in an appropriate family situation. She was asked many questions about her and the father's backgrounds, hobbies, religion and so forth. She was told that the adoptive family would be carefully, as these potential parents "pay a lot of money" for this service. Eventually, Brenda was informed that her son would be placed with a family who had already adopted a daughter through Gladney. They were an Episcopalian couple - he a college professor, she a school teacher - and that her son would be well provided for. She was also told that none of the children of the girls in her counseling group that day would ever cross the natural mothers' paths, as the children were all to be placed outside the state of Texas.

Brenda went on with her life, telling herself that her son was better off. She ended up marrying the boy's father and they went on to have three other children.

When Brenda's husband suffered a massive heart attack at 42, she was informed that the condition could be hereditary. In her search to locate her missing son in order to alert his new family, she discovered just how much she had been deceived those many years ago.

Brenda was eventually able to locate her son, despite the stone-walling by the Center. She was shocked to find out he had been living fewer than 30 miles away her entire life. Not only that, but the family turned out to be Greek Orthodox - he a dentist and she a housewife.

Although her son was in a loving family, she still felt "lied to" by Gladney and began seeking out other natural mothers. What she found out not only shocked her, but also reassured her that she wasn't the only woman taken advantage of by the adoption industry.

I've had many phone calls and emails from victims of the adoption industry and most of their experiences have a surprising number of similarities to Brenda's story. Most mothers complained about being "drugged up" when faced by the attorneys representing whichever "birthing center" they were being handled by. These meetings usually take place within 24 hours after the birth. The mothers are so emotionally distraught and medicated that they can't possibly make a rational decision at the time they sign away their babies.

One gentleman I spoke to, Justin, was a Gladney dad whose girlfriend spent a short time at the Center. He told me he had never seen so many depressed young mothers - many of whom were "being medicated" for their distress. He and his girlfriend were also harassed when they decided that Justin would be part of the birth. They were told they could not have the baby at Gladney as fathers were not allowed to be a part of this event.

Many mothers, but not all, who were victimized are young, unemployed or with lower income, and only approached these centers for information or counseling. Most had never even considered adoption as an option, but by walking through the front doors of an adoption agency made them easy targets of those wishing to profit from their situation. Without even signing any form of consent, many have told of being called daily by these places and told, "You really can't take care of your child properly right now" or "You really need to do what's best" and so on and so on. These adoption corporations prey on mothers who are scared and confused and have no idea what their legal rights may be in these situations - and the adoption lawyers are not about to tell them.

Brandy was a 30 year old single mom with a 10-year-old son when she became pregnant with her daughter. She was on the fence as to what to do and never considered adoption as an option. But she made the mistake of walking through the front doors of the Adoption Center of Kansas for counseling. She never signed her name to a single document that day, but she was already a target.

Brandy's pregnancy was not uneventful. She endured many health problems and eventually developed toxemia. She was hospitalized and her daughter was delivered prematurely by an emergency C-section. The baby was placed in the hospital's neonatal care unit for a number of weeks. That's when the calls from the adoption agency began to come. Brandy was still being treated in the hospital for her health complications and now she was being called daily to "do what was best" for her baby. The agency even went as far as calling her parents at home to try to enlist their help in persuading Brandy to give up her daughter.

Around two weeks after the birth of her daughter, still very ill and dealing with the affects of her medications, Brandy was persuaded by the agency to "come on down" and they would aid her in getting her baby added to her insurance. Neonatal care costs $1000 a day on average and Brandy was going to need help. Once in the agency's office, she was given the "sign here and here" treatment and, thinking that these people were actually helping her, Brandy signed. Unfortunately, one of the forms she signed was a document allowing an un-named couple to obtain information on her daughter. Brandy would only come to realize this fact in the days after her visit.

Brandy was frantic to stop the wheels set in motion and keep her daughter. She was still very sick and now - very scared. She made phone calls to plead with the agency to give her some kind of information about what was going on. Finally she decided to go down in person and confront them. Once there, she found herself alone in a room - still in a cloud of confusion, despair and medication - with an agency "counselor." This person proceeded to wage a kind of "psychological warfare" against Brandy, assuring her that she couldn't really take proper care of her daughter and giving her up would be the best thing. Before she realized what was happening, Brandy signed her daughter away. Once she had regained her health and realized exactly what had been done to her, she proceeded to call lawyers for help. The "provisions" which had been agreed to prior to Brandy signing (pictures, reports of her child's progress by the adoptive family) were being denied.

But there was one major problem.

The Adoption Center of Kansas at the time was owned by Judge Richard Macias and many in the legal field told her they couldn't take the case because of a "conflict of interest."

Others told her there was nothing she could do. She tried to enlist the help of Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall but was denied assistance because, according to Brandy, her state residence was "in dispute" - even after she had submitted proof. Brandy was forced to go to court without legal representation and lost. This all took place six months before Tarin's nightmare.

Brandy has since filed her grievance with the HR 1503. The UN committee's report, dated Jan. 6, 2003 states in the Executive Summary that one of the issues being focused on "

" (underline mine)

Article IV - A, page 110 goes on to say:

"During the course of 2002, the Special Rapporteur received many complaints relating to allegedly fraudulent adoption practices. Where such practices have the effect that the child becomes the object of a commercial transaction, the Special Rapporteur, like his predecessor, considers that such cases fall within the "sale" element of his mandate. The Special Rapporteur was shocked to learn of the plethora of human rights abuses which appear to permeate the adoption systems of many countries. The Special Rapporteur considers that the best environment for most children to grow up in is within a family, and the adoption by a parent or parents of a child who does not have a family able to look after him or her is a commendable and noble action. Regrettably, in many cases the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing needy parents with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenue each year, seeking babies for adoption and charging prospective parents enormous fees to process the paperwork. The problems surrounding many intercountry adoptions, in which children are taken from poor families in undeveloped countries and given to parents in developed countries, have become quite well known, but the Special Rapporteur was alarmed to hear of certain practices also allegedly occurring within developed countries, including the use of fraud and coercion to persuade single mothers to give up their children."

As I stated before, this situation deserves not only our attention, but that of our leaders. These and other stories - some not as bad and some horrific - are out there and are being scrutinized by the committee.

The only reason I introduce the Gladney Center into this story is due to its close ties to the Bush family. Many adoption victims do not hold much hope for the outcome of this "investigation" because the Bush administration has shown a reluctance to confront any wrong doing by corporations they have ties to. Remember Enron?

As one adoption victim's advocate told me, "Gladney is just the tip of the iceberg." And I have found that to be true. The business of adoption has become a multi-billion dollar industry and deserves to be scrutinized, using these stories and the many others like them as a basis. There are many victims who have set up websites and organizations in order to fight this misuse of what should be a healthy and needed service.

Adoption, as a practice, may have been exclusively "pastels and teddy bears" at one time. Unfortunately it has become big business - with all the abuses that go along with big business. Like Enron. We've all seen how innocent and trusting people have been hurt for life in that business - and that was just so somebody could make a fortune. Now we're talking about children.