When You Wish Upon A Star: An Adoption Story

"Knowing and in Reckless Disregard of the Fact."

The following excerpts are from public documents that set the stage for this story. These excerpts are mostly self-explanatory. Karen Pace, the INS special investigator in charge of gathering the evidence for this case, states that the defendants in this case are Mario Reyes, Arlene Lieberman and Arlene Reingold, "together with others." Some of these others are named, but some remain unnamed. My wife, Sara, and myself may be viewed by some as potential "others" since we are allegedly the only ones in this case who went to Mexico and brought our daughter into the US without legal status. The key phrase here is "knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact." While we were "knowing" in the sense that we brought her into the US without legal status, we definitely were not in "reckless disregard of the fact" of anything as we made every reasonable effort to follow the applicable laws and procedures as both the so-called adoption professionals we employed and Mrs. Troupe of the INS had explained them. It was only when our efforts to follow procedures were thwarted and we were faced with the responsibility of caring for a sick child that we followed the course outlined in this story. Once we had our daughter home and to a doctor, then we made every effort to find a way to legally correct her status and bring the adoption criminals to justice.

Could this means the "others" must include Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach of Adoption Choice in Wisconsin? Ever since we first spoke with Judith Kramer, Christina Leonard and Linda Moody of the New York State Attorney General's office in May of 1998, I have tried to find out which other families were victims of Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach, so that we could seek justice against them together. Until Mario Reyes pleaded guilty on Friday, October 1, 1999, the only answer offered me was that the investigation was ongoing. At the end of 1999, it became apparent that Adoption Choice would not be prosecuted. As the reader will learn, whether Adoption Choice was a victim of the Arlenes and Mario Reyes, as claimed, or was a willing co-conspirator became irrelevant. The fact remains that they lied to us and withheld information from us every step of the way. The fact remains that they lied about and covered up the termination of their relationship with the Arlenes. The fact remains that they kept their fee. The fact remains that Melinda Randa was the one who presented us with the availability of the child we now call our daughter. The fact remains that they abandoned us with a sick child and incomplete documentation in Mexico. These facts are damning if not incriminating. It most certainly appears to me that Adoption Choice was "knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact." I know of one other Long Island family involved in this case, the Ritter family, which used Adoption Choice. Elyse Ritter has told me that it was Adoption Choice who referred her to the Arlenes. The reader will be presented with all the facts and be able to draw his or her own conclusion.

"UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF."

"May 26, 1999"

"EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, SS (sworn statement):"

"KAREN PACE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization service ("INS"), duly appointed according to law and acting as such."

"Upon information and belief, in or about and between 1990 and May 1999, those dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants MARIO REYES, ARLENE LIEBERMAN and ARLENE REINGOLD, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to (a) encourage and induce aliens to come to, enter and reside in the United States, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry or residence is or will be in violation of the law; (b) transport aliens within the United States, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that the aliens had come to, entered and remained in the United States in violation of law, in furtherance of such violation of law; and (c) conceal, harbor and shield from detection aliens, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that the aliens had come to, entered and resided in the United States in violation of law.
(Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324 (a) (1))."

"Upon information and belief, in or about and between 1990 and may 1999, those dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants MARIO REYES, ARLENE LIEBERMAN AND ARLENE REINGOLD, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire (a) to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises and, for the purpose of executing said scheme and artifice, place in any post office matters and things to be delivered by the Postal Service and cause matters and things to be delivered by mail and private and commercial interstate carriers according to the direction thereon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341; and (b) to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money by fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises and, for the purpose of executing said scheme and artifice, transmit and cause to be transmitted signs, signals and sounds by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 1343.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)"

This is how the INS laid out their case against the above named defendants for probable cause for their arrests and obtaining search warrants. The two following paragraphs described the probable cause for seizure of the three computers at the homes of the two Arlenes as evidence and instumentalities in the crimes these people committed. Then Karen Pace's deposition continued:

"As set forth below, the defendants organized an adoption ring for pecuniary gain that had as its principal purpose the placement of Mexican infants who had been illegally smuggled into the United States into the homes of unsuspecting adoptive parents within the Eastern District of New York. As part of this scheme, the defendants made false assurances to the adoptive parents about the legality of the adoption and immigration procedures and the health of the children and exacted large payments from the adoptive parents for the adoptions. Once the children were delivered to the adoptive parents - often within a matter of days from when the parents first agreed to adopt - the parents came to realize that the children had no immigration status in the United States and, in some cases, had serious, unanticipated health and other problems."

In the next section of her deposition, entitled "I. Your Deponent's Qualifications and Sources of Information," Karen Pace went on to give just that. Next we had:

"II. The Roles of the Defendants"

"4. The defendant MARIO REYES (hereafter "REYES") is a lawyer licensed to practice law in Mexico, with dual Mexican and United States citizenship. REYES currently lives in Douglas, Arizona and, during the period of the conspiracies charged in this affidavit, maintained a law office in a Mexican border town named Agua Prieta, which abuts Douglas, Arizona. For years, REYES's law practice has been devoted to arranging U.S. adoptions of Mexican children. According to information obtained from Mexican authorities or otherwise learned during the course of Your Deponent's investigation, REYES is responsible for arranging at least 17 such adoptions within the past several years alone. All of these children are illegally present in the United States and much of the paperwork that REYES submitted in connection with the Mexican adoption proceedings is fraudulent."

"5. Since in or about 1990, the defendants ARLENE LIEBERMAN (hereafter "LIBERMAN") and ARLENE REINGOLD (hereafter "REINGOLD") have run an adoption business in Long Island under several different names, including Stork International, Adoption Choice, Inc. and International Adoption Consultants. LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD have assisted in over 500 international adoptions. LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD for years have lived in neighboring homes on Blackpine Drive in Medford, Long Island. Although barred by New York State from having anything to do with placing children for adoption, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD have peddled REYES's services to prospective adoptive parents within the Long Island area and have directly participated in placing illegal-alien children into Long Island households. In our interviews, many of the parents referred to LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD simply as "the Arlenes," and occasionally I follow that convention in this Affidavit, especially when the parents could not distinguish whether LIEBERMAN or REINGOLD made a certain statement."

Section III of Ms. Pace's deposition detailed the laws and procedures regarding foreign adoptions. Then she continued as follows:

"IV. The Many Adoption Businesses of LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD"

"10. The information contained in this section is based on a review of various documents on file with the New York State Department of Social Services ("the Department"), or some other state agency, unless otherwise indicated. The Department regulates adoption agencies, which must be licensed by the State to place children for adoption, as well as any entity seeking to provide adoption-related services within New York State."

"11. In 1990, Stork International was incorporated as a not-for-profit New York corporation with the purpose of acting as an international adoption information and referral agency (not a licensed adoption agency). Documents on file with the Department indicate that LIEBERMAN was Stork's Vice-President and REINGOLD was Stork's Secretary."

"12. Following repeated complaints to the Department concerning Stork International, including complaints that Stork was acting as an adoption agency (rather than just a referral agency) and was making various fraudulent representations, the Department in 1993 ordered Stork International to cease providing any and all adoption-related services."

"13. Documents on file with the Department indicate that in September 1992, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD resigned as officers of Stork International, and, in October of 1992, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD incorporated a new not-for-profit New York corporation under the name "Adoption Choice, Inc." The stated purpose for which Adoption Choice was formed was to acquaint parents with the rules concerning international adoptions. Adoption Choice was not licensed as an agency authorized to place children."

"14. In June 1993, the Department sent a letter to LEIBERMAN (sic) emphasizing that it was illegal for Adoption Choice "in any way [to hold] yourself out as an entity which can arrange the placement of children for adoption." In December 1993, LIEBERMAN forwarded a letter to the Department in which LIEBERMAN acknowledged the Department's "opinion that referring clients to specific attorneys and acting as a 'liason' (sic) between attorney and client would be illegal as we are not set up as a child placing (sic) agency."

"15. In or about 1994, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD applied to the Department for a license for Adoption Choice to act as an adoption agency. The Department denied the application in January 1995. The Department cited as the principal reason for the denial that LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD had ignored the Department's admonitions not to hold themselves out as able to arrange the placement of children for adoption. The evidence relied on by the Department included Adoption Choice newspaper advertisements offering children for adoption, and a tape-recorded meeting with prospective parents at which REINGOLD and LIEBERMAN, on behalf of Adoption Choice, and representatives of Stork International met with prospective adoptive parents and said they were able to locate children for adoption through attorney contacts in various countries."

"16. After several failed attempts to reverse the Department's denial of a license to Adoption Choice, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD joined in a proposal to the Department in or about January 1996 under which Adoption Choice would dissolve and LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD would form a new organization with the sole purpose of providing support services to a Wisconsin adoption agency named Adoption Choice of Wisconsin, Inc. Pursuant to this arrangement, in February 1996, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD incorporated a not-for-profit New York corporation named "International Adoption Consultants" (hereafter "IAC"). The Department was provided with a copy of an executed agreement between IAC and the Wisconsin agency, which was intended to delineate the services that IAC would be allowed to perform. (A January, 24, 1996 letter to the Department from LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD assures the Department that they will adhere to the terms set forth in the agreement between IAC and the Wisconsin agency). The agreement, dated February 1, 1996 and bearing signatures in the names of LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD, states that the Wisconsin agency will act as the child placement agency, and IAC will not "place out children for adoption or charge a placement fee." The agreement further states that IAC will only provide information about adoption and immigration procedures and assist in the completion of required documentation, and will not "[h]old itself out as an entity which can arrange the placement of children for the purpose of adoption," "[i]indicate to prospective parents that they can assist them in locating a child for the purpose of adoption," or "[c]ommunicate directly with attorneys or agencies in a foreign country on behalf of adoptive parents."

"17. Although in 1996 LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD represented to the Department that they would have nothing to do with placing children for adoption, the information contained in this Affidavit makes clear that LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD continued thereafter to place children, in some cases explicitly cutting out the Wisconsin agency. Several parents have explained that they initiated the process to adopt a foreign child through LIEBERMAN, REINGOLD and the Wisconsin agency; however, once the process was underway, LIEBERMAN and/or REINGOLD told the parents that a Mexican child was available through a Mexican attorney (REYES), and that the Mexican adoption would have nothing to do with the Wisconsin agency. In some cases, LIEBERMAN told the prospective parents that they should make up an excuse to get their money back from the Wisconsin agency and that they should not tell the Wisconsin agency about the Mexican adoption. LIEBERMAN, REINGOLD and REYES then arranged for a Mexican child to be placed in these parents' homes."

"18. A letter on file with the Department indicates that in July 1997, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD stopped working with the Wisconsin agency, but, as discussed below, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD continued to place children for adoption through REYES after July 1997."

"19. In sum, using an array of corporate entities and job descriptions, and although barred by the State from placing children or communicating with foreign attorneys regarding adoptions, LIEBERMAN and REINGOLD continued throughout the 1990s to deal directly with a Mexican attorney (REYES) and to escort Mexican infants to the adoptive parents in New York, all the while assuring parents that everything they and REYES were doing was perfectly legal."

"20. In the remainder of this Affidavit, I discuss in detail the nature of the relationship between the adoptive parents, LIEBERMAN, REINGOLD and REYES - and how together the defendants committed a series of violations of federal law."

Thank you Agent Pace, but it is time to tell our story in our words. I want to thank the reader for bearing with me and this Affidavit is available in its entirety as part of the public record of this case. Including this much of Karen Pace's deposition in this introduction is important in setting the stage for our story.

I ask the reader to pay careful attention to items 16, 17 and 18 above. Although mention is made of the relationship that existed between the Arlenes and Adoption Choice of Wisconsin, no mention is made of this agency's principals, Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach and their association with the criminal activities of the Arlenes and Mario Reyes. Again, despite evidence we have submitted regarding this association and the heroic efforts of the authorities in prosecuting the Arlenes and Mario Reyes, prosecution of Adoption Choice and Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach does not occur. Karen Pace's deposition leads one to believe that we are not alone in using the Wisconsin agency for our adoption, although several parents terminated their contract with this agency at the urgings of Arlene Lieberman. It bears repeating that except for the Ritter family where the typical scenario of the Arlenes taking clients away from Adoption Choice was reversed and Adoption Choice steered Elyse Ritter into the hands of the Arlenes, all other families either were not involved with Adoption Choice or stopped working with them at the urgings of the Arlenes. I remind the reader again, that in our case, Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach participated in the perpetration of a string of lies, deception, deceit and fraud beginning in June 1995 and continuing until our last contact with them in January 1998. The evidence we submitted indicates this Wisconsin agency was involved with the criminals at least during this time frame in contradiction of the statements in Ms. Pace's Affidavit above. The Abate family of Long Island, which used Adoption Choice and the Arlenes for their first adoption from Guatemala, recall Jill Gerlach scolding them for contacting the agency and going over the heads of the Arlenes in the fall of 1997. This is well after Karen Pace's date of July 1997 for the termination of the relationship with the Arlenes by Adoption Choice. Ms. Pace does recognize later in her Affidavit, that at least in our case, the Wisconsin agency was affiliated with the Arlenes as far back as June 1995. I have no reason to believe that these two women were any more truthful with the federal authorities than they were with us. Based on their investigation and on the evidence submitted, the federal authorities chose not to prosecute Adoption Choice in this case. We have been left no other choice but to tell the truth about what happened in our case publicly and let the public draw their own conclusions about the guilt of Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach and to be warned about using them or their agency for an adoption.

The Kruchkows Choose Adoption Choice

Sara and I were married in September of 1992. At the time, Sara was 41 years old and I was 39 years old. Over the next year when the discussions turned to growing a family, we agreed to rule out trying to have biological children for several reasons. We both had full time jobs and careers that would make it difficult to take the time off necessary to attend to the needs of a newborn. Sara's age would automatically make any pregnancy a high risk one, which we preferred to avoid. Our ages made us both feel that the youngest child we could parent the way we would like would be a toddler, in fairness to both the child and ourselves. Fertility was never an issue, as neither of us had any burning desire to promulgate our genetic lineage. Two of Sara's brother's four children were by adoption, which gave her a favorable view of adoption. I certainly felt that there were enough children in the world needing a home and family that it wasn't necessary to make our own biological child. We both felt that we were neither emotionally nor financially equipped to handle the adoption of a special needs child. We also felt that the foster care system in the US was so bad that it more often than not left the older children available for adoption with more psychological problems than we were ready to handle. We were both scared by the stories in the media about domestic adoptions where, years later, a biological parent would appear and want the adopted child back. The media made it appear that the courts favored the rights of the biological parents over the adoptive parents, regardless of what benefited the child and drove us to look at international adoption instead of domestic adoption. I've come to view the media as a double-edged sword. I'm a big supporter of a free press yet the sensationalist, distorted reporting of a ratings driven mass media drove our choice as to how and where to adopt and drove my decision to detail our story in my own words rather than through a reporter. I have learned that domestic adoptions do work and that the sensationalist stories that the media has emphasized so much are rare exceptions.

We began to seriously research international adoption sometime in early 1994. Over the following year and a half, we went to an orientation meeting held by a well-known and respected New York City agency. We scheduled and paid for an initial consultation and were very put-off by their attitude and questions. Sara was bristling when we were asked if we knew how it felt to be adopted. She felt the question was ridiculous, as only an adopted person would be capable of answering that affirmatively. We agreed that we weren't cut out to handle the attitude coming from the representatives of this particular agency.

We also began to discuss where we would adopt. It had to be a country that did not require a lengthy stay there for both of us as the jeopardy to our jobs and the financial strain of loss of income would quickly end our adoption plans. We are of middle class New York Jewish heritage. David's family is Eastern European (Ashkenazic) on both sides and Sara's is Eastern European (Ashkenazic) on her dad's side and Mediterranean (Sephardic) on her mom's. Sara would not have felt comfortable parenting an Asian child and neither of us wanted to deal with the social issues of being white parents of an adopted black child, so we looked in the direction of Eastern Europe and Latin America. Ultimately, we ruled out Eastern Europe because of the prevalence of medical problems as well as the psychological problems many of the children coming out of long periods of institutionalization experienced. Additionally, the costs and travel times as well as the waiting time for Eastern European adoptions to be completed seemed high. Sara felt she would be comfortable parenting a Latin American child as she has a dark enough complexion to pass as Hispanic. My degree in Anthropology focused on the peoples, cultures and prehistory of the Western Hemisphere, so I had no objections and felt that I could help our child stay connected with its culture and heritage. We both were admirers of Native American cultures, history and art, especially that of the American Southwest.

After that first agency meeting, we went to an orientation meeting of the Northern New Jersey Chapter of the Latin American Parents Association (LAPA). Although a bit far from home, we went to them because the local New York City chapter of LAPA was barely active at the time. There we got to meet adoptive families, see photos, learn about the international adoption process and see the benefits and activities a support group like this can provide. While not an agency, LAPA can point you to a reputable one or steer you away from a disreputable one based on the experiences of its members. Its members could also help guide you through an independent adoption if you wanted to avoid the additional expense and paperwork of an agency adoption. They could put you in touch with attorneys and facilitators with whom they had contact in foreign countries, and let you know where and when these sources had children available for adoption. In fact, just a few days after this initial meeting, we received a call from the woman who ran this meeting asking us if we were "paper ready,'" meaning we had met all the INS pre-adoption requirements, as they knew of a child in Guatemala available immediately. We said we hadn't begun the necessary paperwork yet as we were still trying to decide whether or not to actually commit to adopting. We thanked this woman for considering us and said we'd let her know if we decided to adopt using LAPA's sources. Where the New York City agency seemed to want to tell us that we didn't fit their mold for adoptive parents, the LAPA group seemed overzealous and overanxious to us. It was too much, too soon and seemed too good to be true. We decided that this might not be the best route for us either. As it turned out, not staying with LAPA may have been one of our biggest mistakes. Years later, I learned that this particular woman who ran this meeting and made the phone call to us did not last long in her position with LAPA because she began to blur the lines between acting as a support group and acting as an adoption agency.

We began to expand our research into international adoption. I had recently added a modem to my PC at home and began to haphazardly explore the vast unorganized wasteland known as the Internet. At the time, there was very limited availability of information on adoption on the net and my skills at web surfing were akin to a kid riding a bike with training wheels. We began to send away for information to any adoption agency with a Latin American program within 400 miles of home. We also began to share our plans and experiences with friends, relatives and co-workers, thinking some old-fashioned networking may point to the right road to travel for our adoption.

This is where things began to get confusing. From the friends, relatives and co-workers, we must have heard every possible negative and positive remark imaginable. Some of the things we heard included:

"Why don't you just make your own kid?'"

"Why would you want a child whose own mother didn't want to keep it?"

"It's too bad you can't have children on your own."

"How much does it cost to get a child?'

"What kind of child are you going to pick out?"

"Why would you want someone else's problem?"

"What if there's something wrong with the baby?"

"Why don't you adopt a white baby?"

"Why would someone give up her own baby?"

"God will bless you for doing this!"

"What a lucky child!"

"What are you going to change the name to?"

I know the adoptive and prospective adoptive parents reading this are smiling and wincing knowingly at these questions and comments. Whether well meaning, curious, ignorant or malicious, these remarks try our patience. The personally intrusive questions really don't deserve answers other than sarcastic and flippant ones. The ignorant ones need to be addressed educationally and patiently. The malicious ones need a dose of their own medicine and then some education. The comments that the child will be lucky and that God will reward us for our selfless humanitarianism are off the mark. Every adoptive parent knows they are blessed with the gift of a child, not the other way around. The adoptive family is the lucky one. I think if we were the selfless humanitarians some people make us out to be, we'd have a house full of foster kids or special needs kids or the like. Adoptive parents are not saints. When you have a biological child, you more or less have to take whatever the genetic roll of the dice gives you, although new genetic technologies may eventually change that. In an adoption, depending on the agency and program, you can pick and choose your child up to a point, especially with the adoption of an older child. I feel that there is a selfish element to all adoptions in that the adoptive family has a want and need for a child and goes out to get a child to fill that desire. I do not wish to explore the semantic and ethical debates that weave through adoption groups about "shopping" for a child or about whether prospective adoptive parents should be allowed to express preferences or exercise varying degrees of choice. I think most people who pay substantial professional fees for a service want and deserve some input as to what results the service will deliver.

My boss introduced me to a couple who had just completed an adoption and who was a member of the Adoptive Parents Committee (APC). In late 1994, we went to one of their meetings at the Fashion Institute in New York City. They seemed to be a melting pot for all kinds of support, workshops and information about all types of adoptions. We attended a workshop, were impressed with the resources APC had, signed up and paid the miniscule dues. After that initial session, we were supposed to be scheduled for a workshop in the home of an adoptive parent. Months passed and this was never scheduled. We brought it up and received an apology and were told we would be scheduled for the next workshop. Again this never materialized. While APC had a wealth of information and resources, they sorely lacked organizational and follow up skills. During the next six months, we attended approximately 4 out of six of their monthly meetings and workshops, although we were never contacted to attend that important one in the home of an adoptive family. At the meetings and workshops, politics, both internal along with pro-adoption state and national abounded. Adoption attorneys handed out business cards. Speakers and social workers contradicted each other. Children were held up as if they were prizes won in bureaucratic battles. Confusion also reigned. We were able to ask the same questions repeatedly and never get agreement or the same answers twice. Clearly adoption was a volatile field. International adoptions were even more confusing. It was bad enough that each state and each adoption agency had its own set of rules and requirements. It was bad enough that the federal authorities had to check you out as much as they'd check out anyone given top secret security clearance even though any street junkie could have a baby and leave it in a dumpster. The kicker was that you also had to satisfy the requirements of the government in the country where you were adopting. This is where the information got most confusing, as foreign governments were prone to change their rules in mid-game. Someone who successfully adopted from country X four months ago could describe a different process than someone who completed his or her adoption two weeks ago from the same country. Both would be correct in their times, but to us it was just mass confusion. We came away from APC more attuned to the politics of adoption with a general sense of the required bureaucratic processes and totally confused about specific details of these processes. We gave up on them after they failed to schedule us for that in-home workshop a second time. Sometimes it's good to be invisible and fall through the cracks, but this time it wasn't.

One thing that became apparent to me is that the ranks of prospective adoptive parents were filled with those whose fertility problems drove them to be desperate for a child. Since fertility was not an issue with us, we often felt out of place in the adoption community. It was like we were people without cancer who wanted to make use of the resources of a Laetrile clinic. It was an issue we brought up with agency and support group people more than once. I think it was around this time that I saw that adoption could be viewed as an industry that had the potential of feeding on and profiting from the desperation of people to have children. Promise desperate people that you have the means to end their desperation and these people will do whatever you want and pay as much as they can to grab that carrot that promises to end their suffering. Interestingly enough, five years later, the judge in our case, Judge Mishler, likened the way the operation of Reyes and the Arlenes victimized vulnerable infertile couples desperate for adoption to the "lonely hearts'" fraud schemes that targets elderly women. At this point my attitude about adopting a child was that I could basically take it or leave it. I felt the bureaucratic hassle may not be worth it but Sara's desire to parent was enough to drive us both to continue.

In our years together, Sara and I have developed our roles as most couples do. Some things she handles, some fall on my shoulders and some are shared more or less equally. Unbeknownst to me, Sara had re-established contact with a childhood girlfriend who just so happened to have adopted a child in Guatemala recently. Somewhere in late spring of 1995, Sara asked me if she should call the people her friend used for her adoption from Guatemala. I believe I said, "Why not," as Sara convinced me we had nothing to lose. Sara made the phone calls. It seems her friend had used an outfit named Stork Adoptions, who later became Adoption Choice and eventually were renamed again as International Adoption Consultants, although this seems to have occurred sooner than Agent Pace's Affidavit indicates. They were presented as the local contacts and consultants for Adoption Choice, Inc. of Milwaukee, WI.

Two years of research, the New York agency meeting, the experience with LAPA, the APC meetings and now this were the signposts that pointed to the Arlenes, Adoption Choice and Mario Reyes. We thought we had done enough homework, but that proved to be our biggest mistake.

In June 1995, we were invited to attend a meeting at a community recreation center in Medford, Long Island. Present at this meeting was Melinda Randa of Adoption Choice, Arlene Lieberman, Arlene Reingold and Judy Noonan from International Adoption Consultants, two social workers, an adoptive mother with her child (one of the parents in Agent Pace's deposition, who just so happened to be Sharon Clarke with her daughter from Guatemala, Nicole), a prospective adoptive mother with her mother and ourselves. This was the first and last time we saw Judy Noonan, who may have actually been representing Stork. The purpose of this meeting was for us to learn about Adoption Choice's international adoption programs and for Adoption Choice to select a social worker to conduct homestudies in this area. At this meeting we expressed our preference for working with an agency licensed in New York State and were assured by Ms. Randa that her agency was in the process of obtaining that license. More than two years later, it was apparent that Adoption Choice was not going to be licensed in New York and that this was the first in an endless string of lies and deceptions that we continued to learn more about with each passing day. At a later date, Adoption Choice told another victim in this case, Elyse Ritter, that they were licensed in New York.

We were made to feel comfortable at this meeting. Refreshments were served. Information sheets were handed out. The costs and procedures for adoption programs from different counties were discussed and outlined on these sheets. Checklists of necessary documents were provided. Melinda Randa struck us as an established professional who knew her business and had the gentle mannerisms of a local librarian. The Arlenes struck us as friendly, helpful neighbors who you wouldn't hesitate to ask to watch your kids for an afternoon or take in your mail and feed your cat while you went on vacation. Our questions were answered and our concerns were addressed. We were treated as equals with respect and dignity. Ms. Randa and the Arlenes certainly didn't seem like the kind of people who would lie, commit fraud, broker babies, smuggle children and wreak financial and emotional havoc on dozens of families. As we were leaving this meeting, Arlene Lieberman took the opportunity to address our obvious concerns by telling us that one of the reasons she was doing this was that she had been burned in the past and wanted to help others to avoid that fate. As it turned out, Arlene Lieberman, like most good con artists, was a master of ironic statements.

After several weeks of consideration, we felt comfortable enough with Adoption Choice to select them as the agency we would use for adopting a toddler using their program in Mexico. We chose Mexico because it was close, costs were reasonable, and we were told that we could complete everything and spend as little as one day in Mexico. In September, we sent our application to Milwaukee along with the agency fee of $4,500, in full, as this allowed the agency to waive certain other fees. We proceeded to have our homestudy done, fulfill all the New York State, INS, agency, medical and all other requirements made by the various bureaucracies involved. We were not "paper ready" in time to take advantage of an offered referral after Thanksgiving that the Arlenes told us the lawyer in Mexico, Mario Reyes, wanted to place as a Christmas present to the child and adoptive family. This child was a boy and we had expressed a preference for a girl. At some later date, we asked about this boy and the Arlenes did show us pictures of him with his adoptive family. Two federal government shutdowns caused long delays in the processing of our fingerprints by the FBI, but by April 1996, all our paperwork was complete and we waited for a referral. Mario Reyes' fee was set at $16,000, half upon acceptance of a referral and half upon completion of the adoption. The Arlenes told us that his fee had escalated over the years as he had become greedy, but his heart was in it for the children. This was the beginning of what turned into years of waiting, and an ongoing legal nightmare that continues with an end so far off, it's difficult to picture.

The Libertos Chose Adoption Choice

We met the Libertos in person along with their daughter Gabby on March 7, 1999, thanks to my urgings and the help of Christina Leonard (who has since entered private practice) and Linda Moody of the New York State Attorney General's Office. In a case where it is not always clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, these women from the New York State Attorney General's office stand out as true heroines. Neither Gabby's birthmother nor we could ask for a nicer adoptive couple and family for this child. I include us in this comment because Gabby was originally supposed to become our daughter. We found out later that Gabby wasn't the only child involved in the intertwining of the Libertos story with ours.

Rosalie and John Liberto were married at the tender ages of 21 and 22, respectively on May 15, 1966. In 1978 they adopted their oldest daughter from Columbia using the services of an adoption agency on Long Island. The process was smooth and relatively easy in those days and so they repeated the process with the same agency with the adoption of a second girl from Columbia in 1982. They wanted more children but decided to wait until their financial and housing situation would make it affordable as they were in a small retail business, which always carries a degree of financial uncertainty. By the summer of 1996, they decided that it was "now or never," as far as adopting another child or two, as they were now in their early 50's.

When they attempted to contact the agency they used to adopt their two daughters, they discovered that it was gone. Rosalie decided to call directory assistance and checked the local paper, The Yankee Trader. Both sources led her to International Adoption Consultants and Arlene Lieberman and Arlene Reingold. When contacted, the Arlenes informed the Libertos that they were the local contacts for and consultants to Adoption Choice in Milwaukee, WI. In short order, the different Latin American programs were described and the Libertos needs and wants were determined. Because of their age, they expressed a preference for an older child, post toddler, and would even consider two children, preferably siblings. This led the Arlenes, Adoption Choice and the Libertos to agree that Mexico and Mario Reyes would be the best source for them.

The Libertos had previous experience with international adoptions and had no problems with their agency. They had no reason to question anything Melinda Randa, Jill Gerlach, the Arlenes or Mario Reyes would tell them and every reason to trust in their professional experience. They did not even know that some of the rules and requirements for international adoptions had changed since they adopted their older girls. They certainly did not know that the adoption professionals they hired and contracted were criminals who would lie to them, cheat them, steal their money, defraud them, break their hearts and cause them untold emotional pain and suffering as they would to us and many other families. Neither the Libertos nor we knew that the State of New York forbade the Arlenes to act as an adoption agency and that is why they were represented and set up as consultants to Adoption Choice.

Thus began the Libertos paper chase and wait for a referral. As it turned out, their wait for their first referral would be short compared to ours.

Elizabeth Garcia Villalobos

Sara felt that the mountain of paperwork, all the bureaucracies we had to deal with and all the requirements we had to fulfill was like going on a treasure hunt with the ultimate prize at the end being a child. Satisfying the requirements of the agency, the state, the US government and the foreign government as well as having all documents translated, notarized, and certified and apostilized makes standing on line at the DMV seem like a day in the park.

In May 1996, Adoption Choice, through International Adoption Consultants, informed us of the availability of a child named Elizabeth. We received a photograph, power of attorney letter, medical report and letter of assignment. At the same time, Adoption Choice sent us a contract to sign, eleven months after our initial meeting and eight months after we submitted our application and paid them their fee. Every page except the first of this contract was dated September 1995. On the first page, the date was apparently changed to May 1996, as the date is in a different typeface. When we questioned the late disclosure of this contract, Ms. Jill Gerlach, Ms. Randa's partner and head of Adoption Choice's international programs, told us that we did not have to sign anything and could forget the whole thing. We were quite taken aback by Ms. Gerlach's defensiveness when asked a valid question. We felt we had not invested three years of time, energy and paperwork in the process to just forget the whole thing, so we reluctantly signed the contract under duress. After I reviewed Agent Pace's Affidavit as included in the introduction, I suspected that this late disclosure of the contract and the altering of dates on it may have had to do with the finalization of the agreement between Adoption Choice and the Arlenes, as well as the final incorporation of International Adoption Consultants.

Adoption Choice made a very big deal about this child. Arlene Lieberman told us that she looked like a "gringo" and her pictures showed her to be frail and waifish with spindly legs. She was three and a half and had an older sister who was already in school. The Arlenes told us that the grandmother, who had legal custody of these children, put the younger child up for adoption because she could not afford to care for both of them and felt the younger child would adjust to the change easier than the older one. They went on to tell us that the grandmother may put the older sister up for adoption later if Elizabeth flourished in her new home. We had copies and enlargements made of the photos, carried and displayed them everywhere and sent copies to friends and family. We bonded easily with this child from only her picture as anyone ever involved in the process of an international adoption will tell you will usually happen. Sara was ready to paint the room we had set aside for our new arrival and buy furniture but I was able to convince her to wait until our adoption of this child was a sure thing. She was in the custody of her maternal grandmother because her parents were in a prison in Mexico for drug trafficking. Adoption Choice made quite an issue over the fact that if the parents were selling drugs, then they probably were using them as well and that this child may have undetected medical issues relating to the parent's drug use, especially if the mother was using drugs while pregnant. The drugs mentioned were marijuana and possibly cocaine. They insisted we consult a pediatrician before accepting her referral and once we did accept her referral, they had us sign a waiver of liability should the child prove to have problems relating to parental drug use. Considering the fact that the Arlenes have placed children who were represented as healthy and were proven unhealthy, perhaps Adoption Choice has had similar problems and had good reason to be overprotective and have us sign a waiver.

As I have already mentioned, the lawyer in Mexico the agency contracted with is Mario Reyes of Douglas, Arizona. We had been told he practiced in both Mexico and Arizona. We paid him the first half of his fee, $8,000, with a bank check and the child was allegedly placed in foster care with his secretary, pending court proceedings in Mexico. We were told that Mario Reyes' wife was a child psychologist who regularly visited Elizabeth and was preparing her for her new life with us. Since we had sent pictures of our home and ourselves to the agency, we envisioned Elizabeth being shown these and being told about her new home here and us. We pictured her getting excited and bonding with our photos just as we bonded with hers, while Mario's wife taught her some rudimentary English. Hindsight makes us look like foolishly stupid idiots, as we learned much later that Mario's wife knows little English. In October 1996, we were told that at her final court appearance in Mexico, Elizabeth's legal guardian, her maternal grandmother, allegedly decided she couldn't go through with giving her up. Needless to say, we were devastated and heartbroken more for a child who was now returning to a life of squalor and poverty than for ourselves. At this time Mr. Reyes did offer, through the Arlenes, to return the $8,000 we paid him or try his best to find us another child as soon as possible. Sara now believes a refund would not have happened had we decided to accept the offer. We chose the latter.

An interesting piece of the puzzle was revealed to me in December 2001. I was told that Mario Reyes and his wife flew to New York in July 1996, with a two day old boy for one of the families in our case. They were met at La Guardia airport by the family and the Arlenes and were in town for several days. Since we were waiting for Elizabeth at this time and thought that everything was going smoothly and legally, I'm almost disappointed that we were not invited to meet Mario Reyes at the time. I was also told that his wife's English was quite good, so once again the truth is elusive. Of course, since he and his wife were here smuggling a child to a family, it is understandable that we were not invited to meet them. It is also understandable that his wife would have a better command of English then rather than later, because if she had good English later, she might also have faced criminal charges along with her husband. Since much of the story about Elizabeth was a fabrication, it was also not to the advantage of either Reyes or the Arlenes to have us meet him then.

Elizabeth's Sister Danitza

As coincidence would have it, in August of 1996, the Libertos were offered the referral of a young girl named Danitza. They were told she was in the custody of her maternal grandmother and had a younger sister who may be put up for adoption if Danitza was shown to be adapting and flourishing with her new American family. Eventually they were told that the younger sister was being adopted by a couple in Queens, us. Thus began the string of events that linked our story to that of the Libertos without either family knowing it at the time. Certainly the Arlenes never counted on our two families sharing our stories. While this was the start of the long nightmare for both the Libertos and us, it was also the start of the series of lies and deception that would ultimately help bring the Arlenes and Mario Reyes to justice.

Sometime in September 1996, the Libertos, who had always expressed a willingness and desire to adopt two more children, preferably siblings, were offered both Danitza and Elizabeth. When Rosalie asked what happened with Elizabeth and the couple in Queens, the Arlenes told her that we changed our minds and really wanted a younger child. This would be the first attempt by the Arlenes at brokering a child referred to us to the Libertos. The picture in September 1996 is that we are waiting for Elizabeth while the Libertos wait for both Elizabeth and Danitza. Remember both the Libertos and us were working through Adoption Choice at this time. It would be very hard to believe that Adoption Choice had no knowledge that Elizabeth was referred to two different families simultaneously.

At approximately the same time we were told that the grandmother had a last minute change of heart in giving Elizabeth up for adoption, the Libertos were told the same of the grandmother and both Elizabeth and Danitza. It remains to be seen how much of this tale we were told is true and how much is a lie. Are Danitza and Elizabeth living in abject poverty with their maternal grandmother or have they been placed with a family or families willing to pay more and take them home sooner without completing a legal process? It turns out the latter is the more likely pattern when dealing with the Arlenes and Mario Reyes, but so far neither we nor the Libertos have seen any sign that either or both of these children are here and Karen Pace has told me she doesn't think they are in this country.

After this, the Arlenes convinced the Libertos to make up an excuse to cancel their agreement with Adoption Choice and work directly with them and Mario Reyes. The Arlenes told them that the agency's way of doing things was taking too long and if they worked directly with Mario Reyes, they could take custody of a child much quicker. This too, became a pattern in most of the cases, but only a theme mentioned indirectly to us at a later date.

Apparently, once Adoption Choice was cut out of the loop, children became available more readily and more quickly. By November 1996, the Libertos had their next referral.

Nicole, Zoyita and Sulema Gabriella

Readers, if you've been able to follow this story so far, please hang on, as here is where things really begin to strangely intertwine. In November 1996, the Arlenes informed the Libertos of a nine-year-old girl who is living with another couple in Arizona that Mario Reyes is willing to place with them. This is Nicole. The Libertos, who by now had their INS I-600A documents ready, saw pictures and although this girl was a bit older that they had hoped, decided that now that they were in their early fifties, a nine year old may just suit them, so they accepted the referral of Nicole.

A few weeks later, on December 1, 1996, the Libertos were summoned to Long Island's MacArthur Airport to pick up Nicole who was escorted there by Dennis Reingold and Jay Lieberman. Nicole proved to be fluent in English after spending many months with the couple in Arizona. One day later, Nicole told her new parents how surprised she was to end up in New York with them. Apparently she had been told that she was going back to her birthmother in Agua Prieta, Mexico. Then Mario Reyes told her that she wasn't going back to her birthmother after all, but rather to a new home and family in New York. This poor child was shuffled, brokered, lied to, deceived and used by these adoption criminals. She was confused, yet she was old enough to realize that she would have a good life with the Libertos, but also old enough to feel tied and obligated to be with and help her birthmother. The Libertos were faced with dealing with a nine-year-old who was wise with experience beyond her years yet lacked the maturity and education of someone much younger. Nicole pleaded with the Libertos to send her home and the Libertos finally convinced her to give it a chance with them. Nicole spoke lovingly about a baby sister, named Gabby, and told Rosalie and John how much they would love her. The Libertos also learned that there was a middle sister, Zoyita (a.k.a. CJ) who was already here with another New York Family. It was as if Nicole was on a scouting mission for a home and a future for her baby sister.

After many months and what could only have been several very difficult phone calls with both Mario Reyes and Nicole's birthmother, Rosalie and John Liberto made what must have been one of the most gut-wrenching decisions of their lives and paid to have Nicole escorted back to Mexico by Arlene Reingold's husband Dennis. This took place sometime in late April or early May of 1997. By late May 1997, Arlene Lieberman told Rosalie and John that a 3-4 year old girl named Stephanie might be available through Mario Reyes.

With 20/20 hindsight, I believe it's likely that Nicole was originally supposed to go back to Mexico from Arizona until the Arlenes suggested to Mario that perhaps the Libertos would take her and they could then take their profits. An interview with Nicole and her birthmother that appeared in June 1999, in the New York Times, leads me to believe that Mario made some wild promises to Nicole's birthmother to get her to agree to the change of plans that placed Nicole with the Libertos.

Another twist occurs with Nicole. The Clarke family, who had successfully completed an adoption with Stork of a girl from Guatemala, had decided they wanted a second child. If the reader recalls, Sharon Clarke and her daughter were at the June 1995 meeting with Melinda Randa, Judy Noonan, the Arlenes and us. Earlier that spring, the Clarkes were informed of the availability of an eight-year-old Mexican girl through Mario Reyes named Flora. The Clarkes were told this girl was an only child in the care of her grandmother who could no longer afford to keep and feed her. Haven't we heard a version of this story before? New and original stories apparently were not the strong suit of these criminals? Flora was allegedly already in Mario's care in Arizona and was being prepared for her new life with the Clarkes. Allegedly she was being taught English and was shown pictures of the Clarkes, including their Guatemalan daughter Nicole. The Clarkes never accepted this referral as they felt this child was a bit too old. Eventually this child took the name Nicole and this is Gabby's sister Nicole that was with the Libertos twice. After that June 1995 meeting, the Clarkes tried to steer away from the Arlenes, as they weren't comfortable with the setup with Adoption Choice. Sharon Clarke told me that she recalls that the Arlenes had Flora/Nicole's picture with them at that meeting.

Meanwhile, late in February 1997, we received word of the availability of another child named Sulema, from a large family that had previously put other children up for adoption. Sulema was Sulema Gabriella Tozcano, Nicole and CJ's sister, Gabby. For the second time, unbeknownst to either family, our adoption was tied to the Liberto's adoption as our two families were once again involved with siblings. We received a photo and medical report and were told she would be assigned to us and placed in foster care with a member of Mr. Reyes's family.

In May 1997, the Arlenes told us that the adoption process was going smoothly and Arlene Reingold asked Sara if we could start sending $250 per month to Mr. Reyes to cover the cost of foster care as requested in a letter allegedly sent to us via Federal Express dated April 2, 1997. This came as a total surprise to us as the cost of foster care was never mentioned verbally nor was it specified in the contract as a separate expense apart from the attorney and agency fees. We never received a Federal express letter from April 2, 1997.

A conference call between Jill Gerlach of Adoption Choice, Arlene Lieberman and us ensued. During that call, Ms. Gerlach was totally unprofessional, defensive, evasive and accusatory. Her attitude and language were offensive. Once again she told us that we did not have to pay anything and could forget the whole thing. She also tried to make us feel guilty for daring to question the charges for foster care with the accusatory question, "Don't you want your child to be properly fed and clothed?" Sara's response was, "Jill, she's not our child yet, is she?" Jill Gerlach had no response to this. With the previous child, Elizabeth, who was in foster care for five months, the cost of foster care was never once mentioned.

We were very upset by this episode and called a meeting with Adoption Choice's local contacts, the Arlenes. At this meeting, most of which we have on tape, we asked if it was possible to deal only with Melinda Randa from that point on, instead of Jill Gerlach. The Arlenes told us we shouldn't be upset with Jill Gerlach, as she really wanted us to have a child. We expressed our concerns as to how the whole process and our relationship with Adoption Choice were turning sour. This is when we requested a proper translation of the medical report for Sulema, a copy of the birth certificate, a proper letter of assignment and a new power of attorney. Our request was never honored. We were shown a copy of the previously mentioned letter, dated April 2, 1997, requesting payment for foster care. It was at this time that we requested the Federal Express tracking number for this letter that we never received. When we followed up with Federal Express, they sent us a letter stating that there was no record of any such tracking number. In fact, the Arlenes told us that there was a letter sent to us almost a year earlier regarding payment of foster care costs for Elizabeth. That's another letter that they have no record of and we believe that was a blatant lie. As anyone can plainly see, the purpose of hiring an adoption agency to smooth and expedite the process was not happening with Adoption Choice. We came away from that meeting with only a verbal agreement to deal with the costs of foster care upon completion of the adoption.

The Arlenes were busy with the Libertos as well in May 1997. As you recall, shortly after returning Nicole to Mexico, Arlene Lieberman notified them of the availability of a 3-4 year old girl named Stephanie who was another Mexican child already in Arizona. Just as they were preparing to accept this child, a call came from Mario Reyes telling the Libertos they could not have Stephanie because his wife felt they did not grieve enough over the return of Nicole. It seemed as if the lies, deceit and fraud just kept piling up, doesn't it?

A Child is Brokered

In Mexico, we were told that part of the adoption process required the court appearance of two character witnesses to testify on our behalf. In June 1997, we received notice to send them. After several scheduling snafus, we finally did have our witnesses go there. Fortunately, our witnesses reside in Tucson, Arizona sparing us several thousand dollars of additional expense in cancelled and rescheduled airfares. We were told that things went well and we even met with our witnesses a few weeks later and they were under the same impression.

In early August 1997, having not heard anything since June, Sara attempted to call International Adoption Consultants. She got the phone company recording that stated that their phone had been disconnected and that no further information was available. Alarmed, she called Adoption Choice and Jill Gerlach told her that International Adoption Consultants had moved offices and that a letter would be sent out with their new address and phone number. The Abate family received the same story from Jill Gerlach at approximately the same time. This too, proved to be another lie from Ms. Gerlach as no letter was ever sent. By mid-September, according to the Arlenes, we learned that International Adoption Consultants had severed their relationship with Adoption Choice allegedly due to personality conflicts with Jill Gerlach. It seems we weren't the only ones offended by her attitude, language and lies. Fortunately we have had no further contact with Ms. Gerlach since this time. I've speculated that this was a case of the Arlenes and Jill Gerlach disagreeing on which lies to tell.

On Saturday, August 30, 1997, Sara received a call from Ms. Randa while I was at work that was devastating. It seemed the judge in Mexico, upon consideration of the case and despite no objection from any party involved, declined to consider our adoption of Sulema as she had an older sibling up for adoption at the same time with a different agency. I came home that evening, took one look at Sara and asked her, "Who died?" The part about another agency was sort of a lie as we later learned. It depends on if the Arlenes were acting as an agency apart from Adoption Choice or not. We were told that the judge was against separating the two siblings. These things do happen, but nevertheless we were extremely upset and distraught. How much of this is true and how much was a fabrication is unknown to us, but we bought into it one hundred percent. At this time, Ms. Randa said that she knew we were upset, but if we wanted to consider it in a few days, Mr. Reyes did have another child available. This was Maria Soledad. After a couple of days-spent digesting things, I phoned Ms. Randa on Monday, September 1, 1997, to let her know that we no longer wished to continue the process using Adoption Choice and to request the return of our paperwork, agency and attorney fees. As soon as I mentioned refunds, Ms. Randa said we had a very specific contract. When I asked how long she had known that there was a sibling involved, she said that she had known for a while. When I asked why the involvement of a sibling was never mentioned to us, she said in our case it was a non-issue. When I said we might agree with the judge about separating siblings, she said we were very clear and specific as to our wants, one child, between two and five years old. I said that was correct, but we may not have wanted them separated either and may have requested assignment of a different child. I ask the reader if you agree with me that this was relevant information that should not have been withheld? When Ms. Randa mentioned the contract, I said that Adoption Choice had breached it many ways. She asked us to put it in writing, which I did. Several things happened during the rest of that first week of September 1997. We were both very upset and began to lose sleep and our appetites and had to seek medical attention. Since that time, Sara and I have been on and off and on anti-anxiety medications. We consulted with three contract attorneys, one in New York and two in Wisconsin and all agreed that we had a very strong case for breach of contract. It was from one of the Wisconsin attorneys that we learned that Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach were married to federal judges. I spoke with a friend who is a prosecutor with the Office of the U.S. Attorney General, who offered his assistance should there prove to be any criminal fraud. I spoke with Dave Herbst who was the Licensing Specialist listed on Adoption Choice's license from the State of Wisconsin. He informed me that he had not had that many complaints about Adoption Choice and that if we wanted to make a formal complaint, to put it all in writing, which we eventually did on March 4, 1998. Again, hindsight makes me wonder how many was "not that many" complaints.

It wasn't until March 7, 1999 that we knew with complete certainty how extensive the lies were. This was the day we met the Libertos and their daughter, Gabby. This meeting confirmed our prior suspicions and speculations that I shared with Rosalie Liberto. Gabby is Sulema Gabriella and was placed with the Libertos on July 6, 1997, almost two months before we were told she would not be ours to adopt. The Libertos paid Mario Reyes and the Arlenes a significantly higher fee than we had agreed to pay and we believe that Gabby was placed with whoever paid the most money first. This constituted the despicable practice of baby brokering and shows Mario Reyes and the Arlenes to be conspiring adoption criminals inhabiting the underbelly of an industry that has grown up around the compassionate act of adoption. Only Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach know how much they participated in the unconscionable acts of Reyes and the Arlenes. Sara feels that these criminals waited until they could offer us another child before they told us we weren't going to be bringing Sulema Gabriella home.

I'm jumping ahead in this story when so much happened in the span of time from June 1997, to March 1999.

Stephanie, Nicole again, Gabby and Maritza

In June 1997, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes were putting the Libertos through an emotional wringer with availability of Stephanie being dangled in front of them and then withdrawn. It was around this time that Nicole began calling the Libertos as well. She pleaded with them to take her back. She cried that she made a mistake. She called them mom and dad. I admire the strength the Libertos exhibited under this type of psychological bombardment. They told Nicole that this was not a game. They tried their best to make sure she wasn't being prompted or coerced into telling them these things. By the third phone call they relented and agreed to let her return to Long Island. At this point, Mario Reyes told the Libertos that now that they were taking Nicole back, they could have Stephanie too. Mario got to collect double fees and the Libertos got the two girls they wanted. It looked like a win/win situation. If it was only that simple, but by now the reader should know that with these criminals there's always more to the story.

When Nicole was first with the Libertos, she did a good job of selling them on her sister Gabby. They had been told that Gabby was not available for adoption. They made it known to Mario Reyes that should Gabby become available, they would be very interested. The problem for the Arlenes and Mario was that we accepted the referral and were waiting for Gabby. They obviously knew that they could profit more if they placed Gabby with the Libertos as the agency was already out of the picture as far as the Libertos were concerned. As the reader already knows, these criminals were more than willing to burn us and break our hearts a second time for a few more bucks.

The apparent scam devised by the Arlenes, Mario Reyes and Adoption Choice was eye-opening. One can almost believe that Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach were victims instead of co-conspirators, but then why have they never apologized to us or offered any help or performed any kind of follow-up? If they were burned and victimized along with all the families involved, why did they not help initiate the criminal charges against the Arlenes and Mario Reyes and actively participate in the investigation? Why did they lie about ending their relationship with the Arlenes and then continue to use them for unfinished business? Why did they not offer help to the victimized families in resolving the status of their children? As the wives of federal judges, who was in a better position to offer real help and who should be more obligated to pursue justice than Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach? Instead of helping right the wrongs that involved them whether willingly or unwillingly, they willingly chose to bury their heads in the sand and covered-up all appearances of wrongdoing. This is why I hold the opinion that Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach were not victims, but criminal co-conspirators. This is why I believe them to be guilty. This is why I have said that there is no closure in this case for my family until justice is served on Adoption Choice. Even if one believes that Adoption Choice was a victim of Reyes and the Arlenes along with the families, then they are guilty of incompetence and negligence for not practicing due diligence in their selection of consultants and a foreign attorney. Their written agreement with the Arlenes, that Karen Pace refers to in her deposition and was filed with the New York State Department of Social Services, clearly has Adoption Choice assuming legal responsibility for their clients and agreeing to adhere to the relevant adoption laws of New York, Wisconsin and the US. I fail to see how they have honored that agreement in any way, shape or form. As the rest of the story unfolds, I again ask the reader to form his or her own conclusion.

On July 6, 1997, the Libertos got the call to pick up their two new daughters. Mario Reyes added yet another twist, as if things were not twisted enough already. He called the Libertos the previous evening and told them they would be picking up Nicole and Gabby, instead of Nicole and Stephanie. While overjoyed that Gabby would be with her sister and with them, the Libertos were, at the same time, extremely upset at the loss of Stephanie. Readers who have been through the adoption process will understand how adoptive parents bond to the children they are waiting for through pictures and stories, and how devastating it is to lose a referral. The Libertos were told the same story we were several weeks later, that since they were related, the judge in Mexico did not want them separated, so the Libertos got the sisters they wanted. We were still waiting.

Four days after this, Nicole told the Libertos she wanted to go back to her birthmom in Mexico again. She said that Mario and the Arlenes just sent her to the Libertos to get clothes and money. Stunned and hurt, the Libertos told Nicole she could go but Gabby had to stay and Nicole agreed. Imagine using a child like this! This poor child was used and bounced around from home to home so much that her reality had to be so distorted and her future was so bleak. She even took on a new name and identity, possibly more than once, to satisfy the machinations of these craven criminals. At least she made sure her baby sister was in the good home she had previously scouted for her.

We may or may not learn where Stephanie is as well as the fate of Danitza and Elizabeth. CJ remains with the New York family she had been placed with earlier. Unfortunately, this family feels that CJ is better off not knowing her biological sister Gabby. Intentionally denying CJ contact with her biological sister is something that I strongly disagree with and fail to understand. It is also a decision that is entirely up to CJ's adoptive family and one that deserves to be respected.

The Libertos have maintained contact with Nicole and her mom for Gabby's sake. This has mixed results and perhaps Gabby is too young to handle this kind of contact and openness just yet, but that is not for me to say. Nicole has claimed that her mom drinks and beats her and she has run away and moved out to stay with relatives, only to return to her mom whom she feels needs her. Any chance this child could have had at a future here is now lost. It appears this girl has made noble sacrifices for her siblings and for a mother who drinks and abuses her. What a shame that this same sense of nobility has been perverted and used by the Arlenes and Mario Reyes for their own personal financial gain.

By late July 1997, the Libertos received another call from the Arlenes. They told the Libertos about a beautiful, healthy, two-year-old girl in Mario's care. Sidestepping the issue of any refund for Nicole, the Arlenes asked the Libertos if they are interested in adopting this child. Still wanting one more child, the Libertos said yes. Before the month was out, the Libertos were summoned to a convenience store parking lot to receive this child. This was the child known as Maritza, the one described in various newspaper accounts as appearing to have no neck, seeming to be severely retarded, having a distended belly and licking the walls while her eyes did not focus. The newspapers just listed her age incorrectly. The Libertos realized something was wrong and when they voiced their concerns, Arlene Reingold told them there was nothing wrong with this child that a good loving home and some good food could not fix. The Libertos knew better and brought this child to a hospital to be checked out. She was diagnosed as malnourished, retarded and showed signs of probable sexual abuse. The Libertos somehow got the Arlenes to take this child back and promise to get the child proper medical care in Mexico. Obviously, this child was far from the picture of a healthy two-year old as represented and the Libertos felt that Maritza presented more problems than they were emotionally and financially prepared to handle.

Unfortunately, the Arlenes did not keep their promise. A few days later Arlene Lieberman approached the Clarkes at the Bellport Outlet Center. They told the story of returning from Mexico and seeing a beautiful and healthy two-year old blonde girl in Mario's care. She mentioned that the child had a minor problem with a hernia. This was Maritza. As previous clients of theirs, and even after the Flora/Nicole fiasco, Arlene Lieberman knew the Clarkes were interested in adopting another child. The successful adoption in Guatemala of their Nicole was a feather in the Arlenes' caps and they touted the Clarkes as a shining example of their successful adoptions. The Clarkes were offered this child at a reduced fee of $8,000 because the child was already in the US and they were told that another family (the Libertos) had refused this child because they felt she was stolen. The Clarkes suspected this story wasn't right but began the process anyway. I should also mention that the Clarkes believed the pictures they saw of Maritza were not taken in Mario Reyes' Arizona home but in Arlene Lieberman's home. Almost a year later, after paying Mario his $8,000 and $250 per month foster care expenses as well as continually being asked for more money for paperwork, medical care and travel expenses, the Clarkes came away with nothing. At one point, Sharon Clarke was told to come up with a $500 cash payment to the Arlenes on a moment's notice on the day of her father's death. This is heartless greed at its ugliest. Other families had to produce tens of thousands of dollars in cash within twenty-four hour time periods, yet we had to endure the pleas of poverty from the Arlenes and Reyes when asked to pay restitution at their sentencing. The Clarkes were told the same stories about delays with the courts and the judge around the holidays as we were with Maria Soledad. At one point in their ordeal, the Arlenes had the Clarkes dealing directly with Mario. Apparently, somewhere along the line, Maritza was transferred back to Mario. When he urged them to come and take this child home, the Clarkes, knowing that the adoption was incomplete and Maritza's status here would not be legal questioned Mario Reyes about this. He answered them that there were other laws that applied here, God's laws. In our dealings with Mr. Reyes, he always seemed to be a devout, religious Catholic. We learned that he was a well-respected officer in the Catholic Church in Douglas, Arizona. His defense attorney at his sentencing argued for leniency, touting all the religious retreats Mario Reyes organized and ran throughout Mexico. This was the kind of man that gives God a bad name. Allegedly, Maritza was eventually returned to orphanage care in Mexico.

As I put the pieces of the puzzle together here and coordinate the details and timeframes of several different stories, I realize that what I'm telling the reader is multiplied many times over by all the families victimized by Adoption Choice, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes. The stories of Nicole and Maritza alone show that children were victimized as well. Arlene Lieberman is an adoptive parent, Jill Gerlach and Melinda Randa are social workers and Mario Reyes allegedly wrote a law thesis on adoption as an alternative to abortion. These people weren't just criminals, they were monsters; they were supposedly advocates for these children and attempting to find them forever families yet they were, in effect, treating them like livestock and auctioning them off to the highest bidder. I wonder what their record is for number and dollar amount of fees collected for a single child? The only good thing that can be said here is that by circumventing the law and placing children in US homes with lightning speed, these people probably spared some of the children the abuses suffered by Nicole and Maritza while under the care of Mario Reyes. Adoption Choice and International Adoption Consultants were set up as not-for-profit entities, yet I am sure the salaries taken home by Jill Gerlach, Melinda Randa and the Arlenes were very comfortable. These salaries were earned from the pain and suffering of innocent children and adoptive families. We know Mario Reyes' fees earned him a comfortable living and allowed him to own other businesses such as a gas station and liquor store. According to Tim Macht, there is over $400,000 that is unaccounted for that was paid by the adoptive families to these criminals. Whether or not Adoption Choice was a direct participant in the actual criminal acts of the others is irrelevant. They've kept their fees (at least in our case) and did nothing to stop these criminals once they were aware that things were not right. In fact, not only did they do nothing to stop the criminal acts of Mario Reyes and the Arlenes, they helped lie about them and cover them up. How can I believe anything else other than they were willing co-conspirators. If they weren't, then the fact that they turned a blind eye and stuck their heads in the sand and lied and covered up makes them worse monsters than the others.

Well after the above was written, a friend directed me to a website, www.guidestar.org, which lists most all charities, nonprofit organizations and nonprofit corporations. It gives financial statements and tax returns. To be fair, I will inform you that Adoption Choice's 1998 tax return indicates that Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach officially compensated themselves with significantly less than $30,000 each that year.

Additionally, I learned much later of a case involving the Arlenes and Adoption Choice and a crooked lawyer in Paraguay, where Melinda Randa did seek justice against the lawyer and where Adoption Choice took significant steps to help the victimized family complete another adoption from Guatemala. This is detailed in Chapter 16.

Maria Soledad, Agua Prieta and Mario Reyes

Getting back to the first weeks of September 1997, after sending out my letter to Melinda Randa describing how Adoption Choice had breached their contract with us many times over, Sara called Arlene Lieberman and asked if she knew what was going on. She said yes, she had just returned from Mexico and had seen Maria Soledad and she was beautiful and healthy. From what we've learned from the Clarkes, they could have been describing the same child to both the Clarkes and us. It was then that Sara learned that the Arlenes and Adoption Choice were no longer working together. Arlene told Sara it was because Jill Gerlach had "screwed" them. Sara then realized that Jill Gerlach's story from August 1997 about the Arlenes moving offices and sending out a letter to their clients with their new address and phone number was a lie. Shortly after learning this, Sara told me about the August attempt to contact the Arlenes and Jill Gerlach's story. I was upset and unhappy that Sara did not mention this sooner. My anger may have been with Sara, but it was Adoption Choice and Jill Gerlach for perpetrating this lie that made Sara think the disconnected phone number was irrelevant and not worth mentioning to me.

After receiving our letter, Ms. Randa contacted us by phone and in a letter and offered us a refund should we decide not to pursue the adoption of the above-mentioned child. Since all our paperwork was in place in Mexico, the adoption of Maria Soledad could be expedited in two to four months. I did not want to continue. I felt these people had burned us twice, why give them a third chance? Why would anyone want to continue to do business with people who had lied to you and let you down? While I felt I would like to give fatherhood a try and I might find it enjoyable, it was something that I could easily live without as well. I felt it would be best to cut our losses and if necessary, start with a new source.

Sara on the other hand felt the opposite. She thought everything was in place and felt her chance to fulfill her desire to be a mother was now or never. She felt these people deserved a third chance. She promised me that if this referral did not work out, she'd give up on the whole process and never mention it again. She felt that she did not have the energy or wherewithal to start the process over with another source. Now I was in a no-win situation. If I put my foot down and stopped the process then and there, I risked Sara resenting me for it for the rest of our lives. If I went along with Sara and things went wrong or I did not like being a father, I'd blame and resent Sara for the rest of our lives. I went along with Sara for peace in our marriage and for her happiness. Needless to say, while I do not regret being father to our daughter, the strain of our ongoing ordeal has spilled over into our relationship all too often. After a few days consideration and with great reservations, we agreed to give Adoption Choice one more chance. After all, we were trying to adopt a child, not get involved in a criminal and civil case against an agency in Wisconsin.

Once again, getting a new power of attorney, medical report and letter of assignment took some doing. When we finally received the medical report, which was handed to us by Mr. Reyes when we met with him a few weeks later (see below), Ms. Randa offered to have it translated from Spanish to English. We accepted her offer and were surprised when we received the translation to find a note from Ms. Randa and a billing statement from a translating service requesting payment to the service of $60. This was like offering to feed someone dinner and then billing him or her for it. We paid it anyway. Basically it stated that the child was normal and healthy except for some intestinal parasites that were quite common there and that we were assured were being treated appropriately. We later learned that the doctor who's name and signature appears on the medical reports was part of the investigation of this case by the Mexican authorities and he was arrested. Melinda Randa asked us to send her a picture of the baby, furthering our belief that direct contact between Adoption Choice and Mario Reyes was non-existent.

At this time we also decided that it would be in our best interest to meet Mr. Reyes and Maria Soledad in person. In early October, we traveled to Tucson, drove to Douglas, Arizona, parked and approached the border crossing into Agua Prieta to Mr. Reyes' office. After passing through a tall, security type turnstile, past the Mexican Customs and Immigration building that usually had some rifle-toting soldiers lingering outside, turning right at the vacant, graffiti-covered information booth, we faced a small strip-type shopping center that was maybe 100 feet from the turnstile. We were immediately struck by the large number of flies present this side of the border, as if the fence between Douglas, Arizona and Agua Prieta Mexico kept the flies out of the US better than it kept contraband and illegal aliens out. The first door was Mario Reyes' office, which displayed a large sign overhead proclaiming in Spanish the legal services he offered. The next storefront was Mr. Reyes' liquor store. We had to ring the doorbell to be allowed entry to a small reception area with a smiling, middle??d woman sitting at a desk with a computer and phone on the right. On the left were a couple of seats past which was a step-up into a short hallway. On the right, off the hallway, was a clean rest room with a water cooler inside. A step down at the end of the hallway, was Mario Reyes' clean, comfortable office. It appeared opulent in contrast to the impoverished third world look of the rest of Agua Prieta. Stucco walls with large, cool tile floors described the Spanish Colonial motif inside. There was a long leather couch on the left wall as you entered. Artifacts, religious items and family photos were sprinkled around the walls that featured full bookshelves, as you would expect to see in any lawyer's office. Two chairs faced a large desk, behind which sat Mario Reyes, almost in silhouette from the bright sunlight coming through the blinds in the large window behind him.

Mr. Reyes was exactly as the Arlenes and our character witnesses had described him. He was in his late thirties or early forties, handsome, cordial, well spoken, with an excellent command of English. After some small talk and showing us some of the paperwork he had accumulated, Mr. Reyes had Maria Soledad escorted into the office by a younger woman who we assumed was her foster care provider. We played with her and took photos and videos for about an hour. She had an impish quality about her and exhibited quite a sense of humor. She also immediately broke my sunglasses. She had sunbleached hair, possibly lightened due to nutritional deficiency, in a short mushroom cut and was wearing pink stretch pants with a flower pattern and a matching top. She was wearing navy shoes with a designer name on them that were too small. We gave her a gift of a large teddy bear that sadly, we never saw again. I tried my best to do a physical examination for signs of external parasites and abuse while playing with her. She appeared healthy and hardly looked like the sickly child in those first horrible Polaroids Mario had sent us which is why we weren't surprised to hear she had parasites. Mario Reyes and the foster mother referred to this child as "Choli" or "Cholita" except when Mario spoke to her sternly and called her Soledad. Sara asked about this and he said it was a nickname for Soledad and that "Cholita" meant "pretty one." I admit that this little child got to me a bit and I jokingly said to Sara that she was a "keeper."

Mr. Reyes explained that he liked the adoptive parents to take the child home as soon as possible as long delays only resulted in more opportunity for the adoption to fall through. While videotaping Maria Soledad, Mr. Reyes was on the phone with a woman in New York who he called Mary, who was obviously having passport, visa and immigration problems with a child he obtained for her. He was referring her to an immigration attorney in New York. He then took our passports, had us go for some photos, fill out some forms to process an FM3, a form for permission to adopt, in order to finalize the adoption in Mexico. This required a trip back into Douglas to have some paperwork stamped and signed at the Mexican consulate there but first we had to visit Mexican customs and immigration where Sgt. Garcia put his signature on some documents. Mr. Reyes left us in Douglas while he went to an appointment. We had lunch and I bought new sunglasses. Mr. Reyes had made it a point to show us how easy it was to cross back and forth over the border. He said he would forward everything to his contact in Mexico City and deal with the local judge to finalize everything and put the paperwork in order. He said he expected everything to be ready in two to four weeks. He said that when we returned to pick up our daughter, we would go to Hermosillo to obtain her passport and visa. He asked us whom the agency in Wisconsin was that we kept mentioning. This was very interesting considering Jill Gerlach had told us that Mario Reyes was the only attorney they used in Mexico because they only used the best. What a glowing referral to give someone you never met!

At this time we were surprised to hear Mario tell us that he was studying for the state bar exam in Arizona, as Adoption Choice and International Adoption Consultants had us believing that he was already practicing law in Arizona. We guessed this was just one more lie to add to the list. Just before we went into Douglas, Mr. Reyes asked us what our intentions were as if to suggest we take Maria Soledad then and there. He said there was no law in Mexico to prevent us from taking her then while the adoption was being completed. I told him that our intentions were to wait until he called us to tell us that all the "I's" were dotted and "T's" were crossed on all the necessary papers and then we would come back and take her home. I specifically said I did not want to have a conversation with him like the one I heard him have with Mary in New York earlier. He then asked if we would consider paying him a portion of the remaining $8,000 of his fee when we returned home as the failure to complete the adoption of the previous children referred to us had caused him to incur some additional expenses. We said we would consider it on the way home. We decided that we would prefer to abide by our original agreement with Mr. Reyes, $8,000 in advance and $8,000 upon completion of the adoption in Mexico, as we also had additional expenses including a homestudy update and resubmitting our fingerprints and I-600A with the INS.

About a week after we returned home, just as I was about to send Mr. Reyes a letter stating that we would prefer he honor our original agreement, he left a message on our machine requesting money again. This time we contacted Melinda Randa and she had International Adoption Consultants contact Mr. Reyes on our behalf. This was in direct violation of the written agreement between Adoption Choice, International Adoption Consultants and the State of New York. It was now clear to us that Adoption Choice only contacted Mario Reyes through the Arlenes who had worked with Mr. Reyes for many years. Ms. Randa also indicated to us that a two to four week time frame was unrealistic and that the adoption would probably be completed closer to Christmas. Clothing was requested instead of money and we did send about $200 in clothing to Mr. Reyes for Maria Soledad.

The next eight weeks seemed to drag on forever. During that time, we spoke with Melinda Randa once or twice and instead of having news for us, she asked if we had heard from Mr. Reyes and continued asking if we could send her a picture of Maria Soledad. Now it seemed we had taken over the job the agency had been paid to perform and the agency was just an interested bystander. We were able to contact Mr. Reyes a few times, although our calls were seldom returned. During one call he informed us that Maria Soledad had a cold and that he had to invest in a vaporizer for her. Then, about a week before Christmas, Mr. Reyes called Sara's office collect. Sara was out at the time, but her office called me and relayed the message that it was urgent to return Mr. Reyes's call. When I returned the call, Mr. Reyes said he had all the paperwork except the judge's signature on the final adoption certificate. He explained that the judge was away until after the holidays and apologized for the additional delay. We felt that after waiting so long, a few more weeks would not matter and would give us the time to ready our home for our new arrival. One additional week of delay ensued due to the judge allegedly falling ill. I now believe that Mario Reyes wanted us to come and take Maria Soledad then, without waiting for the judge's signature on the papers.

According to the INS, all our Mexican adoption documents were obtained through forgery, falsification and bribery and are invalid. There are reasons to accept this and there are reasons to dispute this. If this is true, all the stories about the delays in getting the judge to sign papers make no sense. It was obvious that Mario Reyes wanted us to take Maria Soledad off his hands and pay him the rest of his fee as soon as possible. It would have made no sense at all for Mario to conjure up delays like this if these documents were all phony. We may never know how much of our Mexican adoption is legal and legitimate and how much is not.

Fear and Loathing in Ciudad Juarez

After that collect call from Mr. Reyes, I contacted INS Examiner Lois Troupe here in New York City who had processed our I-600A, to find out about filing the I-600 and obtaining a visa for Maria Soledad. Twice she informed me that after we picked up Maria Soledad in Agua Prieta, we could process everything in Ciudad Juarez instead of Hermosillo, which was fine with us as it reduced our travel time in Mexico. On December 24, 1997, Mrs. Troupe cabled our I-600A and all the associated papers to the U.S. Consulate in Juarez. For some reason, possibly the Christmas/New Years holiday, this consulate claims they did not receive the papers until January 9, 1998. Many months later, we learned that Mrs. Troupe may have been in error. While she was correct to tell us to bring Maria Soledad home through Ciudad Juarez into El Paso, TX, it seems that possibly, the birth mother was supposed to have a US Consulate interview in Tijuana, which had jurisdiction in this case since the child was adopted in the Mexican State of Sonora. After this, we would bring the child home through Juarez, which is in the Mexican State of Chihuahua. This procedure still confuses us and it's hard to get the same answer from two sources no matter how many times we ask about it. I have learned of one family, not involved in this case and using a different attorney in another part of Mexico that in late 1999, cleared the US Consulate in Mexico City only to have the US Consulate in Ciudad Juarez refuse to issue the orphan visa. They brought their child home on a humanitarian parole and are straightening everything out here. It's reminiscent of those early APC meetings we attended.

Also in December 1997, Sara contacted the office of our congressional representative, Gary Ackerman and discussed our plans with them, asking if they had any advice for us. We did get a letter of support and encouragement from his office and were told they informed personnel at the US consulate in Juarez to expect us in January. We asked either this office or Mrs. Troupe or both if we needed an appointment at the consulate and were told that we did not.

Meanwhile by January 9, 1998, Mr. Reyes informed us that everything was ready for us to come down on Wednesday, January 14, 1998 and pick up our daughter. We once again flew into Tucson on January 13, took a bus to Douglas the next morning, and were picked up at the bus station by Mr. Reyes, who drove us to his office in Agua Prieta. Our daughter was brought in, some additional paperwork and photos were done and we paid Mr. Reyes the remaining $8,000 of his fee plus $1,250 for foster care from August to January and $671.18 in medical bills for our daughter who was still suffering from a bad cold accompanied by a horrific cough. When "Choli" came into the room, she put up her arms for me to pick her up onto my lap and sat there and stroked my beard and said, "Mia Papa!" She was minus the earrings and pierced ears she had in October, and a doll in a blue dress and bonnet had replaced the teddy bear we had given her. It was almost immediately apparent that she had quite a fixation with people's ears, as she liked to hold and stroke your ears. This may have been because she had an ear infection, probably one of several, and could explain why her earrings had been removed. Children with ear infections often tug at their ears, so removing the earrings may have been necessary. To this day, she likes to play with and judge people by their ears, even telling us she likes her Uncle John because he has nice ears. I also noticed almost immediately that she was exhibiting some unusual eye movement in her right eye when eating and drinking. It appeared to pop open and bulge a bit, sort of in conjunction with her enjoyment of whatever she was eating and drinking. Sara asked Mario what she ate and he said whatever we ate. She also asked when she slept and he said when she was tired. We were given no clues about her habits, diet or schedule. The only thing we were told is that they had attempted to start potty training, but since it was winter and she had a cold, it made trips to the outhouse difficult. At least her last Christmas in Mexico had been a white one.

Mr. Reyes put all the papers in a folder, handed it to us and exclaimed, "This is everything you need." We couldn't wait to get this child home and to a doctor here so she could receive proper treatment as she was obviously suffering.

Through her job, Sara had a contact in Mexico with whom she had become friendly during the course of their business relationship over the years we were waiting to adopt. For quite some time, he had graciously offered whatever help he could provide to expedite the process in Mexico. After our October visit to Mr. Reyes' office, he offered to have his contacts in Mexico City help Mr. Reyes with whatever he had to do there. Mario declined this offer when this business contact called him, saying he had his own contacts there. Sara's business friend did arrange to have friends of his from Juarez meet us at Mario's office in Agua Prieta to drive us back to Juarez and escort us around there until we cleared the final bureaucratic hurdles to return home with our daughter. Little did we know that this family that we didn't know and who did not know us would be so helpful in saving our sanity and possibly our lives and the life of our daughter once we entered the nightmare of Ciudad Juarez.

This young family from Juarez, a husband, his wife and a small baby who had spent the night in Douglas on our behalf, piled our luggage, our daughter, Sara and myself into their minivan for the long treacherous ride over the rough mountain roads of Northeastern Mexico to Ciudad Juarez. Two older daughters and their young grandfather awaited their return in Juarez. This ride took a bit less than six hours. We listened to tapes of Spanish music and began to get to know our daughter. She appeared to be travelling well although from her coughing and the amount of mucus she produced, I feared she had pneumonia. At least she was drinking plenty of fluid from a bottle, her weird eye movements continuing. Sara sat next to her most of the way or held her on her lap and she continually stroked Sara's ears. Even though I was her "Papa" right away, it would be several weeks before she would call Sara, "Mama." Apparently being the only "Papa" she's ever known made it easier for her to bond with me, while with Sara, she had the loss of two previous "Mamas" to grieve over before she could accept Sara as her new "Mama." She occasionally jabbered away phrases in Spanish baby talk that our escorts attempted to translate. "Choli" exhibited a keen sense of hearing and called a barking dog a "wow-wow," and a cat was a "meow." Despite the language barrier, it looked that between signs, pointing, sounds and our extremely limited Spanish, this child would be able to communicate her needs with us and we would be able to let her know what we wanted and expected from her.

From October until this trip, Sara and I had discussed names for our daughter. Sara was in favor of a complete name change while I had always said it depended on how the child identified itself. After our October visit, it was apparent that this girl did not identify with the name Maria, knew Soledad as a way to address her sternly and knew herself, more than anything, as "Choli." Even though Sara already had a nephew named after her late father, she wanted to use his name for her child. He was Ben, so Sara wanted her daughter to be Beth. I wanted a name that sounded similar to "Choli" so the child would have an easy time with the transition to her new name. I finally got Sara to agree and we had a list of first names that either sounded like "Choli" or had shortened versions that sounded like "Choli." I agreed to allow Sara to use Beth as a middle name.

At one point during the long ride to Juarez, I went into the back of the van to check on Sara and "Choli." I held "Choli" as she sucked her bottle and stroked my ear. I asked her, "Choli, is it alright if we call you Shelly?" since that sounded most like the way "Choli" was pronounced. Acting as if she completely understood my English, she nodded yes and has been Shelly ever since. Shelly is short for Michelle, so when we change her name upon re-adoption, she'll be Michelle Beth. Six hours after we left Agua Prieta, we were in our hotel in Juarez with our sick little girl. We allowed an extra day in Juarez just in case there were any bureaucratic snafus even though we had been told at our initial meeting with Adoption Choice back in the summer of 1995, that adoptions in Mexico involve a one day stay there. The word, "snafu" doesn't begin to cover what happened.

That night in the hotel in Juarez, we had a light dinner where Shelly ate very little but demonstrated a high level of fastidiousness by using dozens of paper napkins. (Her first month in daycare after we brought her home cured her of that good habit.) We learned several things about our daughter as we gave her some gifts and tried on some clothes we had brought. We learned she was not used to baths or cribs. She probably shared a bed with her foster care provider, so she ended up on the couch in our suite. This became very funny in late 1999 as she began to ask us if we remembered when she was a baby and slept in a crib. We told her we didn't think she ever did and she insisted she did and we remember it. At that time there were a lot of babies in cribs at her daycare center, so I think this is why she thought she was in a crib at one time. She did not have running water where she was from, so the bath kind of freaked her out a bit. She was so sick though, that it wasn't until she was home with us for a week or two that she realized we had faucets in sinks with running water. We were in the kitchen one evening when Sara turned on the water and Shelly got all excited and bounced up and down while she pointed at the sink and exclaimed, "Agua! Agua!"

That evening in Juarez, I did take a walk to the supermarket to get some Robitussin and some Panadol. Considering the strangeness of her surroundings and us, Shelly was very mellow, traveled well and slept well. I'm sure the fact that she was sick kept her from getting too excited as well and we were fortunate she wasn't overly fussy about being sick. Of course she became the opposite later, but I think she was trying to make a good first impression.

The next morning is when our real nightmare began. Shelly immediately endeared herself to Sara by bringing her shoes to her as she dressed. We ate breakfast and then our escorts picked us up to take Shelly for her passport.

First we went to a Mexican immigration office to obtain Shelly's passport. There we were told that the photos Mr. Reyes sent us to have taken of her the day before in Agua Prieta were unacceptable as her hair was covering too much of her forehead. We could get proper photos immediately, but this was not the only problem. We were also told that the certified copies of the adoption papers Mr. Reyes had given us were inadequate, as the originals were required. We were also told that we did not have a complete FM3, the document granting permission to adopt. Finally we were told that in any case, her passport should be obtained in Mexico City and that it usually takes a month or more to process it there. Our hearts and spirits were sinking fast as we did not want to spend a month or more in Mexico in hotels with a very sick baby. We returned to our hotel and called Mr. Reyes to ask where the rest of the papers were and why he had not obtained the passport through his contact in Mexico City during the three months he spent processing the adoption as he should have. He insisted we had all that was necessary and then refused further contact. We also phoned Adoption Choice seeking their assistance. This was late morning. By 6:30 PM that evening, the hotel had no record of Ms. Randa ever returning our call even though she insists she did. We quickly came to believe that we had been scammed by a bunch of crooks and I began to feel my stomach tighten and churn. It was unbelievable and inconceivable that after all this time and all the things that had gone wrong, we were having problems once we actually had a child with us. Thankfully, Shelly was being such a trooper and just taking it all in. As sick as she was, I think her sense of humor and her traits of empathy and compassion were showing. I also think she was a bit stunned and in shock with her new parents and surroundings and all the travel.

Sara then phoned her business contact in Mexico City. He told us to come to Mexico City, and he would help us get a place to stay and help us expedite getting Shelly her passport. I was not prepared to travel with so much in the process remaining uncertain. My thinking was that certainly the US consulate would be the place to go for advice and assistance on what to do next, especially since Congressman Ackerman had given them advance notice of our plans. My thinking could not have been more wrong.

All we wanted to do was get our sick daughter home to proper care. Sara phoned the congressman's office from the hotel and they contacted the consulate and referred us to a clerk there. Shortly, we found ourselves outside a large, fenced in compound that was several blocks long. Armed soldiers stood guard at every gate in the fence. A soldier directed us toward one of the buildings where we stood in line among dozens of Mexicans. After waiting for quite some time, we were finally called to one of the windows and with documents in hand, explained our situation to the clerk in attendance. Naturally, Murphy's Law was operating with full force and we were told we were in the wrong building in the wrong part of town. I was distraught enough and was feeling ill enough that I did not even question how and why we ended up in the wrong place.

Of course, when we got to multi-story consulate building we wanted to go to in the first place, the office was closed for a late lunch for almost another hour. Finally, a body appeared and approached the glass wall and entrance door. A middle-aged Mexican woman unlocked the door with a key and let us in. This was the clerk with whom Congressman Ackerman's office had spoken and had mentioned by name to Sara. Shelly was in rare form, coughing and sneezing and wheezing and producing great quantities of thick green mucus that required constant attention from the ample supply of tissues we had. After explaining our situation to this clerk, she told us that they had just received our dossier on January 9, 1998. We had our I-600 in hand, which she refused to even look at. She told us the two gentlemen, presumably the consular officials, who could help us were out of town and that one may return the next day, both by the following Monday. She said a visa could not be issued without a passport. She said Examiner Troupe in New York did not know what she was doing since our paperwork should have been cabled to Tijuana, in the State of Sonora where the adoption took place, not Juarez, which is in the State of Chihuahua, a different jurisdiction. She told us that there were a lot of problems with adoption attorneys in Sonora and a lot of complaints. We asked if there was any way we could obtain a humanitarian waiver and parole our daughter into the U.S., as she was sick and in need of medical care. She said that she could not do that there and suggested we visit US Customs and Immigration at the border crossing into El Paso and possibly they could help parole her into the U.S. Our hearts were sinking faster than the Titanic and if it wasn't for the anti-anxiety medication we had been taking since September, I think we would have gone into a state of sheer panic. In our case, the US Consulate failed us dismally in their mission to offer aid and assistance to US citizens in desperate need.

Our escorts/translators who had stood by us for the whole process had some things to take care of at their home, as their older children were coming home from school, so we made a brief rest stop. The stress of this nightmare was finally beginning to make me feel really sick to my stomach. At this point a wild goose chase all over Mexico for more than a month with a sick baby, while the bureaucrats of two different countries disagreed as to the proper procedure was the least attractive alternative, so we visited the US Customs and Immigration building at the Zaragoza Bridge from Ciudad Juarez to El Paso. Our escorts dropped us off as they had some business to attend to in El Paso. After pleading our case to several different US Customs and Immigration agents, we were informed that the US Consulate in Juarez were the only ones who could issue a humanitarian waiver to parole our daughter into the US, and then only if she had some life threatening disease like cancer. It was truly a "Catch 22" situation. It was suggested that one of us could visit the Mexican Consulate in El Paso to see if they could help. At this point that didn't look promising and the consulate in El Paso was closing in less than an hour. When our escorts returned to pick us up, they took up our pleas with the group of customs and immigration officers there. Finally and miraculously, one of the officers gave us a dated and initialed note that read "OK to pass two adults and a baby," so the three of us could go to El Paso and perhaps try to get Shelly a Mexican passport from the Mexican consulate there. As it was already late afternoon and this consulate was closing soon, I thought it would be best to eat some dinner, try to get some rest overnight and cross into El Paso in the morning. On the way back to the hotel, we discussed this. Since the agent who had written the note to allow us to pass was on duty until 10 PM that evening and was off the next day, we decided that it would be better to cross into El Paso that evening and spend the night there. This way, the agent who wrote the note would still be there to answer any questions about it, if they arose.

Our escorts dropped us off at the hotel, went home for a quick bite and were to pick us up again around 6:30 PM as they had to go to El Paso for a Parent/Teachers meeting that evening. Their children were born in and being schooled in the US. We quickly threw our things together and went down to the lobby. By 6:30 PM when our escorts returned, Melinda Randa had not returned our earlier call. How could we possibly believe anything other than once they had our money, Reyes and Adoption Choice chose to abandon us with a sick child in a foreign country? There we were at the long line of cars at the Zaragoza bridge, waiting. We waited and watched as cars got searched, trucks opened, suitcases emptied and people questioned. Every so often trained dogs would sniff throughout a vehicle. We were in a minivan with Shelly sitting between us while we clutched our papers. We all held our breaths as we approached the guard at the crossing gate. By this time I feared and expected the worse and felt we had a good chance of losing Shelly, our money and possibly our freedom. But just then, for the first time in two and a half years, we actually had a piece of good luck. While the young mother of our escort family was driving, sitting in the passenger seat was her father and the border guard booth was on the passenger side. The guard on duty in that particular booth at that particular time apparently knew this member of our escort family. From the back of the minivan we did not hear what was said, but the next thing we knew, the guard glanced at us and we were being waived through with no questions asked. The nightmare that Ciudad Juarez had become for us was over as we were back on US soil. We were on our way home, but without anything being complete other than having our daughter. We knew we had brought her into the US without proper immigration status and just wanted to get her home to a doctor and see what we could do to get her status straightened out.

The first stop in El Paso was a school where the young mother of our escort family and her two older girls had a Parent/Teachers meeting to attend. Her father then drove us to our airport hotel in El Paso and we bid a tearful farewell. I am not one who shows his emotions, but I cried and was extremely thankful for all the help this family was in keeping our sanity and holding our hands every step of the way. I truly felt these strangers who only knew us on the word of Sara's business acquaintance, saved our lives. I am forever in their debt and I learned a valuable lesson about the kindness of strangers. If they ever need my help in any way I can humanly give it, they will receive it.

That night in the hotel room, we learned Shelly liked to eat ice. I made some phone calls and tried to stop payment on checks given to Mario Reyes. The $8,000 bank check would have required a bond to stop and I was certain Mario already converted it to cash. The $1,250 we paid for foster care was paid in American Express Traveler's Checks and I was sure Mario had already cashed those. The only thing I was able to stop payment on was the check for $618.71 that covered the itemized medical bill Mario had handed us when he handed us Shelly. As the reader will shortly learn, this check became a bit of a thorn in Mario's side. As we later learned and as I have already mentioned, the doctor that Mario used for medical reports on these children was jailed as part of the investigation in Mexico. Dollar-wise, this was a small victory, but on principle, it was tremendous.

Fearful and paranoid that agents of the INS, Border patrol, FBI and any other US government agency would swoop down and arrest us and take away and deport Shelly at any moment, we lived the next few days and parts of the next few months acting like fugitives. We've always been the kind of people that never have an unpaid parking ticket, never bounced a check, never paid a bill late and rarely jaywalk. The last moving violation I had was 12 years ago. Sara began to give me tearful apologies for getting us into this by insisting we give Adoption Choice, the Arlenes and Mario one last chance. We had room service deliver our meal. We called close friends and family and informed them of our schedule change and told them things did not go smoothly and there were problems. We made arrangements to change to a flight home a day ahead of schedule. We made arrangements for friends to pick us up at the airport when we arrived home.

After a sleepless night and a hurried breakfast, it was off to the El Paso airport the next morning in the hotel shuttle. Here we were, at an airline counter in the days of heightened airport security, normal, law-abiding citizens with their adopted child, believing we had done something terribly wrong and trying to act calm and nonchalant so as not to attract attention. We were so racked with paranoia; I don't know how we pulled it off and I can only imagine how we must have appeared to others. There's probably an airport surveillance tape somewhere that shows us. The flight to Dallas-Ft. Worth and the second plane to LaGuardia were uneventful. Fortunately, Shelly was a good traveler and content to sit on our laps and suck her bottle and pull our ears. She only fussed slightly toward the end of the trip, possibly due to the air pressure changes on her ears from entering the landing pattern.

The Homecoming

It was early evening on Friday, January 16, 1998 when we touched down at LaGuardia airport. Friends had come to meet us. It was quite cold and the events of the last 48 hours and our fear of the US authorities dampened our homecoming celebration. When we arrived at our home, some snapshots were taken, our nightmare was outlined, gifts were given and goodnights were said. Then we locked the doors and pulled the blinds in fear and I called an attorney.

Saturday morning, January 17, 1998, we took Shelly to her new pediatrician who diagnosed her with bronchitis and an ear infection. Luckily this was caught in time to prevent pneumonia and hearing loss. In the next six months, she suffered a few more ear infections and suffered respiratory problems monthly. By June she was considered asthmatic and began taking medications via nebulizer to prevent and treat her asthma attacks. She showed signs of having some residual parasites which the doctor felt required no further treatment as her body would pass them and she wasn't acquiring new ones.

So here we were, proud adoptive parents of a child from Mexico who was here without immigration status thanks to the incompetence, lies and fraud perpetrated by Adoption Choice, Inc., their consultants, International Adoption Consultants, Inc., and their attorney in Mexico, Mario Reyes. We later learned that Mr. Reyes usually had adoptive parents take their children home with complete disregard for the children's immigration status. This agency and their cohorts abandoned us in Juarez with a sick child and should be held accountable. They left us no choice but to bring her home without immigration status. They endangered the welfare of this child with their actions and inaction.

The first attorney we spoke with set up a meeting for early the following week. We were told that we shouldn't worry or be paranoid, as our daughter was not the only Mexican in New York City or the US without immigration status. We were told not to talk to anyone other than close friends and family. We were advised to tell everyone we were home safe with the baby and defer questions as much as possible. We were told that if Adoption Choice tried to contact us to refer them to the attorney. This attorney said she would consult with an immigration attorney and make a recommendation to us.

Meanwhile, on either January 18 or 19, 1998, Melinda Randa called. She said she had a frantic message from Sara while we were in Juarez and was told we had checked out of the hotel when she tried to return our call. She asked what happened and I told her that we were home with the baby, the baby was fine and that if she wanted to know anything about what happened, she would have to speak to our attorney. Indignantly, she said she would not speak with our attorney, hung up and that was the last time we ever heard from her or anyone else from Adoption Choice. I was not prepared to tell Melinda Randa, the wife of a federal judge, that we had Shelly home without legal status without the advice of counsel first.

When we heard back from the first attorney we consulted, the suggestion was made that we return to Juarez and straighten everything out there. For us, that was not a viable option. We felt that anything we could do there, we should also be able to accomplish with the INS and the Mexican Consulate here. We felt that we would have no trouble returning to Mexico with Shelly, but getting her back out could be a big problem, and it was a risk we were unwilling to take. We felt we could lose her and end up in jail ourselves. Weeks of consultations with more than a half dozen immigration and adoption attorneys followed. Two of the attorneys finally agreed that our best course of action would be to keep her in our custody for two years and then file form I-130 with the INS which allows for the adjustment of her immigration status based on her being in our custody for that period of time. In the meantime, we were told to enjoy her. We were advised that because we had that note allowing us to cross the border from Juarez into El Paso, we were not guilty of smuggling her and we would be able to make a case that she was passed and inspected, even though she did not obtain the correct documentation. We were advised to try to get her Mexican passport at the Mexican Consulate in New York City and to feel free to file complaints with the authorities against Adoption Choice and their cohorts.

Meanwhile, Mario Reyes had contacted Sara about the check for $671.18 to cover Shelly's medical expenses while in his custody on which I had stopped payment. Sara told him he had to speak with me about this. I sent him the following letter:

"Mario Reyes
Calle 16 Av. Panamericana
Agua Prieta, Sonora"

"March 4, 1998"

"Dear Mario:"

"I am writing regarding your phone call to Sara about the check to you for $671.18 that was not honored for payment. Unfortunately, this was my only recourse as you did not honor the commitment you made to us last October, resulting in nothing but problems in Juarez when we tried to obtain a passport and visa for Maria Soledad. As you may recall, when we met with you last October, we made it perfectly clear that we wanted all the paperwork to be in order so we would not have any immigration problems. You and Adoption Choice essentially abandoned us in Juarez with a sick child and without the proper paperwork to obtain her passport or visa, leaving us no choice but to bring her home for medical care without immigration status for humanitarian reasons."

"I will gladly pay you the $671.18 when you complete your job and rectify our situation. First, you should have obtained a passport for Maria Soledad when you had paperwork done in Mexico City. The Mexican authorities in Juarez told us this and told us it usually takes 30 days to process the passport. You had everything you needed for this from October until January. Second, we were told that we needed three certified copies of the papers you gave us, including the originals, not just one. Finally, the U.S. consulate in Juarez told us that since the adoption took place in Sonora, not Chihuahua, the visa should be issued in Tijuana. If this is your profession, how could you not know this? Rather than go on a paper chase all over Mexico for weeks on end with a sick baby, we did what any caring parents would do and brought her home for health reasons."

"Your unwillingness or inability to honor the commitment you made to us last October has resulted in the following. The additional expense of hiring an immigration attorney here, paying fines and additional paperwork fees to INS and the possibility of incurring the expense of yet another trip to Mexico to straighten this all out."

"We hold you, Adoption Choice and International Adoption Consultants fully responsible for putting us in this situation."

"If you have any problem completing your job, perhaps we would be best served discussing how you promote and participate in the illegal immigration of children and babies into the U.S. with INS and the media."

"If you feel more comfortable dealing with our attorney here, he is:"

[Attorney's name omitted.
He was one we consulted at the time.
We did not retain his services.]

"Sincerely,"

"David Kruchkow"

"Cc: [Attorney's name], State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services"

On this same date, we also filed a complaint with Kari Hitchman of the Department of Family Services, part of the Department of Health and Social Services in Wisconsin, which controls the license of Adoption Choice. In our letter to her, we detailed our experience up to that date and then wrote the following:

"We do see one way our complaint can be resolved and dropped. It is reasonable and feasible. It requires two steps. First, Adoption Choice assumes full responsibility for our situation and agrees to rectify it at their expense in the next sixty-ninety days; getting the immigration status of Maria adjusted with our full cooperation. This should not be too difficult as INS has just given green cards to the five Winnie the Pooh stuffed animals on display in New York City. It should be much easier to convince INS to adjust the status of a child brought into the country because she was sick than some stuffed animals that some people in England want back. Essentially, we are asking that the agency, their attorney in Mexico and their consultants here finish the job they were hired and paid to do. We don't think this is asking too much as we have been more than patient with Adoption Choice as this letter indicates and we have done every single thing we were asked and told to do, yet still find ourselves in this uncomfortable situation. Second, Maria, Sara and David Kruchkow must be guaranteed full immunity from any prosecution for any violation they may have committed of any immigration laws."

"If this is unacceptable to any of the parties involved, the only alternative we see is prolonged and costly civil and criminal action involving breach of contract, fraud, pain and suffering and the media. If we have to face the INS, it will have to involve discussing how Adoption Choice, their attorney, Mario Reyes along with their consultants, International Adoption Consultants, promote and participate in the illegal immigration of children and babies into The U.S."

"We are sure we will hear from you soon, if not, you can be sure we will take whatever further action is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration."

Curiously enough, when I was compelled to testify at the sentencing hearings in this case, Mario Reyes' defense attorney waived and read these letters in court and then accused me of extortion. My reply was that he had a different definition of extortion than I did.

Meanwhile, because we were unable to obtain immigration status for Shelly, obtaining citizenship, Social Security registration, opening bank accounts and trusts and claiming her as a dependent on our taxes were all delayed. She had been adjusting well as Sara took her unpaid family leave until early April to help Shelly transition and adapt to us and to her new life here. Shelly became a good friend with the UPS delivery person as friends and family far and wide sent her gifts that arrived daily. We took her to Florida in late February for her birthday and to attend the wedding of Sara's nephew. She met her new grandparents, uncle, aunt and cousins. She took it all in stride and in no time at all became a typical, spoiled American two-year-old. Her language quickly went from Spanish baby talk to a hybrid "Spanglish" to just about all English within 6 months. She knew about potties and their purpose, but her training wasn't complete until the following fall. We think the regression had to do with her entering full-time day care for four days a week in April. Shelly proved to be a very good child, active, with a great sense of humor and a sense of compassion and empathy. In spite of all that happened, we could not have asked for a more beautiful and loving daughter. In public, she had a knack of endearing herself to everyone she met. Of course she had her share of the "terrible twos." She would have long and sometimes violent tantrums and bedtime continued to be quite a battle. I'm sure this was part normal two-year-old behavior, part grieving for loss of her birthmother and foster mother and part due to the steroids she was being given for asthma. My sister had given us an old Disney musical projector nightlight that she had used with her three children. Although the battery compartment was held together with tape, it was still functional. It would project slowly revolving pictures of baby Disney characters on the ceiling of the room, while playing an instrumental version of "When You Wish Upon a Star." Shelly found this soothing at bedtime and I would softly sing all the words as "Papa, Papa, Papa, pa," while rocking, holding or snuggling with her. This became the "Papa Song" for most of the next year.

Unbeknownst to us, several other things were happening in early 1998. The Libertos had taken Gabby to the Mexican Consulate in New York City in February to obtain some documents, including the FM3 known as the Permission to Adopt and found out things were not legitimate with Gabby being here with them and with their adoption. This was one of the triggers of the subsequent investigation in Mexico. Some of the other families had also been to the Mexican Consulate that February and had been told either by the Arlenes and/or Mario Reyes to lie and not reveal that any of the children were here. This is when the officials at the Mexican Consulate began to interrogate the adoptive families and requested that the children be brought in for fingerprints and footprints in an attempt to identify them in Mexico. Shortly thereafter, the Libertos went to the New York State Attorney General to file a complaint against the Arlenes.

There were also two pieces in the New York Post that February about the adoption scams and rip-offs the Arlenes had perpetrated over the years and how people had lost considerable sums of money and never received placement of a child. In the last article, Arlene Lieberman is given a chance to defend herself and says that the people who never got children were just not patient enough. She said that she sleeps well at night and has a clear conscience. She said that she was now (in February 1998) out of the adoption business due to burnout. These articles appeared in the New York Post on February 15 and 19, 1998 and were written by Andrea Peyser. Meanwhile, the Clarkes had been paying and would continue for several more months to pay foster care costs for Maritza. The Arlenes would continue to be involved in international adoptions from Mexico and Guatemala until just prior to their arrests in May 1999. From the New York Post articles, it appeared that while the adoptions they facilitated from countries other than Mexico were legal according to the INS, they had a history of practicing their scams and rip-offs on some of the families adopting from countries other than Mexico.

We obtained our daughter's Mexican passport at the Mexican Consulate in New York without a problem on April 1,1998. How we were able to do this without undergoing the interrogation and fingerprinting and footprinting of our daughter that the other families faced is beyond me. I knew from Linda Moody and Christina Leonard that we were known to the Mexican Consulate. I can only guess that it was because we had already obtained our FM3 from Mario Reyes thanks to the efforts of Sara's business contact in Mexico. Our other documents appeared complete and legitimate and all we lacked were some certified copies. The consular staff, smitten by Shelly's cuteness, made and certified the additional needed copies at no cost to us. At this time, I began to post our story and a warning against using Adoption Choice in a few places on the Internet. We arranged to meet with representatives of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York on May 20, 1998 to see what can be done to stop these people.

The meeting with the investigators from the Office of the Attorney General in New York State occurred as scheduled in our home. Shelly sat inquisitively at the table with Judith Kramer, Christina Leonard and Linda Moody along with Sara and myself. It seemed that there had been a long history of problems with International Adoption Consultants and we became part of an ongoing investigation. It seemed to us that Adoption Choice in Wisconsin willingly and knowingly participated in the scams and fraud. We had heard nothing from Kari Hitchman but were contacted by a reporter for WISN TV in Milwaukee who was completing a two-year long investigative report on problems with international adoption, particularly Guatemalan adoptions and had contacted couples with complaints against Adoption Choice in Wisconsin. The reporter was Colleen Henry. She confirmed what we learned from a contract attorney in Wisconsin; that both Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach were married to federal judges. She is the one who directed us to two articles that appeared in the New York Post that February that showed what happened to some other families who worked with the Arlenes. We felt lucky that at least we came away with our daughter while other people lost their money and came away with nothing. Ms. Henry also pointed out that both Adoption Choice and the Arlenes had a history with Guatemalan adoptions that involved a Miami adoption attorney who had her own legal problems because of scams, fraud and rip-offs. This Miami attorney may have been the common link that brought Adoption Choice and the Arlenes together.

At this meeting with the three investigators from the New York State Attorney General's office, we failed to fully understand why they were so concerned about how much money was paid when and to whom and by what method. As time went on, we realized that the money trail tells no lies and points to the true criminal intent of the parties involved. The money trail is what destroyed any defense the Arlenes and Mario Reyes attempted to mount.

The above pretty well summarizes how we spent our first four months as adoptive parents.

The Investigations

By September 6, 1998, we had no good news. I was in the midst of changing jobs. During the previous week, Judy Herman, the licensing specialist for the State of Wisconsin's Department of Health and Family Services, who had been handling our complaint to Kari Hitchman, told me that their attorneys had told them they have no authority over what Adoption Choice does outside of Wisconsin. Their license was renewed. She had no response when questioned about the complaints from within Wisconsin that Colleen Henry was investigating. I wondered just how severely Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach would have had to misbehave to justify suspension or loss of Adoption Choice's license. Ms. Herman made me feel that it was far easier to obtain and renew an adoption agency license than it was to suspend or revoke it.

In checking out an adoption resource website that someone on an adoption listserv referred us to at http://www.adoption.com, we found a web page advertisement for Adoption Choice by clicking on "International Adoptions" and then clicking on "Contact a Professional." The address is http://www.adoption.com/adoptionchoice/index.html. We were shocked and dismayed to read their banner stating "International Adoption Made Easy," and to see them list programs in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, Bulgaria, China and Chile. They posted pictures of children with their adoptive families and it just made us sick to see this kind of blatantly false advertising. They stated that they worked with other agencies in other states as well as being licensed in Wisconsin. The way the site read, it looked like they were still working with the Arlenes in New York, and Mario Reyes may have still been their contact in Mexico. We alerted the investigators from the Office of the Attorney General in New York State, who were looking into this, sent E-mail to Colleen Henry and planned to contact Judy Herman to see if this advertising could be stopped.

Meanwhile, as investigations were underway in Mexico, New York, Arizona and the US, it was business as usual for Adoption Choice, the Arlenes and Mario Reyes. In fact, Mario Reyes was so popular, well known and well respected in Douglas, Arizona that he mounted a write-in political campaign for a seat on the Douglas Council. By October 1998, Mario Reyes' world began to crumble. There were other triggers of these investigations besides the complaints of the Libertos and us. A reporter in Texas did a story about Mexican women coming across the border to give birth and put their children up for adoption creating a lucrative business for lawyers and facilitators on both sides of the border. An alleged relation of Mario Reyes, Theresa Hernandez Reyes Kryger worked as an adoption attorney in the San Diego-Tijuana border area and was having problems with the authorities, especially on the Mexican side. FOX TV in San Diego did a story featuring her and some of her clients and the problems they were having that aired in November, which is National Adoption Awareness Month. They showed how one of her clients, a woman from a Northern Plains State was jailed in Tijuana for a week as well as the plight of a Tennessee family who had a daughter here without a completed Mexican adoption. Strangely enough, I received an E-mail several months earlier from Kryger and her husband Kirk asking that I tone down my warnings against Mexican adoptions on the internet as the ones they were involved with went smoothly and they were afraid I was scaring people off to the detriment of waiting children. This story aired in California at the same time Colleen Henry's piece aired in Wisconsin on the FOX/ABC affiliate, WISN in Milwaukee. I have personal knowledge of another family, who, in the spring of that year, ended up stuck in Mexico with a newborn and a complete and legal Mexican adoption but had to battle apparent corruption at the US Consulate for three months before a visa was issued thanks to the involvement of a US Senator, allowing them to come home with their baby. These were parallel stories that were ongoing simultaneously with the events I've depicted here.
Recently, a Tucson woman experiencing problems with her second Mexican adoption described the process in Mexico, "like trying to tap-dance on quicksand."

The string of events that brought down Mario Reyes' little empire were documented in various newspapers of the region, including the Douglas Dispatch, Arizona Star and Arizona Republic. Apparently, an unwed teenage mother from a Mexican state to the south had relinquished her newborn to Reyes and after several months of working, decided she could now financially and emotionally handle a child. She traveled from parts south back to Agua Prieta to seek out Reyes and determine the whereabouts of her child. When she was denied the latter, she went to the Mexican authorities. These authorities may have already been investigating Reyes in cooperation with the US authorities, and this was the trigger they needed to pull the plug on his operation. In short order, Reyes' office was raided. One of his employees, a Ms. Soto, who provided foster care for several children at a time and lent her name as the birth mother to forged and falsified documents so she could freely transport these children across the border, was arrested. Reyes apparently had enough connections in Mexico that he stayed in Arizona while all this happened, seemingly having been forewarned. If I piece together the various reports the picture that formed indicated Reyes, now working out of his Douglas home, began to lose everything he had built up. If he had started his operation years earlier with the altruistic and humanitarian goals of helping the unwanted children of prostitutes and impoverished people as he has claimed many times, even at his sentencing, he succumbed to greed when he saw the money American gringos were willing to pay for an easy adoption of a healthy infant. Ultimately, he fell victim to his own greed. He lost his businesses, including a liquor store and gas station along with his office in Mexico. He presented himself as a religious man and held a high office at the Catholic Church in Douglas. He lost this position as the allegations against him and the publicity surrounding them became too great to ignore. Known as "Cappy" on both sides of the border, he had been well known, well-respected and well-liked, but he lost this too as he gave up his political ambitions and campaign for the Douglas Council seat. He ended up filing bankruptcy and apparently cooperated with the US authorities when they came to interview and question him several months later. Of course, there are those who believe that the loss of businesses and the bankruptcy filing were just another scam to hide all the money he had taken. As for the teenager's child, it was placed in a state institution while the Mexican authorities decided what to do and where the mother was able to sneak some visits

In October of 1998, a year after we had first met Reyes and our daughter in Agua Prieta, Linda Moody of the New York State Attorney General's office informed me of another couple that had been working with the Arlenes of International Adoption Consultants who received an undocumented child from them in the fall of 1997. In their case, they received a call from one of the Arlenes and were told to meet her husband at MacArthur Airport to pick up their child. Mario Reyes was involved and the child came from Agua Prieta. Linda said some of the Mexican documentation looks altered and the couple doesn't know what to do but is willing to go forward with a complaint. I didn't know if Adoption Choice in Wisconsin was involved. Linda did mention that previously this couple was offered a child named Sulema and we wondered together if this was the same Sulema we had been assigned and some kind of brokering was occurring. I urged Linda to give this couple our phone number so we could share our stories, lend each other support, and find some strength in numbers. We did not know then that this couple was the Libertos and our stories would be so intertwined.

On January 28, 1999, Linda Moody called and told me that Mario Reyes had been indicted in Mexico. She did not know the charges. She believed the US Attorney General's people were trying to indict the Arlenes. Apparently eight US families with children adopted using Mario Reyes had been summoned to the Mexican Consulate in New York City to have their children fingerprinted and footprinted. Somehow, we were not one of them. Living with the daily uncertainty about what would be revealed next and what would happen to our daughter and us put us under unrelenting, excruciating and indescribable stress.

It's prudent to touch upon how Shelly was fairing at this point in time. Her ear infections became less frequent but her frequent bouts of bronchitis led to even more frequent asthma attacks. She was on a strict regimen of asthma medications daily. She had been treated with Prednisolone three times by then for very severe attacks. Additionally, she was diagnosed with Marcus Gunn Jaw Wink with Ptosis by a pediatric ophthalmologist. This is a rare neuro-muscular congenital defect affecting her eye and jaw. Fortunately, it required no treatment at that time as it was not severe enough to affect her vision, but regular monitoring is required. Both of these conditions reinforced our decision to bring her home for proper medical care. It's very likely that treating her asthma may have saved her life as I doubt the medications, emergency treatments and even a home nebulizer would have been available to her in Mexico, but of course I cannot state this with 100 percent certainty.

By late February 1999 we were finding it harder to know what to believe. According to Christina Leonard of the New York State Attorney General's office, the Mexican Consulate had been successful in contacting 6 of 16 families involved. The US attorney's office wanted the Arlenes and Christina was reluctant to give them anything, as she didn't want to jeopardize anyone's children. We seemed to be in better shape than the other families as we had more documentation than they did. I told Christina that I believed Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach were just as involved in any criminal activities as Mario and the Arlenes were. We believed we had proof of their knowledge and complicity in brokering as the family that had Sulema Gabriella (the Libertos) had contacted us and their story was even more atrocious than ours was. Once I was certain that the girl the Libertos had was Sulema, I made copies of the photo we had and whatever papers I had and sent them to the Libertos. They had spoken to 3 other families and have a relative who used Adoption Choice for a Guatemalan adoption (the Abates) and were willing to work with us to bring everyone together to compare notes. At least we would bring together some children from the same neighborhood. The Libertos had been involved with her older sister and with Elizabeth's older sister as well. The stories got more complicated and became more intertwined as we learned more. As time went on and we heard more of the stories from the adoptive families, the magnitude of the fraud involved and its human toll would be revealed. We became immune to surprises as we learned the sad and shocking truth of how the crimes of Mario Reyes and the Arlenes became relentlessly pervasive in the lives of so many victims.

At this point it was hard to know what to believe. I no longer believed Adoption Choice, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes were ever capable of telling the truth. Sara's business associate in Mexico said that the media there was all over this case and it seemed as if birthparents were coming forward wanting to know the status and whereabouts of their children as Mario Reyes was suspected of so much foul play. It didn't seem as if anyone was asking for the return of any children but that they just wanted proof and assurance that their children were alive, happy, healthy and being well cared for. You could touch and feel the stress grow more intense.

Linda Moody called me Friday, February 26, 1999 to inform me that the INS was now involved. She assured me that her information was that none of the authorities wanted to disrupt families or move children. They just wanted to get the traffickers. I told her I'd talk to the authorities if it meant bringing down Adoption Choice as long as I had legal representation with me. Meanwhile, our daughter's third birthday was celebrated with a big party on Sunday, February 28, 1999 that she thoroughly enjoyed despite suffering from severe conjunctivitis.

Around this time, I spoke with someone else who had a Mexican adoption that did not go smoothly and she was very tuned into networking and Mexican politics. It appeared that there was another trigger to the Mexican investigation. It seemed that there had been a change in political power in Sonora and some other states. Until the 1998 round of local elections, the minority party in the federal government in Mexico controlled Sonora and some other states. This party turned a blind eye to the type adoption activities that Mario Reyes and others practiced. After the elections, the majority federal party took control of Sonora and some other states. They wanted to allow only orphanage adoptions in abandonment cases and make sure the birthmother was interviewed by a social worker before she signed final relinquishment documents in relinquishment cases. Mario Reyes and his ilk were friends to the minority party and hence enemies of the current ruling majority, so he becomes a target for prosecution.

At this point in time, with criminal investigations in two countries and several states in full swing, we were walking on eggshells. We had a wartime mentality in the sense that we were just waiting for the next bomb to drop. On March 2, 1999, I met with Aaron Britvan, an adoption attorney who chairs the New York State Bar Association of Adoption Attorneys to discuss re-adopting Shelly here at the suggestion of our immigration attorney. The immigration attorney had referred us to another attorney. While this attorney was familiar with our story from the Internet, his advanced age, unfamiliarity with adoption, both domestic and international, his clock watching and his verbal slips where he kept calling our Mexican adoption a Mexican divorce drove me to seek out Aaron Britvan. This unnamed attorney did have some investigative programs in his computer that yielded some interesting background on the criminals. He also gave me some advice that I did follow and that was to take my posts off the Internet. Thankfully, he did not charge for his initial consultation.

We made plans to renew Shelly's passport at the end of March. We also made plans to finally meet with the Libertos and the Clarkes, that coming Sunday, March 7, 1999, at a Chuck E Cheese's on Long Island. It was a bitterly cold late winter day when we arrived at the restaurant. The Libertos and Gabby were wonderful. I immediately recognized Sharon Clarke from our initial meeting in June of 1995 with the Arlenes and Melinda Randa. Her daughter Nicole had grown so much in the three and a half years that had elapsed. At this point the Clarkes had spent tens of thousands of dollars in fees and foster care with the Arlenes and Mario Reyes for Maritza only to realize they were not going to get any child and that their hard earned money was lost. Gabby could pass as Shelly's older sister. Hopefully they'll become friends and have a common heritage to share. Gabby was escorted home to her family on July 7, 1997. We were not told that this referral fell through until August 30, 1997. For almost 2 months Gabby had already been placed with another family while Mario Reyes was still trying to collect foster care money from us. The Libertos paid Mario a fee that was $3,000 higher than we were paying. This is a smoking gun as far as baby brokering goes. It was Melinda Randa, not the Arlenes who told us on August 30, 1997 that we were not getting Gabby. Whether she was a party to or was just passing on a lie from Mario Reyes and the Arlenes is unknown to me. What I do know is that we were Adoption Choice's clients. We were their legal responsibility according to the agreement with International Adoption Consultants filed with the New York State Department of Social Services that Special Agent Pace's Deposition refers to in my introduction. In fact, not only did this agreement spell that out precisely, it even stated that Adoption Choice's clients were their trade secret. Again I ask the reader, with whom does responsibility and accountability lay? While the children played and we talked the sheer magnitude of the scam and con perpetrated by Mario Reyes and the Arlenes had yet to dawn upon us. We were the last to leave and discovered we had a flat tire that I was not about to change in sub-freezing temperatures. It took over two hours for the AAA to come to the rescue and Shelly was a trooper as usual as we went back in to the restaurant and stayed entertained.

On my birthday, March 17, 1999, we learned that the INS in Arizona contacted our character witnesses who live in Tucson on March 4 and asked how the child they adopted in Mexico was doing. Our witnesses explained that they weren't the adopters, just character witnesses for us. The INS wanted to know if they knew how to get in touch with us. They said they didn't have our current address and phone number. This made no sense, as we were not hiding. Our witnesses did appear at the time that Sulema (Gabby) was still assigned to us so maybe there was some confusion with Mario's records as to which child was where. Both our adoption attorney and immigration attorney said to not contact the INS, but to wait for the authorities to come to us and then call them. I wondered if the INS was trying to see if our witnesses were part of Mario's ring. In any case they told our witnesses that no one was going to try to take anyone's adopted children away, they were just after Mario Reyes and his cohorts. They also told our witnesses that Mario was involved with 32 illegal adoptions over the last 2 years. The numbers kept changing and growing as the story progressed and I wondered if we'd ever have any idea of how many families and children really were involved.

Before the end of March, we started the paper trail (it never ends in this adoption saga) for our re-adoption in Queens County. We then took a much-needed break and took a trip to Florida to see family and celebrate my mom's 70th birthday. Shelly once again charmed everyone she met. We took her to the Miami Seaquarium and at the beach at Ft. Lauderdale the following day, she demonstrated the showmanship she learned the previous day, by introducing her mommy and papa to the boys and girls and ladies and gentlemen at the beach. We decided that in another year she'd be ready for Disney World.

Back in Queens before the month ended, I spoke with Christina Leonard and Linda Moody at the New York State Attorney General's Office on March 30, 1999. The Mexican authorities and all the involved law enforcement agencies in the US had met in Arizona while we were in Florida. Our name appeared on the list of families involved from documents seized from Mario's office and supposedly the US Attorney here in New York had been trying to contact us. Both the US Attorney's Office and the State Department wanted to protect the adoptive families and children. The Mexicans were trying to match children with birth parents, but nothing seemed to match, so everyone is assuming that all documents were forged or falsified and that dates, names and birthmothers were not necessarily authentic. DNA testing had not been mentioned. This meant that these kids could have been shuttled from all over Mexico and the rest of Latin America to Agua Prieta and Mario. The truth may never be known. The question of how we will explain this all to our daughter when she's older began to torment me regularly. There's nothing like the sinking feeling you get when you learn that everything you had been told and believe is true may not be. At the Arizona meeting, it was decided that the US Attorney would handle criminal charges against all involved. The INS hadn't decided anything yet, but I wanted to keep pushing for a blanket immigration status adjustment for all the children at every opportunity. The New York State Attorney would handle civil complaints and injunctions against the Arlenes. All the US authorities considered the adoptive families' victims and were not prepared to pursue any criminal charges against any family for any violations of US laws that may have occurred. Other than the extradition of Mario Reyes to face charges, it was hard to know what the Mexican authorities wanted. We would make sure we were legally protected no matter whom contacted or wanted to talk to us. Supposedly the US Attorney and State department would want us to come in and footprint, fingerprint and photograph our daughter so they have a record and registry of all the children involved. Our adoption and immigration attorney both said to call them if anyone contacts us.

The next day, March 31, 1999, we fearfully went to the Mexican Consulate in New York City to renew our daughter's passport. We knew this Consulate was involved in the Mexican investigation and knew of us. We knew that setting foot in this Consulate was the same as setting foot in Mexico. In spite of being extremely worried, we had no problems. I know when we handed over our application and documents, computer screens were stared at and a lot of phone calls were made, but we were given a passport for Shelly, valid for one more year. It was like the miracle of Passover all over again as I had expected us to be shuffled off for inspection and interrogation at any moment. When we weren't interrogated the previous year, we may not have been on the Consulate's hot list yet. This time we definitely were, yet we had no problem there.

Perhaps by now the reader has the same question that plagued us during this ordeal. That is, did we or did we not have a complete, legal, Mexican adoption of our daughter? It appeared as if Mexican officials at their New York Consulate recognized it as they issued a passport based on our documents in both 1998 and 1999. This was while the investigation on both sides of the border was in full swing. The IRS also seemed to recognize our adoption in that they issued a Tax Identification Number based on our documents.

So why was there a problem with the INS, United States Attorney and Social Security? Karen Pace answered our questions more than a year later at the sentencing of Reyes and the Arlenes. Our adoption was not legal as several steps were skipped in the process, and that is regardless of what Mario Reyes claimed in his seven hours of voluntary statements made to Karen Pace and Kevin Sibley prior to his arrest. The Mexican Consulate accepted our documents as proof of identity for a Mexican national who was entitled to a Mexican passport. No claim was made recognizing the adoption according to Karen Pace, even though the Mexican passports are in the name of Maria Soledad Kruchkow Schreiber.

By the same token, the IRS accepted our documents as proof that Shelly was a foreign born dependent by adoption, without acknowledgement that the adoption was or was not legal. I'm sorry, but Karen's explanation is less than satisfactory here. The issuance of a passport with our surname and the issuance of a Tax ID number can only serve to prove that both a designated authority of the Mexican government and a branch of the US government recognized Shelly as our adopted daughter.

It's too bad diffferent agencies of our government can't be on the same page about this. We suffer as a consequence. My own opinion is that the INS and US Attorney needed our adoption to be illegal to help make their case, so they determined it was.

Much of the above changed on August 24, 2000, when Karen Pace returned our evidence minus the tape of our meeting with the Arlenes from 1997, along with over two-hundred pages of transcripts from the eleven tapes made over seven hours of voluntary questioning of Mario Reyes on May 3, 1999.

These transcripts are unbelievable! It's an unraveling ball of twine made of lies. He
actually believed his religious convictions and greed placed him above all
other laws and ethics. Other than outright kidnapping, he admits to just
about every other ethical and legal violation of US and Mexican laws
concerning intercountry adoption. His stated purpose was to expedite and
shorten the 9 month to 1 year process a legal Mexican adoption takes. He
succeeded, as he had adoptive parents taking children home in a matter of
days after they were paper ready. He even wrote to President Clinton in
July 1997, requesting help in his efforts to shorten and expedite the whole
process! Even when he did it the "long way," he avoided certain steps so
that he violated the law. And in our case, with the 2 failed referrals and
our insistence that he follow all the procedures, it took 2 and a half years
before we brought Shelly home and the results were the same as if he took
his usual shortcuts and we had brought her home in 2 and a half weeks. All
of this was done with the assistance and tacit compliance of the Arlenes in
NY working as consultants to Adoption Choice in WI.

Reyes was asked specifically if several of the biological mothers listed on birth certificates and other documents were actually the biological mother or not. If he was truthful, he said that the woman listed as Shelly's biological mother wasn't. For whatever reason, he had a detailed story to go along with this woman.

Here's what was Reyes said when Tim Macht asked how this woman came to appear on the birth certificate as the biological mother:

"Because she uh, was originally gonna give uh... One of her daughters, uh, got pregnant from a married man and she wanted the kid to be given up in adoption and it never happened because uh, when... This is one of the infants that when the child was born, the biological mom changed her mind... She says, "I don't care what my mom sayss, I'm not giving the kid up in adoption." And uh, she... got involved and knew what I was doing and i asked her if she could uh, register a kid for me."

Somehow, I think there's more to this part of the story than stated here. That seems to be the case with every other part of this whole story.

Subpoenaed!

On Thursday evening, April 15, 1999 while I was at work and Sara and Shelly were sitting in front of the house playing, a large sedan pulled up to the curb and parked. Out stepped a young woman with her hand full of papers. She approached Sara and asked if she was Sara Kruchkow and if her husband was David Kruchkow. She identified herself as Karen Pace, special investigator for the INS and served two federal grand jury subpoenas to Sara, one for Sara and one for David. The jury was to convene at 10AM April 26, 1999 at the US Courthouse in Brooklyn, New York and we were to provide ourselves and all documents, photographs and correspondence regarding any and all adoptions involving Mario Reyes, the agency and their consultants. We could also schedule a private meeting with the US attorney and INS instead.

Sara called me at work as soon as Agent Pace left. Upon hearing the news, I immediately phoned and left messages for our adoption attorney, Aaron Britvan, and our immigration attorney. Sadly, our immigration attorney never returned any of my three phone calls and this is why I haven't named him, as I am deciding if I should seek legal recourse against him. Obviously, there were more pressing legal matters to deal with than this man's unprofessional conduct. Again, an attorney had abandoned us at a time when his aid was most needed. We were quite frantic, even though the New York State Attorney General's people had alerted us to expect this. Aaron Britvan did call back and informed me that all the other families involved had received the same subpoenas. He then referred us to a criminal attorney named Marvin Zevin to whom he had referred several of the other families he was representing.

We met with Mr. Zevin on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 and told him our story as Sara sobbed uncontrollably. We told him that we were willing to cooperate, as we wanted to stop these people from putting any more families through the hell and leaving them in the legal limbo in which we were now mired. In exchange for our cooperation, we wanted to be sure we were legally protected, our daughter would remain our daughter and something would be done for the status of all the children involved. Mr. Zevin's background is quite extensive, with a degree in engineering and a background in both criminal and civil rights law. As he approached retirement, I am sure a story about his life would be fascinating reading. His wisdom, experience, resources and knowledge proved invaluable in our case. By Friday, April 23, 1999, he was arranging interviews with the US Attorney and INS. Ours was scheduled for Monday afternoon, April 26, 1999.

Curiously enough, an immigration/criminal attorney in NJ contacted us through the Internet on Friday, April 23 and I called her on the phone. A client of hers in New York, who is a single woman pediatrician, used the Arlenes and Mario when the Arlenes were still Stork Adoptions in New York. This case goes back several years before ours and this woman was subpoenaed also. Adoption Choice in WI was not involved here, but this woman's daughter is close to Shelly in age and we have since met and these kids could be cousins. This attorney is a former US Attorney and her partner is a former INS investigator. We kept the conversation minimal so as not to create any conflicts in our cases, but when I mentioned getting the immigration status of all the children adjusted, this attorney said she'd prefer they go straight to citizenship. I liked this and since we may eventually need a new immigration attorney, I agreed to stay in touch.

We appeared at the US Attorney's office in Brooklyn, New York on Monday, April 26, 1999, at 1PM, accompanied by Marvin Zevin. We brought a bag full of documents, letters, photos and tapes. With barely any wait at all, we were ushered into a conference room by a young US Attorney named Tim Macht and a young INS Agent named Kevin Sibley. This was the second most nerve-wracking day in our lives I have described in this story. The first was the day we crossed from Ciudad Juarez in El Paso with Shelly. Ground rules were reviewed and we signed consent/transactional immunity agreements. As per Mr. Zevin's suggestion, they would start by questioning Sara first and then move on to me, as I was more tuned into later sequence of events. It was expected Sara would be brief and I would be lengthy. As it turned out, Sara, who was in tears when we told our story to Marvin Zevin in his office on April 21, 1999, was rock solid and steady with an infallible memory for over three hours of grilling by Tim Macht and Kevin Sibley. By the time I was called in, I was a nervous wreck and a total basket case. The young government agents couldn't believe it was possible for our story to happen the way it did and seemed to ask all the wrong questions and go off in directions that were not relevant to our case. Tim Macht was very interested in Shelly's health, medical history and problems. Kevin Sibley thought the note we got from the Customs and Immigration Agent at the border crossing was worthless and laughed at it. He didn't believe it was possible that we could get to the border in a car, with Shelly in plain site and just be waved across. It was almost comical to see how beside himself he was over this, especially since our former immigration attorney had contacts that said these kind of notes were common for border crossings there. After five hours, this phase was finally over. Mr. Zevin said we probably wouldn't hear anything for about two months, as there were now about 100 families involved altogether. This was the beginning of a combined investigation of cases in both Arizona and New York.

A few days later, Mr. Zevin told me that these young government agents were finally starting to ask some of the right questions. Consequently, they asked the Libertos if they had been in contact with any other couples involved and our names did come up. This apparently did not have any negative impact on our attorney or us in a situation where he was representing two clients and a conflict could arise.

Another month passed without much happening. Our adoption attorney asked for permission to write senators and congressmen on our behalf and we gave that permission. I wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton that was never answered or acknowledged. The Queens County Family Court sent a social worker to visit us on May 19, 1999 for a home study for the re-adoption. This was like "deja'-vu all over again," except this social worker admitted he had no use for children and was very weird. He sat on a park bench in a drenching rainstorm for twenty minutes before he rang our bell because he didn't want to disturb us prior to his appointment with us. At lease the re-adoption seemed to be moving along and we had to get three new letters of reference.

I spoke with that immigration attorney in New Jersey again. She was not under the impression that there were up to 100 families involved but said she would see what she could find out. She agreed that the authorities were vigorously pursuing the health aspect of the children that were brought here and I had been asking if anyone else got kids with health problems and birth defects. I did become active in a Marcus Gunn support group on the Internet. This attorney was not in favor of contacting politicians and would prefer to go through the State Department and Madeline Albright. She said her client had already written to Hillary Clinton with no response.

In the early morning hours of Thursday, May 27, 1999, as all hell was breaking lose for Mario Reyes in Douglas, Arizona and for the Arlenes in Medford, New York, Shelly had her worst asthma attack ever. I spent all of Thursday morning at the doctor's office with her where she received nebulizer treatments with Albuterol twice and an injection of Prednisolone. She first began to breathe better by June 1, but had been inhaling Albuterol several times a day and was on liquid Prednisolone twice a day. By Thursday afternoon, May 27,1999, the story about the arrests of Mario Reyes in Douglas, Arizona and Arlene Lieberman and Arlene Reingold in Medford, New York appeared in the press. They were charged with 17 counts of baby smuggling in violation of US Immigration Laws as well as mail and wire fraud. Our names and the names of the Liberto family were made public thanks to the New York State Attorney General's Office simultaneously filing their civil complaint against the Arlenes. That initiated a period of being inundated by the press and media. Sara gave a brief interview to CBS News Radio for the morning drive on Friday, May 28 and was ambushed by a reporter from the local FOX TV station when she came home with Shelly that evening. We talked to the press selectively on the advice of Aaron Britvan. The New York Times gave the best account followed by the Arizona Star and Arizona Republic. Making the headlines in three of the four New York daily papers and the front page on two of them that Friday morning was quite an experience. Shelly's adoption scrapbook will certainly be different than that of most other adoptees. What was extremely upsetting is that Adoption Choice in WI had escaped involvement. Their claim to the press was that they were unhappy with the Arlenes and broke off their relationship with them after one year despite evidence and experience to the contrary.

Over the next two weeks, Shelly had another severe asthma episode accompanied by a cold. While she wasn't consciously aware of what was going on around her, the stress in the air around our house was palpable and she probably sensed and felt it. I had no doubt that this was at least a partial trigger to her asthma attacks. Meanwhile, we had been told that INS was setting up a panel to decide how to handle the status of the children. Aaron Britvan wanted to get politicians involved as we plugged along with the re-adoption in Queens. We had done most of the paperwork and Aaron wanted to make sure Queens Family Court knew about the federal case so they did not think we were trying to pull something on them. On the advice of both of our attorneys, we were not talking at all to the press and were not discussing any details with anyone in order to protect us from defense attorneys. Once the criminal case was considered resolved, then Aaron would be willing to go with us to the press to present our story. At that time we would be able to name Adoption Choice in WI and tell the truth about their involvement. We were willing to entertain book and movie offers to defray legal costs and help with a college fund as well. Since our story intertwined with the story of the Liberto family, I'd like to see our two stories chronicled for the public somehow. This was one of my goals when I began this narration.

The case against the Arlenes and Mario Reyes was sent to the grand jury on Monday, June 14, 1999. Rosalie Liberto was one of the witnesses called and gave tearful testimony. We were not needed as witnesses and the grand jury handed down an eight-count indictment almost immediately. Next would be an actual trial or plea-bargaining.

Above, I mentioned how Tim Macht was very focused on Shelly's health issues when he questioned us. On May 3, 1999, a team of investigators from both AZ and NY tape recorded seven hours of questioning of Mario Reyes in the presence of his attorney. Karen Pace was especially hard on Reyes as to the health of some of the children and the doctor he used in Mexico.

One child in particular, was diagnosed as having a skin rash. Karen Pace said this wasn't a diagnosis as anyone could see that the child had a rash. According to Reyes, the pediatrician he used considered it a type of acne. This particular child has an extremely rare genetic condition called Mastocytosis, which is fatal in its systemic form. Fortunately, the family that has this child has been able to to get correct diagnosis and treatment and the outlook is favorable. Once again, things have turned out for the best for this child, in spite of what Reyes and his cohorts have done, not because of it.

How unusual is it to have two of the children in this case have congenital conditions that are rare enough to be classified as "orphan diseases?" Shelly has Marcus Gunn Jaw Wink and this boy has Mastocytosis.

The Legal Process Grinds on Forever

During the month of June 1999, Mario Reyes was transported to Brooklyn for a late June court appearance after bail and bond were denied in Arizona. The Arizona papers and the New York Times published follow up stories. The Times focused on the Libertos, us and Gabby's birthfamily in Mexico, while the Arizona papers focused on Mario Reyes. They chronicled his rise, popularity and fall. They told how the prominent Mexican attorney who grew up in Douglas, Arizona, raised his own family there and was a popular businessman, church official and aspiring politician had seen his world crumble when Margarita Soto was arrested in Mexico in October 1998. He lost his businesses, filed bankruptcy and the community that knew him affectionately as "Cappy" had begun to shun him. His Arizona attorney lamented his arrest in the press, claiming it was a bad way to treat someone who had been cooperating with the authorities and giving them voluntary interviews in the months prior to his arrest. He was presented as being pro-life and pro-adoption. It was reported that his law thesis in Mexico was written about adoption being an alternative to abortion. One story portrayed him as just trying to do whatever he could to help the poor unwanted children of people in abject poverty and prostitutes find a good home with American families. It was written that he was just trying to work around an adoption system in Mexico that had basically ceased to function. His Arizona and New York attorneys used the press very effectively to outline his planned defense and for several months insisted that he wanted to go to trial to defend himself and restore his good name. His relatives put up their property to get him released on $1 million bond on July 2, 1999. He returned to Arizona while his next court date was scheduled for August 13, 1999.

The New York Times published stories that painted a slightly different picture of Mario Reyes and the story about Gabby's birthfamily shows that Mario made promises to birthfamilies that went unfilled. We knew his defense would fall apart in the face of evidence of brokering, collecting fees for the same child several times over, moving children around and taking money without delivering a child. Once the greed and amount of money involved was disclosed, any defense based on his alleged humanitarianism and religious convictions would crumble.

On July 15, 1999 the Arlenes plea-bargained to the baby smuggling charges in exchange for the other charges being dropped and, ostensibly for testimony against Mario Reyes. The press reported the agreement was that they would each be sentenced to 21-27 months in prison. They would each be required to pay $43,500 in restitution to the families and each would be fined $250,000. How these amounts were determined and how the restitution was to be paid was unclear. In any case, this was a very small measure of justice considering how these people and their cohorts committed emotional homicide on so many families and stole the identities and birthrights of so many children. The INS viewed the children as innocent victims and barring evidence of kidnapping, spoke of citizenship. That was the best news we had heard since January 1998.

On another front, around this time, we learned of two other families, who are local, who received children from Mario via the Arlenes as late as September 1998. Coincidentally, one of these families was the family of my brother's chiropractor. Apparently these families were not part of the investigation and had slipped through the cracks. Since they got their children just before Margarita Soto was arrested in Mexico, it may be that Mario had advance knowledge that something was going to happen and was cleaning house and keeping no records. Aaron Britvan told me that several families in similar circumstances had come forward once this story hit the press, so that the status of their children could be resolved. I believed the number of families now part of this case was approximately 23. An Internet publication, Siskind's Immigration Bulletin, mentions the original 17 in New York plus 15 more which equals the 32 the INS agents in Arizona who questioned our witnesses mentioned.

On Wednesday, July 14, 1999, another curious development unfolded in our case, as a message from the INS office at the US Consulate in Tijuana was on our answering machine. It stated that they had our petition to adopt (our INS dossier with homestudy, I-600A, fingerprint cards, background, references, etc.) and since more than 18 months had passed and no child was identified, they were returning it to us. Sara was outraged that it was sent from Juarez where we last saw it on January 15, 1998, to Tijuana, without anyone notifying us. I felt good about it coming back as it can only show our good faith in following INS procedures and doing everything legally and following the instructions of INS in New York. As far as our re-adoption here goes, it proved we passed muster with the INS. It also showed Adoption Choice as the agency we were using as late as October 1997. We received the packet from Tijuana via San Diego on Friday, July 16, 1999.

At this point it was hard to believe how much our daughter has grown and how pretty she is. Her sense of humor continually saved our sanity during this ordeal.

By July 25, 1999 we had received two things in the mail. First was a packet from the US Dept. of Justice with information on victims/witnesses rights and services. The second was from our attorney telling us INS planned to issue some kind of internal deferred enforcement status for the children which would in effect allow them to issue them work permits so they could obtain Social Security numbers and be adopted here. Then, in two years, their residency, immigration and citizenship status could be addressed by filing an I-130. Leave it to the INS to torture us all for at least two more years. As far as the packet from the Justice Dept. goes, I asked to be kept informed of all developments in the case. I asked if Adoption Choice was in the clear or if they were still under investigation and was only told that the investigation was ongoing. I asked if any victims would be allowed to speak at the sentencing hearing for the Arlenes and was told yes if there was to be that type of hearing or that we'll be allowed to voice our feelings to the judge in writing if there is no such hearing. I was offered counseling and support if needed. I declined for now but expressed a desire that the victims be allowed to meet each other and share their stories. I hoped that the children would be allowed to grow up knowing and keeping in touch with each other so that they can have each others support as they grow and face the unanswerable questions about their pasts.

The remainder of the summer of 1999 passed uneventfully. Nothing happened as far as a trial or plea-bargains for Mario Reyes. There was no word about sentencing for the Arlenes. It was difficult getting a straight answer about anything from the US Attorney's office, especially about any plans to prosecute Adoption Choice. My gut feeling was that Adoption Choice was going to get off because only a small number of the victims used them and they did not engage in any actual transporting, harboring or smuggling of illegal alien. As anxiety and uncertainty had set in, Sara and I became jumpy over the slightest little things and the situation became bad enough that we both started taking Buspar again.

We did have a brief phone interview with Teri Whitcraft, a producer for 20/20 at our adoption attorney's suggestion. The idea was to do a story with Connie Chung once the children's status was secure, as she seemed to be fair in her coverage and had adopted a child herself. Ms. Whitcraft questioned us about some things we felt comfortable answering and some we did not. She wanted to know what other families or attorney's we knew were involved in this case and said that other than one of the half dozen or so families using our adoption attorney, the Libertos, I knew of one or two other families and one other attorney. I told her I did not feel it was my place to make any of these people public, as it should be their decision. She asked if I would contact the other attorney I knew on her behalf and I agreed. This was, of course, the New Jersey attorney I have previously mentioned. When I contacted her, she responded that she would leave the decision to go public up to her client and also mentioned that it appeared the INS was going to begin their "deferred action" by the end of August. That month went by without a peep from INS.

Ms. Whitcraft also questioned us about statements she was reading from some court document that we had no knowledge of and asking us questions about them. In this document, the adoptive families are referred to a "P1 and P2," "P3 and P4," etc. I told her I did not feel right responding to these questions without seeing what she was looking at. She seemed surprised that I did not know what the document was. I again contacted Nancy Fabrizio and even Christina Leonard at the New York State Attorney General's office to see why and how Ms. Whitcraft had access to this document. I also contacted our adoption attorney. It turns out that it was a copy of Karen Pace's deposition for the grand jury that resulted in the indictments and that it was a matter of public record; available to anyone who went to the courthouse in Brooklyn to get a copy. In order to save myself a trip to the courthouse, I asked both Nancy Fabrizio and Teri Whitcraft if I could get them to send me a copy. Ms. Fabrizio was about to leave on vacation but said she'd contact Tim Macht at the US Attorney's office since he was the lead prosecutor on the case and Ms. Whitcraft was going overseas on assignment, but said she see if she could get an associate to send us a copy. Ms. Whitcraft also wanted a commitment from us to give our story to 20/20 exclusively, to which I replied that I had no problem with that now, but too many things were unresolved to make any commitment without advice of counsel. She wondered why whenever she probed or questioned anyone about this case beyond a certain point, she got no answers and everything seemed to fall in a black hole. I wanted to tell her that it's difficult to live with the fear of losing your child in a situation where you don't know who to trust or believe and who is a bad guy and who is a good guy.

Shortly after that, Marvin Zevin called and told me that Tim Macht's office had contacted him about my request for a copy of Karen Pace's deposition. He said that while it was public record, on file for anyone to see at the courthouse, the US Attorney preferred that we did not see it, as we were witnesses. If Mario Reyes were to go on trial, Mr. Macht did not want our story altered by what we read in that document. Consequently, they sent a copy to Mr. Zevin for his review. I told Mr. Zevin that I wanted to see it because reporters who had it were questioning me about its contents. Also, I wanted to make sure there were no inaccuracies pertaining to us. Finally, I wanted to see if I could ascertain how many other families were involved with Adoption Choice in the hopes of initiating some kind of joint action. He advised me to go along with Mr. Macht. He also advised me not to talk to any more reporters and to refer them to him. I was certain he advised me to do this because he felt it was in our best interest and our trust in him was unwavering.

All of the above became moot as on Monday, August 30, 1999, we received an Airborne Express envelope from an associate of Teri Whitcraft containing a copy of the above-mentioned document. There was really nothing we did not know in it and it contained some inaccuracies. It mentioned our daughter had an eye infection when we brought her home when it was an ear infection and while we described Marcus Gunn Jaw Wink with Ptosis thoroughly when we gave our statements, it just states she has a congenital jaw disorder. We are referred to as "P3 and P4," although there is a typo where we are referred to as "PK." The same kind of typo occurred with the Libertos, as they became "PL," at one point instead of their numbers. This document was to become a large part of the introduction to this story.

On September 9, 1999, there was a notice of a certified letter from Aaron Britvan waiting for us at the Post Office. I picked this up the next morning. The envelope contained a cover letter from our adoption attorney, a letter of instructions and sample forms from Lisa Fried, INS counsel and the applications for the deferred action work permit from INS and for a Social Security number from the Social Security Administration. The letter from our attorney urged rapid completion and return to his office as Ms. Fried was going on extended leave beginning September 30, 1999. We had a problem, as some of the instructions from the INS and the way portions of the form had already been filled out by them were untrue in our particular case. They wanted us to use some type of inoculation record as the child's identification, when we had a perfectly valid Mexican passport with her Mexican first and middle name and our last name on it. They apparently did not realize that we had what we believed to be complete Mexican adoption documents that the US authorities had yet to prove fraudulent, falsified or forged. In fact, the Mexican consulate, acting on behalf of the Mexican government accepted our papers twice in issuing our daughter a passport in two consecutive years, at a time when they were questioning and attempting to identify the children of other victims in this case. The IRS, a branch of the US government, had accepted our documents in the fall of 1999 and issued our daughter an ITIN for tax purposes. The INS had put on their form that our daughter had entered the US without inspection (EWI) when in our case, the note from the US Customs and Immigration agent at the Juarez/El Paso crossing allowing us to pass with our daughter was proof of her being passed and inspected according to at least two different immigration attorneys we had consulted. We made it very clear to our attorney that if we completed and signed these forms as directed, the INS was in effect, forcing us to commit perjury. Mr Britvan contacted Ms. Fried and came back to us with the comment that the INS needed a starting point, so we should just follow the directions. Meanwhile, we also received a letter that Karen Pace wanted another interview with us and it did not look to me like anything would be happening by September 30 before Lisa Fried went on leave.

On Saturday, September 25, 1999, we received a letter from Ms. Lynch and Ms. Fabrizio at the US Attorney's office advising us "that on Friday, October 1, 199 (sic, I hope), at 1:30 PM, before Judge Jacob Mishler, United States District Court, Two Uniondale Avenue, Uniondale, New York, the defendant, Mario Reyes is expected to enter a plea of guilty to conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens." I hoped the change from Brooklyn and the change in judges was insignificant.

Well, sure enough, on October 1, 1999, Mario Reyes pleaded guilty. He was scheduled for sentencing on December 17, 1999. He agreed to pay $125,000 in restitution. He will be fined a maximum of $250,000 and sentenced from 33 to 41 months. The Arlenes were still not scheduled for sentencing. Our attorney said things were moving along both with INS and the re-adoption here, but we had yet to see or hear anything concrete. It did not appear that any action would be taken against Adoption Choice, which left us to start shopping around for a civil attorney who thought we had a case against them. NBC news wanted us to participate in an hour long documentary they were doing about adoption. The US Attorney's office sent us a form to fill out for a victim's impact statement for the judge and seemed to feel that victims will be allowed to speak out at sentencing. I sent a draft of a statement to the judge that I hoped to be able to read at the sentencing.

Legal Status and the Sentencing Hearings

By November 24, 1999 several things had happened. First, Christina Leonard had promised to get me a copy of the letter of agreement between Adoption Choice and International Adoption Consultants that The New York State Department of Social Services kept on file. She took more than six weeks to come through but eventually did. I understood her lack of urgency, as she was about to leave her position for private practice. I also consulted with the attorney who fought 12 years against the city and state for the birthmother of Lisa Steinberg in a wrongful death suit. There was finally a settlement of just under a million dollars in that case. I figured if anyone could tell me if we would get anywhere with a civil suit against Adoption Choice, it would be him. Unfortunately, since Adoption Choice is a not-for-profit agency, there would be no big monetary incentive for an attorney to pursue this. We did have the option of filing a personal suit against Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach, but again, expenses versus reward, especially if we were the only plaintiffs, did not appear worthwhile. Our only other option was to go public and tell the truth about Adoption Choice and what happened.

All the families were summoned to INS at Federal Plaza on Friday, November 19, 1999. Unfortunately, due to an unavoidable delay, we missed most of the families, as we were the last to arrive and the last to leave. The Libertos were there and said that the families really didn't talk or exchange information. We met two of the single parents in the case, the doctor that the NJ lawyer represented and a nurse who had two adopted children via the Arlenes, one from Paraguay and one from Mexico, as well as my brother's chiropractor and her husband. Of course Shelly made some new friends right away. We were told that the Arlenes were scheduled for sentencing with Mario on December 17 and that the defense was trying to find people willing to say something on their behalf. The children were issued their work permits and the social security cards came in the mail within two weeks. INS could not have made this quicker or easier and we did receive VIP treatment. It was nice to finally have at least one government bureaucracy do something the easy way at least this one time.

I got to meet Karen Pace and I got to ask Kevin Sibley of the INS why Adoption Choice was not being prosecuted. He said that he and Karen did a very thorough investigation of them in Wisconsin and they were very cooperative and opened up all their records. According to Mr. Sibley, Adoption Choice had a very good record and reputation with domestic adoptions, but in this case they relied upon the Arlenes as far as the international adoptions went. The Arlenes told them that they should not listen to us, as we didn't know what we were talking about. Essentially, Melinda and Jill convinced Karen and Kevin that they were victims along with the families. In our case, we were the first to sign on with them here in New York and the last ones they dealt with here. They told Karen and Kevin that they were very sorry for what happened with us but felt we were too angry to contact. This was as unlikely an explanation as anything else was in this case. Even if they were victims, why hide it, go along with the scam and cover up instead of assuming responsibility, accountability, offering some sort of refund and offering to help the victims? It doesn't make sense that a respected, professional adoption agency would just bury its head in the sand and hope everything goes away when adoptions in which they were involved turn into federal crimes with scores of victims. Shelly's work permit is good for one year and it's in the name of Maria Beth Kruchkow as is her Social Security Card. Our attorney assures us that this is a meaningless snafu, as her name will be changed upon completion of the re-adoption. Lisa Fried later concurred.

The December sentencing was postponed until January 14, 2000; the second anniversary of the day Mario Reyes handed our daughter to us. This too was postponed at the last minute although it would have been fitting had it occurred on that date. Kevin Sibley phoned me and informed me of this and said that the judge would now hear testimony from some of the victims. The judge, prosecution and defense all met on January 28, 2000 to decide how to proceed.

During the last full week of January 2000, Shelly fell very ill. It turned out to be a viral type infection with the only symptom being a high fever for four days of around 102 degrees with a spike of 105 for a few hours one evening. Thankfully she had no respiratory involvement this time.

A week later, I came down with some kind of bug. My symptoms were sore throat and ears, sinus pain, swollen glands, fever and wooziness. Since we all had flu shots early on this season, my doctor was unsure of my ailment, but a regular course of antibiotics did not help.

We received a letter on January 29, 2000 from the US Attorney's office informing us that the sentencing hearings were now scheduled for Wednesday February 9, and Thursday, February 10, 2000. It stated that although unlikely, this was still subject to change. At these hearings, victims would give testimony to the judge and be subject to cross-examination. Then the judge would decide what sentencing guidelines he would be required to follow and pronounce actual sentence in the near future.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2000, while I was still at work and feeling quite ill and feverish, Sara came home to find a message from Karen Pace on our machine. Tim Macht wanted to use Sara as a witness to testify. Karen had been unable to contact Marvin Zevin, but had spoken with Aaron Britvan who told her she could reach out to us. Sara wanted to get this over with quickly and so we scheduled a prep session at Tim Macht's office for the first thing Wednesday morning. I had a 101-degree fever and felt horrible and almost did not go, but I wanted to be there and lend support to my wife. When we arrived, Tim explained what was going on to us and said he'd like to start with me and finish up with Sara. After almost 3 hours of questions and prep for defense questions, he was through with me and decided he did not want Sara after all. My only hope was to be better and not hospitalized by the following week. I spent the next three days home sick, returned to work Saturday and came home with 102.2-degree fever Saturday evening and collapsed into bed, exhausted.

In the meantime, my Internet sources had informed me more than once of something very disturbing happening in Mexico. An example of this appeared in an article in the Canadian publication, The National Post on February 3, 2000 about the smuggling of Mexican children into Canada without status and with illegal adoptions. This had become an all-too familiar theme. Bruce Harris, sometimes-controversial director of the Latin American based branch of New York City's Convenant House, Casa Alianza, brought the article to my attention. I believe this newspaper is viewed as a tabloid in Canada as this story shared front-page headlines in its Internet edition with a story about the theft of a shrunken head. The story told of Juan Manuel Estrada, the director of Mexico's Foundation for Lost and Stolen Children. It stated that he was trying to repatriate 17 Mexican babies illegally adopted in the US. Finding this naturally upsetting I checked it out. Aaron Britvan said this would never happen. Karen Pace and Tim Macht heard nothing about this. I have heard of a group in Mexico with political aspirations that view foreign adoptions of Mexican children as a national shame. Whether or not Mr. Estrada's organization is part of this political group is unknown to me. The Mexican authorities have not given this political group much credence. Biological families have not come forward to request the return of children. The shame that this group sees is that Mexicans are admitting they cannot provide good lives or take care of their own children and are "selling" their children and therefore, Mexico's future, to foreigners.

I have two big problems with this group. If biological families have not come forward and you repatriate children who have spent several years thriving in secure adoptive family environments back to Mexico, what will become of them? Are they to be institutionalized or made into street children? Who are you helping and whom are you hurting? The ones that stand to lose the most and be hurt the most are the children, unless you expatriate their adoptive families to continue to raise them. The sad part is that the only shame belongs to this group for sentencing these children to a life of poverty and squalor. Allowing these children to grow and flourish and reach their potentials in the care of their adoptive families while maintaining links to their Mexican heritage, culture and identity could ultimately benefit Mexico enormously. These children could very well return to Mexico one day armed with the education, knowledge and other tools to effect drastic, sweeping, progressive social and economic changes that could ultimately lead to the elimination of a need for both foreign adoption and Casa Alianza. We cannot be denied having dreams for our adopted children.

The sentencing hearings occurred as scheduled, but dragged on for a third full day, the following Tuesday. The defense tried to show that the adoptive parents were complicit in the illegal acts of the defendants. The judge, in his 90's, didn't miss a trick and was not letting the defense get away with anything. When things dragged on and it appeared the defense was attempting to try this case in the sentencing hearings, the judge exclaimed that he though these defendants had already pled guilty. While Sara got to sit in on most of the testimony, I had to wait until I was called which was mid-afternoon on the second day. The defense went hardest on Rosalie Liberto and Elyse Ritter. Hours of cross-examination and often tearful and angry testimony were given. The defense, especially Reyes' attorney tried to show that the victims were intelligent people who, in their overwhelming desire to adopt a child, acted in knowing complicity with the illegal actions of the defendants. The implication was that the victims were granted immunity and were promised that they would not lose their adopted children in exchange for testimony against the defendants and that is why the victims were cooperating with the US Attorney and the INS. The defense was trying to make a case that the victims were just as guilty of the charges against Reyes and the Arlenes and were not being prosecuted, so at the very least, the defendants deserved only the minimal of sentences. The defense argued that the government was engaging in selective prosecution.

These three days of testimony showed the victims what a cruel joke our justice system can be. I was sequestered outside the courtroom to hear the sobs of Rosalie Liberto as she endured the barrage from the defense and screamed out, "So now I'm the criminal?" The judge called a recess for everyone to collect himself or herself at that point and I caught a glimpse of John Liberto, one of his older daughters, Sara and one of the other victims gathering around a sobbing and shaken Rosalie Liberto trying to calm and comfort her. The scene was repeated the next day with Elyse Ritter who, when asked why she didn't get an attorney when she realized her son's immigration and adoption status was less than legal, screamed out, "I already had an attorney, his name was Mario Reyes!" It was apparent that because of the plea-bargains quite a bit less justice was being delivered, yet the adoptive families were being spared what would have surely been an even more grueling ordeal had there been an actual trial.

When it came my turn to testify, I was nervous and dry-mouthed. The questioning focused on Reyes and the period of time from October 1997 until we were subpoenaed in April of 1999, which I have already detailed. At one point Reyes' attorney asked me a very lengthy question as I was trying to drink the vile water provided in the courtroom and by the time he concluded, I had lost track and asked him to repeat the question, which he then immediately withdrew. Then he suggested that we brought the problems we had with paperwork in Juarez upon ourselves because we refused to do things the "Mexican way," that is, pay bribes. I answered that with a no. Finally, I was accused of committing extortion. I said I didn't understand the question. Then Reyes' attorney waived the letters I had written to Reyes and the licensing authorities in WI in 1998, where I asked that Reyes and the agency complete the job they were hired and paid to perform. Both the defense attorney and myself read portions of these letters, which I have already included in an earlier chapter. The focus was on my threats to go to the authorities, media and seek legal recourse against the agency and Reyes unless they completed the adoption services they were contracted and paid to perform. I was then asked if I was in the habit of practicing extortion. I told the defense attorney he and I had very different definitions of extortion. The judge was getting impatient with the defense tactics by this point and I was not taking any more nonsense and was no longer viewing these proceedings seriously, so I was off the stand in less than an hour.

When all the testimony was concluded, and closing arguments were completed, the judge remarked that he had never had a case quite like this and what struck him the most was the amount of emotional pain and suffering all the adoptive parents had endured. Tim Macht took pains to point out during these hearings how all the victims were taking prescribed anti-depressant, anti-anxiety or tranquilizing medications. We took this as a good sign, but we were later proven wrong.

Actual pronouncement of sentences was scheduled for March 20, 2000, then rescheduled for March 30, 2000 and then again for April 17, 2000. We were notified that victims would be allowed to give statements. This also proved to be untrue, as I had expressed my desire to give a statement but was never given that opportunity.

The Sentencing, at Long Last

We spent the period from April 5, 2000 through April 12, 2000 on vacation in Florida. We visited with Sara's family for a few days and then met my parents at Disney World. I fail to understand how walking around while baking in the sun, heat and humidity only to stand on lines for inordinate amounts of time for ridiculously short attractions while paying about three times the value for food, snacks and refreshment qualifies as family fun and entertainment. In spite of my attitude, everyone had a good time, especially Shelly and that was the most important thing.

We arrived a few minutes late at the Uniondale, New York courtroom of Judge Mishler on April 17, 2000. We entered to sit with several victim families along with Aaron Britvan. Tim Macht was in the middle of giving a very agitated and animated argument to the judge about how Mario Reyes was acting in complete violation of his plea agreement. Apparently, Reyes had agreed to come up with $25,000 as a down payment of his share of the restitution when his plea bargain was negotiated the previous fall. Now he was claiming destitution, bankruptcy and emotional hardship. He claimed his teenage daughter had overdosed on pills the previous weekend in an apparent suicide attempt. He claimed she had to be hospitalized and was distraught over the sentencing of her father. A letter from a psychiatrist or psychologist attesting to this was submitted. I have to question the veracity of this as a tearful Mrs. Reyes spent the morning sitting in the back of the courtroom sobbing and reciting the Rosary instead of being at her daughter's side. There was also an argument over a legal technicality in one of the charges having to do with charging Reyes with abuse of position of trust or the like. The judge quickly ruled against the prosecution on this issue and moved on to the Arlenes saving the sentencing of Reyes until last.

Each of the Arlenes' attorneys argued for leniency. They claimed that while the Arlenes may have committed crimes, they committed no sins. They claimed the Arlenes were in this to benefit the children. A letter from an adoptive parent who had used the Arlenes for a successful, legal adoption from another Latin American country was read, praising and thanking them for delivering a beautiful child to this family. It was claimed that the Arlenes were following the legal advice of Mario Reyes and their operation was referred to as a modern day version of the Underground Railroad. This was quite a stretch and of course, no mention was made of the brokering that occurred, the greed, the lies, the health problems and condition of many of the children and the families that paid large sums of money and received no children. Tim Macht did a superb job countering this. Each Arlene had agreed to come up with $7,500 as a down payment on their share of the restitution. Each also mumbled an apology to the judge for hurting any of the families. Their attorneys took pains to state how they were broke and their income had vanished so that they had to borrow to come up with this money. By now, several of the victims present in the courtroom were getting upset and agitated. Both Aaron Britvan and Sara urged me to keep quiet and be still.

Judge Mishler then pronounced sentence on the two Arlenes. He rejected the provision of the plea agreement that called for payment of restitution over a ten-year period, stating that was as good as requiring no payment of restitution at all. He waived the fine and sentenced each Arlene to 15 months followed by three year-supervised releases. The restitution of $43,500 each had to be paid before the supervised releases were over, or else it would be considered a violation of the plea agreement and then they could be returned to jail with charges re-instated. Interest would accrue on the unpaid portion of the restitution beginning when they were released from prison. Although I'm not entirely clear on this, my understanding is that restitution would be distributed to the victims in proportion to how much the victims paid when enough had been collected by the court clerk to warrant the beginning of distribution. They were given ten days to appeal and I do not believe they did.

A brief recess was held, during which we gave statements to a reporter from the New York Daily News and Long Island Newschannel 12. It was becoming apparent that many of the victims went with the Arlenes and Reyes because of a prior successful adoption using them with another country. Some families had to come up with large amounts of cash on 24-hour notice in order to receive a child within 48 hours.

When court reconvened, one of the adoptive parents who had requested to speak during the recess was given her opportunity. Barbara Austin stood at the front of the courtroom, trembling with a combination of nervousness, anger, rage and pain. She spoke simply and eloquently about how she did not buy into or want to hear the defendants' cries of poverty. She asked where all the money went? She said that she had been asked to come up with $22,000 in cash in 24 hours and she managed to do it, so she wasn't interested in hearing how the defendants struggled to come up with down payments for restitution over the last seven months. She said that this case would never leave our families and our children, as it has become something we live and deal with every day. Finally she asked if the defendants could face the gathered victims and speak up when apologizing. You could feel and hear the silent cheers from the victims in the courtroom.

Next it was Mario Reyes' and his attorney's turn. They both spoke at length. The attorney argued that no one was really harmed and all the parties received what they wanted, including good families for the children. He said that these kids won the lottery by landing in our families. This comment really upset me as I took it as a slap to the face of the birth families of these children and an insult to all Mexican families. He drew an inaccurate analogy with the Elian Gonzalez case. He pointed out that Sara and I were faced with conflicting instructions from the government agents of two countries, including instructions from Ms. Troupe at the INS office in New York City and that caused us to choose to bring our daughter into the US without status. He accused the government of selective enforcement of immigration laws as Mario Reyes was charged with and about to be sentenced for violating immigration laws while we were granted immunity and not prosecuted for the same violation. I think you could see the steam escaping from Sara's and my ears. Reyes' attorney went on to detail Mario Reyes' religious convictions. He spoke about his work and position in his local church. He told about all the religious retreats that he led throughout Mexico. He spoke of Reyes' law thesis on adoption as an alternative to abortion. Again, no mention was made of the brokering that occurred, the greed, the lies, the health problems and condition of many of the children and the families that paid large sums of money and received no children. The attorney requested that Reyes be allowed to serve his sentence in a federal facility close to his home and family in Arizona.

Then Mario Reyes spoke. He apologized if his actions offended anyone. He said that he did not hurt anyone but on the contrary he claimed that he actually saved lives, stating that these children were born of prostitutes who would have aborted them had he not performed his adoptions. He said what he did was not smuggling because smugglers bring dozens of people across the border in vans charging them thousands of dollars each, only to leave them in the wilderness to be robbed, raped, killed and die. I can only speculate about what attracted Mario Reyes to all these unwed teenage mothers, prostitutes and destitute older single birth mothers. The truth has been so evasive and so twisted in this ordeal, that anything is possible. We certainly were unable to believe Reyes' tale of woe about his daughter and his claims of penniless bankruptcy.

Tim Macht's rebuttal was masterful. He zeroed in on the money, challenging Reyes' claim that he was penniless in light of the fact that he collected in excess of $400,000 from the victims. He covered the breath and scope of the impact Mario Reyes' crimes had on the victims. He was upset and angry that Reyes, by not offering even one cent of restitution, was completely violating his plea agreement. Tim Macht covered most of the points that I would have made had I been allowed to give my statement as I was led to believe I would.

My statement, which was never presented and was based heavily upon the letter I had sent to the judge along with the victim's impact statement in the fall of 1999, would have been as follows:

"Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen:"

"I have always been taught that our justice system is far from perfect, yet it is the best we have. Plea bargains don't always sit well with victims, yet there is no way to know if the victims here would have been better served enduring a trial, although the experience of testifying at the sentencing hearings makes me seriously doubt it. I was astonished at the lack of remorse and smugness shown by the defendants at those hearings. Obviously, these defendants do not yet realize the seriousness and impact of their crimes. The fact that we are seeing a sentencing take place means that some measure of justice is being served. I'd like to speak about the victims and the punishment of some of the criminals involved in this case."

"The first victims of the criminal acts of Mario Reyes, Arlene Lieberman and Arlene Reingold and their fellow conspirators are the children. While these children are apparently in good homes and receiving better care and opportunities than they would have had they remained in the grip of the abject poverty and squalor from which they came, with few exceptions, these children had their identities and genetic birthrights and heritage stolen from them. When our sons and daughters want to know about their birthparents and heritage, most of us have an unknown void to try to fill for our children. For many, our children's actual date and place of birth as well as the name of at least a birthmother are lost forever, stolen by these people and replaced with names on falsified documents. What can any of us tell any of these children when and if they decide to try to find a birthparent for personal or medical reasons? Just about any hope of any kind of contact now or in the future between these children, their birthfamilies and us has been stolen beyond recovery. Siblings will grow up without knowledge of each other's existence. Some of these children have been wrenched from home to home and had their names and identities altered several times over. The traumatic psychological effects this will have on our children remain to be seen. The medical effects of not knowing your genetic family history can often be devastating and deadly. For their part in victimizing these innocent children in this monstrous way, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes should receive the maximum punishment allowed."

"The next victims are the adoptive families. Mario Reyes and the Arlenes committed no less than emotional homicide on our families. Some of the families gave these people their life savings and received either broken promises or children that were far less healthy than represented. Our daughter is an asthmatic and has suffered several severe attacks in the last two years. She also suffers a rare congenital condition called Marcus Gunn Jaw Wink with Ptosis that has the potential of resulting in a disfigured, drooping eyelid, a freakish popping open of the affected eye with certain jaw movements along with severe vision problems. Currently, she only requires monitoring and pediatric ophthalmologic exams and tests every nine months. I doubt if any family got exactly what was represented. In our case, we were strung along for two and a half years, through two failed referrals before we were able to claim our wonderful daughter. That was a two and a half year ordeal that tore at the fabric of our marriage, saw us both suffer enough stress that our doctor saw fit to prescribe anti-anxiety medication, and aged us ten years. Now, aided by these proceedings, our ordeal has been extended more than another two years so far and cost us additional legal fees that could have been used for our daughter's future. Even with the INS expediting things, it could be additional two or more years before our children's status is totally resolved. I am sure that the job performances of both my wife and myself have suffered negative effects. I know my trust of people and my faith in our justice system is shattered. We know other victimized families have suffered through similar, if not worse ordeals."

"In the last year and a half, we have learned that our second referral was placed in another home for a higher fee two months before we were told the referral fell through. This defines baby brokering and shows that any concern for the welfare of these children on the part of these defendants was overcome by their greed. The Arlenes told us that they felt so bad because we should have been bringing our daughter home. I hope the additional money that was paid eased their sadness. We have also learned that prior to this, while we were waiting for our first referral, the Arlenes told this same family that they could adopt this child as we had changed our mind about accepting her. At one point in time, Arlene Lieberman told me she felt so sorry for me because I was so mistrustful. It now seems my mistrust was very well placed. The endless string of lies, deceit and deception uncovered in relation to just our case must be multiplied many times over for all the families victimized. I am glad Arlene Lieberman was able to tell the New York Post in February 1998 that she slept well at night, because I haven't slept well and doubt if many other of the adoptive families have. It is unconscionable that people, some of whom are part of adoptive families themselves and know all too well the ups and downs of the rollercoaster ride the legitimate adoption process entails, would perpetrate such crimes against adoptive families for personal monetary gain masked under the guise of not-for-profit corporations. In dollars and cents the best estimate of the costs of this ordeal to my family is approximately $40,000 and at least ten times that in emotional distress, pain and suffering."

"All the families lost considerable sums of money, some more than others did. The biggest losses are to the families that paid good money and never added a child to their home. In a sense, the monetary losses are really money stolen from our children's future. I've had the pleasure of meeting several of the other victim families and their children. I can tell you that these children are in good homes not because of what the Arlenes and Mario Reyes have done, but in spite of it. Thousands of dollars have been spent that could have been a college fund, could have bought music, dance or art lessons and equipment, could have been braces or a hearing aid or a needed medical procedure and could even have financed a sweet sixteen or first car. Mario Reyes, the Arlenes and their cohorts in this case stole our children's past from them and part of their future from us."

"The Arlenes would try to console us over a failed referral or a delay in the process by saying that we would end up with the child God meant us to have. Mario Reyes told us God would bless us for what we were doing and when another family questioned the legality of what he was doing, he told them that there are other laws, God's laws. These monsters give God a bad name. They make me wish I were a more religious person so that the faith I lack in our justice system would be filled with the faith in the knowledge that these people will suffer God's punishment."

"What angers and upsets me and most other victims of adoption fraud with whom I've had contact during the last two years the most is the cavalier attitude, lack of remorse, lack of responsibility and lack of accountability unscrupulous adoption professionals have when it comes to betraying the trust their victims place in them and their professionalism. It has been my experience that more than anything else, including money, victims of adoption frauds and scams want an apology. The smugness of Mario Reyes and the muttering of "liar" from members of the Arlenes' families as victims testified at the sentencing hearings was salt in the wounds of the victims. These people do not realize the scope and magnitude of their crimes and the amount of emotional pain and suffering they have caused. For their part in victimizing our families this way, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes should receive the maximum punishment allowed."

"Other victims will surely surface. I am sure there are birthparents in Mexico who will wonder if they are not already wondering, about the fate of their children who were handed over to these people with the promise of a better life with an American family. They too will suffer that the knowledge of their children's fate is forever stolen from them, just as the children's origins have been stolen from us. They have had the choice of remaining in contact with their children and the adoptive families stolen from them. We can only assure them, as all adoptive parents assure birthparents, that we will do our best to accept their trust in us and our responsibility to fulfill that promise of a better life for their children. I want to thank our daughter's birthparents for allowing us the joy of raising her, but I probably will never be able to do that. For their part in making victims of these birthparents, Mario Reyes and the Arlenes deserve the maximum punishment allowed."

"As for me, I will sleep well once more and age normally when I see my daughter's status as my daughter and as a US citizen secured and when all the criminals involved in this case are brought to justice."

"In our case, it wasn't until last fall that my question as to why the other parties to these crimes have not been prosecuted was answered. I'm talking about Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach who run the agency, Adoption Choice in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I've been told that this agency trusted in the information supplied to them by the Arlenes. I've been told that the investigators on this case believe the claims of the agency that they were victimized along with the families. My family cannot share this belief. This was the agency with which we had a contract and to whom we paid a fee. This was the agency that used the Arlenes as their consultants and contacts in New York. This was the agency that used Mario Reyes for their adoption program in Mexico, telling us at one point that they used no other attorney in Mexico besides Mr. Reyes because they only used the best. It later became apparent that Mr. Reyes and Adoption Choice had no direct contact with each other and the relationship was all filtered through the Arlenes. I don't know how the relationship between Adoption Choice and the Arlenes began or ended. I do know that Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach worked with the Arlenes from our initial meeting in June 1995 until our daughter was home in January 1998. I do know that Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach signed an agreement with the Arlenes taking legal responsibility for the clients of Adoption Choice. They agreed to follow the New York Social Services Laws governing adoption agencies and the placing out of children, as well as agreeing to follow federal laws regarding placing out of children for adoption from abroad (New York State Consolidated Laws, Chapter 55, Article 6, Title 1). They also agreed to be governed by the interstate compact on the placement of children and the laws of the state of Wisconsin. I fail to see how Adoption Choice adhered to this agreement."

"If they truly are victims, and they truly are ethical and respected adoption professionals, then why not apologize? Why not accept the responsibility of being incompetent in not practicing due diligence in selecting consultants and foreign sources instead of covering up and lying to us when things went wrong? Why not hold yourself accountable and offer to help your clients who were victimized along with you? Isn't anything less negligent? In light of all this, it is impossible for my family to believe that Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach are merely victims. Unlike the investigators in this case, I believe there should be some form of justice served upon Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach for their part in the string of lies, deception and fraud that were among the original charges against these defendants who are here. I do not know or understand how they can bear no responsibility or accountability. At the very least, Adoption Choice should participate in any court ordered restitution payments and should no longer be allowed to work in the field of adoption. Only when some type of appropriate justice is served upon Ms. Randa and Ms. Gerlach and they are made to bear their share of accountability and responsibility in this case, will there be some closure for my family."

"Finally, I would like to ask the court's assistance in setting up a support group that would bring together as many of these children as possible. While this may have the unexpected benefit of putting siblings back in contact with each other, the purpose would be for them to share their stories, their common heritage and to lend each other support as they face the difficult questions about the past that are certain to arise in the future. After speaking with some of the other adoptive families, such a support group could also serve the needs of the adoptive parents."

"Thank you."
"David Kruchkow"

Judge Mishler then pronounced sentence for Mario Reyes. Again he threw out the ten-year time frame for restitution payment and the fine. He sentenced Mario Reyes to 30 months beginning on June 19, 2000, to be followed by a three year-supervised release and ordered payment of $125,000 in restitution with distribution to be made along the same lines he ordered it for the Arlenes. If restitution were not paid in full by the end of this sentence, it would be considered a violation of the terms of the plea agreement and could mean more jail time and re-instatement of additional charges. Because Reyes made no effort to come up with any payment at the time of sentencing, the judge ordered interest to begin accruing on the unpaid portion immediately. The judge agreed to allow Reyes to serve his jail time in a federal facility close to his home in Arizona. Tim Macht, in light of the violation of the plea agreement that had already occurred, reserved the right to re-instate the other charges from the indictment instead of agreeing to drop them. Mario Reyes filed an immediate appeal of his sentence and his attorney said he would not represent him during this appeal and asked the court to appoint a new attorney for him. The judge agreed and court was adjourned. In light of this, we need to stay tuned as it looks like the criminal proceedings are not quite finished yet.

The victims gathered around and shared some words and thoughts with each other as well as with Karen Pace and Tim Macht. I mentioned staying in contact with each other and getting together to support each other and to benefit the children. This received quite a positive response. Karen said that our evidence would be returned to us. People asked if there was any way to know or find out the true identities of the birth mothers of our children as opposed to the forged names and assumed identities Mario Reyes gave them. Tim Macht agreed to have printed transcripts of the seven hours of interviews Mario Reyes voluntarily gave the authorities prior to his arrest where he details what he did. Of course, considering all the known lies Mario Reyes has told, it would be a tremendous leap of faith to believe he was telling the truth in these interviews. Still, it may she some light on the history and background of our children that is currently shrouded only in darkness. Tim also told me that it was very likely that Reyes will be extradited to face charges in Mexico as long as the charges don't duplicate the charges he faced here.

When we left, it was pouring rain outside and the television reporter from Long Island Newschannel 12 was outside under a big umbrella interviewing the lawyers for the Arlenes. When we left, he drew us under his big umbrella and asked us a few questions. To illustrate that these criminals were motivated by greed, Sara told how we learned our second referral, Gabby, was brokered to the Libertos for a higher fee two months before we learned we weren't getting her. I said that the children were in good homes in spite of what these criminals did, not because of it. Rosalie Liberto later provided us with a tape of this interview, as we don't get the Long Island news channel on the Queens cable system.

The next day, the following appeared in the New York Daily News:

"2 Baby Smugglers
Get 15-Month Terms

By ROBERT GEARTY
Daily News Staff Writer

Two Medford women who pleaded guilty to baby smuggling expressed remorse
yesterday before being hit with 15-month federal prison sentences.

Uniondale Federal Court Judge Jacob Mishler ordered Arlene Lieberman, 48,
and Arlene Reingold, 47, to pay restitution of $43,500 each.

Arizona lawyer Mario Reyes, 41, who was accused with the two women, was
sentenced to 30 months and ordered to pay restitution of $125,000.

"I never meant to hurt anyone," said Reingold. "I can only pray for
forgiveness."

Lieberman said she realized she caused a lot of "pain and suffering."

"All I wanted to do was put families together with the children," she said.
"I'm truly sorry."

The government accused the three of smuggling 17 Mexican babies and children
into the country since 1990 and arranging adoptions for fees of up to
$22,000 each. Adoptive parents were told the children had been brought into
the U.S. legally.

Lieberman and Reingold, longtime neighbors on the same block, were partners
in several adoption businesses. They were known to their clients at the two
Arlenes.

Reyes had a law office in a Mexican border town, Agua Prieta.

The three were arrested in May and pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy
charges.

Reyes, who also held citizenship in Mexico, admitted to defrauding Mexican
authorities by forging documents and having women pose as some of the
biological mothers.

Barbara Austin, of Yaphank, was one of the adoptive parents who came to
court for the sentencing. She adopted a newborn girl in 1996 and named her
Dorothy.

"What we had to endure, we never expected," she told Mishler.

Immigration authorities have been working to resolve the legal status of the
17 children.

"It's a small measure of justice, but at least some justice is being done,"
said Dave Kruchkow, 47, of Bayside, Queens.

He came to court with his wife, Sara. Two years ago, they adopted a baby
they named Shelly.

Sara Kruchkow said Reingold and Lieberman were motivated not by humanitarian
reasons, but by greed. She said she came to court to see what they had to
say.

"After taking five years of our lives, I was compelled to see how much of
their lives were going to be taken," she said.

Mishler told Reyes and the two women to surrender to prison authorities by
June 19."

Other versions of this story appeared elsewhere, mostly off the Associated Press wire service. A few weeks later, Nancy Fabrizio of the US Attorney's office sent a packet out to the victims with a form to filled out if we wanted to be kept updated on the status of the criminals. As per an earlier conversation with her and Karen Pace, my interest in starting a support group was mentioned and my number was given for any of the victims interested in forming such a group to contact. Twenty-two families were listed as victims of the crimes, including the Clarke's, so not all of the victims have children here from Mexico. I believe there are families with more than one child and I know that there is at least one family that is not on the list and is working directly with Mrs. Troupe at the INS. This is the family of the Mary that Mario Reyes was referring to a New York immigration attorney when we were in his office meeting Maria Soledad in October 1997. I do not know the details, but I would guess that this family began to work to resolve their child's status prior to the investigation that began in 1998.

It looks like about half of the victims will get together and meet as a support group sometime in the late summer or early fall of 2000. This is so our children can meet, we can share stories and concerns and we can make sure the INS, our attorneys and we are all on the same page as far adjusting the status of our children is concerned. As I understand it from Lisa Fried, who is understandably less than accessible since she is on maternity leave, the deferred action by the INS is good for two years. This means that the children's work permits will be renewed next fall. In the meantime, we are all supposed to re-adopt here and then we'll be able to file for and adjustment of immigration status with form I-130. None of the adoptions, including ours, is being recognized as legal. The Queens County Family Court is not making things easy as they have dragged things out for 14 months so far. The INS and/or the State Department are also waiting on official word from Mexico that none of these children were kidnapped and none of the birth families is seeking their return. This last part has me even more worried and stressed out than I was prior to the sentencing. I have already mentioned that political groups in Mexico are urging birth mothers of these children to come forward and demand their repatriation. Mexican authorities continue to call for Reyes to be extradited there to face charges. There is a national election this fall in Mexico and the polls indicate a major shift in political power is under way. How likely is it that the US authorities will receive this official word from Mexico?

Aaron Britvan tells me that my concerns are unfounded. He assures me that we are in good shape regarding the re-adoption and that any government-forced return of these children to Mexico will never happen. I wish I shared his optimism. If I did, I might not be undergoing testing and treatment for stress-related gastrointestinal problems. Our ordeal in adoption hell has lasted five long years. This case is relentlessly pervasive in the lives of the victims. I wish the government would do its all to expedite the process instead of prolonging our suffering.

Happy Endings?

As the year 2000 comes to a close, it appears that our long, nightmarish adoption ordeal may actually come to a close soon. Several of the victim families in Nassau County have finalized their re-adoptions as has the one family we know in Ohio. Some of the Suffolk County victim families, including the Libertos, should see finalization shortly as well. It appears that we'll have a date to finalize in Queens County Family Court before Judge DePhillips sometime in January. I'm skeptically hopeful that this will happen.

After that, it's back to the INS. Lisa Fried did meet with the New York office director, Ed McElroy and promised that the INS here will expedite adjustment of the children's immigration status to that of a relative with permanent residency once we have legal adoptions here. I'm skeptically hopeful about this as well. Unfortunately, the Ohio INS is not offering the same level of service to the family we know there.

This case has also had some effects on Adoption Choice. The organization they deal with for their program in Viet Nam has terminated their relationship.

Thanks to Mary Mooney of The Adoption Guide (www.theadoptionguide.com), I was able to obtain a copy of the complaint file against Adoption Choice from the Wisconsin Department of Social Services. As a direct result of our case, Adoption Choice has rewritten their contract with their clients at least twice. They have also instituted, on paper at least, a new process for initiating a foreign adoption program. Supposedly, they will familiarize themselves with the rules in whatever foreign country they open with a program and either Melinda Randa or Jill Gerlach will personally travel there to meet and check out the people with whom they'll be working. We're glad our experience will benefit future clients of Adoption Choice but we're horrified that they are still allowed to operate at all after the negligence and lack of due diligence they have exhibited.

The file from Wisconsin shows that there is at least one other example of poor and negligent planning on the part of Adoption Choice in the past. As I read the file, many years ago, when they operated out of a different location as The Adoption Choice, a child that they were responsible for placing in a foster home was born with some kind of defect or disability that required special equipment and trained personnel in the foster home. The foster care facility, The Human Element, did not have the equipment or trained personnel. Apparently, the Adoption Choice tried to get out of their obligation and place the child in the care of the state. The state did not take kindly to this and while The Adoption Choice was called to task, it appears as if The Human Element took most of the heat. Eventually, the equipment and trained personnel became available to provide proper placement for this child. My point here is did The Adoption Choice think they would never have to deal with a child with special needs and as such not need to have resources with special equipment and trained personnel available? Their inability to foresee and plan for eventualities hurt them here and in our case.

There was another issue that this file illuminated for me. As the reader may recall, when we first met Melinda Randa in June 1995, she indicated to us that Adoption Choice would obtain a license as a child placement agency in New York State. When this never happened, because of everything else that happened, I came to believe that Ms. Randa lied and never intended to obtain a license in New York. Well, it appears my belief was wrong. The file indicates that John Stupp, the licensing specialist for what was then the New York State Department of Social Services (now the Department of Health and Human Services), told Adoption Choice that as long as they followed the written working agreement they had with International Adoption Consultants they filed with his department, maintained their license in Wisconsin in good standing, adhered to INS regulations regarding intercountry adoption and followed the interstate compact on the placement of children, it was unnecessary for them to obtain a license in New York. The readers know how Adoption Choice participated in the violation of INS regulations and violated the interstate compact yet were not prosecuted.

One other parallel case involving Adoption Choice and the Arlenes has also come to light. The following is a translation of an article in a newspaper from Paraguay that can be found at http://gateway.abc.com.py/archivo/1997/12/01/jud03.htm.

"Adoption Attorney Tricked Foreigner and Charged More Than Eight Thousand Dollars"

"The American adoption agency, Adoption Choice, sent a letter to our newspaper, in which it accused attorney Jorge Amarilla of charging more than $8,000 in order to facilitate the adoption of a child. On February 20, 1996, that agency received a report from that attorney that a child named Marisa Acosta was available for adoption, due to the fact that a foreign couple had relinquished their petition before the Paraguayan court.

Ms. Jean Donovan of Hartland accepted attorney Amarillas proposal and on March 7, 1996, she delivered to him the sum of $8,250 as partial payment for his work.

"Since April of 1996, our office and counselor Arlene Lieberman made dozens of phone calls to attorney Amarilla Gómez and to his interpreter, Mr. George Miagany. We have also sent faxes and letters in both English and Spanish. We havent received answers and there are only excuses and lies from the attorney," states the letter sent from the executive director of the agency, Melinda Randa.

Randa explained that the investigations that were carried out by the U.S. Embassy found that no proceedings existed. "They discovered that no proceedings were underway regarding the adoption of little Maria Acosta. Its clear that the attorney Amarilla Gómez was lying when he assured us in an August 1997 telephone call that everything was fine," added the complainant.

She added that last October 24th, the agency found out that a new adoption law was passed and that from then on, they were sending a new letter to the adoption attorney, consulting on the adoption process.

"From October 27 to November 10, 1997, at least two dozen phone calls were made to Amarilla and Mr. George Miagany. Adoption Choice was delayed and did not take any action. For this reason, we are writing this letter. These outrageous acts do not only affect our client, but also discredit and dishonor all of the honest attorneys of Paraguay. He has manipulated our agency, emotionally abused our client and manipulates the lives of many Paraguayan children," claims Randa.

She stated that serious measures should be taken against the attorney Amarilla so that other people will not suffer the pain and disillusion that Jean Donovan experienced. She added that she also has every hope of getting the money that the adoptive mother had paid to the adoption attorney. She is certain that this nightmare for Ms. Donovan and the fraudulent practices of the attorney Amarilla will come to an end, added the director of Adoption Choice.

"Proceedings Dont Exist, According to a Report by Magistrate Escobar"

The judge, María Christina Escobar, in response to questions regarding the claims made by the adoption agency, stated that in the court docket, the adoption request of the child, Marisa Acosta, exists and was carried out during the tenure of the former judge Víctor Llano. Nonetheless, she clarified that the proceedings did not exist in the court and that this is reflected in a report on the situation in the Supreme Court of Justice.
This is another apparent case of corruption in the international adoption process in which those injured most are the millionaires, while the child-traffickers fill their pockets with the money from the purchase and sale of babies.

Many documents exist that prove the offenses committed in the proceedings and in which attorneys, ex-judges, nurses, doctors and docket clerks participate. Nonetheless, the lack of interest that the court gives to these matters allows for these people to go unpunished."

I have contacted Jean Donovan and she confirms the accuracy of the story, although there may be some rough spots in the translation. Her recollection was that in November, 1997, she was told that Adoption Choice was no longer working with the Arlenes. Remember, official documents and statements to the authorities and press put the date of this several months earlier and, at least in our case, there is evidence that they were still working together as late as January, 1998. To me, it shows that Mexico was not the only country where Adoption Choice and the Arlenes worked with a crooked attorney. The pattern is clear and whether or not Adoption Choice was in with the attorney and the Arlenes is irrelevant. The fact remains that Adoption Choice chose to work with the Arlenes and attorneys such as Reyes and Amarilla, even telling us, as the reader may recall, that Reyes was the only one they worked with in Mexico because they only used the best attorneys. This was at the same time all of the above was happening with them and their attorney in Paraguay. Again, the best that can be said of Adoption Choice is that they were negligent and did not do their homework on the people with whom they chose to work. This is why I now believe that adoption agencies should put anyone with whom they work through the same kind of extensive criminal background check that prospective adoptive parents endure.

What is surprising here is that Adoption Choice, in the guise of Melinda Randa, apparently goes out of its way to help Ms. Donovan and bring the attorney Amarilla to justice, in direct opposition to their actions in our case. Ms. Donovan has told me that she chose to continue working with Adoption Choice and Melinda Randa because she believed that would be the most successful route for her. She felt that the employees at Adoption Choice were helpful in turning her nightmare into a successful and happy adoption. Unfortunately, that was not the case with us as that kind of help was not offered. I do want to offer my sincere thanks to Jean Donovan for taking the time to share her perspective on this.

As far as Shelly goes, she's growing and doing well. Her asthma attacks are far less frequent and severe. Her night terrors are also far less frequent but can be extremely violent and severe. Hopefully, she's growing out of them now. She did test positive for TB, but her chest X-ray was clear. Since there is no way to determine if this positive test was due to receiving the BCG vaccine for TB in Mexico or actually being exposed to TB, she's on prophylactic medication for nine months, which will bring us to the start of Kindergarten next fall.

It happened! On January 16, 2001, exactly three years to the day that Shelly entered her new home, Judge DePhillips finalized our adoption of Shelly and we are now her legal parents. Instead of joy, we felt relieved that nothing else went wrong, a feeling the other families who finalized shared. I thanked Shelly for making me her Papa, for she's adopted me as much if not more than I've adopted her. Sara shares that sentiment. I also have to thank Aaron Britvan and Jeanine Castagna for all their work in making this finally happen.

Shelly is now registered for Kindergarten in the fall and all that's left is for the INS to adjust her immigration status. She undergoes her physical for school on March 7, 2001. The forms for doing that will be here and I understand from Lisa Fried that our old friend, Mrs. Troupe will be processing this. Of course, the INS can't make things too easy for any of us like they did when they issued the Winnie the Pooh dolls from England that are in the New York City Public Library their green cards. We have multi-page I-130 and I-485 forms to file and each child in the case must undergo an exam with an INS approved doctor. It's so insulting to think that the INS would have their bureaucratic blinders on so tight as to insinuate that any of these children who have been here for several years now and have not been receiving proper medical care. We're just hoping the INS doctor will be able to accept the prior tests and reports from Shelly's own pediatrician, so she's not put through any more unecessary tortures. I'm told this will all take less than 6 months. Then Shelly should qualify for automatic citizenship under the new laws.

On March 30, 2001 in Suffolk County, NY the Libertos finalized the adoption of Gabby as did the families of two other children in this case. At least some families will be finished with this ordeal by the time the Arlenes are released.

April 2001 turned out to be quite eventful. After much searching, we found an INS pediatrician in the area who was willing to accept and sign-off on Shelly's own pediatrician's work with only a brief exam. He made it as painless as possible, and at least one other family used him as well. The report was placed in an envelope and sealed as per INS requirements. Since we had already mailed in the fees and forms to Mrs. Troupe, we now await her call for the all important green card interview. My patience with the government, the INS and the entire, ridiculous, inane, money-grabbing bureaucratic process is just about at its limit and I hope Mrs. Troupe's interview is easy.

Meanwhile, the Arlenes went home on religious furlough for Passover. I can't describe the disappointment we felt at not being invited to their Seder.

The birth certificates finally arrived at Aaron Britvan's office, but, as per our usual horrific luck, the birthdate is wrong and they have to be redone. At months end, we also made our annual pilgrimmage to Florida and this time we came back with thoughts of actually moving there in the foreseeable future. Shelly was thrilled to take an airboat ride in the Everglades and hold a baby alligator.

Early May finds us surviving a week of record heat in New York and high amounts of tree pollen with no signs of asthma on Shelly's part. Either the Singulair is doing the trick, or she's outgrowing her problems. Since late May and early June tend to be her worse times, we'll find out how she does this year soon enough. I'm starting a new job in May as well. Too bad I can't earn a living consulting people on adoption fraud. Also in June, Shelly will see a new pediatric ophthalmologist and may get glasses for the start of the school year.

On May 9, 2001, a day before starting my new job, I got a call from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Arlene Lieberman is being released on a medical furlough to have surgery on a hammer toe. She will serve the rest of her time, until July 20, 2001, at home recovering. I wonder how many podiatrists she saw while home for Passover to find one that convinced the authorities to allow this. Sara said she'd be happy to fix Arlene's hammer toe. What a joke our justice system really is. It is unfathomable that Arlene Lieberman gets out of jail early to get her toe fixed when none of the children have permanent legal residence or citizenship yet. The INS gave "Winnie the Pooh" dolls green cards in 1998, because Mayor Guliani wanted them to stay here, but for our living children, we have to file forms, pay fees, have them examined for yet another fee by an INS approved doctor and then wait months for Mrs. Troupe to call us in for an interview to get a green card. We don't have a criminal justice system, our justice system is a criminal injustice in and of itself!

I did speak with Lisa Fried-Greenberg at the INS in mid-May and while she shared my dismay at Arlene Lieberman's release for elective surgery prior to final adjustment of any of the children's immigration status, she showed no interest in my offer to fax her the story about the "Winnie the Pooh" dolls getting their green cards. She did say that we would be getting a letter from Mrs. Troupe scheduling our interview for one Friday in June or July. Shelly did catch a cold in mid-May and had a brief and easily managed asthma flare-up. One of the other victim families did spot Arlene and Jay Lieberman (a conductor for the Long Island Rail Road) strolling through Penn Station one day as well. I wonder if she had a speedy recovery from the surgery or was on her way to the podiatrist or was just violating her furlough?

Speaking of waiting, on May 18, 2001, we finally received two certified, correct copies of Shelly's New York State birth certificate via Aaron Britvan's office. Perhaps there is an end in sight after all. This sentiment was reinforced on June 2, 2001 when we received notification by mail that our appointment with Mrs. Troupe will take place at Federal Plaza in New York City on June 22, 2001, at noon.

On June 20, 2001, Shelly saw her allergist and since she's down to three minor asthma flare-ups a year, he wants to try taking her off Singulair as we're out of the cold season. While we're all for giving her less medication, we don't want her to start suffering more frequent and more severe asthma attacks that the Singulair may have been preventing. The only way to know is to try. If she gets worse, she'll go back on Singulair for the long term.

At the start of July, two days after stopping Singulair, Shelly did get a cold and had breathing difficulties, so it was back on the daily dose of this drug.

Also, on June 20, 2001, Shelly saw her new pediatric ophthalmologist, who she liked. While her Marcus Gunn Jaw Wink with Ptosis is mild, the ptosis in her affected eye is affecting her vision. Her nearsightedness has improved, but the astigmatism in that eye has significantly worsened. If her vision remains uncorrected, her brain will favor images from her unaffected eye and process them over less favorable images from her affected eye. This will result in a wandering, lazy eye and more severe vision problems as time goes on. The solution is to correct her vision so that the brain receives equally favorable images from both eyes and processes them equally.

That brings us to June 22, 2001. We went to 26 Federal Plaza in New York City and met with Mrs. Troupe just before noon. Her office was pleasant and featured a wall with several collages of pictures of international adoptees and their families. Mrs. Troupe struck me as an efficient bureaucrat who was far less intimidating than I expected. She reviewed our documents, and in less than ten minutes, handed Shelly an IR-8, temporary (good for one year) proof of legal residence. I suppose an actual green card will follow. Shelly now qualifies for automatic citizenship under the Adopted Orphan's Citizenship Act and we can get her a certificate of citizenship and/or a US passport. Having no need or desire to pay another dime to the INS, we will chose the latter. Shelly and we thanked her and Shelly got to choose a lollipop. It was kind of anti-climatic coming six years after meeting the Arlenes and Melinda Randa, and after waiting through more than three and a half years of anguish, fear, turmoil, heartache, emotional pain and suffering and thousands of dollars in legal costs to reach this point where Shelly's adoptive and immigration status are both legal. We celebrated by taking Shelly on her first New York City sightseeing trip, to the top of the World Trade Towers. This was less than three months before September 11, 2001.

Postscript

What Adoption Should Be and What It Is

I feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current adoption system, process and society's view of adoption. In my first chapter, I described how children were held up as prizes won in the bureaucratic battles at APC meetings. I spoke of how my wife felt that the paper trail required for an adoption was like a treasure hunt where the reward for completing all the steps and passing all the tests and trials was to be given a child. Adoptive parents celebrate the "gotcha" day for their children, despite the image of snatching that the term invokes. Adoption is often viewed as baby "shopping" and "buying" and sometimes equated with trafficking in children. It is often mentioned in association with child pornography, prostitution, organ theft and slave labor. I mentioned insensitive and ignorant remarks often directed at prospective adoptive families, actual adoptive families and their children. Adoptive families and their children are often forced to take defensive positions, justifying every aspect of their choices to strangers and society alike. Adoptees are stigmatized and legally denied rights in many states that every other social group has. How many times must the media point out a murderer or other sociopath or psychopath is adopted as if it is a major cause of the aberrant behavior when all studies show that these behaviors do not occur to any greater degree in the adopted population than in other groups? I know this paragraph will have many in the adoption community nodding their heads in agreement. Is this the way adoption should be viewed and is this how society wants it viewed? If the answer is no, then the system and process needs drastic change and reform and society needs to be re-educated about adoption.

All adoptions involve a triad. This triad consists of the adoptee, the birth family and the adoptive family. An adoption should be a win/win/win situation for all members of the triad. The adoptee should benefit from placement in a loving family that can provide for his or her needs for a lifetime. The birth family should be secure in the knowledge that their decision not to parent this child for whatever reason will ultimately work out to the greater benefit of this child, the remaining members of the birth family and the adoptive family. The adoptive family should benefit from the formation of their family through adoption and the knowledge that the child was placed for adoption ethically to benefit the child. The vast majority of adoptions do work along these lines.

Our adoption and too many others have not worked like this. The fact is that both domestic and international adoption has grown to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry that is largely unregulated and ripe with abuse and corruption. Adoption should not be legalized baby selling and brokering. It should be a fee-for-service industry. The huge sum of money involved in adoptions has attracted an element to this noble industry that is motivated by greed. This unscrupulous, unethical, criminal element practices profiteering, trafficking, brokering, fraud, scams and rip-offs while the legitimate and ethical members of the industry turn a blind eye and keep score with numbers of successful placements. I find myself being an adoption advocate who is fighting for adoption reform. What I say and suggest is often unpopular in the adoption community but I feel change is needed and trying reforms that may or may not work is better than maintaining the status quo.

Our current system has failed to police this industry and rid it of this unsavory element. Individual states license adoption agencies. While some have stricter licensing requirements than others do, all states lack adequate resources for enforcement against violations. No state claims to be able to control what an agency does outside of that state. There is no body that dictates and enforces any kind of standards for adoption agencies. The industry has yet to wake up and police itself. Facilitators are unlicensed and unregulated. Government adoption incentives like the Adoption Tax Credit and the Hope for Children Act claim to make adoption affordable for more people by providing a tax credit. Ultimately, these types of incentives just give the adoption criminals more money to grab and the costs of all adoptions rise. We need to stop giving the bad guys bigger paydays and start to control and cap the costs of adoptions. Instead of putting more money in the hands of adoptive families where it tempts the criminals to ask for more, we need to remove financial incentives to adoption criminals to drive them out of the industry.

We need to have a means of devising and instituting standards of conduct within the industry and then enforcing these standards. Whether this comes from within the industry or from the government or both is not as important as the fact that it must be instituted soon. I would hope the industry realizes that the presence of unethical criminals hurts the ethical people in the industry and helps tarnish the image of the industry as a whole. This is why I would prefer to see the industry clean itself up rather than wait for government regulation and bureaucracy.

Passage of the Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoptions by Congress is a must to both standardize accreditation of agencies and facilitators on a national and international level and to provide a level of consumer protection against fraud that is currently non-existent.

As I see it, one of the major faults with the adoption process is this: The adoptive family is scrutinized and examined every possible way. There are FBI fingerprint checks, criminal background checks, child abuse clearances, home studies, medical reports, letters of reference, etc. These things do vary from state to state, agency to agency and country to country, but the one thing that is clear is that the adoptive family is the most examined part of the whole process. This is a good thing as it helps prevent failed and disrupted adoptions and assures placement of a child into a home that is suitable and where the likelihood of abuse is greatly reduced. My question is why isn't the behavior of agencies, facilitators and attorneys subject to similar scrutiny? I know that agencies have to meet state standards to receive and renew their licenses. I know some states are stricter than others are as far as what the standards are. Yet my experience and those of other victims of bad adoption agencies tell me that the current standards and resources for enforcement of them are woefully lacking. This situation must be addressed and rectified, because, as my statement for the sentencing shows, children and birth families also become victims of the schemes of adoption criminals.

Our case is one of the few that involved an actual prosecution and resulted in at least some jail time for some of the criminals. Remember that the Arlenes and Mario Reyes were prosecuted for violations of immigration laws, not for adoption fraud. Although mail and wire frauds were included in the original charges against them, I feel that this was used as a bargaining chip in the plea negotiations. If the case were about adoption fraud, then surely the charges would have included Adoption Choice as well. Since the INS was responsible for investigating this case and Adoption Choice did not directly smuggle, transport or harbor illegal aliens, they escaped facing charges. They are free to practice their particular brand of irresponsible, unaccountable adoption services like a non-fatal, chronic disease infecting the body of the of the adoption industry.

Over the years, I have networked with many victims of bad adoption agencies. Certain patterns emerge. Kitty Vickers, an attorney who is a fellow member of an adoption e-mail list server with me describes a pattern on this list server thusly:

"The pattern that I so often see is this: Suddenly you get an influx of people to this list who praise some "new" agency. They say how wonderful it is and often extol how quickly they got a referral or how young the babies are. Some of the people have used the agencies others are in process and so don't know how their case will turn out. Then, someone raises a question about the agency. The agency comes in and defends itself in a vague manner or other satisfied customers post. The list owners remind everyone of the rules about not being critical of the agency (which, again, I do understand and have sympathy regarding). So, the critical or even questioning comments cease and then we again start hearing only praise of the agency which is allowed. List members hear only praise of the agency ...which if it is justified is fine. However, even the worst of agencies will have some satisfied clients. But, when only praise is heard it can sometimes give a distorted view of the agency to list members. Members read the praise and think the agency is wonderful. But, is it really?"

From another list, Vincent Unger, who is a truly gifted writer in his own right and who has an uncanny knack of illustrating how individual events fit into a much larger context, describes what he's called, "First or Last Choice," as follows:

"In the 5 years now since I started my adoption quest, I like many of you have reflected a lot on the circumstances that led to my family."

"I hear anguished voices at times saying that international adoption should be the last resort."

"I fear some attorneys and facilitators see it as the first choice."

"And I feel my heart bleeding for the birth moms who face this toughest of choices and are pressured by family and society not to have a baby, or are looked down upon if they do, or are pressured by finders and scouts or even the attorneys themselves that placing the child is the
best or only choice, or by others that placing a child, especially internationally is a bad choice."

"I would like to see programs in place that free a birth mother to make the best choice for her situation. Where international adoption is NEITHER the first or last choice - that is, that hopefully it is NOT the only choice and that the other choices are also worthy of weighing. She knows better than anyone what is best - in all but the most extreme cases where she may not be capable of making that decision."

"Only she knows what she is capable of undertaking and what her internal reserves are. What her family's prospects really are. How deeply she loves that child and what her life goals and commitments are. I am speaking of birth moms but this applies to birth families as well when both parents are available and facing abandonment decisions."

"It is a sad mistake I think when others not walking her path know it is better to keep the child or not. Or that it is better to place the child internationally or domestically. But I am afraid in Guatemala there are so many that want to make that choice for her. And so much economic and social pressure and stigma attached to being an unwed parent, or being a poor single parent, or in some cases placing a child."

"It is not for me or any outsider to judge that she is incapable of providing for that child other than in cases of abuse. I look to my own ancestry and that of many I know - and I could easily see if we changed the names of where they were born, that today some of us might say those children would never have made it and should have been placed. Imagine - often no shoes, no running water or plumbing, no electricity, no steady employment (except as maids), no education beyond 8th grade for the children, and 8 little ones to feed. And the parents speak not a word of English (and never did learn it). That describes my mother's family in Minnesota. All eight children survived and thrived. My father today might be described as having been a street child. He ran away at age 12, and for a large part of his youth and adult life rode the rails as a hobo. Something that in the US has more romantic connotations than being destitute - because one has the dignity of being master of their lifestyle."

"I would like to see, but won't hold my breath, when fewer people will face this choice due to things that in some societies have been largely controlled like extreme lack of resources, educational opportunities and discrimination. But as long as they do face this, I believe adoption reform should also focus on making the birth mom's choice free and informed. Birth moms in my opinion, should freely seek out information on their choices from available and visible sources, rather than finders, doctors, attorneys seeking them out and providing only one viewpoint. Until that happens - I fear accusations of trafficking will continue."

Vince's words truly illustrate the complexity of the ethics, morals, social issues, religious issues and economic issues involved in adoption. He opens eyes when he points out that adopting a child out of destitution and squalor is no guarantee of a better life by using his own ancestry involving eight impoverished children who somehow managed to survive and thrive. I've said that the children involved in our case may not have had access to life-saving medical care and may not have had the opportunities they now have with their adoptive families. The truth is that we will never know what would have become of these children had they not been adopted here. Neither Mario Reyes, the Arlenes, the US authorities nor the adoptive families have the right to be considered lifesavers. There is a least one child in this case; who has an extremely rare and often fatal condition that most likely would have escaped detection and treatment had he remained in Mexico. This is not the same as saying it with a 100 percent certainty. Until we can re-live and change the past as well as view the future, what would have happened to these children had they remained in Mexico and what their futures hold are unknowns. On this list server, we have often debated and discussed these issues. Vince's thoughts and these debates and discussions show all the more reasons reforms are needed. The lines are blurred, there are no good guys and bad guys, there is no absolute right and wrong, there is no black and white, there are only shades of gray. We must never lose sight of the fact that no matter the desperation of potential adoptive parents for a child, no matter the greed of unscrupulous adoption workers, no matter the laws or regulations present now or in the future and how they stack up against whatever laws of whatever deity that holds your faith, adoption is first and foremost about the child and the child's right to a family. The process must be reformed so that it focuses on the child and the child's right to a family.

Most recently, Adoption Choice, who claims to have a program in Viet Nam, has ignored the requests of Cherie Clark, the director of International Mission of Hope (IMH) in Viet Nam with whom they have worked for adoptions there, for clarification of their involvement in our case. Due to this lack of response, Ms. Clark notified Adoption Choice that they would not accept any more dossiers from them. Ignoring this, Adoption Choice sent a dossier of a Milwaukee family wanting to adopt a second time through them to IMH. This ethical lapse on the part of Adoption Choice has forced IMH to complete this case for the benefit of a waiting child and this adoptive family. I can't judge IMH for practicing situational ethics in this case. The history of Viet Nam is a study in decisions based on situational ethics. You can make a case that we practiced situational ethics in bringing Shelly home the way we did. Either Adoption Choice has no shame or Melinda Randa and Jill Gerlach do not read their E-mail.

Every day another story appears about adoption crimes and their victims. Every day is a day too late to enact reforms for those victimized that day. We should only be reading about the benefits and beneficiaries of adoption, not the victims.

Just in case it is not clear, Kitty Vickers ia a member of the a-parents-Vietnam list and is quoted with her permission.

Vince Unger, is a member of the Guatemala-adopt list and is also quoted with his permission.

The Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoptions was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton at the end of his term of office. It is the best hope we have so far of putting an end to the act of an intercountry adoption hurting anyone.

Publication date: 2002 Jan 1

Organizations: Adoption Choice, Inc. (WI)