Battling families have different names for adoptee; when litigation dust settles, will she be ...

By Charles Geraci

The Herald Journal

Every evening at dinnertime, Mary Frances Kirkpatrick lights a red candle for the three-year-old girl her family adopted from

China more than two years ago.

Roughly 1,100 miles away, the child sits on Karen Banks" lap, slowly eating an apple while working on a puzzle.

This young girl is at the center of a custody fight between two families who care for her deeply. The Bankses call her

Amanda; the Kirkpatricks use Amelya. She has lived with both families in her short life.

Though a 1st District Court judge in Logan awarded guardianship to the Bankses last month, the Kirkpatricks are filing a motion for a new trial.

AMANDA/AMELYA

In late 2005, Curry Kirkpatrick of Overland Park, Kan., flew to China to bring home the girl he calls Amelya. His wife, Mary

Frances, who had recently given birth to twins of her own, was thrilled to have her "dream baby."

However, it wasn't easy caring for the twins and the new adopted child.

In an e-mail to Scott Banks "whose adoption agency the Kirkpatricks used" Curry wrote that "Amelya needed to be in a family where she could be the center of attention " unfortunately that was not possible in our situation with twin infants demanding and requiring nearly all of our attention."

With Mary Frances also suffering from post-partum depression, the Kirkpatricks turned to the owners of the Wellsville-based

adoption agency, Focus on Children, for assistance.

They signed a six-month temporary guardianship agreement with Scott and Karen Banks, and Scott flew out to Kansas to

get the girl in June 2006.

Later that month, Curry indicated to Scott that the Kirkpatricks wanted her back. He e-mailed Scott saying he intended to fly

to Salt Lake City to get her, but travel plans didn"t materialize.

The Herald Journal has obtained copies of several e-mail exchanges between the families that give a glimpse of their

interactions regarding the child.

As soon as July 11, Scott communicated to Curry that something the Bankses had not intended was happening " they were

growing attached to the girl.

"During the past four weeks, we as a family have fallen totally in love with Amelya," Scott wrote. "It is impossible not to as you know. She is a wonderful little girl and our kids have really fallen for her hard. She truly is the center of their attention and they love her to pieces and Karen and I are the same way in regards to her."

Three days later, Curry wrote back. He said he still intended to pick up "our daughter," but indicated it would be for the

purpose of finding an "ideal" adoptive family for the child " likely in Kansas.

"We were both shocked to learn that you and Karen in fact wanted to keep Amelya in your family," Curry wrote to Scott. "I

must say, that was quite contrary to our objective of finding a "childless" couple for Amelya and in the words of our

attorney, even of questionable ethics."

That same day, both Scott and Karen wrote e-mails back to Curry.

Karen told him she understood "how hard it is to realize that the best thing for your family and for Amelya is to place her

outside of your family."

She added that placing the girl with a different family would not be best for her. Instead, Karen suggested letting her remain with the Bankses.

"I promise you that we would always love her and do the best for her," Karen wrote. "She would not only be loved by Scott

and myself, but she would have adoring siblings. Don"t bounce her around like a rubber ball; she is already with a family that would give her everything she needs."

Mary Frances told The Herald Journal that she was "scared" by the e-mail. She has said on numerous occasions that she

felt intimidated by Karen Banks. And in e-mail exchanges, Mary Frances refers to the Bankses as "Mr. Doom" and "Mrs.

Gloom."

"We were terrified of the Bankses," she said. "They were our adoption agency. You ask any family who gets involved in an

adoption how you hold the adoption agency in the highest regard. You are so respectful of these people because they are like

gods " they"re giving you a child.

"I put Karen Banks" feelings and her children"s feelings in front of my own feelings and in front of my own children"s

feelings," said Mary Frances.

Karen Banks told The Herald Journal that she wrote the e-mail for two purposes " because she was "worried about Mary

Frances" and concerned that the Kirkpatricks would place the child with another family.

"She"s had so many placements and bounced from place to place to place," said Karen. "To me, I just could not fathom

why you would want to take her and put her in another place that she was unfamiliar (with) and take another big risk when

she was doing well in our home."

On August 4, Curry wrote an e-mail to Scott saying he believed it was "time to move forward with your formal adoption of

Amelya." He referred to executing adoption documents once the prior paperwork was completed.

However, Steve Kuhnhausen, lawyer for the Kirkpatricks, said even if Curry indicated a willingness to consent to the adoption

of the child by the Bankses, that does not imply Mary Frances had the same intent.

"I want the judge to make a finding that the actions of Curry bound Mary Frances," Kuhnhausen said. "One (finding) that he

needs to make is show me an e-mail from Mary Frances or anything that Mary Frances ever said about "I"m willing to ...

sign the adoption papers" " never, not one bit of evidence."

The Bankses" attorney, Marlin Grant, contends that future attempts to get adoption documents from the Kirkpatricks were

not successful. In November 2006, the Bankses filed a petition to adopt the child.

"ABANDONMENT" AT ISSUE

In February, 1st District Judge Stanton Taylor admitted he lost sleep over trying to decide which family should get custody

of the girl.

Taylor"s verdict hinged on whether the Kirkpatricks abandoned the child, and Taylor ruled they had, noting they did not make

any attempt to communicate with the child within a six-month period after surrendering the girl to the Bankses.

He added, "I think they (Kirkpatricks) could have done more to establish and maintain a relationship if that was really the

intent."

Kuhnhausen argues his clients did not abandon the child.

"The law in Utah is that if you make arrangements for care of a child, which we did with a document that was signed by all

four of the parties ... that means that you can"t count that time as "abandonment,"" Kuhnhausen told The Herald Journal.

He said the time should begin on January 1, 2007 " the day after the temporary guardianship agreement expired. The

Kirkpatricks hired him in May 2007, which according to Kuhnhausen"s interpretation of the law, would fall within the six-month period.

Kuhnhausen claims that even if more than six months of no contact occurred, in order for there to be abandonment, the

absence of communication still has to lead to the "destruction of the parent-child relationship," which he said simply didn"t

happen.

Grant has a different interpretation of the law. He argues the Kirkpatricks did abandon the girl, contending they did not ask

for the child"s return with a "firm intention" to get her back within six months after the surrender, as well as not

communicating with the girl in the first six months.

But Kuhnhausen emphatically disagrees.

"So you call this little 14-month-old Chinese baby up on the telephone and you say, "Hi, it's Mary Frances it's mommy"

"Give me a break," he said. "Do you write her a card in English and say, "Happy Birthday, Happy Easter day," and do you

really think the Bankses are going to share that with her" Could the child communicate back" No, the child grunts. Give me

a break. So that"s just all bullshit."

Kuhnhausen said he"s mailed a motion for a new trial, which should be filed on Monday. If it"s denied, he said the

Kirkpatricks will appeal Taylor"s decision.

THE INDICTMENT FACTOR

While Taylor awarded guardianship of the girl to the Bankses, he declined to approve an adoption at this point, pending the

outcome of a 135-count federal indictment against Scott and Karen Banks associated with their now-defunct adoption

agency, Focus on Children.

As owners of the agency, Scott and Karen Banks allegedly duped birth parents in Samoa into giving up their children under

the premise that they would receive an American education, return to the country at age 18 and remain in contact. However,

adoptive parents in the United States reportedly viewed the adoptions as permanent.

Charges in the indictment include conspiracy, bringing illegal aliens to the United States, fraud and money laundering.

"You can assume that those acts that they"re accused of occurred, and those are horrible acts," Kuhnhausen said at trial.

Roger Baron, from the state"s Office of Guardian Ad Litem, represented the young girl, and he too made mention of the

indictment.

"Obviously, the major negative with the Bankses is the federal criminal charges waiting to be tried," Baron told the judge.

Baron recommended that the child be returned to the Kirkpatricks.

Grant has said that his clients have not been convicted of anything at this point and should not have to prove their

innocence.

"We don"t have incarceration here," Grant told the court. "We have speculation."

The indictment did factor into the nuances of the judge"s decision, however.

Taylor stipulated that if the federal charges are either dismissed or if the Bankses are found not guilty, then the court would authorize the adoption. If the couple is convicted of any misdemeanors or felonies " or if only one of the Bankses were to go to jail " then a hearing would be held to determine what is "in the best interests" of the child.

In an audio recording given to The Herald Journal by Cathy Cevering, a visitation supervisor and witness at trial, Scott Banks who told The Herald Journal that he was not aware he was being recorded opens up about how he views the federal

case, noting it will be continued "as long as the federal government can drag it out."

"It really is politically motivated," Banks tells Cevering on the recording. "I know you probably wouldn"t believe it, but it is."

And a prosecutor"s statement suggests the government may not have a slam-dunk case against the Bankses.

In December 2007, Dustin Pead, an assistant U.S. attorney who is prosecuting the case, wrote an e-mail to Cevering inquiring whether she would be willing to share information with the government. Pead wrote, "As you might expect, we do have a lot of information, but clearly understand that we are still in the dark on many things."

"A CLOSE CASE"

The Kirkpatricks were allowed visitation of the child beginning in July 2007.

Mary Frances flew from Kansas to Utah roughly 35 times from July until Taylor"s verdict last month, which effectively

ended all visitation.

While Taylor encouraged the Bankses to consider allowing further visitation by the Kirkpatricks, he stopped short of ordering

it.

In court, Mary Frances said that the costs of visitation exceeded $36,000, which included hotel stays in Logan and flights to

Salt Lake City.

Cevering, who supervised a total of 16 visits, testified that the girl responded "very positively" with Mary Frances.

She "has a way with Amelya; she would just sort of bring her to life," said Cevering.

In addition, Cevering said the relationship between Mary Frances and the child was "very caring and tender."

Mary Frances told The Herald Journal that the custody battle is "the most emotional thing for me to talk about " she"s my

baby."

The Bankses say the girl has had a profound effect on their entire family.

"She is ... the nucleus of our family," Scott said. "Everything revolves around Amanda. We deeply love her, and she loves

us back."

Before issuing his verdict, Taylor said it was not only a difficult decision, but a "close case."

"There is one aspect of it that I find somewhat comforting, and that is we"re dealing with two really good families," Taylor

said. "That is not often the case."

E-mail: cgeraci@hjnews.com

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:49 AM:

" WOW! This is amazing! One cannot even fathom the power of the press! Yesterday there were many posts (according to the numbers-- 14) and today there are none! Where did they all go? All the other articles have their comments still safely tucked beneath them and this one is now empty.... One would have to ask the tough question-- such as "Who has that much influence and power over the press to make all the comments on a blog disappear?" Anyone want to risk an answer? "

bannanasoveru wrote on Mar 3, 2008 6:42 PM:

" Its really sickening that the Banks are only capable of making an income off of families and children in unfortunate circumstances. If the Banks REALLY had Amelya's best interests at heart, even before they met her, they would have disclosed to the Kirkpatricks that they were under federal indictment for over 130 counts of criminal charges BEFORE they took Amelya from the Kirkpatricks, who were in desperate need of help, and very vulnerable. I'm sure the Banks have become quite good at taking advantage of families in situations like the Kirkpatricks. (Good enough to get 130+ counts of criminal charges) Amelya is only a badge of triumph to be worn by the Banks. Because she's currently in their custody, the Banks can now show to the Federal Criminal court "SEE! LOOK! THIS Judge says I'm okay, I've been awarded custody of this little girl over another family! I'm not so bad, am I?" And Amelya holds the same badge for the Banks to their reputation in their community as she does to the Federal court.

The Banks effectively used, and abused, 100s of children and their families. I imagine they've gotten very good at what they do - scamming families for money, for their own gain, and who knows what else - hint hint, Scott's p**n addiction? Imagine what Amelya has to go thru with them on a daily basis. The stress that household must be under, it can't be good for a 3 year old.

I believe the Judge had to have some bias in this case. How could he not have? How could anyone with 130+ counts of criminal charges be granted custody of a child who -by the Judge's own admission, has another great family waiting for her, the Kirkpatricks, who have no p**n addiction, no criminal indictments and who aren't malicious, lying, self serving, greedy and manipulative?

If the Banks, or the Judge for that matter, truly had Amelya's best interests at heart, not their own in mind, they'd see that the risk of Amelya being sent, not back to the Kirkpatricks, but to an entirely new 3rd family if the Banks are imprisoned on their federal charges, is far to great to take regarding the well being of a 3 year old who's already been through so much. If the Banks wanted to at least make some amends to all the families they tore apart and manipulated, returning Amelya to the Kirkpatricks would be a good start. The Kirkpatricks made a mistake by giving Amelya to the Banks in the first place, and they began to take steps to correct that mistake as soon as they could. But that is the difference between the Banks & the Kirkpatricks. The Banks are out for themselves.

This case is truly one of the most saddening that I've had the displeasure to follow through the papers in a long time."

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Above is a post that was deleted earlier. Actually just a few minutes after it was posted. I am re-posting so that freedom of speech prevails.... Below are so more from yesterday......."

rightous wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:13 AM:

" Another Adoption agency gets in trouble....This poor Mother in Kansas was suffering from post partium depression she had just delivered twins. OMG..Give her a break,,she traveled to Utah, left her other children, how many times!!!! This women is a hero in my eyes. What a mother wont do for her child. The Bank's were the adoption agency,,,,were is the support of their clients. After the check is written to the Adoption Agency they go on to get more SUCKERS to take advantage of. My husband reminds me that the indictments were passed down by a Grand Jury, He calls Scott, slippery Scott. They asked us to support them but never gave us an opportunity to ask them questions about the indictments. My husband got a copy of the actual indictment, We were shocked, stunned and dumbfounded by

what we read. About the Bank's involvment. This is real serious stuff. Educate yourselves. What kind of role models are the Banks. Isnt that what parenthood is all about. What about the faith that we share with the Banks. Honesty. When will the Banks tell us the truth. What are they hiding? We no longer want anything to do with them. They were entrusted with peoples dreams and they took advantage of couples. We googled International adoption reviews Focus on Children and over and over again there were bad reivews on FOC. We have done other reseach thanks to the internet. There are so many sad stories about how families trusted FOC in Wellsville. How they cashed their checks and filled them with empty promises and these people waited and waited for a baby. Some people stopped waiting

and asked for their money back. That never happened, sorry you signed a contract with us. It was the bottom$$$$$$ for the FOC. We read the stories about Samoa, and the victms of FOC here in the States and in Samoa. We read about a baby named Heta, who died, she was an orphan, but when she got sick FOC employees took her to her parents home for them to care for her...then she died. Then Karen Banks flew to Samoa and as they were grieving asked them for another child. Karen Banks a MOTHER, not in my eyes. Drive by Wellsville, look at that house they live in. How can the Banks take a child from a Mother who was isuffering in Samoa or Kansas. Where is their compassion? I pray for the Mother in Kansas. I pray that the Banks will step up and take responsibility for their actions. Who is

suffering..a child sits in LIMBO in Wellsville. "

rightous wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Please tell me that I am not the only one wondering why the Banks are meeting a newspaper reported in their ATTORNEYS OFFICE Is it to protect them from saying anything INCRIMINATING????????? I am seeing RED FLAGSSSSSSSSSS "

slicker wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:37 AM:

" My Relief Socity President told me that her second cousin was present during the trial. At one point, she overheard in the hallway there was questioning and affirmation regarding porngraphy on Mr. Bank's computer. Why would the courts leave this toddler in such a distrubing enviroment. I am concern for this childs eternal salvation. I agree with a previous comment that was posted, the indictments sound serious. Wasnt Mrs Banks the President of the Adoption Agency? There seems to be a lot of unanswed questions. "

AreYou Kidding wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:49 AM:

" RED FLAGS is exactly right rightous, why in the world WOULD they need to meet in the attorneys office???? Smells like something fishy is afoot!! "I think thou doest protesteth too much" comes to mind! Why didn't the reporter tell us in the article why this meeting took place in the attorney's office and not their home? Is there something that Mr. and Mrs. Banks did not want anyone to see? "

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:37 PM:

" Adoptionagencieswithout intergity wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:14 AM:

" PORNGRAPHY ON HIS COMPUTER! THAT IS DISGUSTING. WE ARE SO MAD THE BANKS ARE IN OUR WARD,,OUR BROTHER AND OUR SISTER. YUCK AND MORE YUCK WHEN WILL THE WOES OF ADOPTION AGENCIES END. WHO CAN WE TRUST, WHO TELLS THE TRUTH ANYMORE? wHY DID THEY MEET IN THEIR ATTORNEYS OFFICE,,WHAT IN THE HECK IS GOING ON IN THE BANKS HOME,,WERE WORRIED WERE SCARED,,,THEY LIVE VERY CLOSE TO US. ""

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:38 PM:

" say say say wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:36 PM:

" Adoptionagencieswithout intergity....my hell your post is pathetic...you are going by hearsay of someone who you may not kmow....It is like me saying "I heard your bishop say you like to have sex with animals." Is it true? probably not...get off your moral high horse and pray the child gets what she deserves. A family that loves her and will be a good role model! ""

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:40 PM:

" #2 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:38 PM:

" There will be many new details to come out about this case in the months to come. There is a reason that Utah has become a center for scam artists. Unfortunately, psychopaths are very adept at entering networks of trust, presenting themselves as pillars of the community through religious and secular organizations. This damages not only their immediate victims but all of us, as trust is the basis for having a sense of community and security in our lives. With suspicion comes vigilance, an increasing burden of modern life. ""

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:41 PM:

" Sadly, I did not get the rest. Maybe the HJ will see their way clear to re-posting the rest! Have a lovely evening! "

sassy u no wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:23 PM:

" o.k so I know this is old news.

How come we are just now hearing about this custody battle?

Logan's up to date with the most recent news huh newspaper. Were so far behind the times here.

Why are the owners of this defunked adoption agency trying to take a child from a family in Kansas? They have federal indictmetns, this isnt making sense. It is never too late to take a child out of a disfunctional and immoral home, I read bananasoveru,,we talked yesterday after church, and I cant wait to talk to you again this Wedneday for lunch at Blackstone on Main. See you at 11:30. I have invited a few others from our Ward who are very interested in this strange story. One of them knows of the Banks. They had a son that they adopted from some Eastern European country and put him in a home, and then they had two other children that they sent to Samoa.

This doesnt sound like it could be true but they said it was. The Banks live right here in Wellsville, how is that even possible. I guess they have been making headlines for over a year in Salt Lake. Please any one else struggling to make sense of this come to Blackstone (the new resturant on Main). What is wrong with members of our community. How ddi this happen. Why?

Is it pure greed. Why dont we just take care of the children we have? "

Bluto wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:27 PM:

" This child is now old enough to be very frightened by the original adopters. She doesn't know them. The "real" parents are in China,

right?

The quote about it being BS to make an attempt to "stay in touch" is in my opinion BS. If it were my 14 month old, I'd be calling the guardians

every day to ask what the kid did today. Is she healthy? Can you put her on the phone? I want to hear her voice. That's what my parents

do with my children and at 3, my boy understands very well who Grandma and Grandpa are even though they live 700 miles away.

It seems as if the first family is worried only for themselves and not for the child that they feel they own. How can this girl be the "dream

baby" when they were blessed with twins right about the same time?

Maybe I don't understand the article but the Banks family seems just right for this little girl at this time. It's too late to move her to Kansas or

where ever. She's too aware!

All this stuff about the Banks, and pornography or driving by their house and cast a judgment...I lend no credence to.

Judge yourself!"

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:49 PM:

" Hey Bluto,

You obviously saved your post from yesterday. Do you have any of the rest? I think that it would be very helpful to have the rest of them up here."

cv1 wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:53 PM:

" to outside the box - it looks like you only see things one way. Why didn't you repost all the comments. For those of you who don't want the Banks in your ward anymore, that is truly pathetic. The relief societies 2nd cousin overheard in the hallway - that is a real credible source. It was the judge who terminated the Kirkpatricks parental rights and determined that there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. "

outside the box wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:56 PM:

" Sassy u no I agree with you completely! Why is it that people outside of our cozy little valley know all about this and yet most people know absolutely nothing about this situation! Then an article gets written and people still are completely confused about what has gone on. People are posting without the benefit of having all of the information. Personally, I am outraged! I absolutely want to know if there is someone in my community who has strange addictions and a possible banana fettish-- you know what I mean? We raise our children here! Where has the news coverage been? Maybe someone who actually has some detailed information would like to post some facts and let all of us in on what has happened--rather than speculation! "

outside the box wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:00 AM:

" cv1,

I did not get all of them. If you have them please re-post! I made the same offer to Bluto. Try to keep up. If you are going to be selective in

what you read then you become just another part of the problem-- not the solution. Try thanking me for what I did save and then pay

attention to what is posted and if you are able to help then do so. "

cv1 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:05 AM:

" The situation has been in the Herald Journal. One year ago Charles did 2-3 reports on the initial indictment and several letters were written to the editor - there were 0 comments on them at the time. The allegation about what was on the computer is completely heresay it was never brought up in court. This is becoming a witch hunt. The bottom line is, it was determined by a judge to terminate the Kirkpatricks parental rights by reason of clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. A three year old amazing little girl is involved and it does not help that people are letting crazy accusations fly about the people whom the judge determined it was in the girl's best interest to have guardianship of her. "

outside the box wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:38 AM:

" cv1 it sounds like you have been close friends of the Banks for a very long time. I empathize with your feelings about this situation. I have done some checking around and have seen actual evidence that the stuff on the computer was brought into court in front of the judge and that it was substantiated. I have also talked to a couple of other people who know the Banks well and they say that the little girl is doing well where she is and that her behavior is really good. So I guess if you add it all up-- it ends up sixes. Oh, except for the fact that there is still 135 indictments that could impede the freedom of one set of parents. When will that be decided? Do you know? I do have one question that nobody has been able to answer though-- as you seem to know the Banks, what did Sassy mean about the son that they

put in a home, and the two children that they have in Samoa? Some clarity on that would be appreciated greatly! "

cv1 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:58 AM:

" Did they happen to clarify that it was not a computer from their home. I am just saddened by how vicious people can be. "

outside the box wrote on Mar 4, 2008 3:31 AM:

" This must be very difficult for you. I am sure that the Banks must appreciate your friendship. It must be very hard to watch all of this transpire. You said that the computer was not from their home? It was my understanding that everything came from their home. This one came from somewhere else? You are correct that people can become very vicious. I think that it comes from not having all of the facts. Maybe that is where you can help your friends the best--by presenting the facts."