Adoptions by Choice: First Degree Grand Theft

I pondered in the previous post why agencies might be attracted to membership in National Council For Adoption (NCFA), an organization formed for the specific purpose of preventing adoptees from learning the truth of their origins. One reason for the attraction may be demonstrated by the agency I'm featuring today.

Consider: If adoptive families and families of birth could be prevented from coming in contact with one another at some future time, they can't compare notes on their adoption process or the agency that brokered it. The adoptive parents can't learn, for example, that the exorbitant amount of money they paid for "birth mother expenses" went, instead, into the pocket of the agency's director. The birth mother can't reveal to the adoptive parents that her medical expenses, in fact, had been paid by private insurance or Medicaid. It makes the deal just so much sweeter for the agency if these little insignificant details don't have to surface.

So must have thought Debra West, director of Adoptions By Choice, of Tampa, Florida, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to defrauding dozens of adoptive parents out of $178,000 for bogus birth mother medical and living expenses. Had it not been for the discovery of these phony charges by agency employees, and their reporting same to law enforcement, West might just have gotten away with it - at least a little longer.

Being a member of an organization that lobbies to protect agency secrets like hers surely would be worth the annual membership dues.

Although the criminal charges brought against West were for thefts that occurred from specific dates from 2002 to 2005, her activities allegedly stretched back to the mid-1990s. An article in the St. Petersburg Times reports:

Also, Thursday's arrest is not the first time ABC's finances have come to the attention of law enforcement.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office investigated ABC in the mid 1990s after former ABC workers complained that adoptive parents were often charged for bogus birth mother expenses. In one case, a Pinellas judge threw out $30,000 in supposed medical expenses when ABC could not provide documentation.

One former worker told authorities that she discovered several copies of "checks" to mothers in her files that couldn't match up with bills because they were written out of sequence.

The investigation was dropped because the adoptive parents, who were the alleged victims, refused to cooperate.

Reclaimed Babies

In addition to West's fraud and theft, there was the matter of the 11 infants her agency had to take back from adoptive placements due to her trying, unsuccessfully, to outfox birth fathers. Still another case – 'Baby Sam' – made U.S. headlines for five years, as the father and adoptive parents battled for custody in the courts in two states. According to one news account,

"West and ABC's lawyer knew about the (father's custody) suit, but pushed the adoption through in Tampa anyway without telling Hillsborough authorities."

This same account quotes a former agency employee who worked with mothers:

"At ABC, you did whatever the girl wanted," Free said. "I didn't ask her about the birth father or anything. I never knew it was important."

One of ABC's father-bypass tricks was used in the Baby Sam case. According to the news account mentioned just above,

His biological mother went to ABC a few weeks before the birth and said she didn't know who the father was, which was a lie. State law required ABC to seek out the father with newspaper ads. Though Baby Sam's mother lived in Pinellas County, ABC advertised for an unknown father in a small paper that circulates only in Hillsborough County.

"We publish in the county where the agency is located,'' West said.

Social Worker Tells it Like it Was

So how about ABC's treatment of mothers? Is it possible this agency had the protection of birth mothers' "confidentiality" in mind when they hooked elbows with NCFA, stalwart keeper of birth mother virtues?

That question would be humorous if it weren't so monumentally preposterous.

Two former ABC social workers described conditions of their employment thus:

...they said birth mothers were pressured to give up babies, sometimes by workers who stood by their side as labor coaches.

"Every time a girl chose to keep the baby, we were called into the office and asked: What did you do wrong?'' said St. Petersburg resident Christy Hallas, who worked at ABC from 1990 to late 1992.

And this:

In her last case, Hensley said, a birth mother was in labor when the father called to say she had changed her mind about adopting. Assistant director Nancy Nagelhout "told me to offer her services as a labor coach to further enhance her bond to me,'' Hensley said. "She reminded me how I would be saving a child from a terrible life.''

After Hensley refused, she said, Nagelhout drove to the hospital, two counties away, trying to secure the mother's signature.

"When a girl went to the hospital, you basically went there and you camped out,'' said Clearwater resident Elise Free, a birth mother worker who left at the end of 1993. "I remember not feeling comfortable. But I felt pressure from Debra and Nancy. You were to sign a surrender as soon as possible. The sooner the better because you didn't want her to change her mind.''

Another Ponzi Shell Game

Like Commonwealth Adoptions International (previous post), Adoptions By Choice made no secret of the fact that the only way they could keep afloat was to bring in more paying clients on the front end of the operation.

As a result of the debacle that was the Baby Sam case, both the father and the adoptive parents sued Adoptions By Choice and won settlements of confidential amounts. (The father also sued ABC's attorney for $1.1 million and received a separate settlement from him.) However, according to the St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 23, 2001:

It's unclear whether Adoption By Choice (sic), still in business despite the additional financial burdens, and Boyer (ABC's attorney) have paid any of the settlements.

Anthony Marchese, the Johnsons' Tampa attorney, said his clients were told that the agency could not pay them until it received payments from new couples willing to adopt.

It's not likely there would be any new clients; the agency's license was due to expire a few months later, on May 1. And who would trust an agency that had it's fraudulent activities broadcast far and wide for five years?

Lawmakers vs. Private Adoption Agencies

An editorial published in the March 29, 1998 issue of the St. Petersburg Times describes the battle between adoption reform legislation attempts and the lucrative adoption industry flourishing in Florida. Please note the date of this editorial and the mention – ten years before Debra West pleaded guilty to grand theft – of the accusations made against Adoptions By Choice.

Lawmakers in Tallahassee are making headway on a much-needed overhaul of Florida's adoption system, but private adoption agencies are already mobilizing for a fight. And no wonder. Some adoption agencies and lawyers are milking the system for all it's worth, and they are not eager to be weaned. In a particularly cynical move, they are now using their adoptive-parent clients as fronts, betting that lawmakers would be reluctant to disappoint desperate couples willing to pay high premiums for the chance to adopt a healthy newborn.

Legislators should not be fooled. If anything, the lobby's self-interest scheme should stiffen the state's resolve to put more safeguards in a system that for too long has escaped adequate oversight and regulation. Left mostly to their own devices, private agencies and lawyers have fostered an adoption system that comes close to baby-selling, with high costs to all parties involved -- except the middlemen, of course.

As detailed in a recent report by the Times' Stephen Nohlgren, ex-employees of Tampa's Adoption By Choice say adoptive parents are snookered into paying thousands of dollars in bogus expenses, while birth mothers are pressured into giving up their babies within hours after delivery -- with no chance to change their minds -- and birth fathers are kept in the dark until it's too late. The rush to get the birth mother to sign away her rights, and the failure to notify the birth father of his, only increase the risk that the adoption will later be challenged.

A comprehensive measure recently approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee could change the system for the better. By strengthening the rights of birth parents early on, it gives adoptive parents -- and, most important, the child -- greater stability later.

The bill would give birth mothers time to reconsider their decisions. A pregnant woman who has signed a contract to put her newborn up for adoption may change her mind once the baby arrives. Women should not be pressured to give their consent from the hospital bed, when emotions are high and resistance is low. Under the proposed legislation, birth mothers would have a week after delivery to reflect on their decision -- and to back out of an adoption contract if they changed their minds.

The measure also would give birth fathers notice of adoption plans. The "Baby Sam" case, involving a Palm Harbor man's still-ongoing attempt to regain custody of his natural son from an Alabama couple, is only the latest example of the instability and heartbreak that can result when adoptions proceed without the birth father's consent. This bill would require greater efforts to locate and to hear from those fathers.

Membership in National Council For Adoption to the Rescue?

This may explain why Debra West saw fit to enroll Adoptions By Choice in the membership of National Council For Adoption. A battle was raging to reform Florida's adoption laws, and not only were West's golden eggs in jeopardy – the geese that laid them were in danger of getting away. In addition to protecting her many incriminating secrets, the drastic changes these proposed reforms would bring would seriously curtail her baby procurement practices. She needed a bigger gun than those of her Florida agency cohorts. Who better to help her keep the lid on than NCFA?

We know that Adoptions By Choice was a NCFA member in 1996, the year Baby Sam was born and illegally placed with a Georgia couple and two years before the above editorial was published. How? We know it from the 'Directory of Member Agencies' that was downloaded from the NCFA website on September 9, 1996, as shown on the following documents: the cover page and the first page of member agency listings, beginning with Alabama. (Crossed-out agencies were noted because they were absent in a subsequent NCFA member list.) Notice the download date and time on the upper left corner of each. It also shows up, more clearly, on the bottom of the cover page, which I've enlarged here:

(I'm sorry these can't be enlarged; I uploaded the largest version permitted.)

By way of disclaimer, I make no accusation that National Council For Adoption either knew of the illegal activities of Debra West at the time her agency became a member or that NCFA would have approved of such activities had it known. Neither do I imply that all agencies which join NCFA have ulterior motives like those I suspect Debra West of having.

Perhaps the greatest point I wish to make is that, since NCFA has no vetting process for the agencies which bring their own agendas to the membership table, NCFA is neither capable of, nor authorized to, "credential" any agency for anything. (See credential claim on Commonwealth post.) It is, quite simply, a lobbying organization whose clients are members of the out-of-control adoption industry.

Next: One of NCFA's charter members sued under federal racketeering laws.