Bill Pierce: adoptions in the range of $75,000 to $90,000."
Dian
http://www.uoregon.edu/~dapope/adoptnyt.htm
And a few, people who have the money for intermediaries to do the
work, pay up to $100,000 to bring home a newborn.
and
Adoption is, in a rough analogy to organ transplants, a legal transfer
not subject to purchase or bidding. Nowhere in the United States is it
legal to sell a child, and few say it should be. Nor can anyone sell
the right to be an adoptive parent: that is conferred by the state,
based on home studies conducted by social workers.
But scarcity has created a cast of thousands of intermediaries, who
can and do sell access to the young women who might relinquish babies.
Access can be sold indirectly, by an Internet service that sells
advertising space to couples, for example, or directly, by lawyers or
unlicensed brokers known as "facilitators," who will either shop
couples to pregnant women or recruit those who agree to let adoptive
families be chosen for them.
This has left only the thinnest line between buying a child and buying
adoption services that lead to a child. "The effect is the same," said
Mr. Wright, whose agency, Future Families of Monterey Bay, places
older children for adoption and foster care.
and
The shake down.
She does not recruit pregnant women, but she gets referrals and
interviews candidates. "To really get the birth parents ready," she
said, "you do what's called shaking them out of the trees. You say,
'If you have a little feeling down here telling you to keep your baby,
we've got to talk about that.' "
and
Some of the competition comes from lawyers who handle independent
adoptions: "Now everybody thinks adoption is easy money, especially
the attorneys," Ms. Chalker said. "Now they're hiring counselors to
work in their offices, and setting up as agencies without being
licensed."
Adoptions From the Heart has 33 staff members and seven offices in
five states. The agency has an advertising budget of $371,000 this
year, accounting for 16 percent of its total expenses.
and
Getting fat on baby selling
"Our facilitator in Vietnam charges $10,000 per baby," Ms. Chalker
said. "Can you imagine how rich she must be?"
and
Louisiana, on the other hand, "is wide open," Ms. Roseman said. "I
always joke, when I want to make a million dollars, I'm going to open
an agency in Louisiana and I'll be charging $30,000, $40,000, $50,000.
I'm going to get fat eating bonbons in Louisiana
and
Bill Pierce witnesses big money transfer
Mr. Gitelman is said to be favored by older, moneyed couples who want
quick, closed adoptions. Investigators have placed his fees at $50,000
and up; Mr. Pierce at the National Council for Adoption said he had
seen a photocopy of a check written to Mr. Gitelman, with endorsement,
"in the range of $75,000 to $90,000."
Pierceforhimself
>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>Date: 10/2/2003 2:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>Bill Pierce witnesses big money transfer
I have posted to another thread on this topic, but it should be clear that I
have never said that I witnessed a "big money transfer." What I saw was a
photocopy, in color, of an endorsed certified check made out to a well-known
facilitator. That check was shown to me by a member of the media trying to do
a segment for television on that facilitator.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
Pierceforhimself
>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>Date: 10/2/2003 2:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Evidence of America gone mad.
>
>
>http://www.uoregon.edu/~dapope/adoptnyt.htm
This article is more than five years old.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
LilMtnCbn
>From: piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself)
>Date: 10/2/03 10:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031003001314...@mb-m02.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Bill Pierce: adoptions in the range of $75,000 to $90,000."
>>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>>Date: 10/2/2003 2:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>>Evidence of America gone mad.
>>
>>
>>http://www.uoregon.edu/~dapope/adoptnyt.htm
>
>This article is more than five years old.
It was probably written around the time that Ben Franklin was president of the
US.
Steve White
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
It's also on a web site where every link is broken.
And it says, "New York Times on the Web" with a uoregon.edu web addy.
steve
Steve White
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
> I have posted to another thread on this topic, but it should be clear
> that I have never said that I witnessed a "big money transfer." What
> I saw was a photocopy, in color, of an endorsed certified check made
> out to a well-known facilitator. That check was shown to me by a
> member of the media trying to do a segment for television on that
> facilitator.
Yet another reason why facilitators should be put out of business,
without exception. Adoptions should be handled only by licensed
agencies, adoption professionals and adoption attorneys.
steve
Dian
Okay, then let's just say you are a witness to the exhorbitant amount of money
some people will pay facilitators for the purchase of children.
Di
Dian
In that case he is probably earning even more than he did 5 years ago.
Di
Palms2pines
>Yet another reason why facilitators should be put out of business,
>without exception. Adoptions should be handled only by licensed
>agencies, adoption professionals and adoption attorneys.
>
>
>
Ahem. Facilitators are adoption professionals. Licensed agencies have no
better track record for ethics or lack of ethics than attorneys or
facilitators. Why would an attorney be more qualified than a facilitator to
work in the field of adoption? Facilitators only handle one aspect of
adoption--the connecting of those wishing to place a child with those wishing
to adopt. They are doing *one part* of the process agencies and attorneys
currently handle.
P2P
Robin Harritt
palms...@aol.comh8spam wrote on 3/10/03 9:43 pm:
> Steve writes:
>> Yet another reason why facilitators should be put out of business,
>> without exception. Adoptions should be handled only by licensed
>> agencies, adoption professionals and adoption attorneys.
> Ahem. Facilitators are adoption professionals. Licensed agencies have no
> better track record for ethics or lack of ethics than attorneys or
> facilitators. Why would an attorney be more qualified than a facilitator to
> work in the field of adoption?
Can an attorney not be barred from practising if he brakes the code of
ethics of his professional body? A lawyer in England if they are a solicitor
would be bound by of professional code of practise of the Law Society, if a
Barrister by the Bar Council. After all the word "professional" originally
meant someone who had "professed" an oath to abide by such a professional
code. I would not think a facilitator the likes of Marcy could be 'struck
off' as a facilitator as she probably belongs to no professional body
whatsoever.
What does a 'licensed adoption agency' have to do to get a licence, what
would it have to do to lose its licence? Are agencies subject to periodic
inspection in the same way as authorised adoption agencies are in England by
the Social Services Inspectorate?
> Facilitators only handle one aspect of adoption--the connecting of those
> wishing to place a child with those wishing to adopt. They are doing *one
> part* of the process agencies and attorneys currently handle.
They would be completely illegal here, thank goodness, and lawyers are
allowed to play no part in 'facilitating' an adoption, they are only
involved in adoption through the work they do in the court process. Social
workers are the key professional figures in adoption in the UK.
I must say I do find the sums of money involved in US adoption, whether
you're talking about about 8000 or 100000 dollars, altogether wrong. Not
because I think it constitutes buying or selling of children. But because if
you are to avoid corruption in what is supposed to be for the best interests
of a child, that should be a state funded process, not one where those who
can afford the most get the best service.
In the UK at the moment the chargeable services in adoption (as far as I am
aware) are those provided to participants in international adoption where
prospective adoptive parents have to pay for their home study, court fees,
etc.
Robin
Lainie Petersen
> Ahem. Facilitators are adoption professionals.
Palms,
I genuinely like you, but I cannot agree that faciliators are adoption
professionals. They aren't licensed, they aren't educated, and they
have no sort of standardization.
Licensed agencies have no
> better track record for ethics or lack of ethics than attorneys or
> facilitators.
How do you know this?
Why would an attorney be more qualified than a facilitator to
> work in the field of adoption?
Because they are necessary to an adoption, and they know adoption law.
Furthermore, they have a license that can be revoked if they
transgress ethical boundries.
Facilitators only handle one aspect of
> adoption--the connecting of those wishing to place a child with those wishing
> to adopt. They are doing *one part* of the process agencies and attorneys
> currently handle.
Yep, so why are they even necessary? They are just one additional
middleman/woman, add costs, and have little to no accountablity.
L.
Dian
If a fee of $100,000 doesn't constitute the selling of a child how
much would you suggest does?
Di
Robin Harritt
patr...@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/10/03 8:54 am:
> Robin Harritt <nos...@harritt.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBA3C11A.23125%nos...@harritt.net>...
>> in article 20031003164313...@mb-m23.aol.com, Palms2pines at
>> palms...@aol.comh8spam wrote on 3/10/03 9:43 pm:
<snip>
>>> Facilitators only handle one aspect of adoption--the connecting of those
>>> wishing to place a child with those wishing to adopt. They are doing *one
>>> part* of the process agencies and attorneys currently handle.
>> They would be completely illegal here, thank goodness, and lawyers are
>> allowed to play no part in 'facilitating' an adoption, they are only
>> involved in adoption through the work they do in the court process. Social
>> workers are the key professional figures in adoption in the UK.
>> I must say I do find the sums of money involved in US adoption, whether
>> you're talking about about 8000 or 100000 dollars, altogether wrong. Not
>> because I think it constitutes buying or selling of children.
> If a fee of $100,000 doesn't constitute the selling of a child how
> much would you suggest does?
>
> Di
I missed the start of this thread as I usually a filter on all currency
symbols. I only switched filters off when I realised there were loads of
message that I'm not seeing. Sorry I can't be arsed to Google the start of
thread, that's just an attitude that seems to infectious around here.
Has some prospective adoptive parent somewhere paid a birthmother 100,000
dollars for her child? Or was the the total cost of the adoption to the
adoptive parents and mostly made of - albeit probable unfair - 'professional
fees'?
Here in the UK there are less than 500 HWIs available for adoption per year,
I'm pretty certain that could be increased manyfold if a birthmother were
able to ask for 100,000 dollars about 70,000 pounds. I've no doubt
whatsoever that there would be a few birthmothers who would far prefer to
have to have what 70,000 pounds can buy to having a child that's going to
cost a whole lot more than 70,000 pounds to raise to adulthood. They're the
same mothers who end up being TPR'd five, six, seven years down the line,
we've got plenty of their kids available for adoption, about 5000 more than
anyone wants.
The only way to get rid of commercialism in adoption entirely is to have
UK/OZ style adoption laws, I can't see that happening any time just yet in
the US. In the meantime women who choose to accept gifts and money in
exchange for an agreement to relinquish their child to particular adopter(s)
are fuelling this just as much as any other party to adoption.
Robin
Dian
The facilitators fee. Bill Pierce himself sighted a similarly obscene
cheque to
some facilitator.
>
> Here in the UK there are less than 500 HWIs available for adoption per year,
> I'm pretty certain that could be increased manyfold if a birthmother were
> able to ask for 100,000 dollars about 70,000 pounds. I've no doubt
> whatsoever that there would be a few birthmothers who would far prefer to
> have to have what 70,000 pounds can buy to having a child that's going to
> cost a whole lot more than 70,000 pounds to raise to adulthood. They're the
> same mothers who end up being TPR'd five, six, seven years down the line,
> we've got plenty of their kids available for adoption, about 5000 more than
> anyone wants.
>
I see. It must be different down here. While some mothers are abusive
and negligent, our kids are more often taken into care because their
(usually)
alcoholic father or some other bloke physically or sexually abused
them, and are taken away for their protection. Always blaming the
mother for the abuse must be an adoption community *thing.*
> The only way to get rid of commercialism in adoption entirely is to have
> UK/OZ style adoption laws, I can't see that happening any time just yet in
> the US.
Agreed on both counts.
In the meantime women who choose to accept gifts and money in
> exchange for an agreement to relinquish their child to particular adopter(s)
> are fuelling this just as much as any other party to adoption.
>
But giving mothers money or gifts in exhange for baby is only thing
that is illegal in the US and breaches the anti-slavery laws. She is
the only person in the deal who is forbidden to financially benefit.
Only the *professionals* are allowed to profit from the sale of her
baby.
Di
> Robin
Robin Harritt
Nope, I reckon it's probably exactly the same here. The difference is in
your and my perception of culpability. In my view any mother who needs a
bloke (be he child's father or not) so bad that she puts that before the
welfare of her children is culpable and should be TPR'd. Any mother who is
prepared to get away from a violent partner and who is otherwise a fit
mother would be allowed to keep her children.
Robin
kat
Dian <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.03100...@posting.google.com...
Uh huh. Would that be similiar to always *absolving* the mother being a
"bmother thing"?
>
> > The only way to get rid of commercialism in adoption entirely is to have
> > UK/OZ style adoption laws, I can't see that happening any time just yet
in
> > the US.
>
> Agreed on both counts.
>
> In the meantime women who choose to accept gifts and money in
> > exchange for an agreement to relinquish their child to particular
adopter(s)
> > are fuelling this just as much as any other party to adoption.
> >
> But giving mothers money or gifts in exhange for baby is only thing
> that is illegal in the US and breaches the anti-slavery laws. She is
> the only person in the deal who is forbidden to financially benefit.
Having one's living expenses andmedical expenses paid and receiving cars,
clothing, etc. is financially beneficial.
Kathy 1
Rhiannon
I agree.
Regardless of the pressures she may feel to stay, remaining with an
abusive partner/father makes a woman an accomplice to the abuse.
Rh.
>
> Robin
natural mom
Hi Di,
Adoption earnings are big business, and even if the article is 5 years
old, money and adoption go hand in hand, facilitators, lawyers, they
all have their hands out, its money making, and those that come here,
will and do not believe the truths, even if it bit them in the ass,
because they are adopters...
and have used the system.
Rhiannon
>
> >Yet another reason why facilitators should be put out of business,
> >without exception. Adoptions should be handled only by licensed
> >agencies, adoption professionals and adoption attorneys.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ahem. Facilitators are adoption professionals. Licensed agencies have no
> better track record for ethics or lack of ethics than attorneys or
> facilitators.
> >
> >
>
>
Indeed?
So you are telling me that all have been *thoroughly* scrutinised and
the results compared. It's easy to 'cook books' when you aren't bound
by professional ethics.
> >
> >
>
>
>
Why would an attorney be more qualified than a facilitator to
> work in the field of adoption? Facilitators only handle one aspect of
> adoption--the connecting of those wishing to place a child with those wishing
> to adopt. They are doing *one part* of the process agencies and attorneys
> currently handle.
> >
> >
>
>
>
Ahem. Bullshit.
Count me among those who think that 'facilitators' are nothing more
than sleazy 'linkers' with only their own interests and pocket books
at heart, whose primary motivation is to promote relinquishment and
find potential adoptive parents.
If children could only be adopted through licensed government agencies
there would be no need for 'facilitators'.
Rh.
>
>
> P2P
kat
natural mom <gmu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71fb4c85.0310...@posting.google.com...
> patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
news:<c599139c.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote in message
news:<20031003001314...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> > > >Subject: Bill Pierce: adoptions in the range of $75,000 to $90,000."
> > > >From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
> > > >Date: 10/2/2003 2:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >
> > > >Evidence of America gone mad.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >http://www.uoregon.edu/~dapope/adoptnyt.htm
> > >
> > > This article is more than five years old.
> > >
> > > Bill Pierce
> > > piercefo...@AOL.com
> >
> > In that case he is probably earning even more than he did 5 years ago.
> >
> > Di
>
>
> Hi Di,
>
> Adoption earnings are big business, and even if the article is 5 years
> old, money and adoption go hand in hand, facilitators, lawyers, they
> all have their hands out, its money making, and those that come here,
I visit here. (um I'm hesitant to say I come here :)
> will and do not believe the truths, even if it bit them in the ass,
> because they are adopters...
I adopted five cats and two dogs.
>
> and have used the system.
Nah 6 out of the 7 were a result of someone using my doorstep as a safe
haven, the7th the slave owners were glad to get rid of and gave it to me for
free.
Kathy 1
kat
Rhiannon <sarall...@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.031004...@posting.google.com...
I concur.
Kathy 1
Marley Greiner
"kat" <katl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bln9bq$e6hl8$1...@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de...
Marley
Do they clean your house, take out the garbage and drive you around town?
KL
gmu...@hotmail.com (natural mom) writes:
Hey stupid ass.....everyone here is not an adopter....DUH
KL
LilMtnCbn
>From: klbj...@aol.comjunkhell (KL)
>Date: 10/4/03 4:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031004185644...@mb-m02.aol.com>
SSSSHHHHHH silly girl! We were just about to have fun with her!
Jackie
>But giving mothers money or gifts in exhange for baby is only thing
>that is illegal in the US and breaches the anti-slavery laws. She is
>the only person in the deal who is forbidden to financially benefit.
>Only the *professionals* are allowed to profit from the sale of her
>baby.
And the more aggressive they are the more money they make..
Jackie
Dian
SIYO, the abuser is innocent?
In my view any mother who needs a
> bloke (be he child's father or not) so bad that she puts that before the
> welfare of her children is culpable and should be TPR'd.
I doubt its the bloke she needs as much as his financial support.
Any mother who is
> prepared to get away from a violent partner and who is otherwise a fit
> mother would be allowed to keep her children.
>
Unfortunately, the DCW doesn't always see it your way. Not having a
violent partner didn't persuade Barnado's to support your mother to
keep you. Nor did not having a violent partner help me.
Di
> Robin
Robin Harritt
> Robin Harritt <nos...@harritt.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBA49796.231FF%nos...@harritt.net>...
<snip>
>>> I see. It must be different down here. While some mothers are abusive and
>>> negligent, our kids are more often taken into care because their (usually)
>>> alcoholic father or some other bloke physically or sexually abused them, and
>>> are taken away for their protection. Always blaming the mother for the abuse
>>> must be an adoption community *thing.*
>> Nope, I reckon it's probably exactly the same here. The difference is in
>> your and my perception of culpability.
> SIYO, the abuser is innocent?
Is that what you think I wrote Di? Your opticians appointment must be a bit
overdue.
>> In my view any mother who needs a bloke (be he child's father or not) so bad
>> that she puts that before the welfare of her children is culpable and should
>> be TPR'd.
> I doubt its the bloke she needs as much as his financial support.
So Aus, isn't the great welfare state that I've been lead to believe?
>> Any mother who is prepared to get away from a violent partner and who is
>> otherwise a fit mother would be allowed to keep her children.
> Unfortunately, the DCW doesn't always see it your way. Not having a
> violent partner didn't persuade Barnado's to support your mother to
> keep you. Nor did not having a violent partner help me.
At that time Di, 'Dr Barnardo's Homes' was a charity that ran children's
homes, I was placed in one of its homes by the NSPCC after the Borough
Children's Officer took a dislike to the landlord at the boarding house
where the foster parents my mother had left me with, lived. Barnardo's would
not have been able to do anything to help my mother financially even if
staff there had wished to. My mother was in receipt of all the available NAB
grants at the time, which were of course, as we have discussed before,
inadequate.
However my mother was not TPR'd which is what we were discussing and neither
were you. Were you?
Robin
Dian
I can just imagine all the profiteers screaming like stuck pigs if the
mother decided to charge for manufacturing costs :-) That idea would
get passed the anti-slavery laws because she would not be selling the
child per se, but would be charging for her services, including
inconvenience, damages, loss of work, counselling etc. Isn't that the
way they get around the laws against selling children in the US, by
simply giving the rose another name?
Di
kat
Marley Greiner <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tjGfb.164097$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "kat" <katl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bln9bq$e6hl8$1...@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > natural mom <gmu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Hi Di,
> > >
> > > Adoption earnings are big business, and even if the article is 5 years
> > > old, money and adoption go hand in hand, facilitators, lawyers, they
> > > all have their hands out, its money making, and those that come here,
> >
> > I visit here. (um I'm hesitant to say I come here :)
> >
> >
> > > will and do not believe the truths, even if it bit them in the ass,
> > > because they are adopters...
> >
> > I adopted five cats and two dogs.
>
>
> Marley
>
>
> Do they clean your house, take out the garbage and drive you around town?
If only!
Kathy 1
natural mom
>>>>Hey, Fuck nut!
I know that...dumb fuck...
natural mom
>>>>ssssssssshhhhhhhhh silly girl! we are about to have fun with
her...
I don't think sooo you idiots think your one liners are sooo clever!
not even laughable, just like adopterdad says,,,sttoopid, must have
twisted his brain thinking of that one...used it twice..
don't give yourself credit for what your not intelligent.
now another one liner please, i am begging for the laughs...you think
you produce, maybe between your little group.
natural mom
>>>Give yourself a medal, you deserve it...
Palms2pines
>don't give yourself credit for what your not intelligent.
>
Am I the only one who finds this hysterically funny?
P2P
Julia
wrote:
No, it's a hoot
Julia
Robin Harritt
palms...@aol.comh8spam wrote on 5/10/03 10:14 pm:
Maybe she was just demonstrating her very clever sense of irony. The again,
maybe not.
Robin
helicon
Know something? You remind me of...Jeni, I think her name was.
Helen
kj
>Date: 10/5/2003 5:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031005171405...@mb-m18.aol.com>
Nope, I just peed all over the chair. I would've responded to it, but I knew
somebody else would for me. I'm lazy.
>
>
>
>
kj
KL
palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
Yeah...and it's too stupid to even reply to...
KL
KL
gmu...@hotmail.com (natural mom) writes:
Then why did you earlier claim that this group is all adopters?
Some idiots.....
KL
Steve White
palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote:
Oh, I'm laughing all right -- gmunden doesn't seem to be the sharpest
knife in the drawer herself.
steve
LilMtnCbn
>From: gmu...@hotmail.com (natural mom)
>Date: 10/5/03 2:12 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <71fb4c85.03100...@posting.google.com>
>> Hey stupid ass.....everyone here is not an adopter....DUH
>> KL
>
>>>>>Hey, Fuck nut!
>
>I know that...dumb fuck...
Thought you were leaving....
LilMtnCbn
>Date: 10/5/03 3:14 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031005171405...@mb-m18.aol.com>
I can hear the whooshing sound as it flies over her head......
Jackie
If she takes medical help from the agency or facilitator or lawyer via
the potential aparents she is scamming.. Medical help is available and
she is just too darn lazy or stupid to go and get it..
Her fault.. She should be held accountable..
Jackie
Jackie
>> Hey stupid ass.....everyone here is not an adopter....DUH
>> KL
>
>>>>>Hey, Fuck nut!
>
>I know that...dumb fuck...
They love it when you lose your temper..
Favourite ploy.
Jackie