Sunday, November 06, 2005

Marshall Islands Mothers Victimized by Utah Predators!

Click on map to enlarge, giving you an idea the distance between the Marshall Islands and Hawaii.


Utah adoption brokers don't limit their procurement activities to within the U.S. borders. Until their activities were halted by Marshall Islands legislators, adoption predators were flying mothers-to-be from the Marshall Islands to Hawaii to deliver their babies there (signing them up for Medicaid) for export to the lower states - primarily Utah - for adoption. The stop in Hawaii circumvented both immigration requirements (the baby was automatically a U.S. citizen) and the required approval of the adoption by Marshallese courts.

Eventually, the brokers just used Hawaii as a stepping stone to bring the expectant mothers right to Utah to deliver. There, the women were totally at the mercy of their handlers.

Why fly pregnant Marshall Islands women to Utah to give birth? Why Utah, of all states? The answer is pretty obvious, based on the Baby Tamia case and the many cases involving disenfranchised fathers. But when you read the rest of this post, you'll have a much clearer picture.

These Marshallese women, coming from extreme poverty hadn't a clue what was really happening to them and their babies. They understood neither the language nor the concept of closed adoption (in their culture, adoptees are free to return to visit their birth parents as adults.)

Read the whole Marshall Islands article series - start with this website and follow its links:
  • Harvest of Babies from the Marshall Islands Subject of New Series

  • From another source,
    Hawaii Star-Bulletin, Friday, March 5, 2004, 'Adoption practice draws concern':

    Marshallese women have their babies here, then put them up for adoption by Americans.


    Despite increased scrutiny from authorities, adoption agencies are continuing to flout Marshallese law by bringing late-term pregnant women from that country to Hawaii and other states so the newborns can be adopted by U.S. families, officials said yesterday.


    A healthy Marshallese baby can cost the adopting family as much as $40,000.


    Although the number of adoptions each year is believed to be small, the practice has been widely condemned because it circumvents Marshallese law, and the birth mothers generally do not understand that they are giving up their children for good, according to federal authorities and other officials at a video conference called yesterday by U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie to discuss the problem.


    Also, the practice often seems to involve fraud or deception, not only victimizing the birth mothers, but also state and federal agencies, hospitals and other organizations, the officials said.


    As recently as last month, hospitals in Hawaii handled births of Marshallese babies destined to be adopted, and a small group of pregnant women from the tiny, impoverished Western Pacific nation was expected to arrive in Hawaii today, bound for Utah, the officials said.


    Abercrombie (D-Urban Honolulu) invited representatives from law enforcement agencies, health care providers, advocacy groups, the Marshallese government and other organizations to the conference, linked by video between Honolulu and Washington, D.C.


    While the agreement governing relations between the two countries prohibits a Marshallese child from traveling to the United States to be adopted without meeting immigration and other requirements, it is not clear whether that provision applies to pregnant Marshallese women.


    But under Marshallese law, the adoption of any child by a foreign resident must be approved by that island nation's court. Officials said adoption agencies arrange to bring the birthing mothers to Hawaii to circumvent that law.


    Beyond the legal issues, the birth mothers usually do not understand the full ramifications of a U.S. adoption, and once in Hawaii they become completely dependent on the adoption agency, which houses them, arranges for transportation and medical services, provides translators, takes their passports and essentially controls their lives, several conference participants said.


    "They're basically held hostage," said Kristine Nicholson, president of Hawaii International Child, a state-licensed nonprofit adoption agency which has not arranged any Marshallese adoptions.


    But Linda Lach, a Kauai attorney who has arranged such adoptions, cautioned against portraying all people in the industry with the same broad stroke.


    As in any industry (bold added), there are unethical people involved with Marshallese adoptions, but "we can't all be tainted with the same brush," said Lach, who was not at the conference. She said the adoptions she handles are done properly, and the birth mothers clearly understand what they are doing.


    Officials at the conference said that when questions are raised about suspect practices, the adoption agencies simply move the birth mothers to different locations around the state and switch hospitals.


    The state attorney general's office is investigating whether Medicaid fraud has been committed by some agencies. Among other issues, the office is investigating whether the agencies are collecting money from the adopting families for the birth mothers' medical expenses while enrolling the women in Medicaid, putting the state on the hook for those bills.


    The Legislature also is weighing in on the adoption issue. A bill that would prohibit Hawaii courts from approving any Marshallese adoptions that have not received the go-ahead of that country's court system was passed yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It goes to the full Senate for a vote.


    Whatever is done to tackle the problem, authorities said that the organizations that may be benefiting from a criminal enterprise - not the mothers exploited by it - should be the target of law enforcement.


    "What we have to find is who is behind it," said Michael Seabright, assistant U.S. attorney in Honolulu.

    Notice: "As in any industry...."

    In response to the above article, an editorial in the March 7, 2004 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, entitled 'Stop Illegal baby trafficking from Marshalls' describes the situation:
    EXTRAORDINARY circumstances have turned the Marshall Islands into the world's most uninhibited baby market. Laws aimed at halting the flow of newborn infants to the United States from the Marshalls are being ignored. Stronger enforcement is needed to ensure that such adoptions are in compliance with the new laws and are not coerced.

    Rep. Neil Abercrombie conducted a video conference Thursday with law enforcement agencies, health-care providers, government officials and others to bring attention to the problem. A group of pregnant women from the Marshalls were expected to arrive in Hawaii the next day, bound for Utah to give birth and fulfill adoption agreements.

    The incentives for such adoptions are powerful. As the Baltimore Sun pointed out last November in a series of articles about the problem, the Marshall Islands' fertility rate -- the number of children a woman is expected to bear during her lifetime -- is 6.5, more than triple the U.S. rate. The per capita income is $2,300 and the unemployment rate tops 30 percent. It is not surprising that the Marshall Islands' adoption rate of .27 in 1998 was the highest in the world, more than 20 times that of runner-up Guatemala.

    A study conducted by Brigham Young University professor Jini Roby of 73 Marshallese women who gave up infants for adoption found their average income to be $400 and that some had given birth as many as 15 times. For most, the baby given up was their fourth or fifth.

    American families pay as much as $40,000 for a healthy Marshallese baby. While poverty might seem to induce the mothers to give up their babies to receive the payment of as much as $100 a week while pregnant, Roby found that most did not comprehend the permanence of adoption. Nearly 90 percent said they would not have agreed to the adoptions if they had known their children would not return to the Marshalls upon becoming adults.

    Americans are estimated to have adopted 500 Marshallese babies from 1996 to 1999, prompting the Marshallese government to declare a moratorium on adoptions by foreigners. The ban was lifted in 2002, and a new law forbids the payment of money, gifts or other benefits to the natural mother. It also forbids a birth mother to leave the islands to complete an adoption.

    Some adoption agencies skirted the law by bringing pregnant Marshallese women to Hawaii to give birth. The tactic was simple to employ since Marshallese are allowed to travel to the United States without visas. In December, President Bush signed an amendment to the Compact of Free Association that requires any Marshallese traveling to the U.S. for purposes of adoption to obtain a visa. Senator Akaka has implored the Department of Homeland Security to enforce the new rule.

    As many as 50 babies were born to newly arrived Marshallese women in Hawaii last year. The state Attorney General's Office is investigating whether fraud was committed in using Medicaid to pay for medical expenses. A bill in the state Legislature would require Marshallese court approval of any Marshallese offspring to be eligible for adoption in Hawaii.
    LDS Involved in Marshall Islands Child Procurement

    Although no Utah adoption brokers were mentioned by name in the Star-Bulletin article or subsequent editorial, LDS involvement is exposed in the following article, '
    A birthmother alleges coercion
    .' Published
    in the Baltimore Sun on November 3, 2003, it describes the activities of Sara Maun, a Marshallese adoption procurer:
    TLC officials say they no longer do adoptions from the Marshall Islands and that they severed their relationship with Graser and Maun in the wake of the Shefik case.

    Graser and Maun still arrange adoptions of children from the Marshall Islands.

    Graser, after coming under investigation by the state of Utah for running an unlicensed adoption agency, subsequently started Noah's Ark Adoptions, a licensed, for-profit corporation.

    She said she has four or five facilitators in Majuro, including Maun, who help her new company find mothers and pregnant women who want to put their children up for adoption.

    Maun said she has arranged about 80 adoptions over the past five years and now works with Noah's Ark and LDS Family Services, which is affiliated with the Mormon church. She said she collects a fee of $750 for each adoption.
    Quite the company LDS was keeping in its Marshall Islands infant procurement activities – shoulder to shoulder with a woman who had been investigated for running an unlicensed adoption agency and now was operating for profit!

    Marshallese boot out all but one agency

    As a result of the activities of agencies like the two mentioned above and others, the Marshall Islands put a stop to predatory adoption activity by establishing a Central Adoption Authority which now controls adoption of its infants. In addition, effective March 1, 2004, only one U.S. adoption agency had been licensed to facilitate international adoptions from the Marshall Islands: Journeys of the Heart, of Hillsborough, Oregon. Notice that LDS Family Services, which is reported to have been active in facilitating international adoptions in the Marshall Islands prior to the shake-up, was not selected to continue. Even Hague Convention accreditation has not warranted LDS approval by Marshall Islands Central Adoption Authority.

    What Does All This Say About National Council For Adoption as an "Umbrella" Organization?

    Considering the fact that LDS is the second largest NCFA member agency, it would seem to have great significance. What, exactly, does NCFA stand for in matters like these? Consider its webpage blurb:
    NCFA Continues to Grow in its Leadership Role as "Global Ambassador" for Adoption There is a growing need and opportunity for NCFA to advocate adoption, both domestic and intercountry, around the world. With its excellent reputation and expertise, and its mission of adoption advocacy, rather than membership interests, NCFA is uniquely positioned to lead in this way.
    Lead in this way? Where was its leadership in the victimization of families from the Marshall Islands? Why wasn't LDS reprimanded by - or booted out of - NCFA for its participation in these horrendous international child-trafficking activities? Instead, as you'll read farther on in this blog, LDS was actually honored by NCFA for its "extremely active, influential and positive force in adoption nationally, promoting best practices."

    As for the Marshall Islands, they have
    successfully rooted out the adoption predators through legislation. So has the state of Illinois here in the U.S. But much more work needs to be done in other states - including yours! Will you help?

    Saturday, November 05, 2005

    National Council For Adoption (NCFA) Calls for ICPC Reform

    Before you express relief at the prospect of gaining better protection from predator agencies from Utah and perhaps other states through strengthening of the ICPC mandates, you need to know that NCFA's recommendation is not for strengthening but weakening the Compact. On page 7 of NCFA's Silver Anniversary National Adoption Report, NCFA lays out its 'Adoption Policy Agenda 2005.' The agenda's intro says:

    NCFA will lead efforts during the 109th Congress to inform lawmakers about a number of pro-adoption policies, including:......The importance of limiting applicability of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children to adoptions out of foster care. The ICPC interferes unnecessarily with private adoptions; there is sufficient regulation of adoption agencies and others facilitating non-public adoptions. The American Public Human Services Association will soon recommend changes to the ICPC's application......

    Thankfully, despite NCFA's attempt, "private adoptions" have been retained in the Compact rewrite process. In fact, the Development & Drafting Team established a Subcommittee on Private and Independent Adoptions to draft recommendations for changes to the Compact pertaining to those specific interstate placements.

    For shame, NCFA!
    For shame for advocating Compact changes that would almost certainly result in Baby Tamia-types of predation throughout our nation; for attempting to undermine the effectiveness of a Compact established to protect vulnerable birth and adoptive families throughout the U.S.; for proposing a change to the Compact that would have rendered individual states' protective adoption laws impotent, reduced, in effect, to those of the lowest common denominator – Utah?

    Current ICPC regulations protected Baby Tamia and her family – as determined in a court of law. Unfortunately, however, loopholes in the proposed ICPC revision may not provide the same protection in cases like Baby Tamia's. Therefore, we need to commit ourselves to strengthening adoption laws in our individual states, following the lead of Illinois, to protect our citizens in matters of interstate adoptions.


    NCFA Honors Utah and LDS Family Services

    This is incredible! Before this blog is even completed, The Adoption Digger has learned that the National Council For Adoption (NCFA) has inducted LDS Family Services in Utah into its self-proclaimed "Adoption Hall of Fame."

    In an article published in the December 6, 2005, online issue of The Salt Lake Tribune, NCFA spokesman Lee Allen credited LDS with being responsible for drafting many of Utah's "adoption-friendly" laws. LDS Family Services has been "an extremely active, influential and positive force in adoption nationally, promoting best practices," according to Allen.

    NCFA spokespersons acknowledged the recent Baby Tamia case, as well as the accusation by critics that Utah was a "baby warehouse." However, continues the article, "Adoption council President Thomas Atwood has a different perspective. Though unscrupulous agencies exist, Atwood says Utah and LDS Family Services serve as national models for protecting the "best interests of children." He added, "I would call it a pro-adoption state.

    If LDS Family Services is a "national model" as an adoption agency:
    1. Why does it not comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)?
    2. Why has it not taken a pro-active stand in rooting out the "unscrupulous agencies" referred to by Atwood? One would think that an agency which promotes "best practices" in adoption would be involved in cleaning up its own state's reputation for being an 'adoption warehouse.'
    And if Utah is so "adoption-friendly":

    1. Why don't its adoption brokers trust other states to cooperate in proper placement of children across state lines? (Could it have anything to do with this statement by adoption agency attorney Richard Van Wagoner, "A mother might back out of the decision or make a commitment and not show up.......So, the paperwork ends up being completed on this end. This was a technical violation..."?)
    2. Why do brokers need to resort to devious tricks and pressure tactics to get mothers to surrender their infants?
    3. Why do Utah brokers advertise with only toll-free phone numbers - no addresses - in far-off states, making it appear they are local agencies, and then lure mothers who respond away from their families and local services in their own states?
    4. Why does Utah thumb its nose at other states' laws regarding the rights of birth fathers, deliberately undermining those laws over and over again? Why hasn't it cracked down on brokers who advise birth mothers to lie about birthfather status?
    5. Why don't brokers inform mothers-to-be of all the differences in adoption laws between their home states and those of Utah - not just the the one that short-circuits birthfathers' rights? For example, an Illinois mother would have 72 hours to consider her decision to relinquish after the birth of her child in her own state, compared to 24 hours in Utah.
    6. Why does it accept as legally-binding relinquishments that have been signed in hotel rooms, witnessed only by an agency representative (who may have coerced or even threatened the mother) and a hotel maid? Why not before a judge in a courthouse, witnessed by courthouse personnel or someone of the birthmother's own choosing?
    7. Why does it permit "for profit" agencies to operate there - baby selling, pure and simple?
    8. Why does it permit "tri-state" adoptions, which result in the circumventing of laws of not just one but two other states?
    9. Why does it permit agencies' stiffing of taxpayers (Medicaid) and hospitals for birthmother delivery expenses, while collecting fat placement fees from adopters?
    10. But, most importantly, why does the state of Utah openly permit adoption brokers to "routinely" violate the International Compact on the Placement of Children? (Remember attorney Richard Van Wagoner's statement, ".... the practice is not a secret to the state"?)
    By accepting Utah's adoption laws and policies, NCFA has given its stamp of approval to all of the above. And not only its approval, but its praise and honor by induction into NCFA's 'Adoption Hall of Fame.'

    Not taking the initiative to clean up Utah's act means National Council For Adoption has placed itself in a position of conspiracy to violate the rules of ICPC, to defraud mothers and fathers from throughout the country, and to place vulnerable would-be adoptive parents in positions of pain and anguish.