PEAR's Response to "The Baby Business"

The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism asked a number of experts, practitioners, and advocates in international adoption to respond to “The Baby Business,” Democracy Journal, Summer 2010 by E. J. Graff. You may read all the responses .

This is PEAR's response:

It is an unfortunate truth that international adoption is plagued by corruption. We appreciate E.J. Graff’s coverage of the issues leading to corrupt practices and her well-thought-out solutions. Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform (PEAR) appreciates the opportunity to share our comments. As an organization dedicated to reforming adoption law and policy, we would like to focus our comments on the eight proposed improvements to international adoption.

Our current system of adoption policy and regulation is too often reactionary rather than preventative, increasing the risk of corruption and adoption failure. PEAR believes that by requiring federal licensing/accreditation and oversight of agencies; criminalizing the purchase and sale of children for adoption; and severely curtailing fees by limiting to them to true costs for services and eliminating mandatory donations, international adoption has the best chance of becoming ethical and transparent.

1. Prohibition against cash transfers.

PEAR agrees that prohibiting cash transactions in payment for adoption-related services can go a long way to eliminating corrupt practices. Eliminating cash transactions and requiring receipts for all payments as well as requiring adopting parents to provide a sworn accounting during their I600 process would help clean up corruption on the foreign side of the adoption process. Untraceable sums can delay or prevent investigative bodies from connecting the perpetrators to any child-trafficking crime.

2. Hold U.S. adoption agencies accountable for all their overseas partners’ actions.

PEAR believes that adoption agencies need to be responsible for the actions of their overseas providers whether they are “supervised” or “unsupervised” under U.S. State Department regulations.

That all agencies do not thoroughly investigate documents submitted by independent parties, which can identify irregular documentation, promote the reunification of children with their families of origin, and eventually prevent the improper separation of children from their families, is unconscionable.

Fraudulent documentation—either declaring an identified child as an unknown abandoned child, or with falsified birth parent information—has been proven in Vietnam¹, Cambodia², India³, Guatemala⁴, Nepal⁵, Samoa⁶, Ethiopia⁷, and China⁸. Adoptees are doubly victimized by these practices. First, they denied their natural right to be raised by their willing and capable birth families; second, they are robbed of the opportunity to find or know their birth family and medical histories due to the obliteration of their identities.

3. Third, limit and track adoptions’ overseas fees in more detail.

PEAR also believes that changes need to be made where there are mandatory donations required of adopting families. First, we disapprove of mandatory donations. We believe that mandatory fees create a dependency upon international adoption and encourage corruption in how children enter the adoption system. We also believe that these mandatory donations are unethical in that countries are charging a fee and being relieved of the financial obligation of raising parentless children. It is a win-win situation for the governments that often provides little benefit to the children residing in institutional care. However, as a realistic response to the existence of these fees, where these fees exist as part of a foreign government’s adoption law (such as in China), we believe that all “mandatory” donations should be payable through an NGO or government entity with full accountability for the disbursement of these funds.

Without any transparency about how much money goes directly to foreign governments and/or orphanages, PEAR is concerned that it becomes impossible to discover what percentage of adoption fees ever reaches its intended destination. It is imperative that there is complete transparency with all adoption fees, and that agencies disclose exactly where all adoption fees are spent.

4. Fourth, limit and track how much agencies can pay their overseas partners, workers, and independent contractors.

PEAR believes that fee transparency would prevent overcharging of clients. Financial gain from the large amount of untraceable in-country payments is the source of many “paper orphans.” Since these sums can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, far in excess of normal fees to child-welfare workers, corruption often soon follows. It is very difficult for those who are paid a pittance in difficult circumstances to resist the temptation of large amounts of cash, but child-welfare workers should not be motivated by profit to steal, purchase, or solicit children for placement.

5. Fifth, earmark some small amount of federal funds for CoA investigations.

PEAR believes that accrediting bodies need to be appropriately funded so they may thoroughly investigate agencies, their in-country partners, and the complaints submitted. They need to have funding beyond the application fees and adoption lobby support to do so. Otherwise, regulations are meaningless.

6. Sixth, inform the American public about individual adoption agencies’ records.
Pre-adoptive parents can be either unaware of the corruption in international adoption or in denial about it even when documented by media or other adoptive parents. Parents are hindered by the lack of unbiased and publicly provided information about the records and histories of agencies, their employees, and in-country partners. PEAR believes that the U.S. State Department should provide information about each agency’s history of orphan visa denials.


In addition, the State Department should require accrediting bodies (The Council on Accreditation and The Colorado Department of Human Services) to reveal the status of all accreditation applications. Currently, only approved and denied agencies are reported, not new, pending, or withdrawn applications. An agency’s application for accreditation can be pending for months or years, indicating potential issues, but this information is not publicly available.

Furthermore, under current COA practices, previously filed complaints are disregarded when reviewing a new accreditation application of a previously denied agency. This is counterproductive. Families need the ability to see the status of all applications so that they can file or re-file their complaints.

We also suggest that Congress amend the current regulations to allow public record of the reasons for denial of Hague accreditation. Under the current regulations, reasons for denial are kept confidential between the agency and the accrediting body. Prospective adoptive parents adopting from non-Hague countries and the public are kept in the dark as to the reasons for denial and often misled by denied agencies concerning the denials. It is impossible for prospective clients to make informed decisions about agency selection without having full information concerning the agency.

7. Seventh, enable the State Department to heighten the scrutiny of, or suspend accepting, an individual adoption agency’s visa applications from a particular country, whether that country is “Hague” or not.

The State Department should be expressly authorized by Congress to investigate adoptions by specific agencies, facilitators, or orphanages that have shown patterns of problems. The State Department should be able to restrict or eliminate orphan visas from agencies, facilitators, or orphanages known to have produced fraudulent documentation for visa applications. Problems or patterns should be publicly reported so that prospective parents can make informed choices. If adoption agency personnel or contractors have been associated with trafficking or other criminal behavior involving adoptee identity issues, the State Department should be required to inform U.S. citizens who used their services, even if the findings come many years after the adoptions took place.

Lastly, we believe that all immigrant orphan visas, not just Hague country visas, should go through State Department investigation prior to a family traveling overseas. We recognize that this limitation is in place because there is no agreement between the sending country and the U.S. which authorizes the State Department to investigate. We suggest that the U.S. enter into bilateral agreements with all non-Hague countries authorizing the State Department to investigate orphan status and visa eligibility prior to the adoption being finalized in-country.

8. Eighth, criminalize the purchase of children for international adoption.

PEAR believes that one of the most important steps to help eliminate corruption is to criminalize the purchase of children for international adoption. It seems intuitive that purchase of children for any purpose would be illegal, yet the trafficking or purchase of children for adoption in a non-Hague adoption is not illegal under current U.S. law. This oversight in U.S. laws must be corrected, and meaningful punishment instituted for individuals and organizations involved in such reprehensible behavior.

In addition, practices of soliciting children for adoption and tricking or coercing birth families into relinquishment should be criminalized. In the culture of some placing countries—particularly in Pacific Island⁹ and African nations¹⁰ —parents may not understand that adoption means the permanent legal severing of ties with their child.

In PEAR’s opinion, Lauryn Galindo¹¹ in Cambodia, Scott & Karen Banks¹² in Samoa, and others have received ludicrously light or negligible sentences after conviction of crimes connected to the trafficking of children. If potential adoption-trafficking charges were more severe—and were enforced by the courts—we believe that agencies and their facilitators would be less likely to be lured by greed or misguided intentions and would have to abide by higher ethical standards.

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

---

¹ U.S. Embassy Hanoi, Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam (April 25 2008).


² United States of America vs Lauryn Galindo, Plea Agreement (June 23, 2004).


³ Rory Callinan, Stolen Children (Time August 21, 2008).

Asha Krishnakumar, The Adoption Market (Frontline, India, May 21, 2005).


⁴ Victoria Corderi, To Catch a Baby Broker (NBC Dateline, January 20, 2008).

Juan Carlos Llorca, US couple almost adopted stolen Guatemalan baby (AP July 31 2008).

Juan Carlos Llorca, To save adopted girl, Calif. couple gives her up (AP, November 22, 2008).


⁵ UNICEF and Terre des homes Foundation, Adopting: The Rights of the Child (2008).


⁶ Kirsten Stewart, U.S. families stunned and angry (Salt Lake Tribune, June 17, 2007).

Lisa Rosetta, Dreams of parents in two worlds shattered by scandal (Salt Lake Tribune. June 6, 2007).


⁷ John Nicol, Canadian parents raise concerns (CBC News, March 19, 2009).

Von Andrea Rexer, Kindergeld (Profil, January 19, 2009).


⁸ Barbara Demick, Chinese babies stolen by officials for foreign adoption (Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2009).

Peter S. Goodman, Stealing Babies for Adoption (Washington Post, March 12, 2006).

Barbara Demick, A family in China made babies their business (LA Times, January, 24, 2010).

Jimmy Wang, China's Kidnapped Children (New York Times, April 4 2009).


⁹ Jini L. Roby and Stephanie Matsumura, If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall Islands - U.S. Adoptions (Adoption Quarterly Volume 5, Issue 4 June 2002).

Galvin Law, International Adoption–The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; A South Pacific Perspective, Samoa – The “Sending State". A Brief Outline of Customary Child Adoption Practices in Samoa (September 1, 2005).


¹⁰ Katharine Houreld, Africa adoptions clouded by uncertainty and confusion (South Coast Today, March 9, 2008).

Nadene Ghouri, Liberia: Children for Sale (BBC Crossing Continents, November, 13, 2008).


¹¹ U.S. Department of Justice, Hawaiian resident sentenced to 18 months in prison in Cambodian adoption conspiracy (United States Attorney, Western District of Washington, November 19, 2004).


¹² U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants sentenced in Samoan adoption scam (Feb 25, 2009).

Brett L. Tolman and Brett Parkinson, Sentencing Memorandum (United States District Court, District of Utah, Northern Division, Case No. 1:07-CR-19 DS, Feb, 24,2009).

Voices of the Adoption Triad: Elizabeth Meunzler, Adoptive Parent

Voices of the Triad: Adoptive Parent, Elizabeth Muenzler discusses her family's experience after the airing of 48 Hours segment on FOC and corrupted Samoan adoptions. The Muenzler case was previously published on PEAR's blog on March 16, 2009


Many thanks to Gina and the PEAR Board for letting me once again address this group. (I previously wrote on the blog after the Focus on Children sentencing in early 2009.) I was offered this space again, many months ago after our story first aired on 48 Hours on December 12, 2009, to discuss our Samoan adoption with the agency Focus on Children. Quite frankly, the aftermath of the story was a very traumatic time for me and I’m just now getting to the point where I can talk about it. So I appreciate their patience in allowing me now to address the group, as we gear up for the initial re-air of the show over the summer and then its entry into syndication.

Needless to say, I have unfortunately learned that you can’t believe everything you see on those TV news shows, as much of the “truth”--due to the edits of overzealous producers in search of drama and ratings--gets left on the cutting-room floor. Statements are taken completely out of context, and in some cases things are made to fit into the agenda they have already decided upon, despite being inaccurate.

I can state this now because all of the above happened to us. For example, there was no “police car chase, with lights roaring and sirens blaring” on our way to the airport. Our police “escort” was a friend of Dan Wakefield’s, who was off-duty as a police officer. It was framed at the time for us that the two buddies were going to hang out together after we left—only much later, after we heard the story of what really happened, did we put two and two together and realize he was probably a “police escort.” in case anything went wrong for Focus at the airport. And yes, we left in the middle of the night, but we were not whisked away—all flights out of Samoa to New Zealand leave in the middle of the night. All of the “facts” related to these scenarios above were greatly skewed by 48 Hours to make me look like I knew what Focus was doing on the island when we were there. And that was NOT the case.

With the assistance of our attorney, we communicated our dismay to the 48 Hours’ producers after the show aired, and while a few things will be changed in the upcoming version this summer, most will remain the same. As a result, the decision to work with 48 Hours will always be a great regret of my life. Not only were we grossly let down by our agency and the U.S. justice system, we were also let down by the media, simply because we were trying to tell the truth about this horrific travesty of justice.

After the story aired, I was vilified, demonized, and threatened. Not only were horrible things posted about me on the 48 Hours website, but my home and work were called by people who said horrible and vile things to me. I was labeled a kidnapper and a thief and called unspeakable things. There were threats against me, threats by people to come throw me in jail themselves with their personal posse, and threats to pay for lawyers to take my daughter away.
This was just as traumatic, in hindsight, as the day the State Department visited our house to tell us of the truly despicable acts by our agency.

In spite of what was portrayed in the story, I do not regret the decisions we have made since we learned about what our agency did (other than working with 48 Hours). As soon as we learned of the situation almost 5 years ago, we began to reach out to our daughter’s Birth Mother in Samoa with letters and pictures. These packages were delivered by the State Department representatives as they continued their investigation and continued to make trips to Samoa for the next several years.

In fact, we’ve been told by State Department reps that we were the FIRST family to communicate—other than the Nybergs, who returned their daughter to her Samoan family upon learning about the ordeal. To this day, we are one of only a handful of the families in the U.S. of the 100+ kids involved in this case who has had any communication at all with Samoan Birth Parents. The U.S. Families who adopted our daughter’s Samoan siblings and cousins have all been in contact with each other and the extended Birth Family members. We hope to have a “family reunion” at some point on this side of the ocean, so the kids can have a relationship going forward. None of this outreach was described in the story.

We did not hear about the Birth Father, his story, and his involvement with our daughter, until nearly a year AFTER the State Department had initially visited. We learned about everything when we read the indictment and read that she had lived with him, contrary to what we had been told. We immediately wrote him – again through the State Department representatives –and received our one and only letter about 7 months later from him, again through State Department channels.

But, of course, none of this was addressed in the story. We have always felt it was our obligation to start communicating with the Birth Family to help our daughter have a foundation on which to build on for a future relationship, if she so chooses. We have never tried to keep them from her, or keep them from communicating with her. Whether they choose to communicate or not, though, is their decision.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what the real story is in this scandal in relation to our daughter’s history, and I’m not sure we’ll ever really know. Both Birth Parents told different stories to the State Department, and then different versions to 48 Hours. The Birth Mother is upset that the Birth Father says he wants their daughter back, since she says he wasn’t involved in her life. The Birth Mother wants her to stay here. (That interview with her also never aired in the story).

Then, of course, there’s the story from the agency, which, based on what we have pieced together, still has fragments of truth to it. Finally, there’s our “cattle driver friend”—Dan Wakefield--who was on the ground in Samoa with us, who obviously lied directly to our faces, and who took advantage of the fact that we were at his mercy on the island during our stay. Who knows what, if anything, he told us that week had a speck of truth to it?

We were told a wild story while we were there about the families fighting—but it had nothing to do with anyone wanting to keep our daughter, or raise her. I specifically asked this question numerous times and was reassured by government officials, the attorney, and the agency, that was NOT the case. Hindsight is 20/20, and of course now, I can see through the story I was told. But when you’re in a foreign country, at the mercy of your handlers, and told not to be the “ugly American” and go with the flow, it’s quite a different story in the moment. Foreign adoptions from foreign countries aren’t like those in the U.S. Laws aren’t like those in the U.S. Family relationships aren’t like those in the U.S. We’d seen this through our first adoption in Ukraine. So, ultimately, we put our trust in those who were running the show.

I find it very strange that people thought we should have shipped out our daughter on the first plane out upon hearing the news, back to her Birth Parents, when even now we aren’t sure what really happened and what their situation was in Samoa—and to this day, we still don’t know. Our daughter’s Birth Parents were not married, and by the time the story broke, were married to other spouses—our Birth Father even living in Hawaii. Our daughter has no memory of Samoa, her Birth Parents don’t speak English, and to uproot her after years in the U.S. from the only family she has ever known --and to people whose stories keep changing--is not my idea of responsible parenting. In addition, with the PTSD and attachment issues that resulted from her being taken, we feel that to abandon her again would again re-traumatize her and harm her beyond repair.

We recognize now we have an open adoption and will honor that. We are also horrified that this situation happened and will do whatever we can to help facilitate a relationship with our daughter’s Samoan family. But I’m not just going to ship her off to people I don’t even know. Once a more stable relationship has been built, we will be open to visits, most certainly. But people don’t really realize that most of these kids don’t remember their time in Samoa—and they’ve been in the U.S. for 7+ years. Just ripping them away from the only life they have ever known would be cruel—on top of the cruelty that has already been bestowed upon them by the agency.

48 Hours did a great job, though, of making our Birth Father look like a very sad soul—and I know for a fact that he is horribly traumatized by all of this. But we still have conflicting reports about his involvement with our daughter during her time in Samoa. And, most importantly for me, he has done nothing in response to our many letters and regular, ongoing attempts for contact and communication in the more than 4 years since we first reached out to him. This information was conveniently left out of the 48 Hours story. Aside from the one letter he initially sent to us through the State Department almost 3 ½ years ago, we’ve heard nothing from him directly, despite our giving him specific options to mail letters and to communicate with our daughter.

Our phone calls that have been set up with him—including one for filming with 48 Hours that was left out of the story, and others on her birthday and Christmas last year--have constantly been rescheduled. Sometimes he wouldn’t answer the phone at all, which has created more angst for our daughter. In fact, on the suggestion of her psychologist, we don’t even tell our daughter we communicate with him via letters anymore, because she became so upset years ago that he never wrote anything--and still has never written anything--back to her.
Again, it’s not my job to judge anyone, but it is my job to protect my daughter’s best interests. Despite the outrage directed at me after the story, I will always continue to do that. So, we will continue to reach out on a schedule with both Birth Parents regularly. If more contact is requested, we’ll be happy to discuss that.

I know that each and every time the story is aired, more people will continue to judge and attack me. And it pains me that the people most responsible for this travesty continue to get away scot-free while the arrows are all pointed at me. But I stand behind what I have done for my daughter. Now that she’s 8, she knows most of her story; when she’s older we’ll tell her everything related to the situation. Contrary to popular belief, especially from those who demonize me, I do not believe she will hate me for what I have done to try to get justice for her, her Samoan family, and our family, and to protect her best interests, no matter what. I will be able to tell her what happened, and my thoughts on the matter, with love, honesty, and a clear conscience—in spite of 48 Hours version.

Elizabeth Meunzler

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Focus on Children Trust Fund

Excerpts from a Salt Lake Tribune Article
Defendants in Samoan adoption case must pay $100,000 to trust fund

A federal judge in Utah has ordered five operators and employees of the now-defunct Focus on Children adoption agency to contribute $100,000 to a trust fund that would allow Samoan children adopted by U.S. parents to connect with their birth families.

U.S. District Judge David Sam said the payments will serve both as punishment and a form of "restorative justice."

The money would be paid in monthly installments over the next five years. Sam's order, issued Tuesday, marks the end of the court proceedings in the case.

A 2007 indictment accused the five of tricking Samoan parents into giving up their children to the Wellsville-based group for adoption.

Prosecutors alleged relatives or friends in Samoa pushed the adoptions as a program that would educate children in the United States and return them at age 18. Also, the adoptive parents in the United States were falsely told the adoptees were orphans or abandoned and that communication with the birth families was forbidden, according to the indictment.


And

The defendants and the amounts they must pay are:

» Karen Banks, 48, who managed the adoption agency, and her husband, Scott Banks, 47, who also held a management position, $85,000.

» Dan Wakefield, 72, who helped locate children in Samoa for adoption, $8,000.

» Coleen Bartlett, 52, who facilitated the adoption of Samoan children, $4,000.

» Karalee Thornock, 36, who served as a Pacific Islands case worker, $3,000.

The U.S. Attorney's Office had asked for a minimum total of $108,000. Spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said Thursday that while no amount of money can rectify the damage done, prosecutors are satisfied with Sam's order.

"We believe this money will be a significant help in opening the long-awaited lines of communication between children and families affected by the defendants' actions," she said.

Read the complete article here

Voices of the Victims of Focus on Children Utah's Samoa Scam

PEAR is giving to voice to the victims of FOC Utah: below is the first statement, from Elizabeth Muenzler, Adoptive Mother of a trafficked child.

Many thanks for your invitation to write a statement on your blog concerning the recent Focus on Children case. We are the parents of one of the children involved and after having been vilified in some circles for appearing and making a statement at the sentencing hearing, it’s nice to actually be “asked” to comment on this case and our disappointment with the outcome.

We were one of the few families who advocated for jail time in this case. For me, jail time was a no-brainer. After reading the indictment two years ago, there was no way I thought that they weren’t going to jail for a very long time. And yes, I know that they aren’t “hardened criminals,” ready to attack people on the streets. And, I realize they have many children of their own. And that they done many good things too, through their adoption work. But, does that really “justify” them not going to jail? I consider myself a good person. I have children. I’ve done good things in my life. But if I went out and robbed a bank tomorrow, I bet I would go to jail. And rightly so.

My faith in the Justice System in this country has been greatly reduced by this case. I hope the tax payers don’t spend the $10 fine per count all in one place. The defendants probably spent more on their lunch that day than they had to pay to get out of court. Unfortunately, more than anything in this process, I have learned that the Justice System isn’t for “justice.” It’s for “resolution.” And sometimes…the bad guys do win.

However, regardless of the spineless outcome, we must go on and continue to fight. It’s now time for organizations like this one, to spearhead a cry loud and clear that changes need to be made. And soon. No other child or family on either side of the ocean deserves what they got in this case. And things like the definition of “an orphan”, or the definition of “abandonment,” which could have easily been defined with a good dose of common sense and a handy Webster’s Dictionary, should never have been fodder for defense attorneys to “make their case.” (Defense attorneys, who, by the way, mentioned during the sentencing that their defendant had “suffered the most” in this case.)

Count us in to begin to work with you, side-be-side, until all of those in the adoption world who think they can continue to hurt innocent children and families, realize we are watching. We will change whatever needs to be changed to ensure that no one ever has to go through what our family has gone through ever again.

As for our family, we move forward now and not backward. We’ve been in contact with our daughter’s birthparents are working on establishing that relationship. We will continue to make sure that they are a part of her life and that she knows who they are. Once she is an adult, we will support any decision she makes in terms of her relationship with them.

My statements at the hearing last month were full of the anger, hurt and betrayal that our family has felt throughout this tragedy. Some criticized me for it. It’s hard for people on the outside looking in to know what it’s like. But saying our comments then, and outlets like this blog, have helped healed us. It gave our daughter a voice in this process. And gave us a chance to someday show her that we did everything we could to help bring them to justice.

Thank you for this opportunity and for everything you do to help clean up the adoption world. We look forward to joining you on this journey very soon.

Elizabeth Muenzler

Focus On Children - Sentencing scheduled for February 19

Sentencing for Focus on Children's Karen and Scott Banks, Dan Wakefield, Coleen Bartlett and Karalee Thornock is scheduled for February 19, 2009. In January, they pleaded guilty to counts of aiding and abetting the improper entry of an alien for putting false information on immigration forms during the performance of adoption services relating to FOC's Samoa program. Although the plea agreements have a recommendation for probation, U.S. District Judge David Sam may impose up to six months on each count and a $5,000 fine.

Transparency, honesty and full disclosure during the adoption process are vital to the integrity of adoptive families. Conduct such as that displayed by Focus on Children cannot be tolerated. The families and children involved in this case deserve justice.

For more information on this case please see:
Adoption Scandal Has Prompted Only Minor Changes
Focus on Children Defendants in the case likely to get probation.
By Pamela Manson, The Salt Lake Tribune, Posted: 02/14/2009 02:29:00 PM MST
http://www.blogger.com/www.sltrib.com/ci_11700836

If you would like to express your opinions on the sentencing of Focus on Children defendants, please send letters to:

The Hon. Judge David Sam
United States Court for the District of Utah
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Below is a letter sent to Judge Sam by PEAR board member Barbara McArtney:

Dear Judge Sam,

I am writing you concerning the sentencing of Karen and Scott Banks and the proposed plea deal. I was stunned to hear that anything other than a prison sentence was proposed and hope that you will see justice is done in this case.

I am an adoption provider, parent of internationally adopted children and an adoptee. Adoption is an activity that should be motivated by humanitarian interests not greed. Providers have a legal and moral obligation to place child and family welfare first and foremost. To do otherwise is a grave violation of the rights of birth parents, children and adoptive parents alike.

The Bankses engaged in heinous activity ripping apart families, stealing children, lying and committing fraud as adoption professionals. They have ruined many lives. Other criminals have gone to jail for far, far less. Perhaps even more troubling is their trail of dumped adopted children that show even in their own family they have no regard for human life. Though this conduct may not be criminal, it is a strong indication of how little respect and concern they have for children's welfare.

Adoptive parents come to providers in a very vulnerable position. They are emotional and unknowledgeable about the legal process, a combination that makes them easy prey for those looking to make money. The international adoption industry is largely unregulated with the state patchwork of laws having little relevance, let alone protection over foreign proceedings. Parents rely completely upon their agencies to follow the law and operate ethically. Consular screening is generally cursory at best and is not a substitute for good ethical agency practices. Parents have little to no recourse when things go wrong.

Despite numerous instances of fraud in international adoptions, with many countries closing for similar child trafficking, it is rare that evidence is available against a US citizen that allows prosecution. Developing countries lack the resources to protect impoverished families considering adoption. It is up to the United States to act decisively in the rare instances that a case is prosecutable. For those cases, it is critical that the legal process sends a loud, clear message. Fraud, trafficking and corruption will not be tolerated and will be punished proportionately to the enormous damage done by such profiteers. To give a mere slap on the wrist only encourages others to cross legal boundaries to get rich in this lucrative business and is a slap in the face to those families torn apart by this criminal behavior.

Much needs to be done on a legislative and international basis to improve adoptions, but this case is truly a golden opportunity to make it perfectly clear that the utmost due diligence and ethical judgment must be exercised when conducting adoptions. That fast and loose practices, deceit and theft will never be allowed especially when American's operate in vulnerable populations. Punishment will be meaningful not token.

Please sentence the Bankses to the substantial prison time they clearly deserve. Not only will the Bankses and their victims receive the justice they deserve but you will be deterring other providers tempted to follow in their footsteps to profit from illegal adoptions. Much future heartache to other families may be prevented by a firm stance against this sort of reprehensible criminal conduct.
Respectfully submitted,

Barbara J McArtney