Several Recent US DOS Announcements Concerning Guatemala & also US Hague Implementation

The US Department of State recently released three intercountry news announcements of interest to US adoptive families and adoption providers.

First:

Guatemala Update

November 8, 2007

The Department of State has received inquiries about the status of anticipated adoption reforms in Guatemala, and the outlook for adoption cases which are currently pending. Whether the Guatemalan government elects to implement the Hague Convention on December 31st or later in the spring of 2008, pending cases would not be affected if, as expected, the final legislation includes a transition provision that allows pending cases to be processed to conclusion under current law. We continue to advise American Citizens not to initiate new adoptions until the Government of Guatemala has completed its implementation of the Hague Convention.

Adoption reform legislation remains under discussion in Guatemala’s Congress. We continue to advocate for a law that complies with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and that includes transition provisions for cases already filed under the current system of law.

Passage of a new adoption law is only the first step. The next, urgent priority will be for Guatemalan officials to establish a Hague compliant system. Designing and implementing the necessary structural reforms will take time.

The Guatemalan Government has said it will assume its obligations as a Hague Convention member on December 31, 2007, a decision we support, because Guatemala’s children -- indeed all parties to an international adoption -- deserve the protections afforded by the Convention as soon as possible. When the Hague Convention goes into force for the U.S. in the spring of 2008, both the U.S. and Guatemala must have Hague-compliant adoption procedures in order for new adoption cases to be filed. Thus in the interest of long-term adoptions from Guatemala, responsible, prompt reform of the current law and procedures is critically important. The U.S. is committed to provide assistance and support to the Guatemalan authorities for this task.

Guatemala Update, US Department of State, 8 November 2007

Next:

Notice: Department of State Plans to Deposit the Instrument of Ratification in December 2007

The United States and the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention

We are pleased to announce that the United States has nearly completed all the domestic requirements necessary for the deposit of its instrument of ratification for the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (The Hague Adoption Convention) in December 2007.

As the US Central Authority under the convention and the lead Federal agency for its implementation, the Department of State eagerly anticipates the moment when we can join the more than 70 other countries who believe in strong international norms for protecting the best interests of children, as well as the interests of birth parents and adoptive parents in the intercountry adoption process.

According to the terms of the Convention, it will go into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the instrument of ratification.

The Convention strengthen protections for adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoptions. Its key principles include:

1) Ensuring that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of children; and
2) Preventing the abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children; and
3) Facilitating communication between Central Authorities in countries of origin and destination countries

The Hague process in the United States will require that adoption service providers show that they meet Hague standards in an accreditation process. Adoption service providers who do not meet the standards will not be permitted to provide adoption services in Hague member countries. Our Hague regulations also require transparent fees, home studies that are approved by an accredited adoption service provider and mandatory training for prospective adoptive parents.

The United States signed the treaty in 1994.

In 2000, Congress passed the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA), the implementing legislation for the Convention. The Senate gave its advice and consent for ratification of the Convention on the condition that the United States was prepared to meet its obligations under the Convention as provided in IAA.

We are proud to say that we are very close to completion of those preparations.

For more information please see our website at travel.state.gov
Or contact the US Central Authority at AdoptionUSCA@state.gov.

Notice: Department of State Plans to Deposit the Instrument of Ratification in December 2007, US Department of State, November 2007

And finally:

U.S. on Track to Join the Hague Adoption Convention in December
November 19, 2007

A message from the U.S. Department of State

The U.S. Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues, is pleased to announce that the President signed the U.S. instrument of ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention on November 16. The legal requirements for ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) have been completed, and we plan to join with our deposit the instrument of ratification on December 12, 2007! The Department will announce the official date the Convention will go into force for the United States—projected to be April 1, 2008—in the Federal Register. The Hague Adoption Convention protects children and their families against the risks of unregulated adoptions abroad and ensures that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of children. The Convention also serves to prevent the abduction of, sale of, or traffic in children.

Once the treaty is in force, the new processing requirements for Hague adoption cases will take effect for adoptions between the United States and more than 70 Convention members. The new process protects the rights of children, birth parents, and adoptive parents while promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical practices among adoption service providers.

U.S. on Track to Join the Hague Adoption Convention in December, US Department of State, 19 November 2007

Desiree

US Adoption Agency Employee Charged with Defrauding Agency of More than Half-a-Million Dollars

A 60 year old woman has been charged with fifteen counts of federal mail fraud and five counts of tax evasion after a Federal investigation revealed that she allegedly stole $600,000 dollars from her employer, the Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency in Lowell, Massachuseutts. According to the Federal prosecutor and investigators, the theft took place over eight years, from December 1998 through April 2006.

Natalie Fleury, who was employed as an office manager and bookkeeper, allegedly "altered checks the agency was issuing to a third-party vendor, made herself the payee, and deposited the checks into a joint checking account she shared with her husband.

Her husband, Thomas E. Fleury, Sr., also 60, who "allegedly also benefited from the proceeds of the fraud," also failed to report the illegal income on the couple's tax returns; he, like his wife, has consequently been indicted with five counts of tax evasion.

The Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency, a private agency located in Lowell, Massachusetts is celebrating its one hundredth anniversary this year. It places about 30 to 40 children per year through international adoption. The board of directors of the agency posted a press release on the Internet after the indictments were made public, part of which is quoted below:

"Today's action by the US Attorney's Office is the latest step in a process that began in April 2006 when a theft from the agency was first discovered. Since that time, this board has been working diligently to assist in the federal investigation; to put in place accounting safeguards to prevent future thefts; and to take whatever steps are necessary to recover the missing funds.

...The board of directors has implemented numerous safeguards to prevent any future theft through the misappropriation of agency funds. Those steps include new financial procedures, certified by an independent accounting expert, that include better oversight by multiple parties and duplicative sign-off on spending from only a single account. In addition, an executive board closely reviews monthly financial statements.

....It was perhaps our focus on families, and not finances, that provided the opportunity for this violation of trust

...We thank the US Attorney's Office and the US Postal Inspectors who answered our call for assistance and worked tirelessly and professionally in the pursuit of justice. We thank our families and our friends for their continued support as we navigate the agency through this difficult period."

The moral of the story...Money must be watched closely if it is not to have a life of its own apart from its original intended use. If it takes extreme diligence here in this country within a small agency to keep money where its supposed to be and working for its intended use, how much more difficult it is to keep money where its supposed to be and working for its original intended use--and not another--overseas with partner agencies and IA facilitators.

Desiree

Woman is accused of defrauding agency, The Boston Globe, 16 November 2007

Couple accused in fraud, tax evasion, Bostonherald.com, 16 November 2007

Chelmsford woman charged with stealing $600K from adoption charity, The Boston Globe, 15 November 2007

Statement from The Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency: ADOPTION AGENCY CARRIES ON DESPITE THEFT, ADOPTIONS UNAFFECTED; Press Release: Statement of the Board of Directors of the Florence Crittenton League Adoption Agency, November 2007

US Agency Investigated for Forgeries in Russian Adoptions

Children's Hope International is an adoption agency based in Missouri with offices in Missouri, Arizona, California, Illinois, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington that did over 700 international adoptions last year. It is being investigated by seven states after authorities discovered that two employees were allegedly forging official documents being sent to Russian authorities.

The forgeries were discovered in July, when authorities in Arkansas received correspondence from Russian adoption officials, seeking additional information. However, the adoption officials in Arkansas had no record of the initial correspondence that prompted the Russian letter.

A few days of research revealed that the letter from Arkansas was really mailed from the offices of Children's Hope International. A wide search was conducted, and eventually, Children's Hope International's director, Dwyatt Gantt, admitted that ten documents were forged, affecting 7 states.

However, during a meeting with Tennessee adoption authorities, Gant is quoted as saying the forgeries went on for years, and were "widespread."

--from KSDK Newschannel 5's online report

According a TV news report, two Children's Hope International employees who worked out of the Missouri office, Mareda Eckert and Sue Ellison, had allegedly been copying the official letterhead of authorities in several states, writing the documents that Russia required, and then forging the signatures of the appropriate state officials. The documents would then be sent to Russia as some of the official paperwork required to complete a Russian adoption. It is unclear if the improprieties also included the use of notarization on these documents. Dwyatt Gantt's official statement about the affair, printed on Children Hope International's website would seem to imply that it might. Gantt there states that "two employees...were found to have mishandled paperwork which included the wrong use of notaries."

According to news reports, the documents involved "were used to assure Russian authorities that any children sent here would be properly care for."

The alleged forgeries involved documents made to look like they had come from officials in Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.

Investigations in these states, some ongoing, have included hearings to determine whether CHI should lose its adoption license in these states and to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued.

The two Children's Hope International employees involved were fired a month after the alleged forgeries were discovered.

International Children's Hope Director Dwyatt Gantt has chosen to downplay the seriousness and significance of the forgeries. On a TV interview he stated that the alleged forgeries were, "foolish and misguided, but not malicious--not self serving on [the employees'] part."

In addition to Gant's official web-published statement, "A Message from Children's Hope International" on the affair, Children's Hope International has also sent out letters seeking to reassure current and former clients, and delineating what CHI had to done to alleviate the situation:

"As a result of Children's Hope being upfront and proactive, we have been assured by Missouri DFS and all states where investigations are complete, that we have handled this in the correct manner, and we have been ensured this will not adversely affect our work in these states."

He assures all that "this matter is already nearing resolution," stating that only two states have yet to put the matter to rest: Kansas and Illinois.

But according to news reports, things may not yet be as resolved as Gantt would have them be. In Missouri where CHI is based, a local TV station reports:

Missouri adoption regulators knew about the forgeries in August, after calls from other states. However, after an investigation, it was decided that Children's Hope International would not be sanctioned, and would keep its license.

Susan Shelton, a manager in the state Children's Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, said on October 25, that police and prosecutors had not been contacted to investigate the forgery. However, on October 30, Shelton's bosses decided to contact police about the case.

That occurred after Missouri State Senator John Loudon, a Republican from Ballwin, started asking about what happened. Loudon is a long time adoption advocate, who is concerned that the forgeries could affect future adoptions of Russian children. Loudon wants a full investigation, and says Missouri must come clean with the Russians.

As for Russia....Russian authorities are already on edge with the American adoption of Russian children. Russians are concerned about:

• A long string of cases in which Russian adoptees have suffered abuse and even death--14 Russian children killed to date--at the hands of American adoptive parents
  
• The Masha Allen case in which a US adoption agency placed a Russian five year old with a pedophile and then failed to check up on her for nearly five years (fabricating one post placement report and doing another by phone) so that the child was abused for five years and became the unwilling "star" of illegal child pornography (Masha's photos are among the confiscated images in at least 50% of child pornography prosecutions).
  
• The failure of many US adoption agencies to take seriously Russia's post adoption reporting requirements

Keeping Russia open to Americans for adoption has become an increasingly politically difficult and unpopular feat within Russia and the Russian government. This new problem can not help US-Russian adoption relations. But, so far at least, Russian authorities have restrained themselves:

Russian authorities are aware of the forgeries, but have not reacted in any way.

Perhaps they are waiting to see just how seriously America takes the corruption of adoption--whether we will see that wrongdoing is taken seriously and whether wrongdoers are investigated, sanctioned, and punished--all as a deterrent for future misconduct.

Or, instead, whether the aura surrounding international adoption will once again whitewash and downgrade all wrongdoing into an easily excused mush of well-meaning mistakes and oversights and sniveling explanations.....I mean really, it doesn't really make that much difference anyway, does it...I mean we're talking about saving orphans here....

What wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else and that would be stringently punished once again passes into relative insignificance in the glow of the absolute good that is adoption.

Would that those who excuse such indiscretions and corruption could see that each time such things are excused and passed over, it weakens international adoption further and makes clear that is it lacking in character, ethics, and accountability. International adoption will eventually be killed by such failing to take seriously these problems.

It will be a truly awful thing if Russian adoption closes because Americans refuse take adoption corruption seriously. If any children in the world are truly in need of adoption, it is the adoption eligible children languishing in Russian orphanages.

Desiree

Text:
Adoption Agency At Center Of Investigation; KDSK News Channel 5; St. Louis, Missouri; 13 November 2007

Video:
Adoption Agency At Center Of Investigation; KDSK News Channel 5; St. Louis, Missouri; 13 November 2007

Explanation from Children's Hope:
"A message from Children’s Hope Director," Dwyatt Gantt, 14 November 2007

Vietnam: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Announcement: Changes in Vietnam Adoptions

USCIS Update - October 25, 2007

Washington - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that the USCIS office in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam will have sole jurisdiction over all Form I-600s, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, filed on behalf of a Vietnamese child on or after October 29, 2007.

In response to growing concerns about irregularities in the methods used to identify children for adoption in Vietnam and the resulting difficulties in classifying those children as orphans, USCIS will centralize processing of I-600s in Ho Chi Minh City. USCIS encourages prospective adoptive parents to file the I-600 directly with USCIS in Ho Chi Minh City before traveling to Vietnam. This will enable USCIS or Department of State officers to determine whether a child identified in the petition qualifies as an orphan as defined in Section 101(b)(1)F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is important because irregularities that may affect the eligibility of the child for classification as an orphan are becoming apparent only after the adoption has taken place and while the parents and child are awaiting resolution in Vietnam. These circumstances have proven difficult to address or overcome for all parties involved.

Prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to file the Form I-600 with the required supporting evidence, other than the adoption or custody decree, by mail or courier with USCIS, Ho Chi Minh City, as follows:

Filing by mail:
United States Consulate General
Ho Chi Minh City
PSC 461 Box 500
FPO AP 96521-0002
Attn: DHS/USCIS

Filing by courier:
United States Consulate General
4 Le Duan Street
District 1
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Attn: DHS/USCIS

The petitioner will receive a notice of receipt when the USCIS Ho Chi Minh City office receives the Form I-600 and supporting evidence. USCIS will then review the petition and supporting evidence to determine whether the child qualifies as an orphan. In certain cases an administrative field inquiry or a request for evidence will be necessary to make that determination. USCIS anticipates completing most determinations in 60 days.

Once a determination is made, USCIS will notify the petitioner, who may then travel to Vietnam to proceed with the adoption. In cases where it appears the child may not qualify as an orphan, the petitioner will have an opportunity to respond to those findings through established procedures.

USCIS will forward all Form I-600s received in domestic USCIS field offices on or after October 29, 2007 to its Ho Chi Minh City office.

After November 16, 2007, USCIS will not expedite the processing of the Form I-600 solely because the petitioner is in Vietnam. If a petitioner chooses to travel to Vietnam to file the Form I-600 after November 16, 2007, the petition and supporting documents will undergo the same process as those filed and received by mail.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Announcement, Ethica, 25 October 2007

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Announcement, American Immigration Lawyers Association, 25 October 2007

Desiree

America: Waiting Angels Prosecution, Part I: The Story

It's as sensational as the story line of a TV crime show. And the characters--at least as they appear on TV--are every bit as colorful.

But unfortunately, it's real life.

A night club dancer turned "adoption professional" and her business partner "hang out their shingle" as Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. and begin facilitating adoptions from (well, where else, but) Guatemala.

Their clients?

According to a local TV station: "Desperate would-be parents." Some of whom, profiled by the TV station, longed for a baby after lengthy struggles with infertility. Parents who were so eager to have a baby in arms that they took out second mortgages on their homes, forked over their life savings, signed contracts with, and then placed their hopes in the hands of these same Waiting Angels "adoption professionals."

Lest you think these parents didn't do their "homework" in checking out Waiting Angels Adoption Services before signing on, think again. Prospective adoptive parents (PAP's) recently testified in criminal court that they had asked Waiting Angels for (and received from the same) client references--the email addresses of satisfied former Waiting Angels' clients.

How were these PAP's to know that the email addresses of these "satisfied clients" were apparently (according to allegations in criminal court) owned by one of the adoption agency principals, Joe Beauvais? And that the replies they received--glowing recommendations for Waiting Angels--were allegedly, according to evidence presented recently in criminal court, simply Joe, pretending to be several former clients?

As if that isn't enough to turn your stomach, an undercover investigation by a local TV station using a hidden camera, reveals a peek, in sordid detail, into the alleged way in which at least some "adoption professionals" procure Guatemalan children who are then offered for adoption here in the U.S. The descriptions come from the couple's own lips, captured on tape for all the world to see. It's not pretty. Like seeing the proverbial way sausage or laws are made. Not for the faint of heart or those who want to preserve their adoption-is-an-absolute-good belief system.

Despite this procurement system and for reasons, at this point, known only by agency principals, Boraggina and Beauvais, Waiting Angels apparently failed to deliver babies to many waiting PAP's. PAP's allege they were given many technical reasons for the failure of their children to "come home" and that, as a result of their complaints, more promises were made and, for whatever reasons, those promises too were allegedly broken.

The trail of adoptive parents with broken dreams, empty savings accounts, and second mortgages for which they had nothing to show but payment books and empty nurseries, allegedly grew.

Refunds of adoption fees, like the promised babies, allegedly also failed to materialize.

In publicly available legal documents, prospective adoptive parents allege a pattern of increasing unresponsiveness by Waiting Angels to their requests and questions.

Eventually, in 2005, a class action law suit was filed against Waiting Angels by several families.

But, as we all know, the wheels of the justice system turn slowly.

Meanwhile, the children that eager families had hoped would be their own, continued to grow and and develop. Babies outgrew layettes they never wore. Tiny babies promised to adoptive families, babies with whom some heart-sick PAP's had previously bonded on trips to Guatemala and with whom others had bonded through photos and video updates, grew into toddlers without ever seeing the dream nurseries their would-be parents had lovingly and lavishly outfitted months, and now years, earlier.

Monthly payments on second mortgages served--and continue to serve even now--as painful reminders of what does not lie behind closed nursery doors where dust gathers on dead dreams.

A local TV station's investigative team had earlier taken up the cause of the weary, teary-eyed, and empty-armed PAP's. In a series of investigative reports, it explored and then made public the case against the agency and its principals.

Evidence mounted and finally, in the face of sympathetic public outrage, law enforcement moved in with search warrants against Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. and its principals, Simone Boraggina and Joe Beauvais.

The local TV station covered the raid of the two homes from which Waiting Angels and its principals ran their adoption agency. Footage shows policemen carrying out computer hard drives and crates of paper files--to be gone through and kept as evidence.

But no one was prepared for what turned up in one of the houses.

In one of the two homes of the "adoption professionals," police were astonished to find A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH. Indisputably, there it is, caught on camera--$500,000 in cash in neat stacks of bills stored in multiple, neatly sealed zip-lock baggies.

Where did this money come from? Why was it there?

Had Simone and Joe ever sent the money given them to Guatemala to procure the children they had promised the couples? If they had, what was this money?

More generally, why would anyone--and specifically why would Simone and Joe--keep this huge amount of cash in a private residence instead of putting it into a bank?

Only Simone and Joe know where the money came from and why it was there. Only they know what they did or didn't do to procure the children they had promised adoptive parents.

Shortly thereafter, Simone Boraggina and Joe Beauvais--the principals of Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc.--turned themselves in and were arrested as local TV cameras rolled and astonished TV investigators looked on.

Desiree

News Video That Introduces Allegations Against Waiting Angels:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Shocking Details About Adoption, Channel 4 Detroit,

News Video Announcing Arrest of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Arrests Made in Adoption Case, Channel 4 Detroit, arrest and search

New Video Showing Confrontation with One of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Karen's Confrontation, Channel 4 Detroit, short confrontation

News Video Detailing Waiting Angels' Alleged Modus Operandi:
Rescue 4 Undercover: The Desperation Behind Selling a Baby, Channel 4

News Video (which is mostly audio) in whichAttorney General Mike Cox Alleges What Joe & Simone were doing and what he intends to do as Attorney General in Response:
Adoption Scam, 9 & 10 News.com, 4 May, 2007

Most Recent News Video Showing First Day of Trial:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Waiting Angels Adoption Scam, Channel 4 Detroit, 13 Sept 2007

Law Firm Summary of Earlier 2006 Class Action Law Suit against Waiting Angels: The Quisenberry Law Firm Newswire, Michigan, "Class Action Says Adoption Agency Just Keeps Demanding More Money," 23 October 2006

IBL, Class Action Reporter, Headlines List, alphabetical under W for Waiting Angels (scroll down for a detailed summary), 27 Oct 2007

PDF of Class Action Law Suit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US Court:
Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

PDF of 2007 Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US District Court:
Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

Legal Counsel's Summary and Update Page for Waiting Angels Lawsuit: Waiting Angels FAQ: Waiting Angels Litigation, Fixel Law Offices, last updated 12 September 2007

And the Adoption Agency's own website, still up and running and advertising adoption services:
Waiting Angels Adoption Agency Website

America: Waiting Angels Prosecution, Part II: The Legal Cases

Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., an American adoption agency out of Michigan, and its principals, Simone Boraggina and Joseph Beauvais, have been and are now the subject of several lawsuits, including:

1. A Federal class action suit brought by at least ten named plaintiffs
   
2. A civil lawsuit brought in US Federal District Court by at least six adoptive families
   
3. And finally a criminal case currently being actively pursued by the Michigan State Attorney General.

1. The Federal Class Action Suit
The essentials of the class action suit, Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), filed in October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of "ten named plantiffs" (all adoptive parents who were clients of Waiting Angels), is explained in the legal publication, Class Action Reporter, as follows:

"The suit specifically alleged violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, 18
U.S.C. Section 1961, and various other Michigan statutes and
common law doctrines.

[and...]

"The suit alleges the adoption agency defrauds vulnerable, would-
be foster [surely using the word "foster" here is a typographical error?] parents by demanding extra money for unspecified fees,
and threatening they will never get their babies unless they
pay."

Class action suits have their own special procedures beyond the usual ones for most law suits:

After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In some cases class certification may require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Upon the motion to certify the class, the defendants may object to whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions.

It is not clear from public documents (at least those that we could find), what exactly the current legal status of the Waiting Angels Class Action suit is. If anyone has any information on this, especially in a publicly available form, we at Fleasbiting would certainly like to know.

Barring any real information, one could speculate that either the process to certify the class is ongoing or else, the plaintiffs failed to convince the court to certify the class so that the case could proceed as a "class action suit."

A link to the actual text of the Class Action suit as it was filed with the Federal Court is available both below and also here at Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

2. The Federal Civil Suit against Waiting Angels Services, Inc.
Whatever happened with the 2006 Class Action Suit against Waiting Angels, this much is clear: A Federal civil lawsuit was brought by the same plaintiffs plus an additional family which joined shortly after filing, using the same lawyers, on March 27, 2007. This second suit seems to be one and the same case in a slightly different incarnation, for certainly the cases have the same court case numbers and the texts of the complaints are almost exactly the same.

The families allege that they "have all been victims of fraud, misrepresentation, and various violations of Federal Laws." According to court documents the defendants are being charged with four counts (two against Waiting Angels as an entity, one against Boraggina and Beauvais as persons; one against both Waiting Angels and Boraggina and Beauvais) of a scheme to defraud, solicit bribes, extort, and defraud under the Federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)Act; one count of unjust enrichment (Waiting Angels, Boraggina, and Beauvais); one count of conversion; one count of civil conspiracy; one count of concert of action; one count of fraudulent misrepresentation; one count of innocent misrepresentation; and finally one count of exemplary damages explained thus: "Defendants Waiting Angels, Boraggina and/or Beauvais representations were made intentionally and maliciously and have caused Plantiffs...to suffer humiliation, outrage, indignation, sleepless nights, and emotional distress.

As to the current status of this suit, the law firm maintains a public web page to apprise Waiting Angels families and the general public of the status of the law suit. This website explains the current status law firm that brought the suit on behalf of the families involved:

"After the police raid in April 2007 and while criminal charges were pending, the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit (6 families) were granted a Stay of Proceedings placing the lawsuit on hold until the completion of all criminal proceedings."

A PDF of the 2007 Civil Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels in US Federal District Court is available online at Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

3. The Michigan State Attorney General's Criminal Case Against Waiting Angels Services, Inc.
The allegations that resulted in the criminal case are easy to understand if you take the time to watch the four linked videos at the end of this blog post.

Anyone who wants to understand just how unprotected and at the mercy of entrepreneurial adoption agencies adoptive parents are in the current under- and un-regulated adoption climate in the US should definitely take the time to watch them. As the saying goes--a picture is worth a thousand words.

The latest video from the Detroit's Channel 4 Investigative Team gives the latest update on the criminal proceedings. Although the prosecutor on this video mentions a few of the crimes with which Boraggina and Beauvais are likely to be charged, to my knowledge no comprehensive list of these crimes has yet to be published (again someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

According to an update to the lawsuit information page referenced earlier, the status of the criminal case as of October 16, 2007 was as follows:

"Preliminary Hearings were held for Joe Beauvais and Simone Boraggina on September 10 & 11, 2007. The Michigan Attorney General's Office was successful in convincing the Macomb County District Court that probable cause exists and Joe & Simone were bound over to the Macomb County Circuit Court to face criminal charges. Details are not yet known but there will be an arraignment hearing later and a future trial date will be set."

Of interest, in the last Channel 4 video update was Simone's lawyer's plea to the judge to please let Simone, as she awaits criminal trial, forego her court ordered house arrest and tether, so that she could "return to night club dancing" as that was her only means to support herself now that she had lost her only other means of support.

The unsympathetic judge said, "NO WAY."

What I want to know is why the Waiting Angels Services, Inc. web site advertising Simone and Joe's business is still up on the internet. Are they still fielding adoption inqueries from PAP's?

Desiree

News Video Announcing Arrest of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Arrests Made in Adoption Case, Channel 4 Detroit, arrest and search

New Video Showing Confrontation with One of Waiting Angels Principals:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Karen's Confrontation, Channel 4 Detroit, short confrontation

News Video Detailing Waiting Angels' Alleged Modus Operandi:
Rescue 4 Undercover: The Desperation Behind Selling a Baby, Channel 4

News Video (which is mostly audio) in which Attorney General Mike Cox Alleges What Joe & Simone were doing and what he intends to do as Attorney General in Response:
Adoption Scam, 9 & 10 News.com, 4 May, 2007

Most Recent News Video Showing First Day of Trial:
Rescue 4 Undercover: Waiting Angels Adoption Scam, Channel 4 Detroit, 13 Sept 2007

Law Firm Summary of Earlier 2006 Class Action Law Suit against Waiting Angels: The Quisenberry Law Firm Newswire, Michigan, "Class Action Says Adoption Agency Just Keeps Demanding More Money," 23 October 2006

IBL, Class Action Reporter, Headlines List, alphabetical under W for Waiting Angels (scroll down for a detailed summary), 27 Oct 2007

PDF of Class Action Law Suit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US Court:
Class Action Lawsuit: Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHBter), October 2006 by Fixel Law Offices of East Lansing Michigan in U.S. Federal District Court

PDF of 2007 Lawsuit Filed Against Waiting Angels with US District Court:
Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., filed 27 March 2007 in US Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan

Legal Counsel's Summary and Update Page for Waiting Angels Lawsuit: Waiting Angels FAQ: Waiting Angels Litigation, Fixel Law Offices, last updated 12 September 2007

And the Adoption Agency's own website, still up and running and advertising adoption services:
Waiting Angels Adoption Agency Website

Three US Immigrants Arrested in Indie Adoption

A 47 year old man and his 27 year old wife, seeking to adopt a child, and a 23 year old woman, who had allegedly accepted money payments of $1500 (including a down-payment on a used car) in exchange for her 5 month old baby, were recently arrested and charged with "child trafficking."

Note: There are no Federal laws against child trafficking, so although the news story reports that the three were charged with child trafficking, it is likely that they were charged under a state law prohibiting "baby buying."

All three accused are reportedly natives of Mexico--the man reportedly being in the US legally, but the two women reportedly being in the US illegally.

According to Nadine Triste, director of the Center for Immigrant and Community Integration, ignorance of differences in the Mexican and US legal systems may have led the three to believe that they had gone through proper legal channels to effect the adoption of the baby boy. According to court reports, the birthmother and adoptive father had filled out papers giving custody of the child to the adoptive parents, and they had had these papers notarized.

"Completely different," said Nadine Triste. "In Mexico, notarios, most of the time are lawyers. When you go into a notario, you go through a long process of legalizing documents and when you complete that, you have a valid legal document... The same can't be said here, and many immigrants fall victim to that."

According to court documents, the adopting couple had also previously sought legal counsel about adopting, but had not gone that route as "the process was too lengthy."

According to the newspaper account, the normal legal process for adoption would also have been difficult to complete given that two of the accused are in the US illegally.

Refusing to speak of specifically of this case, but commenting in general on adoptions in which one or more members of the triad are in the US illegally, the judge in the case said:

"One of the things done on adoptions are background checks on the adopting parents. I doubt very seriously that someone here illegally would go through the adoption process, but let's assume they did. That information [from a background check] would probably be uncovered and reported and I doubt very seriously the adoption would go through."

The would-be adoptive mother and the child's mother,once they have been processed through the legal system, may face deportation back to Mexico.

The fate of the child, who is currently in protective custody in Colorado and who is a US citizen because of his US birth, has not been decided. A guadarian ad litem, a person appointed by the court to "stand in the place of the parent" to advocate for the best interest of the child, is expected to be appointed.

Adding to the difficulties of the case is the allegation that the actual father of the child is not the father listed on the birth certificate. If the father should come forward and ask for custody of the child, it might be granted. Otherwise, the courts will determine whether the child will eventually accompany his mother back to Mexico after she serves a likely prison term should she be convicted of the charges against her, or whether he will remain in the US in a foster or adoptive home.

"Sold" Baby Now in Hands of Officials, The Pueblo Chieftain, 3/4/07

Update involving beginning of trial:
Details in child-trafficking case aired in court, The Pueblo Chieftain, 4/6/07

Desiree