HIPPA vs. Adoption Privacy

About a month ago, a reader of this blog sent me an inquiry from the front lines. This social worker is experiencing a conflict between HIPPA and adoption privacy. She asked me to ask you for your professional opinion on this intriguing problem . . .

State law provides that all termination of parental rights and adoption proceedings are confidential and that no identifying information can be shared between or among service providers.


Baby is born drug-addicted and is treated by hospital and medical specialists. Birth mother releases baby who is placed for adoption. Baby requires frequent follow-up visits by the same medical team.


Adoptive parents do not know the birth mother's name and are required to take the baby for follow-up visits. Baby's original medical file contains her and her mother's birth names. Medical professionals are reluctant to create a "dummy file" with identifying information removed. They want "proof" that the child placed for adoption is the same child who they treated in the hospital.


Adoption will not be finalized for six months. Until then the baby has a new name but no legal proof that her name has changed. Even with the name change, there is no proof that this child is the same child who was born under a different name.


How does this social worker insure continuity of care? Do the medical professionals have a HIPPA problem? A medical ethics problem? A state law problem?

Has anyone out there had this same experience? Comments please. And I'm sure that many will point out the absurdity that adoption secrecy continues to perpetuate. This case is a good example of that.

Kids Producing and Distributing their own Child Porn

Children producing and distributing their own child pornography has long been a dream of child porn devotees and a nightmare for parents and law enforcement. Not surprisingly, digital technology combined with ease of distribution through social networks and e-mail has made this theoretical threat to children a sad reality.


This disturbing trend, most recently profiled at Wired, raises some thorny legal issues. As anyone who has followed this blog knows, I am no fan of child pornography or child exploitation, even calling for the execution of those found guilty of child rape.


Homemade child porn which is directed, created, and distributed by the usually willing teenage participants (who may be engaging in sexual activity which is completely legal in their state depending on the age of consent) puts us in new and largely uncharted legal territory. . . .

The fundamental underpinning of state and federal child pornography law is to deter, prevent and punish the production, distribution and possession of what are essentially child rape scenes depicting the adult abuse and exploitation of largely pre-pubescent children. The public policy goal is to stop the abuse by stopping the seemingly unlimited demand for such images and movies. This is why child pornography is completely removed from the Constitutional milieu in terms of the First Amendment and obscenity. Simply put, child pornography is "outside" the traditional Constitutional framework and is per se illegal.


This is also why the Supreme Court struck down the ban on virtual child pornography, basically finding that virtual child porn continues to enjoy First Amendment protection since no "real" children were harmed. Virtual child porn can still be banned if it is obscene, but it can not be banned as "child pornography."


What then to make of pornography involving real teenaged children who are consenting to and perhaps even reveling in sexual activity with their similarly situated peers? Should the federal child pornography law track state age of consent laws which still vary widely (from 14 in Hawaii, to 15 in South Carolina, and 16, 17 and 18 everywhere else)? Should there be separate child pornography penalties for juvenile offenders? What about an affirmative defense for such consensual but under-aged conduct?


When child pornography was first banned in the late 1970s, it included children under the age of 16. Congress raised the ban to 18 some years later. Should we return to age 16? or 15? And should commercial sexploitation continue to prohibit actors under age 18 even if homemade teenage movies are exempt?


In U.S. v. Ortiz-Graulau, the First Circuit Court of Appeals was recently confronted with this issue. The case involved a 38 year old man who carried on a consensual sexual relationship with a fourteen year-old girl which was completely legal under Puerto Rican law. The defendant, Ortiz, was convicted under the federal child pornography law for taking pictures of sexual acts between him and the girl. When arrested, Ortiz admitted that he had a sexual relationship with the girl and that he took the explicit photographs with the knowledge that she was fourteen at the time. But Ortiz insisted that the photographs were not properly considered child pornography because he and the girl were living together legally in a "marital-like" relationship.


The Court made several interesting observations:

Ortiz's first point implies that the conduct was occurring anyway and just happened to be photographed. But the number of photographs, many of sexually explicit poses, permits a strong inference that some of the conduct occurred in order to make the photographs.


As for Ortiz' intended use of the photographs, the statute's language requires only that a visual depiction be made. Perhaps Congress mainly sought to suppress trafficking in child pornography; but a pecuniary purpose requirement was earlier deleted
from the statute and preventing exploitation of children could be aided by the statute's broad ban on taking such photographs even for private use.


Ortiz probably did not understand that his conduct was criminal: the government points to no proof that Ortiz knew the law, and his lack of concealment and the then-applicable age of consent in Puerto Rico support his factual claim. But neither the statute nor precedent suggests that this is a rare instance in which ignorance of the law is a defense, although this might well be relevant in sentencing.

Ultimately the Court addressed the real difficult issue in this case:

Despite the language of the statute, Congress may well not have intended to make it criminal for a husband and wife to take intimate photographs of each other for their private use; this is so even if the instigator were twenty-one and the other spouse
seventeen, thus falling within the plain terms of the statute's prohibition. If the government brought such a case, judges might seek to devise limits even on "plain" language; indeed, some judges have even suggested constitutional objections based on
marital or consenting-adult privacy rights. But Ortiz and SMN were not married . . . [and neither was she or most teenagers a so-called legally consenting adult]

The Court concludes with this warning:

With the requirement of a pecuniary purpose deleted, [the federal child pornography statute] has a potential for producing some outcomes-especially sentences-that are disquieting. This may or may not be true in the present case: the photographs, as SMN's mother made clear, are not a full measure of the harm done to
SMN's life by Ortiz' drawing her into the relationship. But it is quite a different question whether this statute is the proper way to deal with family-related delinquencies ordinarily governed by local law.

Regardless of what you think about Ortiz and his conduct, the fact remains that more and more teenagers are violating laws designed to protect them. Ortiz wasn't even distributing the photographs which is how many teens get caught. Production alone carries a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Distribution and possession both have a 5 year mandatory minimum. Add to that lifetime registration as a sex offender and kids are facing serious consequences.


How should the law, and society, respond?

Child Rape Death Penalty Case Dies

I know that I am once again courting controversy on this topic, but here it goes anyway.


Last week the Supreme Court declined to reconsider its controversial June ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana which sounded the death knell for the death penalty for child rape.

As you might recall, the Court based much of its reasoning on the emerging "national consensus" that the death penalty for rape is wrong. What no one seemed to realize at the time, however, was that Congress passed a law in 2006 specifically allowing the death penalty for child rapists under military law. Once Louisiana discovered this oversight they petitioned the Court for a rare re-hearing.


Last week the court denied that request by a 7-2 vote with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, issued a searing statement and joined the majority only because, as Scalia put it, "the views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority's opinion in the case."


Scalia rightfully notes that the relatively recent Congressional law completely undermines the Court's June decision.


In an act of judicial self-justification, Justice Kennedy wrote that the military death penalty for rape was the rule for more than a century and when the Supreme Court declared in 1977 that the death penalty was unconstitutional for the crime of adult rape, military law was not considered. He also reasoned that military criminal law should not necessarily color the constitutional analysis of a related law in the civilian context.


During the summer, both presidential candidates weighed in on the Court's decision. Obama stated that the rape of a child "is a heinous crime" for which "the death penalty should be applied, in very narrow circumstances, for [this] most egregious of crimes." McCain called the ruling an "assault" on the legal system.


Whether you are pro or con, you should be painfully clear about the crime under consideration. Perhaps no case better illustrates the justness of the death penalty for child rape then the recently concluded trial of John Worman, who jury members declared "was like looking at Satan sitting at the table."



During the trial, the jurors had the painful task of viewing unspeakable images of children as young as 3 months old being held down and raped by Worman. In this case authorities had to sift through more than a million horrific images of children being victimized - many snapped by Worman while he committed anal, oral and vaginal sex on the youngsters ranging from infants to 15 years old during a nine-year period.


Worman's girlfriend, who ran a daycare which supplied many of the victims, was convicted of 15 counts of producing and possessing pornography. Videos and still photos showed her undressing and then posing naked youngsters on a chair in front of the camera to feed Worman's predatory appetite.


In one of the videos that included sound, Worman's girlfriend could be heard ordering a victim to "spread her legs." A small voice asks "why" as she continues demanding the child do as she is told.


In another video, a childish voice could be heard screaming, "It hurts ... it hurts." And a voice identified as Worman replies: "Almost done. It'll only take a minute." At the end of the tape, the child is heard crying.  There was also a video that shows children innocently doing homework when Worman comes up demanding sex.


Sadly folks, this case is not an anomaly. People need to wake up. No amount of social work or strengths based philosophy can save Woman and his ilk or the innumerable victims of his savage crimes. Since these evil bastards are now photographing and video taping their heinous deeds, perhaps the Supreme Court should be treated to a screening. This is the same court, after all, which declared obscenity hard to define, but "I know it when I see it."


Perhaps once they see live action videos of child rape they'll figure out what to do about it.


In fact, perhaps the Worman tapes should be shown to everyone, then, I assure you and the Court, a national consensus will quickly and surely emerge leaving but one remaining issue: should we hang 'em or use a firing squad?

Statement Regarding Masha Allen Litigation

Last week we inadvertently discovered that a Philadelphia law firm recently filed this lawsuit on behalf of Masha Allen. We hope that Masha may now finally begin the process of obtaining some measure of civil justice from the individuals and entities which were complicit in her ongoing sexual abuse and exploitation.

We are, however, deeply disturbed that Masha still does not have the independent guardian she so desperately needs. Two years ago today we learned that Masha was being abused and neglected by her current caretaker. She eventually became involved with the child welfare and public health systems in both Georgia and Pennsylvania. After consulting with independent ethics counsel and the State Bar of Georgia, we were instructed to retain Masha's litigation files and undertake efforts to have a guardian appointed for Masha due to an un-waivable conflict of interest between her and her caretaker.


During the past two years, we have been actively attempting, in both Georgia and Pennsylvania, to accomplish the Georgia Bar's directive to protect Masha's civil legal rights. Now, in what appears to be an end-run around the Georgia Bar's clear mandate, Masha's caretaker has initiated and is directing the current litigation.


A traumatized, abused and exploited child like Masha needs a competent and independent decision maker to protect her legal rights and guard her pecuniary well being. Since our firm is forever conflicted from representing Masha, our only desire is that she will someday obtain the emotional and financial stability she deserves. Unfortunately the current litigation does nothing to achieve the Georgia Bar's longstanding edict aimed at safeguarding Masha's future.

Home Schooling and Child Welfare Law - CA Speaks (again)

Last Friday, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision legalizing home schooling. The case, Jonathan L. v. LA County DFCS, was reheard by the Court after an earlier panel declared home schooling illegal on February 28, 2008. The resulting outcry lead to a petition for rehearing bolstered by almost four pages of amicus curiae including the ACLU, Jewish Homeschoolers of Napa and Sonoma Counties, the American Center for Law & Justice, and Members of the United States Congress.


What is mostly lost in the public debate about Jonathan L. is that it was brought as a child welfare and not a public education case.

The family in this case had a history of dependency court proceedings involving charges of physical abuse, neglect, and failure to prevent sexual abuse. After the two youngest
children were declared dependent due to the abuse and neglect of their siblings, their
attorney sought an order that they be sent to private or public school, rather than
educated at home by their mother, so that they would be in regular contact with
mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect. The dependency court declined to issue
such an order, primarily based on its view that parents have an absolute constitutional
right to home school their children.


After the children's counsel appealed, the Court held that: (1) California statutory law does not permit home schooling; and (2) this prohibition does not violate the US Constitution. The father quickly filed a petition for rehearing, sixteen amici responded to the call, and the Court ultimately reversed its initial holding.


The decision contains a fascinating legislative history of California's long running consideration of this issue. In regards to home schooling, the Court concluded that "it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature's apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools."


On the equally important, but oft ignored issue of the dependency court's power, the Court found that "an order requiring a dependent child to attend school
outside the home in order to protect that child's safety is not an unconstitutional
violation of the parents' right to direct the education of their children."


California, like many states, permit a dependency court to issue any reasonable orders for the care of a dependent child, including orders limiting the right of the parents to make educational decisions for the child. Just because the United States Supreme Court has held that parents possess a constitutional right to direct the education of their children, it does not mean that any restriction on home schooling is a violation of this constitutional right.

Neglect Leads to Neglect - Adoption is a Privilege not a Right

These words, spoken by federal District Court (and former NY Family Court) Judge Richard M. Berman, ushered in the 11 year sentence he levied on impostor Judith Leekin for adoption fraud. You might remember Leekin from last year's news as the woman who lied to adopt 11 disabled children while raking in more than $1 million in government adoption subsidies.


Berman castigated Leekin for engaging in "a heartless, dangerous money-driven scheme" when she used fake names and lies about the children to defraud social service agencies in New York City and New York state. Berman added, "One cannot be allowed to perpetrate fraud to subvert our adoption system for financial gain." He exceeded by nearly three years the maximum term that Leekin's lawyer and prosecutors proposed when she pleaded guilty on May 20.


Prosecutors say Leekin (one of her many aliases) lived lavishly while forcing the adopted children to sleep on the floor of a storage room next to a garage and banning them from entering the house except to use the bathroom or kitchen.


Attorney Howard M. Talenfeld, speaking on behalf of 10 of the children, told the judge that none of the children could testify because they were too damaged by the abuse.


"It seems to me that adoption is a privilege, not a right," Judge Berman said, "and there should be conditions of accountability and safety and honest intention attached to that privilege, and it would also be useful, in my opinion, if there were active monitoring by responsible agencies."


Berman also noted that Leekin had been abused as a child. "Neglect leads to neglect," he said. "Adoption is a privilege, not a right."


Finally someone who did the right thing. Unlike most of the Cowards in Adoption, Judge Berman deserves a shiny gold star for giving Leekin what she, and so many more, deserve; a nice long sojourn in a federal prison.

How to Strip Search a Middle School Student

Once again public school administrators, in their infinite wisdom and finely honed reasoning that only a Ph.D. can provide, have decided to strip search a 13 year old girl in the timeless pursuit of prescription-strength ibuprofen. And once again, a United States court of appeals has determined that this is unconstitutional.


According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Redding v. Safford Unified School Dist. #1, the strip search of honor student Savana Redding "was neither 'justified at its inception,' nor, as a grossly intrusive search of a middle school girl to locate pills with the potency of two over-the-counter Advil capsules, 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances' giving rise to its initiation."

In this case the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled a three judge panel of the court which had found no constitutional violation. The court held that:

[this] court made it clear that while it did not require school officials to apply a probable cause standard to a purse search, it plainly required them to act "according to the dictates of reason and common sense." . . . the public school officials who strip searched Savana acted contrary to all reason and common sense as they trampled over her legitimate and substantial interests in privacy and security of her person."

The court cited from cases which limit strip searches of adult prisoners finding that,
as the Supreme Court has noted: "[Y]outh is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage." As adolescents enter puberty, "they become more conscious of their bodies and self-conscious about them. Consequently, the potential for a search to cause embarrassment and humiliation increases as children grow older. . . . [N]o one would seriously dispute that a nude search of a child is traumatic."


Giving credit where credit is due, our friends at the National Association of Social Workers, in their amicus brief, perhaps said it best:

"Clinical evaluations of the [young] victims of strip searches indicate that they can result in serious emotional damage, including the development of, or increase in, oppositional behavior." . . . "Psychological experts have also testified that victims often suffered post-search symptoms including sleep disturbance, recurrent and intrusive recollections of the event, inability to concentrate, anxiety, depression and development of phobic reactions, and that some victims have been moved to attempt suicide." . . . Moreover, that the student is "viewed rather than touched, do[es] not diminish the trauma experienced by the child."

The court concluded that "the overzealousness of school administrators in efforts to protect students has the tragic impact of traumatizing those they claim to serve. And all this to find prescription-strength ibuprofen pills. We reject Safford's effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term 'prescription
drugs,' in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs."


Finally, the court reminded us that "a school is not a prison; the students are not inmates. We hasten to note, however, that if Savana had been accused of a federal crime, she would have been entitled to more legal protections that she received here."


So how do you strip search a middle school student? Simply said, you don't.

Virtual Child Porn and Child Exploitation

Last month, in a widely criticized decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties for promoting virtual child pornography. The 7-2 decision in United States v. Williams, however, rightfully empowers law enforcement in the battle against the worldwide criminal networks where child pornography is freely produced, solicited and offered.


What most people do not realize is that child pornography is per se illegal. Although some child pornography might fall under the legal definition of obscenity, it does not have to be analyzed under traditional First Amendment guidelines.



The critical underpinning of contemporary child pornography jurisprudence is that child pornography is illegal due to the adverse effects on the children used in the creation of the child pornography. It is not the mere viewing of the images that causes harm, but the production, distribution and possession of the images and videos.


The Court wisely realized that the very nature of the child pornography criminal enterprise -- where demand for ever new and more graphic images directly drives the sexual abuse of children -- is the real crime.


The crime of child pornography has nothing to do with speech, protected or otherwise. The crime is the relentless clamor for images in which children's bodies are the currency. Surprisingly, most child porn is not sold commercially but traded for new material. The most hard core pictures are held back with the expectation that you've got to make some of your own to get the good stuff. Some children are sexually abused just to create child pornography.


In fact the very term child "pornography" is a misnomer and in my opinion is an insult to pornography (no matter how you view that term and what it depicts). Again, the crime here is not the mere viewing of the images or even thinking about unspeakable acts with children. Juries view child pornography all the time. So do experts for criminal defendants and prosecutors. None of them have committed a crime.


The crime of child pornography gets committed when demand for images (resulting in possession) leads directly or indirectly to the criminal sexual abuse of children who are often abused solely to produce child pornography (production). "Child pornography" then is not merely about a visual image, but is a unbroken chain of acts (distribution) which originate in or lead to the sexual abuse of children.


This is why virtual child pornography is legal and, in my opinion, should remain legal. The focus must remain on the very real, if largely unidentified, victims of this horrible criminal enterprise.


Why then was the Court correct in banning the promotion of virtual child pornography while allowing the production, distribution and possession of virtual child porn to remain legal? The simple answer is that the pandering and solicitation of ANY child pornography, when seen as an essential aspect of the entire criminal enterprise which leads to the sexual exploitation of children, must remain illegal.


A bank robber is not innocent just because the gun was plastic. Whether the gun is real or not is irrelevant because the crime of bank robbery is not the mere brandishing of what appears to be a gun, but it is demanding and receiving money under threat.


Similarly, the crime of child pornography is not merely offering images of sexually abused children, but it is the entire trade in such images which itself is firmly rooted in the wholesale exploitation of children. The Court correctly realized that this trade thrives in a milieu in which the offer or demand for images, virtual or not, is an essential and direct contributor to the "real" crime which is child pornography.


The Court clearly held that:

"an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed.' Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography."

The Court struck a careful balance which fully appreciates the nature and scope of the crime which is child pornography.


Coming up next, an analysis of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's recent child porn initiatives and why they are largely irrelevant in the fight against child pornography and child sexual exploitation.


MORE ON THIS TOPIC from NPR's On The Media on 12-26-2008: Porn's Fine Lines "If no children were harmed in the making, is it still kiddie porn? Cartoon defender Charles Brownstein says it's a danger to artistic freedom to criminalize lines on paper, but child-safety advocate Mary Leary says allowing explicit drawings of children presents a threat to the safety of real-life kids."

Who's Your Mama? MTV's TRUELIFE Adoption Drama

I could not let this Fourth of July holiday weekend slip by without a mention of MTV's new TRUELIFE drama entitled "I'm Placing my Baby for Adoption!" Thanks to the NCFA announcement supporting the show, I'm happy to bring this tidbit to a much wider audience.


According to the NCFA email I received last month (there is no mention of the show on the NCFA website):

The National Council For Adoption is lending a helping hand to the producers of an adoption documentary for the successful and popular MTV's True Life series.


The adoption documentary will follow three or four young unwed birthmothers on video as they go through difficult and emotional decisions in developing adoption plans for their babies.


According to the show's producers, the goals of the True Life adoption documentary are "to help de-stigmatize the adoption process and to show that adoption is a choice that loving, responsible mothers make when they believe it's best for their child. We also hope to express the range of emotions birthmothers feel as they go through this process."


These goals coincide with the mission of NCFA's new iChooseAdoption public awareness campaign to "create a more pro-adoption culture in which everyone, including women facing unplanned pregnancies, can consider adoption freely without fear, bias, or misunderstanding" and to "promote a culture that respects and appreciates birthmothers, honors their decision-making process, and supports their choice of adoption."

First we had Fox's "Who's Your Daddy", then there was Juno, and now this.


According to MTV's casting call flyer (there's no mention of a casting couch or, for that matter, birth fathers):

Our goal -- as with all episodes of "True Life" -- is to help MTV's young
audience understand why so many young women make the choice to
place their babies for adoption, and to help de-stigmatize this choice. We
will treat the young women who participate in this documentary with
respect, dignity and empathy.

Not to worry folks, according to MTV, "True Life is not a reality show. Our producers follow strict ethical guidelines and carefully avoid influencing our subjects' stories. It is also not a news show - there is no host, reporter, or narrator. We allow our subjects to tell their own stories in their own voices."


Now I'd like YOU to give me YOUR reaction in your own voice. Who's Your Mama?

The International Best Interests of the Child and US Child Welfare Industry Hypocrisy

The phrase "best interests of the child" is a cornerstone of American legal jurisprudence concerning children and children's rights. Surprisingly, or perhaps not surprisingly, this fundamental concept is not limited to the United States or other common law countries.


A recent lecture by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, entitled The Best Interests of the Child - what it means and what it demands from adults, discusses this idea from a European and international human rights perspective as established in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Here are some excerpts:

The idea that society should respect the best interests of the child is seen as fundamental in all cultures. After all, children do symbolize the survival of the family, the group, the nation and even humanity itself.


From the very first draft of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . it was clear that the principle of the 'best interests' should be included and given a prominent position.


The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child had in fact already evoked the principle, stating that 'the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration' in the enactment of laws relating to children, as well as 'the guiding principle of those responsible for (the child's) education and guidance'.


The Convention on the Rights of the Child extends the principle to cover all decisions affecting the child. This is a radical departure. The best interests of the child shall now be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children - not just actions taken by the state authorities, parliamentary assemblies and judicial bodies but also those taken by relevant private institutions.


The drafters of the Convention not only widened the scope of the principle, but they also made it one of the 'umbrella' provisions and thereby important for the overall framework of the Convention. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has taken the principle one step further, defining the best interests of the child as a 'general principle' guiding the interpretation of the entire Convention.


Governments - or individual adults - have sometimes misused the 'best interests of the child' to justify actions that in reality have violated the rights of the child. Corporal punishment has been defended with the argument that it teaches children necessary limits and is therefore for their own good in the long run. Adopted children have been prevented from knowing their biological family 'in their own interests'. Children of indigenous peoples have been forcefully removed from their families and placed in boarding schools so that they could be introduced to 'civilization', again in the name of their 'best interests'.


Though necessarily general and incomplete, a reasonable first building block towards the definition of what is in the best interests of the child is the sum total of the norms in the Convention. This means, for example, that it is in the best interests of the child to: receive education (Art. 28); have family relations (Art. 8); know and be cared for by his or her parents (Art. 7); be heard in matters concerning him or her (Art. 12), and to be respected and seen as an individual person (Art. 16). In the same way, the Convention states what is not in the best interests of the child: for instance, to be exposed to any form of violence (Art. 19); to be wrongly separated from his or her parents (Art. 9); to be subjected to any traditional practices prejudicial to the child's health (Art. 24); to perform any work that is hazardous or harmful (Art. 32), or to be otherwise exploited or abused (Arts. 33-36).


There is another important aspect of the Convention that is relevant to this discussion: the emphasis on respecting the evolving capacities of the child. For the best interests of the child to be determined, it is important that the child himself or herself be heard. With increased age and maturity, the child should be able to influence and decide more. This obvious point is often forgotten. Adults tend to discuss what is best for children without seeking their opinions or even listening to them.


Article 12 states that the child who is capable of forming an opinion on matters affecting him or her has the right to express that opinion freely and that the child's opinion should be given due weight in accordance with his or her age and maturity.


This approach does not necessarily mean that the child can take complete responsibility for the decision. The spirit of Article 12 is rather to ensure consultation and growing participation than to relinquish all power to the child.


The Convention as a whole gives pointers as to what is good for the child. It also requires that the child be heard and that his or her opinions be taken seriously.


When considering decisions that are likely to affect a child or children considerably, decision makers should always systematically attempt to assess and evaluate the consequences of the proposed action. . . . it is important that children be heard whenever possible, and that their opinions be sought before the final decision is taken.


Children are not the people of tomorrow, but are people of today. They have a right to be taken seriously, and to be treated with tenderness and respect. They should be allowed to grow into whoever they were meant to be - the unknown person inside each of them is our hope for the future.

The United States is the only country in the world (except Somalia which has no functioning government) which has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This alone should be an enduring mark of shame for every child advocate, social worker, children's lawyer, CASA, juvenile court judge, local/state/federal child welfare bureaucrat, the NACC, ABA Center on Children and the Law, and even your humble blogger. With the coming election and new president, regardless of party, let's re-dedicate ourselves to passing this UNIVERSAL document dedicated to the rights of the child.

Pedophile Rapists win big at the Supreme Court

Today the United States Supreme Court issued the long awaited decision in the Kennedy v. Louisiana death penalty case discussed earlier this year. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death.


In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Court found that there is a "national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape" and that "the small number of States that have enacted the death penalty for child rape is relevant to determining whether there is a consensus against capital punishment for the rape of a child."

The Court concluded that "there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability."


In homage to the criminal apologist National Association of Social Workers [NASW] amicus brief, the Court found that "as to deterrence, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may not result in more effective enforcement, but may add to the risk of nonreporting of child rape out of fear of negative consequences for the perpetrator, especially if he is a family member. And, by in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill his victim."


Justice Alito, in mock restraint, began the dissenting opinion with: "the Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be."


The dissent found that "the Court has provided no coherent explanation for today's decision" in its "emerging national consensus" analysis. As to the majority's "own judgment" regarding the acceptability of the death penalty, the dissent argued that most of that discussion is not pertinent to the Eighth Amendment question at hand:

A major theme of the Court's opinion is that permitting the death penalty in child-rape cases is not in the best interests of the victims of these crimes and society at large. In this vein, the Court suggests that it is more painful for child-rape victims to testify when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. The Court also argues that "a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim," and may discourage the reporting of child rape. These policy arguments, whatever their merits, are simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The dissent sums up its position, and in my opinion the core of this debate, by asking this essential question:

With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?


I have no doubt that, under the prevailing standards of our society, robbery . . . does not evidence the same degree of moral depravity as the brutal rape of a young child. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists--predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children--are the epitome of moral depravity.

In terms of moral depravity, I can imagine no worse a crime then the rape of a child. In fact, the rape of children is increasingly primarily for the production of child pornography. The lifelong impact of the actual rape, combined with the increasingly highly sought worldwide distribution of pictures and movies of the rape, make this crime like no other.

One Child's Unending Abuse - From Disney World Girl to Drifter

Relates to: Masha Allen (Mariya Nikolaevna Yashenkova)

Date: 2008-03-19

Source: wikileaks.org

Lawyer: Young Internet child porn victim should be paid up to $100 million in damages for alleged mistreatment by Pa. child services and adoption system

CHRISTOPHER WITKOWSKY and JULIAN ASSANGE (editor)

Wednesday March 19, 2008

A lawyer who represented a young girl who was adopted from Russia by a Pennsylvania man and sexually abused and exploited for five years claims the girl's new adoptive mother has physically abused and neglected her, including withholding important medical and psychiatric treatment that would help the young victim move forward in her life.

The attorney, James Marsh, of White Plains, New York, filed a notice of claim in the name of Masha Elizabeth Allen, demanding that Allegheny County, the county Office of Children, Youth and Family, the county Office of Human Services, the Families United Network, Inc., and various individuals associated with those groups, pay Masha up to $100 million in damages for placing her with her adoptive mother, known as Faith Allen. The notice of claim will preserve Masha's right to sue the organizations and individuals any time until she is 21, according to Marsh.

According to the claim filing, which is dated Feb. 7, 2007, Faith Allen, also known as Lynn Ginn, subjected Masha to physical and mental abuse and failed to get her some form of consistent therapy. The blame, according to the filing, falls squarely on the shoulders of the institutions and organizations meant to protect Masha for not properly investigating Faith and her ability to be a mother to a sexually abused girl.

The institutions' and individuals' actions "have caused Masha substantial physical, psychological and emotional damage, as well as compensatory damages," the claim filing says. "The respondents ...had a duty to Masha to reasonably investigate and supervise any potential adoptive home for her and to fully disclose to the court and other professionals any possible concerns prior to her adoption. The respondents had a professional responsibility to Masha to protect her physical, psychological and emotional best interests. Each of these duties was breached and violated, resulting in extensive ongoing damage to Masha."

Marsh declined to talk on the record about the claim notice. It's important to remember in this case that Faith has accused Marsh of stalking and harassment, as is noted in an affidavit filed by Paulette "Skeet" Roy, a deputy in the Douglas County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office, in April, 2007.

In the middle of this storm is 15-year-old Masha, who has endured abuse and exploitation since her journey from a Russian orphanage to the home of a rabid pedophile in Pennsylvania.

Mariya Nikolaevna Yashenkova, known in the U.S. as Masha Elizabeth Allen, was five-years-old in 1998 when 41-year-old Matthew Mancuso adopted her from a Russian orphanage and brought her to his home in the small western Pennsylvania hamlet of Plum. Over the next five years, Mancuso sexually abused and exploited Masha, videotaping and photographing her in various stages of abuse, and posting the images on the internet to share with others members of an online community of pedophiles and child pornography fans. One series of photos showed Masha being abused in a hotel room that was later determined to be in a resort at Disney World in Florida, leading to Masha's infamous moniker, the Disney World girl.[1]

Masha was rescued by the FBI in 2003 after an undercover online operation led to Mancuso's arrest for sharing child pornography. Officers who arrested Mancuso at his home found Masha, who was severely undernourished. Mancuso reportedly forced Masha to eat only peanut butter sandwiches, and avoid vegetables and pasta, inorder to delay the onset of puberty. Mancuso was sentenced to 15 years on child pornography charges and 35 years to 70 years for his abuse of Masha. Masha was quickly placed with a foster parent, a young woman who went by the name Faith Elizabeth Allen. Faith eventually adopted Masha in 2004.

Masha gained national prominence after her rescue by appearing on The Oprah Winfrey Show and CNN with then-host Nancy Grace to talk about her story. She was also the subject of a newspaper article in the LA Times. On May 10, 2006, Masha testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommitee on Oversight and Investigations about her experience. A law that bears her name, Masha's Law, set stiffer penalties for downloading child pornography from the Internet.[2]; [3]

But behind the scenes, Masha was not doing so well. On Jan. 12, 2004, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Family, the Allegheny County Department of Human Services and the Families United Network, Inc. filed a report that Masha was not completing homework and that her school thought she could do a better on tests if she studied harder. On April 1, 2004, the organizations filed a report that Masha's mobile therapy had been discontinued and that she was being treated at an uncertified institution.

Faith officially adopted Masha in May, 2004, during which ceremony Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen presided. Judge Allen had sheltered Faith after the troubled young woman graduated from a drug and alcohol abuse clinic. [4]

Judge Allen said in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article in 2004 that she was slightly concerned about Faith becoming a foster mother because of her past experiences, but her concerns were reportedly assuaged after she saw Faith with her foster children. "She has a deep capacity to love," Allen said in a 2004 article with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, written by Barbara White Stack. "If anything, my biggest concern now is that she wants to help everybody."

In December, 2004, Faith and Masha suddenly moved to Georgia. In March 2006, Masha expressed the desire to commit suicide. She was hospitalized at Summit Ridge Center for Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine in Lawrenceville, Ga. Summit Ridge recommended that Masha undergo extensive therapy, including a home therapeutic plan for Faith to follow. According to the claim notice obtained by Wikileaks, Masha received no mental health treatment of any kind between February 2006 and December 2006. Faith and Masha came under the supervision of the Georgia Department of Families and Children on or about Oct. 1, 2006.

Masha's claim states that she has been subject to physical and mental abuse since she was first placed with Faith. She has received little or no mental health treatment and her basic medical needs have been neglected, despite the traumatic abuse she suffered at the hands of Mancuso. Masha has moved nine times since 2003 and attended five schools during that period.

It appears that Masha, who was placed by an adoption agency in New Jersey with Mancuso without subsequent follow up, has been failed a second time by the county and state services that are supposed to protect her. Faith was a questionable candidate to be the adoptive mother of an abused young girl. Masha's leaked notice of claim reveals that at the time of Masha's placement, the Families United Network had removed two children from Faith's care because of alleged physical abuse. FUN had instructed its staff to not place any more children with Faith.

Also, Faith may or may not have been the victim of physical and sexual abuse as a young girl. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article said Faith had been physically abused by an alcoholic mother and sexually abused by her step-father. But Faith had also allegedly made up tales of membership in a Satanic cult and inflicted pain on herself for attention, according to a short testimonial written by Dr. Marion Spellman, founder, CEO and chairman of Peniel, located in Johnstown, Pa, a drug-and-alcohol treatment center from which Faith had graduated. The testimonial is no longer on Peniel's website.

In 2004, Faith accused a member of her church, Potter's House Ministries, of inappropriately touching her while she was in a hypnotic state. The trial against Charles Brown, a member of Potter's House, took place after Faith had already adopted Masha. Faith had surreptitiously videotaped one of the hypnosis counseling sessions, during which Brown can be seen allegedly fondling Faith. But the judge presiding over the trial found that Faith appeared not to be in a hypnotic state and was conversing with Brown. Brown's attorney also brought in witnesses who testified that Faith had shown the videotape to various members of the church, including a minor, before she took it to police. One witness, Marie Johnson, testified that Faith showed her the videotape, laughed while the two viewed it, and told Johnson she wanted to make Brown her boyfriend. Brown was found not guilty of indecent assault.

At this time, Masha remains with Faith and appears unable to get the care and treatment she needs to move beyond her traumatic past. Masha's claim notice states that the proper authorities, the county Office of Children, Youth and Family, the county Office of Human Services, the Families United Network, Inc., and various individuals associated with those groups, failed to adequately monitor Masha's placement with Faith and failed to adequately investigate Faith as an appropriate foster parent.

It should be noted that the mainstream media never questioned Masha's placement with Faith in various articles and broadcasts.

References


[1]  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05236/558935.stm

[2]  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/18/ng.01.html

[3]  http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200601/20060117/slide_20060117_284_207.jhtml

[4]  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg04135/316220.stm

Who MEPA?

Kudos to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute for stepping into the minefield which is race and adoption. Their recently released report, Finding Families for African American Children: The Role of Race & Law in Adoption from Foster Care was widely reported in today's New York Times and on public radio.



The Donaldson report focuses on domestic transracial adoption and assesses its use as a policy and practice approach in meeting the needs of African American children in foster care. The findings and recommendations are endorsed by the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the Child Welfare League of America, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, the Adoption Exchange Association, the National Association of Black Social Workers, Voice for Adoption, and the Foster Care Alumni of America.



The report's major focus is the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. I've written about MEPA before on this blog. So has the Government Accountability Office in this July 2007 report on African American Children in Foster Care. And the Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau Administration for Children and Families in this December 2003 report entitled Children of Color in the Child Welfare System. University of Pittsburgh law school Professor David J. Herring has done groundbreaking work criticizing MEPA based on behavioral biology and social psychology research.



So perhaps it is time to revisit MEPA and even seek wholesale revision given the fact that the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 is designed to do the exact same thing as MEPA which is to speed the exit of children in foster care to permanency.



The coalition's recommendations are as follows:

• Reinforce in all adoption-related laws, policies and practices that a child's best interests must be paramount in placement decisions.


• Amend IEP to allow consideration of race/ethnicity in permanency planning and in the preparation of families adopting transracially. The original MEPA standard - which provided that race is one factor, but not the sole factor, to be considered in selecting a foster or adoptive parent for a child in foster care - should be reinstated.


• Enforce the MEPA requirement to recruit families who represent the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children in foster care and provide sufficient resources, including funding, to support such recruitment.


• Address existing barriers to fully engaging minority families in fostering and adopting by developing alliances with faith communities, minority placement agencies, and other minority recruitment programs.


• Provide support for adoption by relatives and, when that is not the best option for a particular child, provide federal funding for subsidized guardianship.


• To help families address their transracially adopted children's needs, provide post-adoption support services from time of placement through children's adolescence.

Has MEPA become redundant? Is it time for a change in light of ASFA or are special extraordinary measures still needed to address the permanency of the vastly overrepresented population of African American children in the foster care system? Everyone knows that race does matter, but should it be accounted for and how?

FTIA-ROTIA-AAA and the Axis of Evil

On September 27, 2006, Families Thru International Adoption potentate Keith Wallace repeatedly testified, under oath, before the United States Congress that he "didn't have much information" about Masha Allen's adoption even though he had been "invited here today to provide the committee with all the information I have about the adoption of Mr. Mancuso."


A close comparison of Wallace's spoken and written testimony, however, reveals that he left out a lot of unqualified praise for Jeannene Smith. Here's what Wallace says in his written testimony:

FTIA's working relationship with Ms. Smith was interesting, to say the least. Ms. Smith is very industrious and very intelligent. It was partially through her urging that FTIA developed some of its foreign adoption programs. Even if I had done research in starting a new program, Ms. Smith would always have additional and helpful information. I even traveled with Ms. Smith several times when starting a new program.


I was contacted by Ms. Smith in the second half of 1996. Ms. Smith asked if she could work with FTIA. I contracted with Ms. Smith to work as a northeast regional coordinator for FTIA.


. . .


During this period, I even wrote a letter of recommendation to the New Jersey licensing authority on her behalf. I had concluded that she could not work for FTIA, but I knew she was smart so I thought maybe she can run her own agency.

FTIA's "Russian facilitator," Serguei Dymtchenko, remains an important but overlooked figure in the Axis of Evil which ultimately developed and which links all the major players in Masha's adoption. Again, according to Wallace's written testimony:

Mr. Mancuso submitted his original dossier to Ms. Smith, but FTIA never received his original dossier. If Evansville had received an original dossier, we would have record of (1) receiving it, (2) reviewing it, (3) sending it to one of the Russian coordinators/facilitators we worked with at the time.

According to Jeannene Smith's sworn Congressional testimony: "everything that was done was with Mr. Wallace's authorization. Every bit of literature, every bit of information that was disseminated." Clearly either Smith or Wallace or both are lying. That much should shock no one.


And who exactly was FTIA's "Russian coordinator/facilitator . . . at the time?" Not surprisingly it was the exact same person who was ROTIA's Russian coordinator/facilitator at the time, Serguei Dymtchenko.


Here's Dymtchenko's sworn Congressional testimony:

Jeannene Smith introduced me to Keith Wallace and that meeting took place in her home office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and I started working with FTIA.

What is shocking, however, is a news report dated February 10, 2003, which details FTIA's then-ongoing relationship with Serguei Dymtchenko in Azerbaijan.

FTIA representative Sergey Donchenko, residing in the United States, told Echo that his organization has undergone all the required registration stages--the cabinet, and the justice, education, health, and foreign ministries. Donchenko also stated that the legal basis of international adoption is regulated bilaterally--by both the U.S. and Azeri sides. "Kasimova must be aware of our organization's activities, since she was present at an event arranged at the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan with the participation of FTIA representatives," he said.

The news article continues:

One of the main questions that remains unanswered is why the adoption of Azeri children by U.S. citizens should involve huge expenses totaling $22,920, with $11,110 spent in Azerbaijan itself. The chair of the Children's Rights Defense League, Yusif Bekirov, said that Azeri law presumes the adoption procedure will be totally free and charged, "This phenomenon could only be explained by corruption among the officials dealing with adoption issues." He is particularly outraged by the orphanage donations, which are supposed to be an act of free will, but in Azerbaijan they are deemed a mandatory procedure in order to be able to proceed with an adoption application.

$omething about the money part of all thi$ $omehow $eem$ familiar and provide$ yet another crucial link or at lea$t and overriding motivational factor.


Unfortunately, Masha was not the only bungled adoption involving Dymtchenko and his harem. This post, entitled our adoption nightmare further details the relationship between ROTIA's eventual executive director, Marlene Seamans-Conn (who also testified before Congress), and Dymtchenko's 2001 joint venture and PA licensed international adoption agency American Adoptions Abroad (AAA). Readers might remember Seamans-Conn as the sister of renowned naturist Toni Egbert discussed previously in this blog.

We were told that no matter what adoption agency we were using, put "FTIA" where the form asked for the name of your agency. When I started to say that our agency was American Adoptions Abroad, he [Dymtchenko] stopped me before I could finish, and he repeated what he had just said. I did as I was told since just a few weeks before my trip we had received a letter and forms from Marlene stating that FTIA and AAA had formed a cooperative relationship in order for AAA to operate as an accredited agency in Russia. Serguei Dymtchenko is also the same Rostov facilitator used by Families Thru International Adoption (FTIA), located in Evansville, IN. Before receiving notification of this cooperative relationship from our agency, we had never even heard of FTIA. It was now clear that American Adoptions Abroad did not have their own accreditation from the Russian government; they were using FTIA's accreditation.

More on this adoption nightmare from the RipOff Report dated February 19, 2003:

We're posting this because of our frustration in dealing with two adoption agencies we have signed contracts with: American Adoptions Abroad (AAA) and Families Thru International Adoption (FTIA).


For over nine months now we've been trying to negotiate a settlement from a failed adoption we experienced in late April 2002.


After we posted our story to The Adoption Guide we were contacted by an attorney representing AAA ordering us to cease and desist from further postings and demanding we retract our post.


We were forced to hire an attorney as well, but negotiations have gone nowhere. We have also contacted numerous government agencies and regulatory authorities with equally discouraging results.


. . .


Just prior to the referral trip, we were required to sign a new contract with AAA/FTIA, which ironically came just a couple of days after we paid nearly $9,400 to the private company of AAA's International Program Director, Serguei Dymtchenko.


AAA's executive director, Marlene Seamans-Conn, misled us about a number of things, among them the Russian accreditation status of American Adoptions Abroad and the number of adoptions the agency had performed.


AAA used the accreditation, the facilitators, and the in-country staff of Families Thru International Adoption.


After we filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, one of FTIA's interpreters signed an affidavit regarding his role in our failed adoption experience where he states that he is employed in the Branch Office of FTIA in Russia.


We've read in several instances that this type of "umbrella" arrangement between accredited and unaccredited agencies is an illegal practice according to Russian adoption law.


After our story was posted on The Adoption Guide web site, we were contacted by FTIA's executive director, Keith Wallace.


He stated that he would speak to Serguei Dymtchenko, who also happens to be the Russian facilitator for FTIA, and see if he would return our money.


Needless to say, our money was never returned, and we didn't hear from Mr. Wallace again until he discovered that prospective FTIA families were contacting us regarding our experience with his agency.


The whole thing began to smell even worse when we were told by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services that in 1998 FTIA was operating in the state of New Jersey without a license.


FTIA was given a chance to become licensed, but a year later FTIA was still unlicensed and was asked to close its NJ office.


Before Marlene Seamans-Conn started her own agency, she was working for another agency in New Jersey for which Serguei Dymtchenko also facilitated Russian adoptions.


Whenever payments were required for our adoption, we were always asked to send the money to either the home address of Ms. Seamans-Conn in Sewell, NJ, or to the home address of Serguei Dymtchenko in Toms River, NJ, but our payments to Mr. Dymtchenko were required to be marked payable to his own company, TJS.


We've also been told about Mr. Dymtchenko's involvement with another family's adoption nightmare where he was working for Adrienne Lewis of the now defunct Global adoption agency, which was shut down by state authorities in CA and LA where she was licensed.


. . .


The fact that there are agencies out there, AAA being one, that don't even have a social worker on staff is beyond belief.


Mike & Patty

Warren, Michigan

U.S.A.

So there it is folks: ROTIA<->Dymtchenko<->FTIA<->Dymtchenko<->AAA<->ROTIA. A story which begins and ends with ROTIA, with Dymtchenko and FTIA right smack in the middle.

Girl's Little Daddy

In an apparently lighthearted attempt to bring some perspective to the multi-national adoption biz, the Indian Association for Promotion of Adoption and Child Welfare, with a little help from Ogilvy & Mather, created a series of freaky ads with blissful children cuddling needy parents. Finally, truth in advertising! Here's my favorite:



After all, why should the daddy's do all the choosing? And it certainly beats the Adoption.com special edition print, From God's Hands, To My Hands, To Yours, which I blogged about in 2004:



Madison Avenue is finally in da house. I can hardly wait to see what they do with the "rent-a-womb" outsourcing business. The possibilities are truly endless.

Governing the Flesh Trade

By now almost everyone has heard about NY Governor Elliot Spitzer's participation in a high-end prostitution ring. The criminal enterprise responsible for the Emperors Club VIP was indicted in federal court under the same law which prohibits human trafficking. The Governor himself engaged in such trafficking when he ordered up a $2000/hour seven diamond rated prostitute, Kristen, from NYC for delivery to his hotel room in Washington in violation of the Mann Act.


According to the New York Times:

The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

All this seems so familiar which got me thinking. The Governor, who is oft described as arrogant and self-righteous, would make a great international adoption agency executive director. His agency? The Little Emperors Club VIP. His mission? Fulfilling hopes and dreams.


The gov's got it all wrong. Instead of apologizing he should be spinning this in the best possible light. What's needed here is a merger of the dialectic. Remember the PA Supreme Court's timeless words: "our society has experienced a degree of principle-shifting?" Well that is all so old school now. The 21st century has brought us to a new level of enlightenment. All that prater about "practices . . . so abhorrent to every American that no one would traffic in human life for profit." Come on! "Unfortunately, the lessons of the past are already forgotten." How true, how true. But let's get real man: just show me the money!!


In her siren song Debbie Daffodil Spivak reminded us that "any fees paid during the course of this process are not to buy a child. Rather, fees are for services to ensure the integrity of the process and keep corruption away." Now you're talking. The universal justifying mantra: "fee for services." Storm the barricades!


All Governor Spitzer is really guilty of here is facilitating the seeding of a desperately needed fertile womb. Why outsource this vital business to India?? Like a true American, Spitzer is just fighting to keep this work here at home where it belongs. The $4000 he paid for three hours with V.I.P. Kristen was just a "fee for service" to "ensure the integrity of the process and keep corruption away."


After all, "doing it right demands the navigation of laws, procedures and challenges by intelligent, conscientious, and ethical individuals who choose to dedicate their time and attention to help find families for children despite their qualifications to work elsewhere."


I think this applies to both womb-Kristen and facilitator-Spitzer. But be careful of the Mann Act and criminal structuring which is where all that intelligent, conscientious and ethical individual stuff comes in. I trust that, given their qualifications to work elsewhere, the gov and Kristen were "doing it right."


"The focus should not be on the fact that fees are paid, but, rather, on transparency as to how the fees are spent and assurance that no fees were given to a birthmother to influence her decision in favor of making her child available for adoption." Interesting. I'll tell this to the US Attorney. "Critics should also know that international adoption is a non-profit humanitarian mission."


Okay now I get it. Kristen and her womb were on a non-profit humanitarian mission and the fees, which were paid to run the Emperors Club website, pay the facilitators, deal with all that money and the banks and scheduling, etc. etc. were not to influence Kristen. No sir. She was on a mission

"I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls think they're difficult. That's what it is, because you're here for a purpose. Let's not get it twisted. I know what I do, you know. I'd be like, listen dude, you really want the sex? You know what I mean?"

"Individuals working in this field have often given up lucrative careers in other industries to help these children." Thank you Deb. "We are highly trained, exceedingly committed, and passionate about the work we do." Just like Kristen. Back to Deb:

Indeed, child trafficking [prostitution] is a very real threat to the well-being of all children [women] and must be routed out at all costs. It also exploits the desperation of birth mothers [women] to want to do what seems best for their children under difficult circumstances by going around the law and procedures to achieve an improper end. It is incumbent upon all of us to correct this confusion by reminding those around us that the former is a poison, while the latter is a blessing. Using the terms interchangeably perpetuates the notion that international adoption is inherently corrupt.

Correcting confusion on this issue means forgetting the lessons of the past and orienting our thinking in a way which focuses on the blessing of a fertile womb, unfulfilled hopes and dreams, and the fees for services which ensure the integrity of the process and keep corruption away.


Governor by following the international adoption playas book, you can weather this storm while prospering in the process. And if some backward thinking sops succeed in raising the discarded notion of "trafficking in human life for profit" and you are forced out, think of this as an opportunity to begin a whole new vocation. After all, everyone knows you gave up a lucrative career in other industries to help the cause. Why not fill an empty womb as well?

Shopping for Change

Lest everyone think that we're all just a bunch of Communistic satanic haters over here, I share a bright spot amongst all the darkness. A big gold star to Lindsay Giambattista who leveraged her talent for shopping and teen fashion savvy into a place where foster kids can feel some love.


Lindsay, age 17, oversees a boutique offering clothing to girls in foster care, handling $1 million worth of donated apparel last year from designers, retailers and people from as far away as Tokyo.


The idea started snowballing after Lindsay looked at 10 trash bags filled with her own rejects and decided it wasn't enough. She reached out to friends and relatives, and the word spread.


Taylor's Closet, named after Lindsay's sister who died at birth, now serves about 300 young women in the Fort Lauderdale area, each getting up to six garments a month. Girls in the foster care system, or who recently left it after turning 18, are invited.


And to this born-again girl, who is living out her faith in an honest and positive way, I say you are truly a pearl among the swine. Good job Lindsay. May many others learn from your example.

Something's Rotten in the State of Pennsylvania

Don't take my word for it. Just ask Neils of the Pound Pup Legacy mega-adoption-website-blog. According to this crusading and data-driven site, Pennsylvania has a disproportionate number of adoption agencies compared to other states. Forget all that high-minded legalistic talk of "dealing in humanity," there's money to be made and many good Germans willing to look the other way.


According to Neils

With a total of 206 Pennsylvania has far more agencies than any other state. California, which is almost three times the size of Pennsylvania has 73 agencies less and Illinois which is very comparable in size to Pennsylvania has about half as many licensed agencies.

Don't miss Congressman Bart Stupak's revelation that even a plumber can run an adoption agency in Pennsylvania. And Neils's closing words:

If Pennsylvania thinks we will forget about the Masha Allen case and can return to business as usual, they are dead wrong. Masha Allen's case shocked the nation and will not be forgotten, We are here to make sure of that.

One can only hope that such sentiments, now expressed WORLDWIDE, will be as heartfelt here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. Word up.

Womb Outsourcing Threatens International Adoption

I guess it was only a matter of time before a simple straightforward technological solution was found to eliminate the abuses in international adoption. Today's New York Times highlights the Rent-a-Womb outsourcing movement in India.

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India's mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

In 2003, I wrote about Sperm Donor Introductions for Lesbians and Snowflake Adoptions. In 2004 there was Pregnant for Jesus or Abducted for Adoption and the Saks Newborn Nurseries. And now this.

Surrogacy is an area fraught with ethical and legal uncertainties. Critics argue that the ease with which relatively rich foreigners are able to "rent" the wombs of poor Indians creates the potential for exploitation. Although the government is actively promoting India as a medical tourism destination, what some see as an exchange of money for babies has made many here uncomfortable.

"An exchange of money for babies." I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, rejoice or reject, or just shelve all this adoption blather and move on. I'll leave with one thought while I sort all this out - another great quote from the NYT story:

Even some of those involved in the business of organizing surrogates want greater regulation. "There must be protection for the surrogates," Mr. Rupak said.
"Inevitably, people are going to smell the money, and unscrupulous
operators will get into the game. I don't trust the industry to police
itself."

Hey, "smell the money" and "unscrupulous operators" rings a familiar bell. Maybe the orphanages can reinvent themselves as surrogate birthing centers. Why not cut out the middle man and go straight for the womb. Perhaps there's hope for international adoption after all.

Global Corruption in the Global Village

The Joint Council on International Children's Services [JCICS] has a worldwide reach into some of the darkest corners of the child trafficking industry. Apparently so does Masha Allen's not-really adoption agency unless you believe Debbie Spivack, Families thru International Adoption [FTIA].

A concerned reader of this blog recently forwarded a large number of emails purportedly from FTIA's [CENSORED] Senior Coordinator [CENSORED].

In these emails from 2006, [CENSORED] details her close relationship with longtime JCICS past-president and board member Deb Murphy-Scheumann.

In a message which begins "How did I get myself into this mess?" [CENSORED] outlines her wide-ranging interaction with what she calls "the Indian mafia" network and their control of orphanages in India.

When asked if "they" are "going down for their crimes" of child trafficking, [CENSORED] responds:

"Usually no....and if so, not for long. They are far too powerful and usually able to pay their way out of jail and then they are back at business. They are also connected with some really powerful people in govt and business. And I can't even begin to tell you the truly disgusting things they are involved in......that's another chapter in
itself...."

Discussing her connections to JS Bhasin, director of a rogue Indian adoption agency, [CENSORED] remarks:

"I've made light of it all these years but to truly realize that my instincts/intuitions were accurate and that I was THAT close to them, to their evil.....how involved I became, and and how significant they really are.....is scary."

But alas, international adoption must go on albeit at any cost. [CENSORED] continues:

There was one very high-powered business man in Pune that was a true humanitarian and was working with one orphanage in Pune and we met and were intending to work together. We met with him twice (this was a 1 1/2 yrs ago) and he was intending to visit us next time he was in the states (he traveled often). Before that had a
chance to happen, my Indian Assistant Harshal called me a few months ago and
told me that this guy was killed because he was trying to open an orphanage but
would not join their network

[CENSORED] then relates a bizarre scenario in which Murphy-Scheumann was apparently poisoned by an orphanage director for knowing too much:

I briefed Deb on all of this so that when she traveled with me, she knew to be careful, but she is so not delicate and we were in a meeting with one of them (KP Sethy and I'll include the CNN article about him in the next email.) at his home in Delhi. I was very cautious as I suspected he was in the network, but we had been working with him for a
year. I sat in the meetings and only talked about our work but would not get
into any other topics but he continued to ask questions that had nothing to do
with our work. I said nothing but Deb didn't get the subtle cues and started
talking and there was no way I could shut her up.....I guess I hadn't quite
impressed Deb, and she sat there chattering away, and then she mentioned she was
director of JCICS in the US and they intended to go after these people.......I
honestly thought I wasn't going to leave his house alive.....I could feel the
sweat running down my sides as I was watching this guys expression as he was
taking in information....

I KNOW.....this sounds like a crime novel!

So, we had to catch our flight back to the US but KP asked if he could offer us something to drink before we departed, and I just had this feeling that I should not.....so I politely refused and he would not let up, and Deb eventually accepted.....hmmmm....and
after that trip she was hospitalized and her health gone down ever since and
still today Dr's can not figure out what to do for her. All they know is that
she somehow contracted something in India that is slowly destroying her lungs
& immune system...she is either in bed at home, or in the hospital on a
ventilator....

Poor poisoned Deb. And poor crusading [CENSORED]. But international adoption does come at a price and the child-saving must go on:

When I told [CENSORED] a few days ago, he asked if I was ready to admit that Deb was ill because these guys don't mess around and asked when I was going to change jobs....

In some ways I wish I would have taken that [Rogues?] Gallery job.......on the other hand......I feel like I can't just turn away at this point either.....

[CENSORED] closes her missive with this observation:

In the end, what pisses me off.....and the reason I can't seem to let it go.....is that the baby-buying is all SO un-necessary. The tragedy is that India has far too many orphans.....but these people realized early on that fair-skinned newborns are a very lucrative commodity....and they know how to get their hands on them.....depraved......

The next day, [CENSORED] provides this shocking update:

http://www.ibnlive.com/features/babysnatchers/index.php

I feel rather numb.....If you either read the first article and/or look at the first video, you'll see mention of
Joginder Kaur....she worked with us for years.....we gave over $150K to their
organization (which I now suspect went into their own pockets....we're talking
serious dollar value in India!!!) Anyway, I spent countless days in India with
her, and 3-4 days at their rural orphanage/birthmother home and she visited us
in the US twice (we organized walk-a-thons, ect...)

Coming soon, details about FTIA's relationship with Ellie Skeele and the Nepalese orphanage Community Child Rescue Centre! Until then, keep the emails coming folks.


P.S. Deb, [CENSORED], since I know you are reading this please fill us in on "the truly disgusting things they are involved in" lest our readers let their ever vivid imaginations run wild . . .

Pedo-Parents and the Child Welfare System

Late last year, [Kid's Voice](http://www.kidsvoice.org/default.aspx) executive director Scott Hollander, "argued that just because a person is on the Megan's Law Web site it doesn't mean they are a danger to their child."

In a [televised interview](http://www.wpxi.com/news/14524742/detail.html#) on Pittsburgh's WPXI, Hollander--whose child advocacy organization approved Masha Allen's placement with and adoption by Faith Allen--admitted that "Megan's Law . . . raises a huge red flag that has to be investigated."

Kid's Voice, which reps itself as "a voice of hope, a voice for rights and a voice of experience for children who otherwise cannot speak for themselves" is a impregnable and well-connected Pittsburgh institution with links to the [Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the ACLU](http://www.aclupa.org/chapters/greaterpittsburgh/) (Hollander's father is president of the board of directors), [Child Watch of Pittsburgh](http://www.childwatchofpittsburgh.org/) (Hollander serves on the board with and gave a campaign contribution to Masha's namesake [Judge Cheryl Allen](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04135/316220.stm)), and [Hollywood](http://www.post-gazette.com/tv/20010916realguard0916fnp6.asp) (Hollander was a technical consultant to his brother's hit television show *The Guardian*).

[Note that reporter Barbara White Stack, a favorite of Judge Allen, wrote both these Post-Gazette pieces and serves on the ACLU board with Hollander's dad - but more on that later.]

According to their website:

> "KidsVoice vigilantly guides each child through the court process and ensures that every agency involved meets the full range of the child's needs. Through in-depth investigation, KidsVoice delivers informed recommendations and advocates in court for the child's best interests--in court and beyond--making a dramatic difference in the lives of children, parents and the community at large. KidsVoice ensures that the most appropriate services are in place to protect children from future harm, with the ultimate goal of providing a safe and permanent home for every child."

Enough pablum about the kids, what about the pedo-parents? Can a convicted sex offender ever be an appropriate parent? What about a single divorced middle aged man seeking to adopt a young blond Russian girl? Are guys like Mancuso worthy of investigation and a second chance? Is anyone less a viable option? Who? And how do you decide who is rehabilitated and who isn't?

Focus on Adoption - a Rogues Gallery

Let me keep it as simple as possible. Since as early as December 5, 2004, the "intercountry adoption advocacy organization" [Focus on Adoption](http://www.focusonadoption.com/) has been a virtual rogues gallery of the leading unethical playas in international adoption.

On December 5, 2004, the FOA website listed Jeannene Smith as the organization's treasurer. Smith's name, along with Keith Wallace of [Families thru International Adoption](http://www.ftia.org/) [FTIA], appeared prominently in Masha Allen's October 7, 2003 Child Profile Study Report. Clearly Smith, along with Wallace, knew exactly what had become of child porn star Masha when Smith was promoted to an FOA officer. This from the FOA website:

>Jeannene Smith is the founder and CEO of [Reaching Out thru International Adoption](http://www.childpromise.org/), Inc., [ROTIA] a fully recognized non-profit humanitarian aid and child placement organization. . . She has provided testimony and position statements to Congressional leaders and the media on various international adoption issues such as the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, the Hague Convention and implementation issues both in the US and abroad, child trafficking and international adoption reform and has presented seminars on international adoption issues, practices and processes both in the US and abroad.

> Jeannene has remained involved in legislative issues, serving in the past on several [JCICS](http://www.jcics.org/) committees and currently serves on the JCICS Hague Committee, Ethics Committee, and as the Chair of the Cambodia Caucus. In addition, Jeannene served on the Advisory Council on Intercountry Adoption (ACIA) Hague Committee.

Next up, FTIA. Despite Keith Wallace's desperate attempts during his Congressional testimony to distance himself and FTIA from Smith, ROTIA and the Masha Allen adoption, his lackey Chris Huber was and REMAINS a member of FOA to this day. This from the FOA website dated December 5, 2004:

> Chris Huber is the Latin American Program Manager for Families Thru International Adoption, a 501C3 not for profit international placing agency licensed in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Chris has lived and worked in Central and South America for almost 15 years and currently supervises adoption programs in Guatemala and Brazil as well as developing new programs in other Latin American countries. . . He joined FOA to help assure that children around the world continue to have the opportunity to be adopted into a loving family.

Gee Keith, despite your Congressional denunciations, you must have thought we were just too damn stupid to notice this connection. And until today, I guess we were.

On to yet another FOA sycophant, Carl Jenkins. Jenkins didn't need the notoriety of the Masha Allen debacle to become sullied. Instead he created his very own scandal in a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act](http://www.marshlaw.net/resources/RICO-Brief.pdf) [RICO] lawsuit which is pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I should know because I represent the adoptive parents and the local adoption agency who are plaintiffs in [the litigation](http://www.marshlaw.net/resources/RICO-Appendix.pdf). Welcome to the MarshLaw/ChildLaw club Carl!!

This from the FOA website dated December 5, 2004:

> Carl Jenkins is a former litigation attorney who now consults in non-profit restructuring, insurance coverage issues and wrongful adoption defense. He is also General Counsel for World Child® International, a Maryland-licensed, international adoption agency.

> Carl is actively involved in the Hague Accreditation process through several organizations and has also served such varied community interest groups as: Peer Reviewer for the [Council on Accreditation](http://www.coanet.org); At Large member on the Lawyer-to-Lawyer Committee for the Maryland Sixth Circuit; and served as Counsel to the Clergy for the Holy Name Order (Franciscans). He has spoken or moderated panels at [Resolve](http://www.resolve.org), F.A.C.E., [Quad A](http://www.adoptionattorneys.org) and JCICS conferences regularly during the past several years. He also has been published in [Adoptive Family Magazine](http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/) and other periodic journals on adoption issues.

Now a shout out to my other fav peeps at the [National Council for Adoption](http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/), who just welcomed Jenkins's agency [World Child International](http://www.worldchild.org) as a new member, and some free advice: you should always Google "[marshlaw](http://www.marshlaw.net)" + "proposed NCFA member" as part of your rigorous due diligence. Just a friendly hint to help you avoid future embarrassment.

Moving right on through FOA's opium den we find, on the April 5, 2005 version of their website, media spin-mistress Cindy Peck. Take it away Cin (in her very own words):

> Cynthia Peck is a persuasive adoption advocate who has worn many hats in the
adoption field for thirty years. She brings to the FOA Board a perspective
honed as an educator, an agency practitioner, an adoptive parent of 8 young
adults and a writer. For 20 years, Cindy edited and published Roots and
Wings Adoption Magazine, which merged with [Adoption TODAY](http://www.adoptinfo.net) in 2000. She is
the author of Parents at Last: Celebrating Adoption and the New Pathways to
Parenthood (Random House/Crown). Currently, Cindy is the editor of
[Fostering Families TODAY Magazine](http://www.fosteringfamiliestoday.com), which she co-founded with publisher
Richard Fischer in 2001. She has served on the founding Boards of two
international adoption agencies and on the Board of JCICS.

A lot of good action advocacy words there Cynthia. A real addition to the team with street creds to boot. Way to go girl!

Now right before all that REAL BAD NEWS about Masha broke on December 1, 2005 in the led-by-Jeannene-Smith-ever-ethical-international-adoption-industry's universally reviled [ABC Primetime](http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1364110) exposé, FOA added this curious disclaimer to their website:

> Focus On Adoption is a volunteer, non-profit organization. Most of our activities are funded through the donations of adoption professionals. Focus On Adoption does not have the ability to audit the ethical policies of its supporters. While we hope that only adoption professionals who agree with and operate within proper ethical standards actively support us, this is not something enforceable by Focus On Adoption. Therefore, private individuals researching adoption providers should not view an agency's support of Focus On Adoption as being anything more than the fact that the agency has donated to help us with our mission. Support of Focus On Adoption should not be considered an endorsement of any sort on our part.

Whew, that certainly cleared things up, leaving FOA blissfully absolved as far as all that distasteful Masha pedophile stuff goes. Wouldn't want the unsuspecting public and future international adoption consumers to get the wrong idea. And all of this just in time to welcome Tom DiFilipo to the FOA board!

Tom. How are you? Folks you remember Tom. Tom is the guy who now runs the [Joint Council on International Children Services](http://www.jcics.org) or JCICS in international adopt-speak. You can read all about him [right here](http://www.childlaw.us/2007/12/child-exploitation-cracks-in.html) on this very blog.

Tommy's the guy (can I call you Tommy?) who allowed ROTIA (yep that's Jeannene Smith's agency AGAIN) to resign from JCICS right before they had to undertake the nasty job of SELF-REGULATION. Yeah that's right. An INVESTIGATION of ROTIA for Masha's adoption which I had to request because, after all, what did they know about Jeannene Smith and ROTIA anyway. That is, before I pointed it out to them.

I know I know, keeping up with the news is such a challenge these days even when your peeps attend and [testify](http://www.jcics.org/Hearing%209.27.06%20-%20Jared%20Rolsky%20Testimony.doc) at the actual Congressional hearing where Jeannene was called a liar and threatened with jail and all that. But given the heavy hitter which Tommy certainly is, he's got TONS of Congressional hearings to worry about. I can certainly understand how this little ole' hearing slipped his mind.

And what a coincidence. By the time I told Tom all about it, ROTIA had resigned JCICS, and Jeannene had packed up her pony and headed off into the sunset only to be re-emerge like a phoenix six months later as [ChildsPromise](http://www.childpromise.org/). Boy, Tom must have a BIG JOB keeping up with all those ethical adoption agencies considering all the name changes, scandals, lawsuits and such. But here he is in his own words from the November 25, 2005 FOA website. Take it away Tom:

> Tom DiFilipo currently serves as Vice-President of Programs & Services for the [CASI Foundation](http://www.adoptcasi.org). He recently served as Chief Operations Officer for [International Children's Alliance](http://www.adoptica.org), Board Chairperson of Discovery Outreach and as an independent consultant in management practices for a variety of non-profits. In the private sector, Tom has held executive management positions with Sorbee International, Mars Inc. and Pace Brokers. Tom is the father of three children, two of whom joined his family through adoption in Russia.

Curiously, right around this time FOA stopped accepting new members. I mean with members like these, who needs more members right. And one can certainly appreciate their fears because once the Masha story broke there were sure to be THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of desperate and eager single middle aged men willing to do anything to jump on the pedophile, I mean ETHICAL and RESPONSIBLE, adoption bandwagon.

All with the purest of motives of course, of course, but still, all that cash, the paperwork, applications and all the peer vetting, careful review, background checks and such. I for one can understand how more "official members" would be just way way too much for FOA handle, especially after Masha. Thankfully anyone can still support the cause by donating. Give early and give often. "Think of the children. This is what it's all about."

Here's the pithy disclaimer FOA put on their site sometime in the fall of 2005:

> While Focus on Adoption no longer has official "members", below are suggested donations to help keep our mission alive. Donating annually at the suggested rates may entitle you to discounts on conferences and events sponsored by Focus on Adoption.

Last but not least (don't worry girl, I didn't forget you of all my homey-gs) is FOA board member Debbie Spivack. Debbie actually gets all the credit for opening my mind to the wonders of FOA. Let's let Deb rap for herself before we take a closer look at her rep.

> Debbie Spivack is an attorney whose practice focuses on adoption and family building. . . . She has worked with client families and organizations over the years to assist them in achieving their goals, and has been a vocal and effective advocate on adoption policy issues.

> Most recently, Debbie served as the Executive Director of Reaching Out thru International Adoption, Inc. In this position, she was involved in all aspects of placing children from countries in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central America with families throughout the United States. She worked closely with adoptive parent clients on all aspects of their cases, and worked closely with foreign counterparts to address legal issues on the foreign processing side of their cases. She also developed relationships with foreign attorneys, orphanages, and government officials to create new adoption programs and provide humanitarian aid.

> Debbie has also been an effective voice to advocate in favor of adoption policy to enable children without families find homes. Most notably, she advocated effectively for appropriate modifications to the regulations proposed in 2003 to implement the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 and Hague Convention in the United States.The Hague Regulation Analysis she drafted was widely favored among adoption advocates for its damaging legal and policy impact, and, ultimately its suggestions were adopted substantially into the final draft of the Regulations, issued in February 2006. She also served an active member of a number of committees analyzing the Regulations (including the JCICS Hague Regulation committee and the Hague Committee of Advisory Council on Intercountry Adoption, a collaboration of national organizations recognized as leaders in the ethical and professional practice of adoption and child welfare services). Debbie further served as the JCICS Chairperson of the Azerbaijan Caucus and as the Co-Chairperson of the ICARE Government Affairs Committee. In 2005, Debbie was awarded with the JCICS 110% Member Award in appreciation for the work performed on the ICARE legislation analysis.

Yo Deb that's a heavy rep and a lotta words. But we're trying to take a comprehensive look here so let's not forget your premier role in all this international adoption stuff. Folks are you ready? Now s l o w l y open your eyes . . .

[Speak for the Children: Little Things Really Can Make a Difference
](http://www.guatadopt.com/archives/000262.html) by Debbie Spivack. No better words have been spoken and no greater position taken than those who SPEAK FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! Fearless souls like Debbie Spivack. Filled with zeal . . . damn now I'll just say it (I used to be an evangelical) filled with the HOLY SPIRIT! (Debbie you and [Judge Cheryl Allen](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04135/316220.stm) should DEFINITELY get together. Cheryl meet Debbie, Deb meet Cher. Judge A. herself played another pivotal role in poor Masha Allen's life, but more on that later. What is it about Pennsylvania, folks. What can it be . . .)

Now given the miraculous power of the internet, you gentle readers, and the entire world can carefully read and thoughtfully consider the finely honed words of Ms. Spivak in their exact context in April 2005.

A quick review of the timeline here. By October 2003 Jeannene Smith and her cronies know all about Masha's horrible fate. December 2004 Smith become treasurer of FOA. FTIA's Huber is also ensconced on the FOA board along with RICO Jenkins. By April 2005 the Disney World Girl Masha Allen's story has appeared in the international news. An eager press corps can not be far behind in their search for the truth behind the story. Media maven Cindy Peck is ready to spin the humanitarian angle. "**THINK OF THE CHILDREN**" becomes the universal battle cry. Lawyer Spivack rises to the challenge.

The result is [Speak for the Children: Little Things Really Can Make a Difference
](http://www.guatadopt.com/archives/000262.html) which was posted on the FOA member listserve. It was clearly a proactive effort "[g]iven the recent wave of negative publicity, ROTIA thought it might be useful to share this article with adoptive parents and professionals in the hopes of working together for the benefit of the children."

Elizabeth Bartholet, a Harvard law professor who gave [the keynote speech](http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bartholet/FOCUSONADOPTION.pdf) at the January 2005 FOA conference, provides a veneer of intellectual respectability and a much needed bibliographic reference. No time to worry about conflicts of interest. Not when there are children and the entire institution of international adoption which needs saving.

Spivack's apologetic issues to the faithful with Masha as its centerpiece. It becomes the [Mein Kampf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) in FOA's effort to turn back the negative publicity associated with the Masha story. [Read it](http://www.guatadopt.com/archives/000262.html) (don't miss Steve Osborn's comments at the bottom - a must read!!), then [digest my commentary](http://www.childlaw.us/2008/01/children-for-sale-guatemalan-p.html#comment-33664).

And finally look what ultimately happens. Masha gets erased from the story. In the version Spivack eventually [posts on her lawfirm's website](http://www.familybuildinglaw.net/files/Speak_20for_20the_20Children_201.pdf), "Masha" becomes "Jenya" a self-styled "child like yours. . . . saved from a life of
prostitution and drugs by a family from halfway around the world who had the resources and desire to care for her." If only this much could be said for Masha Allen. If only.