Adoption Bill brainstorm...

I re-read the bill that former Rep. Mark Maddox wrote a few years ago.  It got pushed back and to be honest, I'm glad it did.  I think Maddox meant well, but he's not schooled in adoption and doesn't quite understand what needs to happen to make it a safer adoption world, not just for prospective adoptive parents, but for expectant women considering adoption and birth mothers who have already placed their children.  It needs to be a safe world where those families are brought together for the love of a child. 

Because adoption plan perimeters vary from state to state, there needs to be one law making it the same. 

For example:

This is a bill proposing nationwide perimeters on adoption plans involving a pregnant woman considering adoption and the prospective adoptive parent(s)
Prospective adoptive parents shall be responsible for living expenses as deemed necessary by the expectant mother's attorney or adoption agency for a period of 4 months pre birth and a period of 1 month proceeding birth of the child.
Women who have placed a baby for adoption shall have 5 business days after signing papers to reclaim the baby.
 
If the rules are the same, it thwarts scammers who know they can keep the same story and find couples that live in different states to work with, whether pregnant or not, thus maximizing their financial gain.
 
As far as having no law in which to hold scammers accountable is a travesty.  It's fraudulent.  It's emotional distress. It's unimaginable there is not one single law making it a crime.
 
In Maddox's bill, he wanted pregnant women who had followed through with the adoption plan and accepted funds, be responsible for giving the money back if she decides to keep the baby.  This is just without a doubt, hands down what should absolutely not be in any law.  This is taking away that mother's right to chose!  She may have planned on placing the baby the entire time but held her baby in the end and couldn't go through with it no matter how badly she feels about hurting the prospective parents.  She probably felt guilty for taking the money while pregnant and would give it back if she could.  Unfortunately for the adoptive family, they have just lost their baby.  They are devastated and know that the thousands of money they have given for the birth mom's living expenses are gone and they have pushed back trying again because they are out of money and their hearts are broken.  At least if the law in each state capped living expenses at 4 months pre birth and 1 month post birth everyone would know what to expect.  Expectant mothers would be given the extra help they need with living expenses deemed necessary through her attorney, thus alleviating some of their stress.  Prospective adoptive parents will know they have that financial responsibility, but it won't be as much money lost if the adoption falls through.  Perhaps they can re cooperate quicker financially and begin to rebuild their dream.
 
As an adoptive mother I have lost money on scams, paid living expenses once for 10 months and then again for another 5.  That doesn't include additional expenses involved like travel, attorneys, agencies, social workers, etc.  The absolute hardest time for me was the waiting time until I knew my babies were mine.  Kennedy's birth mom went before a judge 2 days after birth and immediately upon signing (in which he was tough on her in a good way) her rights were terminated.  Kingston's birth mom had 10 business days.  In both cases my worst fear was them wanting to reclaim their birth children.  I knew they had every right and they deserve that right, but how would I ever be able to give them up? I know how important it is, however, for mothers to have that time to cope with their decision and make sure they can live with it.  Kingston's birth mom knew that because our adoption plan was in the wake of the scam, I was terrified.  I couldn't help it.  She told me once she wanted her attorney to draw up papers waiving her right to a waiting period.  I absolutely refused.  There was no way I as going to be a part of something she could have regretted the rest of her life, nor was I going to have something for her to throw back into my face as if I had pushed her to do it.  Not a chance. During this waiting period,  think of the child.  He's already endured birth and needs his mother.  He's been depending on his adoptive mother and the longer that happens the more they bond and the less time the birth mother has had during that time. Therefore, I think a 5 business day waiting time is logical for the baby, birth mom and adoptive family.
 
This is what I came up with for the second bill making adoption scam a felony:
 
Adoption - Creates fraud offenses and a civil cause of action

in certain circumstances involving women posing as expectant mothers considering adoption or expectant mothers with no intent on placing the unborn child or promising the child to more than one family and prospective adoptive parents or families.





Under this bill, it would be a Class E felony for a woman to
represent herself to a prospective adoptive parent or family as
either:


(1) Representing herself as being pregnant when she knows she is not and making an adoption plan and/or accepting  funds from the family during the alleged pregnancy; or
(2) Accepting funds from and/or making an adoption plan with more than one family  during her pregnancy




In addition to probation, incarceration, or criminal fines,this bill
requires the sentencing court to sentence an offender to pay full
restitution to the parent or family for all the funds paid to the
offender by the parent or family during the pregnancy or alleged pregnancy. Offenders will also be required to pay restitution to the parent or family for personal expenses incurred.


This bill also authorizes a cause of action for a parent or family to
bring suit against a woman for the full restitution of all the funds
the parent or family paid to her during her pregnancy, if:




(1) The woman represents herself to a prospective parent or family as being pregnant when she knows she is not and accepts funds from the alleged pregnancy or follows an adoption plan of action.
(2)Throughout the pregnancy or alleged pregnancy, she accepts money  from more than one couple previous to birth with the promise of adopting the child

Any suggestions would be appreciated!

Are you freaking kidding me???

Armstrong baby scam suspect awaits judge's ruling

By Brigid Beatty, LEADER TIMES

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Last updated: 8:15 am

About the writer

Brigid Beatty is a Leader Times staff writer and can be reached at 724-543-1303 or via e-mail.



KITTANNING — A woman who was arrested last month on charges connected to an alleged baby scam is awaiting a district judge's decision following her preliminary trial Wednesday.

Amy Slanina, 32, was arrested Dec. 30 after she was discovered at the domestic violence shelter, HAVIN (Helping All Victims in Need), in Kittanning under a false name. HAVIN Director Jo Ellen Bowman said she called police after learning that Slanina was wanted on a parole violation in Ohio. Following her arrest at HAVIN, Slanina was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and confessed to police that she had snorted Klonopin. While staying at HAVIN, Slanina allegedly used her cell phone and a computer at the shelter to contact a couple from Idaho. Slanina, calling herself Amiee, allegedly texted and e-mailed Richard and Rebecca Vest and conned them into believing she was pregnant and ready to give up her baby for adoption.

Slanina was initially charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, theft by deception and theft of services. She waived her right to a preliminary hearing on those charges on Jan. 4.

She has since been charged with two counts of criminal use of a communication facility, which were later withdrawn, and two counts of disorderly conduct causing physically offensive conditions to the alleged victims.

Before yesterday's hearing began, Assistant District Attorney Cindy Calarie said, that there is currently "no law to protect victims of this type of crime (baby scam) because no money passed hands."

During the hearing, Kittanning officer Greg Koprivnak testified before District Judge James Owen that in his opinion Slanina's actions caused physically offensive conditions for the Vests because they believed they would soon be adopting a baby.

Koprivnak said the couple flew to Pittsburgh, rented a car and arrived at Butler Memorial Hospital on Dec. 30 where they believed Slanina, or the woman known to them as Amiee, was in labor.

At the time of Slanina's arrest, while Koprivnik questioned the Vests, he said "Rebecca was crying profusely and didn't understand why someone would fake a pregnancy and uproot them from Idaho for a baby that didn't exist."

In addition to the emotional toll, Koprivnak said, the Vests spent $2,524.50 which included expenses for plane tickets, car rental, hotel accommodations, food and gas.

Defense attorney, Chuck Pascal, argued that Slanina never asked the Vests for money. Pascal asked Koprivnak if there is record of a text message in which Slanina specifically asked the Vests to come to Butler at a particular time: "Was there an overt invitation to come to Butler now?"

Koprivnak answered no, that it was inferred based on the sequence of messages sent between Slanina and the Vests and said that Slanina had sent a text to the Vests saying, "Please tell me you are coming."

Pascal asked Koprivnak: "Were they (the Vests) ever placed in physical danger by flying to Pennsylvania from Idaho?"

Koprivnak answered: "I don't know if I can answer that, I don't believe so."

Pascal responded that Slanina is "basically charged here because she lied."

"She (Slanina) lied to them (the Vests), creating a fantasy. She made up a persona and as a result of that, led them to believe she would give them her baby. Based on that they made a decision to fly to Pennsylvania," said Pascal.

He argued that the actions of the defendant do not meet the criteria for disorderly conduct causing physically offensive conditions and that the charges should be dismissed.

Calarie argued that Slanina had been engaged in "a very cruel game."

"The Vests were seriously inconvenienced," said Calarie. "She (Slanina) didn't get to the point of asking them for money because she was in jail."

Owen said he would take the matter under advisement and do some research before making a decision.

Bail was set at $25,000

The scammer wins again

She's won yet again.

 She sat in the courtroom yesterday and made mental notes of how to stay in the gray areas of the law so as not to face punishment now or for the future crimes she's planning. She's figuring out ways to get away with bigger crimes.  She knows now too that she can play the emotional scam for kicks and use that MO in the future so as not to get in trouble or face time in jail. 

Officer Greg emailed me early this morning with details of the preliminary hearing.  He had to drop the serious charge with no other felony to file to it.  He's praying and hoping that at this point the judge will at least keep the two misdemeanor charges, but he hasn't ruled on that yet.  Of course, he's extremely frustrated and spent countless personal hours trying to find something to keep her in jail to no avail.  There is just no money involved on this one and no law making this type of emotional, cruel, heartless scam a felony or even a crime for that matter.  Though the thoughts of other current victims who gave her money is heartwrenching, at this point, it would be the only saving factor this time around. 

Basically, there is nothing else he can do.  She will continue to do this and another state will be going through the same thing...trying to find something to charge her with.  Escentially, no state wants her there and they are just passing her around to another because they don't know what to do with her.

So now she will face another judgement which will basically lead to nothing and be re-paroled to Ohio and again, nothing will happen.  In a short while, she will be destroying other lives.

TN bill written by Rep. Mark Maddox

After the scam, I contacted hundreds of politcal officials. TN State Rep Mark Maddox responded and wrote the following bill. He did present the bill, but it was "pushed back" by adoption attorneys in Nashville.


Summary of the TN bill:
*SB1713 by *Herron. (HB2096 by *Maddox.)

Adoption - Creates fraud offenses and a civil cause of action
in certain circumstances involving birth mothers and prospective
adoptive parents or families. - Amends TCA Title 36 and Title39.

iscal Summary for *SB1713 / HB2096
Increase State Expenditures - $6,600 / Incarceration*

Bill Summary for *SB1713 / HB2096

Under this bill, it would be a Class E felony for a woman to
represent herself to a prospective adoptive parent or family as
either:

(1) Being pregnant when she knows she is not and to acceptfunds from
the parent or family during the alleged pregnancy; or
(2) Being willing to allow such parent or family to adopt herunborn
child and to accept funds from the family during her pregnancy with
the intent not to allow such adoption.

In addition to probation, incarceration, or criminal fines,this bill
requires the sentencing court to sentence an offender to payfull
restitution to the parent or family for all the funds paid tothe
offender by the parent or family during the pregnancy or alleged pregnancy.

This bill also authorizes a cause of action for a parent or family to
bring suit against a woman for the full restitution of all thefunds
the parent or family paid to her during her pregnancy, if:
(1) The woman represents herself to a prospective parent or family asbeing
willing to allow the parent or family to adopt her unbornchild and
accepts funds from the family during her pregnancy; and
(2)Throughout the pregnancy she intends to give the child up tothe
parent or family for adoption, but when the child is born she does
not follow through with the adoptive plans.