ChildLaw

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

This just in . . .

And from Pound Pup Legacy this fantastic resource - an article archive on the Masha Allen case.

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?

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.