Robin writes:
My contention is that if they wish to take advantage of anothercounty's laws they should take up residence in that country.>

<snip>

Goodness, Robin. It seems to me you'd like to see the long arm of UK law grow
longer for each of it citizens, following them all over the world should they
travel out of the Mother Land and/or forcing them to move out of the Mother
Land should they wish to exercise their rights elsewhere. Talk about nanny
state!


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
Robin writes:My contention is that if they wish to take advantage of anothercounty's laws they should take up residence in that country.><snip>Goodness, Robin. It seems to me you'd like to see the long arm of UK law growlonger for each of it citizens, following them all over the world should theytravel out of the Mother Land and/or forcing them to move out of the MotherLand should they wish to exercise their rights elsewhere. Talk about nannystate!P2P

So you reckon we should have let the Kilshaws get away with it then?


Robin

>So you reckon we should have let the Kilshaws get away with it then?Robin


The Kilshaw's violated US adoption laws, specifically adoption laws in the
State of Arkansas where they attempted to finalize making their US "adoption"
null and void. I don't know how the UK viewed their actions. Don't care. Here
in the US they did not "adopt". They "kidnapped".


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
So you reckon we should have let the Kilshaws get away with it then?RobinThe Kilshaw's violated US adoption laws, specifically adoption laws in theState of Arkansas where they attempted to finalize making their US "adoption"null and void. I don't know how the UK viewed their actions. Don't care. Herein the US they did not "adopt". They "kidnapped".P2P


I'm not sure that that is how most people see it. There was all manner
of law braking going on in the US but not by the Kilshaws, they only
broke English law by bringing the twins back to the UK where they had
not fulfilled all of the necessary requirements to adopt under the laws
of England & Wales.

The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoption
facilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it in
good faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court.
Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standards
and even by the standards of the rest of the US, but even so the law
there was broken as the various parties had not resided in Arkansas for
the ridiculously short time required and of course the twins were not
really available for adoption as a California couple had already started
adoption proceedings there.

The court in Arkansas was not aware of the full facts, however that was
not the kilshaws fault in any way. The Kilshaws didn't know all of
that, they thought they had legally adopted the twins under Arkansas law
but they had been deceived. I can't see how they were guilty kidnap,
only of breaking several English laws on international adoption,
including some laws that the Milibands seem to have found a way around

The Kilshaws would never in a million years have had child placed with
them for adoption in Wales, their country of residence, or anywhere
else in the UK. So they went shopping on the internet for an adoption in
the USA. They did that because Alan Kilshaw being a lawyer knew just how
shoddy adoption law is in many states and how easy it was to adopt
infants. Had it not been for the previous attempt to adopt by the other
couple they might have got away with it. There own local authority
Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably the
UK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.


Robin

Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:

<snip>
The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoptionfacilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it ingood faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>

Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about the convoluted
journey the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't think
much of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell me the
Kilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were telling the
truth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about her
state of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the first place.

Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standardsand even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>

Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parent has
ten days to revoke consent. There are states with much shorter revocation
times. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if the
birthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed with
the courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. An
adoption decree is not issued for about six more months.

<snip>
Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably theUK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.>

There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you think otherwise,
please do explain.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/2/2005 7:31 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050202193140.17709.00000401@mb-m07.aol.com>Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:<snip>The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoptionfacilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it ingood faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about the convolutedjourney the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't thinkmuch of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell metheKilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were telling thetruth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about herstate of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the first place.

I told you that they called two of the attorneys I work with before they landed
in Arkansas. Not to defend ANYBODY in this joke of a debacle, but both
attorneys told me they were called by the facilitator who was calling on behalf
of clients. I would bet the Kilshaw's were given instructions by the
facilitator on what to do and where to go. They trusted their facilitator, not
too smart for a barrister, but I think they were already there, in too deep,
and Mrs. debacle who wanted the twins at this point, was unrelenting.

Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standardsand even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parent hasten days to revoke consent. There are states with much shorter revocationtimes. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if thebirthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed withthe courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. Anadoption decree is not issued for about six more months.<snip>Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably theUK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.>There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you think otherwise,please do explain.P2P


Don't you love Robin, he is an expert and critic of the U.S., strange though,
there are no adoption problems in his country, and his countrymen keep calling
me to adopt.

Palms2pines wrote:
Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:<snip>The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoptionfacilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it ingood faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about the convolutedjourney the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't thinkmuch of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell me theKilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were telling thetruth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about herstate of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the first place.

Not sure how much they knew, I don't suppose anyone else is either, the
one who definitely did know what was going on was the facilitator. What
has become of her? A ten year prison sentence, I would think would be
appropriate.

Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standardsand even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parent hasten days to revoke consent.

Ten days from what? If you me she has only ten days from signing the
consent for placement, then that is absolutely appalling.
There are states with much shorter revocationtimes. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if thebirthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed withthe courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. Anadoption decree is not issued for about six more months.

That alone is pretty shoddy by international standards. I didn't say it
was the worst in the US, it doesn't surprise me that there are worse.
<snip>Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably theUK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you think otherwise,please do explain.


I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself above.
How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,
six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a final
decision at or before birth?


Robin

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/2/2005 7:31 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050202193140.17709.00000401@mb-m07.aol.com>Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:<snip>The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoptionfacilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it ingood faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about the convolutedjourney the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't thinkmuch of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell methe Kilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were telling thetruth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about herstate of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the first place.I told you that they called two of the attorneys I work with before they landedin Arkansas. Not to defend ANYBODY in this joke of a debacle, but bothattorneys told me they were called by the facilitator who was calling on behalfof clients. I would bet the Kilshaw's were given instructions by thefacilitator on what to do and where to go. They trusted their facilitator, nottoo smart for a barrister, but I think they were already there, in too deep,and Mrs. debacle who wanted the twins at this point, was unrelenting.



Allan Kilshaw was a solicitor and never as far as I am aware a
barrister, but no that's none too smart for a lawyer of any kind. But
then I suppose the facilitator was as full of bull**** you are, but a
bit more convincing with it.


Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standardsand even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parent hasten days to revoke consent. There are states with much shorter revocationtimes. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if thebirthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed withthe courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. Anadoption decree is not issued for about six more months.<snip>Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably theUK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.>There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you think otherwise,please do explain.P2PDon't you love Robin, he is an expert and critic of the U.S., strange though,there are no adoption problems in his country, and his countrymen keep callingme to adopt.


Let me know if any of them are successful, there are about nine
certificates of authorisation to adopt from the US issued in a year
here, so if you are doing a roaring business with England & Wales I'm
sure there are people who would be interested to hear about it Marcy.
We've all sorts of criminals in the UK who go abroad for all sorts of
things. Cocaine, heroin, stolen antiques, illegally adopted children,
you name it we'll have someone who's immoral enough to do it if they can
find a supplier somewhere and a country with really shoddy laws.


Robin

>ubject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 3:53 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36e72fF4uvpdnU4@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote:Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:<snip>The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoptionfacilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it ingood faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about theconvolutedjourney the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't thinkmuch of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell metheKilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were tellingthetruth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about herstate of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the firstplace.Not sure how much they knew, I don't suppose anyone else is either, theone who definitely did know what was going on was the facilitator. Whathas become of her? A ten year prison sentence, I would think would beappropriate.Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standardsand even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parenthasten days to revoke consent.Ten days from what? If you me she has only ten days from signing theconsent for placement, then that is absolutely appalling.There are states with much shorter revocationtimes. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if thebirthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed withthe courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. Anadoption decree is not issued for about six more months.That alone is pretty shoddy by international standards. I didn't say itwas the worst in the US, it doesn't surprise me that there are worse.<snip>Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably theUK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you thinkotherwise,please do explain.I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself above.How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a finaldecision at or before birth?Robin

You know Robin, you continue to mouth off and criticize the U.S. about issues
which
you show yourself to be stunnngly ignorant. You then pretend to not know what
is being said by mincing words or changing the wording around to suit your
needs.

You know what was being said, it was crystal clear, you also know that you can
look up the adoption laws of each state. Most states are vey consistent with
the laws. There are national organizations that have guidelines which all of
the states use as a foundation for their state laws.

You slam the U.S as being inferior to the Brits, your stupid game of cloaking
it in wanting to seek information, and then acting surprised at the information
is moronic. Everybody accused Jackie of slamming the U.S., you are a much more
offensive.

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
ubject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 3:53 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36e72fF4uvpdnU4@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote:Robin writes of the Kilshaw's:<snip>>The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an adoption>facilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered it in>good faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas court. >>>>>>Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about theconvolutedjourney the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by rented van. I don't thinkmuch of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith". You cannot tell metheKilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and believed they were tellingthetruth and nothing but the truth. They knew Tranda Wecker was lying about herstate of residence. That is how they ended up in Arkansas in the firstplace.Not sure how much they knew, I don't suppose anyone else is either, theone who definitely did know what was going on was the facilitator. Whathas become of her? A ten year prison sentence, I would think would beappropriate.>Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our standards>and even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>>>>>Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a birthmother/parenthasten days to revoke consent.Ten days from what? If you me she has only ten days from signing theconsent for placement, then that is absolutely appalling.There are states with much shorter revocationtimes. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if thebirthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed withthe courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. Anadoption decree is not issued for about six more months.That alone is pretty shoddy by international standards. I didn't say itwas the worst in the US, it doesn't surprise me that there are worse.<snip>>Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably the>UK's equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.>>>>There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you thinkotherwise,please do explain.I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself above.How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a finaldecision at or before birth?RobinYou know Robin, you continue to mouth off and criticize the U.S. about issueswhich you show yourself to be stunnngly ignorant. You then pretend to not know whatis being said by mincing words or changing the wording around to suit yourneeds.You know what was being said, it was crystal clear, you also know that you canlook up the adoption laws of each state. Most states are vey consistent withthe laws. There are national organizations that have guidelines which all ofthe states use as a foundation for their state laws.You slam the U.S as being inferior to the Brits, your stupid game of cloakingit in wanting to seek information, and then acting surprised at the informationis moronic. Everybody accused Jackie of slamming the U.S., you are a much moreoffensive.

in article 20050203070748.22012.00000351@mb-m05.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1 at
chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 3/2/05 12:07 pm:
ubject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American baby From: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/3/2005 3:53 A.M. Eastern
Standard Time Message-id: <36e72fF4uvpdnU4@individual.net> Palms2pines wrote:

Robin writes of the Kilshaw's: <snip>


> The Kilshaws saw an advertisement on web site belonging to an
adoption> facilitator, you know, someone just like our Marcy, they answered
it in> good faith and went through an adoption hearing in the Arkansas
court. >>



Oh, dear. There was *so* much more to it than that. Read about the convoluted journey the Kilshaw's took en route to Arkansas by
rented van. I don't think much of anything the Kilshaw's did was in "good faith".
You cannot tell me the Kilshaw's stood before a judge in Arkansas and
believed they were telling the truth and nothing but the truth. They knew
Tranda Wecker was lying about her state of residence. That is how they
ended up in Arkansas in the first place.



Not sure how much they knew, I don't suppose anyone else is either,
the one who definitely did know what was going on was the facilitator. What has become of her? A ten year prison sentence, I would think would be appropriate.


> Arkansas adoption law even at its best is pretty shoddy by our
standards> and even by the standards of the rest of the US, >>


Really? What part makes them "shoddy"? In Arkansas a
birthmother/parent has ten days to revoke consent.


Ten days from what? If you me she has only ten days from signing the
consent for placement, then that is absolutely appalling.


There are states with much shorter revocation times. The difference in Arkansas is that on the tenth day if the birthmother/parents have not revoked consent, an interlocutory is filed with the courts making the adoption "final" for all intents and purposes. An adoption decree
is not issued for about six more months.


That alone is pretty shoddy by international standards. I didn't say
it was the worst in the US, it doesn't surprise me that there are worse.

<snip>

> Flintshire is pretty crap at providing social services, probably
the UK's> equivalent of Arkansas as far as adoption is concerned.

There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you think otherwise, please do explain.

I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself
above. How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,
six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a final
decision at or before birth? Robin


You know Robin, you continue to mouth off and criticize the U.S.
about issues which you show yourself to be stunnngly ignorant. You then pretend to
not know what is being said by mincing words or changing the wording around to
suit your needs.

You know what was being said, it was crystal clear, you also know
that you can look up the adoption laws of each state. Most states are vey
consistent with the laws. There are national organizations that have guidelines which
all of the states use as a foundation for their state laws.

You slam the U.S as being inferior to the Brits, your stupid game of
cloaking it in wanting to seek information, and then acting surprised at the information is moronic. Everybody accused Jackie of slamming the
U.S., you are a much more offensive.


I understood it perfectly well, but that doesn't make it any better
Marcy. There were some legitimate questions that arose from what was said.

It doesn't surprise me that a morally defunct money grabbing flesh
peddling adoption facilitator would want to misunderstand my criticism
of it.

Jackie slammed everything to do with the US and blamed it for all her
woes. With me it's just adoption laws that let scum like you to cream
off a profit at the expense of everyone else involved and that it allow
adoptions to be finalised almost in an instant.

Well that and the death penalty laws, particularly the death penalty
laws in Texas.

Robin

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 7:45 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ekljF50q9i4U1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 wrote:ubject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 3:53 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36e72fF4uvpdnU4@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote:

snip Robin's bull**** again:

Jackie slammed everything to do with the US and blamed it for all herwoes. With me it's just adoption laws that let scum like you to creamoff a profit at the expense of everyone else involved and that it allowadoptions to be finalised almost in an instant.Well that and the death penalty laws, particularly the death penaltylaws in Texas.Robin


Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for the
people, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.

If the birthmother has made her decision to place the baby with adoptive
parents of her choosing, then three days, five days, or ten week would make no
difference. The women I know that have placed have thought long and hard before
calling me. If they call me to check out their options I offer them counseling
services that are local to their area. I have had many women change their minds
at delivery or shortly thereafter, none have changed their minds after the baby
was placed. All of my clients know that if that should happen, the baby is
returned immediately, regardless of any paperwork or termination of parental
rights. My clients know this upfront and it is very clearly stated by the
attorneys or agencies as well.

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 7:45 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ekljF50q9i4U1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 wrote:>ubject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American baby>From: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks>Date: 2/3/2005 3:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <36e72fF4uvpdnU4@individual.net>>>Palms2pines wrote:>>>>>snip Robin's bull**** again:Jackie slammed everything to do with the US and blamed it for all herwoes. With me it's just adoption laws that let scum like you to creamoff a profit at the expense of everyone else involved and that it allowadoptions to be finalised almost in an instant.Well that and the death penalty laws, particularly the death penaltylaws in Texas.RobinGood thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.

A better system for money grabbing little pimps like you Marcy?
If the birthmother has made her decision to place the baby with adoptiveparents of her choosing, then three days, five days, or ten week would make nodifference. The women I know that have placed have thought long and hard beforecalling me. If they call me to check out their options I offer them counselingservices that are local to their area. I have had many women change their mindsat delivery or shortly thereafter, none have changed their minds after the babywas placed.


I suppose you make faily sure that you lose touch with them by then.

All of my clients know that if that should happen, the baby isreturned immediately, regardless of any paperwork or termination of parentalrights. My clients know this upfront and it is very clearly stated by theattorneys or agencies as well.


Who are your clients in these cases, the paps or the pregnant girls?



If I remember rightly from all the flak that you were getting here a
while back, you seem to have upset someone quite badly. And then
there's all the other stuff about you that turns up on Google suggesting
that you're not even the most trustworthy amongst the flesh peddlers.



Robin

I wrote:
There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you thinkotherwise,please do explain.

Robin replied:
I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself above.How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a finaldecision at or before birth?Robin


There is no required period a birthmother/parent must wait before signing a
voluntary relinquishment in Arkansas. They can sign at any point after birth,
as in most states. Note..."can". No one in any state is required. No state
allows for a relinquishment of a child prior to birth*. Once a voluntary
relinquishment is signed in Arkansas, it becomes irrevocable in ten days. Ten
days. That is longer than many states provide and right in the ballpark with
most states. On the tenth day an interlocutory is filed in Arkansas. However,
the decree of adoption does not make its way through the courts for about six
months. Again, there is nothing shonky about Arkansas adoption laws. That's an
urban myth.


P2P



*I heard the rumor that the State of Alabama allows for an "intent to
relinquish" form prior to giving birth. I also heard that if a woman signs one,
however, she must be allowed an even longer time post birth to revoke.


P2P

Marcy to Robin:
Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.>>


Amen. God bless America.

:::::cue Star Spangled Banner::::


P2P

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/3/2005 11:49 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050203114928.22012.00000369@mb-m05.aol.com>Marcy to Robin:Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.>>Amen. God bless America.:::::cue Star Spangled Banner::::P2P

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/3/2005 11:49 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050203114928.22012.00000369@mb-m05.aol.com>Marcy to Robin:Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.>>Amen. God bless America.:::::cue Star Spangled Banner::::P2P

From P 2 Shining PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/3/2005 11:47 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050203114724.22012.00000368@mb-m05.aol.com>I wrote:There is nothing crappy about Arkansas adoption laws. If you thinkotherwise,please do explain.Robin replied:I think you've made a pretty good job of explaining it yourself above.How many weeks are there required to be between birth and signing, four,six, ten, how many? Or did you mean that mother can make a finaldecision at or before birth?RobinThere is no required period a birthmother/parent must wait before signing avoluntary relinquishment in Arkansas. They can sign at any point after birth,as in most states. Note..."can". No one in any state is required. No stateallows for a relinquishment of a child prior to birth*. Once a voluntaryrelinquishment is signed in Arkansas, it becomes irrevocable in ten days. Tendays. That is longer than many states provide and right in the ballpark withmost states. On the tenth day an interlocutory is filed in Arkansas. However,the decree of adoption does not make its way through the courts for about sixmonths. Again, there is nothing shonky about Arkansas adoption laws. That'sanurban myth.P2P*I heard the rumor that the State of Alabama allows for an "intent torelinquish" form prior to giving birth. I also heard that if a woman signsone,however, she must be allowed an even longer time post birth to revoke.P2P

He's playing with you P, he can go to ABC adoptions, click on the state and all
of the adoption facts are right there, including Arkansas, and Alabama.

He is hitting on Arkansas because of the Kilshaw's, interesting, he is blaming
America for their behavior, when they are Brits. We didn't make them, he did.

Palms2pines wrote:
Marcy to Robin:Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.Amen. God bless America.:::::cue Star Spangled Banner::::P2P


So the entire USA will be giving all adopted people over the age of
majority an unencumbered right to have a copy of there original birth
certificate and every adopted person and birth relative a right to
access to their adoption files, real soon then?

I think when that happens maybe with a few other adjustments at the
other end of the process, you can the start to crow about how you've
"evolved a better system", at the moment you're still crawling in the
prehistoric mud of adoption practice.


Robin.

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/3/2005 11:49 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050203114928.22012.00000369@mb-m05.aol.com>Marcy to Robin:Good thing you live in a country where the state makes decisions for thepeople, luckily the U.S has evolved to a better system.>>

The "state" made the decision to separate my son from his biological mother.
The "state" subsequently made the decision to terminate her parental rights.
Just like you, Palms, that "state" also granted me permission (a "license," as
it were) to adopt a child.

However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the state
regulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy of
unregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.

In my state, simple manicurists need a license. Also, my new vocation
demands that I meet minimum requirements in education and ongoing training, not
to mention adhering strictly to a code of ethics. The "state" protects not
only those who would be my potential clients, but assures me that those in my
profession are subject to censure and criminal penalties should they breach
those ethics. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I find it unbelievable that in my country manicurists need a license when
adoption facilitators do not.

Dad

> However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>

I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general as you
do. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conduct
adoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruit
potential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potential birthparents
profiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisingly
reasonable, services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,
screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, the parties
involved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personal
preferences. Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertain
to fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up about
private schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed and
unregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a dating
service fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,
but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general as youdo. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conductadoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruitpotential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potential birthparentsprofiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,

What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?
services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, the partiesinvolved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personalpreferences.


Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that all
she does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages. Though for some
reason that did involve her having contact with adoption lawyers in nine
different states. I get more and more confused, I really do;~)

Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertainto fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up aboutprivate schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed andunregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a datingservice fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.

Well if there were certain requirements before a license could be
obtained, criminal record checks, some sort of relevant professional
qualification etc, it might ensure you didn't get the kind of
facilitator who worked with the Kilshaws. And get rid of a few others of
that ilk.


Robin

I wrote of adoption facilitators:
They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,

Robin asked:


What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?


Much less than some adoption attorneys and adoption agencies charge for
identical services.

Robin writes of a facilitator:
Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that allshe does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages.>>

If that is all a person is doing, that is not much of an adoption
"facilitation". However, I suppose if a party is helping hopeful adoptive
parents pool their funds in order to obtain larger, more extensive advertising
that *could* be described as "adoption facilitation". But, the better
description would be, in my opinion, specialty advertising services.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 6:39 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36fqvtF528h08U15@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote: However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general asyoudo. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conductadoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruitpotential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potentialbirthparentsprofiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, thepartiesinvolved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personalpreferences.Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that allshe does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages. Though for somereason that did involve her having contact with adoption lawyers in ninedifferent states. I get more and more confused, I really do;~)Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertainto fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up aboutprivate schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed andunregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a datingservice fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.Well if there were certain requirements before a license could beobtained, criminal record checks, some sort of relevant professionalqualification etc, it might ensure you didn't get the kind offacilitator who worked with the Kilshaws. And get rid of a few others ofthat ilk.Robin
Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 6:39 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36fqvtF528h08U15@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote: However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general asyoudo. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conductadoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruitpotential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potentialbirthparentsprofiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, thepartiesinvolved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personalpreferences.Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that allshe does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages. Though for somereason that did involve her having contact with adoption lawyers in ninedifferent states. I get more and more confused, I really do;~)Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertainto fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up aboutprivate schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed andunregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a datingservice fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.Well if there were certain requirements before a license could beobtained, criminal record checks, some sort of relevant professionalqualification etc, it might ensure you didn't get the kind offacilitator who worked with the Kilshaws. And get rid of a few others ofthat ilk.Robin
Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 6:39 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36fqvtF528h08U15@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote: However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general asyoudo. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conductadoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruitpotential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potentialbirthparentsprofiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, thepartiesinvolved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personalpreferences.Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that allshe does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages. Though for somereason that did involve her having contact with adoption lawyers in ninedifferent states. I get more and more confused, I really do;~)Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertainto fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up aboutprivate schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed andunregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a datingservice fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.Well if there were certain requirements before a license could beobtained, criminal record checks, some sort of relevant professionalqualification etc, it might ensure you didn't get the kind offacilitator who worked with the Kilshaws. And get rid of a few others ofthat ilk.Robin
Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 6:39 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36fqvtF528h08U15@individual.net>Palms2pines wrote: However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in general asyoudo. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind they do not conductadoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA. They do recruitpotential birthparents via advertising and they do offer potentialbirthparentsprofiles of waiting haps. They do offer, for a fee that is surprisinglyreasonable,What would you call "surprisingly reasonable"?services to hopeful adoptive parents that include advertising,screening, and the matching process. Once a "match" had been made, thepartiesinvolved are referrred to attorneys or agencies, depending on personalpreferences.Really? And I'd been told by a facilitator of my acquaintance that allshe does is place advertisements in the Yellow Pages. Though for somereason that did involve her having contact with adoption lawyers in ninedifferent states. I get more and more confused, I really do;~)

I didn't write that Robin, that is what you kept repeating until you believed
yourself. I said exactly what she is saying, in many different ways.Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws that pertainto fraud and they do not complete adoptions. I get far more worked up aboutprivate schools in CA grades one through twelve being unlicensed andunregulated, however, than I do adults working with other adults in a datingservice fashion. I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.Well if there were certain requirements before a license could beobtained, criminal record checks, some sort of relevant professionalqualification etc, it might ensure you didn't get the kind offacilitator who worked with the Kilshaws. And get rid of a few others ofthat ilk.Robin

>Subject: Re: Times: Blair's lieutenant adopts American babyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/3/2005 6:17 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20050203181722.15522.00000363@mb-m02.aol.com> However flawed the process may be at times, I would prefer that the stateregulate all forms of adoption rather than the outcomes be at the mercy ofunregulated facilitators and PAPs with the fattest checkbooks.>I hear ya, Dad. But, I do not condemn adoption facilitation in generalas you do. I know some who do a fine job. Please keep in mind theydo not conduct adoptions from start to finish, at least not here in CA.They do recruit potential birthparents via advertising

How are these birthparents qualified? What screening process do they go
through? What assurances, if any, does an adoptive parent have that a
birthmother to whom they are matched is even pregnant?

We've asked Marcy over and over again if she was "The Chosen Child" that was
named in the recent news article about the Ohio "birthmother" who faked her
pregnancy to a prospective adoptive parent from Alabama. No response, at least
that I've seen.
and they do offer potential birthparents profiles of waiting haps.

With no experience or expertise in adoption facilitation, I can go online and
produce thousands of profiles of prospective PAPs within an hour without
breaking a sweat.
They do offer, for a fee that is surprisingly reasonable, services to hopeful
adoptive parentsthat include advertising, screening,

Screening for what? Other than the ability to pay their fee, what types of
screening must unregulated facilitators perform? Since there seem to be no
standards for their services other than those they impose upon themselves, what
recourse do their clients have if they're the dissatisfied? This ain't eBay,
you know.
and the matching process.

Again, what matching process? I am fully aware of what that meant with my
agency: counseling, parenting skills assessment, training classes and
education on a wide variety of special needs as they related to the children we
were considering. Of these services, which must an unregulated facilitator
perform?
Once a "match" had been made, the parties involved are referrred to attorneys
oragencies, depending on personal preferences.

It's comforting to know that someone along the way actually provides a
value-added service.
Adoption facilitators are not exempt from state laws thatpertain to fraud

Neither am I.
and they do not complete adoptions.

Neither do I. I guess that qualifies me as an adoption facilitator.
I get far more worked up about private schools in CA grades one throughtwelve being unlicensed and unregulated, however, than I do adults workingwith other adults in a dating service fashion.

Another topic entirely.
I mean...it couldn't hurt to license adoption facilitators,but I wonder what would really be accomplished by a licensing process.

If you believe, as I do, that adoptive parents should be "licensed" by the
state to adopt a child by passing a homestudy, criminal background check, etc
ad nauseum, then you already know what would be gained by licensing
professionals involved with the adoption process.

Dad

AdoptaDad wrote:
<snip> We've asked Marcy over and over again if she was "The Chosen Child" that wasnamed in the recent news article about the Ohio "birthmother" who faked herpregnancy to a prospective adoptive parent from Alabama. No response, at leastthat I've seen.

Umm...spotted this on a webpage called, Mary's List of adoption
agencies she would not use, part of the Cambodia Adoption Issues site**

"... I reviewed your webside with interest, as I am the Senior Adoption
Coordinator for A Chosen Child, a licensed, non-proft child-placing
agency located in Orlando, Florida. We have had TREMENDOUS problems with
Marcy Meshes and THE CHOSEN CHILD, especially now that she has moved to
Longboat Key, Florida. Her bad reputation has followed her here, and we
are frequently confused with her organization (which, by the way, is
illegal in the State of Florida). We are currently in the process of
filing criminal charges against her, but would appreciate it if you
would include a disclaimer in your website indicating that we are NOT to
be confused with her, as we are a legitimate, ethical and fully licensed
agency.

Many thanks!!! Marilsa Medina January 21, 2005 04:41 AM..."


Well who'd a thunk it, and our Marcy being no more than a faciltator who
only places advertisements in the Yellow Pages for her clients. You
wouldn't have thought anyone could cause such a fuss with just few YP ads.


Robin

In article <20050203234323.25385.00000323@mb-m13.aol.com>,
adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
We've asked Marcy over and over again if she was "The Chosen Child" that was named in the recent news article about the Ohio "birthmother" who faked her pregnancy to a prospective adoptive parent from Alabama. No response, at least that I've seen.


Commonest name around for a facilitator. Happens all the time. More
"Chosen Childs" than at which you can shake the proverbial stick.
Dozens, nay hunnirts of 'em in Florida alone, and they all work in
Alabama. Must be cloning.





steve

>We are currently in the process offiling criminal charges against her,>>


Not to get too picky. However, a District Attorney can "file criminal charges".
Citizens can report crimes to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement can
investigate. Local law enforcement can recommend to the local DA criminal
charges be filed with the courts. The DA can opt to file them with the courts
or not file them. So, what the agency must mean is they have made a report to
police.

"... I reviewed your webside with interest, as I am the Senior AdoptionCoordinator for A Chosen Child, a licensed, non-proft child-placingagency located in Orlando, Florida. We have had TREMENDOUS problems withMarcy Meshes and THE CHOSEN CHILD, especially now that she has moved toLongboat Key, Florida. Her bad reputation has followed her here, and weare frequently confused with her organization (which, by the way, isillegal in the State of Florida). We are currently in the process offiling criminal charges against her, but would appreciate it if youwould include a disclaimer in your website indicating that we are NOT tobe confused with her, as we are a legitimate, ethical and fully licensedagency.Many thanks!!! Marilsa Medina January 21, 2005 04:41 AM..."



P2P