When the Internet twin story began to unfold, I did not suspected it would be so complex. With outcries from British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to others in this country trying to sort out a "sorted twisted bizarre tale", I realize in this age of high tech and fast communication, we seek "instant gratification" and "easy quick answers." How do we "fix" this problem we ask? Who's to blame? Is it the system, individuals, or both? You be the judge.

I am a California facilitator who has been involved in open infant child placement for 21 years. My focus is on educating and empowering not only pre-adoptive parents, but prospective birth parents as well. I am not involved in internet "lures", have no yellow page ads, and do not tell any prospective adoptive parent I will "find" a baby for them. When I read about so called facilitator/baby broker Tina Johnson I felt sad and then sick as I watched this unsavory drama unfold.

WHO'S TO BLAME?

Do we blame adoption facilitator Tina Johnson for the entire problem? After all, she took large sums of money from not one, but two sets of clients. Was she a "facilitator" or "baby broker?" Actually, a check from Richard and Vicki Allen did not clear at a bank, so did she really take funds from both families?

Tina Johnson was not bonded as a facilitator nor following California laws and statutes. By opening her doors in the field of adoption using the internet, she was able to dangle the "baby carrot" in front of hungry pre-adoptive couples. Facilitators are not alone in this. Both licensed agencies and lawyers have often been known to use questionable standards in adoption at times.

Do we blame first mother, Tranda Wecker of St. Louis, for using the internet to find adoptive parents for her twins? She lives in a state which is thought by many to still be in the "dark ages" when it comes to adoption policy and being "user friendly" to prospective first parents. Do we blame her for asking for related expenses? Do we blame her for reclaiming her twins and choosing another family once she discovered disturbing criminal information about prospective adoptive parents, Richard and Vicki Allen?

Do we blame Wecker for lying about the 30 days residency requirement in Arkansas? Who gave her this legal advice? Do you think she thought of this herself?

No newspaper article has alluded to "counseling" being offered to the birth mother. Between Missouri, California, and Arkansas, did no one think of this as being important and relevant? Let us remember, legal counseling is not the same as "emotional counseling."

DO we blame the judges and lawyers in Arkansas for allowing "non resident" adoptions? Several states have laws which allow this, what about allowing a birth mother to claim Arkansas residency even though the twins were born in

DO we blame both the adoptive couples for paying large fees in their hunger and desperation to adopt?

DO we blame the Allen's for not having a home study with a licensed agency or beginning an independent home study once the twins were in their home? An agency adoption would have changed the revocation period from 90 days in a private adoption to 72 hours through a California agency. Had they done this, we would never have seen this case in print.

DO we blame the British couple for being told they could go into Arkansas (neither Missouri nor California have non resident adoptions) when advised to do it? Do we blame them (the Kilshaw's) for accepting babies who had been in another adoptive home for two months?

DO we blame a normally strict British adoption system for allowing their families to come into this country to adopt our children? We do it in other countries, but that's different ...or is it?

DO we throw up our hands and blame the entire system? Who or what is culpable? Could more stringent government laws "fix" this so it won't happen again? Are most private adoptions monitored and legal?

In the last 21 years I have seen less than competent agencies, lawyers, and facilitators in all 50 states doing adoptions. Sadly, mediocre services are not uncommon. Well meaning adoption professionals may be under skilled, understaffed, and or operating from false outmoded notions. Does a college education or a law degree guarantee someone will be "adoption literate." No, it does not.

I have seen destructive adoption laws passed which were thought to be "good." My favorite was when Florida passed a law stating no potential birth mother could leave the state for an adoption placement unless the unborn baby was to be mixed race.... or Wyoming passing a law briefly allowing a birth mother-to-be to sign a relinquishment prior to giving birth.... both laws were rescinded. Florida eventually recognized the right of a prospective mother to "travel" out of state for placement if desired.

I have worked with ethical caring competent agencies, adoption lawyers, and facilitators giving their all to "do it right." I have seen adoptions that were not money driven. The concerned professionals were dedicated, overworked, and overwrought. But, they knew what was right and did it showing respect and empathy to their clients - both birthparents and adoptive parents.

NO EASY ANSWERS. BUT AS I SEE IT:

1. Tina Johnson should have been monitored and not allowed to facilitate illegally as she did. Her high fees are appalling and despicable. She was not only unethical, but broke the law. Bonding and full disclosure in all situations is mandatory for all facilitators under California law. California was not the first state Johnson had operated in illegally.

2. Ethically, Tina Johnson should have referred birthmother, Tranda Wecker, to another adoption professional to work with her in reclaiming the twins and placing with another family. This does happen from time to time, but is very rare. The professional handling the original adoption, does not take money from a second party, but moves away from the case and refers it to someone else.

3. It would be helpful if more agencies and lawyers were "user friendly" to potential first mothers. Being "licensed" does not insure treatment will be emotionally safe or helpful. The fact the twins were of African American descent tells me a high percentage of agencies and attorneys refused to do the placement or help in any way when called by Wecker. Few will take the time to offer other options to a prospective birth mother of color.

I can remember one first mother from Chicago turned away by 10 adoption agencies, unable or unwilling to set up an adoption placement for her unborn biracial baby. Tragically, racism is alive and well in adoption today. We don't know how many agencies, lawyers, and adoptive couples were called by Wecker originally in searching for an adoptive family. I'm not surprised she turned to the internet for help.

4. Is there anything wrong with California's 90-day revocation period around independent adoption? No. California couples have a choice in this area. Although it was not illegal for the birth mother to bring the twins to California, the Allen's did NOT hire an attorney to begin the process of independent/private adoption when they knew the twin girls were going to be placed with them. They did nothing as prescribed by adoption law. They are culpable.

5. Lawyers and adoption-a bad mix? No. Even if lawyers are not allowed to do independent adoption, they are still a must in every agency placement. The Allen's attorney, John Giffen stated to me in an interview that he was asked to represent the Allen's just after the story was reported and was NOT retained by them prior. He has agreed to do this pro-bono.... so much for what we hear about all adoption attorneys being greedy.

6. Facilitators and adoption-a bad combination? No. Facilitators are routinely used in agencies, by lawyers, and work privately as part of the process. They can provide valuable education, support, and guidance without the "baby brokering" aspect.

7. Should Independent/private adoption be abolished? No. Properly done, costs are generally lower in private adoptions than in agency placement. Independent adoption requires the same adoptive parent home study scrutiny as that of an agency, which includes fingerprinting, background checks, and home visits. There are no shortcuts or easy ways to "cheat" in this system.

8. Should the Kilshaw's have signed with a licensed agency or an adoption lawyer in a state such as Oregon? Yes. This state allows non-residents to come in to adopt with a valid home study as long as the first mother delivers in Oregon and has chosen them. Oregon honors open adoption contracts which are legally binding. This would have given them their child legally with appropriate adoption costs and protected the first mother as well. All would have been monitored and legal. Both California and Missouri do not allow non-resident adoptions.

9. Should Arkansas non-resident laws change? Not only Arkansas, but other states could stand to update some of their adoption laws not only are some too lax, but others are seen as too stringent The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA) is in a position to assist with legal changes in this area. Actually, all of us can be advocates when it comes to adoption laws. Certainly, the internet is a powerful tool to help in this arena.

10. What should happen now to the twins? Following the "family preservation" model, would you like to see them returned to their birth mother in Missouri? Birth mother Wecker has stated she wants them returned to her and most likely if this is done, the state of Missouri social services would monitor their care until confident of her ability to care for them. What about returning them to her husband separated from her? He has certainly been a presence throughout all of this & indicated his interest in them.

11. What about the Kilshaw's and Allen's? If returned to the Allen's, is it unlikely they would maintain an open adoption relationship with Wecker. Given British adoption law, it seems unlikely the twins will be returned to the Kilshaw's at this point, and birth mother Wecker, is not obligated by law to return any monetary support received from either family. However, she has stated she did not receive funding from either family. A tough lesson in life--both monetarily and emotionally for these two families and the birth mother.

12. What is in the best interest of the twin girls? They have lived with 3 families for several months each and are now in foster care. I believe it in their best interest to be placed sooner rather than later with a family deemed best suited to care for them. They are at an important I age where bonding attachment issues are critical. A long court fight with the twins in foster care "somewhere" would be a travesty and not in their best interests.

SUMMATION:

Some are suggesting we turn to the long dormant "Uniform Adoption Act" which has been solidly opposed by social workers, adoption agencies, the Child Welfare League of America, and others for some of its archaic proposals. Ask yourself if you think this would work in a country which prides itself on individual "states rights."

Others are clamoring to get rid or lawyers and or facilitators. What about for profit adoption agencies? Maybe agencies with large fees? Respected researchers and social workers Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor once proposed we eliminate adoption entirely and institute lifetime "guardianships" for children in order to end adoption profit. Others say "family preservation" is the sole answer. As in most of life, there is no easy answer. Our adoption system is only as good as the people who are its shepherds.

In his recent acclaimed book "Adoption Nation," author Adam Pertman has shown us how rapidly adoption has changed in recent years and continues to change. With well meaning mistakes in the post, we hope these changes will benefit all in the adoption triad in the future.

Pertman said recently, "People are generalizing far too much from a single incident. By doing so, they risk not only new negative stereotypes about the institution itself, but also about its participants: birth mothers and adoption practitioners as baby sellers, adoptive parents as desperate people without minds or scruples, and adoptees as victims and/or commodities." Pertman went on to say: "I'm appalled not only by the behavior of the people In this case, but also by the lack of perspective provided about it. We must keep this in perspective and understand the norms, being careful not to draw too many conclusions from the man bites-dog stories to make things better and not assume it represents far more than it really does."

Three families want two infants. Each is praying to prevail. Where do we go with this? Do we return to the story of Solomon and the dividing of the twin girls giving so much to each?

We can use this deplorable story as a gift to heighten our awareness and knowledge of this difficult and complex subject. As with health core, we are on the brink of major reform and change in adoption. This can be a springboard for dialogue in order to develop appropriate legal changes and higher standards to benefit all. It's important to keep this isolated tawdry Incident in perspective.

Credits: Ellen Roseman