Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Baby Trafficking in TWI?


markomalley
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am curious if anybody has knowledge of baby trafficking that may have been going on in TWI. I ask this as the result of a court case that involved some TWI people a few years ago in NC and MI.

I've done some research on this case. Turns out it is fairly famous and is often cited as a precedent in child custody cases.

So, here's the basic scenario. This is synopsized from law review articles and court decisions I retrieved via LexisNexis:

A young lady by the name of xxxxxxxxxx lived in Michigan with her boyfriend, xxxxxxxxxxxx (Note: different documents refer to him as "the father," "husband," "ex-husband." In 1987, she got pregnant. At some point shortly thereafter, she met xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, who recruited her into TWI. In February of 1988, xxxxxx began to work with xxxxxxxxxx cleaning houses. As is the norm for TWI, xxxxxx began to distance herself from her former friends. xxxxxxxxxx began to work on xxxxxx and convinced xxxxxx that her boyfriend was sleeping around on her and, in fact, he might be questioning whether he was the father of her child. In May of that year, xxxxxx left xxxx and moved back in with her mother. After leaving xxxx, xxxxxx began to think about giving her unborn child up for adoption. She discussed this with xxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxx told xxxxxx that there were plenty of people in TWI who would love to adopt a child.

xxxxxxxxxx called a member of the Way to let him know of the possible adoption and that person contacted xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx who lived in North Carolina. The xxxxxxxxs retained an attorney who was also a member of TWI by the name of xxxx xxxxxxxx and paid him a retainer of $3,500 to assist with the adoption proceedings. xxxxxxxx flew to Michigan to meet with xxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx in June of 1988. xxxxxxxx paid to fly xxxxxx and her two other children to NC one week later, apparently in an effort to avoid being served a summons from xxxx (who was attempting to get visitation rights for the other two children -- one of which was xxxxxx and xxxx, the other was xxxxxx' baby from a prior marriage).

xxxxxxxx met xxxxxx at the RDU airport and arranged for her to be housed with xxxxx xxxxx, another TWI member in the area, for the duration of xxxxxx' pregnancy. In order to meet the requirement for the father's signature or proof of abandonment, xxxxxxxx placed a legal notice in a small, local NC paper (Remember, xxxx, the father, was still in Michigan and apparently had no idea that his girlfriend was in NC preparing to have the baby adopted upon its birth). xxxxxxxx was aware of the fact that there was no reasonable way that xxxx would ever see the notice, but he was concerned with filling the legal square. xxxxxxxx arranged for xxxxxx to meet with a DSS person to receive the appropriate approval for the private adoption; the court documents indicated that he coached her on the proper responses to give to let the DSS social worker that the adoption was truly voluntary. The baby was born very shortly after the initial DSS interview. xxxxxx had access to the baby for only a couple of minutes before it was taken from her. She signed the adoption consent papers and gave permission for the baby to be taken from the hospital by the xxxxxxxxx. xxxxxx flew back to Michigan shortly after the baby's birth.

Shortly after returning to Michigan, xxxxxx decided that she wanted the baby back and expressed the same to her friend, xxxxxxxxxx. Her boyfriend, xxxx, also indicated the same. He, apparently, was threatened by representatives of TWI as he was trying to track down xxxxxx so he could find his child.

Anyway, to make a long story short, there was a fairly long court battle over this, resulting in xxxxxx and xxxx getting back their child.

Now, let me make a couple of editorial comments on this:

First, being a pro-life person, I am all in favor of adoptions. So, that in of itself, is not an issue. Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best. What I do have an issue with is this:

1. xxxxxxxxxx apparently tried to convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and questioning whether or not he was the father. This seems to me like she was trying to set up a circumstance to get xxxxxx to want to get rid of her child.

2. The biological father, xxxx was not contacted. They intentionally did not contact the father.

3. The mother's whereabouts were hidden from her family and from the father, xxxx.

4. Somehow (and this is not supported by evidence, it is just a gut feeling), I have this feeling that some more money changed hands than came out in the court documents.

So, why am I bringing this ancient case up?

I am curious to see if this is the only case of its type or if other cases like this occurred within TWI. I would be curious to know if baby trafficking was something that happened with any degree of regularity. See, since TWI was a pro-abortion organization (as I recall), I am sort of surprised that xxxxxx was not taught that the baby was not alive until its first breath and encouraged to simply have an abortion. This would follow with what I understand is TWI's normal method of operating.

So, if anybody can provide any additional information, I'd appreciate it.

If anybody is actually interested in reading the source documents, I have them copied over to my computer from the LexisNexis database. They are far too long to post here, but if you PM me with your e-mail addy, I will be happy to forward them to you. The names are sort of blanked out here; they are not blanked out in the original documents.

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew of a number of adoptions that happened while on staff. The two that I knew of personally were definitely "in-house", ie a Way person doing a private placement with another Way couple. As the details were understandably confidential I have no idea if there was a tinge of "trafficking" on any of those placements...

At one time it was known that if you wanted a baby, talk to Mrs. W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'll weigh in on this one. I know xxxxxx x. She and her husband came to MI in '85 as WOWS. I like them. They've always been cool to me. I last saw them in the late 90s; they're still up there as far as I know. But I didn't know anything about the events described on this thread.

I remember a woman whom I saw at branch meetings a few times and the last time I saw her she was great with child and then I didn't see her anymore. Could've been xxx x.

quote: am sort of surprised that xxxxxx was not taught that the baby was not alive until its first breath and encouraged to simply have an abortion. This would follow with what I understand is TWI's normal method of operating.

If xxx x. got pregnant in 1987 and she didn't leave xxxx until May of '88 then she had to be close or in the third trimester by that time. This makes a difference both medically and price wise. Plus this woman could easily have been more sensitive to the idea of abortion so that in her mind it never was an option and nobody tried to challenge her on that very much.

Mark, do you know if that lawyer in NC got in trouble for his role in it? Sounds like he could have. After my family left in '94 we went to a church service with the xxxxxxxxxxs who left in 89-90 or so. They seemed to be doing OK but that whole experience very well may have shown them it was time to leave TWI.

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a TWI couple that adopted a baby from a TWI woman that already had 4 children, was pregnant with her 5th, was single, and just absolutely could not afford the 5th.

But I don't think much money changed hands - they paid some of her expenses, and covered the hospital bill, but that was it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johniam:

Interestingly, according to the court documents, what spurred xxxxxx to try so hard getting her child back was when they watched a Geraldo show that talked about dangerous cults (TWI being prominently listed). She supposedly watched this with xxxxxxxxxx. So, presumably, both were no longer involved at the time.

As to the lawyer, I checked in the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory, and xxxxxxxx is currently listed as a managing partner for a small law firm in NC. The lawyer representing xxxxxx is listed as a sole practitioner. The lawyer representing the xxxxxxxxx through the appeal process, etc., is listed as not currently practicing.

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by excathedra:

ps. in answer to the question, i do not think trafficking is the right word


When I read this from the 1991 Supreme Court decision on the case,

quote:
xxxxxxxxxx convinced xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and that he was questioning whether he was the father of her unborn child. On 28 May 1988, xxxxxx moved from xxxx's house and moved in with her mother. She did not leave any information with xxxx as to where she had moved. xxxx called xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx' ex-husband, and xxxxxxxxxx trying to find out where xxxxxx was living, but no one would [***7] give him any information. On 31 May 1988, xxxx contacted an attorney in Michigan, xxxxxxx xxxxx (xxxxxx), and arranged to meet with him three days later to try to find xxxxxx. xxxx soon found out that xxxxxx was at her mother's house because on one occasion when he telephoned xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx answered the telephone.
(note text highlighting is mine)

See, if it wasn't for the kind of stuff mentioned in the above quoted paragraph, I would agree with you and, frankly, would not have ever posted about this in any way.

You are right, trafficking may not be the right word, but when I read stuff like what I quoted above, then I get really suspicious as to what was going on.

So, if trafficking is not the right word, I would wonder what is the right one. Why would xxxxxxxxxx convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her? Why would xxxxxx go into hiding after being convinced of this?

A lot of questions...

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.

Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxx that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.

ToadFriend

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by excathedra:

mark, tell me what happened without stars

i'm definitely open


I"ll PM you later and leave the stars out (I just don't like posting people's names without their permission in the open). It'll be later tonight, as I don't have the time to write that much right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by ToadFriend:

... so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxs that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing,...

ToadFriend


ToadFriend,

Please don't take offense to this. But I was

just wondering if you knew the birth parents... how do you know how much love they have to give or their financial situation.

Yes it was a very said thing for the folks that adopted. But why judge the birth parents especially if you don't know them? I am sure they love that child very much.

I find it said when folks judge others like that especially if you have never been in their shoes.

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by ToadFriend:

I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.

Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxs that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.

ToadFriend


Thank you for that info. As I said in my original post, "Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best."

And, also, thank you for clearing up that no additional moneys were exchanged.

Frankly, the biggest thing that concerned me with this was, as I also indicated in my original post:

quote:
1. xxxxxxxxxx apparently tried to convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and questioning whether or not he was the father. This seems to me like she was trying to set up a circumstance to get xxxxxx to want to get rid of her child.

2. The biological father, xxxx was not contacted. They intentionally did not contact the father.

3. The mother's whereabouts were hidden from her family and from the father, xxxx.


Regardless of the xxxxxxxxs' motivations, some funkiness apparently happened to convince xxxxxx to give up her child. Not, by any means, their fault, but it still happened.

Edited by moddishwasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know any of the involved parties personally, but I am an adoptive parent NOT through any TWI contacts at all.

In most states, the birth mother has all the rights. I knew of several occasions where a young woman, pregnant out of wedlock, would contact through an attorney a couple wanting to adopt a newborn. Her terms would be (frequently) living expenses, say $1500-$2000/month, all medical bills, and start-up money for her new postpartum life. Also, all legal expenses and attorney fees would be paid by the adoptive parents. Then, the moment that baby is born, the mom would change her mind, "Oh, that is MY child! I can't let anyone else raise my own flesh and blood!" So she would have a decent life at someone else's expense and get to keep her baby scot-free. All the adoptive parents' excitement and anticipation and spending their money were for naught. It is no wonder to me that out of country adoptions are so popular now.

I am NOT saying this woman had that in mind when she gave up her child for adoption. I don't know her or her partner or why she didn't tell him, tried to avoid him and did what she did.

I would be interested to know what Geraldo episode covered TWI. I lived in SC at the time and heard of this case. Never heard of TWI being on that show.

Edited by Watered Garden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by moddishwasher:

Several posts were edited to further obscure the names of the people being discussed, since none are former or present members of the Board of Directors, nor in the high echelons of TWI.


I appreciate you doing this, but if I can suggest, in the future, please replace the partially obscured names with "A" "B" "C" "D" or whatever in order to keep the names straight. Because now it is impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (I agree the names are not terribly relevent, but it is important to keep each person separated).

Also, one other thing, fyi, in this case, the names come from court records and news stories, both of which are already in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...