Chapter 10:
The Akron BBB Weighs In
The Akron BBB wrote her a letter on Jan. 7 asking her if her complaint had been resolved. She wrote back that it hadn’t. She needed resolution and a refund.
Five days later, she had a response.
January 12, 2005
Janet Ostrander
Re: Building Blocks Adoption Services, Inc.
Dear Janet Ostrander:
We have just received the enclosed response to your complaint from the above mentioned company,
wherein they state their position. If you feel the information provided is inaccurate or you have
additional issues to raise, please send a letter of rebuttal to our office, within five days, and we will
continue to try to resolve this matter.
You may forward your letter by mail or fax. You can also contact the Bureau by e-mail at
Sincerely,Melissa Fritz
Trade Practice Manager
Enclosed was a four page letter and six pages of compiled emails allegedly supporting BBAS position. The letter was written by Richard J. Marco Jr.
Some of the emails we have quoted throughout Janet’s story. Some of the emails Marco submitted were also emails Janet Ostrander had saved for her records.
Here is BBAS’s response to Janet Ostrander’s allegations. We hasten to add it’s more of a response than Janet was able to elicit from the ODJFS.
January 11, 2005
Melissa Fritz
The Better Business Bureau
222 West Market Street
Akron, OH 44303-2111
VIA E-MAIL: mfritz@akronbbb.org
Dear Ms. Fritz:
Thank you for allowing additional time to respond to your letter of December 22, 2004. As a
reminder, please note that the address of Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. is 52 Public
Square, Medina, OH 44256.
This letter is in response to the statement issued by Janet Ostrander with respect to Building
Blocks Adoption Service, Inc.
At the onset, please note that a similar complaint was made to Ms. Linda Saridakis of the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services. Ms. Saridakis issued a finding that there was no indication
of any wrong doing by Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. with respect to Janet Ostrander.
Janet Ostrander in fact did enter into a contract to adopt a child through Building Blocks Adoption
Service, Inc. The contract is in fact attached by Janet Ostrander although it is difficult to read as
it is very light.
Suffice it to say that the contract was initially undertaken for an adoption in the country of Azerbaijan.
Janet Ostrander was informed at the time that said country was going through adoption law changes
and the time frame for placement was unknown. As indicated by the e-mails attached hereto, Janet
Ostrander was continuously informed that the country was going through changes. Janet Ostrander,
during the process, was confused and thinking that Azerbaijan was part of the country of Russia.
The e-mail showed that she was also continuously informed that it was not part of the same country
and that having selected Azerbaijan as her country, her paperwork, dossier, home study and INS approval
were all directed at that country.
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. takes issue with the statements of Janet Ostrander that Building
Blocks urged her to stick it out with Azerbaijan. In fact, as the attached e-mail show, it was suggested
quite often that she switch to Russia or Guatemala.
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. has been in the adoption business for in excess of seven (7) years.
Building Blocks has been lead by its Executive Director, Denise Hubbard, during that entire time. Denise
Hubbard did not and would not make a statement that Azerbaijan was a region in the country of Russia
since that is not true.
Secondarily, Janet Ostrander then indicates that Building Blocks insisted that she change to the Republic
of Georgia. Janet Ostrander requested a contract from Building Blocks for the Republic of Georgia program
and executed this contract. Therefore, she was quite aware that she changed countries and in fact, this
was a separate country from Russia. However, the Republic of Georgia is not a country in which Building
Blocks does many adoptions. In fact, virtually 90% of the adoptions undertaken by Building Blocks are in
Russia, Kazakhstan and Guatemala. It would be unusual and obviously it did not happen, that we would ask
someone to change to the Republic of Georgia. It would be our intention to complete the adoptions and not
to hold them back. Instead, it was the position of Janet Ostrander that she chose to enter into an adoption
through the country of Georgia. Janet Ostrander was informed by Lee Slater, Facilitator for the Republic
of Georgia, through Building Blocks, that the program was open but the country was going through a lot of
changes.
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. contract for Azerbaijan stated that the $3,000 fe was non-refundable.
Nevertheless, it was agreed to and in fact the $3,000 fee was transferred to the Republic of Georgia and
would have been transferred to the country of Russia as well as the country of Guatemala as pursuant to
the e-mails attached hereto.
Janet Ostrander indicates that Denise Hubbard knew the Republic of Georgia was closed. Denise Hubbard
sent Janet Ostrander Department of State statements stating the Republic of Georgia was open by going
through a change in the countries adoption laws.
Janet Ostrander makes inconsistent statements in her own summary. She indicates Kelly Carter Hubbard
had no qualifications to be a facilitator. She immediately then also states that the facilitator was Lee Slater.
Therefore, it is not know how she can now say that Building Blocks made false statements to her.
It was not until Janet Ostrander began to understand that in order to acquire a child in a shorter period of time,
she would have to change from the Republic of Georgia that she began to have more direct communications with
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. In fact, however, Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. informed Ms.
Ostrander on May 18, 2004 that she could be placed into a different program. She chose not to be so placed.
In fact, her response was “I do not mind the wait for the referral for the Rep of Georgia…the wait is well worth it.
That is no problem. I just would like to be kept up to date and informed.” A response to Janet Ostrander on the
same day indicated again to her that Russia and the Republic of Georgia are two different countries and that
you cannot expect similarities in the programs.
On August 7, 2004, Janet Ostrander was again offered a different program as pursuant to the e-mail. She was
once again informed that there would be a delay in the restructuring of the program that she chose, the Republic
of Georgia. She nevertheless decided to remain in the Republic of Georgia program. Once again, Janet Ostrander
had to be given an explanation that Russia and the Republic of Georgia are different countries and the fact that
Russia is active with referrals does not mean that the Republic of Georgia would be functioning in the same manner…
Building Blocks advised her to review her contract stating that she could only process one adoption through a single
agency at a time.
After a conversation with Janet Ostrander, Building Blocks attempted to receive a return of her monies and a dossier
from the facilitator in the Republic of Georgia. However, Janet Ostrander decided to retract that attempt and continued
once again with the Republic of Georgia. A third time Janet Ostrander was explained as to the differences in the countries.
Again Janet Ostrander was offered the opportunity to switch programs. In fact, it was stated “We have children available for
placement in Russia, Guatemala and Kazakhstan.
A final attempt was made to have her moved to a different country of September 17, 2004. Please see the e-mail attached.
Now, at the end of September, Janet Ostrander made a demand for $15,000 return of monies expended. This included monies
that she did not expend but were her charges for payment for emotional distress. The communication then ensued. An offer
was made to return $1,500 of the non-refundable fee to Janet Ostrander. She decided not to do so.
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. expended significant time and effort in attempting to communicate and acquire a
referral for Janet Ostrander. She knew that international adoptions are risky and that any monies that you expend
pursuant thereto are at risk. The contract is clear. Janet Ostrander signed that contract.
It is the position of Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. that Janet Ostrander was afforded every opportunity to change
her country, apply the fee to the new country, and continue with the adoption. It was her own insistence, against the
advice of Building Blocks, to continue with two countries that were going through adoption law restructuring that has
caused her the problem.
Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. has completed hundreds of adoption in the countries that were offered to Janet
Ostrander. It is our position that there should be no finding of fault on behalf of Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc.
Even though Ms. Ostrander indicated in her communication to you that after all this time she remains childless, we
have documentation that she did indeed adopt a child through another adoption resource. Therefore, she has confirmed
that she has breached the Building Blocks contract by adopting through another agency while the Building Blocks
contract was in effect.
Very truly yours,
Richard J. Marco, Jr.
RJM/vl
Attachments being forwarded by separate e-mail
cc: Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc.
Obviously Janet strongly disagreed with Scumbag Marco’s assessment of the case. Marco always, always puts it on the client, the client breaching their horrid contract in adopting a child. We certainly hope he spent many hours composing the above tripe. Unfortunately, Janet gave BBAS evidence of Lance’s adoption by sending them and Lee Slater his photo when he was adopted. Yet, what was she to do? Wait for Georgia to re-open? Have her son go without a home so she could fulfill BBAS contract?
BBAS contract may have been “clear”, but Janet still wanted her money back.
She was incensed by Marco’s letter to the Akron BBB and responded accordingly, rebutting Marco’s letter and allegations.
Marco’s response was swift. Once again Janet received another letter from the Akron Better Business Bureau, dated Feb. 1, 2005. Boy, wasn’t Marco busy!
February 01, 2005
Janet Ostrander
[address]
re: Building Blocks Adoption Services, Inc.
Dear Janet Ostrander:
We have received a reply from the above mentioned company regarding your complaint. Enclosed is a copy of the answer
received which states the company’s position.
In reviewing your complaint and the company’s response, we find there are genuine differences in the statements as to
responsibility in this matter. Because the Better Business Bureau is an impartial third party, it does not assign responsibility
in a dispute. Due to the apparent impasse, we are unable to proceed further. Your complaint will, however, become a permanent
part of our files and is valuable for reporting purposes.
If we may be of service to you in the future, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely
Melissa Fritz
Trade Practices Manager
Read the above was a moment of dejavu for us. It’s almost word for word the same letter Margaret Ponish received from the Akron BBB, but from Bev Orlando. It appears to be a form letter the Akron BBB sends when complaints are not satisfied. Yet the Akron BBB is happy to cash BBAS checks and allows BBAS to say they’re a member on their website. I’ll quote what we said about the Ponishes: the company ain’t paying up and they’re lying through their teeth and we’re taking said company’s side since they are paying members of the Akron BBB. It’s the same thing for Janet Ostrander.
Richard J. Marco, Jr.’s accompanying letter wrote is just as obnoxious. The copy Janet received isn’t even on Marco, Marco & Bailey letterhead. It’s not even signed and is undated.
I am now in receipt of your letter dated January 20, 2005 re Janet Ostrander. Please take note that the address referenced
in that letter is not the address for the business. My prior communication indicated that the address is now 52 Public Square,
Medina, Ohio 44256.
I would respond to Janet Ostrander as follows. Ms. Ostrander quotes the undersigned in her response as indicating the contract
was difficult to read. My letter of January 11, 2005 contains no such statement. Next, Ms. Ostrander indicates that Building Blocks
made little attempt to contact her about changes or updates. The previously forwarded e-mails would contradict that statement.
Further, Ms. Ostrander acknowledges that she contacted the agency on numerous occasions to discuss the matters. Ms. Ostrander
had an unusually high level of contact with Building Blocks both from her initiation of that contact and from contacts initiated from
Building Blocks.
The comments made by Ms. Ostrander as to her dossier are untrue and unverified. Building Blocks completed all of its required
duties to Ms. Ostrander and more. Building Blocks was formed to complete adoptions, not “string people along”. Building Blocks
has completed over 500 international adoptions. Ms. Ostrander chose not to follow the recommendations of Building Blocks, chose
to adopt outside of the primary countries and refused to change to the primary countries despite repeated recommendations.
The balance of the allegations made by Ms. Ostrander are repetitive from the original complaint. Please review the prior response
in contradiction of her allegations. The final sentence issued by Janet Ostrander is actually indicative of her position. Ms. Ostrander
wants more than the money paid to Building Blocks despite the facts that she received a refund of her monies once during the transfer
to another country, and used some of the services to complete another adoption.
Building Blocks submits that it has no fault in the dispute raised by Ms. Ostrander. Building Blocks will not pay any monies in resolution
of this ill brought dispute.
Very Truly Yours,
Richard J. Marco, Jr.
Attorney at law
52 Public Square
Medina, Ohio 44256
330-725-0030
330-722-4888 facsimile
Another work of brilliance by Scumbag Marco. How BBAS and him whines about money! Surely BBAS could have siphoned off a bit more money from their Guatemalan take and paid Janet her refund. $3,000 would have sufficed. Their Guatemalan clients didn’t know how much they were giving to BBAS, so they wouldn’t have missed it, nor would have their Guatemalan attorneys. Why not use those ill-gotten funds to pay back a client so badly taken as Janet Ostrander?
It’s hard to see how Building Blocks “Service” helped Janet to complete her son’s adoption. Last time we checked, her son’s adoption was a private placement, done by an attorney. In her home state right here in the United States of America. Building Blocks isn’t a domestic agency, they don’t do homestudies in her home state, nor are they affiliated with her attorney. Why is Scumbag Marco making this allegation?
Yet another example of Standard Operating Procedure at Building Blocks.
Janet Ostrander was left holding the bag, nothing to show for the fight she had put up against Denise Hubbard. All she had was a migraine headache from reading the letter.
She went back to her attorney and had him write a letter once again for her refund after she had received this piece of work from the Akron Better Business Bureau.