Lies, distortions and misrepresentations

in Rick Marco’s letter to the Akron BBB

over the Ponish case

    If there was anything that demonstrated the extent to which lying to whomever, whenever, has become part of BBAS’s modus operandi, it is this letter.

    Knowing that the BBB doesn’t have the resources or the inclination to independently investigate complaints, Rick Marco got away with saying things about BBAS and the Ponish here he would never have dared say to any government investigators.

    They are so numerous we decided a separate page was necessary to set the record straight.

      The Ponishes have entered into a contract with Building Blocks Adoption Service.  The Building Blocks Adoption Service contract, as with all international adoptions, requests that potential adoptive parents acknowledge that the health of the child cannot be guaranteed.

    If it’s in the contract, then it isn’t a request, it’s a requirement. You wonder why a lawyer would make this mistake.

  This is an international adoption.  The children are coming from orphanages.  Building Blocks is a facilitator of adoptions.

    Really? Then why has the state of Ohio licensed BBAS as a private non-custodial agency, in other words empowered to match a specific child with a specific waiting parent? That’s more than what a facilitator is allowed to do.

      Building Blocks supplied the Ponishes with requested medical and video information for their evaluation.  They had the videos and medical information evaluated by an independent doctor hired by them with results unknown.

    How could the doctor be independent? Building Blocks themselves had referred the Ponishes to her (and as we know, BBAS is very particular in the doctors it chooses for its clients, searching very hard for those who truly understand just how important it is to place these children).

  There was constant communication between Building Blocks and the Ponishes with respect to issues involving their adoption.  Building Blocks has fulfilled the entire contract with the Ponishes. Mrs. Ponish acknowledged that she was unwilling to accept a child that was “strong willed.”

    There is no explicit written documentation to this effect. Rick is conflating the Ponishes’ response to their pre-adoption questionnaire, in which they said they would not accept a child with severe mental or psychological problems, with one of the Ponishes’ descriptions of Natasha, in order to trivialize their concerns.

  This is not a sufficient reason to require that Building Blocks forego its fee for the work that it has performed.  Further, the monies requested to be refunded by the Ponishes have been predominately paid to Russian facilitators and the orphanages to complete the adoption, which adoption was completed.  The child was adopted and traveled to the United States.

    BWAHAHA! As anyone who read the Towells’ story can probably tell, that’s a dubious proposition at best (Oh, wait a minute ... that’s half-right. Money got to the facilitators; it sure didn’t get to the orphanages).

      Frankly, the Ponishes never stated that they wanted a guarantee of a healthy child.  Such a guarantee could not and would not be made.  The children from Russia, as from any other country, are going to have adjustment problems upon transition.  The Ponishes never allowed the child to complete the transition.  They relinquished their rights to the child upon return to the United States.

    Rick is turning things around here. It’s literally true that the Ponishes never asked to be guaranteed a healthy child (empty, anyway, since Rick just acknowledged higher up that the contract terms (in which the Ponishes had no say; it’s a contract of adhesion) forestalled BBAS making such a guarantee in the first place).

    But at the same time it’s technically misleading. The Ponishes also said they would not accept a child with severe emotional disturbances. They got one anyway. By not acknowledging this, Rick is shifting blame that should be on BBAS off it.

    And what could he possibly mean “not complete the transition”? He has to be relying solely on what Denise was telling him, because if he had actually talked to the Ponishes, even he might have seen their point. No transition in the world could have been long enough.

      Once the adoption was completed in Russia, the child was legally theirs and their responsibility.  Nevertheless Building Blocks  assisted in their relinquishment of their rights at no fee or charge to them.  The child is presently involved in a second adoption which will be completed by the end of the year.

    Hmm. The Ponishes had been led to believe the second adoption was already complete by this point.

The child has been continuously evaluated as required by the courts in Ohio. The child has not proved to be developmentally disabled and is not suffering any of the conditions that Mrs. Ponish indicates.  In fact, the child is doing very well.

    In fact, in cases of RAD, she wouldn’t present any of these symptoms when confronted with a stranger ... as the Ponishes observed and documented frequently enough, when confronted by a stranger she would turn on the charm in order to get what she wanted.

The Ponishes, having signed the contract, chose to unilaterally terminate that agreement.  Their unwillingness to accept a child of different temperament is no reason to cause a refund of their monies.

Even if they told Building Blocks that on the questionnaire Building Blocks asked them to fill out prior to the adoption?

It is the position of Building Blocks Adoption Service that they have successfully completed a facilitation of an adoption between the Ponishes and a Russian child.  The Ponishes unilaterally and for no good cause terminated that adoption.

    Again, what of BBAS’s apparent failure to respect their wishes on the questionnaire? Does Denise just send those out for the sake of effect (like she does with so many other things)? Perhaps it should now come with a disclaimer to the effect that BBAS feels free to ignore your wishes.

    It wasn’t legally binding, to be sure, but BBAS gave the Ponishes the impression that they would take care to prevent what did happen from happening. And one assumes that part of that care would be refunding monies if it happened anyway.

The Ponishes have not had to support this child as Building Blocks took steps to arrange for her care and her re-adoption by a desirable family here in the United States.  If anything, Building Blocks has gone over and above what is required by assuring the Ponishes that they would not have to pay support for their child, that they would assure that their child would be well-cared for and that their child would find a new home.

    This is really atrocious. That’s only what the State of Ohio requires them to do in this circumstance. How Rick could write this one with a straight face, we don’t know.

    On second thought, given what we know about the “effectiveness” of the BBB in resolving this sort of complaint, we do.

Therefore, it is the position of Building Blocks Adoption Service that the Ponishes are not deserving of a return of any monies.  Everyone has performed their duties and functions with respect to the Ponishes.  It is the Ponishes that have violated the understanding and agreement with respect to the adoption of this Russian child.

But ... but ... but. The Ponishes were under the impression that BBAS would be there for them if they were referred a child with a disability that they had explicitly said they didn’t want and could not handle. Who violated what first?

Back to the Ponishes’ story