Dissolved in Ohio:
Chapter Thirteen
Kicking Your Clients When They’re Down ...
Or, Denise and Rick Rock On
Once the adoption proceedings for Natasha were signed and literally sealed in April 2002, the Ponishes, emotionally drained from the process, decided it was time to see if there was any way they could get a possible refund from Building Blocks.
They first asked Denise directly about any refunds due over Natasha’s adoption expenses. Denise flat out told them: “There will be NO refund.” Imagine that!
Couldn’t they realize she had a mortgage to pay, taxes, a payroll and her husband was giving all of his overtime pay to the orphans in Bulgaria? Didn’t they know about all of those expenses and how much good she was doing “for the children”? Ingrates!
They next contacted a local attorney and asked her to look over the contract they had signed in March 2001 with BBAS. She reviewed it and told them that it was in her professional judgement the contract was ironclad. As drafted, there was no way they would be getting a penny back from BBAS.
You see, when they signed on with BBAS, they thought they were dealing with an honest agency director, one who cared about her clients and all the financial burdens they were placing on themselves to adopt “God’s Orphaned Children”.
The next step was to contact other people who had been burned by Denise L. Hubbard. As I mentioned before, Christina Zima gave them our names and email, for she knew our story from Alysha Towell.
On May 10, Daniel and I received the following email, simply titled “Adoption”:
Our names are Margaret and Peter Ponish. We were given your name because we understand that you had a bad experience like ours with Building Block Adoption Agency. If this is true and you would like to communicate with us, please feel free to respond to our E-Mail. We most recently returned from Russia and some of our experiences were nightmarish. Anyways, I clearly would understand if you are not able to communicate with us, but I thought it would be worth a try. Margaret Ponish
Indeed, we knew. We felt their pain and contacted them as soon as possible. A telephone call followed where Margaret told me in full detail of her travails in Amur, Moscow and in Ohio.
When we relayed what we knew about BBAS and its slimy operations, Margaret and Peter sent a letter to Denise specifically asking for their money back. I told her that is what she should do, but also cautioned her that Denise wouldn’t respond — but that Richard J. Marco, Jr. would on Denise’s cowardly behalf, and probably deny everything.
I urged Mrs. Ponish to contact Linda Saridakis at the ODJFS. The more on file regarding Denise and her malfeasance, the more forewarned other potential clients would be. It was important for Ms. Saridakis to know about a locally dissolved adoption. Natasha very nearly ended up costing the state of Ohio for her foster care (and, given the severity of her problems, could well end up costing other areas of the state budget in the future).
On May 24, the following was sent to Denise by Margaret Ponish, true to her word:
Dear Ms. Hubbard,
As you are aware, we had an agreement to adopt a healthy child in Russia. We completed our end of the agreement by paying you and your adoption agency Building Blocks approximately $17,000 plus we spent another $10,000 in travel and lost wages to adopt a child (unhealthy) in Russia in March 2002. This is our second request in attempting to retrieve our money from your agency over this wrongful adoption.
We were not given a full disclosure of the risks of adoption. Instead, we were given a line of spiritual benefits, and what we received was a special needs child with severe acting out behavior problems. This became more apparent to us as the days progressed immediately after the adoption. We quickly learned, without the help from your agency and contacts, that she had a severe problem called Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and alcohol abuse.
We want to emphasize again as you are aware, that we were not prepared in anyway to undertake this kind of child into our family. This was not our reason to adopt. We spoke to you several times regarding reasonably good health issues as a number one condition for our adoption with your agency. You assured me of this by telling us that you sent the video on Natasha to us because she was a healthy child.
This child was severely emotionally challenged and would harm herself and us, scream uncontrollably for hours, run to perfect strangers, etc. amongst other inappropriate behaviors. Our eight year old son, who traveled with us, was likewise affected by this child’s severe temper tantrums. Because we were completely misled and misrepresented regarding this child by you/your agency, and contacts we could not make an educated decision in this choice. The following information is relevant to this matter.
- Contrived manner of orphanage visits/limitations of half hour visits
- Withholding of pertinent medical information (i.e. severe tantrums, fetal alcoholis, etc) by you, Building Blocks, your contacts and the Russian Orphanage until after the adoption.
- Not being permitted to see the child in other environments, with other children etc.
- Misrepresented tape of this child
- Misrepresented credtentialing of your agency. Beacon House was used in Russia as your alias.
- Lack of good communication between yourself and adopting families while in Russia.
- Lack of a solid and trustworthy relationship between you/Building Blocks, your contacts and this Russian Orphanage.
- Limited and questionable medical/psychosocial Russian physician evaluations before, during and after the adoption.
We have spoken to many professionals and parents, and have read literature regarding the prognosis and course of treatment of RAD/fetal alcohol syndrome. This disorder was fully and completely present to us while in Russia. Yet, you tried to convince us otherwise. This is not some temporary transitional problem that you have suggested to us, nor it is mere “symptoms” of a little disorder that was equally suggested to us. Many travelers witnessed this nightmarish experience that occurred on a 10 hour flight including airline personnel who see adopted children regularly on their flights. More importantly, we finally saw how awful her behavior was in comparison to other adopted children. Furthermore you of all people should know that this disorder has a charming manipulative component to it. How dare you try to justify this child as being a normal child upon your one time contrived visit to the respite mother’s home. Likewise, how dare you insinuate that we had anything to do with improper parenting the Saturday that we arrived back in Cleveland from 20 hours of traveling with a mentally ill child.
Due to the fact that we wanted a child so badly, we undoubtedly have agonized over the decision to relinquish this child, which we did on April 19, 20002 and this has also caused extreme havoc in our family.
We are outraged over the fact that you have not attempted to date to resolve this matter completely with us. You have not initiated any follow up contacts, yet you have indeed taken our money without hesitation and apparently without a conscience.
In summary, we are asking again that we be reimbursed, or we will take this to the next level. We will await your reply and ask that you respond within the next week.
And, within the week, the slimedog divorce attorney Richard J. Marco, Jr. Esq. responded to the above with this piece of understanding correspondence, written on June 4.
Sickening points are highlighted.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ponish:
Please be advised that I have been retained as legal counsel for Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. I have received a copy of your letter dated May 24, 2002 directed to Ms. Denise Hubbard, President of Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc.
I have had an opportunity to review your file with Ms. Hubbard concerning the adoption of your child. It is my understanding that this child has not been misrepresented to you. The contract clearly indicated that Building Blocks is a conduit of information and that you have the full opportunity to make a decision concerning the adoptability of a child, given your particular circumstances.
Further, the child was in fact adopted and returned to the United States. The completion of the contract by Building Blocks Adoption Service has been satisfied. The child was surrendered to the care of a private agency and has once again gone through the process of adoption.
It is not my understanding that you were given a line of spiritual benefits. It is also not my understanding that there were a contrived manner of orphanage visits of withholding of pertinent information. The child was not misrepresented. The credentialing of the agency was not misrepresented.
The facts are the adoption was performed and completed as a result of the actions of Building Blocks and the cooperation of you yourselves. This does not raise this case to require that a refund be issued for the monies that you have expended. Further, it is my understanding that Ms. Hubbard did in fact offer additional services to you which you declined. As this point in time, it is not the intention of Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc. to return to you the $27,000 that you requested in your letter of May 24, 2002. The adoption contract was fulfilled.
Very truly yours,
Richard J. Marco, Jr.
RJM:sd
Cc: Denise Hubbard
It’s so full of lies, inconsistencies and half-baked blame laying on the victims, that it marks a new low for “Scumbag” Marco as we began to call him, for he truly he is.
Richard J. Marco, Jr. blatantly LIED about a very important fact – Building Blocks misrepresenting their credentialing. Wendy Stamper said as much to them in her email of Feb. 22, 2002 before they traveled to Russia. Wendy and Denise were instructing the Ponishes to LIE in court about their agency in Russia but not even mentioning Building Blocks. Was this not a blatant misrepresentation of Building Blocks, by Building Blocks?
Margaret and Peter were revolted. She ratcheted it up a step. She wrote a letter on July 24 to Betty Montgomery, Ohio’s Attorney General highlighting her experience with BBAS. Margaret touched upon the fact that agencies were lying to clients about the health of the children they were placing, and the severe lack of governmental controls which these agencies operated under. There were more laws governing McDonald’s coffee than the International Adoption industry!
The next step was to contact Akron’s Better Business Bureau to file a complaint the next day, on July 25. This would fare no better. She faxed her complaint to Bev Orlando of the Akron BBB who forwarded it straight on to Building Blocks.
In their complaint, the Ponishes stated they wished to receive a refund of $17,000 from BBAS.
BBAS only joined the Akron BBB in September 2001, after we had made our initial complaints.
The Ponishes would learn that any complaint to a local Better Business Bureau against a bad adoption agency is the biggest JOKE going.
Regarding Building Blocks “Customer Experience” the Akron BBB states the following:
Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau. Any complaints processed by the Bureau in its three-year period have been resolved. The number and type of complaints are not unusual for a company in this industry…The number of complaints filed against the company may not be as important as the type of complaints and how the company handled them.
Building Blocks had three complaints within the last 36 months; the Akron BBB showed them all as “closed”. Laughing yet?
Two months later, Margaret and Peter received the following letter from Bev Orlando, the BBB’s “Trade Practice Manager,” with an attachment from Richard J. Marco, Jr.
Re: BUILDING BLOCKS ADOPTION SERVICE, INC.
Dear Mrs. Ponish:
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 controversial nature of this complaint, and 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.
In other words, 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.
If you thought Richard J. Marco, Jr’s response to the Ponishes complaint directly to Denise was cruel, this was over the top. How much does this guy get for writing these letters? I certainly hope it is a lot. It will be a fine day when his ace client Denise Hubbard is put out of business for good. He will miss the income she generates for him by her continued LYING:
He replied on Sept. 18. Again, all lies, inconsistencies and blame laying are highlighted:
Bev Orlando, Trade Practice Manager
The Better Business Bureau
222 West Market Street
Akron, Ohio 44303-2111
Re: Margaret Ponish
Dear Ms. Orlando:
Please be advised that your letter of September 5, 2002 has been referred to this office for a response.
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. This is an international adoption. The children are coming from orphanages. Building Blocks is a facilitator of adoptions.
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. 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”. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Therefore, it is the position of Building Blocks Adoption Service that the Ponishes are no 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.
Very truly yours,
Richard J. Marco, Jr.
RJM:sd
Cc: Denise Hubbard, Building Blocks Adoption Service
As with other documents in the Marco collection, the lies and half-truths are so numerous here as to require a separate page.
I wonder — if Natasha was such a lovely little girl, why hadn’t Richard and Cynthia Marco stepped forward to add her to their clutch? They certainly had the room in their $400,000 home (Oh, sorry, Cynthia’s $400,000 dollar home). Natasha would have fit right in with their family. Like a glove.
Again that money issue. Clearly, the money they had handed over to Denise Hubbard and Tatyana Dmitrieva in Blagoveshchensk never reached Natasha’s Baby Home. The Russian facilitators yes, the orphanages, no. Or was this a backhand way of admitting BBAS, like most adoption agencies at present, isn’t terribly liquid despite their considerable cash flows?
Just keep blaming the Ponishes! It’s all their fault! The girl was normal! They never made any guarantees about health! BBAS was just doing its job, and they did a satisfactory job! They never made any promises they could not keep – it was all the Ponishes doing! They didn’t get along with the child so they tossed her away.
I shudder when I read this letter. What a despicable man and what a low life greedy LIAR he is working with.
We thought this was the lowest that this agency could go.
When we received the agency’s side of the story from the ODJFS report, we were very, very wrong.
They were so far beneath low, we cannot even come up with a term for it.