Dissolved in Ohio:

Chapter Fourteen

The Ponishes’ Complaint to the ODJFS

   

    On June 6, 2002, Margaret Ponish took it “to the next level” and contacted the Cleveland office of the ODJFS.  Disgusted and repelled by BBAS’s uncaring handling of their adoption, the Ponishes had no other recourse.  Denise Hubbard wasn’t owning up to her role in Natasha’s ill fated adoption, placing blame on Natasha’s mental conditions on Margaret Ponish.

    Linda Saridakis was in to take her call.  She asked Margaret the name of the agency she would like to make the complaint against. Upon hearing Building Blocks, Linda asked Margaret where she had obtained her name and telephone number. Margaret told her “Elizabeth Case.”  A name to send shivers down any adoption regulatory agency’s spine.

    On June 12, after her meeting with Wendy Stamper at BBAS offices, Linda Saridakis concluded in her report resolution of this complaint: “no policy violations verified…no rule noncompliance verified.”

    BBAS would not be cited for any state regulatory wrong-doing, under the ODJFS guidelines.  But the report shows the continuing inept, unprofessional conduct of the Ohio adoption agency located at 1103 Greenwood Court in Medina.

    The Ponishes too failed to satisfactorily prove their case against BBAS, ACW and Amrex.  Like the Towells,  Margaret failed to provide Linda Saridakis with the hard copy evidence they gave us for their stories on this website. Margaret faxed Linda Saridakis the signed contract with BBAS, her letter to Rick Marco and Rick Marco’s callous response and rebuttal.

    Relying primarily on Margaret’s spoken words, Linda’s written report is accurate. Therefore, it was not unexpected to read the same words that appeared in the Towell’s complaint: “The majority of the information obtained was the agency’s word versus the complainant’s word.”

    The following is their complaint, as told to Linda Saridakis by both Margaret Ponish and Wendy Stamper:

This specialist talked with [Margaret Ponish] on June 6, 2002. [Margaret] expressed her concerns regarding the business practices of Building Blocks Adoption Services. She stated that she and her family were in Russia most of March 2002 and that the agency, Building Blocks Adoption Services, was of no assistance during this time.

She stated that her and her husband requested a healthy child and received a child with fetal alcohol syndrome and reactive attention disorder.  It was never disclosed that the child had fetal alcohol syndrome, which was included in the translation, after the adoption.

[Margaret Ponish] does not feel that the agency has a working relationship with Russia or the orphanages.  She was told not to use the name “Building Blocks” while there and was never informed that she would be working with an organization called Beacon House.

She called Building Blocks from Russia because she wanted to relinquish custody of the child due to her behaviorial problems.  Ms. Hubbard informed her not to relinquish the child and to talk with the doctor, who she said was an alcoholic.  Ms. Hubbard told her that she should bring the child back and relinquish custody here, for the child would have a better life. 

She would like her $27,000 returned, since she requested a healthy child and received an unhealthy child.

[Margaret Ponish] and her husband began working with Noah’s Kids about one year ago.  They had their adoption homestudy and training completed by A Child’s Waiting.  They met families from Building Blocks Adoption Services during the training who were adopting from Bulgaria, obtained references and decided to work with Building Blocks.

The agency would not let them adopt through Bulgaria at this time, and informed them that adoptions were closed down there.  They proceeded with Russian adoption.  They received two videos on the child.  The doctor who they consulted with stated that if the child’s head size did not grow they should not proceed.  The child’s head had grown and was in scope.

[Margaret Ponish], her husband and 8 year old spent the majority of March 2002 in Russia.  The orphanage was located near the Sea of Japan, which is across from China. 

They had about 10.5 hour visits at the orphanage with the child.  The orphanage was under quarantine at the time.  They were only permitted to see the child in a controlled situation, with the exception of two times.   The child was very active and aggressive. 

The translator said she was “energetic”.  They questioned the social worker about the true character of the child.  The social worker discussed this in Russian and they were then informed that she was “strong like her hair”.  They also requested to see other children while there, due to their skepticism about this child.  These children were both sickly.

Ms. Hubbard stated that she approved [the Ponishes] seeing the other two children, but she was not even aware of this until after the fact.  They had requested a healthy child. [Margaret Ponish] stated that she was aware of the issues of children raised in orphanages.

[Margaret Ponish] stated that Building Blocks Adoption Service was of no assistance to them during their stay in Russia and that they were informed, by the agency, not to use the name, Building Blocks while in Russia.  They agency did not inform them that they would be working with Beacon House in Russia.  Beacon House is, evidently, an agency similar to AMREX.

[Linda Saridakis, even after handling the Towells complaint about the same situation, still did not understand the Amrex/Beacon House/Building Blocks relationship.  I don’t’ think anybody had bothered to fully explain it to her, neither the Towells, the Ponishes or Densie Hubbard]

[Margaret Ponish] also stated that Building Blocks is not an accredited agency in Russia.  The only thing that Building Blocks told them was not to believe the information on the Internet about them.

[Margaret Ponish] stated that they proceeded with the adoption of the child.  It was never disclosed to them by Building Blocks or Russia that the child had fetal alcohol syndrome. This was only learned through the translation, which they received after the adoption.  She stated the child also had reactive attention disorder.

[Margaret Ponish] then had to take the child to Moscow, which is about 8 hours away.  The child was hyperactive, running around, crying without tears and aggressive.  [She] expressed her concerns to the translator regarding the child’s behavior.  The translator stated that she was an “average” child.  Their intention was to relinquish custody of the child in Russia at this point.

While in Moscow, the [Ponishes] contacted Building Blocks and asked that Ms. Hubbard contact them.  Ms. Stamper and Ms. Hubbard told her not to relinquish custody, but to talk with the doctor.  Sh was told that if they brought back the child that the could relinquish custody here and the child would have a better life. 

[Margaret Ponish] stated that the doctor they were referred to was an alcoholic and that they did now wish to talk with him.  They were then told to obtain another doctor.  They saw a doctor at the Russian Embassy for a $100.00 fee.  He evaluated the child and said the child was “strong willed”.  He told the family to use Russian words and ignore the child’s behaviors.

The family had a 10 hour flight back to New York.  The child was tearing up things, obsessive compulsive, crying, screaming, biting, pulling hair and slapping them and disturbing everyone on the flight.  They had to stand up most of the flight, except when they were required to be seated. 

They did not want to take the child on another plane so they drove back to Cleveland.  They arrived early in the morning and telephoned Building Blocks. [Margaret Ponish] believes this was the last Saturday in March.  The child was still wild and they were trying to do anything to calm the child down.  The child was getting worse.  She was demonstrating self inflicting behavior, such as biting her nails till they bled, throwing self/head against the crib and physically hurting herself.

Building Blocks called them back at 8:00 AM that morning. A respite care worker from A Child’s Waiting then came and obtained a V.A.T.C. and placed the child in a respite foster home.  The respite foster mother informed [the Ponishes] that the child continued to throw temper tantrums.   

Building Blocks said that there was nothing wrong with the child. Ms. Hubbard even asked them if they abused the child.  They were offended by this statement.  Permanent Custody was given to A Child’s Waiting through Court in April 2002.

The [Ponishes] spent $27,000 and would like their money refunded.  She and her family would not have traveled this far, spent this amount of money, time and experienced this type of disruption if they did not want a child.  She requested the agency refund her money, which the agency’s Attorney Marco denied.  She requested a healthy child and an unhealthy child was delivered.

    Next, Linda went to BBAS for their side. We have added our comments.

This specialist telephoned the agency on June 10, 2002 and left a message. Ms. Wendy Stamper, Consultant, telephoned this specialist and left a message stating that Ms. Hubbard, Owner, was on vacation and that I should contact her. 

Denise left her clueless Wendy “Consultant” Stamper at the helm in her absence?  Was she nuts?

On June 11, 2002 this specialist telephoned Thomas Rotunda, Administrative Director and left a message regarding the complaint and returned Ms. Stamper’s call.

Thomas Rotunda…wasn’t he supposed to be handling this instead of Wendy?  Time he got a clue too!

This specialist explained to Ms. Stamper that we had received another complaint and that I would need to come to the agency and review the agency file.  Ms. Stamper seemed very upset and stated that she would call me back. Ms. Stamper telephoned this specialist and apologized.

Poor Wendy! She was actually going to have to handle something for a change. She’s a real bright star our Wendy Stamper! Can’t even answer the telephone without asking Denise how. Isn’t she so qualified for this job?

We scheduled an appointment for June 12, 2002.  The agency was not made aware of who the complainant was at this point.  This is a small agency, operated out of the owner’s home, and this specialist notified the agency to ensure someone would be present.

Did Linda Saridakis note the lovely hardwood floors, the high-tech office, the spacious living room, the kitchen etc – so much more grandiose than the Remsen Road house? Did it cross Linda Saridakis’s mind that BBAS’s faulty business ethics and morality was one of the main reasons the Hubbards were living so well?

The specialist met with Ms. Stamper on June 12, 2002.  The complaint allegations were discussed and information from the family and child were reviewed.  This specialist also talked with Ms. Hubbard briefly, by telephone, while at the agency.

No matter where Denise Hubbard was, I am sure her bullshit script of excuses and blaming her clients was close at hand, if not still firmly lodged in Denise's seedy mind.

[The Ponishes] homestudy and training were completed by A Child’s Waiting and the placement was set up by Building Blocks Adoption Services.  Ms. Stamper explained that the [Ponishes] could not adopt through Bulgaria because they only accept childless families, except on a case by case basis, where they may permit this from one of their special needs orphanages.  The family had a biological child and did not request a special needs child.

Let’s see. Two years earlier it was okay for the Homeyers, the Corrigans, the Atkinsons and two other families we know to adopt from Bulgaria when they already had children. Only after BBAS had gotten burned in Bulgaria, Denise decides to follow “Bulgarian adoption guidelines”?

Or, was the Bulgarian program such a shambles this was just a way of not having to admit as much to the Ponishes?

The agency began working with the [Ponishes] in March 2001. Ms. Stamper stated that on April 16, 2001 that her and Ms. Hubbard had a two hour meeting with the [Ponishes]. They discussed children in orphanages, interventions, responsibility regarding having the videos evaluated, that there were no guarantees on the health of the child, issues with older children regarding adjustment and tantrums, etc.  [The Ponishes] allegedly stated that they did not want a physically ill child or a child missing body parts.

No way. If all of the above was truly discussed and accurately described at the face to face meeting between the Ponishes and BBAS that night, I’ll eat my hat. Wendy LIED here to cover herself and Denise’s in their rope `em in and take `em hostage tactics.

Most of April and part of May 2001 were spent working on the completion of required paperwork.  The referral information for the child was received on June 25, 2001, by the agency and sent to the family.  On July 6 and 7, 2001 the agency talked with [the Ponishes] regarding the referral for the child and the [Ponishes] accepted the referral pending further evaluation.  The initial medical report documented a psych/speech developmental delay, perinatal encephalopathy, telrapresis and that the child was at risk of microcephalia. 

[The Ponishes] did have the video evaluated by a physician, as advised by the agency.  [The Ponishes] requested further information about the child on July 24, 2001.  It was explained by the agency that it sometimes takes a few weeks, but they could not guarantee that they would receive this. 

Around this time, [Peter Ponish] allegedly indicated that he wished to delay the adoption until next year due to the tax credit going from $5,000 to $10,000.  They were advised of the risks in postponing the adoption and the delays this may cause for a child in an orphanage. 

Another continuing tactic. Blame the parents for only wanting to adopt for tax refund reasons. For God’s sake, BBAS always told prospective clients they’d receive the federal tax credit when they adopt – do you think Peter Ponish pulled that one out of his hat? BBAS tried to taint us with the same tax credit brush. Also, it’s highly doubtful Wendy or Denise played up the issues Natasha would face if they delayed the adoption. The poor girl was already a RAD child, even by July 2001.

The updated video and information requested were sent to the family in August 2001. Ms. Stamper stated that there was no information provided to the agency regarding the child having fetal alcohol syndrome. Ms Hubbard confirmed this in our telephone conversation.

To be fair, Denise and Wendy would not have had this information – but by the same token, the Ponishes should have been fully briefed that Natasha, being from Russia, ran a higher incidence of FAS/FAE than other foreign born children.

There appeared to be continual exchanges between the agency and [The Ponishes] from July 2001 through February 2002 regarding documents, document revisions, fees, travel, etc.

Ms. Stamper explained that Building Blocks employs AMREX as their facilitator an AMREX sometimes uses Beacon House.

Correction: Amrex in Moscow claims it IS Beacon House; in some regions of Russia, the MOE thinks Beacon House has so many clients. Amrex is very hidden in Russia. To my knowledge ALL of the BBAS clients are “Beacon House” clients while in Russia

There is mention of AMREX in conversations, but no mention of Beacon House. She stated that they request that families not use the name Building Blocks while in Russia because it caused confusion.  This has been discussed in the previous complaint.

Wrong again.  BBAS tells its clients to LIE in Russia because BBAS is an unaccredited agency.  If a BBAS Russia client actually told the truth about their agency, it could risk BBAS’s adoption program in Russia, especially Blagoveshchensk/Amur.

The family traveled to Moscow around February 28, 2002 and to the orphanage [March 1].  The representative in Russia informed Building Blocks on March 9, 2002 that she talked with [Margaret Ponish] regarding her concerns with the child and regarding the child warming up to her husband and not her.

Confirmation Tatyana Dmitriyeva is in direct contact with BBAS – closer than we had thought. The theme begins here of “Peter loved Natasha, Margaret hated her and wanted her out of the picture.” This theme will be played up as BBAS, Tatyana and ACW get rolling

[Margaret Ponish] indicated to the representative that they still wanted the child. The representative also informed Building Blocks that the family had inquired about referrals for other children.

Tatyana must have been blowing a gasket so soon after Alysha’s visit. Another Building Blocks client causing her difficulties – what sorts of people was Denise sending over to her?  It was enough to make her retire her wool coat and beret!

Ms. Stamper attempted to contact the [Ponishes] on this date and left a message with the other couple sharing the cell phone with this family.

Why hadn’t Wendy called the hotel where both were staying and left a message – or an email to Tatyana?

[Peter Ponish] contacted the agency on March 15, 2002 and stated everything was fine and there were no problems. 

Peter was probably as under duress as his wife having witnesses Natasha’s outbursts, tantrums, hair pulling, and over all aggressive RAD behaviors. What did they want him to say?

On March 20, 2002 Ms. Hubbard and Ms. Stamper had a conference call with [Margaret Ponish].  They indicated that the complainant seemed stressed and was having a difficult time.  [Margaret Ponish] informed them that the child was throwing fits; out of control; not eating and felt that something was wrong.

Ms Hubbard advised [Margaret] that this was normal behavior for a child who has been torn from their home and who is developmentally and emotionally behind.  Ms. Hubbard indicated that it would take at least 3-6 months for the child to become adjusted.

Oh really? Denise only started talking about “delays” and “adjustment periods” in Moscow. Why not back in Blagoveshchensk? This is not normal behavior for a 3-year-old girl, even one from an orphanage! Denise Hubbard knows how these kids are when they first are brought into a family. She was using every lie and excuse in the world to justify keeping Natahsa with the Ponishes. Three to six months my eye. Anything for the placement!

They stated that [Margaret Ponish] indicated to Ms.Hubbard that she understood this and then inquired about giving up the child.  She was advised by Ms. Hubbard to check with the representatives.

The representatives were in the same boat as the agency.  Anything to place the kid – once out of Russia, it wasn’t their problem anymore.  They had plenty more where Natasha came from.

Ms. Hubbard and Ms. Stamper then talked to [Peter Ponish]. He indicted that they were all tired and that the child was acting out, scarred and tired too. They were again advised to talk with the representatives regarding support and finding a doctor to evaluate the child. [The Ponishes] did not wish to use the doctor the agency recommended because they had seen him drunk.

We didn’t say it. Linda Saridakis said it.

Building Blocks then requested the representative to assist the family in obtaining emotional support and a doctor to evaluate the child.

WRONG. The Ponishes had already talked to Val about a medical evaluation for Natasha prior to this conversation talking place.

Ms. Stamper talked with [Margaret] on March 21, 2002 who allegedly stated that they had visited the clinic and had an evaluation of the child and were reassured. The doctor had informed them that the child was small due to rickets, was smart and strong willed. 

See prior comments about this doctor and normal Russian three-year-olds.

[Margaret] then said that if this is the personality of the child that they were considering relinquishing custody when they returned, because they did not want a strong willed child.

While in Russia, the Ponishes had never heard of RAD. Margaret Ponish had no other way of knowing that Natasha was mentally damaged, so the term “strong willed” was used instead of the proper term – RAD. This was going to haunt her during the rest of this report.

[Margaret] stated that her husband had bonded well with the child.  They were told to give it a chance and see how it goes when they return.

Here again: divide the spouses. Separate wife from husband.

On March 23, 2002 [Margaret] contacted Ms. Hubbard from New York.  Ms. Stamper indicated that [Margaret] said that the child was a monster, they wanted to relinquish their rights immediately and wanted to know what they agency was going to do.

We know of one family who traveled to Ukraine to adopt a child.  Upon their return to JFK, they refused to complete the adoption. We are very certain after the 10-hour Delta Baby Flight Margaret Ponish did use the word “Monster” to describe Natasha

Ms. Hubbard stated she would discuss this with A Child’s Waiting and call back.  [Denise] requested respite and family preservation services from A Child’s Waiting. 

We were right – Denise did clue into her duties as an adoption agency director and did her job for once.

She talked with [Margaret] again who allegedly stated that the child cries too much, is too needy, she did not have time and did not want a needy child. 

[Denise?] informed Margaret that agency could do a temporary custody and asked about her husband. [Margaret] stated that he had been though hell and wanted to do this. They were advised that the caseworker would call them.

Yes. Peter and Margaret were on the same page after all. Or was that some surprise to Denise?

The assessor from A Child’s Waiting telephoned the family and met with them on this date.  A Child’s Waiting stated in their report to Building Blocks that [Margaret Ponish] repeatedly stated that she could not handle this child and that she was a “wild child”.  [see Jennifer Marando’s report to BBAS]

Ms. Stamper and Ms. Hubbard also talked with [the Ponishes] on March 25 and March 30 2002.  [Margaret] felt that they were matched with the wrong child and said her husband was not well because he was in love with the child, but she was realistic. 

Poor Peter! He loved Natasha so much! Nobody mentions Tucker and how he had fared during this adoption journey. And that evil, cruel woman Margaret! She just didn’t understand Natasha’s delays and needs! Couldn’t she see all Natasha needed was time to bond adjust and sleep? And a few hits of every drug under the sun to calm her down?

Ms. Hubbard indicated that she met the child and that the respite home said she was adjusting.  It was explained again that it would take at least 3-6  months for the child to adjust.

If that were so, why did the one family who stepped forward to adopt her from foster care say no to Natasha? And if this is true, why hadn’t Wendy or Denise or even Cynthia Marco, Debbie Bollinger or lastly Jennifer Marando stepped forward to adopt this lovely 3-year-old girl?

[The Ponishes] feel that they requested a healthy child, that all information was not disclosed and they did not receive what they requested.  The agency feels that [the Ponishes] were informed of the information that they had about the child and made a decision based on that information and the evaluation video, by a professional. 

The wrote a letter regarding their concerns to the agency on May 24, 2002 requesting a refund.  The agency responded on June 4, 2002 stating they felt that the child was not misrepresented and they did not feel that the family should be refunded.

The disposition letter was sent to the agency on June 13, 2002.

This specialist contacted [Margaret Ponish], per her request, on June 13, 2002 regarding the results of the complaint and to let her know that I had received the information she had sent.  [Margaret] telephoned again on June 14, 2002 and the call was returned on June 17, 2002.

[Margaret] stated that she was going to send me the information regarding the child having fetal alcohol syndrome. She continued to discuss issues regarding A Child’s Waiting. I let her know that I had discussed her concerns regarding this agency with the licensing specialist, but she did not provide any specifics other than their recommendation of Building Blocks and that she felt that they were covering for Building Blocks minimizing the child’s symptoms. She stated again that she felt that Building Blocks misrepresented the child. I again explained our jurisdiction regarding licensure.

The last paragraph is interesting. At long last Tom Rotunda gets a direct ping from Linda Saridakis

Mr. Rotunda, Administrator for Building Blocks was telephoned on June 13, 2002 to discuss the disposition of the complaint.  A message was left and he returned my call on June 14, 20002.  I talked with Mr. Rotunda on June 15, 2002 regarding ways to improve services.  Mr. Rotunda sated that he would be talking with agency staff and reviewing ways to improve service.  He stated that he would like to meet me with himself and staff to discuss this and would contact me with a future date.

Psst, Tom. We have a suggestion on how you could improve services: Buy out DENISE! DUMP WENDY! Install yourself as the head cheese of Bad Blood Adoption Service! You have more business knowledge than Denise and her gaggle of goslings ever could have. Think about it Tom! It could be a valuable way to spend your retirement from Roadway – head of Building Blocks.

    BBAS needed help this time, though ... and Jennifer Marando was only too kind to ride to the rescue of her strategic partner. As it had happened, on April 1, appropriately enough, she had prepared a report, not for the complaint as it hadn’t been written yet but (judging from the previously-faxed copy included in the documents we got from ODJFS) for whoever was handling the re-placement of Natasha.

    A copy was sent to Linda for the complaint file. It is a very sketchy document, which spends an inordinate amount of time trying to establish that Margaret Ponish was uncaring and premature in initiating a disruption over her husband’s objections ... the main issue Denise hangs her response on.

    After visiting the Ponishes and spending a few hours with them, Jennifer was able to determine that: “[Peter Ponish] was more open to the needs of the child than his wife.  [Margaret’s] reports seem to be exaggerated.” Everything Margaret had complained about was “all normal transitional issues that the family was ill-prepared to handle.” (Well, that last part is true. But the great stinking unanswered question here that Jennifer seems to be too thick to realize she had to cover her butt on was ... why this family was ill-prepared. Could it be because a certain placement and homestudy agency had both failed to do that?)

    If there was any attempt to take the history of Natasha, or to talk to her alone, it doesn’t show here. Jennifer Marando wasn’t interested in how she had been such an absolute terror on the plane ride from Moscow. Even kids experiencing normal transitional issues manage to fall asleep and/or calm down eventually.

    We think we can understand, now, just how it came to pass that the Ponishes were not educated about RAD: Jennifer Marando herself doesn’t know much about it. She seems not to have recognized it in the symptoms reported in Natasha by the Ponishes.

    If anything, parents are the one with attachment problems.

[Peter Ponish] was more open to the needs of the child than his wife.  [Margaret’s] reports seem to be exaggerated.

[Peter] seemed to be more attached to the child and more willing to work through her issues.  [Margaret] seemed unattached and critical of the child.

   She was, however, enough of a professional to realize that this was not a good situation for anyone concerned, and had Natasha put in respite care, with the idea that some cooling-off time would be good.

    Two days later she called the Ponishes to report progress ... Natasha was calmer, eating and sleeping better. But Margaret, darn her, just wouldn’t budge: “[She] seemed closed to the idea that the child was demonstrating transitional issues.”

    Because she didn’t understand RAD, she didn’t understand just what was going on. Of course Natasha was going to improve if she was placed in another’s care for a while ... RAD children do that. If you recall from the fateful plane ride back to the U.S., Natasha’s behavior improved significantly whenever she was approached by a stranger, or one of the flight attendants (you know, the same people who’ve seen hundreds of freshly-adopted kids and knew enough to tell the Ponishes they got ripped off).

    That’s because they’re manipulative. And Christine Marando was being manipulated, by a three-year-old but manipulated nonetheless, by a budding sociopath who quite easily saw how she could use this woman to improve her position and find fresh marks.

    She fell for it hook, line and sinker (in fairness she would hardly be the first, or last, professional to do so):

This assessor stated that the prognosis for the child was good once transitional issues were dealt with. It is this assessors position that she is developmentally delayed slightly but is very bright and verbal.

I also feel that the child has attachement issues but that she is able to attach. The child demonstrates good eye contact, will receive and give affection appropriately, and has stranger anxiety/separation.

    It was all, that last especially, an act. That was what Margaret Ponish had already realized, even if she hadn’t yet learned about RAD. And that’s why, a few days later, Jennifer would describe her as  “adamant that the child was ‘disturbed.’  She was closed to this assessors assessment.”

    Missing completely from this report, of course, is the very important information that another family had considered adopting Natasha, but quickly changed their mind

    Jennifer was flummoxed. “It appears that this family had unrealistic expectations and are inflexible in their parenting style,” she reported. “This assessor attempted to explain the child’s current needs to the family, but again, they were not receptive.”

    One doesn’t need to be a professional social worker to be struck by the fact that Jennifer Marando seems to be more concerned about keeping this family together then about doing the best thing for the child, which whatever some think are not always the same thing. Certainly not here.

    We have to wonder if what was really going on was ... selling. Jennifer Marando had to know a disruption would be bad for Building Blocks, from whom she was getting clients perhaps regularly for her homestudies (as the Ponishes’ experience would suggest). She had to keep this family together, or Denise might find someone else to refer her clients to for homestudies. That’s why she kept pushing them to see Natasha’s problems in the most minimal light imaginable, why she wanted them to make a reunification plan, why she offered to let them visit her at the foster home two days later ... she could never allow herself to imagine that this child, indeed any child placed by Denise, might be beyond their capabilities to care for.

    The sales have continued.  Much to our abject horror, on April 30, 2004, A Child’s Waiting and Jennifer Marando received nationwide coverage regarding their open adoption program.  The ABC newsmagazine show, 20/20, ran a segment on a young Ohio woman who had chosen to relinquish her baby for adoption and was deciding which of several couples would get it (You may remember it without the link ... it was, as you can imagine, quite controversial)

    The agency that made this all possible?  A Child’s Waiting, of Akron, Ohio.

    The segment turned our stomachs, not because of the open adoption (we are in favor of open adoption), but because ACW and the Bessemer sisters were portrayed as successful, saintly women, finding homes for babies. The desperate adoptive families willing to do anything to get their hand on one of those relinquished infants were understandable since domestic infant adoption is portrayed as so hard to do.

    The most horrifying sales pitch came at the end of the segment when every couple was cradling an infant in their arms.  A domestic infant, one of the most coveted, holy grail objects in adoption in the United States.  Domestic white infants, with the exception of one couple.  These adoptive families were all clients of A Child’s Waiting.  What better sales tool could an agency have than national coverage of happy clients holding infants in their arms?

    Guess everybody forgot about Natasha Ponish and Kelsey Hyre and what great things ACW did for their families.

***

    Four years later, on August 22, 2008, the state finally did its job by penalizing – at long last – A Child’s Waiting.  Rick Armon of the Akron Beacon Journal wrote a great piece about ACW and what the ODJFS found.  The ODJFS nailed ACW on state regulation violations.  ACW was prohibited from taking custody of any new children.  They were reduced to being a “private noncustodial agency” which could only “assist” with adoptions and do “administrative work.”  Marando & Kolarik were banned from doing their daily jobs for FOUR YEARS.  They were “permitted to keep their financial interest in the agency” Why not?  It was an LLC not a non-profit and they had already created a few other LLC for-profit ventures.

    The best part was, they were barred from working with birth mothers.  The worst part, after four years they could still apply for another license to place children.

    Yet, the sisters are fighting the state of Ohio for control.  Rick Armon, the reporter for the Akron Beacon Journal, wrote in an article on April 29, 2009 that Marando & Kolarik violated the terms of their settlement with the ODJFS.  They took three cases when they should not have; failed to submit monthly reports for children in their custody; Marando & Kolarik did NOT step away from their duties as they said they would.

    To really top it off with a cherry, when the ODJFS wrote to say their temporary certificate to stay in business would be revoked, hence shutting down the agency, Marando & Kolarik filed for an injunction against ODJFS in Summit County court, claiming the state conducted “unlawful investigative activities.”

    Marando & Kolarik and their attorney, Crissy’s hubby Todd, are seeking $25,000 in “damages.” (Jennifer is only in it by herself because her husband has left her).  Indeed!  Can’t get away from child pimping can they?

    If there is life after treating other people’s children like inter-changeable commodities Marando & Kolarik are trying too.   They’ve created two more companies.  According to their articles of incorporation, they are running “Turning Corners Counseling” and “Kids Art Akron”

    What Kolarik’s Kids Art has to do with adoption work is anybody’s guess.   Don’t be fooled by the “wholesome” look of these two on the Kidz Art website.

About the Owners

Maybe Crissy & Jenny can find some “artistic expression” in their new ventures.  We only hope it’s not to steal their clients’ children and attempt to place them with new “forever” families.   Even with 14 years of “Professinal Clinical” counseling under Jenny’s belt.

Todd Kolarik gets into it too:

Listed below are children that are in need of loving homes. All of the children below have previously been adopted and for various reasons, their adoption was not able to be maintained. The placements are considered private adoptions (they are not currently residing in county foster care and they are in the legal custody of their adoptive parents), there are minimal fees for placement although there are no fees to be considered for these children through our Law Office. To be considerd for these children, you must have a valid homestudy within your state. Other children, in addition to those listed above maybe available. Contact the office for more information or to be considered as a placement resource.

    Some people never stop.

Back