The Post-Anderson Complaint:
#4-21-05
Although we know who these people are, we are not revealing their names. They contacted us after the Andersons. They are another Ohio client who adopted two children. Their adoption was completed sometime in November/December 2004. They made the complaint after having corresponded with the Andersons’ and contacted Linda Saridakis on April 25, 2005.
The complainant paid Foreign and Legal Source Fees to Building Blocks Adoption Services of $19,000 to complete a Guatemalan Adoption. They made photographs of the payments and Federal Express Receipt[s]. The attorney/translator in Guatemala stated [they] only received $14,000.
The statement by Mr. Marco stated $15,000 was sent. Mr. Marco also sent an invoice of money due.
They feel that the entire fee should have gone to the [Guatemalan] attorney. Even though I informed the Complainant that this was not under our jurisdiction and that I did not believe that the Foreign Source Fee was only for the attorney, they wanted to make a complaint.
The Complainant talked with previous Complainant the Andersons who gave them my name and email address.
This Specialist received a complaint on Building Blocks Adoption Services, Inc. on April 25, 2005. This Specialist discussed the complaint with the Complainant and explained that this type of issue is not under the Department’s jurisdiction and that I did not believe the Foreign Legal Source Fee, which he was referencing, was only the attorney’s fee.
The Referent [Complainant] indicated that he had talked to [the Andersons], previous Complainants, and that he wished to make a formal complaint. The Complainant indicated that he would be sending documents by facsimile.
This Specialist contacted the agency on April 25, 2005. The complaint was discussed and the agency confirmed that the Foreign and Legal Source Fees, as outlined in the agency’s Adoption Services Agreement contract, was not limited to the attorney. The agency also indicated that the Complaintant had adopted two children and had not made total payment in accord with the contract.
This Specialist discussed the allegations with the agency’s attorney on April 27, 2005.
The agency submitted documentation showing fees paid to the Guatemalan attorney and a copy of the contract. The documentation showed that the agency had paid a greater amount of money to the attorney, than the amount alleged by the Complainant and that the contract does not specify that this entire fee is remitted to the attorney.
This Specialist contacted the Complainant, as requested, on May 5, 2005. The Complainant was informed of the above information. The Complainant did not send the documents indicated, at the time of the complaint, and stated that he would not be sending them.
The agency has been cooperative during this review. There were no verifiable rule violations. It was suggested that the agency revise the Foreign and Legal Fee section of their contract to include the various types of fees that may be included in this area, and prevent any misinterpretation.
The people noted by Linda Saridakis in the report are:
Gladys Alvaraso Herrera de Sempe, Notary in Guatemala
Florencio Ulises OValle Lopez, Attorney in Guatemla
Rick Marco, Attorney Building Blocks Adoption Service
Building Blocks Adoption Service Personnel
The Complainant spoke with Rick Marco and reported the complaint to the Akron Better Business Bureau.
She stated:
This specialist talked with the Complainant and the agency on April 25, 2005 and with the agency’s attorney on April 25, 2005. The disposition letter was sent on May 5, 2005.
There were no findings of non-compliance and thus, no corrective action plan was required.
Imagine that. Amazing how clients are spending gross amounts of money for adoption, and the agency will not tell them where the money is going. Or even break the fees down for clients to understand who is getting what – and what for. We have not seen any evidence BBAS updated its contract to show where the fees were going or to whom they were going.
Sadly, this client did not follow up with the documentation he said he would. Every time a complaint is made, documentation – emails, letters, phone transcripts – should be included with the complaint. It may make no difference, but it will show, as the Anderson’s and the Unknown Guatemalan client [LINK WHEN AVAILABLE] complaints did, that Denise and Rick Marco are not only liars and but are running a legalized embezzlement scheme.