October
12, 2000
Mr.
Richard Marco
Marco,
Marco and Bailey
52
Public Square,
Medina,
OH 44256
Dear
Mr. Marco,
As per your letter of September 8, we have traveled to Bulgaria and
returned with our son Anguel. The information you gave us was accurate and
useful, and we look forward as per your wishes to many happy years of family
with him.
You are correct in stating that issues remain between Building Blocks
and ourselves. Much of what you said warrants reply.
Firstly, I would ask if Building Blocks or Mrs. Hubbard intends to
pursue any criminal action over the phone calls my wife made in an extremely
distressed state of mind that was due in no small part to the toll the wait,
far lengthier than originally represented to us by Mrs. Hubbard one year
ago, took on her. If not, I see no purpose in bringing them up except to
continue a disturbing pattern of petty emotional harassment that has
characterized our dealings with her since we filed our complaint with the
Ohio Department of Human Services in February. In point of fact, I would
consider adjectives such as those you chose to use better served on your
client.
I would also differ with you about your interpretation of our
relationship and what it entailed as far as communications and obligations
during the Bulgarian adoption process.
In March of this year, we were informed by you in writing that, due
to the aforesaid complaint to the ODHS, our relationship had to be
considered adversarial and thus communications between ourselves and BBAS
were to be handled through your office rather than directly, beyond routine
developments in the Bulgarian adoption process.
We assumed that we would be receiving, through your office or
yourself, the same kind of information that Denise Hubbard routinely passes
on to her clients. This includes her travel plans so that clients may know
when they can and cannot contact her.
Such itinerarial information is most commonly disseminated through
the electronic newsletter sent to all clients via electronic mail. We
received it prior to our trip to Russia in November 1999 and indeed shortly
thereafter, but it is my understanding that Cindy Courtright, the BBAS
employee responsible for it, had to leave for health reasons around that
time and it was temporarily discontinued.
Through some apparent oversight on BBAS’s part, when publication of
the electronic newsletter resumed in the springtime, we were not made part
of the distribution list. In fact, we were never told that it had been
resumed.
Thus
we were not aware, nor could we have been aware, of Mrs. Hubbard’s travel
plans in advance. Hence it was our assumption that, if you were accompanying
her on those trips, that we would be similarly informed in the same fashion
as all other BBAS clients.
As
for your email address, I believe your anger over its use is barred by the
doctrine of laches. We had on several previous occasions sent email to that
address with the understanding that you, as “AttyMarco” (an alias, found
on the “cc:” line of an earlier email from Denise Hubbard, to which this
email address purportedly your wife’s was attached) were reading them.
Hard copies of the same emails were sent to you in letter format by US mail,
and no objection was ever raised.
I
am sorry if the content of the email in question caused some unpleasantness
between you and your wife, as has been rumored. This difficulty could have
been averted by advising us in a more timely fashion as to its
incorrectness.
Far
more troubling in this context, to me, is your complete elision of the
underlying issue which prompted this email: the August 21 post to the
Families for Ukrainian Adoption Web site, in which an unidentified poster
described our tragic experience in Perm briefly but accurately. I was moved
to ask whether BBAS was adequately protecting our confidentiality, an asset
of its clients which it claims to value highly and in fact has gone to
extraordinary lengths, at times, to protect.
The
fact that your letter mentions nothing at all about it only serves to
reinforce the misgivings expressed in that email about BBAS’s ability to
preserve such confidentiality and corresponding language in the release we
have been asked to sign in exchange for a refund of fees expended on our
attempted Russian adoption. I will deal with those issues below.
All
this would be rather trivial had it not been for your next paragraph.
“It
is unfortunate that you continue to raise an adversarial relationship
with Building Blocks Adoption Services, while continuing to use those
services. Had you had such a problem with them then perhaps you should
have terminated the adoption process at some time in the past.”
Each
time I read this I am, without fail, appalled (to say the least). Even now.
Mr.
Marco, it has apparently slipped your mind that there was a third person
involved in this process with a heavy investment in its successful outcome,
who was not a signatory to any contract. It never slipped our mind even
though we had not seen him for a year.
Yes,
we did have a problem with BBAS’s services (services only in the legal
sense). And no, we chose not to terminate those services because for us, it
was about a son, not maintaining harmonious business relationships (this
should be obvious by now).
In
fact, as you may or may not be aware we did explore the possibility of
continuing Anguel’s adoption through at least two other U.S.-based
agencies and a Bulgarian lawyer. We were told in no uncertain terms that we
had to dance with the girl who brung us, that the orphanage in Burgas
dedicates particular children to clients of specific agencies or
facilitators and that relationship is not changed midway through the
adoption process for any reason. If you are aware of this, your comments are
not only disingenuous but obnoxious.
In
any event, the outlook on the part of you or your clients unmistakeably
implied by the quoted statement speaks volumes about where BBAS and Denise
Hubbard’s interest in adoption truly lies, and confirms our darkest
suspicions. Anyone who thinks like that should not, in my opinion, be even
allowed to have children, much less help others adopt them.
Does
BBAS share this philosophy with all its clients, or just the unhappy ones?
Perhaps the latter have already figured it out for themselves, but, as the
unhappiest of BBAS’s many unhappy clients despite our successful adoption
from Bulgaria, I imagine we were accorded the rare privilege of a glimpse of
the unadulterated truth.
For
what that’s worth, thanks.
Fortunately,
my good humor returns upon reading the next sentence, where you petulantly
assure us that BBAS will not provide any services for us after the
conclusion of the adoption.
As
you should know, that’s an empty threat … in fact, it’s not even a
threat. If you are referring to postplacement reports, there are none
required by the Bulgarian government [Dan was wrong about this, to be
fair. But only this]. If you are referring to assistance with obtaining
US citizenship and residence for Anguel, it was always understood, under
even the friendliest of terms, that that was our responsibility.
In
any event, after our experience, it should scarcely come as a surprise to
you that we would refuse those services if they were offered to us.
And
at long last, the time has come when I can speak with certainty regarding
the release.
We
are not adverse to signing such a document, but we find two elements of the
proposed release unacceptable.
First,
$9,500 is not nearly enough money to compensate us for not only our expenses
but the pain and continuing anguish we have experienced as a result of
watching a frail infant die, however quietly, in front of us. I would expect
to see at least $20,000 as a ballpark figure.
This
does not have to be in one lump sum. We can be very flexible concerning a
payment structure and schedule.
Second,
the confidentiality clause is poorly worded at best and ill-advised at
worst. I have also previously detailed my severe reservations about BBAS’s
ability to abide by these provisions and the circumstances that gave rise to
them.
As
it presently stands, it would enjoin us from pursuing the means that may be
necessary to obtain Kirill’s death certificate and autopsy report (no, we
have not forgotten those issues. We believe those documents would be of
interest to BBAS as well, as was expressed to us by the agency’s primary
Russian facilitator at that time). We also could not discuss his death, its
circumstances and its effect on us, even with our own family members,
without breaching.
More
to the point, it is our knowledge and belief that the events of Nov. 25,
1999 are common knowledge among persons and agencies involved in Russia, and
that a version of the incident has inevitably emerged in unofficial channels
which unfairly distorts the events of that night and places the blame upon
us. Should that version come into greater public knowledge, we would find it
impossible to clear our names under the proposed confidentiality language.
Certainly this, too, would be an area where we and BBAS have the same
interest.
At
the very least, “negative information” should be changed to “false and
disparaging information.”
To save your valuable time, I have enclosed a draft copy of the release
amended to reflect the two changes explicitly outlined above. I trust a
veteran of the bar such as yourself can draft language accommodating our
other concerns.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in reading this letter.