February 7, 2008

Is Emily the REAL Culprit?

It was him
© Photographer: Prawny | Agency: Dreamstime.com
My opinion may not be the popular one, but here goes....

The INHERENT problems and abuses in adoption today ~ namely, the "business" aspect of the entire process ~ the supply/demand philosophy which permeates society (they DESERVE a baby) ~ the common sense reality that adoption is really not in the BEST interest of children (let's be honest here and admit that in reality it IS the 2nd best (or maybe even 3rd or 4th) way to help children and families ~ not the 1st ~ God INTENDED for mothers/children to be together and doesn't "place" babies in the wrong womb so that infertiles can "parent" ~ this popular feel-good adoption philosphy is ludicrous and offending ~ Adoption is NOT the way to "Grow a family" ~ Unfortunately, adoption's main purpose has morphed into fulfilling the desires of adults, rather than to care for children who truly need homes (if all those on "waiting lists" and who have their "profiles" plastered all over the web would take in a child in foster care, or a special needs child, or a true orphan who still sits because of their "advanced" age, we wouldn't be having this discussion ~ instead, marketing and advertising, paying big bucks, going overseas to get the fresh ones ~ This is wrong and is indicative of the fact that children are in fact, commodities in this "business" cloaked by "charitable intentions" & tax-credits.

I say all that (in a long ramble, I admit ~ not trying to get an "A" in symantics here) to say that this article only stands to SUPPORT these thoughts. If there was not fierce COMPETITION in the business of adoption, there would be no reason for women to scam. It is the NATURAL outcome of a business-run industry. Sorry, folks.

Therefore, I don't feel sorry for these poor prospective adoptive couples in the least. It happens. Just like many tell adoptees that we should just "get over it" and "go on with our lives" I will give the same advice. It doesn't feel very validating does it? These scams will only CONTINUE and maybe they should ~ to possibly bring light to the truth of the whole issue and unethical ways in which we treat children. Kind of like puppies that can be bought and sold or swapped from their mother to owner (at least they get weaning time, and pedigree papers), sealing and changing adoptee identities for life, and refusing to adequately acknowledge or educate the "customers" about the real issues they will be dealing with lifelong and generations after them.

I truly think if we started hand-cuffing and toting off to jail unethical adoption "professionals" we'd enjoy a much healthier society ~ but instead people get all excited over this? What's wrong with that picture?

newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-lijoy065566128feb06,0,1408489.column

Adoption advocates hail scammer's prison sentence

Joye Brown

February 6, 2008

The word spread quickly that Emily Singer of Long Island finally was
in handcuffs and on her way to prison.

"This is a great Monday!!" Lynne Banks, an advocate for couples
victimized by adoption scam artists, posted on a Yahoo group board
hours after Singer was sentenced in Riverhead Monday.

"We've been trying to do something about her for years," Banks, a
founder of adoptionscams.net, said in an interview Monday.

Banks lives in South Dakota; but the word traveled to adoption
advocates and hopeful parents from Ohio to Pennsylvania, Tennessee to
Arizona.

More than anything, Emily Singer is guilty of cruelty - to couples who
prayed for a miracle in the form of a pregnant woman looking for a
good home for babies she couldn't keep.

She's a woman, authorities say, who trekked about the country,
scanning newspaper ads, the Internet and telephone books, searching
for couples and adoption agencies. She promised to turn over her
babies, according to prosecutors and interviews with couples, in
return for living expenses.

Over time, they said, couples and adoption agencies fronted money for
transportation, motels, a cell phone from Radio Shack, Singer's
favorite double lattes from Starbucks, sneakers from Wal-Mart, toys
and diapers for her older children. She asked one couple to pay for
her prescription glasses and, when they refused, threatened to shop
one unborn baby elsewhere, authorities said.

The law, rightly, allows women to change their minds about giving
their children up for adoption. It is not uncommon for a woman to
accept financial help from agencies and couples and then decide to
keep her newborn.

But Singer, according to Suffolk Assistant District Attorney John
Scarglato, never intended to give up any of the babies born to her in
2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007. Authorities in Suffolk said they could find
nothing in the state criminal statutes to cover much of what Singer
did. Finally, they charged her with larceny, said Suffolk District
Attorney Thomas Spota.

"She took more than money from her victims," Scarglato said, noting
that she had received between $4,000 and $7,000 in lattes, groceries,
diapers and other items covered in the charges to which she pleaded
guilty. "But we could charge her with taking the money."

"We sent her a plane ticket and when she got here, we put her up in
one of our apartments," said Maxine Seiler, who runs an adoption
agency in Texas. "She up one day and left and we found a stack of
telephone books with adoption agencies marked in them." The agency
believes she moved on to Utah.

Banks said Singer was well known in national adoption circles because
she "usually used her real name and the real names of her children."

At each step along the way, according to prosecutors, Singer, 27, told
more than one agency or prospective parent that her child would be
placed for adoption.

By the time her third child was born, she had contacted couples in
Suffolk, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Arizona and North Carolina,
according to prosecutors and interviews with adoption advocates and
agencies.

The DA's office began an undercover investigation, and was stunned to
learn last year that she was pregnant again, and again had offered the
child to a Suffolk couple, Scarglato said.

Two of Singer's four children have been adopted after being placed in
child protective services; the youngest two are in foster homes. The
judge turned down Singer's request to be released without bail so she
wouldn't "have to wear handcuffs" during an upcoming custody hearing.
(He turned her down after the DA noted Singer's 10 arrests, eight
convictions and 10 failures, for a variety of reasons, to return to
court.)

On Monday, one couple, Lisa and Phil Caruso of Pennsylvania, faced
Singer in court. Lisa told her what she felt.

And Singer, turning to apologize - and admit that she was, indeed, a
scam artist - offered excuses as to why she decided to keep her third
child, Alex, rather than give him up. (She said she reversed her
earlier decision after learning that a birth defect he had "wasn't too
bad.")

Later, in the court hallway, I asked Lisa whether that was the first
time she had ever heard the boy's name.

"Oh, no," she said, with a stunningly sad shake of her head. "We
talked about names," she said, "and we told her we wanted to name the
boy Alex Joseph.

"And then one day she calls and says she's keeping the baby. And she
lets us know his name."

1 comment:

Elani said...

This is great info to know.