Complaint / review text:
This agency has mistreated a high numbers of biological mothers in the quest to obtain their children to adopt them out, which gives the agency a nice paycheck.
This agency has also shown blatant disregard for the fathers of the children they try or do adopt out, at least one of which is married to the mother of the child they are trying to adopt out - which is ILLEGAL. Other fathers are ignored when they protest the adoption, even before the agency has any signature from the mother to take the child.
Mothers are also ignored when they demand their children back, because this agency is opposed to the rights of the American states, and makes the mothers sign the rights of the state in which the child is born and located away, just to make it easier for them to obtain the child and fight either parent when they demand their child back.
This agency also shows a blatant disregard for the feelings and payments of it's clients as a result of the aforementioned actions, as the prospective adoptive parents are led to believe by the agency that a child is available for adoption even when it is not, and therefore those prospective adoptive parents will have to face their adopted children hating them in the future for having taken them from their rightful and loving parents, no matter how much the adoptive parents knew at any point about that.
This agency is also violating the rights of the children in question, as the UN convention on the rights of the child clearly states in Article 7, (1): "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
If the parents want their child back, it is possible for the child to be cared for by it's parents. If the agency has any concerns regarding that, their job is not to withhold the child, but to return the child and to inform the responsible CPS department for the state and the county of the parents what their concerns for the child are, as CPS is doubtless the higher authority on risks for a child and how to deal with them.
As well, the UN conventions article 8 (1) states: "States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference."
This agency is using the Utah laws to secure the child for adoption, and thereby is deliberately using a state party that does not respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including name and family relations.
Article 8 (2) states: "Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity."
This agency is not urging the authorities of the state of Utah to work with everything that they have against a child being illegaly OR legally deprived of his or her identity, and thereby this agency is not following it's own responsibility in protecting the rights of children - which should make anyone wonder how they can be fine with that, given that their entire job is about children.
Article 9 (1) states: "States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence."
This agency is not returning the child in question to it's parents when it is the parents' will that the child be returned, and thereby this agency is in deliberate violation of this article of the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Article 9 (2) states: "In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known."
This agency is opposing the right of the father to participate in the proceedings, and this agency is thereby in deliberate violation of this article of the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Article 9 (3) states: "States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests."
This agency is not urging the state of Utah to respect this right of the child, and this agency is also deliberately withholding contact between the child and it's parents without an authority on a child's best interest (i.e.: CPS) having determined that contact is not in the child's best interest. What is more, this agency does not even offer an allegation as to why the contact could or would be harmful itself, and is thereby violating this article of the UN convention on the rights of the child without even saying why.
Also, the article 21 (1) states: "Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child's status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary"
As the persons concerned have not given consent/not given informed consent, this agency is in deliberate violation of this article of the UN convention on the rights of the child.
The aforementioned violations refer more specifically to at least three known cases where one or both parents demanded their child back and where one mother was threatened into giving consent that was not informed consent to adoption, all while she was a minor.
More cases have come to the surface where this agency has acted in deliberate violation of the rights of the children they receive money for and the rights of the parents that want their children back.
Even if those actions do not convince one of the agency's wrongdoings, the inevitable heartache for any prospective adoptive parents who will bond with a child before having to let it go back to it's parents because of the agency's actions and inactions, the inevitable heartache for any prospective adoptive parents who will get their hopes up for a child only to not receive one because of the agency's actions and inactions, and the inevitable heartache for any prospective adoptive parents who, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt a child through this agency that was demanded back by either or both of it's parents, and who will then become the people the child in question hates when it finds out that it as wanted by but denied return to it's parents and family - if the other actions do not convince one, these results probably will.
Parents, their children, and hopeful prospective adoptive parents deserve better than the treatment this agency offers them.