I knew of a number of adoptions that happened while on staff. The two that I knew of personally were definitely "in-house", ie a Way person doing a private placement with another Way couple. As the details were understandably confidential I have no idea if there was a tinge of "trafficking" on any of those placements...
At one time it was known that if you wanted a baby, talk to Mrs. W
What will be interesting is when these adopted kids decide they want to meet their birth mother. Has twi taken that into consideration? What will their policy be? Will they respond like they did with the cemetary or will they be a bit more *helpful*?
OK, I'll weigh in on this one. I know xxxxxx x. She and her husband came to MI in '85 as WOWS. I like them. They've always been cool to me. I last saw them in the late 90s; they're still up there as far as I know. But I didn't know anything about the events described on this thread.
I remember a woman whom I saw at branch meetings a few times and the last time I saw her she was great with child and then I didn't see her anymore. Could've been xxx x.
quote: am sort of surprised that xxxxxx was not taught that the baby was not alive until its first breath and encouraged to simply have an abortion. This would follow with what I understand is TWI's normal method of operating.
If xxx x. got pregnant in 1987 and she didn't leave xxxx until May of '88 then she had to be close or in the third trimester by that time. This makes a difference both medically and price wise. Plus this woman could easily have been more sensitive to the idea of abortion so that in her mind it never was an option and nobody tried to challenge her on that very much.
Mark, do you know if that lawyer in NC got in trouble for his role in it? Sounds like he could have. After my family left in '94 we went to a church service with the xxxxxxxxxxs who left in 89-90 or so. They seemed to be doing OK but that whole experience very well may have shown them it was time to leave TWI.
I knew a TWI couple that adopted a baby from a TWI woman that already had 4 children, was pregnant with her 5th, was single, and just absolutely could not afford the 5th.
But I don't think much money changed hands - they paid some of her expenses, and covered the hospital bill, but that was it.
Interestingly, according to the court documents, what spurred xxxxxx to try so hard getting her child back was when they watched a Geraldo show that talked about dangerous cults (TWI being prominently listed). She supposedly watched this with xxxxxxxxxx. So, presumably, both were no longer involved at the time.
As to the lawyer, I checked in the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory, and xxxxxxxx is currently listed as a managing partner for a small law firm in NC. The lawyer representing xxxxxx is listed as a sole practitioner. The lawyer representing the xxxxxxxxx through the appeal process, etc., is listed as not currently practicing.
ps. in answer to the question, i do not think trafficking is the right word
When I read this from the 1991 Supreme Court decision on the case,
quote:xxxxxxxxxx convinced xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and that he was questioning whether he was the father of her unborn child. On 28 May 1988, xxxxxx moved from xxxx's house and moved in with her mother. She did not leave any information with xxxx as to where she had moved. xxxx called xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx' ex-husband, and xxxxxxxxxx trying to find out where xxxxxx was living, but no one would [***7] give him any information. On 31 May 1988, xxxx contacted an attorney in Michigan, xxxxxxx xxxxx (xxxxxx), and arranged to meet with him three days later to try to find xxxxxx. xxxx soon found out that xxxxxx was at her mother's house because on one occasion when he telephoned xxxxxx' mother, xxxxxx answered the telephone.
(note text highlighting is mine)
See, if it wasn't for the kind of stuff mentioned in the above quoted paragraph, I would agree with you and, frankly, would not have ever posted about this in any way.
You are right, trafficking may not be the right word, but when I read stuff like what I quoted above, then I get really suspicious as to what was going on.
So, if trafficking is not the right word, I would wonder what is the right one. Why would xxxxxxxxxx convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her? Why would xxxxxx go into hiding after being convinced of this?
I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.
Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxx that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.
I"ll PM you later and leave the stars out (I just don't like posting people's names without their permission in the open). It'll be later tonight, as I don't have the time to write that much right now.
... so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxs that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing,...
ToadFriend
ToadFriend,
Please don't take offense to this. But I was
just wondering if you knew the birth parents... how do you know how much love they have to give or their financial situation.
Yes it was a very said thing for the folks that adopted. But why judge the birth parents especially if you don't know them? I am sure they love that child very much.
I find it said when folks judge others like that especially if you have never been in their shoes.
I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.
Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxs that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.
ToadFriend
Thank you for that info. As I said in my original post, "Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best."
And, also, thank you for clearing up that no additional moneys were exchanged.
Frankly, the biggest thing that concerned me with this was, as I also indicated in my original post:
quote:1. xxxxxxxxxx apparently tried to convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her and questioning whether or not he was the father. This seems to me like she was trying to set up a circumstance to get xxxxxx to want to get rid of her child.
2. The biological father, xxxx was not contacted. They intentionally did not contact the father.
3. The mother's whereabouts were hidden from her family and from the father, xxxx.
Regardless of the xxxxxxxxs' motivations, some funkiness apparently happened to convince xxxxxx to give up her child. Not, by any means, their fault, but it still happened.
i don't like how the above situation was handled with the secrecy and putting that notice in a local paper, etc. (i'm not blaming the north carolina couple)
believers who could not have children used to go to wierwille and ask him if he knew of any believers they could adopt from
I don't know any of the involved parties personally, but I am an adoptive parent NOT through any TWI contacts at all.
In most states, the birth mother has all the rights. I knew of several occasions where a young woman, pregnant out of wedlock, would contact through an attorney a couple wanting to adopt a newborn. Her terms would be (frequently) living expenses, say $1500-$2000/month, all medical bills, and start-up money for her new postpartum life. Also, all legal expenses and attorney fees would be paid by the adoptive parents. Then, the moment that baby is born, the mom would change her mind, "Oh, that is MY child! I can't let anyone else raise my own flesh and blood!" So she would have a decent life at someone else's expense and get to keep her baby scot-free. All the adoptive parents' excitement and anticipation and spending their money were for naught. It is no wonder to me that out of country adoptions are so popular now.
I am NOT saying this woman had that in mind when she gave up her child for adoption. I don't know her or her partner or why she didn't tell him, tried to avoid him and did what she did.
I would be interested to know what Geraldo episode covered TWI. I lived in SC at the time and heard of this case. Never heard of TWI being on that show.
Several posts were edited to further obscure the names of the people being discussed, since none are former or present members of the Board of Directors, nor in the high echelons of TWI.
Several posts were edited to further obscure the names of the people being discussed, since none are former or present members of the Board of Directors, nor in the high echelons of TWI.
I appreciate you doing this, but if I can suggest, in the future, please replace the partially obscured names with "A" "B" "C" "D" or whatever in order to keep the names straight. Because now it is impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (I agree the names are not terribly relevent, but it is important to keep each person separated).
Also, one other thing, fyi, in this case, the names come from court records and news stories, both of which are already in the public domain.
Recommended Posts
TheEvan
I knew of a number of adoptions that happened while on staff. The two that I knew of personally were definitely "in-house", ie a Way person doing a private placement with another Way couple. As the details were understandably confidential I have no idea if there was a tinge of "trafficking" on any of those placements...
At one time it was known that if you wanted a baby, talk to Mrs. W
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
The Way of Adoption and Placement
New/Old TWI class?
It sounds like the cases mentioned above was typical TWI. "Legal but..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
What will be interesting is when these adopted kids decide they want to meet their birth mother. Has twi taken that into consideration? What will their policy be? Will they respond like they did with the cemetary or will they be a bit more *helpful*?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
OK, I'll weigh in on this one. I know xxxxxx x. She and her husband came to MI in '85 as WOWS. I like them. They've always been cool to me. I last saw them in the late 90s; they're still up there as far as I know. But I didn't know anything about the events described on this thread.
I remember a woman whom I saw at branch meetings a few times and the last time I saw her she was great with child and then I didn't see her anymore. Could've been xxx x.
quote: am sort of surprised that xxxxxx was not taught that the baby was not alive until its first breath and encouraged to simply have an abortion. This would follow with what I understand is TWI's normal method of operating.
If xxx x. got pregnant in 1987 and she didn't leave xxxx until May of '88 then she had to be close or in the third trimester by that time. This makes a difference both medically and price wise. Plus this woman could easily have been more sensitive to the idea of abortion so that in her mind it never was an option and nobody tried to challenge her on that very much.
Mark, do you know if that lawyer in NC got in trouble for his role in it? Sounds like he could have. After my family left in '94 we went to a church service with the xxxxxxxxxxs who left in 89-90 or so. They seemed to be doing OK but that whole experience very well may have shown them it was time to leave TWI.
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I knew a TWI couple that adopted a baby from a TWI woman that already had 4 children, was pregnant with her 5th, was single, and just absolutely could not afford the 5th.
But I don't think much money changed hands - they paid some of her expenses, and covered the hospital bill, but that was it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Johniam:
Interestingly, according to the court documents, what spurred xxxxxx to try so hard getting her child back was when they watched a Geraldo show that talked about dangerous cults (TWI being prominently listed). She supposedly watched this with xxxxxxxxxx. So, presumably, both were no longer involved at the time.
As to the lawyer, I checked in the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory, and xxxxxxxx is currently listed as a managing partner for a small law firm in NC. The lawyer representing xxxxxx is listed as a sole practitioner. The lawyer representing the xxxxxxxxx through the appeal process, etc., is listed as not currently practicing.
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i think people in twi at the time wanted to make sure godly people in the household raised their babies
very sad if later you realized you had done the wrong thing
life is crazy
ps. in answer to the question, i do not think trafficking is the right word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
When I read this from the 1991 Supreme Court decision on the case,
(note text highlighting is mine)See, if it wasn't for the kind of stuff mentioned in the above quoted paragraph, I would agree with you and, frankly, would not have ever posted about this in any way.
You are right, trafficking may not be the right word, but when I read stuff like what I quoted above, then I get really suspicious as to what was going on.
So, if trafficking is not the right word, I would wonder what is the right one. Why would xxxxxxxxxx convince xxxxxx that xxxx was cheating on her? Why would xxxxxx go into hiding after being convinced of this?
A lot of questions...
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
ToadFriend
I happen to know the xxxxxxxxs quite well, and have since my early days in the Way in 1972 ... I left on January 11, 1996. xxx was a loving wife and mother, and xxxx a friendly, fun-loving, and intelligent man who worked, as I recall, for the EPA in Research Triangle Park. They lived in Durham. They were caught in the midst of this heart-breaking triangle.
Trafficking does not describe what happened. They retained an attorney to help them locate a baby to adopt into a loving home. The birth mother's expenses were paid; there was no "buying" of the baby. The birth mother later saw a Geraldo show where the Way was featured as a dangerous cult, and so began the horrible torment for the xxxxxxxxx that resulted in the loss of a baby they loved, back to a home that could not offer very much in the way of love or money. It is a very sad thing, but I, too, do not agree that "trafficking" is a correct description.
ToadFriend
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mark, tell me what happened without stars
i'm definitely open
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
so twi people adopted a baby outside twi ???? in this case ?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you, i don't care about names, i'm just having a hard time reading, but it's me, sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
orientswife
ToadFriend,
Please don't take offense to this. But I was
just wondering if you knew the birth parents... how do you know how much love they have to give or their financial situation.
Yes it was a very said thing for the folks that adopted. But why judge the birth parents especially if you don't know them? I am sure they love that child very much.
I find it said when folks judge others like that especially if you have never been in their shoes.
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thank you for that info. As I said in my original post, "Second, the expenses for xxxxxx (the biological mother) were paid for. Again, I don't have an issue with that (although, apparently, that is against NC law). This is no personal case against the xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxx and xxxx; I have no indication that they did anything other than what they believed was the best."
And, also, thank you for clearing up that no additional moneys were exchanged.
Frankly, the biggest thing that concerned me with this was, as I also indicated in my original post:
Regardless of the xxxxxxxxs' motivations, some funkiness apparently happened to convince xxxxxx to give up her child. Not, by any means, their fault, but it still happened.
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Baby trafficking? There's not much wisdom in this...they are just too young to be driving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Excie, check your PT's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't like how the above situation was handled with the secrecy and putting that notice in a local paper, etc. (i'm not blaming the north carolina couple)
believers who could not have children used to go to wierwille and ask him if he knew of any believers they could adopt from
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I don't know any of the involved parties personally, but I am an adoptive parent NOT through any TWI contacts at all.
In most states, the birth mother has all the rights. I knew of several occasions where a young woman, pregnant out of wedlock, would contact through an attorney a couple wanting to adopt a newborn. Her terms would be (frequently) living expenses, say $1500-$2000/month, all medical bills, and start-up money for her new postpartum life. Also, all legal expenses and attorney fees would be paid by the adoptive parents. Then, the moment that baby is born, the mom would change her mind, "Oh, that is MY child! I can't let anyone else raise my own flesh and blood!" So she would have a decent life at someone else's expense and get to keep her baby scot-free. All the adoptive parents' excitement and anticipation and spending their money were for naught. It is no wonder to me that out of country adoptions are so popular now.
I am NOT saying this woman had that in mind when she gave up her child for adoption. I don't know her or her partner or why she didn't tell him, tried to avoid him and did what she did.
I would be interested to know what Geraldo episode covered TWI. I lived in SC at the time and heard of this case. Never heard of TWI being on that show.
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
http://xenutv.bogie.nl/cults/rivera.htm?FACTNet
don't know if that's it
here's another one while i was there
http://xenutv.bogie.nl/cults/way.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
Several posts were edited to further obscure the names of the people being discussed, since none are former or present members of the Board of Directors, nor in the high echelons of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I appreciate you doing this, but if I can suggest, in the future, please replace the partially obscured names with "A" "B" "C" "D" or whatever in order to keep the names straight. Because now it is impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (I agree the names are not terribly relevent, but it is important to keep each person separated).
Also, one other thing, fyi, in this case, the names come from court records and news stories, both of which are already in the public domain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.