Building Blocks Adoption Service, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/23) */
It is the position of Building Blocks (BBAS) that the [redacted] have been treated fairly by BBAS. The [redacted] initially contracted with BBAS on July 28, 2012. BBAS has two programs for adoption. Program A is to facilitate an adoption through...

children that are in the custody of job and family services in each county and is called the state waiting program. Program B is the newborn program and matches an independent birth mother to families with an approved home study. The birth mother selects the families from a profile and through interviews established through BBAS. The family then has the right to accept the birth mother.
The [redacted] initially decided to participate only in B. The first part of the contract fee is $2500 and is the same whether they decide to participate in one or both programs. The [redacted] then decided to request a participation in the state waiting program and asked to amend the contract. The contract was amended to add state waiting in May of 2013. An amendment to the home study was performed to allow for older children to be considered for adoption.
The [redacted] were matched through the newborn program in May of 2013. They accepted the match and the contract thereby incurring the second set of contract payments for the match ($1,000) and the acceptance ($3,000) totaling $4,000. These are fees and not escrow funds. These fees are nonrefundable as stated in their contract and in other documents executed by them. The $4,000 was paid.
Upon a match and acceptance a separate escrow contract is signed and payment is made into an escrow account specifically for the payment of birth parent expenses and expenses related to the adoption process. These are nonrefundable to the extent of expenses paid. The first escrow deposit was in the amount of $10,000 paid on May 24. Please note that an attachment is the same summary that was sent to the [redacted] concerning an accounting for the escrow funds when a refund was issued. This birth mother "T[redacted]" did in fact decide to parent her child and thereby the adoption was ended. By contract [redacted] were in the Program B in perpetuity as the contract allows that once an adoption fails due to the birth mother the contract has no end date and the $4,000 paid for the match and acceptance although not refundable will apply to all subsequent matches and acceptances. The contract as to state waiting then terminates.
The [redacted] were matched a second time with birth mother S[redacted] in September of 2013. S[redacted] was due in December of 2013. The balance of the $10,000 in escrow for T[redacted] had been reduced to $7,449.86 due to nonrefundable expenditures. The escrow contract up front amount had increased to $13,000 for anticipated expenses so the [redacted] deposited the $2,550.14 to replenish the escrow to $10,000 on July 20 and then increased the escrow to $13,000 with a $3,000 payment on October 15, 2013. Once again the escrow is a refundable amount except when expenses are paid for the birth mother. It is unrelated to the fee for services for match and acceptance.
S[redacted] gave birth in December of 2013. It is apparent that S[redacted] also decided to parent her child. One of the [redacted] claim is that BBAS was not responsive while in the hospital and that lead to her changing her mind. That assertion is disputed. Birth mothers have the right to change their mind as an acknowledged risk of private adoptions. BBAS was responsive. Attached are the actual text messages that occurred between [redacted] of BBAS and [redacted]. Please note that these exchanges occurred more than two years ago and yet the [redacted] continued in their relationship with BBAS until recently. The following exchanges should be noted: [redacted] asked at 4:49 p.m. on December 8 "Any sign that she's wavering with her decision?" [redacted] responded "Not at all". Later that night [redacted] indicated: "It has been a great day. We held her hand. Her whole family has been in and out it has been extremely comfortable." The next day [redacted] texted [redacted] indicating that papers had been signed. [redacted] then informed [redacted] a couple of hours later that "S[redacted] is having a very emotional time and her caseworker is coming to talk to her." (4:22p.m.). [redacted] responded that "We have been in the whole time and so have her friends. She has been laughing and joking." (4:22 p.m.). [redacted] then indicated that she was having the social worker call S[redacted] DID NOT REQUEST the social worker; [redacted] sent her without a request. [redacted] have made inaccurate statements in their complaint.
Soon after the second disruption, the [redacted] asked for the status of their funds. An email was sent to them with the summary attached to this response. Of the $13,000 in escrow, $3,691.25 was spent on birth mother expenses. Thus $9,308.75 was left in escrow. The [redacted] decided in January that they wanted to close the contract with BBAS under the Program B and asked for a full refund of the escrow monies. The [redacted] also asked to reopen the state waiting program. BBAS indicated that a new contract was needed as the old one was now voluntarily terminated. Two things then happened. The [redacted] home study had to be amended at a cost of $275.00. All agreed to take that money from escrow and refund the now balance of $9,033.75. The check was sent to the [redacted] and cashed by them. The [redacted] were then offered a new contract for Program A and BBAS without any legal requirement offered to use the $4,000 fee paid for the match/acceptance toward the first $4,000 of fees. It was not to refund the monies and the invoices created at that time reflect this understanding. See attached. A new contract was executed for 1500 of the credit and the $4,000 reduced to $2,500. Three further invoices were sent and all stated: Application of monies transferred to the State Waiting Program from the Newborn Program. Balance of credit from nonrefundable payment of $4,000.00 is now $850.00.
BBAS offered the credit as a humanitarian response. Now [redacted] want to rewrite history and receive monies to which they were never entitled to as a refund. BBAS simply was not going to offer a return of monies that had already been used to give them in excess of $3,000 in services they should have paid for instead. BBAS has treated this family well above any contractual requirements.
Interestingly, the [redacted] did not attempt to end the relationship with BBAS until recently even though they made up some story about BBAS interfering in a referral of a child but offer no details. Best guess: [redacted] had a potential child situation through a county referral. The county contacted BBAS to discuss the family and then indicated that the family was not going to be chosen to parent the child. BBAS did not and would not attempt to influence the county to deny a match. After all history shows that BBAS had twice matched this family. The allegation is without merit.
The reason the parties are now involved in this complaint concerns the Home Study. A home study is held by BBAS but subject to state rules. Part of the rules is that the home study is in essence registered with the state. If an individual for whom a home study is held is arrested or is convicted of a crime then the state notifies the agency through a rapback report and the agency is required to report on disposition and impact. Further it is the family's responsibility to report the arrest to BBAS in 24 hours.
BBAS received a rapback concerning Mr. [redacted] in 2013 on his arrest for a DUI and other offenses. The [redacted] did not report the arrest timely and the need to do so was explained to them. A social worker talked with them concerning the facts and determined that it did not impact the conclusion that the family was suitable for child placement.
In early March BBAS received a second rapback on Mr. [redacted] indicating his arrest on January 30, 2016 for disorderly conduct, intoxicated; resisting arrest; petty theft and open container. The police indicated as to Mr. [redacted] "approach with caution". This being the second time the family knew they should have reported the arrest and did not do so. A phone call and emails were attempted to discuss the rapback. In response, [redacted] chose to terminate the contract and close the home study. The [redacted] had requested a refund of their nonrefundable credit in December (denied), they did not terminate the relationship until this rapback. This complaint followed.
BBAS states that it has treated this client with compassion and denies any wrong doing. Birth mothers changing their minds are a known risk for adoptions. After a nearly four year relationship, numerous signed documents, numerous invoices of explanation, the family still claims not to understand that the contract fee paid in 2013 was nonrefundable and offered as a credit as a courtesy and not to take advantage. BBAS has been fair.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/03/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This place is a scam of an agency. Again, a social worker who has never laid eyes on us, how is that compassion? We want our 850.00 and until we receive a check for it, we will continue to follow up with our attorney and other families that also had similar experiences with this agency. If need be, I will take to the news channels, and exercise my freedom of speech, or protest outside their front door. We want our money back, it belongs to us, and this company did nothing to help us, they just nickel and dime families to death. I will do anything and everything in my power to get our money back. I do not accept this response, again, we want our money back. I am not going to sit back and let them keep another dime of our money. I will not just walk away without my money. We would appreciate this resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Thank you.