Back to Fraud Information Articles
© March/April 2001
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
A Maybe Baby
Adoption Fraud Aided by Internet
B
y
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
E
ll
i
o
t
t
,
C
F
E
,
C
P
A
W
hat began as a routine income tax review for one of my clients, developed into a case that eventually sent a woman
to prison for arranging adoptions of fictitious babies. The case aimed a spotlight on a growing fraud made easier by the
Internet. The lessons I learned may help other accountants and fraud examiners.
I own an investigative and accountancy firm. In March of 1999, I met with a client, Kelly K., to review her tax forms.
After discussing the adoption tax credit option, she told me how she and her husband, Roy, had tried and failed to adopt
with a local adoption agency.
Roy and Kelly had been working with attorneys and other adoption facilitators until they were referred to Sonya Furlow,
head of the Philadelphia agency, Tender Hearts Adoption Facilitation Services, in December of 1998. Furlow's website was
appealing. Almost immediately, Furlow matched Roy and Kelly with a young, expectant woman named "Elsie" who was
scheduled to give birth to a girl in March of 1999. However, after many months of anxious waiting the Kaisers never did
receive their adoptive baby. During our interview, Kelly shared her suspicions about Furlow; soon I would find out that
neither Elsie nor her baby actually existed.
Types of Adoption
Fraud Adoption fraud can include:
 An adoption agency or facilitator that charges exorbitant fees, and isn't properly staffed;
 Agency misrepresentation of a child's emotional and physical history, or background, which is generally called
"wrongful adoption";
 A birthparent accepting money for expenses from prospective adoptive parents with no intention of completing the
adoption process; and
 An agency or facilitator that accepts money for services never rendered, which was the type of case I found myself in.1
Sad Story
After reviewing her tax return in my office, Kelly told me she had paid a $3,500 solicitation fee to Furlow on Dec. 18,
1998. Roy and Kelly were scheduled to meet with Sonya on March 28, 1999 and finalize the adoption plans over dinner.
However, Furlow called and cancelled the meeting because Elsie had gone into labor and she needed to be her coach.
On March 29, Furlow reported that Elsie had given birth to an eight-pound, one-ounce baby girl after 26 hours of labor.
Furlow said she and another counselor were scheduled to meet with Elsie the next day to discuss the adoption and
prepare her to sign the termination of parental rights documents. Furlow reminded Kelly that Pennsylvania Law requires a
72-hour waiting period before a birth mother can legally place a child for adoption.
After trying repeatedly, Kelly finally contacted Furlow on March 31. She told Kelly that Elsie was to be released from the
hospital that day and the baby would be placed in a "cradle care" facility until Elsie signed the termination of parental
rights and other adoption documents. Later that day, Kelly called Furlow again. Furlow suggested they meet with Elsie on
April 1 to discuss the details of the adoption plan. Elsie had called her parents, Furlow said, and told them about the
baby. She now wanted an open relationship with the baby and adoptive family after placement, Furlow said. Furlow
explained that Elsie had kept her pregnancy a secret from her parents who were now planning to come to Philadelphia
from New York City on April 2.Furlow said she was concerned that Elsie's parents might negatively influence the adoption
process. She instructed Kelly to write a letter to Elsie to reassure her of her intentions to adopt the child. Kelly called
Furlow one hour before the April 1 meeting to reconfirm; Furlow told her that the meeting had been cancelled because
Elsie and her parents wanted time to talk about their options. Furlow promised to contact Kelly after she met with Elsie
and her parents.
Kelly couldn't reach Sonya until late on April 2. Furlow said she hadn't been in touch with Kelly because Elsie and her
parents were in an automobile accident and had spent the day at the hospital. Furlow said this would certainly delay any
decision on adoption.
Kelly then spoke to Sonya the next day. Furlow said Elsie's parents couldn't believe Kelly's lack of compassion in pressing
about the adoption at such a difficult time. She said the family was going to "explore their options, but the adoption
doesn't look good." Later that day, Furlow told Kelly the adoption was "definitely off." The parents would take Elsie back
to New York and had offered to return Kelly's $3,500. Furlow advised Kelly to "calm down" for a couple of days. She said
she had a couple of birth mothers in Florida who were ready to "pop" any day, and felt sure she could match Roy and
Kelly with one of them. Kelly told Furlow that she and Roy wouldn't be interested in further adoption proceedings because
they were emotionally drained. After Kelly told me her sad story and said that Furlow had cashed her $3,500 check rather
than deposited it, I was also suspicious so I decided to make some inquiries. (Roy and Kelly never go their money back.)
Logging onto an adoption and infertility website chat room, I asked for others who had used Furlow's services and had
complaints. Within a few weeks, I received the names of 10 other disgruntled couples with similar problems. I then spoke
with the 10 couples and asked them to send me copies of their e-mail correspondence with Furlow, case chronologies,
and copies of certified checks forwarded to Furlow.
Convincing website
I found that Furlow's beautifully designed and scripted website, "Tender Hearts," and Yellow Pages advertisements
attracted desperate couples with empty cribs. After each couple would give Furlow biographical, economic, and medical
information, she would tell them that they had been matched with a pregnant woman who was willing to give them her
newborn child for a fee.
Furlow's procedures would vary but most of the couples I interviewed gave details similar to Roy and Kelly's experiences.
Furlow would give each couple facts on the birth parents, collect a facilitation fee - ranging from $1,000 to $15,000 - and
then ask the couple to write a letter to the pregnant woman and include photographs of themselves. Furlow would
forward one victim's photos to another victim and describe them as the birth parents of their adoptive child.
During the "pregnancy," Furlow would update each couple via e-mail on the birth mother's medical condition and state of
mind and provide the estimated date of birth. She would also instruct an accomplice - posing as the birth mother - to
send e-mails to the hopeful couple or participate in conference calls. She would tell the couple that the birth mother
didn't want to meet them, thereby avoiding face-to-face meetings. In a few instances, Furlow provided false medical
records relating to a fictitious birth mother or baby.
Closer to the date of the baby's birth, Furlow would ignore e-mails, telephone calls, and beeper messages from the
couple. When the adoptive couple finally reached her, she would always have an excuse for not responding and then
would say that there was a problem with the adoption. The standard excuses included a change of heart by one of the
natural parents, a family member had volunteered to raise the child, or the birth mother or newborn was ill.
Furlow frequently informed the prospective adoptive parents that the birth parents had decided to place the child with
another family due to an alleged inadequacy of the adoptive couple, such as religious affiliation, inability to pay additional
money for the adoption, lack of adequate financial support during the pregnancy, or physical impairment. In one
instance, Furlow told a couple the birth father had changed his mind because the adoptive father was blind and wouldn't
be able to play catch with his new son.
In most cases, after the adoption supposedly had fallen through, Furlow would tell the couple that she had matched them
with another pregnant woman free of charge, and the nightmare would begin again.
My firm compared information from the victims and pieced together birth mother information, hospital names, and the
babies' approximate birth dates. We then contacted one large hospital where several of the babies supposedly were born.
We found that none of the alleged birth mothers had entered the hospital on or about the dates provided by Furlow.
We also examined the copies of the couples' cancelled certified checks and bank transfer documents to determine where
Furlow did her banking. This analysis led me to believe that neither Tender Hearts nor Furlow had a bank account but
operated through a check-cashing agency in Philadelphia.
After gathering enough evidence, I contacted the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Federal investigators
expanded the victim list to 41 and found that Furlow had defrauded the couples out of almost $215,000. She was
indicted, charged with 20 counts of mail fraud, and plead guilty to three counts, two of which were on my original list of
10 victims.
On Sept. 8, 2000, Furlow was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison. According to the judge in the case, Furlow's
crime was particularly cruel not only because she deceived her victims financially but also because she inflicted serious
injury by continuing the deception long after receiving victims' payments.
Steps to Take
If you suspect one of your clients may be a victim of adoption fraud, the following are some procedures you can take:
Post Messages on adoption websites
 As I did, post messages on adoption websites seeking other couples who believe they may have been scammed by an
adoption facilitator.
Contact the following groups (list from http://www.theadoptionguide.com/):
 State adoption licensing specialists (www.acf.dhhs.gov/)
 Better Business Bureau (http://www.bbb.org/)
 National Council for Adoption (www.calib.com/naic)
 Joint Council on International Children's Services (http://www.jcics.org/)
 National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (naic.acf.hhs.gov/)
 State attorneys general offices (http://www.theadoptionguide.com/)
 National Fraud Information Center (http://www.fraud.org/)
Through this fraud examination I remembered again how important it is to always keep my eyes open, ask questions
when my suspicions are aroused (despite fancy websites), and follow through on my hunches. These steps often deliver
the right people - including fraudulent baby vendors - to the house with bars.
Charles Elliott, CFE, CPA, is the president of SIU Inc., a Philadelphia, Pa., firm that provides forensic accounting and financial investment
services. The website is http://www.siuinc.com/. Elliot's e-mail address is: cpe@bellatlantic.net.
1From the website page, http://www.adoption.about.com/parenting/adoption/library/weekly/aa010499.htm
Wrongful Adoption - Another Type of Fraud
Wrongful adoption is a term used to describe adoptions in which the adoptive parents were wronged in some way.
Typically, this means that the adoptive parents weren't given adequate or truthful information about the child's risk
factors, disabilities, or behavioral problems, and were placed in crisis as a result. Wrongful adoption lawsuits are very
expensive and time-consuming. They're also increasing.
The Wisemans, for example, told their agency they did not want to adopt emotionally disturbed children. They were
matched to and adopted Maria and Jean at ages 5 and 6, believing the children to be emotionally healthy. In fact, they
had specifically asked about emotional or behavioral problems and were told the little girls had none.
The children's honeymoon phase (unusually positive initial behavior) ended after the couple finalized the adoption. At this
point, the children began acting out in severe ways. They became defiant of household rules, acted out sexually with
toys, and then sexually abused the Wiseman's third child, a toddler. Surprised and dismayed, the Wisemans began to
research the girls' history. They learned that the agency has purposely withheld information about the girls' past sexual
and physical abuse and acting-out and many foster care placements. One former day care provider told them that the
girls had a history of sexual acting out with other children. Before the placement, when the Wisemans had written the
agency and asked them if the girls had any history of sexual abuse or sexual acting out, the social worker returned a
letter stating that the girls had no such history. The Wisemans learned from the former day care provider that this same
social worker had been the one to remove the girls from the day care center for sexual acting out.
After trying various treatments without success, the Wisemans hired an attorney. The girls entered residential treatment.
The Wisemans sued the placing agency for wrongful adoption. They asked for reimbursement of their expenses for
treatment, plus legal costs and punitive damages. The adoptive parents contended that the state agency had withheld
critical information from them. They said that had they known the whole truth about the children they would never have
adopted the girls. The state maintained that the information was withheld accidentally.
Preventing wrongful adoption lawsuits means that prospective adoptive parents must be absolutely certain that they have
access to all of the information about the children they are adopting. Parents should insist on full disclosure, and if it is
not forthcoming, should go elsewhere to adopt.
From www.homes4kids.org/lies.htm excerpted from "Adopting and Advocating for the Special Needs Child: A
Guide for Parents and Professionals," by L. Anne Babb and Rita Laws, 1997, Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Ct.
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners assumes sole copyright of any article
published in Fraud Magazine. Fraud Magazine follows a policy of exclusive publication.
Permission of the publisher is required before an article can be copied or reproduced.
Requests for reprinting an article in any form must be e-mailed to:
FraudMagazine@ACFE.com.