Take a look at this. Here is a “fully funded” family wanting to adopt three children (hopefully not from Russia, which has banned adoptions to Americans, due, in part, to the improper behavior of Reece’s Rainbow). But keep looking—the family has been working on their homestudy since September 2012 and it is now February 2013.

What is the source of the delay? Is there a funding complication with Reece’s Rainbow? Is there some issue with the family’s background? If this is an adoption from Ukraine, are there issues with “Serge” the ill mannered but much beloved (by Andrea Roberts anyway) facilitator used by Reece’s Rainbow there?

It is fairly well documented that many Russian children are listed, illegally, via their photographs and medical documents, on Reece’s Rainbow.

It is also clear that such abuses are undeniable in their contribution to the ban on American adoptions in Russia.

But the question is, what is becoming of the money? Certainly Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow are deriving a good amount of income from the interest on this money.

One postulates, Reece’s Rainbow, as an ethical organization should divert the funds to children who could actually be adoptable (but note that Reece’s Rainbow has this unpleasant history of listing children who cannot be adopted) or to offer donors a refund, as their “chosen child” now sits in the impossible stance.

Of course, to date, neither Andrea Roberts nor Reece’s Rainbow has made any effort to respond to questions posed here. All received are feeble threats from the attorney, George Harris, who actually does nothing. Harris knows well that the legal American process would require the revealing of certain information by his clients, and revealing such things as financial irregularities, the criminal activities of Ukraine coordinator “Serge” and the sources of photographs and medical files would be end of Reece’s Rainbow.

In the meantime, these questions stand unanswered.

Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow claim to have been doing God’s work. If that is true, they must follow a very puny God. The “Russia Program” at Reece’s Rainbow has “melted like wax” in the face of the Russian ban on American adoptions. Andrea Roberts was, for a while, very visible in the media, speaking out against this ban. Her efforts proved futile. If God was ever with her, He must have walked away.

It may only be a matter of time before other doors are slammed shut, leaving Reece’s Rainbow with nowhere to go. As time goes by, it is also expected that there will be more and more questioning of what is happening with the large sums of money allocated for children who cannot be adopted.

This recent screenshot, taken of swaf.com indicates there is some problem at SWAF (Small World Adoption Foundation of Missouri):

Along the same line, the phone for SWAF is now out of service as well.

This agency was seemingly a partner of Reece’s Rainbow for the adoptions in both Russia and Ukraine.

What has happened, that it is so quickly gone without even a simple explanation?

Is this yet another question to stand without an answer from Andrea Roberts?

Here is a recent screenshot from the daily statistics of this site.

It shows people are reading this site, for reasons such as “reece’s rainbow illegal,” “reece’s rainbow controversy,” and “reece’s rainbow problems.”

It seems there is a great interest in what people are clearly perceiving as improper activities on the part of Reece’s Rainbow.

This interest clearly subsumes an interest in the adoption agencies known to have worked with Reece’s Rainbow, such as the Small World Adoption Foundation of Missouri (SWAF). Recently it seems SWAF closed and stopped the adoption work.

From time to time this blog offers the “open question” to Reece’s Rainbow and its manager, Andrea Roberts. It is to be noted, to this date, not one answer has been replied.

What response comes, it is in the form of a poorly thought out legal threat from George Harris, attorney and board member of Reece’s Rainbow. This is just a joke as he lacks the depth to bring the legal case against us!

Take a look at this, it is quite and utterly deplorable:

Even yet in 2013 August, Reece’s Rainbow tries to collect money such that an American family can adopt the Russian child. But, since the passing of new legislation, such adopting became impossible from 2013 January.

So why? Is it just that Andrea Roberts craves money?

Speaking on the topic of money. The family, in Alabama USA often complained on their blog on the cost of adopting. Yet not so long after they had seen that this adoption was impossible, they bought an ocean cottage.

It is the opinion of many that the illegal acts of Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow caused partially the ban of adopting by American families. Such illegal are the using of photographs and medical profiles on the website of Reece’s Rainbow and including the decision to chose the child before the visit to Russia, that one is clearly illegal in Russia.

At the Third Russian-American Child Welfare Forum, American failure to address “child trading Internet sites” was cited as impediment to the reopening of Russian adoptions to Americans.

Sites such as Reece’s Rainbow and Rainbow Kids have featured photographs and medical histories of Russian children, in violation of Russian law. Moreover, aforesaid sites continue the same practices in other countries, such as Ukraine, where American adoptions remain, for time being, possible.

Andrea Roberts, director of Reece’s Rainbow, has often stated that the evangelical religious position on adoptions overpowers the laws of Russia and other sovereign states. It is believed by many that this position was a significant factor in the closure of Russia to Americans. Likewise, the inappropriate behavior of hosting organizations operating in Ukraine, such as Project 143 and New Horizons for Children may have a similar contributory effect there.

Go here to read some background on John and Amy Jupin.

Now as you will see:

zh_dacha

They seek funds for another Reece’s Rainbow adoption.

Why if they have money for two homes do they beg on here for money?

This is a problem with Reece’s Rainbow: the pathological fixation on money. It is the disease of both Andrea Roberts and the Jupin Family. The Jupins clearly think that if they ask enough, others will pay their adoption. This is the deplorable condition.

We furthermore, assert and proclaim: Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow, via the illegality, contributed to the Russian decision to enact an adoption ban.

Reece’s Rainbow shows illegal photographs of children.

Reece’s Rainbow engages in the preselection of children in the nations where such is not permitted.

Reece’s Rainbow has allegiance to a thug, Sergei Zevlever, in Ukraine.

Reece’s Rainbow was the conduit in the adoption done by Jeremy and Marlo Williams, where Jeremy’s mother, Peggy admitted bribes were paid.

Reece’s Rainbow is clearly breaking many laws. Russia noticed it and enacted the ban.

Yet the greed of Roberts and the Jupins continues.

Given the abject failure of the adoption of “Davis” what is the thinking that the Jupins’ second adoption will not in like manner end in failure? Think on that when you are asked to send money.

For some time there has been a debate about the ILlegal and IMproper nature of the adoption of the Reece’s Rainbow child known as “Tera” by Oklahoma based software technician Jeremy Williams and his wife, bassist Marlo Williams.

This document will remove all the doubt!

This shows the clear and illegal preselection of a Russian child. It is clear that the child’s medical conditions were known to the Williams from Reece’s Rainbow.

Yet the mother of Jeremy Williams, former Gideon missionary Peggy Williams was that foolish to admit of a criminal act. She clearly wrote on her Facebook page that Jeremy and Marlo had to pay bribes. This is illegal in both America and Russia, yet Peggy openly mentioned it. This is then not defamation to say that there were illegal portions of the Reece’s Rainbow adoption of “Tera” by Jeremy and Marlo Williams. There is simply confirmation of it by Jeremy’s mother, and though the Facebook page was removed it was preserved and is now here for all to see.

Do you wonder if Reece’s Rainbow helped in the decision of Russia to ban the adoptions? Wonder no longer, the criminal acts of Reece’s Rainbow and its founder Andrea Roberts were certainly at the center of deliberations in the Duma!

Katrina Yoder seemed to have taken over the “transitional home” in Chita, Russia that had been operated by Gary and Pam Amstutz. They seem to have left Russia after scrutiny due to their role in an adoption of three preselected children and police complaints about the residents of the transitional home.

Yet, note that Katrina Yoder has not since December 2012 updated her blog.

ky_2012

Does this mean she, too, has left Russia? Perhaps the Russian adoption ban caused a decrease in donations to Reflections of Hope, also called Reflections Russia, the missionary organization.

This document confirms that Jeremy and Marlo Williams of Oklahoma, USA had pursued the adoption of “Tera” through Reece’s Rainbow:

Indeed, it is the same Williams family whose mother in law, missionary Peggy Williams had put on “Facebook” that bribes were paid for the adoption. Those wishing to see Peggy’s confession may do so by looking to this link.

If this is not corruption then there is not any such corruption.

Responsible journalists should look to these things and then be asking from Andrea Roberts the details.

There is not any denial that the ILLEGAL actions of Andrea Robers and Reece’s Rainbow had a contribution to the halting of adoptions from Russia. Similar illegal activities in both Ukraine and Latvia will possibly have the same results there.

As part of the US’ participation in the Hague Convention on adoptions, agencies are now subject to oversight from the Council on Accreditation.

In 2013, European Adoption Consultants (EAC) came close to losing its accreditation. One issue was the possibility of participation in child trafficking in Russia by EAC.

Here is just a sample from the court documentation:

By the extensive use of lawyers, EAC was able to overcome objections. Do be noting though that the Council on Accreditation only has one investigator, so it is not fully clear that this was an honest outcome.

Questions continue to linger about EAC. Also be noting that EAC engaged in an extensive publicity campaign surrounding the passage of the RU-US adoption agreement. EAC sought to take business from others, using advertisements crafted to give the appearance of being official government documents featuring Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Finally, EAC has clearly been involved in the arranging of adoptions of preselected children from Russia to America, in clear violation of Russian law.

Laurie Ahern, President of Disability Rights International (DRI), has documented many problems in Ukrainian adoption.

Notably, Ahern discusses the case of an American family who paid $2,900 to host two Ukrainian girls. Yet, the family did not complete the required background check.

Hosting programs have been a longstanding problem in adoption. Even in advance of the Russian adoption ban, the Georgia, USA based “New Horizons for Children” was prohibited from operating in Russia. Its director, LeAnn Dakake, has not responded to allegations of corruption in the Kaluga Region.

In addition to the child trafficking problem, it is to be noted that organizations such as Gaithersburg, USA based “Reece’s Rainbow” persist in providing photographs of Ukrainian children, in contravention of Ukrainian law. Its director, Andrea Roberts, has not responded to allegations of illegal practices in Ukraine. There are cases in which the children in appearing photographs on Reece’s Rainbow were not available for adoption, resulting in lost money for families who believed the representations of Andrea Roberts. As Dakake and New Horizons for Children, there had been problems associated with Reece’s Rainbow before the ban. Some commentators have postulated that the illegal conduct of Reece’s Rainbow, its staff, and clients, contributed to the ban. In one much discussed case, the Williams family of Oklahoma, USA had posted to “Facebook” boasts of the bribes paid to speed the process of adopting the child from Krasnoyarsk, Russia.

This agency, IAG (International Assistance Group) has closed. Its website is still active, but the Council on Accreditation reports the closure.

This agency had been operated by Larissa Mason. At the time of the ban on Russian adoptions by Americans, Mason announced exploratory programs in nations such as Bulgaria. It would appear these efforts have failed.

Moreover, in one of the conference calls with the US Department of State concerning the ban, a person who represented as being from IAG asked if the US government would impose sanctions on those motivating and supporting the ban.

The US-Russian bilateral agreement was, in retrospect, a clear effort by a small group of adoption agencies to establish a cartel. With the agreement backing them and in effect serving to have eliminated competition, these few agencies could raise their prices, claiming increased expenses following from requirements of the agreement.

As is well in documentation, the agreement was put into effect in November of 2012. There was celebratory activity from the agencies. Yet by the end of 2012, the ban had been put into place. It is likely that the Government of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that the agencies had manipulated the terms of the agreement. Further, efforts by credentialed officials of the Government of the Russian Federation to participated in activities required under the agreement met with failure. As the example, visiting and examining adopted children. Such a case was seen when a judge in Florida, USA refused access to a Russian child. The judge claimed that the bilateral adoption agreement was not valid in the territory of Florida.

If and when asked, Reece’s Rainbow’s Andrea Roberts says it is a “ministry” (as in “the means by which something is accomplished” rather than the religious sense) and not an adoption agency.

However, it remains clear that Reece’s Rainbow was clearly engaged in “matching children” in Russia even though that contravened Russian law.

It is the well documented case of Jeremy and Marlo Williams. They sought to adopt a child listed on Reece’s Rainbow. They proceeded with the adoption through the illegal methods of Reece’s Rainbow.

It would appear another family had already begun in the process of adopting the same child. Therefore, as is well documented through the comments of Jeremy Williams’ mother, Peggy Williams, bribes were paid to remove the other family and have the child “designated” for the Williams.

This is a long document showing a conversation started by Marlo Williams. Perhaps but not certainly these emergency funds requested constituted some of the bribes extolled by Peggy Williams!

Given the foolishness of the Williams, much such documentation on their adoption is available. It is to be sent to the Council on Accreditation with the hope that the organization will use the authority given to it by the U.S. Secretary of State to enforce a proscription on Reece’s Rainbow. Given the horrific criminal acts of the Williams family, this poor child should be taken into state care and then allocated to an honest family. To be sure, payers of bribes such as the Williams cannot provide the decent child upbringing environment!

You’ve certainly seen the slogan “Google yourself.” Well, you should also “WikiLeaks yourself” especially if you’ve been involved in Russian adoptions.

A review of WikiLeaks makes it quite clear that the Russian government was poised to ban adoptions in the aftermath of the Torry Hansen incident. They relented in the face of extensive promises from the U.S. government about tight controls that would be placed on the adoption process, including access to children after they had been adopted.

One part of this was the U.S.-Russian bilateral adoption agreement. A discouraging tale from WikiLeaks comes in the form of a comment from Tom DiFilipo of JCICS, the Joint Council on International Childrens’ Services. It has never been clear what is joint with what or what the council is. In any case, Mr. DiFilipo expressed ignorance as to whether or not the agreement would require the approval of the U.S. Senate, but, if it did, his organization would work to make it happen.

Note to Mr. DiFilipo: what was done was a bilateral agreement, not a treaty. A treaty would have required ratification by the Senate. A bilateral agreement does not. It is not clear what JCICS has done with the money it gets, but hiring educated leadership, or educating the leadership they have does not appear to be part of the spending plan.

When the Russian adoption ban was finally announced, it must have caught JCICS by surprise. They touted “soft diplomacy” but that clearly failed. The truth of the matter is that the Russian government was dismayed by cavalier U.S. disregard for promises it had made. Among these promises was an effort to put an end to web sites containing photolistings of Russian children supposedly available for adoption. Organizations such as Reece’s Rainbow must have argued their usual “it is for the benefit of the children” case well, as nothing was done about the photolistings. Of course, the result was a short term victory, as the adoption ban made clear.

Larisa Mason, of the now closed IAG (International Assistance Group) adoption agency had called on the U.S. to be flexible in the face of Russian demands. Mason and her people showed their true colors during a State Department sponsored conference call. They essentially demanded that Magnitsky-style sanctions be levied on all Russian officials who had voted for the ban. The State Department, obviously aware that the call was being recorded, did not dignify this demand with a response.

Finally, particular scorn was shown for the families who have brought suit against the Russian government in the European Court of Human Rights. Two of these families in particular, mentioned in several cables, are Michael and Natasha Sweeney of Ohio and Aaron and Jenny Moyer of Georgia. Both families have been described as “excessively entitled,” “foolish for spending so much money on a pointless lawsuit,” and “doing nearly as much damage as the U-2 scandal” to U.S.-Russian relations. Needless to say, even if they win in court, the Russian government will announce that the children they “laid claim” to have been adopted by Russian families.

A new year, and old tradition.

This is question #14 for Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow. In the past, questions have been asked, but not answered. Perhaps, in 2016, that will change!

Here’s  the nondisclosure agreement used by Reece’s Rainbow:

As is obvious from a reading, this agreement puts sole authority for disclosure of information in the hands of the Reece’s Rainbow board of directors.

What information are Andrea Roberts  and Reece’s Rainbow trying to conceal? Many have called for transparency in adoption, this agreement would appear to  be the very antithesis of transparency.

At a minimum, it can be said that Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow engaged, in the past,  of illegally posting photographs and medical information of  Russian children. It is widely believed that this practice was a contributing factor to the Russian ban on US adoptions.

At  a minimum, it can be said that Andrea Roberts and Reece’s Rainbow continue, to this day, to engage in the selfsame illegal practice in Ukraine, namely, posting photographs and medical information of children. This illegal practice runs counter to the Ukrainian practice of blind referrals.

Questions have also been asked about the finances of Reece’s  Rainbow. This of course is an area crying out for transparency, given the voracious fundraising engaged in by many individuals associated with this dubious organization and its highly secretive director.

As in the past, this is a call for transparency. Andrea Roberts, a duly recognized representative of Reece’s Rainbow, or even attorney George Harris, who has, in times past, contacted this blog with incoherent and poorly formed legal demands, are all welcome to respond  to this question, previously posed questions, or even to provide generally helpful information about the true nature and objectives of Reece’s  Rainbow.