Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/03/23) */ It is the position of Building Blocks (BBAS) that the [redacted] have been treated fairly by BBASThe [redacted] initially contracted with BBAS on July 28, BBAS has two programs for adoptionProgram 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 programProgram B is the newborn program and matches an independent birth mother to families with an approved home studyThe birth mother selects the families from a profile and through interviews established through BBASThe family then has the right to accept the birth mother The [redacted] initially decided to participate only in BThe first part of the contract fee is $and is the same whether they decide to participate in one or both programsThe [redacted] then decided to request a participation in the state waiting program and asked to amend the contractThe contract was amended to add state waiting in May of 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 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,These are fees and not escrow fundsThese fees are nonrefundable as stated in their contract and in other documents executed by themThe $4,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 processThese are nonrefundable to the extent of expenses paidThe first escrow deposit was in the amount of $10,paid on May 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 issuedThis birth mother "T [redacted] " did in fact decide to parent her child and thereby the adoption was endedBy 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,paid for the match and acceptance although not refundable will apply to all subsequent matches and acceptancesThe contract as to state waiting then terminates The [redacted] were matched a second time with birth mother S [redacted] in September of S [redacted] was due in December of The balance of the $10,in escrow for T [redacted] had been reduced to $7,due to nonrefundable expendituresThe escrow contract up front amount had increased to $13,for anticipated expenses so the [redacted] deposited the $2,to replenish the escrow to $10,on July and then increased the escrow to $13,with a $3,payment on October 15, Once again the escrow is a refundable amount except when expenses are paid for the birth motherIt is unrelated to the fee for services for match and acceptance S [redacted] gave birth in December of It is apparent that S [redacted] also decided to parent her childOne of the [redacted] claim is that BBAS was not responsive while in the hospital and that lead to her changing her mindThat assertion is disputedBirth mothers have the right to change their mind as an acknowledged risk of private adoptionsBBAS was responsiveAttached 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 recentlyThe following exchanges should be noted: [redacted] asked at 4:p.mon December "Any sign that she's wavering with her decision?" [redacted] responded "Not at all"Later that night [redacted] indicated: "It has been a great dayWe held her handHer 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 friendsShe has been laughing and joking." (4:p.m.) [redacted] then indicated that she was having the social worker call S [redacted] [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 fundsAn email was sent to them with the summary attached to this responseOf the $13,in escrow, $3,was spent on birth mother expensesThus $9,was left in escrowThe [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 moniesThe [redacted] also asked to reopen the state waiting programBBAS indicated that a new contract was needed as the old one was now voluntarily terminatedTwo things then happenedThe [redacted] home study had to be amended at a cost of $All agreed to take that money from escrow and refund the now balance of $9,The check was sent to the [redacted] and cashed by themThe [redacted] were then offered a new contract for Program A and BBAS without any legal requirement offered to use the $4,fee paid for the match/acceptance toward the first $4,of feesIt was not to refund the monies and the invoices created at that time reflect this understandingSee attachedA new contract was executed for of the credit and the $4,reduced to $2,Three further invoices were sent and all stated: Application of monies transferred to the State Waiting Program from the Newborn ProgramBalance of credit from nonrefundable payment of $4,is now $ BBAS offered the credit as a humanitarian responseNow [redacted] want to rewrite history and receive monies to which they were never entitled to as a refundBBAS simply was not going to offer a return of monies that had already been used to give them in excess of $3,in services they should have paid for insteadBBAS 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 detailsBest guess: [redacted] had a potential child situation through a county referralThe county contacted BBAS to discuss the family and then indicated that the family was not going to be chosen to parent the childBBAS did not and would not attempt to influence the county to deny a matchAfter all history shows that BBAS had twice matched this familyThe allegation is without merit The reason the parties are now involved in this complaint concerns the Home StudyA home study is held by BBAS but subject to state rulesPart of the rules is that the home study is in essence registered with the stateIf 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 impactFurther it is the family's responsibility to report the arrest to BBAS in hours BBAS received a rapback concerning Mr [redacted] in on his arrest for a DUI and other offensesThe [redacted] did not report the arrest timely and the need to do so was explained to themA 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, for disorderly conduct, intoxicated; resisting arrest; petty theft and open containerThe 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 soA phone call and emails were attempted to discuss the rapbackIn response, [redacted] chose to terminate the contract and close the home studyThe [redacted] had requested a refund of their nonrefundable credit in December (denied), they did not terminate the relationship until this rapbackThis complaint followed BBAS states that it has treated this client with compassion and denies any wrong doingBirth mothers changing their minds are a known risk for adoptionsAfter 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 was nonrefundable and offered as a credit as a courtesy and not to take advantageBBAS has been fair Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (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 agencyAgain, a social worker who has never laid eyes on us, how is that compassion? We want our 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 agencyIf need be, I will take to the news channels, and exercise my freedom of speech, or protest outside their front doorWe want our money back, it belongs to us, and this company did nothing to help us, they just nickel and dime families to deathI will do anything and everything in my power to get our money backI do not accept this response, again, we want our money backI am not going to sit back and let them keep another dime of our moneyI will not just walk away without my moneyWe would appreciate this resolved in a reasonable amount of timeThank you
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/03/23) */ It is the position of Building Blocks (BBAS) that the [redacted] have been treated fairly by BBASThe [redacted] initially contracted with BBAS on July 28, BBAS has two programs for adoptionProgram 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 programProgram B is the newborn program and matches an independent birth mother to families with an approved home studyThe birth mother selects the families from a profile and through interviews established through BBASThe family then has the right to accept the birth mother The [redacted] initially decided to participate only in BThe first part of the contract fee is $and is the same whether they decide to participate in one or both programsThe [redacted] then decided to request a participation in the state waiting program and asked to amend the contractThe contract was amended to add state waiting in May of 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 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,These are fees and not escrow fundsThese fees are nonrefundable as stated in their contract and in other documents executed by themThe $4,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 processThese are nonrefundable to the extent of expenses paidThe first escrow deposit was in the amount of $10,paid on May 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 issuedThis birth mother "T [redacted] " did in fact decide to parent her child and thereby the adoption was endedBy 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,paid for the match and acceptance although not refundable will apply to all subsequent matches and acceptancesThe contract as to state waiting then terminates The [redacted] were matched a second time with birth mother S [redacted] in September of S [redacted] was due in December of The balance of the $10,in escrow for T [redacted] had been reduced to $7,due to nonrefundable expendituresThe escrow contract up front amount had increased to $13,for anticipated expenses so the [redacted] deposited the $2,to replenish the escrow to $10,on July and then increased the escrow to $13,with a $3,payment on October 15, Once again the escrow is a refundable amount except when expenses are paid for the birth motherIt is unrelated to the fee for services for match and acceptance S [redacted] gave birth in December of It is apparent that S [redacted] also decided to parent her childOne of the [redacted] claim is that BBAS was not responsive while in the hospital and that lead to her changing her mindThat assertion is disputedBirth mothers have the right to change their mind as an acknowledged risk of private adoptionsBBAS was responsiveAttached 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 recentlyThe following exchanges should be noted: [redacted] asked at 4:p.mon December "Any sign that she's wavering with her decision?" [redacted] responded "Not at all"Later that night [redacted] indicated: "It has been a great dayWe held her handHer 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 friendsShe has been laughing and joking." (4:p.m.) [redacted] then indicated that she was having the social worker call S [redacted] [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 fundsAn email was sent to them with the summary attached to this responseOf the $13,in escrow, $3,was spent on birth mother expensesThus $9,was left in escrowThe [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 moniesThe [redacted] also asked to reopen the state waiting programBBAS indicated that a new contract was needed as the old one was now voluntarily terminatedTwo things then happenedThe [redacted] home study had to be amended at a cost of $All agreed to take that money from escrow and refund the now balance of $9,The check was sent to the [redacted] and cashed by themThe [redacted] were then offered a new contract for Program A and BBAS without any legal requirement offered to use the $4,fee paid for the match/acceptance toward the first $4,of feesIt was not to refund the monies and the invoices created at that time reflect this understandingSee attachedA new contract was executed for of the credit and the $4,reduced to $2,Three further invoices were sent and all stated: Application of monies transferred to the State Waiting Program from the Newborn ProgramBalance of credit from nonrefundable payment of $4,is now $ BBAS offered the credit as a humanitarian responseNow [redacted] want to rewrite history and receive monies to which they were never entitled to as a refundBBAS simply was not going to offer a return of monies that had already been used to give them in excess of $3,in services they should have paid for insteadBBAS 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 detailsBest guess: [redacted] had a potential child situation through a county referralThe county contacted BBAS to discuss the family and then indicated that the family was not going to be chosen to parent the childBBAS did not and would not attempt to influence the county to deny a matchAfter all history shows that BBAS had twice matched this familyThe allegation is without merit The reason the parties are now involved in this complaint concerns the Home StudyA home study is held by BBAS but subject to state rulesPart of the rules is that the home study is in essence registered with the stateIf 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 impactFurther it is the family's responsibility to report the arrest to BBAS in hours BBAS received a rapback concerning Mr [redacted] in on his arrest for a DUI and other offensesThe [redacted] did not report the arrest timely and the need to do so was explained to themA 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, for disorderly conduct, intoxicated; resisting arrest; petty theft and open containerThe 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 soA phone call and emails were attempted to discuss the rapbackIn response, [redacted] chose to terminate the contract and close the home studyThe [redacted] had requested a refund of their nonrefundable credit in December (denied), they did not terminate the relationship until this rapbackThis complaint followed BBAS states that it has treated this client with compassion and denies any wrong doingBirth mothers changing their minds are a known risk for adoptionsAfter 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 was nonrefundable and offered as a credit as a courtesy and not to take advantageBBAS has been fair Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (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 agencyAgain, a social worker who has never laid eyes on us, how is that compassion? We want our 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 agencyIf need be, I will take to the news channels, and exercise my freedom of speech, or protest outside their front doorWe want our money back, it belongs to us, and this company did nothing to help us, they just nickel and dime families to deathI will do anything and everything in my power to get our money backI do not accept this response, again, we want our money backI am not going to sit back and let them keep another dime of our moneyI will not just walk away without my moneyWe would appreciate this resolved in a reasonable amount of timeThank you