2003 Effort to Sell/Adopt Emily in Wisconsin

[KarlHindle]

Emily was removed from the UK in February 2003 - I'll post the circumstances of how that was effectuated separately.

I tracked Emily and her mom across the US and with the help of former family members, I found them in Wisconsin in March 2003.

I received a call from Sheila telling me Emily was being given to someone to protect her - no details were provided and I could get no information out of Sheila or her family. I was also told by Sheila that I could get Emily back if I was prepared to pay her money - my initial reaction is unprintable.

I found where Emily was at after I was given some information on extended family members.  This led me to this man:



Leslie Merriam - a convicted pedophile - WI Sex Offender Extract http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7847/3251/1600/Merriam%20WISOR.0.jpg

Merriam confirmed that he and his wife had been looking after Emily who was being adopted by his son and his wife, Dale and Shannon Merriam.  Shannon Merriam nee Bodin, is a member of Sheila's extended family.

I contacted the local police who did nothing - the mother advised them the US Embassy in London had helped her to get Emily out of the UK because I was an abuser and that I was not to know where in the US Emily was.  Sheila gave the contact information for a Patricia Mentzer at the US Embassy London to corroborate this.



I had the pedophile interviewed by a PI - he reported back that Merriam claimed no money was involved in the adoption which was being done with no paperwork - my PI noted that Merriam was not asked about money changing hands (the copy is poor - a link to a larger copy is here -http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7847/3251/1600/PI%20report%20on%20Merriam.jpg
.


The deposition of Leslie Merriam is found at this link here - http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/2006/11/convicted-paedophile-testifies-to.html

The relevant testimony is here (page 12 of the deposition but there are other confirming statements elsewhere in the deposition too):

"3 Q. So Shannon and Dale, it's your
4 understanding, were anticipating or trying to
5 adopt Emily; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And do you know whose idea this was?
8 A. I thought Sheila's.
9 Q. Do you have any idea why Sheila would
10 want Dale and Shannon to adopt Emily?
11 A. Mainly because she couldn't take care of
12 her.
13 Q. Who couldn't? Sheila?
14 A. Sheila couldn't."

Sheila simply denied any of this happened and Judge Doyle in Florida never looked at any of the evidence including the depositions.

[lovellboys]

So if I understand this correctly - the US Embassy in London took Sheila's word for it without any investigation into the allegations, allowed her to leave the UK without the consent of both parents AND promised not to divulge any information to you?

[KarlHindle]

correct

[UD_student]

As much as I believe people who are victims of abuse should be protected and excessive safeguards against preventing false accusations can prevent some people from getting needed help, it is preposterous to not have any safeguards and simply accept someone at their word without any corroborating evidence. The UK is far from a third world country that refuses to protect women, and I see no reason why if the alleged abuse had occurred that Emily's abductor could not have received assistance from the legal system in the UK. To me the obvious answer is that no abuse occurred especially since someone trying to protect their child would not arrange an illegal adoption of said child. In a perfect world everyone could be accepted at their word, but sadly this world is far from perfect.

[sue]

This is absurd.  How was she able to do all of this?  Do they regularly help hide or take a child out of a country without checking the facts?  Are they liable for any of this?

[KarlHindle]

This is absurd.  How was she able to do all of this?  Do they regularly help hide or take a child out of a country without checking the facts?  Are they liable for any of this?

There is an exception to the two-parent signature rule for passports - domestic violence.  But there is no hearing, no notice, no due process - a State Department official makes a decision and that is the end of it.  Are they liable?  It's the State Department.

Perhaps some of you are beginning to appreciate why so many foreign countries have little faith in either the US courts or the US agencies involved.

[kittykat]

This all goes back to what I've posted in several places before about gender treatment. You guys (meaning you men) have got to get together and decide you're going to do something about it or nothing will happen. I'm a lady and I believe that the majority of abuse claims by women are false. I believe this mainly because of people I know. It's just something we're born knowing how to do. It's like saying you're on your period to get out of gym class (usually not true, but you have to accept it because it just might be true!). I remember reading an edition of "Time Out" which is a magazine in New York. On the inside page they always have an interview they conduct with some random person they stop on the street. Anyway, one week they stopped this lady and at some point in the interview she said that she had left her husband when her 2 sons were little. She talked about how hard it was to make it on her own and said that at one point they lived in a shelter for battered women. So the interviewer said, "He abused you?" and then she said "Well, no, I didn't think he paid enough attention to the kids and I thought we deserved better." Translation - she was young and overcome with ennui and thought maybe there was something better out there so she took advantage of the fact that everybody treats women with pity without asking questions. She didn't say what she told the shelter but I think she should be forced to pay back the shelter. People make donations to those places to help people in genuine need and she just took advantage of them. But it just goes to show you that a lot of women don't think there is anything wrong with it. A lot of us feel that this is our one advantage over men and don't want to give it up. I mean this woman just admitted it in an interview she knew would be published in a magazine with a huge circulation. She didn't care!

[forthelost]

From everything I've seen in this case, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Emily's mother never has and never will have her best interests in mind. Are the people in the legal system deliberately not seeing this? 

[lovellboys]

Amazing.  I know I personally find it offensive when abductors use patriotism as a way to keep a child of duel nationality away from the other parent.  You can't hide behind a flag to protect your selfish interests.  It disgusts me to KNOW that my own country shields abductors, and I know that had the situation been reversed, and Karl was the American, that Emily would most likely not have left the UK so easily.  Of course not - he's the dad. 

Karl, your contacts are on my daily email list, but I think I'll reword my statements a bit.  As a mother, as an american - I am way beyond pissed.   

[SageDad]

Relevant WI law
--------------------------------------
CHILDREN - CRIMES AGAINST
948.02(1) Sexual assault of a child - first degree
(Class B felony/penalty: imprisonment not to exceed 60 years):
• having sexual intercourse or sexual contact
• with another person who has not attained the age of 13 years
NOTE: See definitions and note at Sexual assault - first degree, above at 940.225(1).
948.02(2) Sexual assault of a child - second degree
(Class C felony/penalty: fine not to exceed $100,000, or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years or
both):
• having sexual contact or sexual intercourse
• with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years
NOTE: See definitions and note at Sexual assault - first degree, above at 940.225(1).
948.02(3) Sexual assault of a child, failure to act
(Class F felony/penalty: fine not to exceed $25,000, or imprisonment not to exceed 12.5 years or
both):
• being a person responsible for the welfare of a child who has not attained the age of 16 years
• and having knowledge that another person intends to have, is having or has had sexual intercourse or sexual
contact with a child
• and is physically and emotionally capable of taking action which will prevent the intercourse or contact
from taking place
• or being repeated
• and fails to take that action and the failure to act exposes the child to unreasonable risks that intercourse or
contact may occur between the child and the other person
• or facilitates the intercourse or contact that does occur between the child and the other person

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing the math he was somewhere around 34 and convicted of having sex with someone between the ages of 13-15.  The child may have been even younger since it's common for prosecutors to reduce charges, say from a 1st degree criminal sexual assault to a second degree, in exchange for a plea agreement.  How did the mother even come into contact with this man?

[sue]

This is absurd.  How was she able to do all of this?  Do they regularly help hide or take a child out of a country without checking the facts?  Are they liable for any of this?

There is an exception to the two-parent signature rule for passports - domestic violence.  But there is no hearing, no notice, no due process - a State Department official makes a decision and that is the end of it.  Are they liable?  It's the State Department.

Perhaps some of you are beginning to appreciate why so many foreign countries have little faith in either the US courts or the US agencies involved.

If a woman were to claim this in the US there would be an investigation and it would have to be proved.  How can the State Dept. in the UK just take her word for this?  It really makes no sense and I think somebody really screwed up.  I guess that's why you aren't getting any help, nobody wants to admit to what they've done.  Can't the UK help in some way?

[KarlHindle]

If a woman were to claim this in the US there would be an investigation and it would have to be proved.  How can the State Dept. in the UK just take her word for this?  It really makes no sense and I think somebody really screwed up.  I guess that's why you aren't getting any help, nobody wants to admit to what they've done.  Can't the UK help in some way?
[/quote]

The State Dept in the UK are still bound by US laws - the problem is holding them accountable - once you have this label attached to you they can, and do, stop you traveling to the US because you are an "abuser" - there is no hearing and no opportunity to give your side and court orders from the UK and the US have no impact.  I have a tape recording made inside the US Embassy London when I was being interviewed for a visa which is illuminating - they denied visas because I had harassed the American citizen mother and did not have to follow the court orders saying she had been lying and I was a good boy. 

I sued the State Department in federal court in 2005/6 - the judge ordered I and their attorney meet in FL - the US Embassy simply ignored my request for a visa to travel so the judge dismissed my petition on the grounds I had not complied with pre-trial orders.

[sue]

Somebody in the US has to be made aware of this crap and do something about it, this is absurd!  Maybe that attorney will take this on as well, somebody should have to pay for all the time you and your daughter have lost.