Catholic Charities allegedly caught selling a newborn baby.

Catholic Charities sold a baby that was literally adopted out illegally and now we want to know if the adoptive parents are using taxpayer’s money to fight the biological father in court to take away his right to raise his own son.

Catholic Charities really messed up a little boy’s life after the mother gave him up for adoption without her husband’s consent and they knew about it! John Moritz and Michael Villar, attorneys’ for the biological father say that the biological father’s rights were wrongfully terminated, and the attorneys for the adoptive parents that Catholic Charities sold the baby to are now asking the state Supreme Court for a review because the appeals court ruled that the natural biological father’s rights were wrongly terminated.

The adoptive parents of the now 3-year-old boy say that they are “all the child has ever known”. Their attorney says that the Court of Appeals ruling poses a threat to children who are given up at birth under Michigan’s Safe Delivery of Newborns Law and asks that the biological father’s rights be terminated for that reason.

The attorneys are not claiming that the father is a danger to his son or that his rights ever should have been terminated, but that since the child has already been sold and lived in the adoptive placement for three years, that the father’s rights should be terminated, “The clients have cared for, and eventually adopted the 3-year-old boy after his birth mother surrendered him at the hospital at birth”.

The Court of Appeals reversal of termination of the birth father’s parental rights may lead to him gaining custody of his child. Attorney Lisa Speaker said that the appeals court ruling “will create a chilling effect on distressed mothers who seek the safe haven offered by the Safe Delivery of Newborns Law from even surrendering their children. The law has the overriding goal of saving the lives of newborns, who are ostensibly born to mothers in such a state of distress that they are willing to abandon their baby in a public restroom or dumpster”. She does not state any reason that the mother would have left the baby in a dumpster though.

The adoption attorney seems more concerned about protecting the Safe Delivery of Newborns Law that allows mothers to safely abandon their babies than she is about what is best for the child or the mother. At this point, it is unclear why the mother gave the baby up for adoption at the hospital, and why she did not reach out to the baby’s father for help, but it is clear that she most likely felt unsupported and not capable of raising the child. Were any services offered? Who counseled the mother in the hospital?

“Not only because it exposes them (children left under the safe delivery law) to the risk that they would be abandoned in an unsafe manner if the Act is not enforced as written, but also because children who have been adopted through the Safe Delivery process will now be at risk of being ripped from the only family they have ever known, like the child here….” Whom she claims was placed with “his family” when he was released from the hospital at two weeks of age “and who was legally and finally adopted by his Adoptive Parents almost three years ago,” Speaker argued.

But the baby was not placed with family or legally adopted out to strangers. Instead, the baby was denied his right to familial ties, and the baby was immediately sold through the adoption industry illegally because the father was never notified and his right to be a parent was not terminated.

At this point, the child’s future is more uncertain than ever because child welfare workers did not do their jobs and because Catholic Charities acted too hastily to adopt the baby out to strangers for the adoption payment incentives. The biological father also needs support. Now he has to stand up to the adoption industry that keeps the family courts in business, Speaker who advocates for adoptive placements rather than family unity, and Catholic Charities of West Michigan that illegally sold the baby to the adoptive parents and definitely wants to cover that up. Appellate judges Mark Boonstra and Jane Beckering determined that the birth father’s request for custody in his divorce filing constituted a custody petition. Judge Ronayne Krause dissented saying that “SDNL is intended to protect children”.

Michael Villar, the attorney for the natural birth father, Peter Kruithoff, doubts that the Supreme Court would review the case, but who knows. There is a lot of money involved. Still he argues that the case is a tragedy but that it does not affect the Safe Delivery law”. Instead he says that this case will force adoption agencies to comply with the law and he says that “Kruithoff sought custody of the child in a divorce proceeding filed in Ottawa County Circuit Court the day before his wife gave birth. The Ottawa County judge granted Kruithoff temporary custody. While that case played out, Kruithoff did not know that his parental rights to ‘Baby Boy Doe’ were being terminated by a Kalamazoo County Circuit Court judge”.

There is an obvious failure by the state of Michigan and Catholic Charities to find out anything about the baby’s history, and once they did become aware that the baby does have a family that wants him they completely ignored them. Kruithoff was purposely not notified about the proceedings in Kalamazoo County until the termination and adoption were completed. “I think both Mr. Kruithoff and the adoptive parents have been the victims of Catholic Charities cutting corners,” Villar said, “The only effort to find Kruithoff was a generic public notice in The Grand Rapids Press”.

Kruithoff searched for his son and subpoenaed Catholic Charities’ records on “Baby Boy Doe” after he found out that his wife had given the baby up for adoption in the hospital. Catholic Charities refused to give him any information about his son claiming that the records are “confidential”, but an Ottawa County judge ruled that “Kruithoff was entitled to know where the Safe Delivery action occurred”. The appeals panel this year voted 2 to 1 reversing the termination of his parental rights because they say that “Catholic Charities did not make reasonable efforts to notify Kruithoff, the non-surrendering parent”. What makes this even worse is that Kruithoff did subpoena records from Catholic Charities but was ignored, so the church representatives are lying.

The adoptive parents of course, are devastated. They probably had no idea about how the adoption industry works and just wanted a baby to complete their family. However, they may also be part of the adoption industry and very aware of how states use children for profit. They are keeping their identity secret so no one knows. They may have been adopting children and living off of the adoption incentive payments for years, possibly even decades. Eventually, the truth of this case will come to light.

Timothy Monsma, Catholic Charities attorney says the ruling “creates substantial uncertainty into safe delivery proceedings across Michigan”, and urges the Supreme Court to hear the case because it has “significant public interest and will have a substantial effect on state agencies, and their affiliates, and contractors involved in placing newborns under the SDNL. The importance of the issues implicated cannot be overstated. The appeals panel’s ruling unwinds the Legislature’s considered judgment on issues such as newborn safety, parental rights, the finality of judicial proceedings, and legislative intent. The ruling leaves uncertain the status of all children safely surrendered, placed, and adopted under the SDNL. If the panel majority’s decision is allowed to stand, adoptive families and their children will never be able to escape the lingering specter of a delayed, public, and prolonged custody battle with a purported biological parent”.

Still, Catholic Charities intentionally refused to give the father any information claiming confidentiality laws prevented the records from being revealed. Catholic Charities also claims that they were not aware that the birth mother was married. The case is definitely a mess and it is not certain that the adoptive parents actually want what is best for the baby because they do not seem concerned about the child’s familial rights. What other basic rights might the child be denied? Will the adoptive parents be willing to allow the child his rights to see his own family? Know his own heritage? Or will the child go through life not knowing who he is?

If the adoptive parents appeal the child and his father could lose five years together. “It’s a disaster for everyone involved”, the father’s attorneys claim, “If the child is taken from the adopted parents then they’ve had three years of thinking that they were the parents, and all of a sudden being told that they may not be the parents and the adoption may be undone. That’s a tragedy for them too, and I think it all could have been avoided by Catholic Charities just doing the righteous thing and informing the probate court and the circuit court of this before anything got final.  And they had a chance to do it they chose not to. What was particularly disturbing to me I think was that prior to the adoption being completed, we put, by way of a subpoena to Catholic  Charities through their council on notice that there was a custodial parent out there that became the custodial parent by order of the Ottawa  County Circuit Court. And that seemed to have been completely ignored, completely ignored. And to me that’s just atrocious. We got involved in this case quite a bit ago. And we sent them a demand letter, we sent Catholic Charities a demand letter saying, you know, what has happened here is just atrocious. And they basically, you know, told us to go pound sand, that they followed the rules, they followed everything right and then they threatened us with defamation if we told anybody what they did. So that’s where it got to the Court of Appeals”.

Minding Hearts is building advocacy and peer support groups in each state. The groups are created to raise awareness, educate, and advocate for those that might not otherwise be heard. We are here for encouragement, education, and support. We cannot give legal advice, but we can try and direct you in the right direction with your case. Links to legal services are listed with their states. Please share and let’s grow our groups. We are here to support families and develop resources that maintain family integrity. We look forward to your support. If you would rather become active by donating, then visit the donation page

One thought on “Catholic Charities allegedly caught selling a newborn baby.

  1. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Arlington Virginia. has been stealing and selling unwed Mothers Babies since the 70’s probably much earlier. Lying to the Birth mothers, putting their lives through a living hell through out their pregnancies and then stealing their newborn baby , once they are born They put my life through hell, and sold my Son, They hire Jews not Catholics to destroy the lives of these Women. The state of Virginia covers up for the entire thing so does the Bishops~ The State pays for it and everyone gets their kick back off the sale of your Baby. Virginia and NY. are the Worst two states for Human Trafficking through Catholic Charities, I found out in my unending search for my own son~!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.