As you can see on these forms there are things that need to be true in order to get the consent expedited. All of the following must apply. As you can see the box is checked on both forms that states:
The recommended family is the only family requesting to adopt the child. There are no competing families for adoption.
Now they knew by checking this box they were providing fraudulent information. Adams and Jordan were both at the court hearing on February 7, 2007. They knew exactly what was happening and they knew that we were still trying to adopt.
Next there is a box that asks if the adopting family was recruited. This box is not checked which is another bit of fraudulent information they provided on this form. The record show that Nicole had been asked many time to adopt until she finally stepped up to the plate. In fact you will see all the contacts Susanne Adams had with Nicole to get her to change her mind and to adopt. That document will be provided below which is the contacts for Nicole's adoption assessment.
These particular forms were referenced to on my original page. I did that for a reason to see what kind of story they would make up to justify this fraudulent information. In later court proceedings they were both asked under oath about these forms. They both had basically the same answer. They didn't think there was a competition because they didn't hear from the court. Even that statement is not true as they knew we were still pursuing the adoption, hence the reason for the court hearing that was held on February 7, 2007 which they were both at.
Nicole's Adoption Assessment Contacts
I am going to start out with a bit of background and the reason's why this document is for the most part all fraudulent.
The girls' foster mother, Nicole Coppess, said she is definitely considering adopting the Alyssa and Amber. She discussed concerns over being able to financially care for them. We discussed subsidy as she was unaware of this help. She was concerned about health insurance costs as well as day care expenses. She was also interested in knowing more about the other approved adoptive family that will be interested in the girls.
As Christmas is so close. she asked if we could hold off beginning visits until after the holidays, which will give her the cha1nce to talk with her family members about moving forward with the adoption. This should coincide with hearing something from the Consent Office.
It is this workers opinion that Nicole will decide to pursue the adoption of Alyssa and Amber. If so, a home study will need to be completed and consent and subsidy requested. If she does decide not to adopt the girls, we will begin visitation with the other family as soon as we receive a go-ahead from the Consent Office. Adoption Progress Report 12/19/2006
As you can see Nicole hadn't decided if she wanted to adopt 12/19/2006
"And it's been recent that the foster mother has wanted to adopt the children. The foster mother, or I'm sorry, and the children have indicated that they would like to stay with her." -Lacy Gonzales (CPS worker) 2/07/2007
When we started our adoption assessment all the forms were signed during our first meeting. The record indicated Nicole didn't sign the background check and adoption subsidy forms until 1/31/2007 so it is reason to believe that is when the adoption assessment was started. We know by the Adoption Progress Report Nicole hadn't decided to adopt until after the holidays. So, how could Nicole have contacts in regards to her adoption assessment prior to those dates in time? There is no way she could possible have any contacts until she actually decided to adopt and signed the adoption application. Furthermore, if you look at the following document you will notice Suzanne used the majority of our adoption assessment contacts for Nicole.
These are the contacts that were made during our adoption assessment.
Now did our AG's office know these documents were fraudulent? I suspect they knew exactly what they were and they used these documents to show that Nicole's adoption was in progress to get the lower courts ruling overturned. Furthermore, the AG's office deleted the majority of our contacts when they used this during our appeal for the Supreme Court. I'm sure by then they knew this whole document didn't need to be used in the original form as the Supreme Court never hears these kind of cases.