"A family assessment is being completed on the maternal grandparents, Tim and Barbara Atwood. Tim is having a psychological assessment done and when those results are released, the assessment will be completed. This worker has been very honest with the Atwoods, explaining that a denial is likely based on the June 2005 removal of the children from, their home. They have chosen to proceed anyway, saying they anticipate being denied and will be working with an attorney. They have already contacted the Ombudsman's Office."

I wonder why I had to contact the Ombudsman's office? Could it be because a false sex abuse allegation was made up to eliminate us from adopting?

"A studied and approved adoptive family has been identified as prospective adoptive parents for the girls if the assessment for the Atwoods results in a denial, which is anticipated." -Adoption Progress Report 10/06/07

"Tim admitted to smoking marijuana with their daughter and not following through with the visitation agreement by allowing unsupervised visitation with their daughter's boyfriend."  Our Adoption Assessment, Page 6

- We never had an agreement. She must be talking about this "parent agency agreement" that we were never a part of. We never knew what the contents of this agreement were as nothing was ever discussed with us. In fact we never seen this agreement until much later. Furthermore if you read this court report Brian submitted for the periods of April 25, 2005 - June 17, 2005 it states Erica violated this "parent agency agreement"  and she allowed these contacts.

"He and Barb did admit, however, that they understood that the girls were not to have unsupervised visitation with their mother and that they did allow her to take the girls with her unsupervised to her boyfriend's home."  Our Adoption Assessment, Page 9

- Barb let Erica take the children to her house. As stated before there was no indication Erica's visitations were to be supervised until June 17, 2005. This was well after Erica was allowed the unsupervised visits.

During this same initial home visit with Suzanne, we were told we would need a minimum of 2 more home study visits and maybe 3. During this assessment there were many different visits scheduled and cancelled by Suzanne. We had only one home study and for some reason it had to be done at Bethany.

This family assessment is prepared in response to Tim and Barbara's desire to adopt their two granddaughters, Alyssa and Amber Keast. Alyssa is six years old and Amber is four years old. Both girls are Caucasian, sharing the same biological parents.

This assessment is prepared to assist Nicole Coppess in the adoption of her foster daughters, Alyssa and Amber Keast. The girls are ages seven and four, and have lived with Nicole since July 16, 2005. They have made excellent progress in her care.

- Isn't this quite revealing? Suzanne's purpose is to assist Nicole and boy has she ever, by using lies and fraudulent information about us in her reports. Even so, that last statement isn't completely true. The girls' were returned to their mother at one time.

As I stated earlier even after I was told I probably wouldn't need a psychological evaluation (PE) if the drug assessment came back good. I was told I still need this PE. I was told I can find my own psychologist to do this evaluation but Suzanne needs to talk to whomever before the evaluation was done.

I found someone locally to do this PE. Suzanne contacted this person 3 times before my evaluation was to start. The same day I was to start my PE, Sept. 6, 2006 Suzanne Adams and Dave Glerum from Bethany had a conference with Char Anderson and Lacy Gonzales-Borstler from CPS. As I was told during our first meeting with Suzanne, CPS was not involved with this adoption, their only role was the foster care of the children, then why was there this meeting?

Sept. 11, 2006 I called Suzanne in regards to the home study. As stated earlier she kept making appointments and canceling them. It had been almost 2 months since the assessment started and we haven't had a home study. Was Suzanne stalling and dragging this out? I say yes. During this conversation I was told we now have a slim chance of adopting. So what had recently happened you may ask? I will get into this in a little bit. I asked Suzanne aren't we suppose to be doing what is in the best interest of these children? Suzanne then replied the children haven't seen us in such a long time. This was when I responded, they still remember us and know who we are. I reminded Suzanne what she told me in a previous conversation after she had a visit with Alyssa and Amber. Suzanne told me that when she had a visit with the children she asked Alyssa if she remembered who she stayed with before going into foster care. Alyssa mentioned Tim, our son. Then Alyssa bowed her head and looked at the floor for a period of time then started talking about grandma and grandpa. To me that would seem she remembers us and is hurting because she can't see us? Anyways an appointment was made for September 13, 2006 for a home study.

We did try to get visitation with our granddaughters during the adoption assessment but were told no. This has happened every time we asked since the children were unjustly removed from our care. We did get to see Alyssa and Amber for the first time since July 1, 2005 on March 12, 2007. Now you tell me does this picture look like they don't remember us and aren't happy to see us? This picture was taken during our first visit with Alyssa and Amber at CPS. When the door was opened Alyssa saw who was there, tears of joy started flowing from her eyes, she gave us both a big hug and a kiss. How wrong Susanne was and her lack of insight.

Sept. 13, 2006 we had the first home study since this adoption assessment started. At the start of this meeting Susanne stated again we now have a slim chance of adopting and a sex abuse accusation was brought against me. I blamed this false accusation on my daughter. I told Suzanne about what happened in 2004 when I was going to take the girls over to Amber's grandfathers home. When Alyssa was told where we were going, she started begging and pleading she didn't want to go there and tears were running down her face. I told Susanne, Dan Morgan and Brian Vanderzalm were told all about this. I told Suzanne this was the reason I requested counseling for the children after they were placed in our care. I told Suzanne I asked the Dr. to check the girls for sign of sex abuse when they had their physicals. I told Suzanne Alyssa had a session with Sandy Terwilliger and after that session we were told there isn't anything wrong with Alyssa, "She is a happy normal 5 year old".

Suzanne asked my how my PE was, as I was suppose to start this Sept 6, 2006. Suzanne was informed I won't be seeing the original person and my reason why. I thought the Dr. was unethical because the original quote I received was $350 then during the first meeting which was a meet and greet,  the Dr. now wants $1000 for this evaluation.

Later on I was told this accusation was brought up by my daughter and it wouldn't be used in the reports as there was no evidence.

I later came to the conclusion it was CPS that made up this false accusation in order to keep us from adopting and Bethany conspired with them. Here are my reasons for this conclusion.

1. This was not in the original report Suzanne received from CPS or it would have been mention from the very  beginning of this adoption assessment. It would have and should be a very major concern.

2. The first meeting with Suzanne we are told CPS has no role in this assessment. Yet they have a case          conference.

3. Prior to the meting between Bethany and CPS on Sept. 6, 2006 this was never mentioned.

4. Suzanne already had 3 contacts with the original psychologist and faxed him her concerns. Why did          Suzanne have another contact with that Dr. after the meeting with CPS? Was he given a referral as to what they wanted in his report?

5. Sept. 11, 2006 we now have a slim chance of adopting. 

6. Sept. 13, 2006 Suzanne learns I am having the psychological evaluation elsewhere.

7. Oct. 2, 2006 Suzanne told me she isn't going to use this sex abuse accusation because there is no evidence. So why the change between we have a "slim chance" to she isn't going to use it?  The only thing that changed was I was no longer going to one of CPS' paid psychologists.  Was he suppose to provide this evidence? 

8. There is no mention of sex abuse in any of the CPS reports or court transcripts. In fact just the opposite is true,  "No evidence of sexual abuse". You can bet if my daughter told them this, CPS would have mentioned this in court or put it in their reports to the court. Yet the first time this is ever mentioned was shortly after the meeting between Bethany and CPS.

9. Suzanne authored the child adoption assessment which was signed October 10, 2006. In this report she          states the exact same thing I told our daughter May 2004 when I was going to take the children over to Amber's grandfather's home. She states the exact same thing I told Dan Morgan and this was the reason I request counseling for the girls. She states the exact same thing I told Brian Vanderzalm. She states the exact same thing I told her during our home study September 13, 2006. But now, Suzanne is directing it toward me.

These are the contacts that were made during our adoption assessment.  Why did Suzanne have 2 contacts with the first psychologist after they already talked and she faxed her concerns? Why did Suzanne contact this psychologist after the conference she had with CPS? Why did Suzanne have so many contacts with Lacy Gonzales-Borstler (CPS) after she told us CPS has no role in the adoption? Why did Bethany and CPS have a meeting if CPS has no role in the adoption?  Why did Suzanne have so many contacts with our granddaughters therapists. I'm sure you readers can figure out exactly what was going on. Conspiracy?

As I stated earlier Suzanne told me she wasn't going to use this  false accusation in her reports because there wasn't any evidence. Let me show you how many time she used it anyways.

"Initially she denied any family history of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect to the DHS worker, and described her relationship with her parents as "good." She reported that she has a close relationship with her father and denied any family history of substance abuse, domestic violence, or criminal activity. However, in the September 2005, psychological intake completed by the local County Mental Health (CMH) Center, she stated that she thought that her father might have sexually abused the girls. According to the mother, Alyssa has pulled down her sister's pants and was caught kissing her sister's bottom. The girl's mother said she believes that Alyssa could have been sexually abused while she left Alyssa in the grandfather's care. She reported this to CMH and to DHS".          -Children's adoption assessment page 2.

This is the court report Brian submitted for the periods of April 25, 2005 - June 17, 2005 

"Alyssa has been observed to exhibit some concerning behavior. She has been observed smelling Amber's buttock. She also has made some concerning statements. She told Mr. and Mrs. Atwood she saw mom having sex." -court report April 25-June 17, 2005 page 2.

As you can see CPS was informed about this by us 3 month's earlier.

"Additionally, it is possible, according to the girls' mother, that Alyssa and/or Amber may  have been sexually abused by their maternal grandfather. In foster. care, Alyssa was caught humping stuffed animals several times. As noted above, the mother reported that Alyssa has pulled down her sister's pants and was caught kissing the sister's bottom. The mother said she believes that they could have been sexually abused when she left them in the grandfather's care about two years ago. She said that Alyssa screamed and cried at the mention of a visit with the grandfather." -Children's adoption assessment page 5.

Again referenced from the court report from above. The stuffed animal part, Oh I bet Alyssa couldn't have done this because she saw her mother having sex in the past. Maybe Alyssa saw Nicole having sex? It is documented the children have slept on the floor and in the same room as Nicole and her boyfriend.  Imagine that, Suzanne puts the same thing here that I told her during our home study on Sept. 13, 2005 but directs it towards me.

"As noted above, Amber's biological mother indicated that she had suspicions that Amber and/or Alyssa might have been sexually abused by their maternal grandfather." -Children's adoption assessment page 8.

"She also alleged that Tim sexually abused the girls." -Our adoption assessment page 9.

"There were also unsubstantiated claims by Erica that Tim may have sexually abused the girls" -Our adoption assessment page11.

As you notice, Suzanne certainly used this false accusation many times considering she said it would not be used as there was no evidence.

Now lets move on to other statement by Suzanne that aren't true.

"Tim and Barbara are unable to consider the adoption of the girls without subsidy." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 15

Now let me get this straight. We initiated the adoption process and didn't even know about this adoption subsidy. So what does this tell your about Suzanne's statement? This is just another of her fraudulent statements.

"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."

This was put in the adoption progress report Suzanne authored 12/19/06 when talking about Nicole. You notice how Suzanne tried to use the adoption subsidy against us, but not for Nicole?

"This worker has been very honest with the Atwoods, explaining that a denial is likely based on the June 2005 removal of the children from, their home." Adoption progress report 10/06/06

Suzanne was anything but honest with us during this assessment. For the most part the only thing Suzanne was honest about is that above statement. Suzanne told us denial was likely during the very first meeting we had with her. She had her mind made up from the very beginning and it didn't matter what we told her about anything. The following statements I am addressing were fraudulent statements CPS used. All Suzanne did was use those CPS statements and add we admit to these things even though she was told differently. Bethany is getting paid by whom? That's right, the same people that said they didn't want us to be the adopting family, the same people that initiated the false sex abuse accusation, CPS.

 "Tim admitted to smoking marijuana with their daughter and not following through with the visitation agreement by allowing unsupervised visitation with their daughter's boyfriend."  Our Adoption Assessment, Page 6

"He and Barb did admit, however, that they understood that the girls were not to have unsupervised visitation with their mother and that they did allow her to take the girls with her unsupervised to her boyfriend's home."  Our Adoption Assessment, Page 9

Suzanne was told I quite February 2004 and yes I took a couple puffs off one, Erica brought over with her the beginning of July 2004, after Erica relentlessly begged me. The first time I ever talked about this subject was during our adoption assessment with Suzanne. Suzanne know this is one of her calculated lies. We never let Erica have visits with her boyfriend. We let Erica have visits with her children and she let the visits happen. She listened to the answering machine message, she knew our daughter was punished for letting these contacts happen. Now if we "were" letting these visits happened, would our daughter be punished by us? Suzanne was told we were never informed our daughter visits were suppose to be supervised until June 17, 2005. This was 5 days before we were informed the children were going to be removed. The only visit Erica had with her children after that date was the unsupervised visit we were told we had to let happen so Erica can take the children to church with her. Even that visit we were told it was our decision if the children were returned right after church or not. This was our daughter and granddaughter's house not just the boyfriends. 

"In the course of the investigation and ensuing months, Erica alleged that Tim had smoked pot with her since she was 14 years of age and that he was using much more than reported. Tim admitted to one incident in 2004 where he says he 'gave in' to her begging and took a hit. She also alleged that Tim sexually abused the girls." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 9

It seems Suzanne will talk about these false allegations yet she doesn't say one word about what she was told in regards to these false allegations. For starters, I didn't learn Erica was smoking marijuana until the school called with concerns Erica wasn't at school. During the school's investigation they learned our daughter was getting off the school bus and going to the lake with her boyfriend and smoking marijuana. She was almost 16 at that time. I'm sure our daughter made many accusations, after all she was mad at me because I changed the locks on the apartment because she was bring her boyfriend over there and she was letting the children have contact with him.

"According to a CMH assessment of Alyssa completed in 8/31/06, the therapist states, ".. .(Erica) also suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Research indicates that BPD is caused from an invalidating home environment. This would be a huge concern if Alyssa or her sister were placed in an environment that is invalidating because (Erica) struggled in her parent's home and she continues to struggle as an adult." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 9 - 10

"Mother is currently suffering from bipolar and her biological mother suffered from depression, Mom also suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Research indicates that BPD is caused from an invalidating home environment. This would be a huge concern if Alyssa or sister were placed in an environment that is invalidating because biological mother struggled in her parents' home and she continues to struggle as an adult. Due to the drug history, possible sexual abuse, and invalidating environment Alyssa should not be placed back into her maternal grandparents home." Children's adoption assessment Page 11.

What causes Borderline Personality Disorder?

As I mentioned earlier that statement isn't accurate and as you can see by Suzanne's comment it was used to help keep us from adopting. Erica didn't start having any problems until she was an adult. Suzanne was told all about when our daughter started having these problem and the reason's why. This is also in the statement I read at the case conference with Bethany.

Here is my statement I read about her adoption assessment. 

"Erica alleged in court in November of 2005 that she and Tim used to roll joints together and smoke them starting when she was 14 years old." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 10

Again Suzanne put that in her assessment. I never smoked with Erica until after she was an adult.

"As noted above, Tim and Barb did provide relative childcare through the DHS for Amber and Alyssa. They were placed with them March 14,2005 and removed June 25,2005. The basis of that removal was Tim's admitted use of marijuana with Erica and the fact that they had allowed Erica to take the children to the boyfriend's home, thus breaking the parent-agency agreement. There were also unsubstantiated claims by Erica that Tim may have sexually abused the girls and that Barb had pushed Amber into a wall." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 11

"Tim and Barbara are unable to consider the adoption of the girls without subsidy." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 15

Now let me get this straight. We initiated the adoption process and didn't even know about this adoption subsidy. So what does this tell your about Suzanne's statement? This is just another of her fraudulent statements.

"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."

This was put in the adoption progress report Suzanne authored 12/19/06 when talking about Nicole. You notice how Suzanne tried to use the adoption subsidy against us, but not for Nicole?

"Tim and Barb did provide relative childcare through the DHS for Amber and Alyssa. They were placed with them March 14,2005 and removed June 25,2005. The basis of that removal was Tim's admitted use of marijuana with Erica and the fact that he and Barb had allowed Erica to take the children to the boyfriend's home, thus breaking the parent-agency agreement." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 16

"Additionally, while the girls were in Tim and Barbara's care, they failed to adhere to the Parent-Agency Agreement to adequately protect the girls from harm when they knowingly allowed the girls to have unsupervised visitation with their mother and her boyfriend." Our Adoption Assessment, Page 16

Erica's name was never mentioned when Brian asked if I smoke marijuana. All Brian was told, I did it in the past. We were never a part of this "Parent Agency Agreement". The rest of those two paragraph's from Suzanne has already been addressed. You notice a bias trend with her fraudulent statements? Suzanne was told DHS didn't want us to adopt so Suzanne was doing her part to eliminate us by using these same fraudulent statements over and over again.

Our adoption assessment was completed the end of October. Of course we were denied by Suzanne.

Now I am going to talk about the fraudulent documents and such that was provided by Suzanne during our court proceedings.

February 7, 2007 we had a court hearing.  On March 5, 2007 Judge Thomas made his ruling in regards to the Feb. 7 hearing. Here is the order.

"Reasonable efforts have not been made to finalize the court-approved permanency plan of adoption for Alyssa and Amber Keast. Progress towards the children's adoption was not made in a timely manner. The permanency planning goal is appropriate."

1. The children's commitment to the Department of Human Services for permanency planning, supervision, care, and placement under MCL 400.203 is terminated.

2. The court continues its jurisdiction over the children.

3. Subject to that continuing jurisdiction the court does place the children with their maternal grandparents by virtue of their petitions to adopt.

4. Recognizing that placement for the purposes of adoption can continue for up to 18 months before the adoption can be finalized and in deference to the Department of Human Services concerns, the court does request the Department to care for and supervise this placement as a matter of courtesy.

This same day Suzanne sent these documents that have fraudulent information in them to William Johnson (MCI) to get expedited consent for Nicole.

These are the forms Suzanne Adams used to get consent for Nicole from MCI.

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.

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 she 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 Suzanne 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  webpage. 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 and they both knew what the judge was considering.

As you can see Suzanne has provided much fraudulent information in the many documents she has authored. but it didn't stop with those. Now I will discuss documents she provided to the courts during the AG and MCI appeal process.

As stated above Judge Thomas revoked the commitment of Alyssa and Amber with MCI. His reason was because nothing had been done other than deny our consent and try to talk Nicole into adopting. The previous forms for expedited consent along with these 2 documents were provided to the AG. The AG used these forms during the reconsideration with Judge Thomas and at the Court of Appeals.

Expedited consent for Nicole.

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 indicates 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.

Our adoption assessment contacts.

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.

"Alyssa and Amber continue to do very well in their current foster home placement with Nicole Coppess. Nicole said that Alyssa's first reaction to hearing that they did not have to move to their grandparents' home was, "Yeah, can I go tell my sister." Nicole states that they were both very excited and happy". -Adoption Progress Report 5/19/2007

Some more fiction Suzanne used? This was put in the adoption progress report after the COA reversed the trial court and Alyssa and Amber didn't come home for good on April 17, 2007 as the girls thought they were going to be doing. If the above  BOLD statements were true. Why was it this same evening when we saw the girls at Wesco, as Nicole was pulling Alyssa and Amber away from us and to her vehicle, did they both have this unforgettable look of pain in their faces and eyes? Why did it take 3 month's for the girls to get over what happened that evening and calm back down? Why did Alyssa have a melt down June 26, 2007? Exactly, these children were traumatized once more because of what was happening to them because they didn't come home with grandma and grandpa.

During our adoption assessment with Suzanne, she showed a serious lack of judgment by lying and providing fraudulent information in documents she authored. This behavior shows poor self control,  a serious lack of judgment  and a failure to think of  the children's welfare first. She also showed a lack of insight by thinking our granddaughters wouldn't remember us. She showed she is easily persuaded by others to not do the right thing.

This make a person wonder how much other fraudulent information she provided in other documents she has authored. I think there is definitely a question as to her credibility.