Mafia of international adoptions
Monday 22 November 2000
Mafia of international adoptions
Romanian children - good export goods
The mafia of international adoptions For years, a real trafficking of children has been taking place on the territory of Romania, under the guise of international adoptions. Several million dollars are earned annually from these businesses, many of them suffering from corruption.
We will present you two concrete cases of adoptions in which methods were used that can be cataloged in the most blind terms as dubious. At their center are two foundations, "Irene" and "Stuart", which claim to "protect the child through adoption", both led by lawyer Elena Bustea.
She obtained at least two children for adoption, based on more than strange medical certificates. The cases are under the attention of the police, but until now they have not been completed. Moreover, the two policemen who orchestrated them, col. Marian Stanciu and Capt. Adrian Barascu, were disciplined and moved from the IGP to the Capital Police. A healthy child receives the diagnosis of "dystrophy grade III". Institutionalized children are under the care of the Romanian Government, which takes care of them through the Romanian Committee for Adoptions (CRA). A "child protection" foundation can mediate an adoption only if it is accredited by the CRA.
Depending on different criteria (donations, projects, general activity) the foundations receive a score based on which more or fewer children are assigned to them. But, besides this method, intelligent and resourceful people have found a way to make ends meet of several children. I get an "arranged" medical certificate, which shows that a child is sick, and I request it from the CRA over the line, as "nominally assigned". After obtaining the assignment, a good medical certificate is drawn up for the child, with which he is presented in court. In the end, there are two medical certificates that fight head to head. Here are some examples. On January 11, 1999, the "Irene" Foundation asked the Romanian Committee for Adoptions to assign it "the task of identifying a suitable family for the child Huhn Iulian Mihai". It is stated that this child has "special needs", having the diagnosis of "dystrophy degree III". A medical certificate issued by the Medical Dispensary from the Balotesti commune, on January 13, 1999, with the initials of Doctor Georgeta Mihailescu, was also attached to the request. As can be seen, the "Irene" Foundation asked the CRA to distribute the child two days before having the medical certificate.
It must also be said that the Balotesti Dispensary had no right to issue such a certificate, especially since Iulian Huhn was domiciled in Otopeni, where he was under the direct supervision of a doctor. On February 22, the same doctor from Balotesti issued a new certificate from which it follows that Iulian Huhn is "clinically healthy". Consulting the child's file from the Children's Hospital in Otopeni, I found that Huhn Iulian was consulted by his doctor on January 12, 1999 (that is, exactly one day before he was declared seriously ill by the doctor from Balotesti).
According to that file, his general condition was "good". There is no question of grade III dystrophy. The proof that this certificate is dubious is a report drawn up by the same foundation, registered on March 1, 1999, and in which it is shown that Huhn Iulian only suffers from "hypochromic anemia and rickets". The certificate from 13 was therefore only used for the distribution of the child over the line, after which it was forgotten. Iulian left the country on April 9, to a Greek family. For what amount was the transaction made? Also on January 11, 1999, the "Stuart" Foundation also asked the CRA to allocate some children, including a girl, Elma Melmet, with a nominal allocation (that is, across the board, and in plus compared to the group of children initially granted).
Attached to the request was a medical certificate issued by the "Caraiman" Children's Polyclinic, on January 13, 1999, by Dr. Gabriela Conescu, with the diagnosis "grade III dystrophy, motor retardation, perinatal hypoxia and deficiency anemia." On March 4, 1999, the child's foster care returned to "Caraiman" and asked for another medical certificate, citing that she had lost the old one. However, the new certificate has as diagnosis "psycho-motor development within normal limits". So, after almost two months, all the child's illnesses had miraculously disappeared. The certificate was issued by the same doctor and was used by the foundation to conclude the adoption documents.
How he was obtained, only the president of the "Stuart" Foundation, Elena Bustea, can know. In the end, the girl was adopted by a family from Israel. The child's attending physician, Dr. Rodica Dragoi, from the "Duca" Dispensary, recorded in the file on January 12 (one day before she was declared seriously sick), the "healthy" diagnosis. The mode of operation of the two foundations is identical. The requests to the CRA are registered on the same date - January 11, and the medical certificates are dated January 13.
At first sight, one might think that it is a simple coincidence. However, a closer analysis shows that the presidents of the two foundations, Elena Bustea and Nicolette Ecaterina Tabara, are sisters. In addition, the headquarters of the two foundations are located in the same block, on the same staircase and on the same floor, only the apartments being different.
In fact, lawyer Bustea does not shy away from declaring that she runs the two foundations. According to all appearances, obtaining medical certificates attesting to serious illnesses for children requested for nominal distribution is a real working method and quite widespread. It would be interesting to see how many nominal distributions the two foundations benefited from and how many such dubious medical certificates were submitted to the CRA. And who and with how much was "anointed" so as not to notice the glaring inconsistencies in the documents.
The doctors who issued the certificates claim that the little ones were sick. In order to clarify the story of these medical certificates, I contacted the doctors who issued them. Dr. Georgeta Mihailescu from Balotesti commune (who issued the certificate for Iulian Huhn) claims that a lady, Cornelia Diaconescu, representative of the "Irene" company, came to her, who told her that she urgently needed a certificate because otherwise the child would no longer could be adopted. The doctor also said that the police would have pressured her to give a statement in which she claims that she did not see the child and therefore now denies the existence of any irregularity. "I've seen everything, I've done everything. The child is also listed in the register," the doctor said. And yet, if he saw the child, how do you explain the fact that only a day before the child's attending physician had recorded that he was in a good general condition? To be sure that there is no third way, I asked Mrs. Mihailescu if a healthy child can get sick in one day with grade III dystrophy. He replied that it was impossible.
We also tried to get a point of view from Dr. Conescu, from the "Caraiman" hospital in Bucharest, the one who issued the two certificates in the "Elma Melmet" case. She told us over the phone that "we can write what we want". We still tried to talk to her at the hospital. There was no face. Although she had consultations until 2:30 p.m., at 1:30 p.m. the doctor had already left the hospital. How Bustea defends himself Regarding Huhn Iulian and Memet Elma, lawyer Bustea claims that, in both cases, the medical certificates issued for the CRA are true and not in conflict.
Bustea does not explain why in the medical files from the hospitals where the children were kept under observation, there are diagnoses that contradict those in the medical certificates submitted to the CRA in support of the nominal distribution. The question also persists, in the case of Huhn, why was it necessary to be consulted on the 13th, precisely in Balotesti, when his domicile was in Otopeni? And why wasn't a medical certificate requested from the Otopeni Hospital on January 12, considering that Huhn was under the care of a doctor and had been consulted on the same day? All the more so since the request of the "Irene" foundation had been registered with the CRA on the 11th, so a diagnosis of "dystrophy grade III" was needed as soon as possible.
Did the foundation representatives not agree with the diagnosis given by the attending physician on the 12th? All these questions, as well as the evidence I presented above, can also be found in several files currently being worked on at the Organized Crime and Corruption Combating Brigade. It remains to be seen how and if these files will be completed, considering that the pressures to cover them up come from above. In tomorrow's issue, we will present other cases of dubious adoptions, in which the same controversial character appears: lawyer Elena Bustea.
========================================================
Luni, 22 Noiembrie 1999. 0 vizualiz?ri, 0 comentarii, 0 voturi
Mafia adoptiilor internationale
Copiii romani - marfa buna la export Mafia adoptiilor internationaleDe ani intregi, pe teritoriul Romaniei se desfasoara un adevarat trafic de copii, sub masca adoptiilor internationale. Citeva milioane de dolari se cistiga anual din aceste afaceri, multe din ele mustind de coruptie. Va vom prezenta doua cazuri concrete de adoptii in care s-au folosit metode ce pot fi catalogate in cel mai blind termen ca dubioase. In centrul lor stau doua fundatii, "Irene" si "Stuart" care sustin ca "protejeaza copilul prin adoptie", ambele conduse de avocata Elena Bustea. Ea a obtinut cel putin doi copii spre adoptie, pe baza unor certificate medicale mai mult decit ciudate. Cazurile se afla in atentia politiei, insa pina in acest moment nu au fost finalizate. Mai mult, cei doi politisti care le-au instrumentat, col. Marian Stanciu si cpt. Adrian Barascu, au fost pedepsiti disciplinar si mutati din IGP la Politia Capitalei. Un copil sanatos primeste diagnosticul "distrofie gradul III"Copiii institutionalizati se afla in grija Guvernului Romaniei, care se ocupa de ei prin Comitetul Roman pentru Adoptii (CRA). O fundatie "pentru protectia copilului" poate intermedia o adoptie doar daca este acreditata de CRA. In functie de diferite criterii (donatii, proiecte, activitate generala) fundatiile primesc un punctaj pe baza caruia li se repartizeaza mai multi sau mai putini copii.Dar, pe linga aceasta metoda, oamenii inteligenti si descurcareti au gasit o cale prin care sa faca rost de mai multi copii. Obtin un certificat medical "aranjat", care sa arate ca un copil este bolnav, si il cer de la CRA peste rind, ca "repartizat nominal". Dupa ce obtin repartizarea, copilului i se intocmeste un certificat medical bun, cu care este prezentat in instanta. In final, ramin doua certificate medicale care se bat cap in cap. Iata citeva exemple.La 11 ianuarie 1999, Fundatia "Irene" cere Comitetului Roman pentru Adoptii sa ii repartizeze "sarcina identificarii unei familii corespunzatoare pentru copilul Huhn Iulian Mihai". Se precizeaza ca acest copil are "nevoi speciale", avind diagnosticul "distrofie gradul III". La cerere a fost atasat si un certificat medical emis de Dispensarul Medical din comuna Balotesti, la data de 13 ianuarie 1999, cu parafa doctoritei Georgeta Mihailescu. Dupa cum se poate observa, Fundatia "Irene" a cerut CRA repartitia copilului cu doua zile inainte de a avea certificatul medical. Mai trebuie spus si ca Dispensarul din Balotesti nu avea dreptul sa elibereze un astfel de certificat, mai ales ca Iulian Huhn era domiciliat in Otopeni, unde se afla sub directa supraveghere a unui medic.Pe 22 februarie, aceeasi doctorita din Balotesti emite un nou certificat din care rezulta ca Iulian Huhn este "clinic sanatos". Consultind fisa copilului de la Spitalul de Copii din Otopeni, am gasit ca Huhn Iulian a fost consultat de medicul sau curant la 12 ianuarie1999 (adica exact cu o zi inainte de a fi declarat grav bolnav de doctorita din Balotesti). Potrivit acelei fise, starea sa generala era "buna". Nici vorba de distrofie gradul III. Dovada ca acest certificat este dubios sta un raport intocmit de aceeasi fundatie, inregistrat la data de 1 martie 1999, si in care se arata ca Huhn Iulian nu sufera decit de "anemie hipocroma si rahitism". Certificatul din 13 a folosit deci doar la repartizarea peste rind a copilului, dupa care a fost uitat. Iulian a plecat pe 9 aprilie din tara, la o familie de greci. Oare, pentru ce suma s-a facut tranzactia?Tot la 11 ianuarie 1999, Fundatia "Stuart" a cerut si ea CRA sa-i aloce niste copii, printre care o fetita, Elma Melmet, cu repartizare nominala (adica, peste rind, si in plus fata de lotul de copii acordat initial). La cerere a fost anexat un certificat medical eliberat de Policlinica de Copii "Caraiman", la data de 13 ianuarie 1999, de catre doctorita Gabriela Conescu, cu diagnosticul "distrofie gradul III, retard motor, hipoxie perinatala si anemie carentiala". La 4 martie 1999, asistenta maternala a copilului a revenit la "Caraiman" si a cerut un alt certificat medical, motivind ca pe cel vechi il pierduse. Noul certificat are insa ca diagnostic "dezvoltare psiho-motorie in limite normale". Deci, dupa aproape doua luni toate bolile copilului disparusera ca prin minune.Certificatul a fost eliberat de aceeasi doctorita si a fost folosit de fundatie pentru a incheia actele de adoptie. Cum a fost el obtinut numai presedinta Fundatiei "Stuart", Elena Bustea, poate sti. In final, fetita a fost infiata de o familie din Israel.Medicul curant al copilului, dr. Rodica Dragoi, de la Dispensarul "Duca", a consemnat in fisa, la data de 12 ianuarie (cu o zi inainte de a fi declarata grav bolnava), diagnosticul "sanatos".Modul de operare al celor doua fundatii este identic. Cererile catre CRA sint inregistrate la aceeasi data - 11 ianuarie, iar certificatele medicale sint datate 13 ianuarie. La prima vedere, s-ar putea crede ca este vorba despre o simpla coincidenta. O analiza mai atenta arata insa ca presedintii celor doua fundatii, respectiv, Elena Bustea si Nicolette Ecaterina Tabara, sint surori. In plus, sediile celor doua fundatii se afla in acelasi bloc, pe aceeasi scara si la acelasi etaj, doar apartamentele fiind diferite. De fapt, avocata Bustea nu se fereste sa declare ca ea conduce cele doua fundatii.Dupa toate aparentele, obtinerea de certificate medicale care sa ateste boli grave pentru copiii solicitati spre repartizare nominala este o adevarata metoda de lucru si destul de raspindita. Ar fi interesant de vazut de cite repartizari nominale au beneficiat cele doua fundatii si cite astfel de certificate medicale dubioase au fost depuse la CRA. Si cine si cu cit a fost "uns" pentru ca sa nu bage de seama neconcordantele flagrante din acte. Doctoritele care au eliberat certificatele sustin ca micutii erau bolnaviPentru a lamuri povestea acestor certificate medicale cu cintec, am luat legatura cu doctoritele care le-au eliberat. Dr. Georgeta Mihailescu din comuna Balotesti (care a eliberat certificatul pentru Iulian Huhn) sustine ca a venit la ea o doamna, Cornelia Diaconescu, reprezentanta a firmei "Irene", care i-a spus ca are nevoie urgenta de certificat pentru ca altfel copilul nu mai putea fi adoptat. Doctorita a mai spus ca politia ar fi presat-o sa dea o declaratie in care sa sustina ca nu a vazut copilul si ca atare acum neaga existenta vreunei nereguli. "Am vazut tot, am facut tot. Copilul este trecut si in registru", a mai spus doctorita. Si totusi, daca a vazut copilul, cum se explica faptul ca doar cu o zi inainte medicul curant al copilului consemnase ca acesta are o stare generala buna? Pentru a fi siguri ca nu exista si o treia cale, am intrebat-o pe doamna doctor Mihailescu daca un copil sanatos se poate imbolnavi intr-o zi de distrofie gradul III. Ne-a raspuns ca este imposibil.Am incercat sa obtinem un punct de vedere si din partea doctoritei Conescu, de la spitalul "Caraiman" din Bucuresti, cea care a eliberat cele doua certificate in cazul "Elma Melmet". Prin telefon ea ne-a declarat ca "putem sa scriem ce vrem" . Am incercat totusi sa vorbim cu dinsa la spital. Nu a fost chip. Desi avea consultatii pina la 14.30, la ora 13.30 doctorita parasise deja spitalul. Cum se apara BusteaDespre Huhn Iulian si Memet Elma, avocata Bustea sustine ca, in amblele cazuri, certificatele medicale eliberate pentru CRA sunt adevarate si nu se bat cap in cap. Bustea nu-si explica de ce in fisele medicale de la spitalele unde copiii erau tinuti sub observatie apar diagnostice care le infirma pe cele din certificatele medicale depuse la CRA in sprijinul repartizarii nominale. Persista si intrebarea, in cazul lui Huhn, de ce a fost nevoie sa fie consultat pe 13, tocmai in Balotesti, cind domiciliul sau era in Otopeni? Si de ce nu s-a cerut un certificat medical de la Spitalul din Otopeni, pe 12 ianuarie, avind in vedere ca Huhn se afla in atentia unui doctor curant si fusese consultat chiar in aceeasi zi? Cu atit mai mult cu cit cererea fundatiei "Irene" fusese inregistrata la CRA de pe 11, deci era nevoie in cel mai scurt timp de un diagnostic de "distrofie gradul III". Nu le-a convenit reprezentantilor fundatiei diagnosticul dat de medicul curant pe 12?Toate acestea intrebari, ca si dovezile pe care le-am prezentat mai sus pot fi gasite si in citeva dosare aflate in lucru la Brigada de Combatere a Crimei Organizate si Coruptiei. Ramine de vazut cum si daca vor fi finalizate aceste dosare, avind in vedere ca presiunile care se fac pentru musamalizarea lor vin de sus de tot.In numarul de miine va vom prezenta si alte cazuri de adoptii dubioase, in care apare acelasi controversat personaj: avocat Elena Bustea.