A count from Württemberg seeks to circumvent the strict adoption regulations: by conceiving children on demand.

Hidden among classified ads for tarot card readings and pony holidays in the "Hamburger Abendblatt," the "Christian Association for Family Support" from the Württemberg Forest called for a "campaign against childlessness and child suffering." A plea to everyone: "Help through membership or donations."

Those who responded to the advertisement received a letter from a "Msgr. Heinrich Kotulla" from Meersburg, a "theologian." A "fact sheet" alerted interested parties to an "extraordinary opportunity" to overcome childlessness, "legally and reliably," for a payment of approximately 32,000 marks.

The transaction that the monsignor is suggesting is child trafficking.

Because adoptions in West Germany may only be arranged by state or officially recognized agencies, and violations can be punished with fines of up to 10,000 marks, the Christian association on Lake Constance devised a scheme to circumvent the strict regulations. They offer the placement of boys and girls who were allegedly "conceived abroad by German citizens."

Through "acknowledgment of paternity of an unborn or very young child," men are supposed to obtain "parental authority (custody)" over the baby and thus have "their desire for children" fulfilled—whether they are actually the father or not. The fact that, in practice, children could then be conceived "on demand," by "long-distance truck drivers, for example," is something these peculiar family advocates acknowledge.

If paternity is acknowledged, notarized, and the biological mother has consented, the father can bring the child to Germany. Back home, the baby, the intermediaries claim, must then be "automatically" legitimized by the local court and naturalized "no later than three years later."

A particular highlight of the alleged "adoption procedure in a streamlined form," as the procedure is described in the Kotulla information sheet, is that "state youth welfare offices and other authorities do not participate."

The mediators of the Christian association demand "payment" for "fees, expenses and compensation".

* 2000 marks »for the bureaucratic effort, due upon notification of the wish to legitimize a child (p. 72)«

* up to 20,000 marks »for compensation for the mother (depending on nationality), costs for documents, translations, certifications, childbirth costs, etc.«,

* 10,000 marks "upon handover of the child".

The idea for this dubious undertaking did not originate with the Meersburg monsignor, but rather with Rainer Rene Graf Adelmann von Adelmannsfelden, born Baron von Godin, 34, who is well known to the authorities south of the Main River. For years, he has kept courts and public prosecutors busy with tricks and schemes (Adelmann: "I just have so many ideas"), suing businesspeople, journalists, and publishers.

With obscure associations for monitoring fair competition, he alienates small business owners from entire regions. Even for minimal formal errors in advertisements, such as when a real estate agent fails to identify themselves, Adelmann's organizations, like "The Competition Observer" or the "Central Committee for the General Compliance with Higher Court Jurisprudence in Competition Matters," intervene.

The Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) allows associations "whose statutory duties include representing consumer interests through education and advice" to take action against "incorrect advertising claims." The Count is exploiting this clause.

Sometimes posing as "General Secretary," sometimes as "Managing Director," he demands a cease-and-desist declaration from those violating competition laws and charges them up to 250 marks in warning fees. If they resist, the Count or the associations he has specifically founded sue for injunctive relief and pocket several times that amount in legal fees. At the Konstanz Regional Court alone, 58 cases brought by Adelmann and his intermediaries were pending between March and June of last year.

At times, limits have been placed on his activities. The Munich I Regional Court repeatedly lifted preliminary injunctions or dismissed corresponding applications from the count's cease-and-desist association "Concurrentia Aeterna." In a case against a car dealer, the Munich judges concluded that the cease-and-desist association "abuses the right to litigate for extraneous purposes." The competition law, the judges stated, is "only being used as a means to generate business income."

The Bavarian Ministry of Justice revoked Adelmann's license to practice law because he was engaged in an "activity" that was "incompatible" with the profession of lawyer or the reputation of the legal profession. When the Bavarian Court of Honor upheld the decision, Adelmann appealed to the Federal Court of Justice. This appeal became moot because the count ultimately relinquished his title as a lawyer himself.

He was never short of ideas. Although, as he recounts, his training as a Catholic deacon failed because he had temporarily served on the board of the Erding Young Socialists (Jusos). Instead, he founded a private church under the fanciful name "Archdiocese of Munich of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Evangelical Church of the Holy Apostle Matthew." As a self-proclaimed churchman, he bestowed pseudo-ecclesiastical titles of honor, such as on page 75, "Monsignor" Kotulla, who describes himself as a "business lawyer."

The count founded funeral homes, as he freely admits, to gain better access to probate matters as a lawyer. Adelmann: "In inheritance law, you can earn 20,000 marks like nothing." As "Chancellor of the Association of Christian Nobility," he eventually offered "international partnerships and social arrangements": "If your life has broken away from family tradition and you desire a new origin, we will find you," boasts an advertising brochure, "the right parents."

New to its product range is the business with children.

The offer is based on the tens of thousands of parents who apply for adoption nationwide every year, unsuccessfully, as well as the large number of childless mothers and fathers who do not even submit to the lengthy checks, interviews and suitability tests of the youth welfare offices before an adoption application.

“No youth welfare office or other charitable agency,” promises Kotulla’s “information sheet”; “can have a say or a say, or view your premises etc. through an official lens.”

Adelmann assures us that business is booming and "working." Two children from Egypt and one from Turkey have already come to West Germany through his mediation. Following a "boom in inquiries" (Kotulla), five more children have already been "ordered" (Adelmann) – all in Poland. He says the process is currently "most practical and simplest" there. Adelmann: "We're fully riding the wave of aid from Poland."

The intermediary is indeed actively seeking contacts in Poland, for example through the "Association for the Promotion of Private Trade with the East" run by the exiled Pole Wieslaw Bicz in Frankfurt. And the demand from German parents for Polish children has demonstrably increased. Rolf Bach, head of the Joint Central Adoption Agency of the four northern German states, has noted a "striking increase" in both inquiries and adoptions in recent months.

But Adelmann's offer is not as legitimate as he claims. The public prosecutor's office in Konstanz is investigating him "on suspicion of falsifying personal data." Two house searches at Kotulla's and Adelmann's residences prompted the count to exercise greater caution. Two days after SPIEGEL interviewed him, he attempted to downplay his previously liberally disseminated success stories. He insists that no one has yet "acknowledged a child as the father who wasn't actually the father."

The new version preempts the accusation of falsifying personal status, which, however, would be difficult to refute anyway. This is because attempted incitement, as a "preparatory act," is not punishable in this case. And according to Erich Samson, a commentator on criminal law from Kiel, even "there is no punishable false statement if someone other than the biological father untruthfully acknowledges paternity of a child."

The child's welfare—better to have a false father than no father at all—outweighs "the public interest in establishing biological parentage" (Samson). Adoption expert Bach adds that prevailing jurisprudence has largely followed this view.

The accusation of fraud, however, could put Adelmann in a difficult position. With his offer, the Count is making promises he can hardly keep. Contrary to his assurances, the youth welfare offices cannot be bypassed in the legitimation process, which he conducts in his own way. In cases involving applications for a declaration of legitimacy, the Youth Welfare Act mandates that the guardianship court must consult the youth welfare office, which represents the "best interests of the child," before making a decision. Contact with the authorities is unavoidable.

Furthermore, the child's legal status is far from being as final as the count claims. The father can revoke his false declaration of paternity "within one year," for example, "if the child no longer suits him" (Bach). And even the child, upon later learning of their true origins, can contest paternity "within two years after becoming aware of the acknowledgment and the circumstances" that contradict it (Section 1600i of the German Civil Code).

And another obstacle on the path to having one's own child is being concealed. Unlike in official adoptions, the biological mother does not lose all her natural rights in Adelmann's deal. She only loses custody, but retains, for example, the right to regular visits, and all familial relationships remain intact—important, for instance, in inheritance matters. Contrary to Adelmann's promises, Bach says, "no definitive family law ties are established."

Ultimately, the children suffer the consequences. Instead of informing them as early and openly as possible, as social workers and psychologists at youth welfare offices now consistently advocate in adoption cases, Adelmann's parents, if they refuse to allow the purchase, would have to conceal his origins as much as possible. Both scenarios are incompatible with the "best interests of the child," the paramount principle in all adoptions. Both scenarios severely limit the child's ability to identify with his parents.

“No one guarantees,” says Hamburg adoption expert Bach, “that the placement is even remotely in the child’s best interest.” What counts is “the interest of the putative fathers and the interest of the person who profits from it.”