The owner of an adoption agency in Utah has been able to open a second agency despite having previously had her license revoked for illegal and exploitative behavior.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Denise Garza had her license taken away in 2018 for “repeated and chronic violations” of state law, including acts a judge deemed as “potentially criminal.” Yet five years later, Garza has been allowed to have her license reinstated and has opened another adoption agency.
In 2018, Judge Sonia Sweeney found numerous violations, including overcharging adoptive parents for fees that were not covered by the state. Garza admitted to state officials that she would charge parents $4,000 for the birth mother’s medical expenses, regardless of whether or not the mother was covered by Medicaid. Instead, the money would be given to the birth mother, in cash. A witness said Garza would “provide an envelope full of at least four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) cash to the birth mothers,” and that all the birth mothers Garza worked with “knew they would get paid.” She also would intentionally select at-risk women, who were extremely low-income or experiencing homelessness.
Several adoptive parents who worked with Garza at her previous agency said they did not support her license being reinstated. “The birth moms, let’s not forget about them,” one mom, who remained anonymous, said. “They’re being taken advantage of as well. The whole situation is just yucky.”
As for Garza, she told the Tribune in a statement, “I did not agree that we had violated any rules. I believe things were misunderstood. But that is now water under the bridge. We have demonstrated that we are entitled to be licensed again, and we plan to operate under the rules.”
Adoption is a wonderful option for pregnant mothers who don’t feel ready to parent, particularly with the rise of open adoptions. While in the past, the birth mother was expected to have nothing to do with her child ever again, today families are increasingly opting to keep the birth mother involved in the child’s life. Yet placing a child for adoption is still an enormous decision to make, (one that separates mother and child which results in feelings of loss), and giving vulnerable women cash to surrender a child is exploitative.
“To the birth mother population Ms. Garza described, the promise of [$4,000], as cash in hand, is likely a substantial amount of money that very well may incentivize their decision to relinquish [their child],” Sweeney wrote. “In contrast, a reimbursement for expenses actually incurred may hold less life-altering promise to a birth mother standing in the shoes Ms. Garza described.”
She added, “[Garza’s] open and unabashed statements that for the last decade she has been charging adoptive parents fees that are not for actual and reasonable expenses and the evidence demonstrating that she has been providing birth mothers money in the amount of at least [$4,000], as a matter of course, in what seems to be a simple payment, are acts that appear to be potentially criminal.”
After her license was revoked, Garza continued working with adoption agencies, including illegally operating an adoption website and referring women to adoption agencies. It’s this kind of behavior that the anonymous adoptive parent said indicates that Garza sees herself as above the law. Another adoptive parent agreed.
“When the welfare of infants is at stake, second chances should be few and far between,” Ray Johnson said. “Granting a license to Ms. Garza’s new company goes way past second chances.”
