Part III - False Allegations

May 20, 2004 – A Campbell County judge signed an order stating that “Parties married in violation of this [DVO] order and set for show cause for contempt on this case May 27, 2004.”

On May 27, 2004 – The Campbell County judge then wrote the following statement into the public record: “Parties married in violation of this DVO, but appears Pet. was coerced into filing this by Adoption Agency in Louisville attempting to terminate Resp’s paternal [parental] rights. Court does not find either party in contempt.” [Campbell Co, KY District Court # 03-D-00307-001] This statement was clearly false since the DVO was in Sept and Carolyn didn’t meet with Amanda until Nov, 2003

July 22, 2004 – Carolyn’s attorney took the deposition of Amanda. Khalid was also present during this deposition. During the trial in 2009, Amanda claimed that she felt pressured to go through with the termination in April 2004 because of a paragraph in the adoption plan she’d signed in November 2003. Carolyn, in trying to give Amanda full disclosure had stated that if she didn’t go through with the adoption, she "could" be sued by the adoptive parents. This statement was preceded by this sentence to Amanda: “Should you decide not to terminate, there should be no legal repercussion.” During this July 2004 deposition, however, Amanda didn’t mention any fear of being sued at all and stated that after the termination she felt that she’d done the right thing. Her deposition in July 2004 was purportedly aimed at getting the baby back for Khalid. By the time of her second deposition in February 2006 (after she’d filed a civil suit against Carolyn in April 2005) she began to allege this suit threat clause as a reason she went ahead with the termination. She claimed, falsely, during the January 2009 trial, that she’d learned Khalid was looking for her before the termination and stated she would have backed out except for that fear of being sued.

Amanda didn’t raise the suit possibility as a question to Carolyn or the counselor in the months prior to her delivery or prior to the termination. In their charge against Carolyn, Attorney S.S. mentioned this threat of suit as evidence of malpractice. The plaintiff’s attorney further claimed that the failure of Carolyn to copy Amanda on a six page “Escrow Letter of Understanding” [about how the agency would manage their funds on behalf of Amanda] that was sent to the adoptive parents constituted malpractice. The attorney pointed to a paragraph in that letter that stated the adoptive parents could sue if the birthparent didn’t terminate, but would not likely win, and that Carolyn wouldn’t assist them since she represented Amanda. He claimed that if Amanda had been sent this letter, she would have seen Carolyn’s statement and would have been emboldened not to fear being sued if she changed her mind. If she would have read the document evidence submitted during the trial demonstrated she was very happy with the couple she had selected as adoptive parents and would not have worried about a suit if she changed her mind. In fact, at the termination (now public record) she was more worried about what would happen if they changed their minds about adopting her baby.

December 17, 2004 – The 60.02 motion on fraud, misrepresentation, etc. was to be heard before Jefferson County Judge P.W.F., but none of the plaintiff’s attorneys appeared. Therefore, the motion was dismissed; the appeal period expired January 16, 2005, with no further action by Amanda or any attorney on her behalf.

January 19, 2005 – Amanda filed a Bar Complaint against Carolyn A. alleging: over-reaching, coercion, gross over-charging of adoptive parents, dual representation, instructions for her to lie in court, and other egregious acts. The Kentucky Bar reviewed all of the documents in the case and dismissed the complaint on September 3, 2009.

April 11, 2005 – birthmother Amanda filed civil suit (her attorney assisting) against Carolyn A. and AOK in Campbell Co, Circuit Court 05CI-00496; allegations: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of emotional distress and request for punitive damages. The timing of this suit is interesting. It occurred just as the statute of limitations from the alleged injury (the termination of parental rights) was about to run out and listed all the same allegations previously listed in the 60.02 complaint – the hearing they hadn’t attended which resulted in dismissal. Amanda was hoping to get $3,000,000 as a result of this suit. Of interest, Amanda has not seen the baby since the termination or since he was given back to Khalid, even though she could have easily gained access by filing for a step-parent adoption. The baby resided in Ohio with Khalid’s parents for many months after September 2005 before going to Egypt, and Amanda made no attempt to see him.

April 21, 2005, Paul Long wrote an article in the Kentucky Post: “Woman sues adoption agency….Claims pressure to give up baby”….”seeking monetary damages only against her attorney, Carolyn A. of Louisville…claims that adoptive parents paid agency some $40,000.” The plaintiff’s attorney is quoted liberally in an obvious attempt to smear Carolyn’s and AOK’s reputation. The $40,000 as mentioned was pulled out of the air by Khalid. (The actual agency fee was $6,500 of which Carolyn received $2,000 as an employee.) In separate statements to the newspaper, Amanda said she didn’t know when she approached AOK that the agency was for-profit and was going to be paid! (The adoptive parents paid aprox. $5,000 for Amanda’s expenses during the pregnancy.)

July 27, 2006 – after reviewing Amanda’s case against Carolyn, Campbell County Judge J.R.W. dismissed the case.

August 24, 2007 -- Court of Appeals agreed with some of the judgment set aside but sent other portions of the State case back to be tried. This judgment had to be “viewed in a light most favorable to” the plaintiff [Amanda] they said and reiterated her false allegations, many of which had appeared in the media. At this time, Carolyn had not yet had the opportunity to state her case and refute the false allegations bandied about in media and court charges.

June 12, 2008 – Supreme Court denied Carolyn’s and AOK’s appeal to uphold Judge W.’s dismissal order and directed that the case be tried.

January 5-9, 2009 -- Campbell County Circuit Court heard the case and Carolyn was cleared of the emotional distress and fraud charges but tagged with malpractice because of a few document irregularities that had no bearing on the decision of Amanda to place her baby for adoption. The plaintiff’s expert witness had not bothered to review the documents for entire case and accused Carolyn of malpractice because of the wording in some of these documents and because she didn’t send copies of some documents to Amanda. Of course, the reality was that Carolyn fulfilled the expressed wishes of the birthparent to have her baby placed for adoption without naming the abusive birthfather-boyfriend. The plaintiff had asked for an award of $1,200,000, but the jury only awarded them $6,500 (the fee AOK charged the adoptive parents for the adoption).

Carolyn could have appealed the malpractice decision, but because she was able to have her side of the story entered into the public record and felt vindicated by the small amount of the award, she elected not to appeal and risk another tedious trial. It took the jury 11 hours to reach their verdict in this complex document-heavy case. Amanda and her attorney didn't appeal the decision either.

As noted previously on September 3, 2009 the Kentucky Bar dismissed the bar complaint Amanda brought against Carolyn.

Carolyn spent aprox $225,000 of her own money to defend this frivolous lawsuit. Due to insurance misrepresentations she had no liability coverage.

(Part IV of this document is a verbatim transcript of Carolyn's attorney's closing argument at the conclusion of the trial.)