"Donna Walker" - HELP! I have to run to a meeting (Not suicide related Jean :))

I am not sure if what the rules are on this. I do know that this is a scam that is going on right now on parent profiles as I am getting ready to send out this information and more to all of the couples on parent profiles about it. P.S. - thanks for the warning (about not being suicide related) :) Jean

I believe that it would be the same as someone posting about a bad agency experience and needs to go.

If it's a valid scam and you have proof of this happening, then it can stay up. We do allow for scammers to be outed. Just like we do with Juliana's charity scams, for example.Now, if any agencies are linked or discussed on the posts, then those have to be removed. If an article is linked and the agency is just mentioned in the article but is not the focus of the article or linked, then that's ok.I'm assuming Jean since you are warning your couples about this person, this is a true report?

I did remove the link to the other adoption forum as I know nothing about them.

Or I could be wrong. Sorry. ;) I find it interesting that a.com will allow discussion of an individual who has not been convicted of something, but won't allow discussion about agencies even when they have been convicted of something. Or at least the owner has. (Though I do see the moderating nightmare there.) But I guess that is why they have attorneys to make those decisions and dont' rely on the opinions of SAHMs! (And obviously I have too much time on my hands to think about this!)

ROFL! I asked Brandy a few times if we couldn't get more leeway on the agency discussion rule but she said "no". I'm not exactly why though. I do know that before she started moderating, the site did allow for agency discussion. It was a mess apparently and in the end they decided it wasn't fair for just the positive stuff to be left etc. and all of it got nixed. However, that's a lonnnnnng time ago so it might be the new person could revisit this rule. I'm guessing though the legalities of agencies are far more complex than those of just an individual.And no, I'm NOT apologizing. LOL!

LOL! I am not in agreement with the agency discussion rules, but I have absolutely NO power to change them. I am with Crick in hoping that this can be revisted with the new person. Crick - I do have enough information and feedback from couples on the site to warrant a scam warning being sent out in regards to Donna (Danielle, Kylee, Sydney, etc.).

It has been a long time since libel & slander class in journalism school and I have never been an attorney so I assume they know what they are doing. (Hopefully. ;) ) That said. there was a post on another group (that does allow agency discussion) recently that was to the effect that wow were they glad to find the site and it had never occured to them to check out the particular agency beyond the references they (the agency) had given them. Ugh! Not that I wasn't that naive once, but it would be nice if there was more information out there about agencies who are convicted in one state and just open up in a different state leaving devastiaton in their wake.