December 11, 2005
Re: Lupita Stamos
Allegations:
Abuse of Position and Unethical Conduct, Abuse of Elliot County Resources resulting in the adoption of baby Nevaeh. Violating NRS relating to the placement of a child.
Request:
Formal Complaint and Internal Investigation
To whom it may concern:
In Late September 2004, Ms. Stamos became aware that Samantha was pregnant. At this time, Samantha was not living at home, but at the home of Judy Olsen . Samantha has just turned 18 in February, 2004.
Afraid and not knowing what to do, Samantha confided in Ms. Olsen of her pregnancy.
Ms. Olsen then turned to another neighbor, Ms. Stamos. We had been
neighbors of both for over ten years.
The day Ms. Stamos found out about Samantha’s pregnancy she immediately telephoned
her and later that day met at a local park. Ms. Stamos told Samantha that she was too
far along in the pregnancy for termination, so her “only” option was adoption.
Ms. Stamos then devised a plan to adopt Samantha’s baby to her sister’s childless friend.
Within 3 days Ms. Stamos contacted the Adoption Alliance, and a meeting with
Ms. Winter to set the adoption in motion.
Ms. Stamos took advantage of Samantha’s vulnerable state and situation.
She had moved Samantha into her home after a week of constant pressure, because
Samantha was living in a trailer at the Olsen property.
Ms. Stamos used her place of employment, Elliot County Courthouse to
coordinate this adoption. She used the Elliot County Justice Court fax machine to
have the Adoption Alliance attain Samantha’s signature for the
Interstate Compact documents, Elliot County Justice Court telephone
( conversations to the adoptive couple) and her relationship with her attorney
friend, Molly Winter, as well as other coworkers to pull her plan together.
She also had a traffic ticket “fixed” by Judge Gavin on behalf of Serena.
A supervisor gave the “okay” to have documents faxed in and out of the Elliot County
facility. Samantha “never” solicited the help of Ms. Stamos.
Originally the perspective adoptive parents were going to use their own attorney, but
Ms. Stamos stated that they could use “her” attorney friend, Ms. Winter, and they did.
Ms. Stamos conducted the adoption at Ms. Winter’s office during normal business hours
as to which she should have been working at the Elliot County Courthouse.
Ms. Winter stated to Samantha that Ms. Stamos had known the adoptive couple,
and Ms. Stamos responded by saying, ” I was not going to tell her (Samantha) that I
knew them” and proceeded with having Samantha sign adoption paperwork. Ms. Stamos has possession of the adoption paperwork. This paperwork was “never” in
Samantha’s possession as this paperwork was handed to Ms. Stamos by Ms. Winters at an office meeting.
Ms. Stamos made doctor appointments for Samantha and signed her in at those
appointments.
She took her to the Medicaid office to ask for assistance knowing Samantha would not
qualify as she was on our insurance and while knowing this would be fraud
to the State of Nevada. Ms. Stamos never followed through with a
means of payment for Samantha’s medical bills.
When my husband and I found out of the adoption that Ms. Stamos had facilitated,
we immediately telephoned her. Samantha and Lupita spoke on the phone.
Ms. Stamos first asked Samantha if they were on speakerphone. The reply was
no, but my husband and other daughter on the extension line.
Ms. Stamos stated, “How did they find out? We know what’s best for the
baby, don’t we Samantha, and, if your parents want to fight me, I’ll bring out
the big guns.” ( I am Samantha’s eldest sister and I was listening on the line with my father and I can testify that these were the exact words Lupita used. )
My husband, Samantha, and daughter Elizabeth will testify under oath and
polygraph as to these allegations of said telephone conversation.
Ms. Stamos stated to my husband and I, that she had “pulled up” my husband’s
information on her computer at work, and used her findings to her advantage. This
information was used against my husband in several ways. Ms. Stamos informed the
adoptive parents that my husband was violent, therefore, with this ammunition
in hand my husband was denied visiting our granddaughter until the trial date was set.
Another instance is when she stated in a restraining order hearing to Judge Stone
that my husband had been arrested for being violent, again, Ms. Stamos had
information that should not have been privy to her. At this point she stated that
my husband had a “history” of violence and that she “feared him.”
At the hearing my husband told Judge Stone that “I’ll bet you’re wondering why
we’re in your courthouse instead of the Elliot County Courthouse. That is
because Ms. Ramos knows the judges at that courthouse.”
The judge then responded to Ms. Ramos and said, “I know you, and you’re
a nice person.”
With this said, the restraining order was granted.
Again, Ms. Stamos’ working relationships with the persons at Elliot County Justice
Court had proven to work for her benefit.
The Friday that Samantha went into labor, Ms. Stamos drove her to Reno to deliver
her baby. She did this deliberately because she was aware that I am a nursing student
and often have clinicals at certain local hospitals. Ms. Stamos then
represented herself to Samantha’s nurse as her guardian.
Samantha had asked Ms. Stamos numerous times to telephone her father, but
Ms. Stamos stated that the adoption was final and that she had promised
Samantha’s baby to her sister’s friends. The adoptive parents were present immediately
at the hospital as Ms. Stamos telephoned them that “their” baby was on the way.
Ms. Stamos also signed Samantha out of the hospital a day early.
We also have copies of the adoption paperwork and Medicaid papers that are clearly
written by the hand of Ms. Stamos.
Ms. Stamos violated NRS 127.240 License: Requirement: exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, NO person may place,
arrange the placement of, or assist in placing or in arranging the
placement of, any child for adoption or permanent free care
without securing and having in full force a
license to operate a child-placing agency issued by the division.
This subsection applies to agents, servants, physicians and attorneys
of parents or guardians as well as other persons.
4. This section does not prohibit a person, including acting in
his professional capacity, from sharing information
regarding an adoption if “no money or other
valuable consideration is paid.”
Ms. Stamos certainly operated in a manner that was above and beyond her clerical
position at the Elliot County Courthouse.
Ms. Stamos clearly violated the above mentioned by being wined and dined at
Miguel’s Restaurant along with her husband. Samantha stayed less than five minutes as
she was uncomfortable with the situation.
Ms. Stamos was given a roundtrip ticket to attend the baby shower given by the
adoptive parents, and was given a Tiffany & Co. Bracelet which was engraved
to ” Auntie Lupita, we love you.”
Ms. Stamos told Samantha that she attended the baby shower and had come
back with bracelets for both of them.
Samantha did not accept hers, and her bracelet was not engraved as Ms. Stamos’ was.
Upon our first confrontation at Ms. Stamos’ home to inquire as to what she had
done to our daughter and her baby, she stated to my husband and I
that “we” owed her $4,000 for Samantha’s care although Samantha had no knowledge
of any so-called financial support and accepted no monies.
Our granddaughter was born on October 22, 2004.
We found out of her birth on November 20, 2004. At this time we filed a
complaint with the Elliot County Sheriff’s Department. Ms. Stamos was
questioned by the deputy, and she chose to direct him to “her attorney.”
The deputy went no further than Ms. Stamos.
We called the Elliot County Treasurer Department and asked for a copy of
the Employee Code of Conduct Handbook. I was denied, as I was not an employee.
The case was sent to California, as Elliot County failed to investigate our
allegations regarding Ms. Stamos’ unprofessional behavior and abuse of position
as well as her misconduct.
We went to trial in late September 2005 and lost our case as a “deal” was reached
before the extent of Ms. Stamos’ involvement could be addressed. She had once
again eluded being questioned of her misconduct and involvement with this adoption.
Samantha was given the option to visit her child twice a year, or proceed and
possibly losing her case and never seeing her child again.
She chose the latter.
I can tell you that our daughter would never have known how to proceed with
an adoption and was not capable of understanding the documents placed before
her by Ms. Stamos and those who helped facilitate the paperwork.
A Forensic Psychologist report can support this.
We have proof that other co-workers were involved as false statements
and affidavits were given.
We have Samantha’s cell phone bill that confirms that Ms. Stamos had telephoned
Samantha 34 times in 28 days and those calls stopped after all documents were in place.
Due to Ms. Stamos involvement and conduct, Samantha’s baby was wrongfully
taken from her. Samantha had lived with Ms. Stamos from
approximately September 27, 2004, until just after giving birth on October 22, 2004.
Once the adoption was carried out, Samantha was no longer welcome at Ms. Stamos’
home and was kicked out of the home only to end up in her car. Samantha lived
that way for approximately one week before we discovered what had happened to her.
To add insult to injury , after Ms. Stamos was successful in adopting Samantha’s baby
to her sister’s friends, Samantha is now being harassed and being sued by collection
agencies asking for over $15,000 payment regarding her delivery and care.
My husband works for a postal service and retrieved 2 letters that
were sent to Ms. Stamos residence with Samantha’s name on the letters.
These letters were endorsed by Ms. Stamos as “not at this address” and
returned to sender. She had not attempted to forward these letters to Samantha.
Ms. Stamos continued abuse of her position at the Elliot County Courthouse
has not ceased. She was able to have a restraining order banning my husband
from our home, which is directly across the street from her. Ms. Stamos has
collaborated with Ms. Olsen and her daughter to state that my husband
had been seen at our house. Ms. Stamos had contacted The Elliot County Sheriff’s
department and made false allegations as to such. Ms. Stamos used her influence to go
undetected and unquestioned of her unethical conduct and abuse of position at
the Elliot County Courthouse.
My husband had notified the courts that he wanted a hearing to have his restraining
order modified. Ms. Stamos had received notice that a modification hearing date
had been set for November 28, 2005.
Coincidentally my husband was arrested on November 23rd, 2005 for “violating” the
restraining order. He spent 18 hours in jail, all based upon Ms. Stamos’ “word” and
influence in this department. At this time charges have been dropped pending
further investigation.
I believe that if the Elliot County Courthouse and its subordinates had abided
by professional integrity we would not be addressing the misconduct and abuse of
position regarding Ms. Stamos, and that my granddaughter would not have so easily
been adopted to friends of Ms. Stamos.
Therefore, we feel that Elliot County, and those that employ Ms. Stamos he held
liable and accountable for Ms. Stamos’ Behavior, Unethical Conduct, Abuse of Position
and Misappropriated use of County Resources, as our voice was unheard when we
followed the chain of command with our complaint.
This is not coincidental that all parties involved were not related to, known, or
worked with Ms. Stamos in some fashion. Ms. Stamos knew attorney Molly Winters,
the adoptive couple as well as co-workers at the Elliot County Courthouse.
Due to the nature of our complaint, we pray that these allegations will be taken
seriously, as we will not rest until the truth of these allegations be brought to light.
Remedy sought is that Ms. Stamos be removed from County employment, Fined,
and Criminal Charges brought forth when this complaint is founded.
If not for Ms. Stamos’ involvement with facilitating this adoption, our granddaughter
would not have been adopted under these circumstances.
We believe Elliot County should facilitate actions to reverse the adoption process
and be held accountable to being our granddaughter to her rightful home.
If the set forth allegations are not resolved to our satisfaction, we will be filing a lawsuit
against Elliot County and all those involved in this matter.
We will take action as far as need be to correct the wrong Ms. Stamos and
Elliot County has done to our family, our granddaughter included.
Our family waits in anticipation for your response and course of action.
We believe 5 working days from receipt of this certified letter should be
sufficient to address our complaint.
Cordially.
~ Family of Nevaeh
* This was written by my mother, in hopes of bringing our baby home.
Nine years later, ELLIOT COUNTY AND LUPITA STAMOS HAVE YET
TO BE HELD LIABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE.
LOVEFORGRACE.ORG 