Unable to have kids on their own, the Jaggers thought they had finally gotten their shot at parenthood.

“We got the sonogram,” said Andrea Jaggers, recounting the first image she saw of the baby boy they planned to adopt.

“It started to to become more real,” Chris Jaggers said.

For an up-front fee of $6,250, Sacramento nonprofit Chicks in Crisis matched them with a birth mother who was due to deliver their new son in late July.

The Jaggers — who have held a number of fundraisers to scrounge together enough money to start a family — were ecstatic.

“When someone’s pregnant in your family, you call everybody, right?” Chris said.

But three weeks before the due date, while driving to meet family and friends for the July 4 weekend, their cell phone rang, with a call from their adoption attorney.

The birth mom had changed her mind.

“We get a call and have to pull over,” he said. “And we’re devastated.”

The birth mom was no longer comfortable with them, they said they were told.

Under their contract with Chicks in Crisis, their money is nonrefundable, but the nonprofit said it “will continue to move forward and assist in a continued attempt to locate a birth mother.”

But for the next two months, Chicks in Crisis founder and adoption facilitator Inez Whitlow would not return their emails or messages, they said.

“We were her clients,” Chris said. “She was supposed to be supporting us.”

Twa’Lea Jordan, the Jaggers’ adoption attorney, said Whitlow initially promised to refund half of their $6,250 down payment but never followed through.

“To me, that’s unethical,” she said.

After CBS13 called Whitlow, she emailed the Jaggers offering to set them up with another birth mom, which would cost them $30 thousand dollars more.

Instead the Jaggers took the case to small claims court, with a judge hearing both sides of the story in a hearing lasting more than six hours.

CBS13 spoke to Whitlow after the hearing.

“Right now, I just don’t have any comment,” she said. “But I think it went fine.”

Weeks later, the judge awarded the Jaggers $1000 of the $6250 they paid Chicks In Crisis, saying Whitlow’s “actions soured the relationship and violated the implied terms of good faith and dealing in their agreement.”

“We had never been through this process before,” Andrea said. “So we were in it blind.”

Refusing to give up their dream, the Jaggers plan to start the adoption process all over again somewhere else.

“It’s really important to us,” Chris said. “We know we want to be parents. We’re ready to be parents.”

Comments (7)
  1. Mike says:

    Interesting story. As adoptive parents we found parentfinder.com allowed us to create a digital adoption profile where agencies and birth parents could see our adoption profile. There is a matching component and when an agency enters information about birth parent requests they can not match the system looks at all the parents registered and presents the results to the agency. In our case we were matched in just a few months. The cost to be presented and have multiple agencies trying to match us was $590. Seems like a good option for anybody that is looking to adopt or even going through IVF right now.

  2. Julia says:

    As long as there is money involved in obtaining a baby, it’s baby selling and unethical. I’m glad these people lost their money and I hope they lose all their money for trying to BUY themselves a BABY. They have to accept they weren’t meant to be parents. Period. THIS is why young mothers are coerced into surrendering their rights, to fuel the market– the baby buying market for infertile couples. It’s SICKENING.

    Mike offers a cheaper way to buy a baby, how frugal a baby buyer is he? And everyone [society] just looks away as usual.

  3. Meems says:

    Julia you are a sick and disgusting individual… No one is “buying a baby” and who are you to judge who should and shouldn’t be parents??? There are expenses involved in adopting or having a baby on your own, they got mixed up unfortunately with a shady person who is the one your anger should be directed at.

  4. SaraP says:

    Holy Cow Julia! You obviously have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Thankfully, you discredit yourself with your crazy ranting. Thank you MEEMS for setting the record straight!

  5. Story says:

    I agree with Julia. I am an adoptee who has no rights to know where I came from or what my medical history is. I am denied things you all take for granted, my heritage and my original birth certificate. Adoption should be illegal when it involves taking a newborn baby from a young mother. The baby needs it’s mother, and believe it or not, the mother needs her baby and will never be the same if she reliquishes. Have your own kids, and if you can’t, then it wasn’t mean to be. Adopt from an orphanage, or do you think those kids are damaged goods. Take a newborn away at birth and you will have caused the damage.

  6. Tracy says:

    I agree with Julia and Story. As an adoptee I believe adoption is no more than buying a baby to pretend it’s really yours. There are many children who need homes if people want to be parents. As far as the “Holy Cow Julia you have no idea what your talking about” comments…all I can say to that is you’re obviously NOT an adoptee or a natural mother. Either you are a regular citizen who has a real birth certificate, or an adopter.

  7. Meems says:

    Julia, Story, and Stacy are obviously the same sick troll.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s