Caitlyn and Adam Otte, a married couple from Indiana, have become victims of an adoption scam that cost them more than £22,000 and shattered their hopes of starting a family. The couple, who had been actively pursuing adoption after facing unexplained fertility challenges, were matched with a woman known as Etta (a pseudonym) through a private adoption agency. What followed, however, revealed the vulnerabilities and complexities of private adoption processes in the United States.
Caitlyn, 34, a teacher, and Adam, 36, who works in construction, had initially hoped to conceive naturally, but after 18 months of unsuccessful attempts and medical advice leaning toward IVF—which posed health risks for Caitlyn—they turned to adoption as an alternative. The couple engaged with an agency that operates much like others in the US, where private adoptions allow prospective parents to connect with pregnant women independently of government foster care systems. This approach involves various legal and financial arrangements, often including financial support for birth mothers’ living and medical expenses. Unlike public agency adoptions, private adoptions can carry heightened risks because the pregnant woman retains the right to change her mind at any stage.
After completing a thorough home study and creating detailed profiles to share with expectant mothers, the Ottes were contacted by “Etta,” described as a 23-year-old pregnant woman with two existing children who expressed financial hardship and preference for a semi-open adoption. The couple maintained regular contact with her, sharing photos of a fully prepared nursery adorned with Winnie The Pooh decorations and expressing their eagerness to become parents. They supported Etta financially as requested, with payments totaling £7,750 among other expenses, all part of the £22,100 the couple ultimately spent in pursuit of the adoption.
The planned birth date was set for late March 2025, but just days before, communication from Etta ceased without explanation. Attempts to reach her went unanswered, prompting growing concern and uncertainty for the Ottes. Subsequently, they learned from members of Etta’s extended family that she had seemingly misrepresented details about her pregnancy and financial situation. Reports indicated Etta had held her own baby shower months earlier and that the birth father had been involved, contradicting earlier statements to the Ottes. The couple was also informed by a family member that this might not have been Etta’s first involvement in such a scam.
The financial loss and emotional toll on Caitlyn and Adam have been profound. They described their experience as devastating, with the nursery room symbolizing their dashed hopes. The Ottes emphasized their understanding of a birth mother’s right to change her decision but expressed deep anger over what they see as deliberate deception.
The couple is now contemplating legal action and plans to resume the adoption process with greater caution, committing to ask more thorough questions in future matches. Meanwhile, they continue to grapple with the potential fate of the child, who may be in the care of social services.
This case highlights ongoing concerns regarding the regulation and oversight of private adoption arrangements in the US, where differing state laws, financial transactions, and the rights of birth mothers intersect in complex and often precarious ways. Critics argue that the system can create opportunities for fraud and exploitation, underscoring the importance of safeguards for all parties involved.