This looks familiar -- http://www.thehome.org/site/DocServer/2014_Annual_Report.pdf?docID=5061

Anyone look at the financial records?

Hm. If someone wants to dig more into this place, there might be something here. It seems similar to the place Silsby is connected to, regarding waiving parental rights, and has been around for a while. May be nothing, but here's a case for reference.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/367/367mass631.html - The first couple paragraphs set the stage for the mother relinquishing custody. Then down under dissenting, there's some good information on why the mother should possibly be awarded her rights - seems like the courts are really overstepping their bounds giving this kid away just because there's a set of perfect adoptive parents waiting when the mother has been paying regularly to support her kid and making efforts to be gainfully employed. Nothing destructive or abusive at all!

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/444/393/2149566/ - Same case, but a bunch of great information about habeus corpus.

http://openjurist.org/584/f2d/1103/sylvander-v-new-england-home-for-little-wanderers - This details that because it's a private and not federal foster situation, she can't argue the same things in court. Hm... That seems like an interesting loophole...

In her habeas corpus petition Sylvander seeks an order that the Home return Michael to her.10 "The district court found that Michael, although living with foster parents, remained under the supervision and control of the Home, "a private non-profit agency engaged in child care," and that this was sufficient to constitute "custody" in the Home. 444 F.Supp. at 398. But it concluded that the necessary element of state involvement was lacking, in that Michael's status with the Home "is analogous to the type of parental custody a probate court may decree in divorce proceedings." Id. at 399. Citing our decision in Donnelly v. Donnelly, 515 F.2d 129 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 429, 46 L.Ed.2d 373 (1975), the court ruled that custody of this character was not custody of the kind as to which federal habeas corpus relief may be afforded."

Agree with other comments here, the name seems awfully offensive to describe "at risk" children. I definitely agree that the butterfly and hand inside a hand symbol are pedo, but was unsure of the other symbols on the adoption agency site linked in this post. We should just keep our eyes peeled, always, for new and morphed symbols.

Big hand in little hand is definitely a pedo symbol: http://www.thehome.org/site/PageServer https://archive.is/lsqWp

"Little Wanderers"?? ffs, children at risk are not 'little wanderers'. It makes a mockery of a very serious subject. It's offensive.

The name of this organization seems awfully flip for such a serious subject.

Not every spiral is related. The spiral on the FBI doc held the shape of a triangle.

I intended to doubt your post because spirals often symbolize recycling, appropriate for a thrift store. The charity though is full of ambiguous symbols: butterfly for transition to old age, big hand in little hand, hearts etc. But did the banner pic of the marathon have to be dudes from the waist down LOL

Yet again! Evil!