GUILTY CA - Tarquin Thomas for sex abuse, child *advertiser censored*, San Mateo, 2007

There has been such a time lag in this case that I'd totally forgotten about it. It has several odd elements. First, one must be typically be a US citizen to adopt a waiting child from the system. Secondly, the child was in Oregon, which is not where Thomas's primary residence is located. That would have required a great deal of interstate compact paperwork and the agreement of San Mateo County to provide courtesy supervision. I would wonder who would be doing supervision while the child was in Oregon. Third, the man seemed obsessed with staying in contact with the child even after arrested. And lastly, there were more children, adults and an animal involved. A nasty case all around. A jurisdictional nightmare. And WTH, is the final statement?

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=lnews&title=Foster%20dad%20molestation%20trial%20to%20begins%20today&id=139328

Foster dad molestation trial to begins today

"The trial of an English software designer accused of molesting a 9-year-old boy he was in the process of adopting is set to begin this morning.

Tarquin Craig Thomas, 44, previously entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to multiple counts of lewd behavior with a minor.


more at link

What a completely despicable man. A tracking device? Contacting his biological mother to try and regain control of him? There are no words evil enough to describe such a person.

I wonder why he is in the US and what a background check would find across the pond!! Nine years old!

I thought it was also interesting that after his arrest, the cleaning woman found a disk, containing picture evidence. How did she manage to see the contents of the disk? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she did, but maybe that is part of the delay on the trial.

This case is really bothering me. I know child welfare and I know what sorts of background checks and rules which must be followed in order to have a foster child placed with someone in Oregon and specifically in San Mateo County in CA. At the very least the two locations are 375 miles apart and possibly much farther.

The more I research, the more I've learned that Oregon DHS hasn't seemed to play a role in this placement. I haven't heard a peep from them. I'm really wondering if this was not done "under the table". If the child was returned to the biological mother, I'm not seeing where the connection is to DHS. I'd like to know this child whereabouts currently. If his mother placed him in some sort of informal "foster" placement with a friend or even stranger (especially for money), I'd have to question her judgement.

I can allow anyone to care for my child but it isn't called foster care. I can also privately adopt a child but I still have to have a state homestudy and full background check and participate in 6-18 months of supervisory visits with the child and myself in my home. As a child advocate, if this was handled by a private agency, I'd like to know which one.

FWIW, Thomas worked for Barclays Investment firm based in the UK but was living in the Bay Area:

http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/...ticlesocial&value=4302&target=_blank&site=pfs

Maybe I'm dim but I don't see what an investment firm's connection is to low-income children:

"Tarquin Thomas from Barclays Global Investors in San Francisco also received a special commendation for his support for children from low-income environments in San Francisco.

The awards demonstrate Barclays commitment to taking its social and environmental responsibilities seriously by recognising and supporting employees to actively implement the bank's social and environmental strategies...."

more at link



And if Mr. Thomas has/had a vacation home in Oregon, I'd really like to know where as I live in a town dependent on tourism and full of vacation homes of those who live in the California Bay Area. I find it hard to believe that this one little boy is the only victim.

This article is interesting as it not only mentions an extremely high profile juror but it confirms that the child was in some sort of foster care in the state of Oregon. Why can I find no reference as to where he was in care, under whose care he was under, and where Mr. Thomas's Oregon vacation home is/was located? I'd really like to know which Oregon judge allowed a man to seemingly skate past a whole bunch of rules.

May I see the Interstate Compact Document necessary for ALL interstate placements, please.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_15956867?source=rss


Meg Whitman could serve on jury in molestation trial

"In the unlikely event that Meg Whitman gets picked to serve on a jury this week, she will be asked to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused child molester.
In a case of inopportune timing, Whitman, the former eBay CEO who is the Republican candidate for governor, had to report for jury duty Monday at the Hall of Justice and Records in Redwood City.

The trial that the Atherton resident is being considered for is a fairly high-profile molestation case that is expected to last about a month, Assistant District Attorney Karen Guidotti said.

Tarquin Craig Thomas, 43, is a British citizen who worked as a software designer for the Barclays investment firm and is suspected of molesting a 9-year-old boy. Thomas had arranged for the boy, then in foster care in Oregon, to be moved to Thomas' San Mateo home and then began adoption proceedings, according to the district attorney's office. Thomas is also accused of molesting two other boys...."

more at link

How did this guy manage to get a foster child from another state on top of the fact that he isn't even a U.S. citizen? Something is very strange here IMO.

To become a foster parent in the state of Oregon, one must have a full criminal history check done--including fingerprints, provide documents of citizenship and residency, complete many hours of training, have a physical, provide three letters of reference, and have one's home certified as safe by a foster home certifier. If one then wants to move forward and attempt to adopt a foster child, you must first be approved for such action and then move through a lengthy process of a homestudy. It is extremely rare for Oregon to place a child in another state for mere foster care due to the supervision requirement.

On the other hand, it is common for children to be placed for adoption in states other than their state of origin and to arrive at their new home still legally a foster child. A judge has to approve that procedure however. The federal law encourages inter-jurisdictional placements. That's where the interstate compact comes in. This is a legal process which determines that all state and federal rules are being followed and that the child's needs are being met continuously and that all appropriate supervision is provided. That is done through something called "courtesy supervision" from one state to another.

But that is not the way this case is being described. If that were so, the article would state that a California man who was adopting an Oregon child was charged. That's all irrelevant as he's not a citizen!! The only way I could see him getting preferential treatment is if he is the child's blood relative. In cases such as that, rules can be bent.

There's something SO not right with this case. Being that both San Mateo County and Oregon have come under such scrutiny lately concerning child safety, they'd better quickly fill in the blanks. For those interested, Oregon has a state based child welfare system while California's is county based.

And where is the daily reporting for this trial?

LOVE?? Finally, some new information:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...A: Foster dad molested, filmed boys&id=140549

DA: Foster dad molested, filmed boys


"An English software designer in the midst of adopting a 9-year-old Oregon boy created a child’s paradise of toys and goodies in his San Mateo home but the loving facade hid a reality of substantial sexual abuse, often videotaped and photographed, according to a prosecutor who displayed the graphic footage and pictures during opening statements yesterday.

Tarquin Craig Thomas, 44, loved 9-year-old D and considered him the son he never had, said prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald.

But that “love” was shown by making the boy perform and receive sexual acts from the time he was brought to California in August 2005 until the following November when a spanking report to Child Protective Services began unraveling what Thomas did to D and two other boys, according to Fitzgerald.

“In fact, D was not the first,” Fitzgerald said....."

and

"....All together, Thomas is charged with 55 felonies, nearly all forms of lewd and lascivious activity involving minors, and several special allegations including substantial sexual contact. Thomas is also charged with possessing and intending to distribute child *advertiser censored*, using a GPS device to determine a person’s location and attempting to kidnap D once authorities returned him to Oregon.....

more at link

Note: I've edited out the child's name. I'm assuming the name used in court is a pseudonym but possibly not if it comes up in the videos. Thankfully, it is a reasonably common name. My heart goes out to D, who would now be in his teens. I'm so hopeful that he's safe and healing.

I didn't read the last sentence!! YIKES!!!!!! Not good at all.

"Thomas had a child photography business, with a studio in his home, so he had contact with boys other than those charged in the case, Fitzgerald said."

Missizzy, that line is exactly what smacked me in the face too! You just know there are victims within those photography clients. What a slime!

Let's recap this now that I have a bit more info. It sounds to me that Thomas was a prospective adoptive father. He must have worked through an agency in the Bay area. Single fathers are becoming far more common as adoptive parents. He would have been "matched" with D through a committee decision in Oregon and an Interstate Compact must have been filed for the child. Then, D moved into his California home. The fact that Thomas has a vacation home in Oregon seems irrelevant now.

This process is called a fost-adopt placement. It is also called an at-risk placement. It benefits the child (usually) by shaving months off of the placement process. The foster child gets to move into his/her prospective home while the last court hearings approving the process take place. It's been shown to get children into their permanent homes much faster. After a period of months, the new parent goes before a judge and finalizes the adoption. At that point the placement is permanent. This man was arrested while the child was still legally a foster child, that's what has been so confusing to me.

San Mateo County would have been responsible for the post placement supervision. A corporal punishment report would have gone directly to the social worker managing the case. Corporal punishment is illegal for any foster child and highly discouraged for any child even after formal adoption.

I am shocked that Thomas's homestudy did not uncover the involvement with other boys nor the photography studio. While these things could be innocent, they certainly merit a closer look. I find it interesting that he chose a 9 year old boy. Boys of this age are notoriously the hardest to place. That might have been a factor in overlooking a few strange issues.

I'm still absolutely shocked that this man could be approved for adoption while not a legal citizen of the US. I'll research that and report back.

I have searched high and low for the statutes concerning non-citizens adopting US children. I have a call into the North American Council for clarification. It looks as if each adoption is considered on a case to case basis. The child would already be a US citizen. Presumably, if someone has a work permit to live and work in the US and wants to adopt a US child, they can be considered. If that person then returns to their country of origin, they could either petition to have their adopted child naturalized in their home country or allow the child to maintain US citizenship. Adoption assistance and medical assistance follow the child (paid by the state of origin of the child with a combination of state and federal funds) regardless of where they move. And there is no supervision after adoption finalization. I've known of a family who moved to Canada and one who moved to France with their adopted children. They continued to get their assistance as it is an entitlement of the child.

That said, I found a very interesting forum post by a "UK Jules" from June 2005. Tarquin Thomas had D placed with him in California in September 2005. This forum post is dated April 2005. Thomas would have most likely been in the waiting period in April.

This man, "Jules", is bemoaning the fact that non-US citizens may adopt US waiting children but not foreign children. Maybe I'm reading far too much into this but this sounds like it could be Thomas. The poster also comments that he's single. When he couldn't apply to adopt a child internationally, he went ahead and accepted a placement for a US child. He might have been really wanting a younger boy. This is conjecture on my part but I just have a hunch it could be him:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-adoption&tid=5317


And a bit O/T, but why haven't we seen a mug shot for Mr. Thomas? Wouldn't it be helpful to get that photo out there? This man had a photography studio and worked with "low-income" children in the community. Being that he sexually abused a boy he met at the Boys and Girls Club, tells me that parents might not recognize him nor even know their children had contact with him. We need to reach out to as many victims as possible.

It's heading to the jury!! And, here I was just certain that we'd get some more courtroom reporting. Here' the latest:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...olestation case now heading to jury&id=141875

Filmed molestation case now heading to jury


"If jurors have any doubt Tarquin Craig Thomas repeatedly molested the foster boy who he was adopting or two other minors, all they need to do is use common sense and look at the photos and videos he shot of the acts, according to prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald.

“He’s good for count one. He’s on video doing it,” Fitzgerald told jurors during closing arguments yesterday in Thomas’ trial on 45 charges including molestation, *advertiser censored* possession and attempted kidnapping.

One by one, Fitzgerald showed jurors again graphic footage while pointing out exactly what criminal charge applied to the acts.

“Here it is. Here’s your evidence,” Fitzgerald said.

Several jurors turned their heads from the screen although they could still hear the videos in which 9-year-old "D" called Thomas “dad” and actively participated in sexual acts...."

and

"....He [Defense Attorney Keyes] also told them to question camera angles to decide if what they saw was “sodomy as defined by the law” and if the boy’s taped demeanor showed “a tickle-type reaction or a pain thing....”

more at link

When I went back to check a detail, the verdict had been posted!! And they're not done yet.

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_16168574?source=rss

British national guilty of 20 counts of child molestation


"A British national who was found guilty Friday of 20 felony child molestation charges stemming from allegations of abuse on a foster child and two other boys could now face life in prison, a prosecutor said.

Tarquin Thomas, dressed in a dark-colored suit, did not react as San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman read the verdicts. The mother of one of the victims, who was in the gallery, dabbed tears from her eyes...."

and

"...The defendant still faces decision on 25 more charges, which the jury is slated to determine Monday..."

more at link

I know he has a right to defense, but seriously, is that the best his lawyer could come up with? Ewwww!!!!

You know that San Mateo County is also where Dr. William Ayres is supposed to be retried for child molestation. It's a little comfort to know that at least this prosecutor was able to score a win. Unlike the Ayres prosecutor.

This is an updated version of the link above. The 20 convictions have grown to 21. And there is a comment by Mr. Wagstaffe:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...ts in molestation case, more Monday&id=142077

"....While the verdicts aren’t completely in, Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Tarquin could very well be looking at a life sentence.

However, after the verdicts are completely read, the jury moves to a second phase in which it must decide if Thomas was insane at the time. If they believe he was mentally compromised, he will be sent to a state mental hospital for treatment.

Although incomplete, Wagstaffe called the first batch of verdicts a great outcome...."


Mercyneal, I have a question. Why is this case playing out so differently than Ayres' case, in your opinion? We are waiting an insane amount of time for Ayres to be deemed competent to stand trial, all while numerous victims wait impatiently. In the Thomas case, the claim of insanity (yeah, right) seems to only figure into the sentencing portion of the trial. Any thoughts? I'm quite confused.

And just to be clear, the Thomas case seems to have been similarly plagued with delays just as with the Ayres case. I shall never more complain of our eleven months of waiting for our trial. The waiting and several dealys were brutal but it now seems like swift justice, indeed.

Bear in mind that Thomas was arrested AFTER Ayres and they got a conviction on the first try.

As to why this trial was successful while the Ayres one was not.. gee, I dunno. Could it be that the Thomas case had a better prosecutor? Just an educated guess.

Mercyneal--I'm wondering if you have access to the timeline of the Thomas trial. It would be interesting to compare that to the Ayres' timeline. Thomas also brought up the issue of competency. There's many similarities between the two cases. It seems that the difference lies with the drive and dedication of the particular prosecutor.

Prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald earns high points with me. He brings honor to that DA's office. One must really wonder why the prosecutor in Ayres' case is not as "bullish". If her heart's not in the case, can't it be reassigned?

MissIzzy: The San Mateo Daily Journal archives has stories for almost each delay. If you want to read the full accounts, go here:http://www.smdailyjournal.com/searc...rch&tp=&Month=01&Date=01&Year=2010&PollID=411

The trial was delayed at least a dozen times, and the articles mention that both the prosecution and the defense were chastised on a number of occasions for the delays.

Here's a brief timeline:

May 24, 2007: Thomas arrested
June 18, 207: Thomas indicted. Unlike Ayres, remains in custody for $1 million bail. In the Ayres case, the judge lowered the bail, which is only $750,000
July 3, 2007: Hearing delayed. Thomas remains in custody.
Sept.7, 2007: Trial set for Oct 29, 2007. He's still in jail.
January 16, 2008: More charges and more victims added. New trial set for June 25, 2008
August 6, 2008: New preliminary hearing. Defense and prosecution chastised for delays.
Jury trial set for November 10, 2008

Nothing at all in the paper for all of 2009 so I don't know what happened

Thomas is finally convicted on September 24, 2010.