Reunited after 40 years: the Riess family’s amazing adoption reunion story

Deception may give us what we want for the present, but it will always take it away in the end. –Rachel Hawthorne

On November 30, 1976 a baby girl was born. Four days later, she was handed to a married couple who hoped to adopt her. For the next forty years, the young couple had no idea where their daughter was, if she was safe, healthy or even alive. Despite attempts to find her, they were unsuccessful. For the same forty years, and only a few miles apart, the baby girl was raised to believe she was the biological child of the couple who adopted her; until 2017 when an unexpected result on an Ancestry DNA test shattered their elaborate web of lies.

Michelle at 5 days old
Michelle Lyn Riess

At the time of the pregnancy, Hollie and Rick were teenagers in high school. Despite Hollie’s desire to keep her baby, her parents made the final decision that her baby would be placed for adoption, primarily due to their young ages. However, the decision to place the baby for adoption was not made entirely on their own. Throughout the last months of the pregnancy, and following delivery, the Ob/Gyn caring for Hollie offered his advice–heavily slanted towards adoption–and pledged to help the family during their time of distress. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

Rick & Hollie in 8th grade

Hollie’s parents put their trust into the physician, and because this was a completely new experience for them (without the benefit of the internet or other pregnancy resources that are available today) they followed his advice with the belief that he had their family’s best interests at heart. This was not the case.

The Ob/Gyn had an arrangement with a local attorney who was illegally arranging newborn adoptions on the side. The physician’s role was to convince the young mother (and more importantly, her parents) that adoption was their only option; then refer them directly to the attorney for placement. At the time, and being under great distress, Hollie and her parents were completely unaware of these details, or that they were being targeted.

About eleven months prior to Michelle’s birth, a married couple met with the attorney that had this agreement with the Ob/Gyn. This couple (Michelle’s future adoptive parents) wanted to adopt a healthy, white newborn without the hassles and wait times associated with legal adoptions, were willing to pay money and willing to overlook obvious red flags in order for this to take place.

In early 1976, they hired attorney Edward Kent to find a healthy, white newborn for them to adopt. Kent was not authorized, nor qualified, to assist with adoptions in New Jersey, in fact, it was illegal for him to do so–something he would have known as an attorney. It’s not clear why this couple, or the other adoptive parents involved in the 1978 indictment against Kent, chose to adopt using his services. There were numerous red flags in Kent’s adoption process that should have alerted any potential adoptive parents that something wasn’t right.

In the months following their brief meeting, there were no pre-placement studies conducted in preparation for a child being placed in their home—just the opinion of the attorney who spent a very short amount of time meeting with them. He alone determined that the couple was qualified to have a child placed in their home.

NOVEMBER 30, 1976
On November 30th, Hollie gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Together, Hollie and Rick named their daughter Michelle Lyn Riess.

For delivery, the Ob/Gyn opted for complete sedation despite this not being a normal delivery practice in 1976. By the early 1970’s, it was no longer routine for women to be unconscious while their babies were forcibly removed from their bodies with forceps. There was no medical reason provided to Hollie or to her parents (who were not allowed in the delivery room) as to why this took place (ex. an obstetrical emergency.) To this day, Hollie has no memory of Michelle’s birth, what happened immediately following delivery, or any explanation as to why she was anesthetized to the point of unconsciousness.

Soon after Michelle’s birth, the Ob/Gyn notified the attorney about the birth, and plans to proceed with the adoption were quickly initiated.

The next day, the attorney called the married couple (Michelle’s future adoptive parents) out of the blue to inform them he had a baby available if they were still interested in adopting. They hadn’t communicated at all since their initial meeting almost one year earlier, and the couple was not aware of Hollie’s pregnancy until after Michelle had already been born. The attorney told them if they were interested in this baby he would need a decision by noon that day, or he would have to offer the baby to the next couple on his list. The couple quickly agreed, and the attorney gave them some basic information, including the telephone number of the biological family. He told them they should call the biological mother (and her parents) to seek their approval to place this baby with them.  During these conversations with Hollie and her family, the future adoptive parents used fake names and provided other false information about themselves in order to conceal their identities from the family.

Meanwhile, the same Ob/Gyn that had pushed Hollie and her family into adoption, delivered her baby–continuing to aggressively reinforce the adoption at a very sensitive time when adoptions can “fall through” due to women changing their minds. In other words, choosing to raise her own child, which is every mother’s right. The physician made sure this was not allowed to happen by separating Hollie from her baby, and insisting that she had a moral and legal obligation to give her baby to this couple since she had already agreed to do so (in other words, she was being told she couldn’t change her mind.)

Meanwhile, the attorney met with Hollie and her parents in the hospital. He told them the couple had been thoroughly investigated (they were not) and would provide a good home for her baby. However, in reality, Kent had not conducted any investigation into their backgrounds beyond their short meeting months earlier. The only documentation he requested from them were some financial statements, and those were only utilized primarily after Michelle had already been placed in their home and DYFS became involved*. (*involved as part of the investigation into the attorney’s questionable adoption practices)

At some point soon after this, Hollie’s parents informed Kent that they would all agree to place Michelle with this couple based on their conversation, and the information Kent and the Ob/Gyn provided to them. At this point, the attorney became heavily involved with Hollie and her family, despite not legally representing them, and provided them with very specific directions on how things would proceed. The process was essentially out of their control. All of this contradicts Kent’s testimony during the trial surrounding his involvement in three adoptions.

On December 4, 1976, Hollie was to be discharged from the hospital. It was at this time that she would hand her four day old daughter to the couple hoping to adopt her. As she was instructed by Kent, Hollie reluctantly handed Michelle to the couple, with his promise that this couple had been thoroughly evaluated, and reminded her that she was doing what was “best for her baby.” Today, this would be called a predatory adoption or a coerced adoption, and would not be granted by the court. (read more)

The adoptive couple, still using fake names, took possession of Michelle without any pre-placement investigations into their background, family, finances, physical health, mental health, or their home–the attorney literally could have been sending her home with anyone. He followed the same procedure with at least three adoptions that he arranged in the 1970’s, though there were at least six adoptions. 

In 1978, Kent was indicted for his illegal and unethical actions regarding Michelle’s adoption and two others he arranged. He was convicted. This was not Kent’s first ethics violation. In 1963, he was reprimanded by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for violating professional ethics in an unrelated case. (read more)

In the years following the adoption, Hollie and Rick finished high school. They had been together since they were thirteen years old and were in love. They already knew they were going to stay together forever, which was why they chose to give their daughter Rick’s last name on her birth certificate (which was later fraudulently altered by someone involved in the adoption process.) After high school, they were married and had three more daughters–Jenni, Jamie, and Jodi.

Hollie & Rick in high school after Michelle’s birth and adoption

Over the years, Hollie tried locating Michelle through adoption reunion websites and other directories, but she never received a response. Since she had been given fake names by Michelle’s adoptive parents, she was searching for people who didn’t even exist. Sadly, Hollie assumed this lack of response from Michelle meant she did not want to find her biological family, which was devastating to her.

This was not the case, however, because MICHELLE WAS NEVER TOLD THAT SHE  WAS ADOPTED.

Despite statements made by the adoptive parents in 1976 and 1977 that they would tell Michelle about her adoption, they never followed through with their moral obligation, and clearly never intended to.

For four decades, Michelle grew into an adult who had no idea she was adopted, or that she had another family out there (in fact, very close–the two families lived about 15 minutes apart for most of their lives!)

It was a significant deception by the adoptive parents, and was contrary to promises they made to Hollie’s family, and all of the information they had provided during the legal phase of the adoption.

Here are two excerpts from a 1977 DYFS report following a scheduled interview after the placement: (the plaintiffs are Michelle’s adoptive parents. ‘Christina’ is the name Michelle’s adoptive parents assigned to her)

“The plaintiffs state that they will explain the child’s adoption status to her when she is old enough to understand the meaning of adoption.”


“The plaintiffs express a healthy, open attitude toward adoption.  They plan to begin explaining adoption to Christina as soon as possible.”

In the span of forty years, they never followed through with this moral obligation all adoptive parents must undertake. Forty years. That’s 14,897 days they could have told her the truth, but they made the choice not to—14,897 times.

In September 2017, Michelle was a 40-year-old woman with three young children of her own. She grew up as an only child and knew she wanted her children to have siblings–something she always wished she had as a child.

For the past fifteen years, she had been very interested in genealogy. A few years earlier, she took a DNA test through to learn more about her family’s history. Her initial DNA matches did not provide any links to her family tree (or what she believed was her family tree!) It was very frustrating at times, but Michelle figured the right people hadn’t tested yet and that she needed to be patient. So she periodically checked her DNA matches list to see if there was anyone new.

In early September 2017, Michelle checked her Ancestry DNA matches on a whim. She was very surprised to see a new match at the top of the list labeled “Immediate Family” with a woman’s name she didn’t recognize. Michelle grew up as an only child with a very small immediate family, so she didn’t understand how this person could be so closely related.

Michelle wrote to the woman asking if she knew how they might be related, but the other woman, Jamie, had no idea. None of the names they shared with each other were familiar, and they couldn’t find a common link in their family trees. However, when the women shared some photos, they were very shocked to see they had a strong resemblance to each other. It was evident to both that something unusual was going on, but they weren’t sure what it was, or who might be involved.

22365404_10212555563098358_3081874737766251378_n (2)
Sisters Jamie (L) and Michelle/Christina (R) meeting for the first time in 2017

Over the next few days, Michelle and Jamie went back and forth with their theories on how they might be related. Adoption was considered, but neither believed they were the one who had been adopted.

While doing some research into the specifics of their DNA match, and following some deep reflection, Michelle came to the difficult realization that she must be adopted. She felt very strongly that this was the case, but still needed confirmation from her (adoptive) father, which she received a few days later after directly questioning him about her origins.

A lie cannot live.  –Martin Luther King Jr.

In the days following the adoption discovery, the two women–now confirmed as full biological sisters–talked about their lives and surprising similarities. Despite their shock, they were both very happy to find each other. The next step was to inform their parents, Hollie and Rick, about this very unexpected discovery.

Jamie met privately with their mother, Hollie, and told her about their unbelievable DNA match on Hollie was shocked and overjoyed upon hearing the news, but confused and angered to learn that Michelle had discovered her adoption the previous day because there was a clear understanding that she would be told about her adoption status by her adoptive parents from the beginning.

Almost immediately, plans were being made for the two young parents and their three daughters to be reunited with Michelle (who was called ‘Christina’ since her adoption in 1976).

On October 7, 2017 they all met for the first time in 40 years. It was, unquestionably, a very happy reunion. (photo gallery at the bottom of this post)

Hollie, Rick & Michelle (Christina) meet for the first time since her birth in November 1976

The Riess family continues to enjoy a wonderful reunion together. They communicate frequently and see each other often. It has been a very happy ending for the Riess family to something that began four decades ago under the most unfortunate of circumstances.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Riess family would like to thank Danielle of Digital Danro Photography for capturing this reunion. (some photos included in the slideshow are cell phone images taken by the family, but the rest are by Danielle)

 Related Content: Could you be [secretly] adopted? Red flags that could point to adoption

© Christina George / Michelle Lyn Riess / Riess Family Adoption Reunion, 2017-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author  is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to this site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. By visiting this site, you agree to the terms of use for this site.

22 thoughts on “Reunited after 40 years: the Riess family’s amazing adoption reunion story

  1. What a blessing to find one another after so many years. I cried reading it. I can’ t imagine what you are going through dealing with


  2. Christina this couldnt have happened to a nicer person than you. So happy you have found your family. I wish all of you a lifetime of happiness together.


  3. I still can’t believe this was allowed to happen. Your reunion is proof that good things happen to great people. Your family is blessed. Love to all of you.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Christina..Hollie and family..I am your Mom’s cousin..your grandfather is my Mothers brother and my Uncle Charlie. I am so happy for all of you AND glad your search finally has come to a beautiful end.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This story is beautiful, but as an adoptive parent, this baffles me. How could they keep that information from her? We never considered lying to our son about his adoption. I cannot imagine being so deceitful and selfish. I’m sorry she had to experience this from her own adoptive parents, but am happy to read the beautiful reunion. My son met his birth mother when he was 19 and they remained close. She recently passed on and my son is still mourning her loss.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for sharing your story. I think most adoptive parents are probably like you (regarding telling the child about their genetic origins.) Unfortunately, mine were not. Sorry to hear about your son’s birth mom. I’m sure that is very difficult.


  6. Thanks for sharing your story with us. Did you watch a movie called Three IDentical Strangers? As I watched it your story came to mind a few times.


  7. I’m so happy you finally found your daughter. What a relief to know where she is and to have a relationship with her now. I cannot imagine what those years were like especially because of the adoption circumstances. How awful for you. I am always thinking of you and your beautiful family. You are blessed beyond words!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

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