posted on January 3, 2001 08:22:36 PM
being an adoptive parent, I truely believe after a certain amount of time the child should not be moved. If this happened during the first year of life and possibly some of the second the adjustment is not as traumatic, but after that, the child deserves to continue with his mom and dad and in his/her eyes that is who we are!
Dumb question, but does it say how the father finally found out?
posted on January 3, 2001 08:32:33 PM
Thanks Julesy for digging up the facts better than my memory was. I couldnt find the story in the local newspaper, so was relying on what I heard on TV this morning. 11 weeks is a far cry from 3 months...my apologies, folks, for not stating it correctly.
posted on January 3, 2001 08:45:24 PM
Hey Maui; no biggie. 3 months = 12 weeks, so you were about there. Either way, anyway, it is one screwed up case.
posted on January 3, 2001 08:45:40 PMBusybiddy (Love that name) I remember the case of Richard... such a gut wrencher. I also read somewhere that the biological parents ended up separating again but never learned if they'd divorced. What a shame to have taken him from the only parents he ever knew and then split the home again. Sometimes adults can be real idiots.
This case makes me wonder if the adoptive parents think they are protecting the baby from the father. I haven't read about the case... But, if the mother tried to hide the birth and the adoptive parents didn't relinquish him as they'd previously agreed it makes me think there must be more to it.
posted on January 3, 2001 08:57:15 PM
Even knowing the situation that the father tried very hard to get the child when he found out he was placed for adoption, I still feel bad for the adoptive parents. Putting myself in the place of the father, I still think, since time has lapsed regardless of the courts fault or the adoptive parents fighting, he needs to see and feel and think for the child. He (the child) doesnt know any of this. Hes just a little boy who knows Mommy and Daddy and then being taken away...its heartbreaking. And the dad should put aside his wants and needs and desires at this point in time, and try to make arrangements to get pictures, updates on his progress in daily activities, school functions, bond with the people who are raising his son and when the time is right, and the child is older, THEN once the child knows, work from there. To NOT bond with the adoptive parents on the sake of the child, he is closing a door.Sometimes, doors are slammed shut and nobody can do anything to change it, and the child grows up being told god-knows-what. I cant explain further. Lets just say that THAT scenario is very much a possibility. They have the child at this moment. For the child, he needs to do whatever it takes to make them secure that he wants what is best for his son. If he lets them slam the door, or HE slams the door on THEM, then the future is bleak indeed. I know.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:21:10 PM
People are saying here that the mother should be arrested for fraud. How do we know she wasn't trying her best to do the child a favor?
When I was young my choice in men was pretty darn terrible. I can think of a few guys who would have made lousy fathers, if I had had the bad luck to get pregnant. (thank goodness I didn't.) If I were trying to give my child up for adoption, and faced (for instance) boyfriend #2 and his psychotic, control-freak mom trying to get this hypothetical child, you bet your sweet bippy that I'd be lying to that agency. Not out of some diabolical evil, but out of youngness and dumbness, and wanting to do the right thing for the CHILD if not for the guy. So---yes---I would have said, at that young dumb point in my life, "Sorry---NO CLUE who the dad is! Please find this child a great loving home with 2 parents who have a wonderful, healthy life together". My intentions would be to get that (imaginary) child as good a home as possible. I'd probably not have been very savvy at that age and I probably wouldn't have forseen the problems that would arise (as maybe this mom did not either). But lying to the agencies does not NECESSARILY mean she was some kind of ogre. Shortsighted, maybe---but no one can know the future. For every case like this, there are hundreds or thousands where the dad does not find out, or if he finds out he doesn't care, and the child gets a wonderful family that has been longing for a child. She probably thought that this would be one of those cases---with a happy ending for her child and a new life for herself. Was what she did right? No. Does that mean she is a horrible person who had bad intentions? Not necessarily at all.
If the decision were up to me, I'd throw out the legal angle and have a panel of three to five neutral, court-appointed psychologists and case workers evaluate the two potential homes and make a recommendation based solely on who could provide a more stable, loving and complete background for the child. Note that this would *not* mean "who has the most money or possessions to shower him with". The child's best interests should never be subjugated to the DESIRES of one or the other parent, however heart-wrenching their sadness is. Adults have to learn to cope with loss and have the benefit of their years to help them do it (hopefully). Children don't have those coping skills and shouldn't have to develop them at age 4 (or 8, or 12!). They need to be protected against parental desires, which can be utterly selfish at the same time they appear utterly loving. For all we know the mother could be the LEAST selfish person in this triangle. I'm utterly uninterested in who is the "legal" parent. This is not goods and chattel, this is a person. No one owns him no matter who claims him.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:21:44 PMMaui Coming from a huge extended family of 18 aunts and uncles, at least a hundred cousins... I think I've seen it all. I've got one cousin who was kept from his real dad after the divorce. His dad was my uncle and one of the most loving people on earth. By the time the cousin finally grew up and came around the family again he had been so convinced of so many awful things about his dad that it was like a wall had been built up that was completely unmoveable. To the day he died my uncle regretted that he didn't fight harder to see his son... so, yes there are so many sides to these kinds of stories. Kids are used as pawns - sometimes just to spite the other parent. I'll be curious to learn more about this particular case and how it turns out.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:27:57 PM
brighid868, we are all responding to the facts as presented to us. It is true, if the dad was unfit then there would be nothing to talk about. As far as we know, the dad is/ was not unfit, and the mom just did something really stupid/ cruel and that is the scenario currently being discussed. There is no reason to bend over backwards and assume that the dad here is a bad guy.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:32:10 PM
Yes, mybidness. Good scenario, but in your case, a true fact. The father may have felt bad for not trying harder to find the son, but he didnt KNOW, so how could he try harder? Also, the son who was hidden...what was HE fed in "truths"? See? Bad all around.
And yes, Brighid...what you say is possible also, but since the mother was not available in this mornings story, all I can go on is assumptions from what was said. And maybe my remark of her needing her butt kicked....maybe its displaced anger. Deep stuff, lots of questions, lots of opinions, and lots of deep feelings depending on who reacts which way to what was said and done.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:42:11 PM
I'm a dad. I feel a responsibility towards my child that transcends all logic and reasonable assumptions. If I were the father involved in this dispute I would view the adoptive parents as kidnappers and the state agencies that sanctioned the crime as co-conspirators. I would not want to share or make some sort of arrangement. I would want nothing less than full custody of my own child. The time for compromise ended when the adoptive parents opted to fight for a child that wasn't legally theirs. My goal would not be to take the child from a loving home, but rather to rescue my child from the people who had taken him. Regardless of their intentions, the timely appearance of the father made the adoption invalid.
From my perspective this case is not about adoption or loving adoptive parents but rather about people so desperate to have a child that they've lost all sense of what is right. What they are doing seems cruel and unreasonable. As a father my sympathies lie entirely with the man denied his own son.
I have no knowledge of this case beyond what I've read in this thread and my views are based on the information provided. If all that I've read so far reflects the true reality of the case it is indeed a great injustice.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:42:23 PMMaui That was where the guilt came from... He knew where his son was the whole time. The mother just made it impossible for him to have a relationship... long story. But we learned all kinds of bizarre crap that he was "fed." Even after he realized that the "facts" were wrong... it was just too late somehow for them to ever really bond. IMO, his mom robbed him of one of life's greatest gifts... the comfort of knowing a loving father.
In this case I would hope that if the adoptive parents are keeping this baby from his father that it is for some reason other than pure selfishness. Otherwise, they should have relinquished him at 11 weeks.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:44:55 PM
Regardless of the reason behind it, there is no excuse for lying to the agency. There is no excuse for telling the birth father that the child was dead. *If* there were allegations that the biological father was unfit, then she could have shared that with the agency who possibly would have assisted her in voiding his parental rights.
posted on January 3, 2001 09:55:07 PM
mybidness, I can relate to what you said about him knowing, but not being able to DO anything because of the other side who controlled.
posted on January 3, 2001 10:02:45 PM
Having your child taken away because someone else decides it's whats right is a pretty darn scary thought.
The mother had no business deciding that this child not know his father.
The adoptive parents had no right to fight for a child that wasn't theirs.
The courts had no business no placing this child with his father.
No the child is not an object and he isn't one to his birth father either. I don't think anyone would just say oh heck keep my child you've had him a long time anyway.
What about children who have been kidnapped and found years later? Should they also stay with their kidnappers because they've been with them longer?
For the government to terminate parental rights (which is what the adoptive parents are asking) without some kind of abuse going on is scary.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on January 3, 2001 10:05:29 PM
In the perfect world parents would understand that our children are not pawns or as fountainhouse said, property. I don't remember the specifics, but the first child (a little girl) who was ever legally protected from an abusive parent in America was saved using "ANIMAL RIGHTS" in her defense. The prosecutor had to rely on animal rights laws because there were none for children. I don't know why, but the insanity of that case reminds me of this one... and all these years later our laws still don't always put the children's needs first.
edited to add and now Oddish said it too... kids are not objects!
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
[ edited by mybiddness on Jan 3, 2001 10:07 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2001 10:14:14 PM
>>As far as we know, the dad is/ was not unfit, and the mom just did something really stupid/ cruel and that is the scenario currently being discussed. There is no reason to bend over backwards and assume that the dad here is a bad guy.<<
MY post was meant to point out that her actions COULD just as easily have sprung from a desire to give her child a better life as from a desire to do something "stupid or cruel". The "scenario currently being discussed" isn't necessarily an accurate one since it leaves out the point of view of the person who started the process in motion. I'd bet cash money that there was more to her giving up this child than some whim or grudge----but in any case we are ALL missing a big chunk of info here and your comment about the mom exhibiting stupid or cruel behavior is assuming just as much as mine is about the dad. Until I hear a statement from the mom stating WHY she thought it was important to lie and prevent this child from knowing their father, I'm not willing to assume ANYONE is without certain responsibilities in this mess.
I'd tell any lie I had to in order to keep a child safe. Some of my relatives are alive today ONLY because people lied to keep them hidden from authorities who claimed they were "doing what was best for them" (work/labor camps). Several were spirited out of the country and death certificates were forged for them to forestall detection and death for the rescuers. While that MAY have no bearing on this case, we do not know since everyone is going to tell the side of the story that makes THEM look like the good guy.
posted on January 3, 2001 10:37:01 PMMaui I hesitated to comment but if you mean that you've had a similar situation - and were the villianized parent - I know that must be heartbreaking for you. And, so sad for any child who has missed really knowing the warmth and joy of your special spirit... Sometimes time changes things for the better... I hope that whether this is a personal situation or one close to you that time will heal the hurt.
posted on January 4, 2001 06:08:10 AM
I could never imagine the pain of trying to live with the knowledge that my child was living with another family. What's been done already is bad enough, but to let the child "visit" his own real father, and then decide at some later date if he wants to maintain that contact? I'm sure the "adoptive" parents will be a lot of help. Kind of like all the help my husband gets from his ex-wife.
No. We have laws for a reason. These laws are sometimes enacted to protect us from solving our problems based on our emotions. The father was well within his rights when this saga started. Had mom decided to keep the child, dad would have been forced to provide support. The father was known, even if not at the time of the original placement, he was known shortly thereafter. But even if a year had passsed, in this specific scenario, the natural father was never at fault. He signed no documents. He had no knowledge of the events leading to the childs placement with strangers. The law says that he had both the responsibilty for and a right to his child.
The natural mother was wrong. The "adoptive" parents were wrong. The courts that allowed this travesty to drag out for years, were wrong. While there will be a traumatic phase for the boy and his father to get through, good pychiatric help will assist them both.
Even at this late date, the boy will benefit more from being with his real father and his real relatives. After all, with dad comes grandparents, aunts, uncles a whole bloodline of people who share bonds with the child.
I feel the father will prevail. I certainly hope so. What I wonder is whether mom will then be able to then reinstate HER rights as well. There's a whole new kettle of fish.
[ edited by victoria on Jan 4, 2001 06:09 AM ]
posted on January 4, 2001 06:49:02 AM
Not knowing all the facts does make this hard to discuss but given what facts we do know and assuming the father is not an child molester etc. I can tell you that I know dh would fight to hell and back for his child. HIS blood and would very much hate the fact that someone "stole his child" which even with the best intentions of the adoptive family is how he would feel and I would too.
I am sorry that children are told lies about an ex etc. That is wrong no matter real parents or adoptive or exes but that father did find out about the child and from what we know he came asap.
Whoever said above that IF the mother had kept the baby and the father was found he would have been paying child support. No, there are rights of the father too. There are enough dead beats in the world and this father is not one or at least with the few facts that this is based on.
It makes it easy to tell the father, "Oh, Well!"
No, I am in agreement with Oddish. She put it on the line and so did Nobs, xardan, james and others.
Yes, I am pro adoption and had the father known and waited 10 years to decide he wanted to be a father then I would go for the adoptive family but I am sorry to say with that clause in the document the adoptive parents knew the possibilities and if they didn't then they should sue the lawyer for not explaining. In their zeal and need to have a baby to love and care for they overlooked a very important IF and I would have felt sorry for them had they not strung this out.
I am sure they are wonderful people but this child was not theirs to keep IF the father came forward. I hope they do find a child because there are so many children who do not have anyone to love and nourish them but this child does.
posted on January 4, 2001 06:49:15 AM
The sad thing is that this could all have been settled rather quickly if all parties - including the judicial system had put the interest of the child paramount.
I'd like to follow this case - does anyone know what state it's happening in?
As sad as it is I don't look on it as the father slamming the door but on the adoptive parents being the one doing the slamming.
And no, I don't think anyone should be bad-mouthing anyone to the child. That is cruel and mean to the nth degree but how can you say that after such a short time inwhich the father appeared that he should be the one to fade into the shadows and accept pictures, updates, schooling etc.?
I am thinking the other way around and I would agree with visits to the adoptive parents at first and it would be wonderful if the baby could be told the truth and be more of an adoptive Aunt and Uncle as the child grew but i have a feeling with a case drug out like this that it would not happen.
edited to add: brighid868, If the facts you stated were true or found to be true then I would have to re-evaluate my thinking but am only going on what little is given here.
[ edited by shar9 on Jan 4, 2001 07:03 AM ]
posted on January 4, 2001 08:13:38 AM
From the child's POV, what makes this case any different than the well-publicized story of the two babies inadvertently switched when their parents took them home from the hospital?
The mistake wasn't discovered until one of the children had a medical problem many years later (I think the kids were around 7 or 8 at the time?).
The hospital, like the courts in this instance, had kept the children from their birth parents (albeit unwittingly) and the children had obviously bonded with their "parents."
What was different in this case was the manner in which the adults decided to handle it. Rather than uprooting the children and force them to live the remainder of their childhoods with their biological parents, both families agreed that frequent visitation was in the children's best interests.
Of course, this was also in the parents' best interests, from the standpoint of the heartache they avoided in not having to give up the child they each had raised.
Later on, as I recall, one of the children died, prompting that family to begin legal proceedings to regain custody of their biological child.
Which illustrates that adult emotions do affect their actions, some of which are indeed detrimental to the best interests of their child.
posted on January 4, 2001 09:09:04 AM
There is something very wrong here. The state welfare dept should have not allowed the adoption with this clause in the adoption papers.
I have two nonbiological children. One through a pvt adoption. The other through the state welfare dept. Both still had to go through the state welfare agency for case study & final adotpion. In each case father rights were respected.
Such a clause would have prevented both adoptions by the state welfare dept. & the loss of license of the pvt. agency.
Yes, I believe in father rights but, most of all I believe in child rights.
There is a snake in the wood pile somewhere & it is not the child. This clause prevented this child from its rights. It started from the pvt adoption agency, through the lawyers, the welfare agency & the court system.
My question is, where does child rights, mother rights, father rights start?.
If a father & child has no rights from conception. why would they have rights after birth?.
posted on January 4, 2001 10:18:34 AM
It is a lose/lose situation for sure and the well being of the child is what the court should look at. Unfortunatly the longer the child is with the couple the more staying serves the child . So they do have an advantage the longer it is drawn out.
What disturbs me to see in these posts is a willingness to dismiss the feelings of the father as shallow. Everyone assumes a strong bond and feelings from the mother as a "natural" thing which it is - if not universally so. To feel that the emotions and bond is secondary and not of the same standard in a father is to affirm all the stereotypes about men. When a man has this disregard for his offspring we distain him and when he does not we don't believe him.
This is just male bashing.
I know a lot of men who have no respect for women and can not have a real friendship with a woman outside of any sexual attraction. But the same defect is apparent in some women of
holding men in contempt, and it is much less acknowledged.
I have friends of both sexes and respect and
disrespect individuals of both sexes. A lot of people including my Father think this is simply not possible, and if I have a friend of the opposite sex there must be some chemistry we are hiding. Fortunatly my spouse
has bigger horizens.
posted on January 4, 2001 10:49:34 AM
I'm sure the feelings of the father aren't shallow. However, I believe the feelings of adults (of either sex) are secondary to the well being of children. The father was done wrong to but that does not mean that he should avenge the wrong by legal means and in the process screw up the kid's whole life. The adult father and the adult mother for that matter, as well as the adoptive parents, all can "feel" anything they want, but their behavior is a different matter and it's possible that this dad's genuine love for his child (who he does not even know, but I'm not going to get into that debate) may actually DAMAGE the child through wrestling him away from a stable (hopefully) living situation. The adoptive parents will ALSO experience unfairness if they have to disrupt a two parent lifestyle to incorporate a biological parent. NO ONE said it was fair to the dad or to the adoptive parents to have to give up "rights" to their child through no fault of their own. That is, indeed, VERY unfair. But the fact remains that often things that are UNFAIR for the adult are better for the child. That may very well be the case in this instance---and if so I think the adults should have to deal with it. After all, they are ADULTS. Why are so many of the posters more interested in the right of the parent(s) to get their legal due than the right of the child?
posted on January 4, 2001 11:05:37 AM
That assumes however that what is best for the child or his rights would be best served by staying with the adoptive family. I disagree. Many children (not all I realize) have a very difficult time being adopted. They always wonder why was I givin up? who am I really? There are so very many cases of adults looking for their birth parents. There is a bond there. I can't explain it but there is. A heritage of things that are similar and to dismiss that I think is unfair. I think in the long run it would be in the child's best interest to return the child to his father.
As for why caring about parents rights well this is far more reaching than one case. If precident is set to terminate parental rights for reasons other than abuse we are all at risk. The government should NOT be allowed in any way shape or form to remove a child from their biological parents barring inappropriate activity.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on January 4, 2001 11:20:47 AM
I have no opinion (and can prove it with witnesses). Just stopping by to say "Hi!" to some fave people. More down than up today. Slogging along.
Serendipity & Peace...
posted on January 4, 2001 11:39:27 AM
For several years I worked in a Special Victims Unit. Among the many types of cases assigned to that unit were a variety of crimes against children. When dealing with the parents of those children I was inevitably asked if I had children of my own. At the time I did not. I even resented, in a way, being asked the question since I felt it implied some lack of compassion or understanding on my part. I would reply that I did not and add that it didn't really matter. I understood the law, was good at my job, and felt I could relate to the parent's regardless of my own status.
In hindsight, I was naive. I now understand. The question had nothing to do with my skills or expertise as an investigator or my commitment to the case. It had everything to do with empathy. It is nigh on to impossible to communicate the nuance and subtlety of understanding involved to a non-parent. I now know that if I had answered in the affirmative, no further explanation would have been needed. The parents and I would have been on the same page and they would have been comforted by that fact.
I'm reminded of all this by some of the posts in this thread which seem to emphasize that the rights and well-being of the child are the most important consideration in this case. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction. A response born of second-hand exposure to other cases and other situations where a child was callously treated by an indifferent legal system. I don't disagree with those views, I just don't think they apply to this case. If such reasoning were to apply, then any child born to less than fortunate circumstance would be fair game for anyone willing to provide for that child a "better" home. I have a vision of childless wealthy couples cruising the streets of poor neighborhoods looking for an appropriate "adoptee". This brand of logic does not make sense to me and I suspect other parents would share this view.
Since none of us, apparently, are armed with facts beyond what we've read here. The opinions expressed reflect more of an academic exercize as opposed to an informed judgement in the case. It will be interesting to see, how opinions may change, including my own, if more facts become available to us.
mybidness. Time heals nothing. But it does wonders for numbness after many many MANY years.