posted on January 3, 2001 02:55:38 PM new
I saw on the news today about a man who didnt know his ex girlfriend was pregnant, and she gave the child up for adoption. The boy is now 3 or 4 years old, and the father wants the child. The adoptive parents are understandably upset and are fighting to keep the child they consider theirs. I feel for the father, because he wants his child. I feel for the parents, because this is their child now. If you were the judge, what would you do? Personally, with cases like this one, I would have the child stay where he is, because he knows these people as mommy and daddy. However, I would rule that the parents must give visitation to the birth father so that the child can get to know him as "uncle" or "family friend", until the child can be told the truth, then decide who he wants to live with once hes of an age to know whats he wants. Also, I would hope that the birth father would be considering the health and happiness of the child and agree. Would be nice, wouldnt it? TO have all parties think of the child, and not "rights". This is JMHO. Whats yours?
posted on January 3, 2001 03:08:21 PM new
Maui...I had close friends here who went through almost the exact same circumstances. They adopted their daughter through a private adoption arranged with the mother. She claimed the baby's father had abandoned them. When Social Services was at the end of their 6 month background check, it turns out the father was in the Military overseas and said his wife told him she had miscarried and didn't know about the little girl.
After several court appearances, my friends were able to finalize the adoption, mostly because the father could not provide a home for the child. He first wanted her to go live with his parents, but it turned out his step-mother had served jail time for child abuse, so that was out. When he realized he could not provide a suitable home life, he signed off his parental rights.
It was a very emotional case for everyone and I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. However, as much as I am for father's rights, I think it would be cruel to remove a child from a home they have known for so long. There is alot of documentation now about separation anxiety and the damage it can cause down the road. I think leaving the child with the adoptive parents and giving the father liberal visitation would probably work out best. The connection could be established while keeping a stable home life intact.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:10:37 PM new
I think it's horrible. It's this kind of situation that makes a good argument for totally and irreversibly private adoption.
The adoptive parents love the child...and he loves them. The biological father can only love the idea of the child. Unfair to everyone.
If the biological father has a right to the child, then what is a legal adoption worth? How could it ever be considered "legal" in any way?
posted on January 3, 2001 03:11:39 PM new
No question about it -- the child should stay with his parents. It's unfortunate that the biological father didn't know about the child's birth, but it's too late now. How incredibly selfish of this man to try and take the boy away from his parents.
As for visitation, no way! Just because his sperm helped to create the child doesn't mean he can come along when the boy is four and be a part of his life. Sorry, he should go create another kid if he wants to be a father. Heck, he could make two, or three, or five more kids and populate a whole family.
If I were to adopt a child I would be shattered if some stranger came along four years later with a claim on her.
If a stranger had tried to take me away from my parents when I was four it would have been very damaging to me emotionally, no doubt about it.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:19:15 PM new
RainyBear, it sounds almost as if you're angry at this guy. It appears that the circumstances were such that he did not know this child was his until it was too late. I'm not saying what the correct course is (I know I lean the same way you do), but have a little compassion for this guy. He's not the bogeyman.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:29:28 PM new
Unfortunately, this isnt a perfect world, and I feel compassion for BOTH the father and the parents. Yes, he should want his child to stay with those he thinks of as his real parents. Yes, he feels pain that his CHILD...he wasnt just a sperm donor...loves him and wants to know him. I can relate. But in the best interests of the child, he should stay with whom hes with now. The father loves his child, whether he "knows" him or not. Fathers love can be and is as strong as a mothers. What happened, happened, and he feels loss and pain and anger and despair the same as any human being can feel. To have visitation is no more wrong than divorced couples doing the same thing. Depending on the situation, and Im looking at it with rose colored glasses, Im hoping the birth father will consider leaving the child where he is, and the courts and adoptive parents URGING all concerned to meet, bond, and share in watching that little boy grow up with love, from a birthfather, and from his "parents". That is the best scenario. Whether it happens remains to be seen.
If I were in the shoes of the adoptive parents, I would bust butt to assist in any way, but I would also want to keep the child. If I was the father, I would bust butt to get to know the adoptive parents and try like hell to bond with them, so I can be a part of it all...until the son can be told.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:46:37 PM new
So the issue is how long the baby's been with whom? IOW, if the birth father found about about his son's existence when the child was a month old, then the baby should go to the birth father?
What's the cutoff date here? A month? Six? A year? You know, like the laws regarding abandoned property?
What if the birth father knew of the baby, but it took 3 years to track the baby down? Should Dad - and the baby - be separated because Mom or the adoptive parents impeded Dad's efforts to find his son?
posted on January 3, 2001 03:51:41 PM new
Boy, what a no win situation. I feel for both sides BUT I do think that to wait until the child is old enough to decide is placing too much pressure and responsibility on the child.
If the parents and the biological father and the courts can't work it how then how on earth could we put this decision on the child.
I am thinking of the "guilt" the child is under for their feelings. I am thinking of the child that gets upset and says "I want my real sperm donor" then a month or so later changes his/her mind. I am thinking of the child being pulled in half.
No I do not think all "sperm donors" or biological fathers are that. This man did not know. I do not know this man's history but this child and the parents and the man are being destroyed and I am not sure the court is always right either.
edited for spelling and to add: I also think if that woman lied she needs to go to jail. I hope that woman has a very good reason for destroying so many people.
[ edited by shar9 on Jan 3, 2001 03:56 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2001 03:51:49 PM new
HCQ, I think the child was "discovered" by the birth father when the child was 3 months old. Its been tied up in the courts for 4 years or so...with the adoptive parents fighting it. However, in the adoption papers, there is a clause that states if the "unkown" father makes a claim, the child has to be returned and they signed it. They won once, then lost, and are still fighting. The birthfather has been waiting years for his son to "come home". The birthmother went to two adoption agencies, and was turned down at one, becuase she said she knew who the father was. The second adoption center, she said he was "unknown".
edited to add that the birthfather got suspicious when the birthmother claimed she miscarried. No death certificate, no other proof. He found out the child WAS healthy, alive, and was adopted out. Now, my rose colored glasses will come off for a moment, and the other, less "nice" side of Maui will come out and state the birthmother should have her butt kicked from here to hello (as Beth says).
posted on January 3, 2001 03:52:15 PM new
I feel sorry for everyone in this.
Still, there's a difference between loving...and wanting. There's a difference between a physical connection created in an evening of pleasure...and knowing, raising and loving an individual child.
The fact that the biological father desires to take that child from the only family he's ever known...and is willing to go to court to do it...makes me look at him askance.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:55:31 PM new
I think the issue here is basically parental rights versus the child's well-being.
As heart-wrenching as it is, I don't think the adoptive parents really have a greater "right" to the child than this dad (who did not sign away his parental rights), even if they "bonded" with the child. Does the dad have a right to raise his kid? Normally, sure. But parental "rights" come from parental responsiblity, which is why a parent who isn't responsibly providing for the child's welfare can have the child taken away.
Will the child's well-being be affected very negatively by being taken from his adoptive parents? I don't know for sure, but at the age of 3 or 4 I would bet that it would. That's why I'm leaning towards leaving the child with the adoptive parents.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jan 3, 2001 03:57 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2001 03:57:23 PM new
Toke, hes been fighting the courts for his son since the boy was 3 months old. He said that the mother did not want the child in her life, but she was not speaking for him, the father, and he wants his son. I feel so bad for him...but I also feel so bad for the parents that have loved him themselves. However, they signed the agreement in the adoption papers. The courts have tied this up since the begining...and the adoptive parents have fought. Now, its 4 years later, and more time has passed. Bad situation all around.
posted on January 3, 2001 04:05:41 PM new
In cases like this, I think the *child's* welfare is what matters. Ripping a 3-5 year-old away from the only home he/she has ever known is just plain wrong.
Edited to say: once adoptions become final, they should remain so. I get sick & tired of hearing of cases, for instance, where mothers who gave away their kids at birth (for whatever reason) change their minds & the courts then rip the kids away from their adoptive parents under the premise that her rights supercede theirs or the child's.
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 3, 2001 04:09 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2001 04:08:49 PM new
Maui...I agree the birth Mom should be smacked up the side of the head and charges pressed against her for falsifying information. In this county, no adoption is final until both birthparents have signed away their rights, or Social Services completes their background check (usually 6 mos) and gives their approval. Adoptive parents know this and should prepare themselves for the fact that they may have to return the child prior to the finalization. To have kept this baby from his birth father at only 3 months old is very cruel on the part of the adoptive parents, unless they had knowledge of any unfitness on the father's part.
I know some guys who are GREAT dads and deserve to raise their children if they can provide a stable and adequate home. I would not want to punish the birth father because he was lied to in the first place. However, now that the child has bonded in the adopted home, taking him out would probably do some irreparable harm.
Edited to add:
Rainybear...I don't know if you have any children or not, but I could never give up my son for any reason and no one else should be forced to either!! The fact that I could have more babies does not dilute the connection I have with an existing child. While I wholeheartedly support adoption, it is only when both birthparents make that decision together.
[ edited by njrazd on Jan 3, 2001 04:13 PM ]
posted on January 3, 2001 04:09:38 PM new
Hi Maui...
I didn't realise the time frame, either. Still, rotten though it is, it changes nothing for the poor kid. I suppose the stupid case will be appealed into infinity...the child in perpetual limbo...many happy lawyers.
posted on January 3, 2001 04:09:47 PM new
A month old and the parents knew that clause about the birth father was in there? This changes the whole picture.
RainyBear,
I can't give you an age but a month! I really feel for the guy.
I think I would have to go with James on this one but fighting for so many years reminds me of the Baby White (?) case and I didn't care for that woman AT ALL!
I am for hanging the woman but that does not take the hurts away.
posted on January 3, 2001 04:30:09 PM new
The opening post had me leaning toward the adoptive parents.
However, having the rest of the story from a subsequent post changes the whole tenor of the situation for me.
I can't believe the courts have let this go on for so many years. They surely can't have the child's best interest at heart.
It seems to me that the adoptive parents gave up their rights when they signed the adoptive papers with that clause in it; therefore, the baby should have been returned to the natural father long ago.
The adoptive parents were thinking more of their own wants when this started years ago. And, now, the child will probably suffer for this selfishness, because if a court ever makes a decision on this case, I believe they will side with the father.
Morally, allowing the boy to be with his natural father would have been the right thing to do when the father discovered his son.
The father was not given a choice in the matter.
What a cruel, cruel thing for his ex-girlfriend to have done.
posted on January 3, 2001 04:46:03 PM new
Putting myself in the adoptive parents shoes, I wonder what it was like for them to finally get the child they couldnt have themselves, have the baby for a few months, bond, love him, and then be told the father was wanting him. I can imagine the pain. I think they were wrong in fighting it, but I cant say I dont understand it. And the father, knowing his son IS alive, and with another couple. I dont know the situation with him and the ex girlfriend or what her motive could possibly have been to do such a thing, and he has his options of what to do about her, but also in this picture is the adoption agency. "Father unknown". Is there no procedures to make sure of such a statement from the woman giving the child up? And why did she feel the need to give away this baby to someone other than the father or even his family members? All in all, the baby will suffer, who is now a toddler and looks just like his father (they showed pics on TV of the people involved). The adoptive parents were ordered to return the child, but they continue to fight for him, and the father continues to do the same. I wish all of them could just meet (which is what the courts ordered before they turn him over to the birthfather) and like each other, bond themselves, and all of them be a part of the boys life. The mother...well, shes another story.
posted on January 3, 2001 05:44:57 PM new
I read about this today.
The birth mother lied to the birth father and told him the baby had been born stillborn. He became suspicious, did a little digging, found no death certificate, and contested the adoption when the infant was 11 weeks old. The adoptive parents have thwarted this dad for nearly five years, in different courts, in two different states (Alabama and Florida).
posted on January 3, 2001 05:56:11 PM new
There was a very similar case a few years back that was highly publicized; don't know if any of you remember.
The mother never told the father of the pregnancy. She gave the baby up at birth. A few years later, she runs into the father and they "get back together," although they don't marry. She tells him about the baby and they decide to seek custody based on the fact that the father never gave up his rights to the child.
Almost 4 years after the filing, the biological mother and father "win" back the boy. His name, for the record, was Richard.
I have not forgotten to this day the video of that boy being taken from his home by authorities to be turned over to the biological parents. He was frantic, terrified. He kept searching for his only known parent's faces, crying "Please, I promise to be good." Tears ran down his face and he clawed at the man carrying him.
I kept thinking how he could not understand what was happening or why. He thought if only he was good, he would not be taken away from the people he loved! This broke my heart.
Ever since this, I have to side with the adoptive parents. Assuming they have provided a safe and loving home, I can see no reason to do that type of emotional and mental damage to a child just to satisfy the whims or wants of so-called adults. The needs of the child are paramount.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:00:24 PM new
Ah... I'd like to revise my opinion in light of the other information which has come out in this thread. The biological father found out only a few months after the baby was adopted? That makes it a completely different story, as does the clause in the contract which the adoptive parents signed.
In that case the baby should have been returned to the father upon discovery that the baby was his. The child, as a baby, wouldn't have been as aware of the changes and the impact on him would have been minimal. Growing up with such a fight in the court system is terrible, and if he's taken away from his adoptive parents now it will be extremely traumatic.
If I sounded a little upset in my last post , it's because I'm strongly pro-adoption and I don't believe that biology determines who your family is. I was adopted and I couldn't possibly love my parents more if they created me themselves. My mother says she sometimes tries to remember being in the hospital with me giving birth, then she remembers she skipped that little step.
If ever have children I plan to adopt, too. If I were placed in the situation of the adoptive parents in question and if a grave error was determined a few months after the adoption, as heartwrenching as that would be, I wouldn't keep a child from his father. However, if someone tried to come into my child's life a few years down the road, you can bet I'd fight like hell.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:00:47 PM newThe adoptive parents were thinking more of their own wants when this started years ago. And, now, the child will probably suffer for this selfishness, because if a court ever makes a decision on this case, I believe they will side with the father.
True, and IMO because of their selfishness, they have become as cruel as the mother. I am not so sure they would provide the most emotionally healthy environment for the child, as they chose to pursue this, was the adoption even final??. The courts should not allow this to drag on for years.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:23:36 PM new
The courts don't have much choice in "letting this case drag out for years". If the parties are within their rights to pursue litigation, the courts can't tell them "that's enough." At what level is this? When was suit filed? Who's dragging their feet as to discovery, depositions, and the like? Hmm....let me make a SWAG. The longer the adoptive parents drag this on, the stronger their argument that the child has spent SO much time with them that he would be irreparably traumatized by separation. Fortunately, a party to a case isn't supposed to be rewarded for his own intransigence or wrong actions - such as someone accused of killing his parents pleadiing for mercy because he's an orphan.
. "Father unknown". Is there no procedures to make sure of such a statement from the woman giving the child up?
How do you suggest one prove (or disprove) that a woman does not know who the father of her child is?
Under the circumstances - false statements on the part of the birth mother, and absence of notice and consent by the birth father - I would suspect that the adoption itself might be void. I believe that was the argument in the Baby Jessica (?) case of some years back.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:39:00 PM new
According to what I read, the birth mother was turned down by the first adoption agency she approached strictly because she knew who the father was. IOW, it sounds like the agency didn't want to deal with both parents. So, she went to a second agency, lied, and said the birth-father was unknown.
I wonder if she can or will be prosecuted for fraud?
Also, from what I read, the whole case is now in arbitration.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:52:17 PM newThe longer the adoptive parents drag this on, the stronger their argument that the child has spent SO much time with them that he would be irreparably traumatized by separation. Fortunately, a party to a case isn't supposed to be rewarded for his own intransigence or wrong actions - such as someone accused of killing his parents pleadiing for mercy because he's an orphan.
I don't disagree with you HCQ, but at some point the rights and emotional state of the child should be considered, if the adoptive parents want to drag it out, that's their right, but they shouldn't get to keep the child while they are doing it. This case is clear..... the initial custody challenge was before ANY strong bond was established and my guess, before the adoption should have been finalized.
In the other case mentioned, where the child has been with the adoptive parents for a very long time and it is a case of "parental remorse", then the adoptive parents should prevail, IMO.
There was a particularly loathsome case in Pa recently, a local judge was terminating parental rights on a falsified basis and arranging private adoptions, that were in effect, illegal. I find it sad that so many people sided with the would-be adoptive parents, just on the basis that they could provide more for the child materially.
cariad
posted on January 3, 2001 07:29:12 PM new
It is sad indeed! I agree with Shar & Femme. It is well known that lawyers advise adoptive parents to drag these cases out as long as possible in the courts so that they can utilze the "bonded with the child" defense in the attempt to gain permanent custody. Adoptive parents (in some of these cases) have also been known to use the media to their own benefit as we all have seen when the adoptive parents lose and have to turn the child over how the press and all the supporters are there to see an obviously upset child being "ripped" from the adoptive parents arms. Money can buy a lot of good lawyers. Bottom line, the Father in this case was deceived, immediately went for his son at 11 weeks old (well within the time frame in the "contract" and the adoptive parents have drug this out. I don't feel the childs best interests were served at all by the courts, the adoptives parents or the lawyers. The child should have been given to the Father. Sadly, the adoptive parents have now held the law at bay long enough to possibly get a favorable ruling. I feel for the child and I wonder how truthful the adoptive parents are going to be when the boy is a young man and finds out what happened.
and the adoptive parents have drug this out. I don't feel the childs best interests were served at all by the courts, the adoptives parents or the lawyers. The child should have been given to the Father. Sadly, the adoptive parents have now held the law at bay long enough to possibly get a favorable ruling. I feel for the child and I wonder how truthful the adoptive parents are going to be when the boy is a young man and finds out what happened.