Boy sent back to biological mother after three years with adopted family

[Kadie]

Boy sent back to biological mother after three years with adopted family

Friday, December 24, 2004

(12-24) 08:28 PST JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) --

A couple must return a 3-year-old boy they adopted shortly after birth to his biological mother, a judge has ruled.

Evan Parker Scott has lived with Dawn and Gene Scott for most of his life, but the adoption petition was dismissed because the boy's biological mother did not get consent from the father.

Judge Waddell Wallace III last week ordered the Scotts to take the child to a naval base in Illinois where his biological mother lives. The mother, Amanda Hopkins, will have custody, but the court ordered that the boy's biological father be given liberal visitation rights.

The Scotts are "trying to prepare Evan the best way we know how for the horrific event he faces," the couple said in a statement. "We are spending our last few days together as a family preparing for Santa and trying to make a happy holiday time for Evan."

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/24/national1128EST0496.DTL

This poor child. He is being taken away from the only parents he has every known. When does the best interest of the child come first?

[MissB]

1. Poor parents too

They are being penalized for the birth mother's deception.

In the end, the child is going to be the one hurt the most.

[Mandate My Ass]

2. There was a case like this 15-20 years ago. Huge MSM coverage

Baby Melissa or something like that. The biological "father" had kids by like three or so different women and was delinquent on support payments for all of them. The courts decided that didn't matter, his rights had been denied and the jerk actually wanted the mother to take the kid back although I don't think he planned on being around them that much. The adoptive parents were heartbroken, naturally.

[SW FL Dem]

44. Yes Baby RIchard in Illinois in the early 90s

and Baby Jessica (?) a few years later.

[tblue37]

62. Re; Baby Richard

His father married the mom, deliberately spent a huge amount of time ostentatiously bonding with Richard (apparently for the media exposure), then divorced the mom and dropped out of Richard's life.

Our judicial system allows for legal kidnapping of adopted children from their parents, because as far as the kids are concerned, the adopted parents ARE their parents. The biological parents are just strangers.

The fact that the biological fatehr is willing to put the child through this is evidence that he has no interest in the child's happiness. He thinks it is only about himself and what he wants. To him, the child is just a "possession."

[shrike]

99. I remember that case

I always wondered if he wanted to cash in.

I do remember he and Richard were paid a wad of cash for an Australian interview.

Richard's birth mother is raising him last I heard, and hopefully, they're having a happy life.

[Bo]

165. Simply heartbreaking

www.hearmyvoice.org
read about it in detail

[ProfessorGAC]

170. It's The Reason My Wife & I Abandoned Adoption

After that, we said "Forget it!". People in good faith, adopt as their own and raise, as their own, an infant. Then, because of duplicity on the part of someone outside of their control, the family gets torn apart on some minutia of legal precedent.

We were unwilling, after the 4 miscarriages, to undergo such further uncertainty and heartbreak, over child rearing. That judge was much maligned in Illinois and eventually got a vote of no on his reassignment to the bench.
The Professor

[mamalone]

173. Would you consider foreign adoption?

Don't want to be intrusive here, but...(here I go being intrusive, anyway, LOL!) Adoption is such an incredibly wonderful thing and there are so many children all over the world literally dying for lack of what you and your wife have to give. Just something to think about....
removing my nose from your business now....

[ProfessorGAC]

176. We're Past That Point Age Wise, Now

We're too old for that now. We just dote on our nieces. Remember that whole Baby Richard thing happened back 15 years ago, when we were in our mid-30's.

We did look into foreign adoption back then too, but two of the agencies REQUIRED one of us to be a stay at home parent. That seemed to patently unfair that we told them to jump over a cliff. My wife's a teacher! She would be home all summer, and when the child was school age, would be home whenever the child wasn't in school. Seemed a perfect situation to us. But, they were inflexible. So, we walked away from that avenue.

But, that was then. This is now. People more worried about their precious systems and principles than about the results of two productive, educated and caring people raising a child to full adulthood did some damage to a child who would have benefitted. I hope they're happy.
The Professor

[NorthernSpy]

180. "Baby Richard": now an A student; parents are together...

... according a Chicago Sun Times story dated 18 Nov. 2003.

The crying 4-year-old boy the world knew as "Baby Richard" eight years ago is now a smiling, 7th-grade, straight-A student at a Catholic school in the south suburbs, according to a new book.

His real name is Danny and he bears no emotional scars from being abruptly taken from his adoptive parents, the Warburtons, and given to his birth parents, the Kirchners, said his psychologist, Karen Moriarty.

(...)

After a brief separation, Otakar and Daniela Kirchner have remained together and had two daughters in the last eight years.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.adoption/messages/408953.html

Gee, I guess nothing messes a kid over like growing up with his own mom and dad.

Of course, this wasn't a press release from the adopters, so I reckon we should all just disregard it. His life must really be awful...

:eyes:

[Warpy]

3. It should have come first at the time of the adoption!

Cutting the birth parents off legally with no visitation rights (which can be supervised, if need be) is NOT in the best interests of the child. It's only in the best interest of the adoptinve couple, giving them sole "ownership" of the child without considering ties which will make a big difference later in that child's life.

Had the birth parents been given even limited visitation from the beginning, this wouldn't be as traumatic. As it is, it will be traumatic for a time, but the resilience of youth will likely take over, and a child who is loved will thrive, no matter who is doing the loving.

[shrike]

8. I know a few open adoptions and they don't have "visitation" rights

More like cards, letters, pictures, updates.

If the birth mother used deception in this case, I don't feel too sorry for her. There may be more involved in this case than we're being told, though.

Sounds like the birth father believes he "owns" the child as well. These cases can get so messed up. There was a case here in Illinois: a birth mother "gave" her child to a couple not related to her. A court decided they were not fit to adopt and gave the baby to someone else. The original couple fought the action (the guy was quoted as saying, 'he's my kid, he was gave to me.') They got him back (and they weren't his birth parents, mind you), and did not live happily ever after. The kid became unmanageable, the couple separated, and the boy bounced back and forth between the two for a while. He, the boy, was charged with sexual assault while still in grade school.

I know they didn't set out to raise a rapist. No one does. Who knows what's going on in the kid's mind? Surely the wrangling couldn't have helped him much, though.

[TankLV]

138. It is highly unusual - and our experience could be the ONLY one - but

my partner's daughter and husband have such visitation privledges and correspondence with their baby's adoptive parents. They couldn't raise a child at the time they were unmarried and still in college - so they gave up their baby boy to a wonderful couple. Are kept informed by pictures and letters - and occasional visits - it truely is a wonderful arrangement for the baby. The baby is everyone's primeary concern. And nobody is even imagining anything but keeping the child with his new parents.

[MercutioATC]

29. Depends on the birth parents.

Anybody can make a baby. Not everybody can parent.

Personally, I'm sick to death of "parental rights'" trump card status.

[Dulcinea]

131. Agreed.

The couple who raised little Evan are his parents, not the egg & sperm donors, in this case.

Two of my best friends are adopted. Neither of them has any interest in looking for their biological parents; as far as they're concerned, their adoptive families ARE their families.

This is nothing but selfishness on the part of the biological parents. My heart goes out to the foster parents.

[jwirr]

119. We have an open adoption in our family

but I don't know if it would work in all cases. We were all grown-up enough to recognize what was best for the child. Since we have mental illness in our family we did not just want a closed adoption because the child can be rejected after adoption for health reasons and we wanted to know if that happened so we could step in if need be.

[Born Free]

130. "We have an open adoption in our family"

"but I don't know if it would work in all cases. We were all grown-up enough to recognize what was best for the child. Since we have mental illness in our family we did not just want a closed adoption because the child can be rejected after adoption for health reasons and we wanted to know if that happened so we could step in if need be."

I am sorry to disagree with your but we also had an unusual adoptiton situation, we were houseparents and adopted one of the students that was having problems, she was 8 years old and both parents were alive, the father wanted the child but the mother didn't and the biological mother didn't want the father to have the child either. Although it worked out legally the biological mother refused to sever ties and kept in contact with the girl the entire time, when the girl turned 16 she went back to live with the biological mother until she ran into problems - then we got a call to come and get her, the psyhcologist working with us determined the emotional part of the adoption never really took place, the girl never really accepted us as parents. I was surprised about the psychologist, after many sessions she appeared to give up and told the girl to leave us alone, get out of our lives and let us move on, we were better off without her as she was just using us, I can't say I agreed with her at the time. Today we may hear from her at special times when there is gift giving, for her child, other than that she is only concerned about the biological family. A lot happened, it was a trying time and we made a lot of mistakes. Looking back I can't say it was a wise move to adopt an older, unwanted child with the bilogical parents living so close. Likewise I can't say the situation was best for the child, she may have made out better remaining in the private school.

[Massachusetts]

4. There Are Way To many People Who Suck!

:wtf:

[Bunny]

5. Where were the lawyers? How was this allowed to happen?

I'm surprised that the bio father did not consent to this, yet somehow the child was given to the adoptive family anyway. Now three years later, they will all pay the price, most sadly it is the child who will pay. How did this adoption even occur without the full consent of both birth parents? Someone totally screwed this up - I hope they can sleep at night.

[NashVegas]

14. Here's Why

from the story:

Hopkins and the boy's father, Steven A. White Jr., never married, and she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show.

Hopkins supported the Scotts' adoption of Evan until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody.

"She took an adversarial position against them because she felt it was not in Evan's best interest to live with the father," said Debbie Grabarkiewicz, director of case advocacy for Hear My Voice, a nonprofit network of child advocates.

It looks like the biological mother either did the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason. If she'd had better counseling, and a better lawyer, she might have been able to force him to consent to the adoption at the time of birth, but there's no guarantee for that.

[Bunny]

15. But I guess my question is still this:

Without the full consent of the bio father at the time of the birth, how was the adoption allowed to happen? It should not have gone through until he was tracked down and allowed to consent to the adoption, or not. This is ridiculous.

[SW FL Dem]

45. Most states allow adoption if the birth father is unknown or

can't be located. He is served by publication (notice in the newspaper) it happens all the time for lawsuits. What if the pregnancy was the result of a one night stand or the birth father has moved and isn't in touch with the birth mom. It isn't an easy question, but sometimes IMHO the well- being of the child is more important than the rights of the sperm donor.

[Bunny]

56. Okay, I understand better now.

I've seen those notices in the paper. I agree that the well-being of the child is most important.

[Ladyhawk]

6. This happens too frequently.

Even a custody battle is too much for the human spirit.

[SW FL Dem]

7. This sucks!!

The story is even worse. The birth mother supported the adoption and only changed her mind when it looked like the birth father was going to get custody of the boy. The birth father abused the birth mother and she was afraid he would abuse the boy. How is giving custody to a woman who didn't want the child and allowing liberal visitation by a potentially abusive man in the best interests of the child??

[SemperEadem]

24. I don't see where in the article that the father abused her

"Hopkins and the boy's father, Steven A. White Jr., never married, and she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show. "

Assaulted by whom? It doesn't say that White assaulted her--which if it were the case would have been clearly stated. To infer that he was the assaulter is untrue, unless that information is stated.

She could have been assaulted by some woman her boyfriend was messing around with for all we know.

[RedRogue22]

144. Rules Stink!! (at least in this case)

I definitely think that the rules regarding adoption need some major overhauling. In the current climate, it's like peoople who don't think they want their children can try this "trial period" to see if it's something they want to stick with.

The poor parents who've had to go to adoption to have children at all are left in total agony without any real support because of their lack of a blood link to the child in question.

Sad, sad, sad.

[Megahurtz]

184. Sometimes the twisted courts will

allow a father who is abusive to the mother, liberal visitation with the child. A mother can file any motions for protecting her child that she wants, but it usually does no good.
The court's warped:freak:thoughts are "the father abused the mother but there was no sign of abuse to the child, so let the father visit the child"

Maybe the mother had no choice to do what she did to protect the child, but adopt him out.

So what else was there for her to do? RUN?

Courts are fucked up when it comes to kids.

[shrike]

9. I read the story again -- NOW I understand

The guy beat her up, no wonder she didn't want to tell him.

She sued for custody so he wouldn't have to be raised by his father -- though of course the guy gets visitation rights. Sounds like she was in a no-win situation from the beginning.

My sympathies to her and the adoptive parents, and, of course, the child involved.

[lazarus]

32. The guy beat her up?

You have information that's not in the article, then.

[shrike]

36. She sustained injuries

Ergo, he did SOMETHING to her.

[lazarus]

49. ergo

someone did something to her.

[shrike]

58. it was in their residence

he lives in their residence

[lazarus]

88. Well, that solves that crime, then

I guess we can apply this same reasoning to all other crimes, too?

Do you know if anyone else lives in their residence? Or if anyone ever visits? Or does that just not matter?

[shrike]

96. Well, Sherlock

Wonder why she was so afraid of him, then.

Could it be ... maybe ...

[lazarus]

106. Hmm

Where do you find the information that she is afraid of him? Or is that some psychic gift you have, being able to read these things?

[KinkyDem]

174. Fifteen years and 8 days ago my daughter was given up ...

for adoption. I was not involved in the decision making process at all.

I cannot imagine bringing all of this up after three years, no matter how any of the adults may feel about it. Why did these people press this issue? It certainly isn't in the childs best interest. So I have to wonder ... who's best interest is this in?

[Nevernose]

153. Legal translation --

she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show.

Hopkins supported the Scotts' adoption of Evan until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody.

"She took an adversarial position against them because she felt it was not in Evan's best interest to live with the father," said Debbie Grabarkiewicz, director of case advocacy for Hear My Voice, a nonprofit network of child advocates.

She filed a brief claiming that she did not discover that she was pregnant until she went to the hospital, but she either

-- didn't report the crime when it occurred, or

-- the authorities didn't follow up on the crime (most state take domestic battery pretty seriously these days, but in Florida who the hell knows?), or

-- she wanted custody of the child, and was willing to say whatever it took to get that custody, even if, as the story suggests, it was unsubstantiated allegations.

In all fairness, I suspect that you were right in the original assumption, but based on the miniscule reporting, who knows?

[shanti]

10. put the blame on florida social services!!!!

THEY are the ones that were supposed to make sure all the details like terminating parental rights of the father and notifying him, were taken care of! :grr:

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. Absolutely!!!

I was waiting in a family court when my brother was going through a custody battle with his ex-wife. There was an adoption on the docket before my brother's case. There were attorney's for ALL parties - the adoptive parents, the biological mother, the biological father (who could not be located) and an ad litem for the two little girls being adopted. Everyone and the judge had to sign off on the adoption and then it was DONE.

I do not understand how someone who truly loves their child could put them through such a trauma. Children are people, not property.

On edit: I also blame the judge. Frankly, they can "just say no" and if the biological father or mother has the money to appeal it they can try. There are too many judges that value the biological parent's "rights" over the child's rights and well-being.

[shrike]

13. From the sounds of things, this woman was in fear of a violent ex

She found out she was pregnant while she was being treated for injuries after one of his beatings. Knowing how battered women think, she might have felt she was doing the best thing at the time.

I feel very sorry for the adoptive family -- and for her, actually. Sounds like she fought for custody because she feared the child going to live with a man she knew to be violent.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. That's why the judge is to blame also

He can just say it's not in the best interest of the child to be taken from the adoptive parents and that's it. They can pursue it on appeal if the can afford to. The child's welfare and psychological well-being should come first.

[shrike]

17. Yes, you are right

It's depressing when this sh*t happens.

[shanti]

18. exactly

i work in the adoption field and this story sounds fishy. somebody didn't do their job and the child is suffering for it (of course).

[RobinA]

114. Why Fishy?

I work in the adoption field and this kind of thing happens CONSTANTLY. Trying to get what's best for the child while following laws favoring the rights of spectacularly bad parents. Every now and then you can get it to work out in the child's best interest - more often, not.

[booksenkatz]

11. CHILDREN ARE NOT OBJECTS

These cases drive me insane. When I think of our 5-year-old son and the tight relationship we had with him when he was 3, and to think of someone taking him away from us, taking him to a strange place to live with strangers... his bewilderment and horror... it makes me literally want to get a gun and kill the people who do these things to children, whether it's the courts or the judges or the parents who fuck up. And I consider myself a peaceful person, I do not say something like that casually! Children may appear to "get over" things, but their souls are scarred forever. This child will never trust another human being as long as he lives. And at this time of year, Christmas will always be tainted, as well.

I'm so sorry, Evan, that some stupid adults are treating you like furniture. I hope you can find peace someday.
:cry:

[mamalone]

20. Well said!

Three of my 5 kids are adopted...my youngest (now 5) was with me for 3.5 yrs before we were able to finalize. His birthmom relinquished her rights shortly after he was born, but the birthfather refused to sign away his. He didn't want anything to do with the little guy..never so much as asked for a picture. He was ticked at the birthmother though..knew she wanted him to be adopted by us, so he wouldn't allow him to be released. We ended up having to track him across the country with a private investigator. Found that he was being sued for child support for another of his progeny, so my lawyer met him outside the coutroom door, papers in hand. My lawyer told him, "Listen, this woman wants nothing from you, not a red cent, just your signature, why don't you give it to her?" Thankfully he did, we had to wait another 45 days to make sure he didn't want to change his mind:eyes: On day 46 we filed to finalize..what a relief! I can't tell you how many nights I awoke in a cold sweat during those uncertain 3.5 yrs, afraid that I would lose him. You can say what you want about children being resilient, but I don't buy it. To a child that young the parent(s) are their entire world. My son was so bonded to me, taking him away and placing him with strangers would have destroyed him..you might just as well have taken his heart out of his little chest and run it through a meat grinder. Physically he would have survived, but emotionally..spiritually it would have been the end of him. I am heartsick for this family and heartbroken for this dear little boy....

[classof56]

22. Welcome to DU, Mamalone.

We are glad to have you with us. And congratulations many times over on the adoption of three precious children. I'm sure all your youngsters know how fortunate they are to have you as Mom. You have my deepest admiration and gratitude. Many years ago my only sister (now deceased) gave up her first child for adoption. I can only hope that child was lucky enough to have a Mom like you.

[mamalone]

166. As far as my children being fortunate..

truly, I am the fortunate one to have them! (Thanks for saying that though, I'll grab all of the pats-on-the-back that I can get! LOL!) I am eternally grateful to their birthmoms for entrusting them to me. The last time I gave photos to my son's birthmother she thanked me for them and I was just overwhelmed with how many thanks *I* owe her. Some things are just beyond words, KWIM?

[booksenkatz]

26. Welcome, mamalone!

How wonderful that you were able to give 3 children a good home, in addition to your own 2. I just never have understood how people can have children so casually -- they drop their sperm/eggs/fetuses like they were gum wrappers on a sidewalk. My husband and I were married 14 years before we had our son... there wasn't anything wrong, we just knew it was the most important thing we would ever do! (Six years ago today, in fact, I found out I was pregnant.) We have always given our son the same respect for his human rights that we would give any adult. Why do people treat children as "less" just because they are younger and smaller?

Anyway, glad to see you at DU... I hope you and your family have a wonderful holiday!
:hi:

[mamalone]

167. Thanks so much for the warm welcome!

Your son is just about the same age as my guy..and I share your deep respect for the "preciousness" of our littlest humans. I can vividly remember the first time I held each of my kids..awe is not too strong of a word to use, as I'm sure you can relate! Whether my kids joined our family through birth or adoption, that sense of awe is the same. I am so saddened by the posts on this thread that equate adoption with slavery, and worse..the human heart and the ability to love is sooo much bigger than genetics. My kids' birthmothers entrusted them to me because they wanted them to have more than they themselves were able to give at that time. They provided for their babies in the best way they were capable of. Just, how is that abandoning them? I really don't understand.....

[Bo]

163. I fully agree with you.....

This Judge must be on Crack. Returning a child to a mother beaten by her boyfriend and then granting the abuser visiting rights is insane.
WTF are they on.
Oh and welcome to DU

[mamalone]

169. Sadly,

The current state of the child protective laws in this country produce this kind of result all of the time. It is true that children are considered personal property in the legal sense of the word. Beyond belief, isn't it?
Oh, and thanks for the welcome:-)

[fortyfeetunder]

19. Good grief, they didn't see a pattern?

Man abused woman, who was pg with his child.

Who's to say if this man won't abuse again?

The underlying question is whose home would have offered the most stable environment for the child?


To paraphrase the sermon posted in GD: Who weeps for these children?

[Mabeline]

21. If the birth mother didn't have authority from the baby's father to

give the baby up for adoption, and this all stems from the birth father and his having visitation...then WHY is the birth mother going to have custody with the birth father only getting visitation...why can't the boy stay with his adoptive parents and the birth father still have visitation?

IMO, the childs best interests should be first here, this poor baby boy will have lasting problems from the trauma to come.

[RobinA]

115. In Most States

you don't get the kind of open adoption you are suggesting. To me it looks like Mom is willing to give up her parental rights to have the kid adopted, but Dad won't give up his rights, doesn't want to or can't care for the child, but does want to visit. Mom doesn't want to give up her rights under that circumstance because then if Dad one day decides he wants the kid he's got sole parental rights and Mom is out of the picture entirely.

[hackwriter]

23. And they want to advocate adoption instead of abortion?

Who in their right mind would adopt an American baby these days? You never know when your child might be taken away from you and returned to the "biological parent."

Consider this: You have a 10-year-old you adopted as a baby. The child's sperm donor finds out that he fathered a child 10 years ago. He petitions the court to void the adoption because he never knew he had a child and he never relinquished his "rights." Guess what, folks...the kid who's been with you for 10 years goes to live with someone he doesn't know.

This is absolutely ridiculous, but it's part and parcel of the "father's rights" business that the wingnuts use to take a woman's choice as to what to do with her own pregnancy away.

Think about another circumstance: You leave an abusive boyfriend and go into hiding because you have an order of protection that he's ignored. You then find out you're pregnant. You put the child up for adoption, and then the guy finds out. Then not only do the adoptive parents have to give up the child, but you have to live with the knowledge that your child is going to live with the guy who beat the crap out of you.

This is justice?

If I were going to adopt children, I'd go overseas. The courts make no sense where adoption law is concerned.

[shanti]

25. although i understand

where you're coming from, your 10 year scenario is rather far-fetched. once the parental rights are terminated, that's IT. if the court/state can't find the father (after proper advertising), the adoption is finalized. no judge would overrule an adoption that lasted 10 years.

[lostnfound]

41. Overruling one that lasted 3 years is insane, too. nt

[shanti]

42. yes

and the court and social services screwed up big time!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. This treating children like possessions really infuriates me

A lot of the street kids were passed around from one relative to another with no stability in their lives.

I remember seeing a TV report about a case in which an 8-year-old girl had been abandoned by her biological mother, literally left with a co-worker "for the weekend." The mother then disappeared and didn't show up for six years. At that point, she asked to have her daughter back.

The biological mother's own parents thought she shouldn't have custody of the girl, and it was clear that the unofficial foster parents had done an excellent job of taking care of her. She was well-integrated into the foster family and into the community.

The biological mother came across as a real narcissist in the interview. She kept saying, "She MINE. I don't care if she's bonded with that family. She's MINE, and I'm never going to let her see them again."

What was really inexcusable was that the judge refused to hear from the little girl, who was very bright and articulate for her age. In the end, she had to go with her biological mother. I sometimes wonder what happened to her.

One of the most heartbreaking cases I heard of was when a six-year-old boy was taken from his adoptive parents and given to his biological father. It was reported that he kept screaming, "I'll be good! I'll be good!" The poor little guy thought he was being given away because his adoptive parents were displeased with him. :cry:

I fully understand why so many people go for overseas adoptions.

[StuckinKS]

28. Exactly!

As it is, family law is about nothing but "property rights." Many laws speak of the best interests of the child, but that usually comes into play only after the parents have failed miserably in their responsibilities to their children.

Regardless, it is unconscionable for a judge to disrupt the three year attachment that the child had with the adoptive parents merely to please the desires of the birth parents. Their selfish behavior during the case should have served as prima facie evidence of their unsuitability as parents.

[happyslug]

30. These are always hard cases

How do you resolve them? The Mother was willing to give up the child for adoption but not the Father. How do you prevent a Mother from giving up her child even if the Father is a fit parent and wants the child? Do we want children to go to the highest bidder?

The biggest problem has been that most birth parents of adoptive children tend to be much poorer than the adopting parents. One characteristics of being poor is you move more often than people who are earning more money. Thus it is hard to track such a birth parent down one.

Given these problems the Courts have had to argue these points and some basically rules are emerging:

1. The best interest of the Child test is reserved when a dispute exist between the Parents of a Child not third parties. This is to make sure children are not taken by third parties who can out bid the biologic parents for the child.

2. The Courts want BOTH parents to have input into the Child's life, if both can not agree the Courts want to resolve the dispute. If one parent wants something done with the child the burden is going to be on that Birth Parent to inform the other birth parent. If the non-custodial birth parent is NOT informed the Courts will NOT punish the non-custodial parent instead punish the parent ho had the Child and Failed to inform the Non-custodial parent.

3. Third parties to a custody case have limited rights, and those rights can be eliminated if exercising those rights interferes with the rights of either parent.

4. When it comes to Visitation, the non-custodian parent will NOT be denied Visitation unless such visitation will cause "Great harm" to the Child. Not speculative harm, not just some harm, great harm.

5. Children and Youth will only get involved if the Child is "endangered" not if the child is in less than ideal conditions. If the child is NOT "Endangered" Children and Youth will have nothing to do with the case.

So how did these rules affect this case? First since the Father had NOT been informed, he can NOT be punished for failing to be informed. Furthermore if anyone is to be punished it should be the Birth Mother for giving up the child without informing the Child's Father. Thus the Adoption must be undone for failing to inform the Father.

As to the Adoptive parents, their rights are secondary to the Birth Parents and in any dispute between EITHER birth parent and the Adoptive Parent the burden to show great harm is on the Adoptive parent not the Birth Parents. Thus once the adoption is set aside the dispute is one of custody BETWEEN THE BIRTH PARENTS ONLY.

In the dispute between the Birth parents the best interest of the Child test comes into play. Based on the evidence in this case the Mother has taken greater care and concern about the Child than the Father therefore Primary Physical Custody went to Mother.

The Birth Father as the Birth Father has the right to Visitation under the concept such visitation is not causing the Child Great Harm. Thus unless you have a Psychologist that can testify after examining the Child and the Father AND that Psychologist reports the visits would cause great harm, the Father will get some sort of Visitation.

I am sorry to tell people that this was probably the best decision you will get in such a case. Please note there is NOTHING that prevents the Birth Mother from leaving the Child visit the Adoptive Parents even for days or weeks at a time, as long as such visitation does NOT interfere with Visitation of Father.

This is further complicated by Mother now being at a "Naval Station in Illinois" (Great Lakes Naval Station?, is she doing Boot Camp or other Naval Training?). While Mother gets the Child, Father's Visitation will be restricted given the distance between California and Illinois. The fact that the Judge gave Mother Primary indicates the Judge has some concern about the Father being able to take care of the Child (Most Judges want to keep children in their Jurisdiction if possible, given that Father and Adoptive Parents live in California I suspect the Judge does not think the best interest of the Child is with the Child staying with the Father).

I suspect Mother will try to keep the Adoptive parent in the Child's life, but I am surprise no psychologist reports that shows such an abrupt change in custody would harm the child. Mother must have maintained some contact during the dispute to minimize the break. Hopefully Mother and Adoptive parents continue to work together. I also hope the Father also starts to work for the best interest of the Child NOT his own "rights" but lets us remember the Adoption failed NOT because of his actions but the Mother's actions of NOT informing him (The abuse is a factor in the adoption and custody, but just a factor and does NOT overcome the fact he was NOT informed of the Adoption).

[shrike]

31. Sounds like she made the wrong decision for the right reasons

She probably wanted to protect the child from the man who abused her, and saw this as her best option. I feel for all of them -- though not for him.

[happyslug]

38. In my experience, no, she thought the adoption was the best for the child.

The problem is that the adoptive parents and the Birth Mother just did not have enough money to locate the Father (Or is was impossible to locate him). Instead they made a good faith search, did not find him and went forward with the adoption. The Mother thought this was the best interest of the Child. This happens all the time, but in this case the Father re-appeared and demanded his child. The Father has rights and he demanded his rights in Court. The Court had to give the Birth Father what was his by law, that is the right to contest custody and to refuse the adoption.

It is only at that point I see the Mother demanding custody, for once the adoption was terminated the choice for the court is the natural mother and father. At that point the Mother decided the child was better off with her than the child's father. I do not see the Mother viewing her having the child as best for the child, I believe by her actions she still believes what is best for the child would be ti stay with the Child's adoptive parents, but once the Father re-appeared that was NO LONGER AN OPTION. Thus the Birth Mother is still acting in what she believes is the best interest of her child.

[Sunny_Sunshine]

164. Can the adoptive parents sue for back child support

After all, they have supported this child for three years, wouldn't they be entitled to that?

[lazarus]

33. Everybody's claiming he beat her

and it doesn't say that anywhere in the article. But it's easy to leap to the conclusion that the man was beating the woman, I guess.

[shrike]

35. She sustained injuries during a confrontation with him

He obviously did something to her.

[lazarus]

50. Kindly point out the specific quote from the article

that states that.

[Pithlet]

73. It's irrelevant

This child should not be removed from the only home he's ever known for his whole life. Those are his parents to him.

[lazarus]

109. I agree

Although, without knowing anything more about the case, I really feel for the father.

I'm just curious why everyone's leaping to the conclusion that he's the one that assaulted her.

[Pithlet]

112. I would feel for him

if he hadn't have been convicted for beating her while she was pregnant. I don't have a link, but I do remember hearing that about this case before. If that is indeed true, then I don't feel he should have any rights in this case. If it's not, then he should have been granted visitation rights, but not custody.

I would feel terribly for any father who wasn't told about a child, and it was given up for adoption without his consent. It's heartbreaking. I do feel he should have some rights. To prevent such horrific cases in the future, whenever any adoption takes place with an unknown father, or one that cannot be found, then it should be stipulated in the adoption agreement that if in the future he comes forward, that he should have visitation rights. The parents adopting the child have to know going in that if they're going to go through with this adoption anyway, that there is a possibility that a father may come forward, and they'll have to acknowledge his rights to visitation. That way, all the adults get their rights recognized, and the child isn't ripped out of a home he/she has always known. It seems like such a simple solution.

It sounds to me like this case was never handled right from the beginning. And now this child has to suffer for it. He has to suffer for choices that adults made. That is the worst possible outcome.

[NorthernSpy]

34. if children aren't transferable property, then why does adoption exist?

On the whole, I'd have to say that we should permit adoption only as an absolute last resort for children who do not have parents or other blood relatives. Casting a child out of his own natural family and giving him over to strangers is tantamount to treating him like an item of commerce. A human being has a right to be part of the family that he is born into. I believe that it is an abrogation of a child's human rights to allow his parents to abandon him under any circumstances.

It also seems to me that a lot of people haven't read the article carefully. As one other poster pointed out, the story did NOT say that the child's father had abused the mother. It said that that she had reported being assaulted in an apartment that the couple had shared, but it did not say whom she had identified as the assailant.

Really, this adoption should not have taken place at all. Not only because the father had not consented to it, but more importantly because the child in question is not an orphan, and never should have been disposed of like transferable property in the first place. The kid has living parents, and they owe him their support and protection, no matter what -- period.

[shrike]

37. Well ...

Unfortunately, blood does not make one a good parent. I've seen it too many times.

[StuckinKS]

47. Huh!

Adoption (at least in the case of children removed from their birth parents for cause) exists because the child deserves a family that will not abuse/neglect him/her and will have the legal right to act on behalf of that child and the child can enjoy a permanent family rather than merely a foster family.

Just from reading the article, I cannot discern all the pertinent facts in this case. What DOES seem obvious is that extreme caution should be taken in disrupting the only family this child has ever known in his three years. While the law may wish to protect the father's rights, I feel that his "rights" should remain secondary to the child's best interests.

What I am putting forward is not the way the situation exists, but the way I think the law should deal with these cases. For example, if I fathered a child and never knew of it for three years and suddenly found out about it's existence, i would feel all sorts of emotions. But, as a good father, I would not want to disrupt the child's life to suit MY needs. I would do everything possible to convince the adoptive parents to allow me as much contact as they deem suitable.

[NorthernSpy]

51. since we're posting our druthers...

For example, if I fathered a child and never knew of it for three years and suddenly found out about it's existence, i would feel all sorts of emotions. But, as a good father, I would not want to disrupt the child's life to suit MY needs. I would do everything possible to convince the adoptive parents to allow me as much contact as they deem suitable.

And I'll reply that you're the hypothetical child's father and that you have no right to abandon him ever, no matter how late you find out about his existence.

It's unnatural and disgusting to leave ones own child with genetic strangers. Your kid has as much right to be with his own kind (his blood relatives, including you), as you have to be with him.

Adoption (at least in the case of children removed from their birth parents for cause) exists because the child deserves a family that will not abuse/neglect him/her and will have the legal right to act on behalf of that child and the child can enjoy a permanent family rather than merely a foster family.

How many of those cases of alleged abuse and neglect resulted in charges laid and ultimately in punishment for crimes committed? Not all that many, I don't think. Why aren't crimes allegedly committed against children by their parents adjudicated in the same manner as other criminal complaints? I certainly am not opposed to punishing parents who batter their children.

The thing is, the criminal justice system provides for due process. The system that takes children from their parents doesn't. In the criminal justice system, charges must be proved; in the "child welfare" system, they needn't.

Adoption and the child welfare system currently seem to serve two purposes: providing kids to affluent people who cannot procreate naturally, and providing pretexts and a mechanism for ruling-class meddling in the affairs of working class families.


(edit: fixed typo)

[Dem2theMax]

53. Since there seem to be so many people who know so much about this subject,

how about we hear from an actual living person who was adopted?
ME.

First a quote: "On the whole, I'd have to say that we should permit adoption only as an absolute last resort for children who do not have parents or other blood relatives. Casting a child out of his own natural family and giving him over to strangers is tantamount to treating him like an item of commerce. A human being has a right to be part of the family that he is born into. I believe that it is an abrogation of a child's human rights to allow his parents to abandon him under any circumstances."

I could have been kept in my birth family. There are, or at least were, way back then, a whole bunch of blood relatives. So I suppose they could have kept me there. What would I have experienced?
Let's see. Birth father has been married five or six times. I've lost count. Birth mom has been married four or five times. I've lost count. She has five kids, including me, by three different men. Birth father has four kids, including me, but one died years ago. I literally don't know who the mother or mothers are for the three siblings of mine on his side. Then there are the ton of aunts and uncles on my birth mothers side. All with serious health problems. All dead now. Birth fathers side? I know I have an aunt there. But they don't speak to each other, so that wouldn't have been a good choice either. All four siblings on birth mothers side have had serious problems with drugs and alcohol. I'm the only one who has escaped that problem. I could go on and on, but maybe someone will get the point here. I was NOT abandoned. This wasn't, in my eyes, a "last resort" as there were other people around. The fact that none of them had their heads screwed on straight should come into the picture, and it did, thankfully. My birth mom was aware that life for me would have been insane with them,. She did the best thing possible for me. She made sure I went to a loving, stable family. My adoptive parents have been married 58 years, so far. They aren't perfect. No one is. But they love me. They love me so much that when I wanted to meet my birth parents, they supported it 100%. My "moms" are closer to each other than they are with a lot of their own extended families. My birth father turned out to be very doting and loving and supportive. But at the time of my birth, none of them could have done what they needed to do to raise me in a stable environment.

So please lose that 'last resort' and 'kids are abandoned when they are adopted' bit. As an adopted at birth person, I really resent those words. It's sort of like having a baby I guess. Unless you've actually had one, you can only imagine at what it must be like. Same with adoption. Unless YOU are the baby/child being adopted, you have NO idea of what it is like. And putting labels on us, labels that, believe me, cut a person to the core, are not wanted, needed or appreciated.

[shrike]

59. You put it better than I ever could

I was going to respond to the above post, but I'll leave the last word to you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. There was a case in Portland last year

A woman and her ten-year-old daughter were walking along a suburban road when they were struck by a car. The daughter sustained minor injuries, but the mother was killed.

All sorts of blood relatives came out of the woodwork, and what a sorry mess they were. They all had something about them that made you pause and say, "I sure wouldn't want to leave a ten-year-old girl with them."

In the end, custody of the girl was awarded to the woman with whom she and the mother had been living for a couple of years, because that woman was by far the most stable and responsible person in that child's life, even though she wasn't a blood relative.

[NorthernSpy]

65. So? There are adoptees who disagree with you.

Each of them counts as an "actual living adopted person" just as much as anyone else does. Why do you seem to expect that I should give your feelings more weight than theirs?

I've heard a lot of personal stories and anecdotes. My stance is derived from principles primarily. The central principle is that no human being is property, and therefore cannot be disposed of as though he were. Following from this principle is another: parents have no right to abandon their children, which is what giving them to strangers literally is, no matter how much pc-speak we choose to throw up around it.

[Dem2theMax]

72. What? My feelings don't carry any weight?

But yours do because YOU have principals? I'm only the one who is adopted here. Right. That carries no weight at all. I'm just PROPERTY.

You know, now that I read more of your posts, I'm glad you feel the way you do. You'd never adopt a child. Thank goodness. For them.

Please don't reply to me anymore. It's Christmas. I want to feel LOVE today. I don't want to be told that I am PROPERTY because someone had the decency to make sure I was brought up in a loving and caring, safe and secure home. And they didn't make me feel like I was PROPERTY. You just did. Hope it makes you feel good.

And again, I was NOT ABANDONED. Everyone around me wanted me to have a SAFE, LOVING HOME. I would not have had that in the home of my birth, or in the extended birth family. I was handed FROM ARMS OF LOVE TO ARMS OF LOVE.

Why am I wasting my time trying to explain love to a person who can't possibly GET that part of the equation?

I'm going to go and enjoy Christmas with my loving family. And later I'll call my loving birth Mom and thank her for the Christmas present she sent to me. And I'm putting this entire thread on bye-bye because it's interfering with an otherwise wonderful day.

[NorthernSpy]

77. feelings and principles

But YOU count because YOU have principals and I don't know what I'm talking about?

You mean principles. I didn't say that you didn't know what you were talking about. I said that there are other adoptees who disagree with you, and that their feelings are as valid as yours. I also said that my stance is based upon principles, and not upon the various (and conflicting) personal stories that I have heard.

You know, now that I read more of your posts, I'm glad you feel the way you do. You'd never adopt a child. Thank goodness. For them.

If you cannot discuss the subject without making ad hominem remarks, then that says quite a lot in itself.

Please don't reply to me anymore. It's Christmas. I want to feel LOVE today. I don't want to be told that I am PROPERTY because someone had the decency to make sure I was brought up in loving and caring, safe and secure home. And they didn't make me feel like I was PROPERTY. You just did. Hope it makes you feel good.

How can I "make" you feel any particular way? And please note that I certainly did not call you anything.

At any rate, this is a discussion board. I get to reply to posts that other people make, and they get to reply to me. That's how it works. You will not direct my posting habits.

[LosinIt]

143. That's quite the 'tude you're sporting there buddy!

So tell me why do you have such strong feelings against adoption? Did you lose a child in a custody battle?

[NorthernSpy]

149. Ah ... more personal remarks. What a shock.

So tell me why do you have such strong feelings against adoption? Did you lose a child in a custody battle?

I think I see the dawn of yet another lame ad hominem argument.

:eyes:

[Pithlet]

76. Children aren't property

Not even of their own blood parents and relatives. You're principle doesn't back up your assertion that children should only be with their blood parents, regardless of the situation. A parent who gives up a child for adoption is not selling property. They are acknowledging that they don't feel they can give enough for this child. Why should a parent keep a child they don't want, and want to give up for adoption? How does that best serve the interests of the child? Your viewpoint is the one that is treating children like chattel. They "belong" to whomever they share their genes with.

[NorthernSpy]

82. if parents can give away kids, why can't nations give away their citizens?

Just as the citizen has inalienable rights owed him by the nation he is born into, I maintain that the child has inalienable rights in the family nature provided for him. If the child can be transferred to strangers as though he were a bit of goods, why is it a violation of the citizen's recognized human rights to send him away to terra incognita?

Y'know, I read a lot of stories about things like child adoption and organ transplantation and whatnot. And I'm always struck by how things that nearly everyone else seems to find utterly heartwarming often seem to me to be kind of sinister once the emotional language is stripped away.

[Pithlet]

84. People aren't giving away their kids.

People who feel that they can't, or have no desire to, be parents to that person are letting that person go to people who do have that desire and ability. You're comparison to a nation and its citizens isn't even close to being parallel. You're insistence that giving birth to a child means that one has to keep that child whether they want to or not helps no one. This isn't about parents, and who they "own" and what is or isn't theirs to give away. This is about children not being forced to stay with people who didn't want them in the first place, and who may have to suffer the consequences because of that.

You cannot force a person to be a parent. Giving birth to a human being doesn't automatically make you a parent. Parenting is tough enough even when you love the child with all your heart, and being a parent is something you wanted to do.

[NorthernSpy]

89. yes, they quite literally are giving their children away

People who feel that they can't, or have no desire to, be parents to that person are letting that person go to people who do have that desire and ability.

This is Orwellspeak. The infant isn't being "let go", because he is not accomplishing the action of "going"; he hasn't got the necessary volition to "go" from one household to a different one. He is being transferred from one party to another. He really is being given away in the plain English sense. To put it otherwise is to put it inaccurately.

This is some of what I meant about how different things look once you strip away the warm-n-fuzzies.

You're comparison to a nation and its citizens isn't even close to being parallel.

You don't wanna take a stab it?

Okay... here it is:

Nations cannot give away their citizens because they don't own them. If they did, then they certainly could.

If people in Siberia suddenly decide that there aren't enough Siberians, the government of Burkina Faso can't just step in and say, Shucks, you want people? We've got more citizens than we know what to do with. Where should we send 'em?

But even if the destination were not Siberia, but rather some kind of paradise on earth, Burkina Faso would be just as wrong to decide to send its citizens there instead. Nations do not own their citizens, and have no right to banish them to a foreign hell or to a foreign heaven.

A citizen who has reached the age of majority may emigrate of his own free will if he can find a country that will take him, just as a person who has turned eighteen may choose to leave his family behind and never spare them another thought (and his family, likewise, may disown him at that point). But the citizen has an inalienable claim of citizenship upon the nation, which the nation may not abolish. I argue that the child also has an unbreakable claim upon the parents he was born to.

You cannot force a person to be a parent. Giving birth to a human being doesn't automatically make you a parent. Parenting is tough enough even when you love the child with all your heart, and being a parent is something you wanted to do.

Whether nations or parents feel like doing their duty is not interesting to me. Rights are rights. And in the case of parents who fail to do their duty, they can be helped to do better; if that fails, they can be punished. But I don't think that the situation is helped any by allowing parents to give away their children, any more than injustice in the world could be eased by allowing nations to give away their citizens. The loss of personhood rights is too grave a thing.

[StuckinKS]

102. Tsk!

You are just too weird for words.

[NorthernSpy]

103. ...and how many argumenta ad hominem does that make now?

Wow. If this many people get this heated in defense of received truth, then we may be sure that we're dealing with an item of conventional wisdom that sucks even more than most.

It is an honor for me to be able to tell you something new, sir.

[shrike]

110. I hope you are happy in your little world, sir

It must get awfully lonely in there.

[NorthernSpy]

122. kinda funny how...

... I'm not resorting to personal remarks, but the defenders of Adoption, The Loving Option™ evidently must.


:eyes:

[Pithlet]

111. Warm fuzzies?

You think that forcing a person to parent, and then punishing them for doing a bad job (by the government who doesn't own us. *Snark*) is going to make a kid's life better? You think that because a person is genetically related to another means there is some kind of unbreakable bond? That people punished by the government are going to magically start loving the children they didn't want? They aren't going to take that aggravation out on the child? In your fantasy world, anyway. Your, warm, fuzzy fantasy world. But, not in reality world.

My argument has nothing to do with warm fuzzies. It has everything to do with reality. YOU are the one who is insisting that there is some kind of unbreakable ownership because of genes. YOU are the one who is pushing the ownership angle. YOU are the one who is treating a child like property in your argument. MY argument states that a child is owned by NO ONE. People DO NOT own another human being simply because they share their genes. Therefore, they cannot transfer that ownership to anyone else. Period.

I am done with you. I'm glad the world isn't run by people like you who think that some magical principle based on something as spurious as genes is more important than a human being living in a happy, loving home. That that genetic connection is more important than all other considerations. I do not think that one human being ever owns another. That is why it is not property to be transfered. YOUR argument, however, does.

[RedRogue22]

145. I'll question the "Biology Issue"

As a child adopted by her dad (because her "biological father" was too drunk to be bothered by her and her two older brothers), I'd have to defend the arguments that biology is the least important issue when it comes to establishing parenthood. I don't feel he is any less my father because we don't share any mutual bloodline.

Let's not start acting like biology makes a parent. Biology makes the physical evidence of parenthood well, evident, but it doesn't acutally make a person a parent.

[RobinA]

117. So.....

You would support a child's unalienable right to be raised by a crack addicted mother who leaves him sleeping on the street under a car in February while she goes and and sells a few blow jobs to men in cars for money to get more crack. This child has the right to be with this woman, his mother, even though he has been taken from her twice before and placed in foster care while she went to rehab to get herself together. The cop who found this kid should have said, "Oops, gotta leave this kid under this car on this cold night, because he has a right to be raised by the mother who left him there." Or maybe the cop should have just gone to the nearest trash dump and picked out an old blanket and used it to cover the kid under the car until his mother could come back from giving blow jobs and smoking crack to get him. The cop could check on the kid under the car every couple hours, and when he goes off duty he could tell his replacment to check on the kid under the car until the mother gets back, because sometimes the mother is gone for several days.

Reality check!

[NorthernSpy]

123. your comments are vivid, but somewhat beside the point...

C'mon! Since when are street kids the main fodder for the baby trade?

I agree that some children will require the guardianship of someone other than their parents. But I insist that when parents willfully fail their children (despite the generous help that I advocate they receive -- though they don't currently) then I think that real punishment is in order. The system that we have now doesn't really do any of three necessary things: recognize a child's undissolvable claim upon his parents' support and protection; aid parents in fulfilling their duties toward their children; or hold parents truly accountable when they shirk their responsibilities. The end result is that children's rights go mostly unrecognized so that we may preserve a system that allows parents to blow off their responsibility to their children, while also allowing the entire society to blow off its responsibility to both children and parents.

[RobinA]

116. Call It What You Want

But some parents are doing their children a favor by abandoning them. And frankly, a lot of children would be better off if their parents would abandon them. Any idiot can become a parent and, although principles sound nice, sticking to them just so an idiot can theoretically do his duty to his offspring is NOT in many children's best interests.

[NorthernSpy]

121. how is that any different from saying...

... that some poor, hapless people would be better off they were deprived of fundamental liberty in exchange for better, safer material circumstances? That, after all, was a commonly accepted defense for the institution of slavery.

The point is that a person has a fundamental right not to be treated as though he were property. The notion that a parent must have the power to unilaterally reject his child's claims upon his protection and support and actually transfer his child to another person is a holdover from the days when children were largely considered the property of their parents, who had enormous latitude in disposing of them as they saw fit. This is where the "right" to give ones children over to others originates. I would like to see that change.

Is placing a child under the guardianship of someone other than his parents ever justified? Sure. But guardianship is not the same thing as adoption, and ending the practice of adoption would not necessarily have any bearing on guardianship arrangements.

[RobinA]

159. Guardianship Vs Adoption

Adoption gives the child some modicum of permanence. Guardianship is fine, but Mom or Dad can come waltzing back into the kid's life at any time and make a claim on him. Furthermore, adoption offers the adoptive parents some assurance that bioMom or Dad are not going to be circulating in and out of the child's life whenever the spirit moves them, and then disappearing when something else catches their fancy. Additionally with guardianship, the guardians could be the subject of repeated custody battles, and the related necessity of hiring lawyers, to fight for the child. If Mom or Dad decide, say, once every two years to make an issue of custody, the child, every two years, is subjected to a court battle over who will take care of him. This is in no way in the child's best interest.

[SW FL Dem]

113. Beatifully put!

This adoptive mom truly appreciates your post.

[American Tragedy]

69. What if someone gives birth who simply doesn't want children?

There are many thousands of infertile couples who would love to have a baby. What would you have done?

[Pithlet]

75. The child deserves loving parents who want him/her.

It does children no good when parents are pressured by society to keep children they can't or won't take care of. Sometimes relinquishing a child to loving parents who want him/her is the greatest act of love a biological parent can give. In instances where the father is unknown, or doesn't come forward, adoption should still go through, but if the father comes into the picture in the future, he can have visitation rights. People who adopt a child knowing that the father isn't in the picture should agree that if he becomes known and/or comes forward in the future, that he is to have rights. The child does not have to be ripped from the only home he or she has ever known. The child's interests should ALWAYS come first, at all phases of an adoption.

[PassingFair]

141. I agree, North...

Adoptive parents cannot gain ownership of these children just because they want it. I have overheard too many adoptive parents plotting and salivating over how best to "get" the child. From faking emotional attachment to the mother, to getting her to sign papers while she's still drugged from childbirth. Disgusting.
Children are resilient. If I had had a drug or alcohol problem and cleaned myself up, I would certainly want my child back if possible. Adoption must not be finalized until every i is dotted and every t is crossed.
I especially HATE the cases where the adoptive parents refuse to surrender the children and drag the case through the courts for years and then cry that "They're the only parents the child has ever known".
If kids were only allowed to grow up in circumstances that are "best for the child", the "parents" with the most money would win every time.
Birthrights must be protected or we will see The Handmaid's Tale right here and now.

[NorthernSpy]

152. you've noticed that, too?

I especially HATE the cases where the adoptive parents refuse to surrender the children and drag the case through the courts for years and then cry that "They're the only parents the child has ever known".

Exactly! And they do that because they typically have way more dough than the child's parents, and so they figure that the parents will run out of money for legal costs sooner than they will.

Adoptive parents cannot gain ownership of these children just because they want it. I have overheard too many adoptive parents plotting and salivating over how best to "get" the child. From faking emotional attachment to the mother, to getting her to sign papers while she's still drugged from childbirth. Disgusting.

Disgusting? Indeed it is, and that's putting it mildly. It never ceases to amaze me: this presumed entitlement of the affluent to other people's kids.

[Rowdyboy]

39. Is anyone surprised to learn that the judge, Waddell Wallace III, is a

Bush appointee? I didn't think so.

[LiberalFighter]

40. The attorney screwed up

Laws generally are in place to take care of situations like this.

Some good and some bad.

Most state laws require notice to the father or at least an attempt and a time limit.

[sherilocks]

43. The litigation has been going on since 2001

shortly after the child was born. The adoptive parents refused to allow DNA testing without a court order, which delayed things. The adoptive parents knew or should have known that the biological parents had a good case for getting the child back and not dragged the case on for years and immediately cooperated to get the case resolved.

Here is the website created by the adoptive parents, so take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.hearmyvoice.org/chron/evan.htm

[NorthernSpy]

52. typical suburban conquistador mentality

I figured as much.

These cases seem to fit a general pattern. There's usually an affluent couple who feel perfectly entitled to grab poor folks' kids, and who aren't the least bit above dragging out a losing battle in court, just 'cause they can afford to. And why not? After all, that kind can always be sure that the media (who are composed of people like themselves) will love them and take their side.

:eyes:


Well, I for one do not see the adopters as either the heroes or the victims here.

[shrike]

60. Adoption is as old as time

Adoption was so common in some indigenous cultures that 30-40 percent of the population had been adopted.

Native Americans adopted everybody: adults, children, blacks, whites, other Indians. In some Indonesian tribes, men would give their sons to a great warrior, so that the boy, growing up with his adoptive father, would assume some of his traits.

Reforming the current adoption system is up to the participants and legislators. But please don't spout the idea that adoption exists so rich people can kidnap other people's kids. It's just not true.

[NorthernSpy]

66. So is slavery. So is cannibalism.

Native Americans adopted everybody: adults, children, blacks, whites, other Indians. In some Indonesian tribes, men would give their sons to a great warrior, so that the boy, growing up with his adoptive father, would assume some of his traits.

So? It's still unnatural for a mammal to give its offspring away. When humans do it, severe social inequality and the crises that result from such things as war and epidemics are typically the underlying reasons.

Yes, Native Americans adopted people into their clans: escaped slaves and indentured servants, and the children of settler families that had been killed by the tribe's warriors (not that I blame the tribes for trying to protect their domain from encroachment by outsiders). Kinda says something about the social conditions that feed adoption, huh?

Reforming the current adoption system is up to the participants and legislators. But please don't spout the idea that adoption exists so rich people can kidnap other people's kids. It's just not true.

Says you.

[Pithlet]

79. You would equate adoption with slavery? Cannibalism?

That is seriously f'd up.

[NorthernSpy]

83. that a practice is ancient is not a justification for its continuance

That is the point. I'm sure you've heard it made in other instances.

Although, yeah: adoption, slavery, cannibalism -- I can see some similarities among those things. Who takes whom from whom. Persons traded as things. Sure, there's a common thread.

[Pithlet]

85. They aren't the same things.

That's why we have different names for them. Raising a child and enforced work are not the same thing. More to the point, in a slavery situation, it is the needs of the slave owner that is paramount. In a custody case, it is the needs of the child that are paramount. If adoption were merely a case of human ownership, as you seem to claim it is, then a child would merely go to the highest bidder. Suitability of home wouldn't even factor in. Adoption isn't about giving up something that is owned.

[TankLV]

139. ALL of this poster's screeds are all f--ked up!

I've been reading their posts - and all I can say is - I'm glad they are not in charge of adoption rules and requlations.

Some people have no clue.

[NorthernSpy]

151. I just don't feel like petting the sacred cow today, y'know?

I suspect that many people simply take it for granted that everyone thinks adoption is just ducky.

What you find heartwarming, someone else may find sinister. Such is life.

[shrike]

95. My dear sir/madam

From the sounds of your posts, you're quite opinionated.

Nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind, I suppose.

[NorthernSpy]

104. I hear a lot of emotion and conventional wisdom

A hurricane-force wind of such. But not much else seems to be on offer from the adoptophiles. It takes mind to change mind. At least it does mine, mind?

Never mind. 'Tis minor.

[RobinA]

118. What I Don't Hear

from you is any indication that you have a clue what's going on out there on the street in the real world.

[NorthernSpy]

125. In the real world, on the street, with the kids...

... who aren't the adoption racket's prize commodity in any case, but never mind...

[shrike]

97. Oh, by the way

Educate yourself, so it's not just me who "says it."

[American Tragedy]

68. How are they 'grabbing' poor folks' kids?

For God's sake, a child can only be up for adoption at the consent of the parent or legal guardian. What is so evil about someone accepting that unfortunate child into their lives?

Would you prefer that these children spend their lives in orphanages or on the streets, or being neglected and abused?

[LeftyMom]

126. When a kid is put into the foster system

the courts can terminate parental rights and put a kid up for adoption without the consent of a parent.

[NorthernSpy]

129. as witness the case of Logan Marr

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/marr/

and Candace Newmaker

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Attachment-therapy/

To put it bluntly, there's market demand for children. Just as there's a market for kidneys, there's a market for kids. And there are vulnerable classes within society who simply don't stand a chance against those who want to take away what they have -- even when that "what" is a person of their own flesh and blood.

Sorry to upset the love-in, folks, but I'm seeing a lot of stuff that looks just like good old fashioned exploitation to me.

[RobinA]

160. When a Parent's Rights

are terminated bu the court, the parents gets a hearing and a lawyer. Judges generally hate to terminate parental rights and will bend over backward to give parents more chances. No one is snatching kids from innocent and well-intentioned poor people. I can tell you from being involved in the system that it is not easy to terminate parental rights, and as a result there are kids out there living with parents who shouldn't even be allowed custody of a goldfish.

[Pithlet]

78. If that is so, then the adoptive parents were wrong to do that.

I still don't think the child should have been removed at this time. The courts should have been more expedient in resolving this matter. At any rate, it isn't the child's fault that things happened the way they did. The child staying in their home isn't a reward for those parents. It is keeping him in a home that he's always known. As long as there is no abuse, and it is obviosu those adoptive parents love and care for him/her, then that is where he/she should stay.

I don't know that I fault their actions, anyway. I was irrevocably bonded with my baby the first moment I saw him. I don't think that is any different for adoptive parents. I don't think it is any easier to relinquish your child whether they are 3 years old or 3 days old.

[Skittles]

46. this is terrible

my brother adopted a cat from a coworker whose son abandoned the cat in her home and took off (she was allergic to cats). Two years later, she told my brother her son was back and wanted his cat. Glenn said no way and when she persisted he told her TELL HIM HE CAN SUE ME; SHADOW IS MINE NOW. I have no doubts if that guy had sued Glenn he would have LOST because HE ABANDONED THE CAT. It would seem that animals sometimes are treated better than humans in the legal system.

[NorthernSpy]

48. the cat is your brother's PROPERTY under law

Property rights can indeed be lost when the property in question is abandoned.

Children are (supposedly) not property as far as the law is concerned, and cases involving them cannot be decided according to the laws governing transfer and disposal of property.

The child's father never abandoned him. The case has dragged on for three years because the adopters have done everything in their power to force as many delays as possible. Affluent people typically do that when they want to hang on to some poorer person's child.

[Skittles]

54. it should be decided by the best interests of the child, period

this child IS being treated like disposable property

[goddess40]

57. BINGO - you hit the nail on the head - children are property

This country is sliding backward every day. Wives and employees are property again too.
Especially employees - how often have you heard, mostly by republican types, that you should be thankful you have a job, do your work and don't complain.
Come to think of it corporations seem to own their customers these days too. Try and get a refund or get something fixed that was flawed.

[NorthernSpy]

67. then why don't we ban no-fault divorce?

If the best interests of the child must decide matters, then why don't we ban no-fault divorce in cases in which the couple have minor children? On the whole, kids probably are best served by being allowed to grow up in a home that includes both of their natural parents. Would you argue that the courts should exercise the option of actually denying a petition for divorce based on the best interests of the child?

I've noticed before that adoptophiles push "the best interests of the child" in pretty much the same way that slavery's defenders pushed the "best interests of the slave". Funny how each conception of "best interests" is primarily a justification for a process by which an individual is made into a commodity -- mostly to satisfy the needs or desires of persons who enjoy relatively high status in the society.

[American Tragedy]

71. That is not necessarily accurate. TRUST ME.

<<kids probably are best served by being allowed to grow up in a home that includes both of their natural parents.>>

[NorthernSpy]

80. there are exceptions, but on the whole?

As you have quoted me, kids probably are best served by being allowed to grow up in a home that includes both of their natural parents.

And I maintain that on the whole, this statement is probably true.

Seriously: if our notion of the "best interests of the child" can justify forcing a natural family apart, then why can it not also justify forcing a natural family to remain together?

[Pithlet]

81. You no more have the interests of the child at heart

Than anyone else. You maintain that genes are the be all and end all of parenting. Genes do not a parent make. Genetic parents no more own their children than adoptive ones do. Parenting isn't about ownership. Your position seems to be even more possessive than anyone's.

And quit equating adoption with slavery. It makes you look like a fool. It makes you appear as someone who has no idea how truly evil slavery was.

[NorthernSpy]

86. nope, never said that

You maintain that genes are the be all and end all of parenting.

Never said that either. It's true that nature decides who is the parent of which child. I don't argue, however, that the process of actually bringing up children unfolds strictly according to some genetically-encoded blueprint. The big stuff maybe, but not the details. And in a species like ours that forms complicated social structures, those details are quite important.

And quit equating adoption with slavery. It makes you look like a fool. It makes you appear as someone who has no idea how truly evil slavery was.

The historical fact of slavery is a sufficient reason to speak up when I see similarities and parallels with currently existing institutions. If that makes me look a fool, then that's just too bad for me.


:shrug:

[Pithlet]

87. That is exactly what you're arguing.

That the best interest of the child is irrelevant. That the person who contributed genes to anther person should always be the one who parents it, and anything else is unnatural and tantamount to slavery. I stand by everything I've said about your argument. It is foolish. There are no correlations between slavery and adoption. None.

Not to mention that humans aren't the only ones who parent offspring that aren't genetically their own. Other species have been known to do the same thing. It actually contributes to the wellbeing of species survival to not let offspring die off because they were born to parents who were incapable or unwilling to parent.

[NorthernSpy]

90. "parent" the noun versus "parent" as a verb

That is exactly what you're arguing. That the best interest of the child is irrelevant.

I think that the best interest of the child lies in recognizing and enforcing his claim upon his parents.

That the person who contributed genes to anther person should always be the one who parents it, and anything else is unnatural and tantamount to slavery.

The persons who "contributed genes" are indeed the child's parents (noun). I oppose allowing them to shirk their duty (that is, fail to "parent", the verb), and additionally I'd argue that a society that enforces the child's rights re his parents has created a responsibility of its own: to aid the child by aiding the parents. People are responsible for -- and to -- the lives they create, and governments are responsible for defending rights.

I stand by everything I've said about your argument. It is foolish. There are no correlations between slavery and adoption. None.

Stand where you wish. As for slavery, it was quite the sacred cow in its day, too.

Not to mention that humans aren't the only ones who parent offspring that aren't genetically their own. Other species have been known to do the same thing. It actually contributes to the wellbeing of species survival to not let offspring die off because they were born to parents who were incapable or unwilling to parent.

Well, cuckoos like to foist their eggs off on other species of birds, which ultimately harms the other birds' chicks by depriving them of food. That is often pointed out as an example of warm-blooded parasitism.

Orphans (human or nonhuman) are one matter. Human children who have living parents are quite another.

[Pithlet]

92. Forcing someone to parent who doesn't want to

is NOT good for the kid. Would you rather be parented by people who love you and have your best interests at heart, or someone who really wanted nothing to do with you, but kept you because society pressures people into "living up to their responsibility"? I know which one I would pick. I'm not adopted, but my parents wanted me, and loved me. I cannot imagine being raised by someone who kept me because they saw me as their biological extension, and therefor "theirs", or because they were pressured into it.

Someone who has a baby, but has no desire or no means to parent, and chooses to give that baby over to someone who can and does, is not shirking their responsibility as a parent. They are absolutely living up to it. It would be an incredibly hard thing to do. It can be running away from a responsibility, but it can also be a selfless gesture motivated by love.

Human children who have living parents who want nothing to do with them aren't best served by forcing those living parents to raise them when they don't want to. You seem to care more about some ethereal bond that magically happens by sharing genes than you are by what may actually be a good thing for a child.

[phylny]

93. I'm still flabbergasted by your assertion, but I'll ask a question anyway.

Young girl, age 15, has sex with young boy, age 16. Young girl has no interest in the baby, and wants just to hang out with her friends and go to the mall. Young Girl's mother is an alcoholic, and abusive, and "I sure as hell don't want to babysit the kid!" Young boy's family is not interested in the baby. Young girl has baby.

What is the best thing for this baby? Staying with Young girl and mother, even though neither wants this baby, or being adopted by a family that would nurture and care for this child?

[NorthernSpy]

94. your question gets mine

Young girl, age 15, has sex with young boy, age 16. Young girl has no interest in the baby, and wants just to hang out with her friends and go to the mall. Young Girl's mother is an alcoholic, and abusive, and "I sure as hell don't want to babysit the kid!" Young boy's family is not interested in the baby. Young girl has baby.

What is the best thing for this baby? Staying with Young girl and mother, even though neither wants this baby, or being adopted by a family that would nurture and care for this child?

Say a poor and homeless person could not find employment no matter what he did. Say he had no "life skills" to speak of, and had never succeeded in shifting for himself.

Say a prosperous family offered to take good care of him if he did just one thing: sign himself over to them as their slave.

Which is better for this man? Legally-binding enslavement with dinner included, or possible starvation while free? And should he have the right to give himself away like that?

That, Phylny, is a bit like how your question sounds to me. The point of my counter-example is to remind us that we're talking about abolishing a critically important right here, not just about improving one individual's material circumstances.

Good and right are not necessarily the same thing. I strongly recommend that we start with right, and work our way toward good, rather than starting with what seems to us to be good, and inventing ad hoc justifications for it to help ourselves believe that our contrived "good" is "right" as well.

I'd prefer that we recognized and defended the girl's claim upon her parents, and the baby's claim upon his parents. I'd prefer that we truly helped the parents to live up to their responsibilities, while making it clear that the consequences for shirking those responsibilities would be very unpleasant. I'd prefer that it went without saying that people have a duty toward the lives they bring into the world, and that no one would dream of letting them off the hook. I wish that it really shocked people -- this idea that a child's right to his parents may actually be set aside if the parents don't feel quite up to standing by their own child.

Anyhow, how about the hypothetical man who wants to improve his lot in life by selling himself into slavery? Do you think he should be permitted to do that?

[quaoar]

100. Your slavery analogy is bogus

Children are not slaves. And even if they were, the adopted child/slave, if its biological family were forced to keep it, would be a slave of its natural family instead of its adopted family.

Your solution of forcing the biological family to care for the child will not result in more children staying in their natural families. It will result in coerced abortions as family members pressure unwed teenagers to have abortions so that they will not be required to take care of a child they don't want.

[NorthernSpy]

105. your objection is the result of not paying close attention

Your slavery analogy is bogus. Children are not slaves. And even if they were, the adopted child/slave, if its biological family were forced to keep it, would be a slave of its natural family instead of its adopted family.

Now, what did I say that the point of my counter-example was? I actually told you the point in so many words. Here's a hint: it wasn't offered as a direct comparison of adoption to slavery.

The answer is in the text!

Your solution of forcing the biological family to care for the child will not result in more children staying in their natural families. It will result in coerced abortions as family members pressure unwed teenagers to have abortions so that they will not be required to take care of a child they don't want.

Some people think that allowing parents to abandon their children at all makes irresponsibility more prevalent by artificially removing both natural consequences of, and social sanction for, unwise and/or antisocial choices.

I don't know whether that assertion is empirically supported or not. But I also can't think of a reason why it would be less likely than your scenario.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

120. You're the one who is treating children as property

Have you ever worked with street kids? Do you know how many parents abuse their children in unspeakable ways or completely ignore them (too busy with their careers and social lives and/or too alcoholic/drugged/mentally ill) or throw them out on the streets while they're still in grade school? One thing I learned in my four years of working with street kids was that they are not all from low-status families.

Every one of those kids would have been better off adopted by someone who really cared about them. Several of the girls became pregnant during the time I worked in that program. A few kept their babies, but most of the others chose adoption, including one girl who did so against the wishes of her own parents, who wanted custody. Her thinking was that no child should have to go through what she did as a child.)

Granted, not all adoptive parents are wonderful, but no one becomes an adoptive parents by accident.

[NorthernSpy]

128. where does the "right" to transfer ones child to another person come from?

No one has tried at all to answer that. They just keep saying that adoptive homes are better than natural homes for some children. Which is not a new argument: pro-slavery polemicists used to argue that slaves had better lives than many free laborers (actually, they still argue that: there's a thread in GD about a particular Christian school history textbook).

So, how does the parent come to have the "right" to give the kid away in the first place?

That "right" is a vestige of the days when children really were considered to be little more than property, and their parents faced few restrictions in disposing of them as they wished.

Now, I believe that parents should have no such right. One consequence of this belief is that I view the practice of "adoption" as an infringement on the fundamental personhood rights of the child.

Oh, and you might want to have a glance at some of what I said in response to RobinA. Banning adoption would not prevent guardianship arrangements in those instances where they prove necessary. There's no need to let hard cases continue to justify bad law.


(fixed: typo)

[bettyellen]

146. sounds likw you want to punish the woman who got pregnant

by forcing her to keep the baby, where have i heard that before??

[NorthernSpy]

148. how does recognizing a person's responsibilities...

... count as "punishing" him or her?

At the moment, we don't really hold people accountable for the lives they bring into the world, and I'm not sure that the results of this failure have been particularly nice. I advocate recognizing a child's undissolvable claim upon his parents' support and protection.

[lastliberalintexas]

154. That does sound a great deal like the fundies

and their hatred of women who have abortions and desire to punish them for having sex. They should *have* to continue the pregnancy and they should *have* to be "parents" really aren't that far apart.

I agree that there are problems with the adoption system in the US today- I don't think anyone would say there aren't. Healthy, white *infants*, especially blond and blue eyed ones, are highly prized trophies for many couples.

But there are also many people who adopt children because they care for the child and want to provide her/him with a better life than s/he otherwise might have had, no matter the age, health, race, religion, etc. of the child versus their own. *You* are the one who keeps equating that hopefully better life with a monied one, rather than the other posters supporting adoption.

Many people who adopt aren't wealthy at all, and can't provide the storybook fable life. What many people who adopt can provide is love, guidance and support that the child would not have gotten from her/his biological parents. No law has ever or will ever be successful in forcing one human to love and care for another, whether they are related or not.

Forcing a child to live a life in limbo as either a ward of the state or the child of a mere guardian simply because of alleged responsibilities of the biological parent is coldhearted and shortsighted, and does nothing to help that child. Children want to feel like they belong to a family, not that they are mere residents in a house.

Is adoption perfect? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But correct the system- don't abolish it. Otherwise, your arguments are eerily similar to the right wingers' concerning Social Security, ie, the throw the baby out with the bath water approach.

[bettyellen]

156. very wise words LastLiberal... The arguements he is making are not

at all reality based, or even based on the best interests of the kid.

[bettyellen]

155. you're assuming a lot- that tall will or can support and protect....

the child. but just wishing doesn't make it so. This is magical thinking mixed up with a bootstrap mentality. People make mistakes, not everybody should be a parent just because they drop one! Adoption is far nobler and selfless to me (by both sets of parents) than going to do invitro or hiring a surrogate. It's going to make it harder for people to make the decision if they are going to get their hearts broken like that. It wouldn't be that much different than the foster care system at that point if the bios could change their minds at any time. I feel for the bio parents, but they are not acting in the best interest of the kid.

[RobinA]

161. You Can't

"hold someone accountable" against their will. If someone is unwilling or incapable of being a good parent, your gun to their head is not going to change the situation. The child is better off if we forget forced accountability and just try to find him loving home. The idea is to break the cycle and end up with a society or parents who can raise their kids. Making this parent do it at the threat of what? is not going to do it. Raising the person's child in a loving home that wants him just might.

[NorthernSpy]

178. You have got to be joking, surely!

You Can't hold someone accountable against their will.

You have got to be joking! We do that all the time. Holding people accountable -- and just about always doing it against their will -- is a primary function of the criminal justice system.

If someone is unwilling or incapable of being a good parent, your gun to their head is not going to change the situation.

Well, I would say that the idea is to treat abandonment, neglect, and abuse of children primarily as crimes to be prosecuted and punished, and NOT primarily as "social issues" to be remediated by a social services bureaucracy.

If the parent's treatment of the child constitutes a crime, then prosecute and punish; if the parent's treatment of the child does not constitute a crime, then we should butt out. That's not what we do now. Children are routinely taken from their parents, even if the parents are never charged with anything. If they haven't committed a crime, then interfering with them is as likely to create new problems as it is to solve old ones.

Anything we really, really care about deterring, we make a crime, and we impose an appropriately severe penalty. Why should this be any different?

The child is better off if we forget forced accountability and just try to find him loving home. The idea is to break the cycle and end up with a society or parents who can raise their kids.

These are social engineering goals, not justice and rights goals. That bit about "breaking the cycle" is the tipoff. All of the pricey social meddling of the past few decades has been sold to us on the grounds that it "breaks cycles" and ultimately makes it all better. It hasn't done anything of the kind.

Do you remember the case in New Jersey of a much-praised adoptive couple (the Jacksons) who starved their four adopted boys into those shrunken living skeletons we all saw in the newspaper? I'll never forget it. Not because of the abuse -- Khristian Kiddie Kollector-types often prove to have a dark side -- but because of the rare event that followed: the state of New Jersey fired nine of its social workers.

Wasting no time, the fired social workers and their union held a rally at which they vehemently denounced the state, claiming that they had been underpaid and overworked. That was their response. Four kids had been systematically starved over a period of years, on their watch, and they actually thought that the proper reaction to this should have been to punish them with bigger paychecks and less work.

Me, I'd say that those nine deserve lengthy prison terms at the merciful least, but then I'm the unenlightened kind.

The case was a great illustration of what our social services bureaucracy actually is and does: it's just another dollar-burner that exists to promote its existence. If by some miracle the social engineers actually hit upon a plan that would "break the cycle" for good, it'd never see the light of day. All this "break the cycle" rhetoric is an empty promise: these people wouldn't deliver on it even if they could.

Anyhow, all of this is a little tangential. Originally, we were talking about infant adoption, AKA the baby trade. I think I recall reading that a major (if not THE major) reason parents surrender their babies is a lack of financial resources. That is not quite the same as having a child taken away outright by The System.

[phylny]

108. You didn't answer my question. n/t/

[NorthernSpy]

124. "n/t"?

I did answer your question. I believe I wrote several paragraphs.

Your answer to my question, however was this:

n/t

Which kinda speaks for itself, I guess.

[phylny]

134. Okay, you win :)

I'm sure you're proud.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

136. Where does this obsession come from?

Are you adopted?

Are you a birth parent who gave up a child?

[NorthernSpy]

147. since when does expressing and defending a point of view...

... qualify as having an "obsession"? I mean, this is a discussion board. It's not as though I were botton-holing random people on the street. :shrug:

Are you adopted?

Are you a birth parent who gave up a child?

Hey -- this looks just like the beginning of an ad hominem argument! But why would anyone try that, I wonder?...

:eyes:

[Dem2theMax]

158. Thanks for the laugh.

"Are you adopted?"

"Are you a birth parent who gave up a child?"

[ProfessorGAC]

172. Just Needed To Say. . .

. . .yours is a pathetic and intellectually vacuous argument. Devoid of any substance aside from your own self-serving assurance.
The Professor

[NorthernSpy]

177. Ah... condescension! I hadn't expected that. How utterly crushing.

. . .yours is a pathetic and intellectually vacuous argument. Devoid of any substance aside from your own self-serving assurance.

That looks familiar. In fact, it looks kinda like those "Creation Scientists'" statements that all seem to boil down to "Evolution is bad science 'cause I say so therefore you're wrong so there".


:eyes:

[sherilocks]

55. Adoption from the point of view of

many adoptees and birth parents. Here are just a few of the many websites devoted to searching and reuniting adoptees and birth parents. I am not against adoption, but against sealing birth records. Think about some of these searchers before you jump on the side of the adoptive parents without knowing all the facts.

http://www.adoptionregistry.net/

http://registry.adoption.com/

http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317837/us317919/us70155/us226516/

http://www.birthfamily.com/

http://www.bastards.org/

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. I would support having open birth records at all times, except

some infants are given up for adoption under "safe haven" situations and some state laws allow the mother giving up the child to "retain anonymity". This was done to cut down on the number of babies that they were finding abandoned in all sorts of places. Ideally, the mother will allow open records for health purposes and such, but most states decided that it was in the best interests of the abandoned children to make it easier for the mom to leave them at an emergency room rather than in a dumpster. They still encourage the mothers to give as much info as possible though.

[Dem2theMax]

74. Only the families involved should have any say in this.

I am adopted and have found my birth families. It couldn't have gone any better. But I knew while searching that it could have gone horribly. It's a very emotional thing to go through. But people should have the chance to know where they come from. It's very strange to not look like anyone else in your family. It's very strange to know that your blood does not run in the veins of anyone in your family. It's very strange to have to fill out medical forms year after year and never be able to answer a single question about your families medical history. And just think if you go on to have children of your own. You have no medical history to pass on to them, or to be able to watch out for any particular problems, because you don't know what they are.

It's human nature to want to know where one comes from. It's human nature to want to look into the face of another person and see yourself. I'd walk down streets, wondering if I was passing by a family member without knowing it. Chances are, I did. As it turns out, some of us lived close to each other, had doctors one door down from another, things like that.

I don't think meeting each other should be forced on either side, the adopted person or the birth family. It won't work if it isn't mutual. But if both sides DO want to meet, by all means, everything should be done to make it happen. I feel so sorry for people who want to know where they came from, but can't find out.

I've helped friends 'find' after I did my own search. And their reunions turned out just as good as mine did. We were all blessed. I wish everyone in my situation could have the same happy ending.

Adoptive parents are in a hard place. I can understand their fears. But the adoptive child/adult has to come first here. We have the RIGHT to know where we came from. And if the birth families want to meet with the adoptive adult (I do NOT recommend doing this till a person is old enough to deal with it) then it should happen.

[shrike]

98. The way my friend handled it

My friend's oldest daughter is adopted; she was his stepdaughter, he adopted her and raised her after his first wife left.

She considers him her dad and had no interest in searching for her birth father, who'd flown the coop long ago. However, he INSISTED she look for him: "That's half of your medical history you can't fill out," he told her. "You have to find him."

The reunion between her and her birth father was disappointing (he had little to no interest in knowing her, and the way she sees it, she already has a dad) but she did get to meet the rest of the family. And, who knows: maybe someday the two of them will want a relationship.

[LeftyMom]

127. Leftydad's records are sealed

If he'd been born a week later he could've got his records for a small fee. As it is, the state he was born in doesn't think he has the right to know who his parents are. His biomom tracked him down eventually, but it would be nice to know who his father is (she's not telling, she's still in touch with him but never told him she was pregnant when they broke up) so he could at least get a medical history.

LD's adopted parents hid his adoption from him, too. Secretive adoptions cause a lot of trauma. People who aren't willing to be honest with thier children about such fundamental identity issues shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[sherilocks]

132. Leftydad has been dealt a bad hand

by all involved. I'm acutely aware of how important it is to know who your biological family is because I was the only possible match as a t-cell donor to save my sister's life. Leftydad's parents, adoptive and biological, have selfishly created a situation that could deny him the option of receiving life-saving medical treatment.

[mamalone]

175. That is so sad..

and a denial of such a basic right! I remember being at an adoption support/informational meeting early on in my adoption journey (I am an adoptive parent) There was a woman there..dark skin, black curly hair, deep green eyes. She had been adopted by an Italian family, raised culturally Italian-American, but later found out that her true ethnicity had been kept a secret. She didn't know if she was genetically Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, or even Native American, and had no prospect of ever finding out. What a huge hole it left in her personal identity. That was years ago, but I think of her from time to time still and hope she has come to some kind of peace. I hope leftydad is able to somehow access his own info in future..

[gorbal]

61. Maybe there is still something they can do

Maybe the mother can move in with them until the whole mess is sorted out.

[quaoar]

70. This is why we adopted overseas

It's crap like this that drives so many parents to China and Russia and Guatemala.

[Deja Q]

91. In our culture of life? The child never comes first.

[Bouncy Ball]

101. Everyone loses in this situation

The birth father should have been located so that he could sign off on the adoption, too.

And in my opinion, the courts should leave the boy where he is now. Talk about confusion.

[Caria]

107. Yes, the child should stay with his parents

According to the parents' website, the "biological father was charged and convicted of criminal physical assault against Evan's biological mother during the early weeks of her pregnancy. He served jail time, was put on two years probation, ordered to attend anger management and counseling for domestic violence offenders, and ordered to have no contact with Evan’s biological mother directly or indirectly." If that is true (and surely it must be somehow possible to check that), then I do not think the biological father should have any "rights" in this case at all.

I was surprised to see the anti-adoption rhetoric on this list. I generally run into it from the ultra-fundy set, from people who think pregnancy is a just punishment for unmarried women who have sex, and that women should not be permitted "easy outs" like abortion or adoption. Or they argue that a supreme being brought egg and sperm together as a sign that he wants the biological mother to raise that child. They seem more interested in controlling women than raising children.

NorthernSpy's arguments seem to me to be a variation on that theme, frankly, with the emphasis on forcing a relationship on the genetically linked.

Adoption has been one of the ways that my family has grown for at least 4 generations. We are not all biologically linked, nor do we look alike, but we love each other and we are very much a family.

[sherilocks]

133. The reverse is true about "fundie" adoptions

Before I retired I worked for the state and part of my job was rounding up possible biological dads for DNA paternity testing. I was frequently call upon to testify in court. Observing domestic relations cases, including adoption proceedings, is a real jolt of reality. One of the problems that I ran across was fundies literally stealing kids to "save" them for Christ. These people are quite adept at it and have a whole legion of folks, including lawyers and people inside the system, to help them. Moms in prison are particularly vulnerable to having their kids stolen.

[Caria]

135. Oh yes, I've seen that too

Some adoption agencies even require adopting parents to sign oaths that they will raise their children as christians. And at least one agency I know of holds off on presenting parents with that oath until the very last minute. The child has been matched with the parents, all feed are paid, and suddenly there is one last little piece of paper the parents have to sign before the adoption process can be completed.

And sometimes it is the social worker. When we were beginning the adoption process, one of the first social workers we talked to made it clear in not-so-subtle ways that we would not be approved because we were not long-time active members of a church. Fortunately we were able to work with someone else.

[LibertyLover]

142. Us too

The first social worker we were assigned for our home study left us with little doubt that we would not be approved if we were not going to raise our child Christian. We asked for another social worker and were assigned one who was very laid back about the whole religion thing.

[TankLV]

137. Solomon's choice.

Sad either way.

I suggest they carve the baby in half like Solomon suggested - then we can see who the "true" mother is!

There is no easy way out of this.

[LibertyLover]

140. Adoption

It's stories like this that make me so thankful that my daughter was adopted from China and her parents have no interest in taking her back. The poor child - at 3 he is aware of what's happening but too young to understand anything, except that he has been abandoned by people he loved and trusted.

[Walt Starr]

150. This is why my wife and I WILL NOT adopt in this country

No way. No how. We want to adopt but we refuse to adopt in the United States of America for this very reason.

[mamalone]

171. Smart choice...

My kids have all been adopted from the US, but the potential for heart shredding consequences is just to high to be taken lightly, so I understand your rationale. Additionally, adopting a child from a Russian orphanage(for example) is truly rescuing a child from a near hellish life, and is such an act of compassion. Personally, I have a special affinity for the little ones with Down syndrome. In most of these countries they face an early death or a life of extreme deprivation if they do somehow manage to survive until adulthood. (Two of my 5 kids have DS) I would sooo love to welcome another little person into our family, but I fear it's just not in the cards at present..doesn't stop me from praying for it though;-)

[Walt Starr]

187. We're planning to adopt a girl from China

which is also a rescue operation.

[bystnder]

157. I know all the parties personally and can clear up a few things

This is the history of WHY they lost the child:

The birth mother was with the birth father up until he stopped abusing her mentally and started beating the crap out of her. He beat her bad enough to send her to the hospital and she left him and came home to her parents.
She knew she was pregnant when she arrived in town, but had not told him before she left him. She basically left in the middle of the night to get away from him.

When her mother found out she was pregnant, they discussed giving the child up for adoption because her mother felt she was not able to care for a child and since the birth mother's OWN mother had given her away when she was a child, it was an obvious out.
It so happened the woman who became the adopting parent was also friends with the soon to be grandmother and the grandmother told her of the pregnancy. The adopting mother expressed her desire to have the child and she and her husband began the process of adoption.

The problem came because the birth father was in jail at the time the notice went into the paper about the impending adoption. He did not see the notice and because the birth mother did not disclose to the adopting parents or her mother that the birth father wasn't even aware she was pregnant, they assumed placing a notice was all they needed to do. Had the birth mother told it correctly, a lot of this may have been avoided.

The adopting parents began taking care of the birth mother letting her stay with them and basically had brought the soon to be born child into their lives.

After the child was born, the birth mother turned the child over to the adopting parents without any paperwork being final because once again, her mother told her she might as well give the baby to them since she was not going to be able to care for it while they waited.

The judges pissed all over their case when it came up because he saw it as a plot between the birth mother, the grandmother and the adopting parents. After it came to light that the birth father had a child, HIS parents sued for custody. He never DID want the child and was ready to sign him over, but his parents would not let him and they fought the case saying that they were acting on his behalf since he was "in treatment."

They are wealthy as compared to the adopting parents and with limited funds bad advice and the birth mother's duplicity and her mother from the beginning, they never had a leg to stand on. The only reason the child was with them for that long is because the legal system tie-ups and some rulings that were over turned or reversed.

The birth mother moved away when the child was a year old, got married and had a child of her own assuming it was all taken care of. Later she had to be dragged into court to testify that the birth father beat her and did so while she was pregnant - but this is what messed it up--she had never told him she was pregnant and the birth father's parent's knew that.

So, to keep the child from being taken by the birth father's parents, the birth mother had to basically lie and say she gave the adopting parents the child under "force" - that they convinced her it was the best thing to do. You could say it's almost true since her mother was doing that, but not the adopting parents.
There are other reasons she lied to get the child back but to reveal that here could mess up what the benefit of her lying and getting custody back will do for all those concerned. Suffice it to say, to keep the child happy, it was the right thing to do.

That's the whole thing. I've known about the whole situation since the birth mother came back into town 4 years ago and have kept abreast of it since then. I cannot say who I am in relation to any of the parties except to say that I know all of them personally, have for over 8 years and communicate with them on a regular basis.

I am just setting the record straight. This is not about a screw up of the system so much as a woman who made some bad choices and did things out of desperation and bad advice. In the end it is Evan that pays the price and that is the true sadness in it all.

[Florida_Geek]

162. Sounds like you are a DU member posting under another ID

to protect your idenitity....

But still a good account of what probably happened.

[bystnder]

182. No- first post/first time visitor to this board, but I knew the deal and

wanted to clarify.

Strangely enough, I was originally looking for info on Clinton Curtis and (proposed title) "Feeneygate" for my Dad.

[Catherine Vincent]

179. Thank you.

There's always more to the story than what the papers tell us.

[sherilocks]

181. Adoption is not without risks

It appears that many here think that once a child is adopted, everybody lives happily ever after. For many adoptess, that is not the case. Here are some of the statistics regarding adopted children.

<snip>

There are vulnerabilities shared by all adoptees. In those most vulnerable, a distinct pattern of behaviors can be seen. Some have labeled this the "Adopted Child Syndrome." (Kirschner)

Adopted 'children' are disproportionately represented with learning disabilities and organic brain syndrome. (Schecter and Genetic Behaviors)

Mental health professionals are surprised at the alarmingly high number of their patients who are adopted. Studies show an average of 25 to 35% of the young people in residential treatment centers are adoptees. This is 17 times the norm. (Lifton, BIRCO--Pannor and Lawrence)

Adoptees are more likely to have difficulties with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as, eating disorders, attention deficit disorder, infertility, suicide and untimely pregnancies. (Young, Bohman, Mitchell, Ostroff, Ansfield, Lifton and Schecter)

Adoptees are more likely to choose alternate lifestyles. (Ansfield and Lifton)

Alarmingly high numbers of adoptees are sent to disciplinary/correctional schools or are locked out of their homes . (Anderson and Carlson)

60 to 85% of the teens at Coldwater Canyon's Center For Personal Development, are adopted. That is 30 to 40 times the norm. The center is a private acute-care psychiatric hospital/school in Southern California. (Ostroff)

50 to 70% of the teens at The Haven in New Trier Township, Illinois, are adopted. That is 25 to 35 times the norm. The Haven is a resource center for street kids. (Henderson)

<snip>

http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/ginni.html

[mamalone]

183. OK, I just have to speak up here...

These statistics are grossly misleading. First of all the sample of adoptees refers to those who are adopted at any age. Children who are adopted at an older age have basically been to hell and back. Firstly through neglect or abuse in the family of origin, then through the trauma of losing the parent and the impermanance of foster care. With our current "child protection" laws a child will usually remain with an abusive family for waaaay too long before parental rights are terminated. Children who have thusly suffered are indeed likely to show the ill effects your article mentions. Those ill effects are due to the trauma **prior** to adoption and not adoption itself. Additionally prenatal drug/alcohol use frequently produces learning disabilities and "organic brain syndrome"(haven't heard that term used with a straight face in decades)which, of course, would be another pre-adoption trauma. If you want a *fair* sample, compare children who have sufferred these types of trauma and have remained with the family of origin or in foster care with those children who have been adopted. Children who have been adopted fare much better. It is highly significant that those adopted in infancy actually do better than the norm even when the higher incidence of prenatal drug/alchohol exposure is not factored in. In an ideal world, every child would be enthusuastically welcomed into a birth family well equipped to deal with them and their needs. Wishing this were true does not make it so. Adoption is a good solution...not perfect, I'll agree, but good nonetheless. Demonizing it hamstrings ill equipped birth families and robs them of a viable option to meet their children's needs. I think our energies are better spent empowering all parents to make the choices that are best for their own families, and building a more compassionate environment for our children.

[sherilocks]

186. I am not opposed to adoption

My basic point is that identity problems are difficult to resolve if the adopted person has no hope of finding his or her roots or if the custodial/adoptive parent(s) espouse a negative attitude about the birth parent(s). I am opposed to hiding truths about birth families from any child and the too frequently held assumption that as parents we own our children. I have followed many custody, paternity, and adoption cases where the parent(s) believed otherwise. I observed these cases for years and the consequences for the child have too often been disasterous.

<snip>

Humans have a basic need to feel they are individually whole, yet part of a whole. For the adopted this can be difficult. Often adoptees feel they do not belong (Kirschner). It is very lonely and isolating to feel different from those you should feel the closest to, your family. Edin Lipinski, M.D., brings insight to these feelings:

In an existential sense, the past is as important to adopted people as their future. It is the present that is most troublesome. Not knowing where they fit into the spectrum of happenings is a great problem for them.

<snip>

http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/ginni.html

[Caoimhe]

168. The Kids rights come last

always.

When I was young our family took in foster kids. My parents were available 24/7 to take emergency custody. I cannot tell you how many times we were all awakened at 3am to a police car delivering a screaming child to us to care for. Almost always, these kids were pulled out of homes during domestic disputes or drug raids. One little girl had cigarette burns all over her body, and she didn't know how to cry, she just whimpered like a tiny rabbit. If anyone talked in a loud voice she would faint. It was her defense mechanism. Sadly, we only had that angel for 3 days, she was given back to her mother... put right back in that situation. I will never forget her. I hope her life wasn't as bad as I have always assumed it would be.

Kids don't really have rights. They ARE considered as furniture.
I don't think I would adopt a child in the USA either. As sad as that is, I cannot imagine the heart break of losing a child I had raised for 2 or 3 or 5 years because someone had not crossed their T's way back when he/she was born.

[Debbie13]

185. This is an outrage!!

This judge needs to be thrown off the bench. What an uncaring piece of crap. The biological mother gave up her rights so she has no right to this child now. As for the biological father, where was he during all of this and what did he do for this child before he was given up? This man shouldn't have any rights to the child, but should have the right to sue the mother if she mislead him about a child.