Florida Child in Custody Dispute Set to Return to Biological Mother

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB0AG3204E.html


ATLANTIC BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A 3 1/2-year-old boy at the center of a custody dispute faces a wrenching weekend. He is to be transferred from the only parents he knows to his biological mother, an attorney said Saturday.

Gene and Dawn Scott planned to hand over their adopted son, Evan, around lunchtime Saturday to his biological mother, Amanda Hopkins.

Hopkins, a member of the U.S. Navy, lives in Illinois with her husband and infant daughter, but their hometown has been kept in sealed court files.

The adoption was supposed to be final in August 2001. But a month before that, the boy's biological father, Stephen White, filed a motion demanding custody. The Scotts claimed White should not be able to block the adoption, but a judge disagreed.

Until Dad signs a release this threat exists and adoptive parents should be made aware of it constantly until finalization.

take the risks never thinking that it would happen to them. Well, in this case, it happened.

And, as time passes with their placement they forget Daddy's out there and a potential threat. But, some social workers still don't like to place minority babies with white families even when they want them. We see white celebrities with brown children but a local proprietor fought for years to adopt a black child who'd been placed with him as an infant because the social worker and her supervisor didn't think the child would 'flourish'.

I can't believe the press was there for the hand-over but I woke up to the adoptive mother's screams today. Awful, simply awful. Where were the social workers? Usually, when the true interests of the child are being considered, the two families meet together with the child a couple times to ease the transition. WTF was the press thinking? Obviously nothing about the child. :(

I don't know what the race of the kid had to do with this. It would be a disgrace if the child were pink or green.

but, often, parents choose a non-free (both parents haven't signed away parental rights) child over a minority child when seeking to adopt.

to go to Russia and Eastern Europe for adoption. They don't have to worry about bio-parents coming back years after the fact and disrupting their lives.

Who would want to go through the expensive, time consuming, and emotionally draining process of adoption, knowing that some fickle biological parent could change their mind?

I thought possession was 9/10's of the law. Should work for adoptive parents as well. Unless the adoptive parents were somehow proved unfilt .

Holy birthmother of Gawd! Did you actually say that?

Hon, your "possession" may be nine tenths of the law if you're a chicken, or a pair of boots, or some other item of property. The laws that govern ownership and disposal of property aren't supposed to apply to the "possession" of human beings. Not since slavery days, anyhow.

What really makes me laugh is all those adoptophiles who piously intone that children aren't property -- and then in the very next breath endorse a euphemised property relation in which the kid can be transferred to strangers at the parents' whim, and in which those strangers' possession of the kid ultimately becomes one of those "nine tenths of the law"-type deals.



(edit: fixed typo)

This is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE. the 'best interests of the child' were totally ignored, and the 'mother' (I vomit writing the word, she is the means he entered the world, but no parent to the poor kid!) is a sorry excuse for a human being. What is wrong with this country to let this happen?

She is, hopefully, a good person. My understanding is that the abusive biological father was ready to go for sole custody and that's why she filed to revoke the adoption. Can't really blame her for that, and at any rate, any living biological father who never gave consent will almost always get the kid back. Even though it shouldn't, biology usually trumps all, including what's best for the kid and common sense.

international adoptions. They are much more secure in the fact that the child will never be taken away from them because the biological parent changed his/her mind (or that they were lied to and the biological father was someone other than the person named).

psychological harm into adoption disputes. this is horrible. it's like removing a kitten from the litter too soon. it doesn't matter who has "ownership" -- this child isn't ready to leave the nest. the "father" isn't equipped to take him in. and the A-parents are left to greive as if they have no rights whatsoever. just sickening.

when the dispute first came about in 2001. If they'd given up the child then, as they should have, the child wouldn't be grieving.

I don't understand why people don't see that these folks knew that the adoption had fallen through when this child was still a tiny baby in 2001. The right thing to do would have been to give the baby back then. The fact that they're wealthy enough to pay lawyers to continually stall the issue in court doesn't make them right.

It would be awful if rich people knew they could force custody any time they just held onto a baby long enough by stalling the legal process. They could just swipe a baby out of a shopping cart and keep lawyers and the courts busy for a few years and claim it was in the baby's best interest to stay with them.

i'm adopted and my b-mom and a-parents fought it out for a few years when i was small. a-parents won (thank god!). b-mom was/is a horrible mess.

You can't assume that every dispute between adoptive and birth parents has the same specifics as yours.

with your story.

My two-year-old was placed in my arms six years ago. She was my beloved daughter the moment I held her, and we bonded faster than anyone could imagine. For a year, while the court hearings went on, I fought hard to keep my worrying under control - while I enjoyed every moment with my baby, and gave her the best childhood I could. But the county was careful to dot all 'i's' and cross all 't's.' When bio-father could not be identified or found, we went through all of the motions of publishing this way, and that, and noticing everyone we could. No adoption in my country that finalized has ever been overturned. I was shaking when it was finalized, but we celebrated and moved on. And yes, her biomom dropped her off at a 'friend's' home, and never came back - except a few phone calls to the worker. I believe that we have given her a warm, steady, loving, comfortable and safe home since she was placed with us. No matter how things go, she will know that yes, we fought to be her REAL parents, and are her REAL parents, and it was worth it!

This ruling, and others like it reduce children to nothing more than mere property. Where are the child's appointed advocate in all of these decisions? Was there even an advocate appointed to work on behalf of the child. In my home state, Delaware, we have well trained volunteers, Casa workers, to collect information, review the situation and make recommendations on behalf of the child and their best interests. These reports are factored in when decisions are made that will forever affect the children. DU'ers, do other states have similar programs?

if the birth father had filed when the child was still an infant,
why did it take so long for this to be decided? Surely the court
would realize that dragging this out would only made it harder
for the child? And like it or not, if one birth parent objects,
and is capable of caring for their child, then the adoption should not take place.

Speaking from an adoptee's POV...

.. the child is going to the bio mom.

caring for the child, and there is no reason for removal from that birthparent.

then the 'birth parent" should have shown up 12 years ago, and raised the child, instead of totally screwing his life up now.

and the father objected when the child was still a baby. Also, a
note to non-adoptees, living life as an adoptee is not all that good
all the time. If you weren't separated from your birth family, you'll
never understand that.

Birthparent is not a "bad joke." I had a wonderful 11 year reunion
with my birthmother and loved her just as much as I loved my adoptive
mother.

I think things like this are why many Americans choose to adopt children from places like China, Russia, and Bolivia..you can bring your new baby home, and be pretty sure that in a year or 2, the biological parent is not going to show up and want the child back. There are many children in this country in desperate need of a home, but in my opinion, its just not worth the heartbreak for many American families.

from another country and demand a child back. Well, with the situation such as this, when people raised this child for 3 1/2 years, and biological parents can get him back, I think the best option, seriously, is for people to adopt children from foreign countries.

I agree. It would be very hard for biological parents to show up from another country and demand a child back. Well, with the situation such as this, when people raised this child for 3 1/2 years, and biological parents can get him back, I think the best option, seriously, is for people to adopt children from foreign countries.

Because, to put it bluntly, we've got those poor fuckers over a barrel. A poor foreign woman has no way in hell of seeking her child. So that's the one to take.

Hobbes quoted it, I believe it, and every day proves it for me again in a million new ways: Homo homini lupus est. Man is wolf to man.

It is amazing what calculations go on behind the mask of kindness.

just when adoptive parents are getting attached to the child is not wolf to man? What, you worry is about biological parent only? What about adoptive parents, don't you think they deserve some sympathy?
Wolf to man, LOL. Having someone to show up after you raised a child for years and have rights to this child is not Wolf to man? When you gave up your child for adoption, and then change your mind after years has passed-well, I say, tough lack. A child shouldn't be something you can get back after you gave him/her away.

Having biological parent to show up just when adoptive parents are getting attached to the child is not wolf to man? What, you worry is about biological parent only? What about adoptive parents, don't you think they deserve some sympathy?

This isn't about sympathy. It's about human rights, and right and wrong.

You don't give away members of your family, for pity's sake! And you don't exploit your privileged status by picking over other people's families for possibly-assimilable little hominids to add to your own household.

Having someone to show up after you raised a child for years and have rights to this child is not Wolf to man? When you gave up your child for adoption, and then change your mind after years has passed-well, I say, tough lack. A child shouldn't be something you can get back after you gave him/her away.

Guess I'll have to say it again. My view is that the child has a RIGHT to receive support and protection from the two persons who brought him into the world. He has a RIGHT to his heritage and to his kin.

Here is what one foreign adoptee has to say about all this:

Now of course, I can see some corny white people (along with their cornier non-white friends and lovers) getting all red in the face and telling me how much they have provided for the child, how lucky this child is to have a home, to have food. Then, the white liberal or “leftist” will put out their information and historical knowledge on the structural conditions colored kids face. Then, they give their speech about what the children go through and how they’re saving non-white children. All the while the white person is about to have an orgasm from the pleasure of “schooling” non-white people about their history and conditions.

(...)

I guess you don’t get it. The whole point is, there is nothing you can do to make shit better. You’re white in a white supremacist society, and that’s all there is to it. You purchased a colored kid (sometimes two or three) as a white person. You can never take that back. There is little you can do to repair the damage. No amount of cultural lessons, no amount of anti-racist work you do, no amount of money that you give, no amount of slang or phrases that you learn, can change the structure that you are a part of.

The unfortunate reality of all this is, my situation, like that of many non-whites all across the world, including the US, was bad. I was abandoned by my “biological” parents. South Korea at the time was transitioning economically from a third world country devastated and torn apart by militarization to a player in the global economy (and adoption game). I was malnourished. A lot of the kids in the orphanage I lived in died before they were adopted. Shit was bad and I probably would have remained in those conditions until someone adopted me. But don’t ever throw some shit like that in my face to deflect an analysis around white supremacy. That is, as a friend of mine puts it, a cum shot to the face. It is dangling in front of me the conditions of my life so as to make your role in the process that created those circumstances and history invisible.

http://www.nathanielturner.com/boughtcoloredkids.htm

She finishes by saying, "I am not interested in being your colored-adopted-kid-insider that soothes your guilt. In fact, I hope it eats you up inside. It’s little remorse for the transactions that have gone down, but it is something."


I know whose side I'm on.

And I do hope that you aren't going to make a habit of ignoring my replies while continuing to follow me around the thread asking the same question repeatedly.

And you still didn't answer the question.

Then WTF do you call the kids in an orphanage? Rented to the government for a time? Sorry, once you gave away your child, you should lose your rights to him/her. This child should not be something you can rent away for a time and then get back. As for the foreign adoptee you provided, she seems very bitter, but I don't think all of the children that died in that orphanage would have agreed that it's better they die than be adopted by loving parents.
:eyes:

The adoptive parents just stalled things that long.

When the birthfather stepped in very unexpectedly, we had had our baby home with us for 3 weeks.

But we thought carefully about our chances of winning out against the birthfather. We decided that it would be unfair to the baby to let her feel that we were her parents, and then watch her lose her parents forever just a couple of years down the line.

We knew how damaging and confusing that would be to a child, and ultimately how much more devastating it would be for us to watch her grow, but then have to give her up to strangers.

We gave her back without a fight, and it was VERY hard to do, but it was the right thing. Sadly, I think this is what the couple in the story should have done. The father claimed his right in July of 2001 --very early in the game-- but the adopting couple has been fighting him ever since, all the while knowing that he had a good case for getting his child back.

Adopting couples should not get squatters' rights to babies they're trying to adopt just because they can use legal delay tactics and hang on as long as possible, so that they can later use the argument: "But look at how long we've had this baby." If courts start making this tactic successful, then couples everywhere will be encouraged to fight the same way this couple did, and there will be even more traumatized babies and heart-wrenching stories like this one.

My happy ending-- 4 months after we gave back our little girl, we got our son, Thomas, now 13 years old. He is handsome and brilliant and funny, and I never would have been looking for another baby when he was born if we had kept the little girl. Life is strange.

WHY is the custody going to the birthmother?

of the adopting parents versus the birth parents. In our case, it was a happy, stable, married couple (we just celebrated our 20th anniversary) in a nice house with two six figure incomes versus a 16 year old divorcee on welfare who already had a one year old son.

The 16 year old girl (Victoria) was a very wonderful young lady who got involved with a slimy 26 year old guy in Florida. When she told him that she was pregnant he said "Get an abortion, you b%$#@". This guy would never sign the papers our lawyer kept sending him, but we figured that he wouldn't be an obstacle to the adoption since he obviously didn't want a child.

We got to be very close with Victoria and her aunt (who Victoria lived with) and we were there with Victoria when the baby was born. After the baby girl was home with us for several weeks we found out that the slimy guy's mother in Florida always wanted a baby girl, so when they found out Victoria had a girl, they put in action the plan they had already worked out months ahead of time with a lawyer in Florida.

Their plan: they would pretend that the adoption would work out, but then never sign the papers. We would be duped into believing that things would work out, and we would have Victoria sign the relinquishment papers. Then after a few weeks slimy guy would swoop in and claim the baby, and use the relinquishment papers that Victoria had signed as ammunition against Victoria in a custody case between slimy guy and Victoria. That way he could get the baby away from both my husband and me AND get the baby away from Victoria too. Slimy guy could have the baby all to himself, and he could give his mother the baby girl she always wanted.

It was hard to believe that human beings could do that to other human beings. Victoria was devastated that the adoption was being challenged by slimy guy and his mother, and that the baby wouldn't have the future she wanted for her.

Even though this guy was lower than sewer goo, he (and Victoria) had ALL the legal rights in this situation. We had the same rights as a babysitter would have. Victoria hadn't signed any papers when slimy guy swooped in, since we were so close to Victoria at that point I had no worries that things would go wrong with her.

We talked to slimy guy and his mother, begged, pleaded, etc... but they were having none of it, and were ready for years of litigation if that's what it would take. So we convinced Victoria to take her baby back. She didn't want to, but she felt it was the only way to keep her baby from slimy guy and his mother. We wanted to help make the best case possible for Victoria to keep the baby if she went into a custody battle with slimy guy. So--that's where the baby stayed.

Didn't mean to write a soap opera. But it just illustrates one way that a birthFATHER challenge can end with the birth MOTHER keeping the baby. It also shows how a birthparent who hasn't signed off on an adoption and presses his legal rights in a timely fashion almost always, even if he seems unfit, trumps a very fit adopting family. Sad but true.

So did Victoria. Congratulations.

:shrug:

Mr. Father of the Year can disrupt a kid's life, but cannot take responsibility.

I don't know all the particulars, but it's something like this-
mother estranged from the father, gives kid up for adoption-
birth father finds out about child, sues for custody.
since it was very likely he would win, the birthmother stepped in to regain custody in order to prevent the father from getting full custody- i assume that she feels that he would be an unfit parent.

But was there when it first surfaced a couple of weeks ago, is that domestic violence may have been an issue:

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.



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

drag out through court cases, like the family in the story did.

Texas Lawyer did the right thing. Read what she said about "squatter's rights."

The parents in the story knew that this has been coming for a long time, yet they kept the child.

The couple in the article knew VERY early in the game that the birthfather wanted the baby back. The baby is now 3 1/2, and the article says that the birthfather notified the couple in June 2001 that he wanted his baby back-- that is about 3 1/2 years ago. I bet the baby was only a few weeks old at that point.

The couple didn't think about their baby and what trauma he would go through if, ultimately, they lost their legal case (and usually cases like that ARE losers. Adoptive parents without finalized sign-offs from the birthparents have about the same legal right to a baby as a babysitter).

My husband and I could also have fought for another 3 1/2 years too, but we decided not to for the good of all involved, especially the baby.

You did the right thing. Speaking as an adoptee, I know.

And congratulations on your son.


Your post is the most sensible in this thread. I hope everyone reads it.

This adoptive mother (and recently-graduated J.D.) thanks you. My baby is now 8 years old.

Thanks for your story. Please write a book. Send me an autographed copy.

Texaslawyer thank you for sharing your personal story with us. You are so brave and if only the adopting parents in this case could have had your same insight. Frankly, I don't know what I would have done in the same situation.

just taking a purely practical view for a moment (because the emotional view rips my heart out): it looks like the ONLY thing the adoptive parents could do (?) right now is sue the sperm donor for costs incurred while they BABYSAT his child for 3.5 years. My child is 5, and I can attest that having a child is one hell of a financial hit for an average household (from a purely practical view, understand). So can these folks sue the sperm donor for the cost of doctor visits, vaccinations, clothes, etc.? Did the adoptive mom, perhaps, cut back on her employment hours (if she worked outside the home) in order to raise this sperm donor's child? Maybe she could sue for lost wages in that case. Or perhaps the adoptive dad was a stay-at-home dad.

Seriously, I know these people took this child in because they loved him and wanted him, but they gave up a great deal FINANCIALLY for this little babysitting excursion. If this was apparently mere babysitting under the law, then why not recoup their losses?

(Thinking in such a pragmatic way helps me to avoid the screaming pain in my heart for that poor little boy!)

Any thoughts on this?

then I am thinking the courts would say that everything they paid during that time was their own doing since they could have returned the child. I'm just guessing..and I don't mean to sound cold about it. I feel soooo bad for the baby! I have a few nieces and nephews around that age and just the thought of someone coming to the door and having to hand them over is painful!

sued to stop the adoption? It is the selfishness of the adoptive parents in this case that kept the baby away from his natural father while the adoptive parents played it out in courts.

there's more than meets the eye.

...will happen?

Something has to change with the system--to prevent this from EVER happening again.

When a child is born and put up for adoption--release signatures from BOTH the biological mom and biological father should be REQUIRED. NO EXCEPTIONS!

This is just a devastating situation for ALL parties involved.

Why has nothing been done to change the system or the legalities involving adoption.

Anyone remember the Baby Jessica case a decade ago? It was heart breaking.

I have two children--4,5. I cannot imagine relinquishing them to total strangers. How traumatic for the child!

that there are women who do not know who the father if their child is.
How are you going to require father's signature (no exception) in that case? And what do you propose, that these children can not be adopted?
Well, it's not their fault, is it?

so why not for adoption.

asking a bunch of men for their DNA? Think of the embarrassment to the mother. Furthemore, who are you going to ask for DNA if the mother doesn't know where the man/men is/are?
Presumably, most women that give up children for adoption are single. If you are going to demand the father's name, that can mean a lot of trouble for the mother. In many cases, they probably don't even know who the father is or where he is. Recently, somebody come up with the idea that a birth mother should put up announcement in a newspaper so the biological father can show up and demand his rights before the baby can be given up for adoption. Was in Florida? Well, that didn't go over very well, they had to stop this practice, because of the embarrassment to the birth mothers.

Are you saying that all women who give their babies away for adoption are sluts?

Wow. I'm speechless.

It's obviously is a real problem to require father's signature, because some women do not know who the father is or where he is. It has been a problem, and I gave a real life example-requiring women to post notice in a newspaper to have father of their child to come forward led to serious problems for these women. What, you don't think it's a problem? Then why isn't it done already, if it was so easy to do? I am sure people that come up with the idea to have a birth mother to post a notice in a newspaper had good intentions, and never thought of all the problems it's going to cause to women who want to give up their children for adoption either.

Wrong every time.

require both mother and father to sign the papers. Well, what are you going to do if the mother can not produce the father, doesn't know who/where he is? And since most women who give their children up for adoption are single, it's likely not a rare occurrence when a birth mother can not produce a birth father to sign the papers.
That's why it can not be done, and sad cases like this can happen.

parents cannot be noticed of the six months to a year's worth of hearings, then there are publishing procedures that kick in. I know. We successfully went through the whole nine yards (due process was observed to the maximum).

Sometimes it just wells up in you. Everyone in this society honors the adoptee, but I don't hear much empathy for what adoptive parents go through. I don't see much understanding for or support of adoptive parents, who experience the 'rebirth' of their child to them. EOR. Thanks for listening.

If he's so fucking hot to have this kid, WHY is it going back to the mother???? Is HE not fit to parent? THis is disgusting... Too many times, unfortunately, so-called fathers are totally ABSENT from the woman's lives when the baby is born.. and suddenly they find Jesus or something and decide they want the baby. If he was intimately involved with her while she was carrying the child, then he would have been involved enough in the adoption. Sounds like a case of getting her pregnant, taking off, then deciding he wants his kid. Selfish asshole. WHY does the bio MOM take the kid back?? Did she plot this, too? I still can't understand this ruling.. why not the bio father getting the kid?

Also, some women claim that they do not know who the father is of a child, in order to give it up for adoption. I'm not saying that is the case here.. but that is a problem.

The child's rights are being violated here. I thought our Bush America was all about child's rights?

As was his right. And the adoptive parents used legal wrangling to keep the child with them. That's just wrong.

I don't know all the details, but apparently she decided the boy would be better off with her than the birth father -- although he does have visitation rights.

Birth mom supported the adoption until it became apparent that birth dad would likely win custody. Why did the judge give the child to the birth mom? That I can't answer.

So the mom felt that the child would be better off with her.

There is no excuse for this kind of crap. There need to be special courts created to solve these disputes that take weeks, not years. Then the disputes need to stay solved. Once a kid has been with adoptive parents for a lengthy period of time they should be treated like biological parents who have to be proven unfit.

adoption, as was his right.

then I would be far less steamed. But evidently he either didn't want the kid or was unfit to have the kid. But in any case, a fast disposition would have been better.

Perhaps he didn't even know he had a child until he was told after the birth, at which time he sued for custody. That makes more sense to me than what you are implying.

It clearly states the biological mother got the kid, not him. Thus he apparently was either unfit or didn't want the kid.

in your article to back up your conclusions.

Perhaps the mother and he are now a couple? Would that not be plausible?

since they would have gotten the child.

On edit:

This:

Hopkins, a member of the U.S. Navy, lives in Illinois with her husband and infant daughter, but their hometown has been kept in sealed court files

would make no sense at all if they were together.

mother. That's why she feels he's unfit.

I'm terribly sorry that in cases like this, both sets of parents don't get visitation rights, similar to divorce cases. I know that in this case, the geographic difference is too great, but it breaks my heart for everyone involved.

parents, then he should not be removed from them. That is what is best for the child. Giving birthparents rights is thinking about the birthparents (the ones who caused the mess in the first place); in no way is it thinking of the child.

The adoptive parents basically stole the baby. They knew when the baby was two months old that the adoption had fallen through. The adoption wasns't stabilized at that point. I would agree if it had been a year or two years or three years when the birth parents tried to get the child back, but in this case it was two months. After that, the adoptive parents' actions were no different than the actions of a kidnapper. If a baby is kidnapped by nice wealthy people and they stall things in the courts for a while, do they have the right to keep the child?

I am not justifying the biological parents' position at all, but I am saying that just because a child goes to live with people who adopted him or her does not make that situation any better than the one he might have had with the bio parents.

I don't know my bio parents. I do know, though, that many adopted kids have emotional issues anyway, that stem from being "rejected" by the bio mother. And, in many cases, there are issues that occur with the adoptive parents and their extended families.

My paternal grandparents attempted to get custody of me when my parents split up. I would have been a lot better off. As it was, they essentially raised my sister and I anyway. Biological parenting does not equate with love, safety, loyalty or commitment. And in my child's case, any potential emotional issues is greatly outweighed by the fact that she wouldn't be alive today if she had remained with her identified biological parent.

I had post-partum depression and thought about giving my daughter up for adoption. When I got through the depression I knew that would have been a terrible mistake. It was the depression talking - I wanted her terribly. Luckily, everyone around me saw that it was just depression. If I'd been a young single mother, though, I bet people wouldn't have realized it was depression and would have helped me act upon those feelings.

What if I *had* given her up for adoption and then quickly realized it was a mistake? What if I'd tried to get her back and the adoptive family had used legal tactics in a manipulative manner to keep her? What if they'd done that for years - just used legal tactics to delay things so they'd be able to say, "well it's been so long!"

I don't know the specifics of this case, but I don't think it's fair to always assume that the adoptive parents are in the right. If the dispute came up in July 2001, this should have been settled then. The fact that they used legal action to delay things doesn't mean they should get to keep the child.

the whole article.

due to a couple (the biological parents), not getting along, and the child becomes a pawn with which one or both of them play. The adoptive parents in this case seem to have only added to their own heartbreak by fighting to keep the child, knowing that the case had been filed. Both biological parents should absolutely be required to sign the papers. If the father doesn't want to be in the picture, that's one thing. If the mother did it as a way to "get back" at the father, that's a different story altogether, and sadly, it has to be fought through the (extremely slow) court system. If all attempts to interest the father fail, and he knows about the child, his rights should be null and void after a specific period of time.

It's disturbing that it can be done without the consent of both parents because one never knows the relationship (or lack of relationship) that exists between the biological parents.

.. how exactly would he sign the papers? He didn't even know she was pregnant, because they had NO relationship. He's a sperm donor.

How about this scenario:

They have a two-year relationship. She gets pregnant and doesn't tell him. They break up soon after but she still hasn't told him about the pregnancy.

That is a scenario where they could have had a relationship AND he could not know about the pregnancy. Neither of us knows what happened in this particular case.

He is a father and he has legal rights.

Allegations of abuse by the bio father; allegedly his parents got involved and they have money.

Sounds to me like the birth mother made some mistakes, but is doing what she thinks is best for the child. From what I have read, she sought custody after he did, feeling (rightly or wrongly) that it would not be in this child's best interests to live with this man, although he will get visitation rights.

I also read on another thread that the birth grandmother (her mother) is friends with the adoptive parents and made the initial contact with them regarding adoption.

Again, very complicated case.

While she was pregnant, I might add. Or what a guy, give a baby to him, please!:eyes:

I understand what TexaasLawyer is saying. My wife and I adopted our son at 3 months old (he'll be 5 in March). Both birth parents signed their rights away and the adoption is long since finalized.

This birth father states that he didn't know the birth mother was pregnant until just before the birth. To me, this says little of his involvement. I'm embarrassed that he's another Mainer.

While we are pretty certain that this won't happen to us (as all of the legalities were carried out to the letter), we could unequivocally say that we WOULD NEVER give our son up. If ordered to do so, the law would have to find us first. We wouldn't hesitate to do a "Dr. Elizabeth Morgan".

Our family means that much to us.

Flame away, but to us this a very emotional issue. I can recall at least 5 times in my life as a parent that I literally had nightmares about this. They haven't come in a long time, but this may bring 1 or 2 back.

And the adoptive parents held onto the child this whole time, stalling things in the courts. That's different than an adoption being finalized for 5 years with no disputes.

I have nightmares too, but on the other side - that I've given my daughter away in a fit of postpartum depression and immediately regretted it but someone with more money for lawyers has stalled it so I can't get her back.

to your adult adopted child. I'm seeing if from the child's standpoint, as I am an adopted child.

The explanation would be that we preserved our family.

No apology is being offered for that and none would be forthcoming if requested.

Once again, I don't believe that this will happen to us as all of the i's were dotted and t's crossed. Secondarily, our son is African American and people aren't falling over themselves in this country to adopt blacks. They miss a great deal if my little boy is in the least bit representative.

I'm aware of the sides of the issue and I do see and respect your points, Maddy McCall. I do, however, mourn the number of courts, as well as other posters here, who miss the point that LOVE, not BLOOD, makes a family.

BTW, our relationship with our on's biological family (we have an open adoption) is such that if my wife and I had met them by starting conversation in line at a supermarket (or something similar) we would have become social friends.

I also realize that my reaction is as emotional as logical. I won't change the desire to preserve my family though. My wife and I ARE our son's mother and father.

All the best to you and yours.

Yup, that's what they call themselves: transracial abductees. Or "angry pissed ungrateful little transracially abducted motherfuckers from hell", to be more precise. And the more of their stuff I read, the better I like their style.

http://www.transracialabductees.org/

From their site:

It's important to talk about this because nothing else we've seen out there is politicized in this way. Transracial abduction is secretive, silencing, and abusive, and it's really hard for transracial abductees to speak out against this racist system of forced assimilation and brainwashing. We wanted to create a forum where abductees can talk about our experiences and share our analysis of them.

Rock on, abductees! Give 'em fifty kindsa hell!

I guess that my wife and are just a couple of selfish bastards who should have allowed our son to realize his true destiny of being passed from foster home to foster home where the enormous likelihood is that he would spend his youth with people who didn't give a rat's ass about him for any other purpose than the monthly subsidy check.

The more I read of their stuff, the sicker I realized that the person who runs the site really is.

So Yung, who seems to post about 90+% of the site's content, is either a very sick individual, an asshole or some combination of both. Anybody who reads this bullshit and legitamately likes it is an uninformed asshole who seriously needs to grow the hell up.

I will not have anyone like those who perpatrate that site and do not know our family attribute their bitterness upon our motives, our love or our family unity!

So Yung, who seems to post about 90+% of the site's content, is either a very sick individual, an asshole or some combination of both. Anybody who reads this bullshit and legitamately likes it is an uninformed asshole who seriously needs to grow the hell up.

Hey, don't talk like that about So Yung! Don't you know she's the product of a Loving Transracially Adoptive Family™?

that she probably IS the product of a loving family.

I am amazed at the brass you have to inject yourself in the families of others and inject opinions that obviously come from fantasy land.

FACT: Children who are unwanted by their BIOLOGICAL parents will not become a part of "The Brady Bunch" because YOU want to force them into parenting.

FACT: I am responding to the venom that was expressed about people like my wife and I on the site YOU pointed me to!

Don't attack if you don't want the people being attacked to defend!

adopt abandoned children of abducting them. :spank:

You know what-it's pretty sick and disgusting to accuse people who legally adopt abandoned children of abducting them.

Righty-o! Those ungrateful little bastards should all get busy repeating the mandatory loyalty oath of the adoptee: "you're my one and only REAL mommy, blah blah, etc etc...".

:eyes:

orphanages. This woman is so angry, but what do you think her life would be like if she wasn't adopted and was raised in the orphanage? Do you think she would be well adjusted and happy then? Assuming of course, she made it out alive, as even according to her, many children in the orphanage had died.

What is the source of all of this invective that you are firing at interracial adoptions generally and at MY family specifically?

Before you say that I opened the discussion, I stated that African Americans are not the favored adoptees among the general population when I said that people are not falling over themselves to adopt them. This is a documented fact.

YOU seemed o feel a need to point me to a site that targets people like me.

I've laid out who I am. I am defending my parenthood.

What's your story? Why do you have such an obvious hatred for people who share their love with previously unwanted children? Where did you get the fantastically unreal notion that YOU could force BIOLOGICAL parents to provide loving families?

Please respond quickly. Unless you feel a need to run from this discussion by putting me on your "ignore" list. After all, you really don't have the habit of answering questions. You just seem to raise the level of bitterness a bit higher.

You Are Just as Bitter as the Person You Claim "Rocks"

You call me "bitter". And yet I've not called you anything...

What is the source of all of this invective that you are firing at interracial adoptions generally and at MY family specifically?

That last bit is just plain-ass false. I never said word one about your "family specifically".

What's your story?

Meh! :eyes:

Why do you have such an obvious hatred for people who share their love with previously unwanted children?

"Obvious hatred" is YOUR interpretation. This ain't about my emotions.

Please respond quickly. Unless you feel a need to run from this discussion by putting me on your "ignore" list.

Oh, I'll respond whenever I bloody well feel like it. And I don't bother with ignore lists; why should I?

After all, you really don't have the habit of answering questions. You just seem to raise the level of bitterness a bit higher.

A substantial portion of this thread consists of me offering my replies to other people, and -- yes -- answering questions. In one particularly tiresome interchange, I gave my answer, and repeated it once. That's plenty. Just because one person asks the same question over and over, and ignores the answers given, doesn't mean that I'm honor-bound to keep repeating myself until s/he deigns to acknowledge anything I've said.

And adoption is a bitter subject in any case, quite aside from whichever personalities are involved in a particular discussion of the topic.

1. Your bitterness is obvious. It's a shame you don't realize it. You have not specifically name-called, but you do keep your provoking behavior. It is YOU who introduced that website to this forum.

2. Your continual references to the website IS an attack on people like me. It's a shame you don't realize it.

3. meh! You are obviously ducking explaining why you have the feelings you do! It's a shame you don't realize it.

4. It's the obvious interpretation. If it's not about emotion, stop being emotional. I'm not going to ignore your obvious emotion because you say it's not there.

5. Go ahead and respond when you feel like it. It's my desire to conclude this nonsense that you started. My interpretation of your posts is that you like to avoid answering questions. See point #3.

6. You've certainly been ignoring my questions. I've read all of your posts in this thread. Just because you say you've answered questions doesn't mean you have.

7. What makes adoption a bitter subject? Are you bitter that millions of families have had joyful adoptions while some few, like your revered So Yung, are unhinged about it? It's not a bitter subject in ANY case here in the real world.

1. Your bitterness is obvious. It's a shame you don't realize it. You have not specifically name-called, but you do keep your provoking behavior. It is YOU who introduced that website to this forum.

I've expressed my opinion, and I've kept strictly to the rules in doing so. How that counts as "provoking behavior" is not clear.

2. Your continual references to the website IS an attack on people like me. It's a shame you don't realize it.

No, it's just material that expresses an opinion that you happen not to like.

3. meh! You are obviously ducking explaining why you have the feelings you do! It's a shame you don't realize it.

Again with the feeeeelings!

4. It's the obvious interpretation. If it's not about emotion, stop being emotional. I'm not going to ignore your obvious emotion because you say it's not there.

Who's being emotional? Certainly not I -- the person who hasn't been continually roaring (inaccurately) about having been "attacked".

5. Go ahead and respond when you feel like it. It's my desire to conclude this nonsense that you started. My interpretation of your posts is that you like to avoid answering questions. See point #3.

You're entitled to your interpretation. I think it's a silly interpretation, but like I said, it's yours and you're entitled to it.

6. You've certainly been ignoring my questions. I've read all of your posts in this thread. Just because you say you've answered questions doesn't mean you have.

And just because you say that I haven't doesn't mean that I haven't. Basically, I'll answer what I want, when I want. I swear I don't understand this desire of some people to direct other people's posting habits.

7. What makes adoption a bitter subject? Are you bitter that millions of families have had joyful adoptions while some few, like your revered So Yung, are unhinged about it? It's not a bitter subject in ANY case here in the real world.

And if you dismiss information that conflicts with that perception, then you should have no trouble maintaining that rosy worldview for the rest of your days.

...should have no trouble living in your fantasy world of forced parenting with the threat of jail as a sure way to reinvent "The Waltons".

You say that you are not attacking. The fact is that with your adherance to SU YUNG's ravings, you are simply hiding behind her to express yourself.

Not every adoption is ideal. Ours is, in spite of the insistance that we're abductors.

You continue to duck. It's getting extremely tiring.

I'm starting to get extremely bored with this, so I'll end my portion of this interchange by giving you what you want so you'll go away.

You win. Let's just force BIOLOGICAL parents to take responsibility or send them to jail. We'll cross the bridge of caring for the considerable number of children with jailed parents when we come to it. This, of course, won't happen because you say it won't.

People like my wife and I, as well as thousands of people who've taken unwanted children into our families and have loved them more than any words can express to you are really just racist, white supermacist phonies. Since I also married outside of my race, I guess I'm even more of a racist than most.

Of course, BIOLOGICAL parents are going to raise themselves up and give their BIOLOGICAL offspring their rights because you say they should. I guess that we should have let OUR SON go to the foster home that was his destiny, because his BIOLOGICAL parents wanted nothing to do with him.

There. I've told you what you want to hear and and you can live in YOUR "real" world of forced parenting and responsibility. I'll stay in my "rosy worldview" of believing that selfish bastards like my wife and I love and care for OUR SON, as do thousands of others who have opened their hearts th children all over this country.


But you're still wrong. And on this issue, you always will be. Adios.

Did you just link me to your own website?

Your posts and those of "So Yung" have the same tone. I hope so, because I'd hate to think of TWO people spreading this kind of bile!

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not her. Doesn't she rock, though?

Kim So Yung has a zine. You can read some of it here.

Apparently, she thinks she would have been better off dead in that orphanage. What can I say-I presume she knows best. Her main problem, however, seems to be, is that she is asian, and was adopted by white people. I guess that means that if you adopt a white child from Russia, for example, everything is going to be peachy rosy.

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of people defending their families when you attack them.

Your lack of a grasp of reality is amazing!

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of people defending their families when you attack them.

Oh, bother...

For the record, I haven't posted a single personal attack in this discussion.

Your lack of a grasp of reality is amazing!

Interesting remark, considering that you opened your post with a declaration of your intent to avoid grasping Kim So Yung's little slice of reality...

You continue to attempt to direct people, and me specifically, to sites that attack people like me. I will always defend myself and especially my family.

I did read her zine. Just more of the same nonsense. I continue to wonder why you think that material attacking those of us who love and parent children of color is a positive.

Your disdain of mixed family adoptions must have a reason.

You continue to attempt to direct people, and me specifically, to sites that attack people like me. I will always defend myself and especially my family.

It's material relevant to the issues at hand. Why shouldn't I show it to people?

I did read her zine. Just more of the same nonsense. I continue to wonder why you think that material attacking those of us who love and parent children of color is a positive.

Nonsense? Because you don't like what she has to say?

It seems to me that some people may not have expected to hear anything other than the customary platitudes about adoption -- and perhaps didn't know that any other species of opinion existed on this issue. I reckon they know better now.

Your disdain of mixed family adoptions must have a reason.

And I tried to point to some sources that explain some of my concerns. But apparently, they're just "nonsense" and "bullshit". :eyes:

have been better off left to rot in that orphanage of hers. Unfortunately, I don't think there was any way the adoptive parents could have predicted that at the time.

...when it's presented on a website where 1 person continues to make an apparent 90+% of the postings that's the same bile over and over.

She obviously has serious issues with her PARENTS. Most of us do. The whole notion of hers that she was damaged by coming here, as well as your continual assertions that adoption is "biter" without anything more than your ann coulterish proposition of forced parenting or jail (which would be unenforceable laws) gets rather boring.

FACT: Most (by most I mean the VAST majority) adoptions are very successful. The vast majority of adoptive children are very happy with their families, even with the curiosity to meet their BIOLOGICAL parents.

Your insistence does not change that. To continue this, I suggest bringing something else to the table than your consistent hiding behind SO YUNG's writings.

I'm a biomother who has given a baby up for adoption. It was a good choice for me, and obviously for the child, since she has had an incredible life that I would not have been able to provide as a single, teen parent.

I ALSO came to the conclusion that you have about this. I have a hard time with a guy that impregnates a woman and disappears... they obviously had no contact while she was pregnant, then he suddenly wants the baby. Did he suddenly become sterile? Is he incapable of fathering other babies? I hate to sound too pragmatic, but please.. it's not like the guy had a relationship with this baby or the mother. They have no link other than his being a sperm donor (to use Dr. Laura's snarky term). Give the poor kid a chance at a happy, stable life.

I STILL want to know why the baby is going to the bio mom and her CURRENT husband...

Certainly no flame here. I only want to add that it also doesn't say a whole lot for the mother that the birth father didn't know she was pregnant. I do feel that even he (often described on this thread as the "sperm donor"), has a right to know if he has fathered a child, and how is he to know if the mother doesn't tell him? There are a lot of (very) short term relationships in this world. I believe it still takes two, and if the mother doesn't want to take responsibility, the father should at least be given the option, whether the relationship was long term or a one-nighter.

That being said, in a case like yours, they would have a hard time finding me, too, both for the sake of the family, and for the sake of the child.

Asking to give up a child after all these years-it doesn't really matter if the child is biological or adopted.

9/10 of the law." I read about this case when in Florida. They knew 3 years ago that there was a challenge to the adoption and they chose to fight it in court. I feel bad for them, however, one of the things that people are told up front is that nothing is set in stone until the adoption is finalized.

My baby was placed with me for a year before the adoption finalized. During that year, every effort was made to accord the birthmother her rights and due process - despite the fact that either she had burn and severely physically abused my child, or abandoned her with someone she had never seen before (because he might have been her biological father) who abused her. Did I and the county fight to keep her with me? You bet. Would I have done it again? You bet. It wasn't a game about 'possession,' it was about keeping a child safe, nutured and loved.

And, now, there is a lot of water under the bridge. And the biological mother is doing something that make her feel whole, not giving a darn about what is best for that child, using a technicality. You can give her kudos if you want. I won't be.

You deserve much credit for what you did, however, the people in Florida knew two months after the baby was born that the father wanted the baby. Abuse was never the issue and is irrelevant in this case.

Birth mom apparently sued to keep birth dad from getting custody -- because of the alleged abuse.

I have also been told that birth dad was in jail at the time an advertisement was placed and thus didn't see it.

There is way too much emphasis placed on biological connections in our society.

My child was 'reborn' to me. I love her every much as much as any biological parent loves their child. My child has been with us for the vast majority of her life. We are her REAL parents. I get so tired of jerks asking, 'Where are her parents?' And one was an adoptee, who should have known better. We are her parents, her REAL parents, her LOVING parents, and her LOYAL parents.

And I happen to have been a social worker also. Society bends way over to honor biological parents rights, but there is a dearth of open honoring of adoptive parents, who sacrifice everything, every part of their being, to give their beloved child a good home.

The county involved in our adoption dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't,' before our adoption was finalized, and I know that it would never be challenged (especially successfully), but I think I have to go calm down too. Flame away if you will!

As an adoptee, why do I have to justify my place in my adoptive family by reassuring outsiders that my mom is my "real" mom? Why do people feel the need to force me to choose between my adoptive family and my birth family? It angers me to no end that people expect me to be eternally grateful to my adoptive parents for doing such a noble thing as "rescuing" me. I love my adoptive family with all of my being, but that doesn't preclude me from loving my birth family as well. While I do think that our society places too much importance on biological ties, I also think its unfair that within this context adoptees are the only ones who are expected to erase those biological ties without a thought. The fact is, I have TWO families. I am not a possession, a thing that my adoptive parents own. I am comprised of my birth mother, my birth father, and both of my adoptive parents and I love them all. I do feel fortunate about one thing...my adoptive parents never said ugly things about my birth parents, where I came from, and by extension, part of ME.

Frankly, I get sick and tired of comments such as adoptive parents "who sacrifice everything, every part of their being, to give their beloved child a good home." First, most adoptive parents adopt a child because they want a child. Few people adopt a child for the sole purpose of giving a child a home. If we are to stop placing such importance on biological ties, then we also must stop valorizing adoptive parents for doing the same thing that all other parents do: bringing a child into their lives. Having a child requires sacrifice regardless of how one brings that child into the family. Adopted children should not be made to feel as though they owe an enormous debt to their adoptive family because their parents did such a "noble" thing as to provide a home for them.

Second, just because a person finds themselves in a situation where they think they need to relinquish their child for adoption does NOT mean they don't love their child. It does NOT mean that the adoptive parents love the child more or less than the birth parents. I truly don't understand adoptive parents who feel the need to have a pissing contest over love.

I think it says something about our society that many people who relinquish their children for adoption do so because of financial reasons. Imagine having to hand over a child you have just given birth to, a child you love, with no idea if you will ever see that child again, all because someone else has more money than you do. Despite the disgusting stereotypes that have been repeated throughout this thread, not all birth parents are sluts, drug-addicts, abusive, theiving thugs.

I have been reunited with both of my birth parents for 3 years and my entire adoptive family has welcomed them both (along with their current spouses) into our family. Thank goodness my (adoptive) mom didn't have such insecurities about our relationship that I see in some of the posts here. She knew that love is not finite. She knew that having more people in my life that love me is a good thing, not something that could ever lessen the love she and I have for one another.

We send letters and to the Birth mom every year a few weeks before our son's birthday. We also go to a picnic held by the adoption agency for the parents and birth families to visit.

Our son was an result of 2 kids getting their rocks off. They were 14 and 12 when he was conceived. The birth father has never wanted anything to do with my son, but the birth mother's extended family always comes for the picnics. If we had met in a social situation, we would have become close friends.

We have the letters and pictures from our son's birth mother. We are saing them for the day he starts to ask. We have a great deal of respect for her and will never bad mouth her to our son. We won't bad mouth the birth father either, but we don't know him and only know what was in the adoption agency papers. We would welcome him to the picnics and would gladly send him pictures and letters, too. He hasn't expressed an interest.

In the last couple of years, she has written VERY ivfrequently, and my wife and I believe that she has moved on with her life. She is in high school now and hopefully doing the things that high school girls do. Regardless, neither birth parent WANTED this baby. In spite what one person in this thread is advocating, i.e., that transracial adoptions are racist abductions, it is LOVE and UNITY that makes a family.

I'm glad for you and your entire family

any biological fit fathers must have rights too not just the mother!!

father must fight for there rights

equal rights for biological father!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The birth father did not get custody, the birth mother did.

Just a little quibble, although I mostly agree with what you've said.

'Biological father' is a dysphemism. In this usage, 'biological' is a dismissive qualifier for a word whose plain English meaning suffices. The proper term is simply father, because that is what he is: the child's father.

equal rights for biological father!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strike the unnecessary "biological", and add "equal responsibilities", and I'll salute it. Keeping in mind, of course, that I primarily advocate recognizing a child's right to the two people who brought him into the world.



(edit: typo)

proudly, and will continue to use them. I'll drop the biological when they honor their responsibilities and do not cause the child pain.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

I use the terms 'biological mother' and 'biological father proudly, and will continue to use them. I'll drop the biological when they honor their responsibilities and do not cause the child pain.

And I say that a child has a right to be supported and protected by the two people who created him. Parents who fail to do their duty belong in jail. We need to get rid of the pseudo-enlightened social-services mentality that allows people to abandon their kids to strangers or to the state with near-total impunity and then waltz off to live their lives free of parental responsibilities. Once you bring a kid into the world, you're a parent, period. And in a fairer system, you'd either live up to that, or you'd suffer the consequences.

And I do mean suffer.

And more importantly, how would you make a good parent out of someone who just doesn't want to do it?

And more importantly, how would you make a good parent out of someone who just doesn't want to do it?

How do you enforce a child-support order if the person subject to the order just doesn't want to pay? How do you enforce an enlistment contract if the soldier decides he'd rather wander off an take up the free-spirited lifestyle of a beachcomber?

Becoming a fit parent can be hard work, but it isn't rocket science. I just don't buy these kinds of excuses.

You have all these ideas, surely you have some more about how to enforce them.

You asked how would we enforce parental responsibilities, and I pointed to a present-day example of sure-nuff enforcement of parental responsibility. In fact, I've decided that the non-supporting parent laws advance the rights (not just the "best interest") of the child more than progressives may have assumed. Since such legislation was passed, we've gotten a bit more used to the idea that the child has a real claim upon his parent, and that maybe the parent cannot simply renounce his/her parenthood at will...

You gave me an example of a child support order. Very different than being a parent.

How do you enforce being a parent? Specifics, please.

My kids' father refuses to let them go to his place <he is in another country>...outright refuses...no balls to even tell them himself, **I** got that job. So what do I do..throw them on a plane and HOPE he decides to pick them up at the airport? You can't make someone want to parent when they don't want to.. these kind of "parents" (sperm donors) will get it in the end when the kids grow up and don't want anything to do with them...I'm seeing already when he calls/leaves a message and the kids don't return the call...ever.
One can just imagine how the little boy in this case will cope when he is old enough to understand what is going on..what if this whole thing is not resolved by the time he starts school? Are they going make him still be uprooted with every court decision??

Ideally, a child does have a RIGHT to be supported by the people who participated in gestation. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, we do live in a real world. It would have been impossible for the children whose act resulted in our son to have been forced to be parents (btw, BIOLOGICAL parents were 12 & 14 when pregnancy occurred).

The FACT is that today, January 17,2005, The strangers to my son are his BIOLOGICAL parents (2 kids who got their rocks off), not his REAL parents (my wife and I). WE live up to our responsibilities and are raising a remarkable, fun, sweet, smart and well adjusted little boy.

I don't see how this is worse than forcing children who engaged in a thoughtless act to SUFFER the consequences or go to JAIL when they were entirely unfit to be parents in the first place (as today's junior high school students are). The result of your "ann coulterish" solution would have been to make our son suffer also. I suppose you can somehow state, not MAKE, an case otherwise, but frankly what you've been advocating is so incredibly nonsensical that I'm not really interested in reading it!

But, people weasel out of that with goofy explanations. In my daughter's case, she left Baby Ma'at with 'the biological father,' only he turned out not to be related to my daughter at all - and she left her there without Baby Ma'at knowing this guy at all. Can you imagine how terrifying that was?

Returning Baby Ma'at to her would only have gotten Baby Ma'at killed. Thank Spirit people cared enough to protect her. And thank Spirit she ended up in a home in which she will always be loved to the maximum.

We have to provide for a system in which people can peacefully relinquish their rights to a child. That encourages relinquishment to a safe person in a safe place, instead of wholesale abandonment in a dangerous place.

Technically speaking, there might be a warrant outstanding for BioMom if she ever chooses to grace these parts again. But there's slim chance of that.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TODDLER_CUSTODY?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


ATLANTIC BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- The woman who raised a 3 1/2-year-old boy at the center of a custody dispute tearfully handed the boy to his biological mother on Saturday, then dropped to the ground and repeatedly screamed: "How can they do this to a little boy?"

Evan, bundled in a blue jacket and sucking on a pacifier, was carried outside by Dawn Scott, who along with her husband, Gene, cared for the child for most of his life. The couple had appealed a judge's ruling transferring custody to the biological mother, Amanda Hopkins.
(snip)

Evan, who could be heard wailing inside the home, appeared calm after he was placed in a car seat in a van driven by Hopkins' husband, Michael. Amanda Hopkins scolded photographers taking pictures of the child: "Leave him alone. He's just a little boy."

Hopkins supported the adoption until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody. Late last month, she was awarded custody and White was given liberal visitation rights. Amanda Hopkins lives in Illinois with her infant daughter and husband Michael, a member of the U.S. Navy based at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, near Chicago

the grandmother was on abc this morning talking about how she wants the boy to stay with his adoptive parents. she hasnt spoken to her daughter for a year. i dont know the whole story but she was talking to an abc reporter for about 5 minutes. you could tell she was reading because her eyes and the tone of her words and how she stumbled over some words. it was weird.

God knows MINE would be...just a guess that I am not alone in that category

Gee, how nice of the bio father to show up and "give emotional support"..seeing as how he instigated this mess.


http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/weather/hurricanes/10648986.htm


The boy's biological father, Stephen A. White Jr., and his parents had flown to Florida to give emotional support to Hopkins, Barket said. He said the Whites, the Hopkins and Evan had lunch together after the transfer Saturday.

Susan Pniewski, an attorney representing the Scotts, said she hopes the 1st District Court of Appeal would consider a separate appeal involving the little boy.

The case began about 3 1/2 years ago when the childless Scotts met Hopkins, who was pregnant. She agreed to a private adoption, according to court files.

The Scotts watched Evan's birth in May 2001, and he was placed with them two days later. According to court documents released in the case, the couple agreed to return Evan to his biological mother if the adoption failed. The Scotts dispute they "expressly" promised to return the boy.

How do you tell a child who adores you that he is being forced to live with a complete stranger now? Three year olds don't understand sperm, wombs, and "biological" parents. They know the people who nurtured and loved them their entire lives. Stripping him of his real parents, the people who took the time to love him, is cruel.

Situations like this makes me sick. No one cares about the welfare of the child. :cry:

First, are you aware that the bio parents tried to get the child back when he was 2 MONTHS old? The adoptive parents simply stalled things for three years and a few months. Does that make a difference to you?

Second, if someone kidnapped a child from bio parents who had no intention of giving him up for adoption, but provided a good loving home and held onto him illegally for 3-1/2 years before the bio parents were able to get him back, would you still think the child should stay in the new home?

Birth parents aren't DESERVING so its ok to kidnap their children. After all, they're ALL a bunch of poverty-stricken sluts, drug-addicts, kids just "getting their rocks off", etc.

(That was sarcastic, btw.)

Interesting how this discussion has underlying but unspoken class stereotypes.

What are they deserving off? Abduction is a crime, and a totally different story. Here we are discussing people who don't want to raise their children (or can't for some reason) so they give them up. Should these people have a right to get their children back years later, if they change their mind?

The adoption fell through after two months. They wrongly held onto the child after that. That was no different than abduction.

often do so under pressure? Are you aware that birth mothers have relinquishment papers shoved in their faces sometimes hours after giving birth because the adoptive parents are waiting? Are you aware that if a birth parent changes her/his mind 30 seconds after signing relinquishment papers that its too late?

What you seem to be ignoring about this story is that the birth parents did NOT change their minds YEARS later and try to get the child back.

Abduction is a crime, and I think what these adoptive parents did is just as much a crime. They just used the legal system to assist them in their abduction. It was the actions of the adoptive parents over the last 3 1/2 years that are causing this child pain now. You see, if you are arguing that the child has been with this family for 3 1/2 years so its not right to tear that child away from the only family he has ever known, then the same could be said for a child who was abducted as an infant and raised by a family for 3 1/2 years. Yes, those parents would go to jail, but why should the child be returned to the biological parents (who he doesn't know) in that case rather than going to extended family of the abductors whom the child would presumably have know his entire life?

Birth parents are deserving of respect, same as you or I, not blanket assumptions about their fitness. Just because a person feels they have no choice but to relinquish their child does not by itself mean they would be a lousy parent. Funny, people talk about how wonderful birth parents are to have chosen life for their children, yet turn around in the same breath and deride them for giving up their children.

I am sorry, but it seems to me that biological parents have tons of rights. And yes, they can change their mind and get the child back years later, as this particular case proves. So, WTF are you talking about?

Have you read the article?

Please point me to the place in the article where it says the parents came back years later for the child.

If you don't realize that birth parents often face a great deal of pressure to relinquish their children, then you don't know much about adoption. It doesn't always work the way you see it on made-for-tv movies or Dr. Phil. I don't really have the time to educate you right now so I'll have to leave it up to you to educate yourself if you really want to understand.

I'm fed up with people who seem to think that breaking the bond between mother and infant is some kind of trivial act. I've tended to discuss this issue from the point of stressing children's rights and parental responsibilities, but it would be dead wrong to overlook the fact that a lot of these women are undergoing tremendous pressure -- at their most vulnerable moment -- to relinquish their children.

The mother never wanted the child, but 3 1/2 years later, she changed her mind and got him, because she didn't want him to go to his father.
If that's not years later, I don't know what is.

The *birthfather* filed for custody BEFORE the adoption was final. That was not several years later as you are insisting. Your focus on the birthmother makes me think that maybe you feel that fathers should have no rights or say in whether their children are placed for adoption. Now that's a different issue, but you cannot argue that the birthparents waited years before trying to gain custody of the child. That is simply not the case here.

The fact that the mother was awarded custody rather than the father complicates this case a great deal, no argument there. Its a terrible situation for all involved.

Also, you keep saying that the birthmother didn't "want" the child when she relinquished for adoption. I think without knowing more of the details of the case one cannot really argue whether she "wanted" the child or not. Just because a child is relinquished for adoption does not mean that the birthparents didn't "want" that child. Adoption is often a bit more complicated than that.

The assumption is that all birth parents are unfit. Adoptive parents almost certainly have more money because adoption is expensive. Therefore, the adoptive parents are always better parents.

This ignores that sometimes young mothers are pushed into allowing their children to be adopted, even if it isn't what the birth mothers want.

Have the adoption parents as glorious babysitters, then, years later, when their situation changed and they got more money, swing back and get the child back?
That's what this particular case looks like to me.

If bio parents change their minds within some amount of time, then that should be honored. I don't know what that amount of time should fairly be, but two months is certainly within it. If they didn't even raise a peep about it for 3-1/2 years, then I'd agree with you. But if they try to get the child back that quickly - two months - and the adoptive parents stall things, then it is the adoptive parents in the wrong.

You keep saying that the birth parents came back "years later" to reclaim the child. That is not what happened in this case. It seems rather pointless to discuss this case if you refuse to either read the article or acknowledge the basic facts as they are stated in the article.

Most likely this father is not even fit to parent the child, because after all these years, the mother got the boy, not the father. Would you give the baby to the un-fit father? As for abduction, that's obviously a totally different story. The people who abducted the child would have ended up in jail, which by itself would make it kind of difficult to let the child to stay with them.

:eyes:

was that the child had lived with the adoptive parents for 3-1/2 years. If that is the reason, then you appear unconcerned about why the child was with them for that long. They wrongly held the child for 3 years and a few months. Aren't you concerned about that?

If they held the child wrongly, that is basically the same thing as abduction.

The mother had given the child up for adoption. They legally had the child for 3 1/2 years, not "wrongly". And no, it's not the same thing as abduction, cause I doubt anybody would let them have the child for 3 1/2 years if they abducted him.

the adoptive parents used legal manuvering to stall things for the other 3 years and however many months. That is wrong.

The bio mother gave the child way, the bio father wanted the child, and the bio mother, according to the article, did not want the child with the bio father.

In this particular case if there is a reason for the adoptive parents to keep the child, it is because the bio father might be an unfit father (he should be assessed) and the bio mother was in favor of the adoption. But the amount of time the adoptive parents wrongly held onto the child is *not* a valid reason.

Includes video from back in December during the initial "transitional visit"--apparently, the little boy hd to go for a visit last month, in preparation for the final handover that happened last week.



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_364182815.html

Dec. 2004

For nearly four years he's lived in Florida with his adoptive parents. Now, Evan Scott is back with his biological mother and on his way to live in north suburban Glenview after an emotional handover this morning.


The petition stated the Scotts had consent of the baby's biological mother. The consent of the child's father, Steven White Jr., was not needed, the petition said, because he had not established his paternity through a court proceeding, had not acknowledged he was the child's father and had not filed an acknowledgment with the Office of Vital Statistics. In addition, he had not provided any support to the mother or the child.

Hopkins and White 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

The decision came following a three-year court battle. After the birth mother gave little Evan up for adoption to Dawn and Gene Scott of Jacksonville, Florida, Evan's birth father, who was in prison for spousal assault, protested. Birth mother Amanda Hopkins then decided she wanted the boy and the fight was on.

To question whether I think kids should stay with kidnappers is ridiculous.

I don't care when the biological parents first attempted to change their mind, the fact of the matter is that this boy is now 3 1/2 years old and the FIRST rule of parenting is that you care for the welfare of the child. So far, the two people who created the child, gave birth to the child, and decided to not raise, nurture, love, and pay for the child (the decision THEY willingly made when giving him up for adoption) get to change their minds? How convienent for them now that the kid is sleeping through the night, can talk and walk, and is potty trained. Who needs to pay for a nanny when you can just give up a kid for adoption for a few years? Then you don't have to be responsible for anything!

So far, the biological parents haven't done much to prove they want to make the best decision for this boy. They're ripping him from the only family he knows at an age when he can't possibly understand why. I have no ethical dilemma for feeling sorry for the child and for the people who raised and loved him since he was days old.

the adoptive paents legal manuverings were basically abduction.

You keep talking about 3-1/2 years but that isn't when the bio parents started trying to get the child back - they tried at two months.

And if you feel that the only thing that matters is that the adoptive parents have had the child for 3-1/2 years, then it apparently doesn't matter how they got the child. They could have kidnapped the child and held onto him for 3-1/2 years and the child would be in the same situation.

The bio mother gave the child away, and it was the bio father who tried to get him back. The bio mother did not want the child, and did not want him with a bio father. In the end, they gave the child to bio mother, who apparently didn't want him in the first place, but only decided to apply for adoption so the bio father would not get him.

If there is a valid reason for the adoptive parents to keep the child, it would be if the bio father were assessed and found to be unfit, and the bio mother were still in favor of the adoption. The amount of time the adoptive parents wrongly held onto the child is not a valid reason for them to keep him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if someone kidnaps a child and keeps the child for 3-1/2 years, but are nice to the child and provide a good home, then it would also be in the best interest of the child to keep the child there.

The child's best interests would have been served by the adoptive parents relinquishing the child when the adoption fell through at 2 months rather than stalling things until the child was old enough to understand what was happening.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it has happened. Parents have kidnapped children, and have illegally adopted childen who were kidnapped. These kids were potentially better off with the adoptive parents than the bio parents.

If a parent gives birth to a child, that parent does have a right to raise that child. Bringing up Wal-Mart is much more out of left field than bringing up a circumstance that has indeed happened.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Two women are in labor in the hospital. One is a single 15-year-old with no money and no relationship with the father. The other one is 30, wealthy, and happily married. The 30-year-old's baby is stillborn. The 15-year-old's baby is healthy. Should the 30-year-old get the baby? She could give the baby a better home. Should that be the deciding factor?

The fact that the 15-year-old gave birth to a child does not, or should not, give her a right to have possession of the child, or raise the child, according to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If he is found by the courts to be unfit, given the mother is in favor of the adoption, *then* I would agree that the adoptive family should have the child for those reasons. But the fact that the adoptive parents stalled the courts for 3-1/2 years isn't a valid reason for them to keep the child.

This case is complicated by the specific issues between the birth parents, but the fact remains that having a child in their possession for years doesn't mean adoptive parents should keep children when these kinds of conflicts come up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

don't put words in my mouth. Abduction is a COMPLETELY different thing and you know it. This child was adopted legally.

The father started when the boy was 2 months old, but the mother didn't start until it looked like the bio father might actually get custody. The father still does not have custody. I only have the info from this one article, and from my perspective, it looks like the entire process was slow because three different parties were all suing for custody. Blaming it on the adoptive parents is a bit short sighted.

So what is the best option for the child then? As a parent of a four year old, I can't imagine the psychological impact of doing this to a small child. What is your experience as a parent?

to remain with kidnappers after 3-1/2 years if they were loving and kind. That's all you're taking into account - how long the child has been with the adoptive parents. I agree that this particular case is complicated by issues between the bio father and bio mother, but regardless of that if an adoption falls through at two months, the adoptive parents need to hand over the child at two months to keep this kind of thing from happening.

not fit to raise him. Would that be in his best interests?
Doesn't it bother anyone that the courts have given the child to his mother, who apparently never wanted him and only decided to take him so he wouldn't go to his father?
Is that in the best interest of the child, to give him to someone who didn't want him in the first place?

given the mother is in favor of the adoption, then the adoptive parents should keep him. But the length of time they've spent stalling the system isn't a valid reason for them to keep the child.

Usually, women that kidnap children from strangers are loony and mentally ill. I won't even talk about men who abduct children. Show me loving and kind kidnapper, please!
:eyes:

where people have kidnapped children and have raised them in a loving and kind manner. What I have read about more often is when there is an illegal adoption and the adoption agency is acting illegally but the parents have good intentions and are loving and kind to the child.

please-where people kidnapped a child from a stranger and were kind and loving parents to this child.

google "adopt" and "kidnap" and here's what popped up

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-1-2002-23585.asp

a child from strangers. Furthermore, after 20 years, the question of whether it's in his best interest to be given back to his parents is kind of moot anyway.

into signing adoption papers when she didn't intend to.

I never said that was an example of what is in the best interest of the child - it's a case of a child who is kidnapped and raised in a loving manner.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the adoptive parents didn't follow it either, so who should get the kid in that case? If the adoptive parents cared for the welfare of the child they would not have dragged this case through the courts for 3 1/2 years. The people that supposedly decided to raise, nurture, love, and pay for the child treated the child as a possession rather than thinking about the welfare of the child.

I don't think the adoptive parents have done much to prove they want to make the best decision for this boy, as evidenced by their attempts to stall the process until it reached the point that they would be "ripping the boy from the only family he knows at an age when he can't possibly understand why."

Why is it ridiculous to question whether you think a child should stay with kidnappers? Is it ridiculous if the kidnappers raise, nurture, love, and pay for the child? Since that seems to be your basis for the opinion that the child should stay witht the adoptive parents, why would it matter how the parents got the child?

one is illegal, one is legal. Why argue this point???

Three parties were suing for custody over one child. THAT slowed the process down. All parties are guilty for that. Blaming only one of the three parties is short sighted.

The adoption was never finalized. The biological father filed a custody motion BEFORE the adoption was finalized. See, if the biological parents don't sign off and there is no TPR (termination of parental rights) then the adoption is not final. The adoptive parents are not the legal parents. Your argument that this was legal doesn't follow because there was never a finalized adoption.

not fit to raise him. The mother didn't want him. What were they suppose to do, give him to someone who is un-fit (as court didn't give the child to the father, I presume the father has issues). In the end, the court gave him to his mother, who apparently never wanted him, but decided to take him rather than give him to his father.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The kid gets taken away from the only family he has ever known...

A mother who didn't want the child is forced to take him back in order to keep him away from an alleged abuser <bio father>--nice move, judge..NOT.

The adopted family lost their child.


I hope the judge who made this decision also wrote for child $upport to the child from the bio father..in addition to having him pay for any counseling the kid may need over the next few years!

since the bio mother and adoptive parents appear to get along, has there been any talk about maintaining some kind of relationship there? That would make things at least a little better for the child.

An adoptive mother collapsed and cried when forced to give the child to his birth mother, that doesn't sound like they will have some sort of relationship going, does it?

She can be sad about the situation and not hate the bio mom.

After 3 1/2 years, birth mother that gave the child away gets him back. His father, who apparently is not a fit parent, gets visitation rights, and adoptive parents that raised him for 3 1/2 years get nothing. American Justice at it's best.

if the American justice system was doing its job this would have been resolved when the child was 2 months old.

Edited to fix typo in subject line.

did not want the child and the father is apparently un-fit. Would it be better to give this child to his apparently un-fit father when he was 2 month old?

If he was determined to be unfit and the mother wanted the adoption to continue, it should have and it should have been finalized without potential of future interference. If he was found to be fit, then he should have been given custody if he wanted it.

That's a fit father to you?
That's someone these poor adoptive parents were supposed to give a 2 month old child to? To a man that assaults women?

I've said all along that there might be valid reasons for the adoptive parents to get custody - the wishes of the mother and if the father is unfit (and I agree that it appears to me he is unfit). But the fact that they held onto the child is not a valid reason for them to get custody.

Apparently, in this country, a violent un-fit father has more rights than a loving couple that raised a child from birth. Well, something is very wrong with that.

they used legal manuvering to hold onto him when it was apparent that the adoption fell through.

If the system worked, we'd be on the same side of this - the RIGHT thing to happen would have been if the father had been found unfit at that moment when the child was two months old, and had his legal rights terminated as a result, and then the birth mother could have proceeded with the adoption as she wanted.

In disputes of this nature in general - I'm not talking about this specific one - adoptive parents use the fact that they've had the children in their care for years as a reason why they should get custody. I maintain that is not enough reason to give the adoptive parents custody if the dispute started when the child was still a young baby.

I have the flu and have taken Nyquil so I apologize if this post is disjointed - I'll try to catch back up to this tomorrow.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I have no idea why they didn't go that route. It should have happened when the baby was 2 months old, when the father first raised his concerns. From the third article (which I just read very recently) it sounds like it would have been easy for the court to make that decision.

This particular case is very complicated.

Because even if he is a violent SOB who beat up the mother of his child while she was pregnant, according to our laws, he still has more rights than adoptive parents because he is a biological parent.

If he is fit, then he should be able to have custody.

If he is not fit (which certainly appears to be the case), then he should have been assessed to confirm that, and his parental rights should have been terminated when he first tried to get custody.

I do think he should have been identified and he should have been assessed to confirm whether he was an unfit parent before the bio mother should have been able to put the child up for adoption in the first place. I don't understand how a bio mother can put a child up for adoption without identifying and getting consent from the bio father, or if he refuses to consent without him being assessed and found to be unfit.

Again, I'm afraid this is disjointed because I'm sick and I'm having trouble thinking things through, and I apologize.

as the adoption had yet to be finalized when he filed his motion for custody.

The birth father sounds like a real creep, for sure. Unfortunately, I've certainly known plenty of creeps with kids.

abuse or murder the mother, that doesn't make them un-fit parents in the eyes of the law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is how they hooked up with each other, according to this site..so maybe since there is some connection between families there will be some relationship?

Looks like there was something put in the initial adoption papers about the baby going back to her is something went "wrong"(??)

http://www.hearmyvoice.org/hotline.htm

Evan was born in May 2001 and placed two days later with the Scotts. Evan is scheduled to be returned to his birth mother, Amanda Hopkins, in Illinois on Saturday. A temporary order said that Evan will need to remain with Hopkins until the courts can decide who has proper rights as Evan's parents.


When Hopkins, whose maiden name is Johnson, became pregnant, she moved to Jacksonville and met the Parkers, who were friends of her parents, and agreed to a private adoption with the stipulation that if something went wrong he would be returned to her, according to records

Hopkins, who has since married, lives on an Illinois naval base with Evan's half-brother. White is to have visitation rights.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=680&topicId=14128&docId=l:249962529&start=14



Hopkins and White are to seek professional counseling for Evan to see if any continued relationship with the Scotts would be in his best interest.

But, Grabarkiewicz said, there is no guarantee that the Scotts will be able to continue to have any contact with Evan.

Dawn Scott said Thursday she could not say how the transfer of Evan will take place because it was part of the sealed court order.

Asked if she had any assurance she and her husband would be able to maintain some sort of a relationship with Evan, she replied: "There is always hope."

but does it bother anyone else to see a 31/2 year old still chomping on a pacifier?