Father will be reunited with baby adopted without his knowledge, judge rules
Source: NY Daily News
A South Carolina man whose wife put their baby up for adoption without his knowledge or consent will be reunited with his daughter after a nearly two-year legal battle, a Utah court ruled.
A Provo judge ruled he was “astonished and deeply troubled" by an adoption agency’s deliberate efforts to circumvent the legal rights of father Terry Achane, who was serving as an Army drill instructor when his child was adopted without his knowledge.
Judge Darold McDade gave the adoption agency and the adoptive parents, Jared and Kristi Frei, 60 days to return Achane’s daughter, Teleah, now 21 months old.
--------------------------
"Children are being bought and sold. It is one thing what [adoption agencies] have been doing with unmarried biological fathers. It is in a new area when they are trying to take a child away from a married father who wants to have his child,” he said.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-orders-return-baby-adopted-real-father-knowledge-article-1.1213064
Isn't this human trafficking? I thought that was illegal?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,413 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Utah adoption laws were written long ago by the LDS majority in their statehouse. Many of these adoption agencies around the country feed into LDS Family Services, which is fully funded by the Mormon church. Their purpose is simple...they believe that they are the "one true church", and that by helping Mormons to adopt them, they are "saving" these babies from unbelievers. Just as importantly, Mormons have a process called "sealing", where adopted children are "eternally bound" to their adoptive parents. Once that process is completed, according to their faith, the child "belongs" to the adoptive parents in the eyes of God the same way their own biological children do. According to their doctrine, God himself breaks the connection between the child and the biological parent when the kid is sealed.
According to their faith, taking an adopted child and returning it to its biological parents is an affront to God (equal to abandoning your children), a sin, and also has the effect of giving a "Mormon child" to a "Gentile", which is itself a sin.
The adoption laws in Utah are structured to protect their religious beliefs. They think they have a God-given right to keep her because, according to their church, they DO have a God-given right to keep her.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)It really helps to have background information like that to understand what is going on besides the divorce of the biological parents. I wonder if bio-mom is Mormon, because that's the only thing that makes sense of her trip to Utah to give away her infant. Bio-dad didn't even have a clue in that regard.
If she's not Mormon, was she doing some kind of vengeful thing? Was there an abuse issue? So many unanswered questions.
The adoptive parents who knew this was not kosher (sorry, my husband once said that Salt Lake City is the only place in the world he is considered a gentile) are very much to blame, and usually I am on the side of adoptive parents who are getting their hearts cruelly ripped out.
Poor little baby girl...
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Giving the baby away might have been, or it might not have been. It's impossible for us to know.
As for the adoption agency, the LDS church has an adoption network that crosses the country with at least one (and often several) offices in each state. They run local ads for women looking to adopt out their children, find them, sign them locally, and then forward them to Utah for the delivery (which is apparently exactly what happened here). They usually tell the pregnant women to deliver in Utah because of the legal protections it offers, scaring them with warnings about court battles if they deliver locally. They'll also often offer to pay for all of the expenses of labor and delivery...but only if the child is delivered in Utah. These agencies rarely, if ever, identify their relationship to the Mormon church to the pregnant women.
The LDS will tell you that it's done for the good of the children, but at the end of the day it's just another recruiting tool. Every baby adopted is another Mormon recruited.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)A "crisis pregnancy" scam on a very sophisticated level. And interstate.
Okay, my tolerance level for the LDS is fast-waning. 
Hekate
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)couldn't read the entire story
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Father HAS to consent.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)The whole adoption system in the state stinks to high LDS.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)with regard to single women.
Multiple partners, who's the father anyway.
Abusive partner, better no one ever connects the child to the father
Underage partner &/or self, parents make the decision for the mother
I'm sure there's more, but there's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Child custody is one area where men are discriminated against.
DippyDem
(659 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I suggest nothing about the father having no rights, however there are circumstances where the father's rights are definitely in a grey area. I've listed some of those above, I'm sure there are more.
It's hard enough for a woman to get away from abusive husbands, much harder than the inverse, without putting their or the children thereof in danger through privacy disclosure. You may not like that, but it is statistically accurate.
It's expensive and not seemingly required for a woman with multiple partners who have given no indication of interest in further relations to have DNA testing so the father can be determined, then appraoched, etc.
In this case, it seems the mother gave indication to others that the father was not interested and had abandoned his familial responsibilities. In such a case the responsibility for the fraud and misinformation is solely on the mother, imo.
I understand once the father started requesting information, some think the agency should cough it up, but what if that father was abusive, and that's the reason for the single parent adoption, and they give out the information and the child is kidnapped and/or harmed. We'd be wondering WTF the agency gave out privacy information.
I just don't think this topic nor this incident are black and white scenarios, and I rue that so many people here and elsewhere have become so friggin' polarized that all discussions are strawman'd down to black or white with no regard for the realities that reside in grey areas.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)The implication that I am seeing here (perhaps inaccurately) is that the Father should first be proven NOT to be abusive. Is that how you see it? As guilty until proven innocent?
Statistically speaking, yes, there are many terrible, abusive men who should not be raising children period. In cases where they have been proven to be such, in cases where there is credible evidence that they may be such, then I would say that every cautionary measure should be taken. However, based on the story at hand... there is no apparent evidence from what we have seen to indicate that the man is anything but a Father who wants to raise his child - who the Mother did give up for adoption without his knowledge or consent.
Speaking as a young man with a Father I think the world of... I cannot imagine what my life might have been like without him, had things been different. I was fortunate enough to be raised by two great parents who may have been tempted to give me up for adoption at various times... but never did.
The fact that numerous men are abusive and that it can be difficult to escape from such men does not indicate to me that we should always assume that is the case, or even likely to be the case. You may accurately quote statistics, but they do not pertain to this case until there is evidence of abuse. There has not even been a claim of it, so far as we know from the story.
Lacking evidence to the contrary, I believe this man has been terribly wronged by the legal system and by the Mother of the child as well as by the adopting couple.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and what I've said is that it appears the mother committed the fraud.
I don't think the agency or the adoptive parents should be considered criminals as they may well have been acting in what they were convinced by the mother was in the best interest of herself and the child. She scammed them, I don't think the manner by which the agency behaved in refusing to give out adoptive information till the courts required it is a bad thing, the mother's misinformation was the bad/fraudulent thing, from what I know now.
Should the mother or the agency or the adoptive parents shed more light from their perspective, I may change my mind again. At this point it appears the mother is 100% responsible for any crime or fraud relating to the father not being properly attended regarding the adoption.
The idea to which I was responding was the idea that ALL fathers, married or not, abusive or not, whatever had 100% right to be included in any decision a woman makes in regards to adoption. I do not believe that. Nor could I flatly say that all married men should necessarily know or be included, though I feel that's a pretty bright line, some circumstances would have me leaning over that line, like proven abuse of the wife or other children.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)If there is evidence that the father is abusive, the right can be taken away.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I'd consider the adoptive parents criminal, but I think they should have been been more cautious throughout the adoption process. So many couples wait years to adopt - some never can even though they spend their whole lives wanting to. When it is done, it needs to be done with the greatest of care and caution, especially in America. Otherwise you risk losing the child and creating great upheaval in his or her life.
As for the agency... well, they are in a position where they really need to understand the laws and know exactly what they're getting into. Seems like a case of poor diligence.
avebury
(10,952 posts)until they were made aware that the adoption was not valid due to falsified documents submitted by the mother. This is not a case where the biological father waited a long time to claim his child. He started asking questions around the time that the child was due to be born and kept asking questions.
The fact that the child is now 21 months old without adequate contact with her biological father is due to the obstruction by the adoption agency and the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents elected to keep the child even when they were notified that the adoption may be void. If the adoptive parents refuse to hand the child over to her biological father within the 60 days, the father should be going to the police and demanding that the adoptive parents be charged with kidnapping. I wonder if there are any criminal charges that could be filed against the adoption agency for their actions once the father contacted them. It is insult to injury that the adoption agency, instead of helping a father find his child, asks him to sign all his rights to the child.
The father should also be demanding that his ex be criminally charged for falsifying legal documents. If the child suffers any emotional problems, responsibility lies with the biological mother, the adoption agency and the adoptive parents.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...rights.
Don't assume he's the lowest of the low and make him jump through hoops to prove otherwise.
There's an outre (but perfectly plausible) scenario here. Kid turns out to have some serious medical issue, or just grows up a bad egg. Adoptive parents dump him on the state at age ten. Now does the state have the right to extract child support from a father, who never never had his paternal rights formally voided, but just overwritten?
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...can claim to be unable to provide proper care for the child, and formally petition to have their parental rights and obligations terminated.
Or, IIRC Utah's safe haven law is so badly written that parents have used it to abandon teenaged children.
avebury
(10,952 posts)there were laws to protect members in the military on legal issues to make sure that there rights were not trampled on. A friend of mine has a son with a vengeful ex. The only thing that protected his access to his child was such a law when he was in the military.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)people who have never done anything to you?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)There was no respect nor disrespect in my response, why are hallucinating?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)guys for the committees in Congress. And that was just in the past week.
People always think lessons don't apply to them.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I have suggested that there are some circumstances where certain men might be such that the mother and/or the child's life could be dependent on a father not finding them. I've also note that in some circumstances trying to determine the father and then track him down may be outside any reason financial expectation of a woman or an agency.
In no way do either of those comments suggest general denial of rights to an entire gender.
So I ask again, why are you hallucinating? You are clearly reading things not typed, not presented in any way.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
Samurai_Writer
(2,934 posts)When a girl gets pregnant, she is considered an emancipated minor during her pregnancy. Her parents do not have any legal rights to make a decision regarding adoption. Her parents do not sign away her parental rights or any papers regarding the adoption -- SHE does. So why would it be any different for a teenage boy who fathered a child? If the girl decides to keep the baby, he is held responsible for child support, even if he's a minor. He also MUST sign away his parental rights before a child can be placed for adoption.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...who found out well after the fact that his wild oats sprouted. (NOT the situation here, but still germain to the question.)
Then theres the little problem of roughly 1 in 4 kids being the result of cuckoldry. Who has the right to give paternal consent there? The dad who believes the kid is his, or the milk/postman who actually planted it?
This IS germain, because it is perfectly possible for an army wife to conceive, bear and "get rid of" a child not her husband's, within a time period which might leave him with the belief that the child could be his.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I guess the adoptive parents could have a dna test run to be sure. Perhaps there is some other defining trait that pretty well assures the child is his.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Maybe they would have better luck with that - lol.
d_r
(6,907 posts)1 in 4?
This argues it is much lower-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.UL85261JyBt
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...Australia some years ago. IIRC, they were chasing something completely unrelated to paternity, and someone noticed that there was a large number of siblings who didn't share a father. Count and divide by the sample size, 25% was the number that popped out.
There may have been a sampling bias towards the lower end of the socio-ecconomic scale, but since that's also where most kids are adopted from it's probably a wash.
1 in 4 or 1 in 10, it's still potentially an issue. And it's already been muddied, by judges deciding that even in cases of deliberate, proven fraud on the part of his wife, a cuckolded husband has ZERO chance of recovering any maintenance he paid for children not his. AND other judges, deciding that a man can be held liable for 10 years back support plus interest, on a child he never even knew existed.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)however it is clearly a breach of the father's rights, and a form of fraud even, but I don't see human trafficking unless it was done without either parents' consent. Single mothers do it all the time. So it must not be human trafficking.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Married, single and unmarried parents all over the world sell their children. And it's disgusting no matter what the marital status of the parents, where they live, or whether it's an adoption agency or private party paying for the child. Legalizing it, in any way, like Utah does is immoral.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and unwanted children, what? What do you think should happen to children born to parent(s) who can't or don't want them?
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)to an adoption agency or a private party is immoral. Can't or don't want the child-then GIVE it up without taking pay for it. Monetary incentive corrupts the entire adoption process. And in this case, the father WANTED children, NEVER consented to giving up his child, wasn't even told by his wife that he was a father, and, if I remember the case correctly, the adoptive parents knew all of this and were in some way related to the mother and consented to the fraud.
This was the right, moral and best outcome.
Edited above post for clarity re payment.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)I was adopted during the Baby Scoop Era (read error) when women didn't have a choice and were literally forced to give their children away. Poverty and horrible social standards that treated women as second class citizens.
What was the “Baby Scoop Era”?
The Baby Scoop Era was a period in United States history starting after the end of World War II and ending in approximately 1972, characterized by an increased rate of premarital pregnancies over the preceding period, along with a higher rate of newborn adoption. From approximately 1940 to 1970, it is estimated that up to 4 million mothers in the United States surrendered newborn babies to adoption; 2 million during the 1960s alone. Annual numbers for non-relative adoptions increased from an estimated 33,800 in 1951 to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, then quickly declined to an estimated 47,700 in 1975 (This does not include the number of infants adopted and raised by relatives. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that only 14,000 infants were “voluntarily” surrendered in 2003.
~more @ link~
http://babyscoopera.com/home/what-was-the-baby-scoop-era/
Today its mostly poverty and tremendous power by the adoption industry to keep truths hidden and lies in abundance that tell women with an unplanned pregnancy that adoption is "a loving choice where the child will do better" with complete strangers.
The truth is that in even the best circumstances, with the most wonderful adoptive parents in the world, relinquishment & closed adoption causes the newborn harm that stays with them the rest of their lives. Newborns are not blank slates. We spent 9 months listening to our mothers heartbeat, her voice. Studies have shown that newborns can pick out their own mothers by smell. To take away someones history and story is cruel. I loved my adoptive parents, but their ancestors are not mine--not matter what lies the adoption industry tells adoptive parents.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I did type can't or won't, leaving room for those who want to but can't, though with the education and available means to contraception, I doubt the percentages are near the same as when abortion and contraception were illegal and unavailable.
That said, the idea that "most" babies are wanted is belied by the way our society treats those already born. Having been severely abused by my biological parents, the only ones I had, I have no sympathy for the whinings of adoptive children that had good lives and yet whine about not feeling connected.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Brozinsky (1994, p. 297) speaks of the decline in newborn adoptions as reflecting a freedom of choice embraced by youth and the women’s movement of the 1960s-1970s, resulting in an increase in the number of unmarried mothers who kept their babies as opposed to surrendering them. “In 1970, approximately 80% of the infants born to single mothers were placed for adoption, whereas by 1983 that figure had dropped to only 4%.”
In contrast to numbers in the 1960s and 1970s, from 1989 to 1995 less than 1% of children born to never-married women were surrendered for adoption (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999)
http://babyscoopera.com/home/what-was-the-baby-scoop-era/
Its a really interesting site if you're interested in woman's history. This is one of the areas that gets very little attention but was very significant in our history.
As you know then that there are several large groups that adoptees tend to fall into, and those of us relinquished at birth have a very different story from those who were removed from their home due to abuse. The adoption industry attempts to convince everyone that we all share a story like yours, but most adoptions are infant adoptions and have nothing to do with abuse or being unwanted.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)that infants were not wanted and therefore put up for adoption. This idea you're trying to create and then wallow in that adoptive infants are wanted but just can't be afforded or whatever is silly. If the infant was wanted, it wouldn't be up for adoption. Now why it isn't wanted, whether that be financial, personal, social, religious, or whatever, doesn't matter to the fact that for whatever reason the infant or the child was not wanted at the time of birth or at some time later in life depending on the time frame of the abandonment.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)But you look rather disingenuous when you stomp your feet and refuse to see what is in front of you.
I really think that I am done with you.
Samurai_Writer
(2,934 posts)I was one of those birthmothers in the 70s who was forced/coerced to surrender her child for adoption. There was no choice involved. You were sent to an 'unwed mothers' home', given 'counseling' to make you believe you were unfit to raise your own child and someone else was so much better than you to do so, your parents were 'counseled' to tell you 'don't come home with a baby', you were isolated from everyone in your life except your parents, and any information government or community services that could help you keep your baby were not part of your 'counseling'.
Adoption agencies are only after one thing -- babies. Most of them follow the law -- at least the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Don't tell me birthmothers never wanted their children. And if you think this doesn't still happen? You're naive. What do think all of those 'Crisis Pregnancy Centers' are for? Referral services to 'maternity homes' and adoption agencies. Yes, they still exist. Yes, they still use some of the same tactics as they did when I was there in 1978.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and sorry, anyone who has raised a baby to this age has done such hard slogging work, my goodness. Without reading the article I have no idea how one can conclude anything negative about the adoptive parents.
The agency may be at fault, but why the attack on the adoptive parents? And how will this child feel being taken away from it's parents. And if the mother did not want the child- she did give it up for adoption, after all, how is it that the dad can take it and presumably force it upon her.
Perhaps the article explains this, but the link is not working.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)They knew they could face a legal challenge.
They KNEW the adoption agency was committing FRAUD
They need to be in jail, and THEIR KIDS put up for adoption.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)so the agency probably hasn't done anything wrong in it's overall protective manner. I would hope that the mothers' and childrens' privacy would out-weigh fathers' simply based on the domestic abuse statistics for the USA, particularly the deep south of which both TX and NC are.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The law was pretty clear...when a couple is MARRIED, a child CANNOT be adopted without the positive assent of both parents. The rules are very different from an adoption where a single mother is trying to adopt out a kid with an absent father where his location is unknown. Once they found out she was married, the law was bluntly clear. Nothing happens without his assent.
As the judge himself said in his ruling, the moment the father contacted the adoption agency, their FIRST response should have been "How can we deliver the child to you?" The moment the adoptive parents attorney contacted him and he made it clear that he wasn't assenting, their ONLY legal option was to return the child immediately. The law is INCREDIBLY clear on this. There's a reason that this is recorded as a kidnapping, and why the child will be siezed if they leave Utah. Laws permitting mothers to adopt out their children when the father can't be reached ONLY apply if the mother is unmarried.
The father was in the military. He was in North Carolina because that's where he was stationed. To claim that a married mother should simply be able to GIVE A SOLDIERS CHILD AWAY without his assent is horrendous. Besides, let's flip this around. Our constitution has a great Equal Protection clause that states that all citizens have equal rights, and that laws applying to one person apply to all.
So how about this scenario: Married woman in the Army gets pregnant and has a kid. Husband isn't thrilled about it, but there isn't much he can do. Wife gets called up for active duty and is gone for a few months. While she's gone, she gets an email from her husband, "I didn't want to be a dad, and don't want to deal with child support, so I gave the kid up for adoption. Divorce papers are en route to you."
Still OK with it?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)Seems like pretty solid proof to me.
I'm also wondering how this was possibly legal under the federal SCRA. He didn't know about the birth because he was active duty Army and was redeployed from Texas to a base in South Carolina. She told him that she wanted to stay in Texas so that her family could help with the pregnancy, which is the entire reason they were apart (she's admitted this in interviews). The SCRA is supposed to protect soldiers from this sort of thing. If a woman can't even divorce an active duty soldier because of the SCRA, how can she give his kid away?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)he did give parental rights to the father, but I see only his response to their behavior as abhorrent not illegal.
Even "legal" adoptions are undone in courts, it doesn't directly imply illegality just because a contract is judicially undone.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Utah law requires that the "legal father" sign off on all adoptions. Utah law defines three different ways that a person can become a "legal father". 1) You can adopt a child. 2) You can proclaim legal paternity to the courts. 3) You can be married to the mother.
Utah laws are usually seen as being biased because virtually all women putting their children up for adoption are SINGLE. The child has no legal father. Because they aren't married, the fathers only option is to quickly file a claim with the courts to establish paternity and intervene against the adoption. The window in which they can do this is tiny, so few men can do it (most don't even learn about the adoption until after this window is closed).
This particular case is DIFFERENT. Under Utah law, because she was MARRIED, the biological father also became the LEGAL father the moment that child was born. Married men do NOT have to establish legal paternity to children born of their legal wife, because that paternity is assumed and already legally established. Because this child ALREADY had a legal father, it could not be put up for adoption until his rights were terminated OR he signed them away.
Utah family laws are largely crafted around their Mormon tradition, and fathers are largely seen as the leaders of their households among the Mormon faithful. Utah laws do NOT allow married women to give their children away without first obtaining the husbands consent, or a court first terminating his rights.
In truth, this isn't even really a Mormon concept. MOST states have laws and legal structures that prevent women from giving children away who are born in wedlock, without court intervention or the consent of the husband. Legal paternity, and legal rights, are assigned at birth. This isn't always a good thing...there are MANY men paying child support for kids that aren't theirs, after discovering their wives infidelity after the birth of a child. In many states, they're legally the fathers anyway, because they were married to the mothers at birth.
In all 50 states, once legal paternity is established, it CANNOT be terminated without the consent of the father, or the intervention of a court.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)be such a comment and charges and investigations. There is none of that, therefore there MUST be something about this case that keeps it out of the strictly illegal category. You can rant all you want, but the judge didn't use the word illegal, nor were charges or investigations into the agency as a whole, the mother, or the adoptive parents.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)chose to give it away. This is different than the father in your scenario who is raising the child- after the mother took 9 months and grueling labor to produce it.
This father appears to have abandoned the mother. Why the hell does he have any rights to the child? Was this father there supporting her? Going to the birthing classes? Working two jobs so that she could rest during the last trimester- or even the whole pregnancy if she was having a hard time of it? Why was it born prematurely? Usually this means the mother was stressed.
Men should not have any rights to a child if they have not participated in caring for the mother who is actually the one producing it. This whole ridiculous idea that men own the babies comes from the old livestock laws. You own the cow, so you own the calf.
Well I for one am sick of this outrageous idea. Especially in the case of men who abandon the mother.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The guy did not ABANDON the mother. He was an Army soldier who was REASSIGNED from Texas to South Carolina. She CHOSE to stay in Texas after claiming that she wanted her mother to help her out with the pregnancy. To claim that he should have his paternal rights stripped for that is outrageous.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-adopted-baby-returned-soldier-dad/story?id=17877671
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and I am not speaking of all soldiers. I am referring to this case where the mom felt abandoned.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)She married a career soldier. She knew the consequences of that, and that being married to a career soldier meant moving whenever he was reassigned. When he was reassigned, she chose not to go with him.
She left him. To use your word, she "abandoned" him. Not the other way around.
It's entirely conceivable that she left him for legitimate reasons and wanted to seek a divorce. I have no problem with that, and it's absolutely her right to do so. But don't try to paint a soldier being reassigned from one base to another as abandonment. It's not even close to the same thing.
Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. The child was conceived and born to a married couple. Paternity is assigned at birth in that circumstance, so the fathers rights cannot be terminated by the mother alone. Legally, it's a completely different situation than a single mother giving birth to a child from an absent or ex boyfriend, or where the father is unknown. In that case (which is more common), there is no legal father. In this case, there IS a legal father.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...they prove to your personal satisfaction that they're not.
How about in your scenario, she had a dream pregancy and slept through all but the last 5 mins birth, and left hubby with a colicky kid that screamed for nine months straight? He's now the one who's done the hard yards, but I know EXACTLY where the LAW and simple bloody MORALITY stand on the issue. Is it so hard to ask that law and morality be extended equally to BOTH parents?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I am not in charge of the law. I am writing my opinion on a message board.
I do not know why you concluded that I said that. I was referring to what I read in the article cited. Other articles present the case differently apparently. I was reading that she felt abandoned and filed for divorce and gave her baby away.
What I see are a whole bunch of people claiming that a father who is absent and who does not produce the child himself has some sort of right to enforce the mom to keep the child. Or the right to take the child and raise it himself against her wishes. In this article it appears as though she clearly she thought unknown adoptive parents would do a better job than he would.
Why is the mother not absolutely in charge of where her baby goes? The law is clear that the father is given these rights, but what I am asking is why if he is not actively contributing to the welfare of both the expectant mother and child?
Only in dreams does anyone have this sort of pregnancy, get a grip. Producing a baby is seriously hard, often times life threatening and a big deal. The reason that humans generally pair up for childrearing is that there is a huge biological advantage to the mother and young if they are supported during such a vulnerable time. Equating dad's who are not supportive to dad's that are is the issue.
Although the law clearly treats these two types of dad's equally it seems.
kiva
(4,373 posts)You've made at least three posts displaying your ignorance about this story, at least two of which you posted after someone put up good links to the story.
In short - the father didn't abandon the child; the mother lied; the adoption agency knew the father had not consented to the adoption; the adoptive parents also knew he had not consented to the adoption.
"Why is the mother not absolutely in charge of where her baby goes?" Because the father should - and does - have an equal part in that decision.
Response to kiva (Reply #78)
Tumbulu This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and they are contradictory.
I think that there should be no need to respond to my posts so rudely.
Take a look at them. Some say that the mom felt abandoned, others do not.
If the mother is abandoned by the father (which the mother in this story claims- true or not is another question not answered to my satisfaction in any of the articles posted throughout this discussion) , why is he entitled to come back and claim the child against her wishes? We can all see that he has the legal right, but my question is why- other than historically in a patriarchal society women and their offspring are the property of the man?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)which is really what I am frustrated about.
kiva
(4,373 posts)that you were not reading the articles but instead responding with your general opinion about the topic.
The articles have minor differences, but all agree on the major issues, which I paraphrased in my post. It really does not matter if the mother "felt abandoned", all of the articles agree she was not abandoned - the father went out of state to work and mom chose to stay near family; she and baby were supposed to join dad after the birth - in no way, shape, or form is this abandonment.
Do you think the baby is the 'property' of the woman? Do you think motherhood should be earned, as you said fatherhood should be in your other post below? You seem convinced that somehow women should have all rights regarding children and be allowed to dole out privileges to fathers as they see fit, which is neither legal nor ethical.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Assert with good evidence that she was unable to contact him and clearly shows that she felt abandoned. Car repossessed, phones turned off, etc. Do you see these articles?
Yes I feel that the child, being the product of a mother's body is primarily hers. If she does not want to abort it and does not want to raise it and for whatever reason does not believe the father is up to the task of raising the child, as the woman in this situation clearly decided, absolutely she has the right to give it to people she thinks will raise it with love and perhaps greater security than she or the dad can supply. Clearly this is not the current law. But I find it an outrage that it is the current law. She has produced the child. It is only a patriarchal system that assigns ownership of woman and her offspring to a husband or any man who may claim to be the father. Why is a sperm donor given equal say in any case such as this? Really I do not get it.
The articles all agree that she wanted to either abort or give the baby up for adoption but that he objected. Isn't that abusive controlling behavior right there? Forcing her to go through with a pregnancy that she did want with a child that she had already had to raise on her own? She did not want another baby to raise all by herself. Big surprise- being a single mom is way hard. She did not want to be connected to him anymore. Why are his rights equal to hers in this case? His body has not produced the baby. Sorry I am not at all PC about this. I am sick of pregnancy and birth and child rearing being reduced to essentially nothing in our society. I am far from PC on this topic!
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)And sorry to bust your bubble, but my "strawmom" is based on an old neighbour, who in fact did sleep through her second and third labours, and would have slept through the births themself, except as the sister said, she thought Sandy might like to be there for the actual event. BTW child two was an asthmatic hell child, and twice a day I'd pop next door to "sit" on the poor little bastard and give him his nebuliser.
AND the reason dads automatically get nomially equal parental rights, is becaues they go hand and hand with the parental RESPONSIBILITIES he can't legally avoid, and which don't go away even when paternal rights are in fact curtailed.
By the first of your posts I responded to, mums automatically get a lifetime of rights (including the right to UNILATERALLY abandon her responsibility) simply by popping the little sprog into the world. However, by your rules, dad has to be there, and repeatedly proove himself every day of the child's life, simply to hang onto his rights, but his responsibilities remain absolute even when all rights are terminated or even illegally blocked. The ONLY ways for HIS responsibilities to go away, is for someone else (mum's new partner) to take them on whilst he voluntarily gives up his paternal rights. OR for a judge to find that he's such an irredeemable character, that it's in the best interest of the child to have no father at all.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)somehow pregnancy and giving birth are some vacation holiday?
What man on the earth ever pays child support, there must be some, I just don't know many? Where do you live that child support - even when paid- actually is enough to support the child?
I guess you live in some world that I do not live in, since in all of the cases I know the support is erratic or non-existant or not enough.
Parental rights go to dad's regardless of if they have paid child support ever or at all. It all comes from the system where men owned the women and thus any offspring from the woman becomes property of the man of the household. It is old patriarchy stuff.
I just came back from an sad event where a tremendous stepdad who married and cared for a single mom and her daughter (who had raised her child without any child support from biodad) until the mom died of cancer was denied custody of this stepdaughter that he had raised and cared for the the past 6 years because the biodad who never supported either the mother or the child wanted the 14 yr old daughter after all. This selfish man tore his daughter away from her school and home and life right after her mother died of cancer. A simply awful thing to do. The stepdad is devastated as are the other relatives. The judge's hands were tied as all laws give these biodad's these rights. I do not think this is at all fair.
I think that fatherhood is earned- yes. I have no respect for men who treat a child as property for them to come and get. The law gives them this right, but I object to this law.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)to another state. His wife chose to stay in Texas. When you are in the military, you do not have a choice where you live. Uncle Sam tells you where you will be stationed. How can she claim to have been abandoned? She chose to stay in Texas to be close to family for the duration of her pregnancy.
A claim could be that the wife abandoned her husband by refusing to relocate with him to his new base. Maybe the mother decided that not only did she not want to be married but she also did not want to be a single parent. I am not going to assume that the husband was an evil person because there has been no evidence provided on that. Her actions, on the other hand, make her moral character definitely questionable. It is understandable that she might want to be close to family while she was pregnant. However, my sympathy ends at the point where she turned around and committed fraud on legal documents to have her child adopted out while, at the same time sticking it to her husband by denying him his parental rights.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)It is extremely hard to prove abuse in court, I have spoken to lawyers about this. They say it is more abusive than the actual abuse.
You are right, the articles posted after I made my comments make clear that those are the facts, not what I was going on when I made my first comments. And so yes, she appears to have abandoned him and did not want to be associated with him anymore. If she had not given the baby up for adoption, she would have been liable for child support herself for the rest of the child's life had she given him custody. And she would have then been forced into having a relationship of some kind with him also.
I know a number of women who had abortions for this reason alone. They knew that they could not give their baby up for adoption and they knew that they could not raise a child with their abusive husbands and they knew that giving their child to the abuser would be worse than death. So, is abortion the only answer in these cases?
Is there no option other than abortion for a woman who is pregnant with someone she perceives to be an abuser who will not agree to adoption?
Really, what is the answer in these situations?
And I am sorry, despite all the legal idiocy of it all, it is the mother who produced the child and in this case she clearly demonstrated that she thought strangers would do a better job of the rearing than he would. My guess is that she has some reason to believe this, it is far from being uncommon.
Obviously my opinions are not at all within the range of what is legal. We all read the ruling. These are simply my thoughts/questions and opinions.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)But I have seen women use false abuse claims to grease the system in their favor.
The agency should never just take anyone's word without investigating.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)And it casts doubt on those who really are victims of abuse.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)by general population statistics??? Really???? Would you extrapolate that out to criminal cases as well???
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)They should be in prison.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I'm just now reading the entire article.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)depending on how looks at it, it appears the mother had the opinion she had been abandoned by her husband through the pregnancy. Yes, he was stationed in NC, while she was in TX, but they never seem to have gotten the full family transfer complete, they were having marital issues, so abandonment might not be altogether out of realm of reality.
It seems to me if anyone here is to blame it isn't the adoptive parents, or even the agency which would endeavor to protect privacy of children and mothers and should, but the mother herself. With that bit of abandonment claim, she is entirely the point where deception may or may not have occurred. We do not get to here her side of the story in this tale at this time.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Not sure why you are being so obtuse on this.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)As it should be.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)if they were concerned about the welfare of the child.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)held that a father cannot lose his custody rights without notice, hearing and adjudication of unfitness to be a parent. This was a Supreme Court case from 1972.
Early in my paralegal career, I handled adoptions. Because of the Stanley case, we obtained the consent of every POSSIBLE sperm donor. I remember one case where a man responded by saying that although he did not acknowledge paternity, he gave his consent to the adoption. In the event consent is not provided, there is a procedure for publishing notice in a legal publication in the area in which the absent parent lived. This was considered the notice required under Stanley (and in fact, notice by publication is allowed in other kinds of cases as well). A hearing was held before a judge, giving the particulars on why consent was not available, and the judge then decided whether or not the father (could also be mother) was deprived of parental rights and the adoption could proceed. There was another whole procedure if the absent parent was a member of an Indian tribe or in the military.
Since adoption files are closed, it is not possible to access information to determine if proper procedures of notice/hearing/adjudication were followed and if not, where was the error made.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)and also didn't want her soon to be ex-husband to have custody of it either, she should have aborted it before it was born which would have been her legal right to do. This hasn't been done countless times by divorcing couples?
Many people may think this cruel, but that would have been the best solution, for everyone.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)she should have at least told her husband she was pregnant . Our courts have said it's her perogative to have an abortion even when the husband objects, and even if she doesn't inform her husband she is going to abort-because it's her body. Her solution was awful for everyone involved, but mostly awful for the child.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Yes, it would have been her legal right... but when you suggest that she should have had an abortion, is it because you think that would have been the most rational option or because you think it would have been the morally correct one? Or is it for another reason?
I don't think it's cruel, I just don't understand your reasoning. If the Mother is able and willing to give birth then why should she not do so? Particularly in this case, where the Father wanted to raise the child and apparently so does the couple that adopted it.
If one wants to give birth but is unable (or unwilling) to personally raise the child - there are many decent people on this earth who are looking to adopt. Abortion is always an option, yes... but why in this case do you think it should have been the one chosen?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)to keep an unborn child from the hands of a father. This case pretty much proves that. Now I am not saying this woman had viable reasons to keep the child from the father, but she claimed he abandoned her and the family. If he moved to NC with a promise of moving the family shortly thereafter and then refused to, that could be considered abandonment. She's not speaking so who knows more than what the article mentions regarding that aspect, not I. Could be the mother used that as an excuse, but either way, if she wanted the most "legal" way to keep the child from the father, abortion rules over adoption, again as this case proves.
So why are you asking why, when it 's so clear?
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)No, abortion isn't the only way to keep an unborn child from the hands of a father, we have laws in place to protect children. A man can lose his rights if he proves to be incapable or abusive, as can a woman. Granted, in America, it is more difficult than in some Countries to terminate a parent's rights, but it is still done. It can also be done through legal channels in family court, if the spouse has a valid reason - which we don't really know.
Why should (or why does) abortion rule over adoption in such a case? I believe in a woman's right to choose - and would have nothing to say about it had she made that decision. She didn't though. To suggest after the fact that she should have, when there is nothing apparent wrong with the man... well, it strikes me as unusual, at least.
Of course, my opinion is subject to change if the man turns out to be abusive, negligent, or in some way incapable of raising a child properly. So far as I can tell now though, it seems that he just wants to raise his child. What's so wrong with that? Why, if you don't want to have an abortion... why have one just to keep the child away from the Father? It makes no sense to me under the circumstances.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)there are laws in place to protect children from abusive parents.
Of course the mother can choose abortion, but it is not necessary to keep a child from a bad parent.
hoboken123
(251 posts)How does a married woman legally keep a child that she doesn't want away from the father?
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)If there is a valid reason - use the legal system. If the man is abusive, alcoholic, or for some reason incapable of raising a child, a Judge is likely to rule in the Mother's favor, or in the favor of the adoptive parents, as the case may be. As I said earlier, parents rights are terminated when there is valid reason for doing so. Unless you're arguing that any woman should have the right to completely exclude the Father from the child's life, for any reason she pleases. If that is your point of view, then there really wouldn't be much point in us debating the issue because I could never agree with such a notion.
In this case there doesn't appear to be any particular reason (at least none that was mentioned) for the Mother's actions. That is, giving a child up for adoption without the Father's knowledge or consent. Why keep a child from a man who is her biological Father and wants to raise her? Unless he is a criminal or in some way abusive or incapable... then I can find no valid reason other than spite, which is understandable, but not legally justifiable.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...on who adopted the child.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)All relinquishments cause harm that stays with the person their entire life. Relinquishment has been tied to PTSD, and each subsequent trauma that that person suffers in their life adds on the the original injury.
The stripping of one's heritage, family, and story is an atrocity that should never happen. Infants are NOT blank slates, we have bonds that attach us to our own history and family. When you steal a person's history you are committing a grievous act upon that person~~check out my sig line.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)You can't force people to become parents if they don't want to be parents. There has to be a mechanism to redistribute those children to people who want and can care for them. Adoption is that mechanism.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Most women who relinquish their babies at birth would not do so if they knew that truth. Women are mislead into believing that there are no negative consequences to the child when they relinquish. Stranger adoption should only be in rare cases and a child's heritage, history, and name should never-ever-be withheld from them.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)It's not a matter of there being "no negative consequences". It's a matter of adoption providing fewer negative consequences than keeping the child. Most young women who give up children do so because they are incapable of caring for the child, or because the child will have a damaging impact on the life they are building.
Nobody should be forced to be a parent, and nobody should be forced to be constantly reminded of their past mistakes. I can understand why this might be painful for some kids, but life isn't always clean and neat.
I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of minimal information sharing becoming mandatory in the case of adoptions...racial history, a generalized family history, disease history, etc. But adoption itself should always remain a readily accessible choice, and the actual names of the parents and family should always be hidden unless the biological mother instructs otherwise. If the mother does not want the child present, that's her choice to make.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Since the adoptive child, in YOUR opinion, will never recover.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Response to me b zola (Reply #80)
Post removed
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...adopted children. I KNOW I am not feeling PTSD or have any abandonment issues, and my two sisters and one brother have never said anything to me about it, and we have talked exstensivley about it. So please dont say that ALL adopted children feel that way.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...but please do not misrepresent what I said in my post. I stated that PTSD has been linked to relinquishment, not that all relinquished suffer from PTSD. Not every adoptee has been stripped of their original identity, either, mostly us from closed adoptions.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)or a Handmaiden, for a child and husband she didn't want?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)And that our decisions need not be based on what strangers think we "should" do.
ETA we live under the rule of law. People who choose to break the law risk consequences. That is what happened in this case.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)no charges nor investigations outside of this case have been initiated, so the agency's practices are not being held as criminal or in need of further investigation, nor the adoptive parents, nor the mother.
A contract has been dissolved, that's really all that's happened. The object of the contract, the child, will be returned to the father.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)She doesn't have to have an abortion if she doesn't want one.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)I'm not sure if elective abortion is usually legal then, but even if it is, many women would not feel comfortable aborting then even if it would be an easy decision for them in the first trimester.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Here is the article from the Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55422492-78/bland-achane-adoption-child.html.csp
The statement by Jared and Krisit Frei
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115971425/Jared-and-Kristi-Frei-Statement
It seems like the mother and the agency were both up to no good. The mother's story sounds like it has more holes in it then Swiss cheese.
The agency should be investigated and shut down and the father should sue them. The adoptive parents were flat out lied to by both the agency and the mother.
The court ruled for the father, but this is a case that could go on for years on appeal.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)thanks for posting them.
avebury
(10,952 posts)against the adoption agency and the adoptive parents on the grounds of interference with parental custody. I think my first phone call after the one to the adoption agency last July would have been to the police.