The rights of a child??? Legal kidnapping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one bothered by the extra punctuation in this topic?

YES!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he signed sole custody over to the bio mother, not knowing of her adoption plans.

Not sure if this is true, but even if it were, what does it matter? He abdicated his rights and left the decision making to the bio mother. He willingly signed off paternal rights.

He didn't know what he was signing as he was not offered an attorney, as he should have been, to look over the paperwork and sign. He was about to be deployed to war and was not told what was going on. It is normal in the military culture to have paperwork in place when a parent deploys. There is a big difference in signing off parental rights to a biological parent and adopting. They mislead him and lied.

What was he lied about? How was he mislead? Could he not have found an attorney himself? Are you saying he thought he was signing a UPS package or something? If he has regrets, it's understandable. But to say that he was lied and manipulated is egregiously false. He signed decision making over to the bio mother. It's a choice that he made and knew he was making.

In any reputable adoption, the adoptive parents pay for an attorney for both birthparents. Attorneys are very expensive in adoptions and it is a cost typically covered by the family. We paid for one. We do not know how that paperwork was worded. In all reputable adoptions, there is a revocation period. In Maryland it is 30 days. In that time, the biological parents have the right to reclaim their child and change their mind. As pre-adoptive parents, you are obligated to give the child back. He should have been provided an attorney and an explanation of what he is signing. What they did was very shady to him!

[Anonymous]

I cannot imagine how this child is going to feel about her adoptive parents when she is grown and able to understand all that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had he been told birth moms intention was to give baby up, bio dad would not have signed. The so called "adoptive" parents manipulated the system in their favor. At any rate, they never had any rights to this kid. No adoption was ever finalized.

Why would that matter? What matters is that the bio dad willingly signed away his right to not only not have custody, but to abdicate ability to make any decisions. It was his own deliberate choice.

You aren't getting it. Very different issues. You cannot just sign over your legal rights in most states without an adoption. It does matter! How would you like it done to you. Father was NOT consenting to an adoption. They were trying to do an adoption. What they did was pure fraud. The adoptive family are not the parents if there is no legal adoption. They are babysitting.

[Anonymous]

12:13. "they are babystting" WTF? you must not be a parent. 27 months of 24/7 parenting is not babysitting. There is no way you have a child and think like that. They were in the delivery room. This child is going to have a wonderful life back with her parents and when she sees them I am certain she will remember them and call them mommy and daddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot imagine how this child is going to feel about her adoptive parents when she is grown and able to understand all that happened.

They are not her adoptive parents. They NEVER adopted her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:13. "they are babystting" WTF? you must not be a parent. 27 months of 24/7 parenting is not babysitting. There is no way you have a child and think like that. They were in the delivery room. This child is going to have a wonderful life back with her parents and when she sees them I am certain she will remember them and call them mommy and daddy.

They are not her parents. I am a parent and I adopted my children. We were in the delivery room with both and took them home from the hospital. She is not going to remember them and her real parent is her father. They should have returned her at the first court order and not 27 months later. They choose to not follow the court order to return her early on and that was why she was with him for so long. The ruling only said they can bring it back to the lower court. It in no way said that the child was to be returned. At this point, it would do far more harm to return her to them when she is bonded and secure with her father. As a pre-adoptive parent, you understand the legal risks, which include returning the child in a situation like this.

[Anonymous]

The adoptive parents only care about winning at this point, this child was already taumatized and they are willing to do it again. This case will set a precedent that any stranger, with the right attoneys, legal loopholes and loads of cash, can take kids away from bio parents. They are baby stealers!

[Anonymous]

I think the supreme court ruled that the adoption is to be finalized. But hopefully they will consider the childs best interest. She is in a stable home with her bio family. She should not be removed if there is no reason. Especially to be handed over to a couple who never adopted her.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know which adoption agency was involved in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know which adoption agency was involved in this?

Obviously a fraudulent one that does not care about laws

[Anonymous]

It was most likely handled by a shady, private adoption attorney! $$$$ talks, and can even buy you a stolen baby.

[Anonymous]

This is a very sad case. Her biological father wanted her and spoke up to stop the adoption. Now he has to send her back to people who essentially hate him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They are not her parents. I am a parent and I adopted my children. We were in the delivery room with both and took them home from the hospital. She is not going to remember them and her real parent is her father. They should have returned her at the first court order and not 27 months later. They choose to not follow the court order to return her early on and that was why she was with him for so long. The ruling only said they can bring it back to the lower court. It in no way said that the child was to be returned. At this point, it would do far more harm to return her to them when she is bonded and secure with her father. As a pre-adoptive parent, you understand the legal risks, which include returning the child in a situation like this.

I agree - it is not in the child's best interest now to break yet another bond and try and re-attach to a family. The whole situation sounds to me like a setup for life long serious problems. The cycle of attachment and bonding isn't as esay as saying "well, she is little, she won't remember." because experts in the field agree that every broken bond, no matter what age, is significant. As an adoptive parent myself, I would not petition the court again to try and reclaim custody and I willingly admit that I would not want to have to deal with the life long attachment issues. My child had mild attachment issues and it is seriously one of the hardest most emotionally draining situations you can imagine.

[Anonymous]

Totally disagree about not breaking the "bond" the child now might have with her father. I think the bio mom described this situation in her op ed. if you are a parent and someone kidnapped your child and then two years later child was found, you wouldnt say "oh well, she has been gone long enough to bond with her kidnapper" hell no, you would get your child back and you would never stop fighting until you did get your child back. The parents who have been raising this baby since birth have gotten a second miracle, they get THEIR BABY back. Who knows what motivated the bio dad to try and get custody. He never gave a fuck during the pregancy. Too late now.