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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Im so thrilled that this little girl is going back to her parents (yes, the adoptive parents are her real parents). I look at my 7 month old and I am so attached to her I can't imagine someone taking her from me at 27 months. That poor girl would have been crying for her mom and dad and been surrounded by strangers. The bio dad sounds like a real piece of work too. Total loser. The indian culture (whats left of it, but lets be real, the schools, suicide and drinking on reservations is hardly something good for most kids) does not trump whats best for the child. This is why I would be scared shitless to either foster or adopt domestically. If there is a legal defense fund for the parents I will gladly make a donation.

When you adopt, you assume a huge legal risk. Until an adoption is finalized, you always risk the return of a child. Many adoptions are completed by 7 months and the true legal risk is days to 30-60 days, but it happens when the agency, family adopting, and attorney's do shady things like they did in this situation. The true parents are the father and this child belongs with her father. Most parents, including all of us, are "pieces of work" and no parent is perfect. His rights as a parent come first, just as what you would want with your child. The family trying to adopt are total losers for continuing this fight when they knew the legal risk and did not proceed with the adoption in a fair, legal and ethical way.

Anonymous wrote:This child belongs with her biological father and she will grow up to hate the adoptive parents for stealing her. SC court reversed because adoptive parents are white.

You missed the recent Supreme Court ruling suggesting the same thing, I see.

This is old news. The issue is not the rights of the child as so much we need a complete overhaul of the adoption system, federal laws so that each state does not have conflicting laws, rules on limits for birthparent expenses, attorney fees and agency fees to limit the baby selling, etc. This was allowed because of the rules and laws and it was easy for the agency, attorney and family to get around them.

The adoptive parents are not adoptive parents. In order to be adoptive parents you have to adopt. As you said, they have not adopted. They are in the pre-adopt/at risk stage so I would not call them adoptive parents.

Neither family, from what I read, is paying their legal fees. It isn't so much about this particular child or the families as much as it is for political/legal gain. This should not be allowed to continue. Dad is parenting and this should continue.

This child belongs with her biological father and she will grow up to hate the adoptive parents for stealing her. SC court reversed because adoptive parents are white.

Im so thrilled that this little girl is going back to her parents (yes, the adoptive parents are her real parents). I look at my 7 month old and I am so attached to her I can't imagine someone taking her from me at 27 months. That poor girl would have been crying for her mom and dad and been surrounded by strangers. The bio dad sounds like a real piece of work too. Total loser. The indian culture (whats left of it, but lets be real, the schools, suicide and drinking on reservations is hardly something good for most kids) does not trump whats best for the child. This is why I would be scared shitless to either foster or adopt domestically. If there is a legal defense fund for the parents I will gladly make a donation.

11:25 agree 100%

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.

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

The biological dad signed off on custody. Why should he have a "right" to change his mind later?

He seems more possessive about his daughter, rather than really caring for her and her best interests. Imho, the girl should have never been returned to him. When you sign away your rights, it's a choice.

My heart aches for the adoptive couple. They did nothing wrong, and were in the legal (and in my opinion, also moral) right from the beginning.

The Baby Veronica case is one big mess....seems like nobody ever cared what was in this childs best interest. Some facts:
A. Biological dad requested custody when kid was 4 months old-
B. Adoptive parents never had their adoption finalized...even to this day.
C. "Adoptive" parents deliberately stalled the case for close to 2 years, requesting multiple stays prolonging the child remaining in their custody.
D. Child was handed over to dad when she was a little over 2 years old.
E. She has been with him for 18 months and has bonded with him and the extended family including a half sibling.
F. "Adoptive" parents apparently will now get this child back that was never legally nor biologically theirs.
G. Bio mom is a druggie and I believe relinquished her rights.
H. The whole Indian Heritage thing is a load of crap...The kid is like >1% native american.

This poor baby is a political pawn. Ideally, she should have been given back to the father when she was 4 months....The "adoptive" couple should have cut their losses and the trauma to this child then. They created a mess, and this child will now have serious emotional damage as a result. This child does have a bio parent who wants her and although initially he did not, he has a right to schange his mind.

What do you think is the right thing for this child?