Epic win for a three year old little boy who narrowly misses being lost to adoption!

[me b zola]

'People complain about men who don't take responsibility. Here I am, wanting to be a father to my son': Young dad wins custody THREE YEARS after mother secretly put son up for adoption as a newborn

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592834/Young-Oklahoma-father-successfully-wins-son-adoptive-parents-granted-time-custody-following-three-year-battle.html#ixzz2xwsVqqL2

Jeremiah Sampson was playing football for Pittsburg State University in Kansas in 2009 when he began dating a girl, who then fell pregnant
They were not together when the baby was born in September 2010
When he went to be with her on the day the child was due, he found out his son had been put up for adoption weeks earlier
He challenged the adoptive parents, who lived in Florida, and eventually won
At Christmas last year he was granted full-time custody of his son, Hilkya, with visitation rights from the mother
Sampson is also suing the adoption agency for violating his parental rights


ByJoel Christie

Published: 13:52 EST, 30 March 2014 | Updated: 22:26 EST, 30 March 2014


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592834/Young-Oklahoma-father-successfully-wins-son-adoptive-parents-granted-time-custody-following-three-year-battle.html#ixzz2xwsr9Ppo

Here's a link to an interview with this awesome father:
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/04/03/dad-wins-epic-custody-battle


Every adoption begins with a life altering loss for the child. I get why the adoption agency (who is being sued ) would fight the father for parental rights, they are all about the money. But anyone who wants to parent that would fight against the child's best interest has no business parenting.

[me b zola]

1. This is cause for celebration!

This little boy will not lose his connection to his roots, to his history, family, his story.

[pnwmom]

2. The child will always have scars from losing the adoptive parents he'd bonded with.

So I don't see this as an epic win for the child.

Regardless of the legal issues, no situation like this -- being caught up in a power struggle, and being taken from one set of parents and handed to another -- is ever without pain for a child, even if it is intended for his good.

[me b zola]

3. I have to disagree with you

"Bonding" with an adoptive parent was to me like forced assimilation. I have no~NONE~pictures of me as a baby that I was smiling or happy. I was torn away from my mother, in whose womb I had come to know for nine months. Where was her voice? Where was her rhythm, her smell? The removal of a child from her mother is traumatic. Do you really think that "bonding" with another can happen during this traumatic period?

[pnwmom]

4. This baby had never been with his bio father, so the only father he'd ever bonded with

was his adoptive father.

By your logic, if a baby's mother died in childbirth, the traumatized baby would be unable to bond with his biological father. And we know that isn't true.

In the article it says the child was initially afraid of the bio father. How can you know that he didn't experience a loss, having to leave the parents who had been caring for him and loving him and being put with a man he didn't know?

I don't just think -- I know a baby who's adopted as a newborn can bond with his new parents. If you think smiling in photos is a measurement, I have a million smiling photos of my granddaughter, whom my daughter and her husband held on their bare chests within a few hours of her birth.

On the other hand, one of my own three biological children didn't like having a camera thrust in his face. If he were to only look at his baby pictures, he might think he'd had a miserable childhood, compared to his grinning siblings.

[me b zola]

5. “Maybe you are searching among the branches, for what only appears in the roots.”

~Rumi~

[pnwmom]

6. Your experience is your experience and no one can take it from you.

However, your experience isn't universal. Other adoptive children -- and I know you've heard from some right here -- have had different experiences.

[Dorian Gray]

69. Thank you

[elehhhhna]

11. babies go thru phases when they fear strangers

so his fear of the dad was possibly groundless. Ridiculous that it takes so long to resolve these cases.


Tough stuff. Friends of ours were given a 9 month old foster baby cleared for adoption recently. Oops. 6 weeks later, a possibly fake cousin of the incredibly negligent, abusive teen mother showed up and the state of tx handed her over. Took an extra hearing after the surprise cousin's facebook page, chock full of nasty (prostitutey/drunk/drug postings - really bad stuff) was brought to HCPS's attention.

They gave her the child.

So, if you pray, please pray for baby Modesty. She needs it.

[pnwmom]

12. Except that the article said he was afraid of his father and not of the father's lawyer.

And while it is true that babies go through phases where they're especially afraid of strangers, those phases are especially bad times for major disruptions in their lives.

I will pray for baby Modesty -- and the loving parents who lost her. I don't know how the state could clear a baby for adoption and then reverse the decision because a cousin turned up. What a system.

[BronxBoy]

15. Were they White???

Article doesn't say and there is no inidication otherwise but as a Black man, I have my suspicions

[BronxBoy]

17. And of course....

sympathy for the father should take a back seat to the adoptive parents???

Bad situation all around but the kid is with his natural father who obviously wants him. That's a good thing isn't it?

[Bettie]

19. If smiling is the metric happiness is measured by

Then my oldest son was a miserable baby. I have one picture of him smiling before age 3. One.

And I am his bio mother. Clearly, I did not bond with him.

Or the other poster is full of it due to his/her hatred of his/her own adoptive parents.

[me b zola]

20. This. IMO, is the biggest obstacle to adoptee rights:

"Or the other poster is full of it due to his/her hatred of his/her own adoptive parents. "

Its not about my adoptive family. Its about me, an adoptee~and so many others like me. Its just that when ever we speak our truth there is some one to insinuate that we hate our adoptive parents, or there is something wrong with us personally. Oh yeah, and thanks for taking something I said and twisting it to your whims. Yay you

[Bettie]

22. You are the one who insists over and over

that an adopted person can never, ever be happy.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. You seem to need some happiness in your life, since you've never once said a single positive thing about the people who raised you.

You have indicated that they "ripped you from the breast of your real mother" and tortured you until you found your real mother and were suddenly able to smile again (presumably as you indicate that you were unable to smile as a child, no doubt because of the obviously evil people who raised you.

[me b zola]

25. OMG, please link to when/where ever I have posted that an adoptee can never be happy!

Would you tell a gay or AA activist that they must be sad to demand equal rights and

to be heard? So why is it you feel okay to say these things to an adoptee rights activist?

But the rest of your post reveals your hatred for adoptees. Okay then.

[pnwmom]

31. You said that an adoptee could never bond with adopted parents

while in the traumatic period of being removed from its mother, implying that this little boy didn't bond with his adoptive parents.

But you never explained how it is that a baby who lost his mother in childbirth can then, after that trauma, still bond with his father. And yet we know that such babies do bond with the remaining parent.

[Bettie]

34. When you called adoptees who said they were happy liars

Don't have a link, but it was a couple of weeks ago. I recall it because you were so very adamant that they couldn't possibly be happy with the families they had. That they were lying.

And no, I don't hate adoptees. I feel sorry for people who are so caught up in their own misery that they cannot even see that others may have different experiences. I know several adoptees, they are normal people, sometimes happy, sometimes not but they don't blame everything that has ever gone wrong on something that happened when they were hours or days old. At least one knows her bio mother and is happy to have a 'Christmas card' relationship with her (her words).

I'm sorry your family sucked. I'm sorry that you have such contempt for families that adopt. I'm sorry you feel that adoption is the greatest evil facing our society.

Do your work to get adoption outlawed. Go for it. Force women who don't want to parent to do so.

Have you ever seen a woman in her 40's faced with a person at her door telling her he was the child she gave up for adoption years ago? The child of her rapist, looking just like him, bringing back a time and place in her life that she never wanted to revisit?

Ever watched as that person demanded to be incorporated into her life?

I have. It nearly destroyed my friend. She doesn't want this individual in her life. She just doesn't.

This person constantly emails her children, demanding that they invite him to family functions, demanding that my friend give him information on his father, who she doesn't care to find or look for. She certainly doesn't want him to know where she is.

Honestly, these days, she's more likely to suggest to a woman that she abort an unwanted pregnancy than she would have been before, because of the hell she lives in these days. She says it is like being raped all over again. She wishes she had aborted the pregnancy.

Where are her rights? Does her life not matter because she gave birth to a child who has chosen to attempt to force her to be his parent, whether she wants to or not?

You have every right to say whatever you choose. And I have every right to say that, from my perspective, that you seem like a very bitter person.

[AgingAmerican]

39. Does 'this person' know the circumstances surround his/her birth?

Is, 'this person', somehow tainted because he or she was the product of a rape? Should 'this person' expect to be shunned because of same? Can you blame, 'This person' for wanting to know their birth mother?

Sounds like a sucky situation all around.

[Bettie]

42. This individual has been made aware of the circumstances

and doesn't care, the only care this person has indicated is for their own wants and feelings.

Says my friend is obligated to provide a parental relationship and that her other children are obligated to provide sibling relationships whether they want to or not.

None of them want this. They feel forced into it.

Friend feels like she's being raped all over again.

Her husband knew of the rape and subsequent child and has tried to be kind to the person, but has also been firm in asking that his wife's wishes be honored. It has all been for naught and the whole situation is just sad and ugly.

Here's the thing. If the birth mother doesn't want a relationship, why should she be obliged to provide one? Why should she be hounded and harassed? She gave the child up for adoption for a reason. She was not forced into it in any way, she was happy with her decision until this person decided to come into her life.

Honestly, this situation makes me much more in favor of abortion on demand. My friend would be much better off had she gone that route rather than being talked into giving birth.

If both parties in an adoption situation want to forge a relationship, then that is great, they should do it. However, if one or the other doesn't want that, it shouldn't be forced upon either one.

[AgingAmerican]

43. So this person is tainted

Due to circumstances beyond his or her control. Like I said, sad all around.

[pnwmom]

59. No, this person is forcing himself on her and forcing her to re-live the rape

whenever she seems him.

Why is he so determined to push himself into her life? Why would a good man do such a thing when he knows how much it hurts her?

He's not tainted but he seems very self-centered.

[me b zola]

46. .

[Nine]

73. Have you suggested a restraining order to your friend?

What this person is doing is harassment.

[Bettie]

76. She's at that point

She asked one more time to be left alone.

If this person refuses to comply, she will have to take the next step.

She just wants to live the life she chose.

[pnwmom]

58. Can you blame the rape victim for not wanting to look into the face of someone

who looks like her rapist and reminds her of a trauma she only wants to forget?

Would it have been better, do you think, if she'd just gotten an abortion?

It is "sucky situation all around." But I think the young man should just accept that his mother needed to give him up and start over.

[AgingAmerican]

79. NO

But I can't blame the kid for any of it either. It's a lose, lose situation.

[pnwmom]

80. I don't blame the young man

but I think he should back off. He tried, he made the contact, and maybe his siblings will be able to accept him someday. But he's reducing the likelihood of that by pushing too hard now.

[me b zola]

45. "Bitter", honey, is the adjective that those in the adoption industry like to use on adoptees who...

...dare speak out.

"Bitter". LOL, yeah, not here but you know, if it makes you feel better...oh, who really is the "bitter" one?

[Bettie]

49. Fine you win

All people who adopt are sub-human monsters who should be executed for daring to think they could adequately parent a child to whom one of them did not give birth.

[me b zola]

50. Because that is exactly what I said

...or even in the weirdest of kind-of-way implied, or WTH ever....

Look, I'm sorry for whatever you are going through. But perhaps this thread isn't the ideal place~

[elehhhhna]

10. you did not deserve the experience you had -

it clearly caused/causes you much pain


and it was not the experience of every adoptee

[JI7]

13. there was the birth mother who tortured and murdered her son

because she thought he was gay. and many other examples of shitty birth parents.

i'm sorry you had shitty adoptive parents and glad you found your birth mother and have a good relationship with her.

but every situation is different.

[me b zola]

21. Clearly, you win the thread

[mzteris]

41. Yes Yes, I do. Wholeheartedly.

Ask my adopted son who would have probaly died if he'd been left with her. Not to mention she was homeless, had no job, a serious drug and alcohol problem. She could've checked into program with the baby, but wouldn't leave her "man" for him so gave the baby to foster care.

Hell, she didn't want to feed him at the hospital because every time she did, he pooped. And no, she wasn't young, in her early thirties. She'd had other children.

He was a preemie. So tiny. So weak he could barely take 1/2 an ounce. We called him squeaker because he couldn't cry. No eye contact. Flaccid and little response. "This one is damaged beyond repair", I thought. I/we held him nearly around the clock. Tried to get him to eat every few hours. It was cause for celebration when he went over 1/2 ounce. We stayed up holding him all night every night for probably six months .. . . he was going through withdrawal.

He bonded with us, even though he saw her and they engaged in person regularly. She had NO mothering instincts. None. Zero. Nada.

Did he bond with us? You bet your ass he did. He loved us, we loved him. He became part of our family from the very first second, even though at the time it was only supposed to be just temporary until she got her act together. He spent a lot of time with her, way more than most fosters, but bonding with her? We tried to keep her in his life for years. We always called 'Mommy Mary'. The only caveat was she had to be clean and sober when she saw him. She'd be okay for a few months and then disappear for months on end. Until I'd get a collect call from the county jail asking if I could put money in her account. I always did. He started wondering why she'd be around and then not. We had to lie, of course.

She was included in his birthdays, Christmas, special events even after the adoption. We made a point to take him to see her on Mother's Day. My husband took him to her family reunions -and kept a vey low profile. We were her support when she became pregnant again, put our lives and plans on hold when she got kicked out of the program she was in and had no place to go... Homeless again, and we took the new baby in (sans social services which proved our/the babies'/my children's undoing. The final straw? She "stole" the baby back ... Yes it was her baby- but no clothes, no formulas, no home, no plan... Then got into an argument that very evening with her boyfriend and left the baby on the sidewalk in front of a bar in December. At least someone there knew her family, such as it was, and called the sister. Where the girl is to this day under a quid pro quo arrangement.

My son, now 15.5. Football, wtestling, field, speaks reads and writes fluent Spanish, plays the cello and takes ballet, jazz, tap and hip hop (because he LIKES it!). He's well balanced, makes decent grades. He works on his impulsivity and anger management (a whole nother story ther about teaching him coping techniques (the result of his very wonderful prenatal car. I tegus I don't have to use the sarcasm smile.) i spent hours and hours for years. He knows some about his birth family, but not eberything. He still has their pictures that I gave him though he rarely looks at it anymore.

He's MY son. Make no mistake. He was always my son, even when we thought he'd have to go back.

Bonding is loving a child, taking care of them, feeding, nurturing, staying up when they're sick and puking, getting up if they have nightmare or just want a drink of water. Kissing booboos and smelling the weeds he brings and putting thm in a vase like the most precious bouquet. Sharing the tears and laughter, the successes, and failures. Being there. Loving unconditionally. tHAT is what makes a parent.

[pnwmom]

62. mzteris, I don't know how foster parents manage that emotional tightrope

of caring for a child, inevitably loving a child, while knowing that you probably will have to let go of him all too soon. I am so glad for both you and your son that things worked out and you were able to stay together.

[blueamy66]

68. Torn away?

You remember being in your mother's womb? You remember her voice and smell?

I don't remember any of that.

Really?

Here we go again...

[BronxBoy]

7. Children are resilient...

Just as he bonded with his adoptive parents, he will also bond with his natural, apparently loving father. Should this father not have been granted custody of his child because of some vague possibility of harm? I had some sympathy for the adoptive parents until I read the story. "Covered his head with a towel when he caught a glimpse of him"...

I'm sure race is playing a big part in this although it's not really mentioned. But good for dad...He appears to treasure his son and in the long run, I'm sure he'll do fine. It's nice to read a story about a positive Black man and his child instead of the constant stuff we are fed in the media.

[pnwmom]

9. I think it's more likely they covered his head because of the photographers

who were nearby, shooting the whole thing.

I'm not disagreeing with the outcome in this case, but I would have if the child were 3 when he was finally handed over. Fortunately, from what I understand after reading this, he was only about 1. The older a child is, the more painful it would be and the more long-lasting the scars.

I also don't think the father is such a hero because his first reaction to seeing the positive pregnancy test -- seeing the physical test after his girlfriend took it in the bathroom -- was to think it was "trickery" and "mind games." She was probably disappointed and hurt by his reaction, and so she resisted him on the issue of going to the doctor. She was probably unhappy that he wanted her to prove paternity.

[BronxBoy]

14. He stepped up.....

She put his son up for adoption without any input from him. If he was such a sleaze, he had an easy out but he wanted his son. I'm OK with a woman exercising every right she has before her child is born. But after that, I'm OK with a man who truly wants to be with his child exercising every one of his. I'll chalk her putting her child up for adoption without his consent to being scared and confused as long as we chalk his reactions to the same emotions.

Initial reaction aside, he fought for his son.

[pnwmom]

35. Did he help support the mother financially while she was pregnant?

Some states consider that in making these decisions. Wouldn't part of "stepping up" be helping to support her financially? Maybe he did, but I haven't read that anywhere.

I wonder if he was in a state with a putative father registry. Being on a registry like this gives agencies and potential adoptive parents notice that there is an interested father involved.

http://www.adoptionattorneys.org/refinery/cache/pages/aaaa-page/birth-parents/putative-father-registry.html

[dionysus]

93. you really seem to not like this guy, why?

[pnwmom]

95. I wish he had pursued this IMMEDIATELY, as in March, when the adoption agency called him.

He had six months to stop the adoption from every occurring, and everyone, especially the child, would have been better off.

[dionysus]

99. ok. but be that as it may, kid looks happy, dad looks happy. seems like it turned out okay.

[pnwmom]

118. Right. Do you think everything turned out okay for the adoptive parents?

Who dealt with a licensed agency and thought they were adopting a boy who was free for adoption?

If the father had taken action in March, he could have prevented the adoption and saved everyone a lot of grief.

[dionysus]

128. it's sad for them, for sure, but if they are adults, they will move on.you don't seem to give a crap

about the father here.

had he forsaken the child and changed his mind, it would be different.

in your view, who should have the child now?

[pnwmom]

133. I wish the father had acted sooner to prevent the adoption. I've said repeatedly I agree with

the judge's decision -- and that was a long time ago, in July 2011, when the baby was 9 or 10 months old.

So there was no "epic battle" to get the baby away from the adoptive parents. What happened this December was that the father won his battle to convert his 50/50 shared custody with the mother, to full custody for him and visitation for the mother. I don't know why they decided to make the publicity splash about the reversed-adoption, because that case was over long ago.

But leave it to the Daily Mail to make an epic story out of a small one. The December ruling was about two bio parents changing their custody arrangements -- that's all.

[avebury]

161. If the father never signed away his parental rights

then I have zero sympathy for the adoptive parents. As soon as he told the adoption agency that he was not willing to allow his child to be put up for adoption, the adoption should have been dead in the water. Adoptive parents who continues to fight the courts under these circumstances do so at their own peril (financial and emotional).

[pnwmom]

165. You can't sign away parental rights that you never claimed in the first place.

You don't have any parental rights until you establish them, which he didn't make an attempt to do, by his own account, till after the adoption went through.

The article didn't say he claimed paternity in the phone call, or that he was unwilling to allow the woman's child to be put up for adoption -- he wouldn't have cared if the baby turned out not to be his. And there was no proof yet that he was the biological father. What he said was, according to the article, IF the baby was his, he wanted it. At that point it was up to him to make an effort to find out. That's the law.

You don't have parental rights simply by virtue of spilling some sperm. You have to assert that the child is yours with some evidence, and he failed to do so till after the deadline passed for doing so. Meanwhile, he had from March 2011 till the baby was born around September to either get a DNA test and send it to the agency, or put himself on the Putative Father's Registry, or at least call a lawyer.

You have no way to know what, if anything, the agency told the parents. They could have told the parents that they had informed a man who might be the father or they could have even said they had informed multiple men who might be the father -- and now it was time to see if that man or any man files a claim by the deadline of 15 days after the birth. Once that deadline had cleared they had every right to think that no father would be pursuing custody.

This story is typical tabloid yellow journalism by the Daily Mail -- England's version of the National Enquirer. There's no indication that they even attempted to speak to the adoptive parents or the bio mother for their side of what happened. I'm not going to condemn anyone on the basis of such a slanted piece.

[maddezmom]

167. That is complete bull at least in FL where I did 2 adoptions

Our attorney had to make a good faith effort to find the birth fathers. We had to hire a private investigator for one our son in Australia, for both take out ads in papers, contact family members, etc. in both cases, the children came home with us right after birth, but the adoptions were not finalized until months later. In any case in FL at the time the if the birth parents felt they were coerced, mislead, etc they could petition the court up to 18 mos after the adoption was finalized.

[pnwmom]

171. The adoption took place in Missouri, not Florida, and every state has its own adoption laws.

I am familiar with the California law, and no one is routinely required to hire a private investigator there. Putative fathers must be notified, and newspaper ads may be required if the father is unknown, and if a putative or potential father hasn't asserted paternity within 30 days of the birth, he has permanently lost a chance at custody. The adoption doesn't become finalized until six months or more after the birth, but the bio father's rights are terminated at 30 days, unless asserted by then.

[maddezmom]

173. So CA and FL are different...bet MO law is as well.

[pnwmom]

175. Every state is different. They don't all have Putative Father Registries, for example,

though I wish they all did and that more people knew about them.

I think I remember hearing that the California law was rewritten to shorten the timeline as to when a father could claim custody because so many adoptive parents were choosing international adoptions, so they wouldn't have to be afraid of situations like this. It's not to a baby's benefit to have to wait so long to have its status assured. I don't know how you managed to wait 18 months with the possibility of losing your baby hanging over your head.

I read yesterday that only 5% of adoptions these day are completely closed. 55% are fully open and 40% are mediated, with contact mediated through the agency. So situations like the Samsons are hopefully very rare.

[StevieM]

114. As usual, he told the adoption agency immediately that he didn't want the adoption.

And as usual, they didn't care. They wanted to make money.

[pnwmom]

120. That's what he says. But a judge dismissed his lawsuit against the agency.

So is there proof that he told them? Why didn't he send them a letter? Put it in writing? Hire a lawyer? Anything except do nothing till it was too late.

Would you advise anyone in his situation to wait for six months after the agency told you about the adoption and do nothing until you thought the baby was being born?

[StevieM]

129. He told them that he didn't want an adoption. That should have been the end of it.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit IMO because we are a ridiculously pro-adoption country and judges often ignore the law in these matters.

If the man wanted an adoption, or didn't oppose it, they would have gotten his signature. Or scheduled a TPR court date that he was informed of and invited to contest. Adoption agencies regularly try to deny fathers their rights so they can make money on an adoption--that is just what they do.

And that's not to even mention what they do to prospective birth mothers.

[kcr]

137. Immediately? You mean, when he told them no the first time they contacted him?

And the couple who attempted to adopt him should have made sure both parents agreed to it. As all adoptive parents should. They are taking a great risk when they don't.

[pnwmom]

139. Do you have evidence for that besides what he's saying now?

Did he send them a follow up letter or list his name on the Putative Father Registry or call an attorney?

The couple who adopted him did everything they could do adopt him properly. They adopted him from a licensed agency, not in a private adoption with the mother. Also, there is a Putative Father registry in both Missouri, where the mother lived, and in Florida, where the adoptive parents lived. If he was listed on the Missouri registry, the agency couldn't have allowed the adoption to go forward.

What other measures should the adoptive parents have taken besides dealing with a licensed agency, having a lawyer who checked over the documentation, and checking the registry?

After this was over, the father filed a lawsuit against the agency and a judge dismissed it. We don't know why, but it is certainly possible that it's because the father couldn't produce proof that he'd notified the agency of his interest in the baby. His memory of what he said to them might not have been enough, without any other documentation.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Looks to me like it was her refusal to go to the doctor

that triggered his thought of trickery and mind games; not positive pregnancy test. I don't see anything about his reaction until after she refused to go to the doctor.

[pnwmom]

28. We're only hearing one side of this,

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 11:31 PM - Edit history (2)

and that person has acknowledged that he thought she was guilty of trickery and mind games when she showed him the positive pregnancy test.

I suspect her side of the story would have a different slant than his. From this account, the proposed doctor visit sounds less like something for the baby and more for him to confirm that she wasn't lying. (Pregnancy tests can register a pregnancy much earlier than doctors usually advise a woman to go in to see them. My first appointment was at least 6 weeks into the pregnancy.)

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php?p=16883641

"I wasn't looking to settle down or anything like that," he said. "We both understood it wasn't serious."

In December 2009, after not seeing him for a few weeks, she came to his house with an opened box of pregnancy tests and disappeared into the bathroom to take one, Sampson said.

When she came out, she showed him the positive result.

"Let's go to the doctor," he suggested, "and find out for sure."

She refused, Sampson said. And he doubted that she was really pregnant, suspecting the store-bought test had already been taken by someone else.

"I really thought it was trickery," he said. "I thought it was all mind games."

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. She refused to go to a doctor, and she started the adopting process without telling him

before the baby was even born, and then tricked him about when the baby was born. She comes out of this looking like a real heel. And you have to ask when the would-be-adoptive parents found out there was a willing father involved, and why they didn't work with him from that point. If it took them 6 months to bring the baby back, they look like unfit parents.

[pnwmom]

90. Yeah, he makes her look like a heel. She refused to go to a doctor -- according to him.

Most OB's don't want to see healthy new patients until a pregnancy is about 6 weeks along, because there is a very high incidence of pregnancy loss before then. The tests, on the other hand, let you find out almost instantly. The only reason for her to go to a doctor that early was because he thought she was deceiving him about the pregnancy test. (He said so in another interview.) Can you blame her for not wanting to immediately go just to prove to him she wasn't a liar?

In March, the agency told him that she had started the adoption process, six months before the baby was born. Why didn't he do something about it then? Offer to help support the mother financially (one of the measures some states use to decide paternal responsibility)? Put himself on Missouri's "Putative Father Registry," (that would put the agency and potential adoptive parents on notice about his claim on the baby)? Get a lawyer?

Nobody knows exactly when the adoptive parents were told, but they seem the most blameless in this case. They adopted a baby from an agency who was supposed to be free for adoption. This shouldn't have happened and I wish the father had taken action back in March -- then the adoption would never have happened and everyone, including the baby, would have been better off.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. He told the adoption agency in March he wanted the baby

The adoption agency looks like it ought to be out of business; the mother pretended the baby hadn't been born when it already had; and the couple who tried to adopt kept the baby from him. They're all unfit to be parents or an adoption agency.

[pnwmom]

103. That's what he says. But a judge has already dismissed his lawsuit against the agency.

I don't know what the grounds were, but he's not appealing it in Missouri, apparently. He says he plans to file another lawsuit in his own state.

What exactly did the couple do to keep the baby from him? They had legally adopted the child through a legal agency. I don't blame them for fighting to keep the baby they'd already bonded with. Who knows what the agency was telling them when this started. But all this suffering could have been avoided if the father had taken action in March, 6 months before the baby was born.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. They thought their desires came before the rights of the baby's father

What they did was incredibly selfish. I blame them totally. Why would you side with someone keeping a child from his parent?

[pnwmom]

106. They didn't know about the father when the adopted the child, and there is no evidence

from any of these stories about when they found out.

You do realize that the baby was taken from them a long time ago, right? Back in July 2011? The reason it's taken three years is because he and the bio Mom were sharing custody 50/50, but in December he won full custody away from her (she has visitation only).

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. We don't know if they knew before they adopted; we know the agency knew

so either the agency lied in the information they gave to the adopters, or the adopters didn't care. We know the father had 6 months driving to Missouri to the court, and they had to give up the baby in July 2011 (after having to bring him back to Missouri when 6 months old, so that would be February or March). So we know they fought this for some time. That's what I could never imagine doing, and why I find them indefensible.

[pnwmom]

132. We don't even KNOW the agency knew. All we KNOW is that the father claims

he told the agency on the phone; and that a judge for some reason dismissed his lawsuit against the agency.

Yes, I could believe the father is fudging the truth. I could also believe the mother lied to him. I don't know them and I can't tell by looking at someone whether they're telling the truth or not. That's why, in a dispute, it's always important to hear both sides; but that's not happening in this case.

And we don't know what happened in the trial and what the adoptive parents' lawyers were telling them, so I'm not going to blame them in this situation. From everything we know, they were victims, too. The mother shouldn't have put up the baby for adoption, and the father should have immediately gotten help as soon as he heard about it from the agency. He could have prevented the adoption if he had acted in the six months before the baby was born.

But there was no epic battle between him and the birth parents -- that ended long ago. The long battle was between the two bio parents, and hopefully the little boy will be better off.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. If you think you don't know anything, then why argue this?

We know that the birth father was awarded custody by the courts. We know they heard all sides. There is nothing that we know that can paint the adopters as 'victims'.

"But there was no epic battle between him and the birth parents" - I presume that should read "between him and the adoptive parents", since he is the birth father. And there was a battle between him and them - he spent six months travelling to Missouri twice a week to fight it; when the baby was 6 months old, a court ordered them to bring him to Missouri, and when the father finally got to be in the same room as his son, they covered the baby so they couldn't see each other. That's a fight. And the adopters were behaving unreasonably in it. They were victimising the father. They knew they were not needed to adopt the child.

[pnwmom]

149. Because I don't think people are being fair to the adoptive parents.

He failed to make his claim before the adoption, when it would have saved everyone a lot of grief. All we're hearing is his side, including the story about the cloth over the baby's head. There could have been cameras flashing or other reasons for that, assuming it happened.

The parents did everything they could to make sure this was a legal adoption, using a licensed agency, a lawyer to review the papers, and passing the legal deadlines for a father to establish paternity. The father was notified in March and let a deadline that was more than 7 months later pass without doing anything. I think it is deeply unfair to blame the grieving adoptive parents for the situation that they didn't cause -- that the bio mother caused, and that he also caused by his delay.

The adoptive parents didn't victimize the father. They acted legally, not knowing that he was going to claim paternity (or even possibly of his existence) until he passed the legal deadline to establish it. They were victimized as much as he was -- more, really, because he won custody in the end.

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. The baby did not need to be adopted, and the couple knew that at the latest by January

and yet they didn't even try to let the father see the baby. That's victimization. They knew they were trying to take a baby away from a parent.

[pnwmom]

154. Where did you get the January date? And without their side of the story

how can you know what they did, other than come up from Florida for the hearing in March or April (or six months after the father finally took action)?

Whenever it was, by the time they heard about the father, they had already bonded with the baby. They thought he was legally theirs, and they felt just as passionate about this baby as any birth parent. It's funny that some of the same people who will talk about the loss experienced by babies from being "ripped" away from their bio moms seem to think it's nothing for a baby to be taken away from the couple who has been loving and caring for the baby from the day it was born.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. They lost custody in July; the father spent 6 months going to Missouri for the court

therefore legal proceedings started at the latest in January, and they would have been told that the father wanted the baby then. They probably knew before that, but we don't know for sure - it would have taken the agency trying to cover up the theft of the baby to not even tell them, but I suppose they might be that evil.

If the couple had cooperated with the father, I might have some sympathy for them. But they didn't.

[pnwmom]

163. All we have to go on are the father's statements about what he did

in two biased articles without any comments from the other side (or any notation that they even tried to get such comments), one of them from the tabloid Daily Mail -- a tabloid which twisted the story to make it appear in the headline that the father had been fighting the adoptive parents for three years.

I'm not going to condemn anyone based on such a slanted story. And knowing that they lost the baby they thought was theirs, I have great sympathy for them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. You call the articles 'biased'; you have no reason to say that

They are simply the report of what happened.

[pnwmom]

166. Of course I do. The reporter doesn't say they even got as much as a "no comment"

from the bio mother or the adoptive parents.

A story that only presents one side of a story when there are multiple sides is inherently biased. This is no report of "what happened." This is a report of what one man says happened, leaving out any details of what the bio mother thinks happened, or the agency, or the adoptive parents.

[Ms. Toad]

75. The article in the OP doesn't include "and find out for sure"

in connection with the pregnancy test. The doubt is described as being connected to her refusal to go to the doctor.

In December 2009, after not seeing him for a few weeks, the girlfriend came to his house with an opened box of pregnancy tests and disappeared into the bathroom to take one, Sampson said.

When she came out, she showed him the positive result.

Sampson said they needed to go to a doctor but she refused, causing him to doubt her pregnancy.

'I really thought it was trickery,' he said.

'I thought it was all mind games.'

I wasn't assuming his story is completely accurate - I was just questioning attributing his doubt to the initial pregnancy test, rather than on the refusal of his pregnant girlfriend to seek medical care.

I would get suspicious, as well, if someone showed me a pregnancy test I had not seen taken and then but refused to go to the doctor (whether it was to confirm the test - as the second article suggests - or for prenatal care - my assumption based on the article linked to above).

[pnwmom]

107. But doctors don't suggest women go in for prenatal care as soon as they get a pregnancy test

because so many pregnancies are lost early on. My doctors (I had different ones) both wanted me to wait for six weeks.

Since doctors don't think there is an immediate "need" for prenatal care, the GF was justified in not going in just to satisfy his doubts about his paternity.

And again, all we have to go on is what he is saying. It would be interesting to hear her side of the story. The bottom line for me is that he acknowledges hearing about the adoption in March, six months before the baby was born. If he had taken action then he could have prevented the adoption from ever happening, and saved everyone some unnecessary grief.

[Ms. Toad]

130. I doubt either one of them had a clue what doctors might expect

- and, FWIW, my prenatal care began immediately.

My comment was based on the original article, in which he seemed to be reasonably reacting to a series of things which culminated in refusing to see a doctor (and I don't believe the article mentioned seeing the doctor immediately). Your comment seemed to connect his reaction to the positive pregnancy test - which is not what the original article connected it to. That's all I was noting.

[Heddi]

153. You don't know how far along you are until you go to the Dr

She could have already been 6 weeks along. Or 9 weeks. Or 12 weeks. Who knows?

oh, and I'm an RN, and I know what Dr's recommend. I've NEVER heard an MD tell a patient "oh no, you just had a positive preg test? Let's wait a while before you come in."

In fact, they WANT the woman to come in asap. They'll get a serum HcG to determine gestational age and will most likely do a trans Vaginal US to further determine gestational age.

It is not uncommon at all for a woman to be 6 weeks or more pregnant when she takes her first pregnancy test. Not all periods are regular, and not all women keep track on a calendar, and many women "spot" while pregnant, which gives the appearance of a period , albeit light.

Please stop spreading misleading and inaccurate medical information.

[pnwmom]

168. They don't say, "let's wait a while." They do say, "when was the date of your last period?"

And then they say, "Can you come in on XXX date?" which, for a very early pregnancy, is not usually immediate.

http://americanpregnancy.org/planningandpreparing/firstprenatal.htm

If you did not meet with your health care provider before your were pregnant, your first prenatal appointment will generally be around 8 weeks after your LMP (last menstrual period). If this applies to you, you should schedule a prenatal visit as soon as you know you are pregnant!

[Heddi]

174. Did you read the link you provided

right there : If you did not meet with your health care provider before your were pregnant,
If this applies to you, you should schedule a prenatal visit as soon as you know you are pregnant!

I'm telling you, I'm an RN. I don't go by what Pregnancy Association websites say. I go with what 8 years of knowledge, skill, experience, and education say:

When you have a positive preg test, you call the OBGYN and they bring you in ASAP. Periods are an unreliable indicator of gestational age. A serum HGC is a better indicator and is less invasive than a trans-vag ultrasound.

Not only are periods unreliable, but patients are unreliable...unreliable about what meds they take (why we verify them with the pharmacy), unreliable about when their periods are (why we do a serum HCG), unreliable about past medical history (why we get charts and records from other providers). It's not that patients are lying...they're just not sure. People forget things, or don't pay attention to begin with.

I have irregular periods, as 70% of women do. If the dr asks me when my last period is, I can't tell him a day. I can't even tell him a week. I can give him a ballpark figure sometimes that is within a month or two of last period. Sometimes sooner, Sometimes not.

But please. Do base all your medical knowledge on websites. I'll base mine on actual medical literature.

[pnwmom]

176. Yes, schedule it. It doesn't say schedule it immediately. It says that the first appointment

Last edited Sun Apr 6, 2014, 07:17 PM - Edit history (3)

should be about 8 weeks after the missed period.

You say you are an RN but you don't mention being an RN who works for an OB. I'm a mother who went through three pregnancies with three different docs -- and none asked me to come in before 6 - 8 weeks. The tests now can register a positive result on the day you miss a period -- when implantation took place only two weeks before. If you think doctors are saying that most women should come in on the day she misses her period, or even that week, just because she has a positive test, you are mistaken.

There is also no test that can establish a man's paternity early in a pregnancy, and that was a question Samson had, too. When the agency called him in March, he didn't assert he was the father; he said he wouldn't want the baby adopted IF he were the doctor. Clearly, he wasn't certain about that. But there was no test for paternity to be done at that point.

http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/your-body-during-pregnancy/pregnancy-first-trimester-guide_71427

Once the reality of a positive home pregnancy test has started to settle in, your first thought will probably be, “Call the doctor!” It’s easy to be impatient in those early days, but getting in to see your doctor immediately may not be in the cards. Many newly pregnant women are surprised to discover that a first prenatal visit is commonly scheduled at eight weeks or later. (If there is reason for your pregnancy to be considered high risk, you can expect to see your doctor around the six-week mark.) The reason for this is simple: There just isn’t much to see before then.

“The earliest you could expect to see a heartbeat on an ultrasound is six weeks,” explains Dr. Robin Kalish, MD, an OB-GYN who practices at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, New York. “Still, a pregnancy can be perfectly healthy and not have a visible heartbeat at six weeks. Many doctors are hesitant to bring a patient in that early, because if no heartbeat can be found it can worry her unnecessarily. By eight weeks though, there should definitely be a nice, strong heartbeat. So this is the optimal time for a first appointment by many doctors.”


http://pregnant.thebump.com/pregnancy/first-trimester/qa/timing-of-first-ob-appointment.aspx?MsdVisit=1

Re: I called yesterday to schedule my first doc visit. They didn't schedule me until the middle of my 9th week. Is that okay?

We typically schedule low risk patients for their first visit at around eight or nine weeks. There are some cases when we recommend women come to the office earlier (when they have a positive pregnancy test), such as if a woman has had recurrent early pregnancy losses or if she needs to be on blood thinners for a known blood clotting disorder. ~ Dr. Ashley Roman

[malaise]

16. I'm sure race is playing a big part in this although it's not really mentioned

Nailed it

[BronxBoy]

18. Of course......

But we'll discuss it while the elephant watches TV in the room going unnoticed.

[bravenak]

54. My daughter did the same thing to black men when she was a baby.

I felt bad cause i am BLACK! Her dad is mixed. She would see a dude with dreadlocks and flip the hell out. So embarrassing! We don't have enough diversity in my state and i'm the darkest one in the family. Sounds like this kid never saw many black men.
I had a little Mexican girl trip out on me because she had never seen a black person up close before and i picked her up too fast. She turned silent and red then let out the loudest screech. I had to talk to her in Spanish to calm her down. A hundred calmate pobrecitas later she was ok, but i was still suspect.

[pnwmom]

56. How do you know with an unknown child, like the little Mexican girl, what she is reacting to?

I remember when my friendly little daughter suddenly became of strangers, and we handed her to someone at a party -- and she screamed in his face. And later, my little niece screamed at her grandfather when he picked her up too fast.

Maybe with the little Mexican girl it was something similar -- you startled her because you picked her up too fast. Yes, your race might have had something to do with it -- but how would you know?

[bravenak]

60. Her dad told me that she had never met a black person up close.

And they were pretty bigoty anyway, there is this thing between some black people and hispanic people in that area at that time that would be hard to explain to you. He told me it was cause i was black, and i believe him. My bff had just met her and picked her up with no problem and she is persian/turkish.
So I switched to spanish and she was cool. The first time i met a white guy with a beard up close i cried. I though santa had found me because i was bad.

[pnwmom]

61. The father had probably noticed it before then. . . . and maybe also communicated something to her.

My white daughter was scared of white Santa and his white beard. That sentiment is pretty common. The parents want the picture taken but the little kids aren't so thrilled.

[bravenak]

63. The santa line is always full of screamers.

I figured white kids were scared of him too. He knows too much. The first white lady i met i thought was a grown up barbie. I kept calling her Barbie Doll and she kept laughing. I thought John Lennon was Jesus and whenever i saw him on TV i would yell out there's jesus singing.

[pnwmom]

64. It's hard to know what little kids think about race sometimes. My son is color-blind,

so he would use green crayons to color people's skin -- everyone was a shade of green to him. When he learned to read, I told him to look for the colors that said "peach" or "tan" or "brown" if he needed a skin color. (Even if they looked basically the same to him as "green" or "gray" or "pink".) He would color grass with the pink crayon, and I had to explain that he should use the "green" crayon for grass. (Unless he wanted to color it differently on purpose, and then any color was okay.) Imagine what it's like when what you see doesn't match up with what most everyone else sees!

When he got to kindergarten, he started talking about this black boy who was a friend of his. I couldn't think of a black boy in the class. There were a couple black girls, but no boy. I finally figured out that he thought that when you called someone "black" you were referring to hair color. (Which actually makes as much sense as anything else.) There were a few black-haired Asian boys in the class, and one of them was his friend. And he also thought he and I were black people, because our hair was almost that dark.

[bravenak]

67. Your son makes more sense than most of us.

I like that story. I have a friend who is color blind and he said something similar about not understanding skin color differences when he was a kid. Sounds like you have a cute kid.

[pnwmom]

77. There was another time when he was about 7.

We were in a store trying to figure out what sneakers to buy. So many kinds and neither of us knew what to pick. So I asked him, high-tops or low-tops? He didn't know. I asked him, well, what do your friends wear? And he looked at me like I'd grown a second head. "Mom, no one ever pays attention to what anyone else wears!"

He's not a kid anyone, he's a young man. He'll never be a fashion plate but he has figured out that people do pay more attention to appearances than he thought . . .

[blueamy66]

100. Sorry that your son is color blind....

BUT, love him for not caring!

[pnwmom]

101. I used to feel bad for him about it

especially when he was small. Before he was diagnosed, it made preschool hard. Imagine everything looking different to you than to everyone else, but neither you nor your teacher realizes it. And colors are a big deal in preschool.

But I realize that in the broad scale of things, it's not important. It puts some jobs off limits (some science jobs, in particular), but that's okay. He has other strengths, just not colors!

[AgingAmerican]

38. Oh freaking man...

nt

[StevieM]

112. The child has been liberated and united with his rightful family. I have no doubt that

one day he will be grateful to his father for fighting for him.

[BainsBane]

8. MN requires the father's consent for adoption

If he's not around, effort has to be made to locate and notify him.

[Bonobo]

29. This did not occur in MN

Furthermore, what could be easier than pretending that an "effort" has been made?
Who is responsible for making the effort? How much effort? How is it determined that proper effort was made?

[BainsBane]

33. The law determines what that is

They have to post ads in newspapers. I would imagine they have to use available people search tools. I'm not sure of the particulars but my sister works in adoption services and knows all about the law. I believe the adoption worker handles that as part of the process. I know a father used to be able to hold up an adoption here, even if he himself didn't want to raise the child. That has changed.

I realize this didn't happen in Minnesota. It couldn't legally happen in MN. I sited our law because I think it's important fathers be notified.

[pnwmom]

57. Missouri is one of the states that has a Putative Father Registry

where men who want to acknowledge their paternity or possible paternity can register, and thereby put any adoption agency or adoptive parents on notice.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

23. I feel so much hatred for the people who 'adopted' the baby.

How could anyone keep a baby from the bio parent. They are dirt bags!

This part makes me sicks;

Sampson caught his first glimpse of him in the courthouse lobby, but the other parents quickly threw a towel over the baby's head.
'I saw how they looked at me - like I was the devil,' Sampson said.
'How can anybody hate me that much? I'm the father.'

I hope he sues the adoption agency and wins. This should never have happened.

Good luck to Jeremiah.

[me b zola]

26. Right? Who could do this?

If you know that a child has a parent who wants to parent, what kind of dirt-bag would attempt to stop that?

[Bonobo]

27. The real elephant in the room here

Is that men are given less credit and less rights wrt their role as parents than are women.

[pnwmom]

36. Have you seen a report that they knew about the father's interest when they adopted? n/t

[AgingAmerican]

40. Have you seen one that they didn't?

A lot of guessing going on in this thread.

[pnwmom]

48. That is my point. We don't know both sides.

But from the little we do know, I don't see a reason to blame the adoptive parents. They adopted from an agency and they could be victims in this, too.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. The mother and adoption agency are to blame...

As well as the adoptive parents *if* they knew very early on that the father hadn't agreed to the adoption and wanted his child. If they did anything to try to keep him from the baby, then they are scum of the earth.

I'm glad this all turned out well and father and son are together. What sucks is it took three years to get sorted out and cost the father his education and a whole lot of money to do it...

[BronxBoy]

84. No....

but have you seen a report that they didn't?

I agree that we shouldn't be quick to demonize the adoptive parents....But shouldn't we also give the "Natural" father just as much leeway?

[pnwmom]

30. The people adopted through an agency. Why should you hate them when

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

there is no indication that they knew at the time of the adoption that there was a father who would contest it? Agencies don't normally release babies for adoption unless the laws have been followed.

By the time they found out about the father, they were already bonded to the baby, and I'm sure they suffered. I don't know why anyone would hate them after what they've been through.

If the father had put his name on the Putative Father Registry for Missouri (where the mother was living) then the adoptive parents would have had notice.

[Nine]

32. me b zola, what is your story?

I'm genuinely curious. You seem to have a really negative view of adoption. I've seen bits and pieces you've shared but not the whole story.

[me b zola]

44. Thank you for asking

I had almost completed a long and thoughtful response to your question when I lost the entirety of my post

I will begin (again, lol) with the most pressing. I loved~and miss~my adoptive parents. They were really good people who brought a lot of wisdom to me and my life. They were NOT sexually nor physically abusive. They were "normal" and wanted a loving daughter.

I am a little different from most other adoptees as that I questioned what was told to me much younger than many other adoptees that I have read. My natural questions hurt my adoptive parents feelings, although I knew then, and have been vindicated since, was natural for an adoptee.

I don't know exactly what you want to hear. But I can tell you that having your history torn away from you is wrong. Everyone wants to know their history.

I wish you well. If there is something more I can do for you I will be glad to do it. TC

[blueamy66]

70. I don't want to know my history.

I have a history, with my parents.

[Nine]

71. I guess I thought there would be more to your story.

Something more dramatic, like bravenak's (grandmother's) story downthread. If you were simply an advocate for open adoption (the current standard) instead of closed adoption, I could understand that. But you just seem to me to be against all adoption, period. I'm having trouble reconciling your seemingly strong feelings on the subject with your rather tame personal narrative: you were adopted by good people but had unanswered questions about your biological heritage.

[StevieM]

117. The current standard is often for prospective adoptive parents to promise an open adoption

and then slam the door closed once the papers are signed.

[Nine]

155. That goes both ways.

There are often bio parents who will string prospective adoptive parents along, when they actually have no intention of relinquishing the child, simply to get them to pay for medical and living expenses.

Unless you want to change the laws so that babies can be bought and sold with contracts outlining who gets what, you have to rely on the honor system.

[pnwmom]

37. Have you read if he signed up on Missouri's "Putative Father Registry," since he knew about

the pregnancy? He should have done it in March, when the adoption agency called him (if not as soon as the GF told him about the pregnancy.) It would have given the adoptive parents and their lawyer official notice of his interest in the child.

http://www.adoptionattorneys.org/refinery/cache/pages/aaaa-page/birth-parents/putative-father-registry.html

Who is a Putative Father?
A putative father is generally a man whose legal relationship to a child has not been established, but claims to be the father or who is alleged to be the father to a child who is born to a woman to whom he is not married at the time of the child’s birth.

What is a Putative Father Registry?
Every state has a provision for fathers to voluntarily acknowledge paternity or the possibility of paternity of a child born outside of a marriage. The Federal Social Security Act requires States to have in place procedures for mothers and putative fathers to acknowledge paternity of a child, including a hospital-based program for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity that focuses on the period immediately before or after the birth of the child. The procedures must include that, before they can sign an affidavit of paternity, the mother and putative father will be given notice of the alternatives and legal consequences that arise from signing the acknowledgment. See 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5) (2010).

At least 24 States have established paternity registries where putative fathers can indicate their intention to claim paterity including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illiinois, Indiana, Iowa, Lousiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming. In 11 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, there are forms that are filed with social services departments, registrars of vital statistics, or similar offices, which provide for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. These states are Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin

[LiberalAndProud]

85. I note that my state is in the list of 24 states. Your post educated me.

I wasn't aware of a putative father registry prior to this. Maybe he would have registered if he had known about the registry. I suspect.

This is good information. I love DU.

[pnwmom]

86. It's too bad he didn't consult a lawyer right away -- but I realize that costs money

and is not everyone's first instinct.

On the other hand, most people do have online access these days. It didn't take much digging for me to find out about this (a couple minutes.)

[LiberalAndProud]

88. It seems like consulting a family lawyer would have among the first strategies.

I don't know the long three year history of the legal battle under discussion, but your posts in this thread are my first introduction to the concept of a putative fathers registry. I'm glad to know that there are such things.

[pnwmom]

92. Every state should have one. There would be a lot less suffering.

No adoptive family wants to find themselves in this situation -- it is the worst nightmare and is what drives many to adopt internationally, even though those children often have even a greater challenge dealing emotionally with their adoptions.

[me b zola]

47. Yeah, this...

[Bluenorthwest]

162. Speaking of truth, Orwell did not actually say nor write that.

Drift.

[bravenak]

51. I agree with you totally.

My grandmother was adopted and was never told who her real mother was. Her adopted mother called her up one day in the fifties and told her to come home so she could let her know before she died. By the time she got there she was dead and her sons had burned her papers to prevent my grapndmother from getting any money. MONEY? She wanted her roots, not the fucking money. They burned her history over money. She always assumed she was stolen to replace the womans own daughter who died. She was given the girls name and social and age. Seven years older than her. She married at 12 to a 40 year old man. Ten children two husbands ( i'm from the second line- irish/cherokee/black, i'm lucky, i can find my peeps in cherokee registries) she never wanted to be alone again, and she never was.
She died being considered an illegal immigrant by the US government because of shady adoption practises and a lack of paperwork even though she was OBVIOUSLY a decendant of slaves. Her husband was an illegal immigrant from spain. He was deported and she was allowed to stay because they could not figure out how to deport her or where to ship her to.
We need to know where we come from. Not knowing the history of the family eats me up inside and it happened two generations ago.
I'm glad that the child will not have to suffer feeling that void like something you never knew you had is missing.

If i adopted a child and the parent let me know a few months later that they had been decieved by the other parent i would check them out to make sure they were on the up and up and then i would return their child to them. If the parent were unwilling to part with their child, and had been defrauded, who am i to keep their child from them? I would feel horrible for them being decieved like that and would ask to be allowed to participate in some way as an honorary fmily member.
We do not do adoption ( we share children if the parents can't manage to keep them in the family, even rape babies that we decide to keep, like my sister who i love and my mother loves- no child is trash or an object of disgust to us. Innocent is what they are.) in my family because of my grandmother and the pain she felt. It affected every aspect of her life and led to alcoholism and self abuse and misery. Not to mention the feeling of not being wanted and having no self esteem and feeling alone in a crowd.

Just because the adoptive parents bonded with the child does not imo entitle them to anything. It certainly does not entitle them to rights that trump the rights of the natural parent who did not give them permission to his rights. Not to mention the rights of a child to knowledge of their family.

Sorry for rambling. I'm sure adoption works well for some. I just haven't seen many adoptees who are happy about it.

[me b zola]

52. No need to apologize, I loved reading every word that you wrote

You do your grandmother well by giving witness to her story~and lack there of. I will send a pm that hopefully will help in the search of your history. Much love

[bravenak]

53. Thank you.

I would appreciate some help, my sister does most of the work on this now since i had kids. There is still a longing in us. We are about to do the dna tests soon to attempt to find more info and we are working on getting last names so we can look up tribal records. I'm feeling you.

[Nine]

81. Have you tried "23 and me"?

Genetic test kit costs $99 and lets you find relations who've opted in to be searchable.

[bravenak]

122. What!?!

I'm about to look that up. The ones i was looking at were 300 bucks. Thanks.

[Nine]

134. They dropped the price.

Used to be $299. Last year they dropped it down to $99.

[bravenak]

135. Coolio.

I can swing that. Thanks!

[MoonRiver]

66. I'm overjoyed for baby and father!

[Dorian Gray]

72. I disagree

that it is an epic win for the 3 year old. It is for the father, though. And it's the right call. But, that three year old child must have gone through much confusion. I ache for him. And I ache for the parents that lost him.

[pnwmom]

78. I agree with you that it's the right call,

but that doesn't make it an epic win for the child. It's an epic win for the father and will hopefully be the best thing for the child in the long run, but the child experienced the loss of the parents he'd already bonded with.

I don't know why some people are so angry with the adoptive parents, since they had every right to think, in an agency adoption, that the boy had been legally released by both parents. This was a profound loss for them.

[BronxBoy]

82. But at some point.....

they had to know "that the boy had NOT been legally released by both parents." I feel bad for them if the adoption agency defrauded them. But they also defrauded the boy's natural father. Why is their loss anymore profound than that of his natural father?????

[pnwmom]

87. I didn't say their loss was more profound and I didn't say I disagreed with the decision.

But they DID bond with that child and they suffered a great loss. Eventually they found out that the boy hadn't been legally released, but not immediately. And it takes almost no time at all to bond with a baby that you have adopted. Or even that your daughter has adopted -- speaking from personal experience.

[BronxBoy]

91. But you seem to be ok..

With casting all kinds of aspersions on the father. Did he sign up on the registry...he didn't do this or he he did do that? How would you feel if I made a shitload assumptions about the adoptive parents?

Maybe they thought they could provide more of a home for this child than a n****ger daddy could.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing in this story that supports that viewpoint. But there is nothing in the story to support suspecting the dad's motives either. He's with his dad and that's a good thing

[pnwmom]

94. It's a fact that he knew as early as March that the ex was pursuing adoption -- he said so.

I don't suspect his motives. I just think it's a shame that he didn't act immediately. (Nothing in his own story indicates he did.) He could have prevented the adoption from ever happening and everyone, most especially the baby, would have been better off.

[BronxBoy]

98. He was for all

Intensive purposes a fucking kid. Yeah he could have done this or he could have done that.

Why didn't the adoption agency do their fucking job? You seem to want to go our if your way to find fault with this young man? Why?

[maddezmom]

109. Never mind, found it

He told the adoption agency he wanted the child at that time.

[Dorian Gray]

126. I totally agree with you here.

[vankuria]

74. I can see why foreign adoption is so popular

With international adoptions you don't have to deal with a parent coming out of the woodwork to claim their child. My heart breaks for the adoptive parents. After bonding with a child over 3 years to have that child torn away from you is beyond tragic. I've known many people who've adopted and they consider that child their flesh and blood. Perhaps the little boy will get over being taken from the only parents he's ever known, but the adoptive parents will never get over losing their little boy.

I hope the biological father has the maturity and the means to give this child the stable, happy life he deserves.

We have a family situation right now, my husbands niece is 15, in the 9th grade, pregnant and plans to keep her baby. She lives with her parents who struggle financially, in and out of work and with 4 troubled kids already. They live in a trailer with barely enough room as it is and now will be taking on one more. No one can tell me this baby wouldn't be better off if it were adopted into a stable home with parents who truly want a child and have the means necessary to raise it.

[BronxBoy]

83. But didn't this father have his child....

"child torn away from him"? Why is the 3 years he had to go through trying to reclaim his natural son any less heartbreaking?? I hope that the adoptive parents have the maturity to realize that if a loving natural parent presents themselves and wants their child that they would do the right thing.

And as far as means....there are plenty of dirt poor people that love their children and want to provide as best a life for them as they can. Should we remove them from their parent(s) because they don't have the "means" ???

[vankuria]

89. This is a sad story all the way around

However I feel most badly for the adoptive parents, they had 3 years to bond with this child and I'm sure the little boy was very attached to them. I could not imagine nurturing a child for 3 years and then never seeing him again.

As for "means", I didn't mean to insinuate that only people with money should have children. Having"means" is also about maturity, stability and yes it helps to have the financial means to provide food and decent shelter. I came from a family of meager means and my parents provided the best they could in that their children always came first. Somehow they always came through and we knew we were loved. That unfortunately is not always the case and as a Social Worker I've seen first hand when parents don't have the emotional maturity to deal with everyday issues of raising a child and sometimes this leads to neglect and abuse.

[BronxBoy]

96. Yeah ......

I agree...sad all around....

But why are we so quick to assume that the adoptive parents were heaven on earth? We know jack shit about them but some are ok with trashing or questioning the motives of the natural father without knowing anything about rhese folks.

And in a just world, the adoption agency would be the ones to be raked through the coals

[vankuria]

97. Agreed

The adoption agency is definitely at fault here, they did not do justice for anyone and I hope they are held accountable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. The father was involved from before the birth; the adopters lost custody after about 10 months

The baby was born August or September 2010 (when the father turned up after the mother told him the contractions had started some day in September 2010, he found out the baby had been adopted 3 weeks earlier); a judge ordered the adoptive parents to bring the baby back to Missouri when he was 6 months old; the adoption was nullified by a judge in July 2011. Basically, when the father found the baby had been adopted without his permission, he started legal proceedings, so they knew pretty much from the word go they had a baby that was wanted by his biological father.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/young-coweta-father-wins-fight-in-missouri-against-adoption-of/article_43c7a6a9-8612-5109-bc66-c0dc1901f046.html

[pnwmom]

108. He failed to start the legal proceedings in March 2010, which could have prevented the adoption

from ever happening.

It can't be reasonably said that the parents knew "from then word go" that they had a baby that wasn't free for adoption. They lived in Florida and there's no evidence in the articles that says when the agency told them there was a father.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. He told the adoption agency he wanted the child

which should have stopped the adoption stone dead then. He didn't need legal proceedings. He is the father. He thought the adoption wasn't going to happen - he came to be at the birth.

[pnwmom]

116. That's what he says. But for some reason the judge dismissed his lawsuit

against the agency. One possibility: he failed to sign up with Missouri's Putative Father Registry, which would have prevented the adoption, and is free.

So we only have his word on the claim that he informed the agency. If he had taken a legal action in March, he could have stopped the adoption before it happened.

And yes, of course he needed legal proceedings. They weren't married and he hadn't established paternity. If he were your son, wouldn't you have advised him to take some positive action to claim paternity, now that he KNEW the mother was planning on an adoption?

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. The adoption agency should have stopped the adoption as soon as he said he wanted it

They knew the baby didn't need to be adopted. They should have been guiding him through the process of what he needed to do. He didn't think the adoption was going to happen - whether that's because the mother misled him, and the agency was just negligent on not following up his statement, or if they conspired with the mother to mislead him, we can't tell. I'd love to know what the judge dismissed the lawsuit. it could be because he didn't have the money then to see it through, perhaps.

I did not know there were any adoption agencies with such little morality that they would act like this one did. The mother was pretending to the father that the adoption wasn't going to happen. She even faked when her contractions were. He thought he was going to be there for the birth, and therefore able to get his name on the birth certificate. That's the normal 'legal proceedings'. Would I have thought "we need to start legal proceedings"? No. But I do live in a civilised country when I genuinely don't think any agency would behave like this.

[pnwmom]

123. Where is your evidence that he told them? Other than what he claims?

He also said that he hadn't wanted to settle down and be serious about a girlfriend. How do you know that he wasn't ambivalent about his situation when the agency called him, and that is why he didn't take legal action?

Just being there for a birth doesn't put your name on a birth certificate -- not if a mother doesn't consent.

How do you even know she faked having contractions? Again, all we have is what he says -- not both sides of the story.

And the bottom line is that the battle with the adoptive parents was over more than 2 and a half years ago. The headline was very misleading. The only thing that changed in December was that the bio parents changed from sharing custody 50/50 to the father having full custody and the mother visitation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. Other than the *entire* evidence we have? Why, what other evidence could we have?

You are the one with the lack of evidence. You base your case on an assumption that he's a liar. You have no reason to think that. Why you are so biased against him, I can't tell.

He said he didn't want to settle down before the baby was conceived.

Who cares about the headline? This is about what happened. You know, the evidence. That's the bottom line, not the Daily Mail's headline. This is about a mother and an adoption agency who tried to take a baby away from his father, and an adoptive couple who resisted when they could have fixed things.

[pnwmom]

127. We have no evidence. All we have are newspaper articles, all from the point of view

of the father, none from the perspective of the mother or the adoptive parents.

Where is your evidence as to when the adoptive parents found out that there was a willing and able father? How can you claim that they resisted based on the little in these articles?

[BronxBoy]

178. He's Black ...

All the evidence this poster needs to shit all over this guy. You should see their posts in the Zimmerman-Martin matter

[StevieM]

115. I WILL tell you that this baby is better off staying with her mom than being adopted (eom)

[pnwmom]

124. Oh really. Then you must be disappointed that the Mom is no longer sharing custody.

All she has now is visitation.

The headline is very misleading. This has been no epic battle between the adoptive parents and the bio father. The adoptive parents lost custody way back in July 2011. Since then the bio parents have been sharing custody 50/50. In December the father gained full custody, with the mother only having visitation.

[StevieM]

131. First of all, you didn't read the post I was responding to. It wasn't about this case.

It was about the poster's family member.

Second, I would have much preferred that the mother share custody. I suspect that it was held against her that supposedly she wanted the baby given away--chances are she was coerced, as is usually the case. But perhaps the judge didn't want to admit to that common reality.

[pnwmom]

113. Why is it an "epic win" to go from having his biological father and mother sharing custody 50/50

to having his father with full custody and visitation for the mother? That's what happened in December -- the adoptive parents lost custody more than two and a half years ago.

The father won his case to reclaim the baby in 10 months, not three years.

'The judge took the baby away from the adoptive parents in July 2010, when he was 9 or 10 months old. After that, the bio father and mother shared custody 50/50. In December, he got full custody, with the mother only having visitation. But the father has had at least shared custody since July 2011.

So if it was a long battle, it was between the two bio parents, not the adoptive parents and the father.

[StevieM]

119. This is a wonderful story. It is a shame that sometimes it doesn't go this way and

the adoption agency prevails. They will tell any lie they have to in order to push the adoption through and get their payday.

[SheilaT]

136. When I hear of stories like this I am very conflicted.

I happen to believe that in the case of unmarried couples, the mother absolutely should have the last say about having an abortion, having the baby, keeping it, giving it up for adoption. If a guy doesn't want to father a kid, then USE BIRTH CONTROL. Yes, sometimes it fails, but then you need to be as responsible for the consequences as the woman. Which includes, in my opinion, her being the one to decide what ultimately happens.

Guys, if you want to be involved in your children's lives, then do so from the very moment you put your pants back on. Don't come back later and say you want the baby.

It does look as if in the end this guy is being fully responsible, but as others have already noted, he could have done so somewhat earlier.

Two of my cousins are adopted, as are my ex's two oldest siblings. I have always known the cousins were adopted, and aside from not looking quite like the rest of the family, they are every bit my cousins as the others. Same with my ex's brother and sister. I tend to view adoption as simply another way to have a family. Oh, yeah, one of my cousins has an adopted son.

[StevieM]

138. I think you are underestimating how corrupt and dishonest adoption agencies are (eom)

[pnwmom]

140. Do you have a link for that? Anything besides anecdotal evidence? n/t

[StevieM]

142. I suggest you go to websites like First Mother Forum, Musings of the Lame, or

the Facebook page "Mothers of Loss to Adoption." You'll get plenty of links at these sites.

I am not sure why people doubt that a 15 billion dollar a year industry would be determined to make sure that adoptions go through.

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/

http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/about-musings-of-the-lame/about-claudia-corrigan-darcy/

https://www.facebook.com/AllInTheFamilyAdoption#!/MothersOfLossToAdoption

[pnwmom]

143. Anecdotal reports aren't enough to back up such a sweeping claim.

And you're not making any distinction between non-profits and for profit agencies.

Also, many of the adoption activists were adopted or gave up their babies during the 1950's - through the 70's or 80's, when there was a lot more pressure put on girls to adopt out their babies. Many fewer make that choice today, and most of those adoptions are either fully open or mediated adoptions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/open-adoption-increase_n_1371122.html

NEW YORK -- The secrecy that long shrouded adoption has given way to openness, and only about 5 percent of infant adoptions in the U.S. now take place without some ongoing relationship between birth parent and adoptive family, according to a comprehensive new report.

Based on a survey of 100 adoption agencies, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute said in a report Wednesday that the new norm is for birthparents considering adoption to meet with prospective adoptive parents and pick the new family for their baby.

Of the roughly 14,000 to 18,000 infant adoptions each year, about 55 percent are fully open, with the parties agreeing to ongoing contact that includes the child, the report said. About 40 percent are "mediated" adoptions in which the adoption agency facilitates periodic exchanges of pictures and letters, but there is typically no direct contact among the parties.

"The degree of openness should be tailored to the preferences of the individual participants," said Chuck Johnson of the National Council for Adoption, which represents about 60 agencies. "It points to the huge importance of the right people being matched with each other."

SNIP

[pnwmom]

141. I agree. It looks like he'll be a good father, but if he'd acted sooner he could have blocked

the adoption and spared everyone some misery.

Missouri law requires notice for putative fathers, which he acknowledges having gotten from the agency. After that, the obligation was on him to follow through. He's lucky it worked out for him, but he could have saved everyone a lot of grief by taking positive action in March, six months before his baby was born. By law, the agency has to check the Putative Registry before they can conclude the adoption.

Missouri law says that a putative father is a husband; or a man who positively asserts his paternity (which he didn't do -- he said that IF was the father he'd want custody); and/or a man who signs up with the Putative Father registry.

Also, this whole "epic story" didn't take 3 years. The adopted parents lost custody within 10 months. What just happened in December was that the bio mother lost joint custody with the father and now only has visitation.

What really galls me is all the anger about the adopted parents. They adopted the boy with legal documentation reviewed by a lawyer; they worked with a licensed agency; and they didn't receive notice of either a paternity action or the father's name on the Putative Father Registry. The father's time limit to take such an action was 15 days after the birth, so from their perspective all the papers were in order. How were they supposed to know that there was a biological father who wanted to claim the baby?

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap453.htm

3. With the exceptions specifically enumerated in section 453.040, when the person sought to be adopted is under the age of eighteen years, the written consent of the following persons shall be required and filed in and made a part of the files and record of the proceeding:

(1) The mother of the child; and

(2) Only the man who:

(a) Is presumed to be the father pursuant to the subdivision (1), (2), or (3) of subsection 1 of section 210.822; or

(b) Has filed an action to establish his paternity in a court of competent jurisdiction no later than fifteen days after the birth of the child and has served a copy of the petition on the mother in accordance with section 506.100; or

(c) Filed with the putative father registry pursuant to section 192.016 a notice of intent to claim paternity or an acknowledgment of paternity either prior to or within fifteen days after the child's birth, and has filed an action to establish his paternity in a court of competent jurisdiction no later than fifteen days after the birth of the child

[SheilaT]

144. You make a very important point which has been overlooked in this discussion.

Those parents adopted in good faith. They are not responsible for any deficiencies on the part of the agency. Nor are they in any way responsible for how the birth parents behaved. They are not the villains here. I do feel sorry for them. I can almost imagine adopting a child, thinking everything is all copacetic and then, Wham! Everything changes.

One of my adopted cousins wasn't actually adopted. She was apparently simply a foster child who wound up growing up with my aunt and uncle. I always knew that her legal surname was different from Aunt, Uncle, and her brother, also adopted. A few years ago I was speaking with the brother who said that apparently his sister -- I'll call her Ann -- had never really understood the situation. In adulthood her biological mother contacted her and created all sorts of turmoil and confusion. By the time of this conversation cousin Ann had died -- we are all now well over 60 -- and so I never found out her take on all this. Also, Aunt and Uncle are now many years gone. But I can say that the fact of my cousins being adopted was always completely open to us.

[pnwmom]

145. Yes, in older generations most adoptions were probably informal.

It happened in my husband's family, too. One of my husband's beloved uncles was officially a cousin of the other uncles. Unfortunately, the brothers never really accepted him as one of them. I wonder if they would have if it were an official adoption.

[SheilaT]

156. In my cousin's case, her mother was never willing to sign

the paperwork to allow the adoption to go through. Cousin was born about 1950, and so there wouldn't have been complicated issues about putting her on health care coverage or anything like that. The birth mother was apparently in and out of her life for the first ten years or so and then, as I understand it, pretty much disappeared for a couple of decades, showing up again when cousin was an adult. I don't know all the details.

[avebury]

147. Based upon the article, it sounded like this young

man began the fight for his son as soon as he became aware the his son was put up for adoption (even dropping out of college). I am not going to blame him on the issue of the putative father registry because just how many young guys even know that it exists? He was not from Missouri but from Oklahoma.

As to the young man's failure to act within 15 days of the child's birth. There was recently been extensive discussion on DU about father's rights with the majority of DUers coming down on the side that a father has no rights until after the birth of a child (and a NJ judge even stating that a father does not even have the right to know when his child is born.) I made the point at that time that it would be very easy for a woman to pull a fast one and put her child up for adoption before a father even had a chance to find out the child was born. How on earth can you hold any man to a 15 day post birth rule if there is a valid chance he might not know anything within that 15 day window?

Any adoptive set of parents might think that they are participating in a legal adoption but that is rather foolish thinking given the fact that the lack of rights granted to biological fathers can result in a child being literally stolen right out from underneath them and delaying their ability to mount a legal defense to any said adoption. You cannot hold it against a biological dad what has happened because of a deceptive biological mother. Some women may have a valid reason to put a child up for adoption but that does not mean they have a right to circumvent the law doing so.

This young man appears to be a decent young man who is setting out to take care of his son, including going back to college. Good for him.

[pnwmom]

148. You seem to have overlooked the fact that the young man himself said

the adoption agency notified him of the adoption in March, six months before the baby was born. So he had plenty of time to start a paternity action. He needed to take action in some way to claim he was the father (not just say "if" or "maybe" he was the father.) Even a young man would know at LEAST to consult a lawyer. (He did consult one after the adoption and he spent much more for that lawyer than if he hadn't delayed.)

There have to be deadlines for the sake of the baby, or no adoptive parents could ever go through an adoption without being afraid that a father could appear or change his mind in the future. This would interfere with the bonding process and wouldn't be good for a baby. (Because of cases like this more people turn to international adoptions than to open US adoptions, which are better for the children.)

The other thing he didn't do, at least according to the articles I saw, that many states require of a putative father, is show an interest in helping to take care of the pregnant mother. If he had offered at least some financial support that would also have strengthened his case.

He acknowledged feeling that his relationship with the woman wasn't serious and that he didn't want it to be; also, that he doubted she was really pregnant and thought it was trickery or mind games; and when the agency called, he said, "if" she was pregnant he wanted the baby. I think he was negative or ambivalent about becoming a father and that's why he didn't stop the adoption while he easily could have. Like a lot of people, he didn't make up his mind he wanted something till it was almost too late.

Lucky for him, and I hope his son, he was able to get the adoption overturned. But he could have and should have acted much sooner and saved himself and the adoptive parents a lot of agony.

[BronxBoy]

157. Coulda, shoulda, woulda......

He pretty much has zero say about this baby, a baby that he was ambivalent about as you say until it was born. We know nothing about the mindset of this young lady....maybe she was flaky......We don't know And if we are going to analyze this father, let's analyze the mother as well. Maybe she's White and didn't want a biracial baby.....Maybe her parents are hardcore bigots and his being a black man was a major, major issue....If we are going to speculate about the father, let's speculate about other things.....coulda, shoulda, woulda....

This young man has custody of his son, something that he pretty much has fought for since the child was born. Why kick shit all over him with some legal coulda, shouldas???? Don't understand it. I notice that the mother has visitation rights...Was that the case with the adoptive parents??? If not, then this conclusion is also a benefit in that she will also be able to bond with her son. Aside from the emotional harm done to the adoptive parent (which should be placed entirely at the doorstep of the adoption agency), why should we castigate this young man.

[avebury]

159. I hardly expect for any young college age kid

to understand all of the intricacies of the legal process, particularly in a state that he is not a legal resident.

Now that he has full custody of his son I hope that he will avail himself of the same legal process that any custodial parent has a right to: go after the biological mother for child support.

[pnwmom]

169. Any college student is smart enough to call a lawyer and connected enough

to find one. In his case, all he would have had to do is ask his coach. He would have saved himself a lot of time and money if he had done so before the adoption went through.

[maddezmom]

170. Had the adoption gone thru or was the infant just placed with the adoptive parents

Until the finalization?

[pnwmom]

172. You're right -- it probably wasn't finalized. But the 15 day legal deadline for the father

to assert his paternity had passed. At that point most adoptive parents would be breathing a sigh of relief -- there would be no other obstacles to the adoption other than home visits.

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. Up until the instant of birth, it's her body and her choice.

After that point it's not. The baby is a citizen with rights just like the mother and father.

The fact that the baby can't speak for him or herself requires the parents to speak on its behalf.

If either parent doesn't want the child, the other should be given custody and child support from the other. Only in the event that neither parent wants custody should it be adopted out.

[pnwmom]

177. The problem was that the father says he was notified of the adoption in March

but didn't assert legal paternity till after the baby was born, and missed the deadline for doing so. It's too bad because he could have saved himself and the adoptive parents a lot of grief (and himself considerable money) by not delaying his response.

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. Will the birth mother be required to pay child support? n/t

[avebury]

160. I would hope so!

If she had managed to get custody of her son she for sure would have gone after the guy for child support. He would be foolish not to take advantage of his full rights as the custodial parent.