Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see it as adoptive parents who KNEW just a couple of months in that this birth father wanted his child AND that he had been denied the right to his child. Then at that point they decided to deny his rights even though they had only had the baby a couple of months. If it was really about what was best for the child, above all else, they would have given her back immediately.
Instead they have kept her while the court case dragged out for nearly two years, the baby became even more attached to them, and even if they win, they someday have to say to that child, "your father wanted you, tried to find you, fought for you, but you belonged to us".
Crazy.
So if it is better to go overseas, is it so the APs don't have to say that to the child? Because for all most overseas APs know, it is the exact same situation.
If you are a parent, and I assume you are how would you react when your married spouse deceived you when you were transferred to a different state in your service to your country, took off to another state and then gave your child away?
If someone came along and said I can give your child more than you can - would you give your child away?
BTW: they accepted the baby as a "legal risk" because the father had not signed off...no one forced them to with a gun to their head.
This is nothing short of legalized kidnapping. I guess for those adoptive parents wanting to steal wanted babies from biological parents, they SHOULD go oversees, wear ski masks, use guns, or whatever else one can do to steal children. I can't imagine that any respectable adoptive parents would want to be identified with this couple... if a biological parent does NOT give parental consent, and wants the baby, why in the world would you keep it for years and refuse to return it. IT IS NOT YOURS!!! With so many unwanted children, why take one that is wanted??
I said it was horrible for all parties because even if only for a short time, the AP had formed a bond with the baby and yes they knew it was a risk but imagine having to make that choice. The father is within his rights to seek his child. The child belongs with the father. The AP are not saints and no I don't think all APs are saints. Far from it. Intellectually I know the child belongs with the father but it is still a nightmare for the APs and the father who had to jump through hoops to get his own child.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-05-2012 at 08:40 PM..
Reason: Moved unrelated comments to a new thread
There are a lot of unanswered questions here and I think the story will look differently when all is said and done. I am confused that he was "deployed" to SC. Did he PCS there or was it temporary duty. I thought deployments were overseas. Having been in finance for the military and having been in the military myself with a son on active duty, something isn't right here. Let's wait until the facts are revealed before sending this child to a father that we know little about. The relationship between himself and his wife could be very revealing.
I said it was horrible for all parties because even if only for a short time, the AP had formed a bond with the baby and yes they knew it was a risk but imagine having to make that choice. The father is within his rights to seek his child. The child belongs with the father. The AP are not saints and no I don't think all APs are saints. Far from it. Intellectually I know the child belongs with the father but it is still a nightmare for the APs and the father who had to jump through hoops to get his own child.
I am sure it is painful for the APs, but their pain, and more importantly that of the child, has been greatly increased due to their specific action of choosing to not relinquish the child when her father appeared.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-05-2012 at 08:41 PM..
Reason: Moved unrelated comments to a new thread
There are a lot of unanswered questions here and I think the story will look differently when all is said and done. I am confused that he was "deployed" to SC. Did he PCS there or was it temporary duty. I thought deployments were overseas. Having been in finance for the military and having been in the military myself with a son on active duty, something isn't right here. Let's wait until the facts are revealed before sending this child to a father that we know little about. The relationship between himself and his wife could be very revealing.
People can be stationed in the States, they don't have to be sent overseas for military duty. Perhaps the word "deployed" was used by mistake.
Even though the relationship with his wife "could be very revealing", there is no reason at all that a child be given up for adoption without the father's consent.
I feel for the child. Not good to be in this situation. To be in the center of a tug of war.
Why would someone "adopt" a child knowing that not only a father but a husband was not contacted to give consent? Further, if the father was in the service, why wouldn't the agency contact the service, who would always know where the man was?
What went on in their marriage is what it is - - it does not make him not the child's father any more than getting divorced does. You can't leap from being "estranged" to no parental rights in 1 fell swoop. Without his consent the agency had no business whatsoever placing this child.
The adoptive parents, according to their blog, having "rounded out" their family circle, have hired a lawyer in Utah who is experienced in "terminating birth fathers' rights" .
This whole thing boggles my mind, from start to finish.
Why would someone "adopt" a child knowing that not only a father but a husband was not contacted to give consent? Further, if the father was in the service, why wouldn't the agency contact the service, who would always know where the man was?
What went on in their marriage is what it is - - it does not make him not the child's father any more than getting divorced does. You can't leap from being "estranged" to no parental rights in 1 fell swoop. Without his consent the agency had no business whatsoever placing this child.
The adoptive parents, according to their blog, having "rounded out" their family circle, have hired a lawyer in Utah who is experienced in "terminating birth fathers' rights" .
This whole thing boggles my mind, from start to finish.
It boggles my mind, as well. The legal foot dragging that happened in Terry Archane's case should NEVER have happened. Simply heartbreaking and just wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.