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.
The name and face of this minor child should not even be in the news. That's pretty disgusting that they are using her name and image to draw attention to the case. Where are her rights to privacy?
Whether or not we like it, biological parent's rights are just that, rights, and when the court system does not follow the law, this is what happens. When a child is placed in the foster system - like this child - the goal is reunion or placement with a relative. Even if bio mom relinquished her rights, if bio dad did not properly relinquish his rights, then he was treated wrongly by the system. If bio grandma was willing and able to take custody of the child while waiting for bio dad to get out of prison, then the baby should have been placed with her,not strangers.
I have said this before, and social workers need to emphasize that the purpose of foster care is not to find babies to adopt, and if that is why people are becoming foster parents then they are doing it for the wrong reasons. The purpose of foster care is to provide a temporary safe place for the child/ren until reunification, placement with relatives or, barring all of that, adoption/legal guardianship after biological rights are properly terminated through the court system.
Sounds like this case was pushed through so they could keep the baby, the law was not followed properly, and this is the outcome. It has happened before and will happen again.
No wonder the biological dad thinks he will make a great dad.
There are posters in the Parenting forum who think they can parent better than most real parents just coz they have raised dogs that do not run around biting people.
While the father was behind bars, a judge terminated his parental rights stating… “
He failed to demonstrate the minimum efforts…to establish or maintain a parent child relationship.” According to court documents, the statutory grounds for TPR are “willful failure to visit, willful failure to support and abandonment.”
But the court said that notwithstanding the father’s inability to visit the child, he was still attempting to have some control of the care for his child.
1: He showed a commitment to her by writing her, writing the Department of Social Services about her, and communicating with her court-appointed guardian.
2: It also said that even though he didn’t pay child support, he did provide some support to the child through his mother.
3: The evidence did not show the father abandoned the child since, among other things, he tried to arrange for the child to be placed with his mother while he was in jail.
The judge made an illegal decision, saying the reasons the man had his parental rights take away were (bold portions were from court records):
1: He failed to visit the child, But he was in prison and could not visit the child.
2: He failed to give financial support, But he did so through his mother.
3: He abandoned the child, But he was writing to all of the ones in responsible positions to try to arrange for his child to be placed with his mother to care for her till he got out of prison. That certainly is not abandonment.
Lets be honest, the judge broke the laws and illegally stripped the child from him listing the causes which were proven wrong in court documents.
I don't care how re-habbed you are. The child's life is water under the bridge for you if there's an adoption. You have plenty of time to start over and prove your value to society. Leave the poor child out of it and let them live in peace. Seems selfish.
It's hard to know all the facts, but in this case, I think the adoptive parents and the original judges involved hold fault here. The primary goal is always to keep a child with the biological family, and it looks like those rights may have been prematurely overridden. The adoptive family should have realized that from the beginning. Foster care is a wonderful way to care for children who need a temporary home and possibly lead to adoption, but that shouldn't be the primary goal from the get go.
I find this terrible. If he cared about the well being of that child, he would let her be. Regardless of HIS wants to all of a sudden be a dad, he would see she is secure and stable and just leave it. Very selfish of the bio dad to do this.
What he sees are his wants/desires.
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.
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.
