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.
If the parties could work together it might be in everyone's favor to let them visit under controlled circumstances.
THIS is what should be done, and for quite a while (I would say a minimum of 12 months). If the child knows who her "other" or "first" daddy is and gets to know him, it would not be like she was ripped from the only real home she has known to live with someone who is, to her, a stranger, which would be devastating to her. Over those 12 months, trained observers (i.e., social workers and psychologists) would be able to assess how the bio dad is doing, and if he is indeed willing and capable of being a full-time father. Only after that time, would I think good judgment could be used in this case.
I am an adoptive mom, and when we adopted our kids, they were four and six years old, yet I truly believe that kids should ONLY be made available for adoption if there is virtually no chance that the bio parents will ever be able to be good mothers and fathers to their children. The only exception to this, I think, is when bio parents REFUSE to have extensive counseling and parent training (which should be required in all cases of severe abuse/neglect), rehabilitation, and/or whatever else social workers and the courts agree is necessary -- and in that case, I think the bio parents should permanently lose their right to appeal.
I do feel sorry for everyone involved, but I especially feel sorry for the child. As others have also said, what is best for the child should always take precedence over everything else.
P.S. However, I do wonder why (if what has been said is true) that the grandmother made no or very little attempt to have the child placed in her custody before now because, as someone else said, it is also my understanding that most, if not all, social services departments will try to find a good home with a relative before they allow the child to be adopted by non-relatives.
Last edited by katharsis; 02-11-2017 at 04:25 PM..
Reason: Edited for clarity.
His biological daughter is his meal ticket! It's his God-given right to collect social welfare benefits on her behalf. After all, she's his flesh and blood, and his path to free housing, food, and medical care via food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing. Oh, don't forget the free daycare from Care for Kids, while he spends his days "looking for work".
It's just a total waste to let this free meal ticket in the body of a 3 year old continue living in a loving, stable adoptive home, when she could be used as the means to obtain at least 15 years of free food, housing, and medical care. After all, he worked so hard to get that drug addict biomom to bear his offspring. It's not easy for a man to get primary custody of a child, especially when he's an ex-con. Even if he were to make a new one with another drug addicted woman, it's likely that woman would want to keep the little meal ticket for herself, so that SHE can get the social welfare benefits. So it's perfectly understandable that he's trying so hard to get back his stolen property, and hence his stolen social welfare benefits.
I am not in any way, shape or form saying this scenario actually happened but to those who say the child must stay with the adoptive parents because they are the only family the child has ever known, would you still say the same thing if it turned out that family paid the judge a large sum of money to award the child to them? It would certainly change your view of them, I hope, but would not change the child's view that they were the only family she knew.
His biological daughter is his meal ticket! It's his God-given right to collect social welfare benefits on her behalf. After all, she's his flesh and blood, and his path to free housing, food, and medical care via food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing. Oh, don't forget the free daycare from Care for Kids, while he spends his days "looking for work".
It's just a total waste to let this free meal ticket in the body of a 3 year old continue living in a loving, stable adoptive home, when she could be used as the means to obtain at least 15 years of free food, housing, and medical care. After all, he worked so hard to get that drug addict biomom to bear his offspring. It's not easy for a man to get primary custody of a child, especially when he's an ex-con. Even if he were to make a new one with another drug addicted woman, it's likely that woman would want to keep the little meal ticket for herself, so that SHE can get the social welfare benefits. So it's perfectly understandable that he's trying so hard to get back his stolen property, and hence his stolen social welfare benefits.
I don't want him to get her either but I don't think he's doing it to get freebies. Free housing? Where? Section 8? That takes about 5-10 years on a waiting list. Food stamps maybe, but he can go to a food pantry with or without a kid. He might get to live in some dumpy housing project though. He'd be better off working.
I just think he's a crazy person who wants his own way and wants to be mean. He doesn't care about the child or else he would just shut up. It might be nice if the adoptive parents would set up some sort of visitation so the child doesn't grow up wondering who her biological father is--that's all.
If you have custody of a child, and are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless, you go to the top of the list for Sec 8 housing. If you have custody of a child, you can qualify for foodstamps and medicaid for yourself much, much more easily than if you are a childless adult. And you forget that there is a large segment of the population that will not work, as long as there is any way of living without working. Drug addicts and criminals are very likely to be within that segment. You can get actual food from a food pantry, but food stamps are almost as good as cash, and can be (and very often are) sold for 40 cents on the dollar for cash, which of course is then used to buy drugs.
Sorry that it's true, but it is. Anyone who works in the medical field, or low end housing, or in a market or bodega, can tell you how true this is. Patients on medicaid, living in McMansions and driving Cadillac SUVs, coming in for pre-travel medical care before they take that annual trip home to Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China, etc, often with a stop off in Saudi Arabia on the way there or back, to visit the holy sites there, talking happily about their yearly trip to DisneyWorld, and by the way, can you sign off that my kid can't wait in line? After all, I'm collecting SSI benefits on him, too, because of his bad behavior. I guarantee you that if there were no way for him to get health, housing, and food stamps benefits (and cash assistance still exists, too, so he'd be getting that for a few years), he would NOT be going after this kid. And the minute that the misbehavior shows up, either as a result of her genetics or environment, he'll get her on SSI, too, and collect an additional $770 or so a month for her "disability".
Promoting a relationship with the biological father at this point is the absolute WORST thing for that child. Honestly, unless he cleans up his act completely, and has many years of working and being clean under his belt, the child should not have access to him until it can no longer be prevented, legally, in other words, until she is 18 and WANTS to see him. Aside from the genetic time bomb ready to go off within her, which unfortunately is often the case with domestic adoptions in the US, since the only children who go for adoption here are the result of several generations of drug addicts and incarcerated criminals (because otherwise a relative would have taken them), there is the issue of him being a potential bad influence on her. I have seen many times that a drug using parent is the one who starts junior off on using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, just as kids start smoking cigarettes because their parents do. There is absolutely no benefit to her to be torn out of a loving, stable adoptive family who has had her since early infancy, to be sent to a convicted felon and a grandmother who did not take her at birth, either because she was considered unfit, or couldn't be bothered with caring for her newborn granddaughter, sired by her son before he was convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated.
I am not in any way, shape or form saying this scenario actually happened but to those who say the child must stay with the adoptive parents because they are the only family the child has ever known, would you still say the same thing if it turned out that family paid the judge a large sum of money to award the child to them? It would certainly change your view of them, I hope, but would not change the child's view that they were the only family she knew.
Let me ask you a question in return. Do two wrongs make a right?
If the adoptive parents were complicit in something illegal to ensure her adoption, would that change the fact that in "the child's view they were the only family she knew"?
Let me ask you a question in return. Do two wrongs make a right?
If the adoptive parents were complicit in something illegal to ensure her adoption, would that change the fact that in "the child's view they were the only family she knew"?
That's the question. Does the adoptive family benefit from the misdeeds of the judge? What if they were complicit? It wouldn't matter to a four year old; that doesn't make it right. There is still an injured party here - the father who was harmed by the illegal, immoral acts of the judge. How is he made whole without harming the child?
Facts are obtuse, and the fact is he never chose to abandon his daughter. He wants his kid back he should get her back end of story, no ifs, buts or maybes. This is an injustice of the greatest magnitude. If I knew him I would help arrange the kidnapping.
Facts are obtuse, and the fact is he never chose to abandon his daughter. He wants his kid back he should get her back end of story, no ifs, buts or maybes.
He chose to abandon his daughter when he committed a crime that put him in jail unable to care for her.
Of course he abandoned her.
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.
