Nine year old Tennesee Girl taken from parents and delivered in the care of ex-con bio-father (birth mother)
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.
Why would he sign over parental rights to people who stole his child? He readily signed over parental rights of his other children to the grandmother. He wanted to do the same with this child too. She missed growing up with 7 siblings because of that the kidnappers did.
I think those 7 children are her cousins, not siblings. Her father did have three older sons.
You can turn it around, too. If the adoptive parents had any love for the child, why did they keep her from her family?
The father made it clear he wanted the child back, and they refused. The grandmother was there and approved as a caregiver by the time the father went to jail. Yet the adoptive parents refused to give the child up.
From jail, the father made it clear he wanted his child. The adoptive parents refused to give her back.
The father continued to fight for custody. The adoptive parents refused to give her back.
The judge ordered the adoptive parents to take certain measures to help the child adjust to a potential transition. The adoptive parents did not comply.
Did the adoptive parents really care about the child's best interests? It doesn't seem like it to me.
This bears repeating. I notice people are not responding to this.
"Beautiful. About what I expected.*A mess of children and a mess of a life.
I'm also predicting that he will father more children in the future. Bigger mess."
But none of that has any relevance. In this country we don't get to take children away from parents just because their values and lifestyles don't match our own. Parents lose their rights if they voluntarily relinquish them or if they are deemed unfit. Neither of those is the case in this situation.
If the grandmother had a big heart, she would have been caring for the child while her son worked. She would have cautioned him on not allowing the nanny to take her to Tennessee. She would have immediately had her son sign over his rights to her, upon his arrest, by giving her official guardianship over his daughter. This one act, this one piece of paper, would have stopped the adoption from ever being finalized. But none of that happened. Wonder why?
Regarding the so-called court-appointed guardian, she's a real case too! From your link:
Quote:
Duke accused the Hodgin family of orchestrating a social media mob to sway public opinion. She suggested the judge put a restraining order on the family and their supporters to keep them from posting pictures of the girl. She said the public battle has made Sonya unsafe.
The judge didn't address that request.
Really, a social media mob? Get real! Funny she mentions restraining order for non-violent people when her client's father has a history of having one placed on him...hmmm. Does she even know this family? Or, is this just another "case" for her.
I'm not going to quote every post, but will respond in general. First, the only arrogance is the idea that biology trumps the best-interest of the child. Adoption reformers love to state how adoption should be about the child...until it actually is. Then, all of a sudden, it should be about biology. Good grief. I believe the only people who actually cared about the welfare of Grace was her nanny and the folks in Tennessee. Her father clearly did not, as he continued to break the law even after having spent time in prison on other felonies. One trip wasn't good enough for him. Despite being a father, being the only adult in Grace's life to support her, he made a decision to jeopardize her well-being by breaking the law again. His selfishness trumped biology which created this whole situation. Now, he decides to use biology to cover-up his shortcomings. We'll see how long that lasts.
As far as me making the leap that he wants her due to monetary benefits. That's obvious. Do you realize how hard it is to obtain legal employment, that pays a living wage, as a convicted felon? Convicted more than once mind you, on various illegal activities? Armed robbery, gun trafficking, etc. This man didn't even care enough to stop smoking in the presence of his child. THAT alone should be reason for removal.
As far as the kidnapping, well, everyone deserves their stab at drama I suppose. But it is worth noting that no kidnapping charges were ever made. If she were truly kidnapped, the adoption would be the last issue in this case. As it is, it is the primary issue.
With regard to him being a decent father, I guess it depends on one's definition of decent. I would venture to say that most parents touting the rights of this father would balk at the idea of their child living in the conditions or being raised by this man as Grace is doing. But that's what makes it easy for them to vouch for him. It's not their child. Perhaps the adoptive parents here understand this situation more than others, who knows. It's a thought worth considering however.
The blanket "it's his child" mantra is getting old. I like the idea of separating custody from parental rights. I think that would go a long way in preventing future disruptions such as this. The custody of Grace was originally rightfully awarded, IMO. Her father's plea deal, likely because he dropped some names of other criminals, should have in no way altered the original decision on the adoption. His sentence was 15 years. It wasn't his child that made him make a deal, it was the idea of spending 15 years in prison. The reduction in his sentence was the reason the adoption was overturned. Biology had nothing to do with it. So why is he now able to use it to disrupt Grace's life?
I don't know if the adoptive parents will win this case. It's not over, but I fear they will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to ultimately untangle this mess. Should a plea bargain be allowed as a reason to disrupt/reverse an adoption? The problem is the Supreme Court may not hear the case. And, Grace has now endured more trauma due to one judge's strict interpretation of the law.
But none of that has any relevance. In this country we don't get to take children away from parents just because their values and lifestyles don't match our own. Parents lose their rights if they voluntarily relinquish them or if they are deemed unfit. Neither of those is the case in this situation.
Umm. Since when? Parents are routinely deemed unfit due to their lifestyles. In fact, that's the main reason to deem a parent unfit. He was deemed unfit the minute he was sentenced to 15 years in prison on federal charges.
Yes he was deemed unfit. That decision was overturned because he made a deal with the feds to lower his sentence. That's the only reason he was allowed to challenge the adoption. The law in TN is that any sentence over 10 years the parent automatically loses his/her parental rights. His sentence was reduced to 7.5 years and they reversed the previous decision based on his revised prison sentence. By the time he began to "fight" for his daughter she was already considered residing in TN, hence TN law outweighed Nebraska's at the time.
He has not been in his child's life for over 7 years. I'd love to hear from her birth mother who filed a restraining order against him...
I think those 7 children are her cousins, not siblings. Her father did have three older sons.
I just re-read the article. She is the great aunt of the 7 children and the grandmother of Sonya. That means they are Sonya's father's cousins. That means Sonya's grandmother's sister died, and her brother-in-law abandoned the children. She took in her sister's children and was also trying to take in her granddaughter Sonya. That's the best sense I can make of it. Extended family trees are confusing to me. That means they're second cousins to Sonya, right?
He HAS a job. He deserves a chance to parent his child. And, no, he was not deemed unfit, despite what this forum's judge and jury has decided.
There are an awful lot of assumptions being made here about the birth family, especially in light of the fact that the press has been very biased. The father's attorney has directed him not to respond, so the other side can run amok at will.
I do feel badly for the hopeful adoptees. But, I hate to think that a biological parent can lose custody based on public opinion.
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.
A mess of children and a mess of a life.
