Nine year old Tennesee Girl taken from parents and delivered in the care of ex-con bio-father (birth certificate, stories)

[maciesmom]

Originally Posted by Jaded

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...

But they were reinstated. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree. The "adoption" should never have taken place and was also vacated. The adoptive parents have known this for years.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Jaded

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?

You're making assumptions. She may not have even known her son allowed the nanny to take the child on a trip until afterwards. I don't talk to my family members every week. Sonya was only gone for a couple of weeks. When the father went to get her, they refused to allow him to have her. The grandmother went to Tennessee very soon after. She made multiple trips and she was approved for guardianship, but they never turned Sonya over to her.

Originally Posted by Jaded

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?

He has a legal job as a factory worker.

Originally Posted by Jaded

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.

They tried to use the legal system to kidnap a child. That's the reason there were no kidnapping charges. That doesn't change the fact they stole her from her family. They should have returned her in 2006 when the court ordered them to do so. They played the court system at her expense.

Originally Posted by Jaded

As 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.

As a parent retaining parental rights, he should have been allowed to pick a guardian. These "adoptive parents" were ordered by the court to allow visitation and to transition her, but they didn't allow her access. Even if they were awarded custody, it's obvious they weren't upholding his visitation rights as a parent with parental rights.

Originally Posted by Jaded

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.

Even if the Supreme Court reviewed the case, the "adoptive parents" wouldn't win. His plea bargain is irrelevant because the error of the adoption was corrected years ago. They refused to turn her over in 2006. They created the mess of what happened to Sonya.

Just imagine how Sonya cried when she couldn't be with her family as a little girl. It's not like her life was all roses when she was ripped away from them and refused visitation. At least Sonya's family will allow her to see the "adoptive parents" because her family truly cares about what's best for her.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Jaded

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.

She was only there for a few weeks before he started fighting for her! You act like he left her there forever. He allowed her to go there for two weeks. When she wasn't returned at the end of the month, he went to get her. He fought for her for months before he ended up in jail. Residency isn't established for 6 months in child custody cases. She clearly was not a resident of TN when he started fighting for her. You can't just take a kid across state borders and they instantly have residency of the new state. That's elementary custody residency 101. The first court decision was a mistake. The mistake was corrected by the court and the "adoptive parents" refused to send her back.

[Zimbochick]

He was not deemed unfit, he received a sentence. They are not the same thing.

This father has been fighting since 2006, that's 8 years. Some people make it sound as though he's doing this on a whim.

[maciesmom]

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

He was not deemed unfit, he received a sentence. They are not the same .

Thank you. I couldn't remember and I'm reading from my phone over lunch.

[markg91359]

Spending seven and one-half years in prison while a child is in their young years renders that person an unfit parent in my mind. That's what a number of us are really saying here. You can parse it. You can say its 7.5 years and not 10 years. The point is that dad wasn't around for a huge chunk of the most important years his daughter was growing up and he has no one to blame, but himself for it either. He was convicted of other felonies before the charge that landed him in prison occurred too.

Apparently, though it does not render that parent unfit according to Tennessee law. I have to accept Tennessee law here whether I agree with it or not. It doesn't mean I don't do it with gritted teeth and only because I have to do it.

Further, no one has ever said the home the adoptive parents furnished was unfit in any way. Since the girl spent virtually her entire life there that is the logical place for her to remain. This is regardless of whether the birth father's parental rights were legally taken away or not.

I note with humor that one person here refers to the adoptive parents as "kidnappers" and than says they resorted to the legal process for that purpose. I will leave her to ponder the contradiction in that statement.

I will say again. If this clown cared one whit for his daughter's real interests, he would at least allowed the adoptive parents to keep custody of this child.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Spending seven and one-half years in prison while a child is in their young years renders that person an unfit parent in my mind. That's what a number of us are really saying here. You can parse it.

Why do you think it was okay for the child to be placed out of state with strangers instead of remaining in her home state with and/or near her extended family?

Originally Posted by markg91359

Further, no one has ever said the home the adoptive parents furnished was unfit in any way.

It doesn't matter if it was fit or unfit, it should have never happened.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Since the girl spent virtually her entire life there that is the logical place for her to remain.

Only because the "adoptive parents" didn't return her when ordered to do so in 2006.

Originally Posted by markg91359

I note with humor that one person here refers to the adoptive parents as "kidnappers" and than says they resorted to the legal process for that purpose. I will leave her to ponder the contradiction in that statement.

I'm very aware. They attempted to legalize kidnapping and they lost because the child was returned.

Originally Posted by markg91359

I will say again. If this clown cared one whit for his daughter's real interests, he would at least allowed the adoptive parents to keep custody of this child.

You can spin your entire sentence against the "adoptive parents." If they cared one whit for her real interests, they wouldn't have taken her in 2005 and they would have returned her in 2006 when they were ordered to do so. The adoptive parents should have never attempted custody in the first place. They created this mess. They caused this to happen to her.

[Mattie]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Further, no one has ever said the home the adoptive parents furnished was unfit in any way. Since the girl spent virtually her entire life there that is the logical place for her to remain. This is regardless of whether the birth father's parental rights were legally taken away or not.

That is a very slippery slope you are heading down. The biggest house doesn't, and shouldn't win, nor should the laws involved be ignored. There's a reason those laws are in place.

[Aggiebuttercup]

Originally Posted by Mattie

That is a very slippery slope you are heading down. The biggest house doesn't, and shouldn't win, nor should the laws involved be ignored. There's a reason those laws are in place.

This reminds me a lot of the Elian Gonzales custody fight. There were a lot of very upset people when that child was returned to his father in Cuba.

[nj185]

Is this really where some of you take your stand? If you keep a child long enough, no matter how unethically you got them, or how long you ignored orders to transition & return them, you get to keep them? Like adverse possession?? Like a piece of real estate???