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.
You misread my post. I said the CHILD is bonded to THEM. The items a theif steals are not bonded to him.
If someone came to me when my child was a toddler and said "We gave you the wrong baby when you left the hospital, now give her back.". You can bet your bottom dollar I'd fight them. Not because I was bonded to her but because she was bonded to me.
Your position is still one of selfishness. In your judgement, because a child has bonded to you, you have a right to deny the father his God given rights to his child. Who made you arbitrator of a parent's right to their children??
Given time and possibly counseling, this child will learn to bond with her natural father.
Adults make the hard choices for the children under their care, these people haven't. They have decided that what they want trumps this dad's right to his child.
In some cases it is to get the child acquainted with the biological parent if they don't know them before it is full time as it is suppose to be easier on the child.
That agency should lose it's license and I do hope that parent sues them also when all is said and done.
rarely do I agree with you on anything,but in this case, I do. The child has bonded with the only parents she knows, it takes time to develop a relationship and 60 days seems fair.
Being parents of a biological child, adopted children and foster children, my heart goes out to everyone in this case, everyone but the natural mother...that is..
The adoption agency did nothing short of selling this little girl, the father has every right to her and the adopted parents have to find a way to get over the hurt they will feel when they no longer have their baby.
Now, someone mentioned, they would love to know the color of the adopted parents? That has nothing to do with the case. The OP made a comment about Mormons as well: again, the religion has nothing to do with this either. It could have happened in So Carolina to a Baptist family or NM,to a catholic family. What makes some people so full of hate about one religion they have to make it sound like the church had a part in this? Mom, gave the baby up, and had no legal right to do so, and the adoption agency cared more about the money than protecting those involved..
they are trashing this father in the salt lake tribune now, saying he basically abandoned his wife even though he had to find a place to live for his new assignment starting the 1st of the month. he sent money back to the wife and she says it wasnt enough, etc.
i will guarantee this keeps going past the 60 days and i dont see him getting his kid back before the summer of 2013 at best. thats just how screwed up the system is.
Crazy story with these Mormons not giving the kid back like they should. Court ordered ruling says they have 60 days, have raised 20,000 for a legal defense.
You misread my post. I said the CHILD is bonded to THEM. The items a theif steals are not bonded to him.
If someone came to me when my child was a toddler and said "We gave you the wrong baby when you left the hospital, now give her back.". You can bet your bottom dollar I'd fight them. Not because I was bonded to her but because she was bonded to me.
Yet it is well established, and rightly so, that the biological parent relationship trumps child bonding, to the extent there is no glaring reason to declare them unfit and to the extent that one or both was defrauded of their parental rights. So when there are competing priorities of the child having bonded with the adoptive family and a biological parent having been defrauded, the biological Lauren's rights wins, as well it should.
You obviously don't have children or are so jaded against Mormons that you can't think straight.
They did everything legally.
Imagine raising a child from birth through 20 months old. She is your child. Now, out of the blue comes the father wanting the child.
I don't think that anyone on this board would be so quick to give your child away.
The situation really sucks.
It does, but the family DID willfully take on that risk by choosing to adopt KNOWING that the father has been defrauded and would likely contest the adoption. Once they had that knowledge in hand and decided to proceed anyway, they assumed the risk of losing the child if the father did contest. And it turns out the father did contest. If they really wanted to adopt that child then they should have made sure the agency got in touch with the father and got him to sign away his parental rights. This blind faith that the father who might contest actually won't contest is the risk they took. They were not misled.
You don't know the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, do you? Your comments are referring to two groups as separate and distinct from each other as the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church.
2 peas in the same pot. One allows their preachers to get married and the other doesn't. All else is pretty much the same as far as I can tell. As you can see, I ain't much into religion. I just know what I see on the news. Everytime a preacher here steals money or screws children, his followers always come to his defense no matter the evidence. That is what I call a cult.
they are trashing this father in the salt lake tribune now, saying he basically abandoned his wife even though he had to find a place to live for his new assignment starting the 1st of the month. he sent money back to the wife and she says it wasnt enough, etc.
i will guarantee this keeps going past the 60 days and i dont see him getting his kid back before the summer of 2013 at best. thats just how screwed up the system is.
I still would love to know why you thought it necessary to bring the Mormon chruch into the debate??? No one is questioning who has the right to this little girl, of course the father does, even if we might not have the whole story (there are 2 sides to every story you know). Again, I want to know why you are connecting this with religion? Is it simply because it happens to be a Mormon state and would you do the same if it was a state with a majority of Catholics for instance, or would you bring race into the equation if this happened in Mississippi?
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.
