Biological parents to King Solomon: "Split the kid in two. We're okay with that."

[shereads]

Biological parents to King Solomon: "Split the kid in two. We're okay with that."

Once was not enough.

Nine years ago, Americans watched the legal kidnapping of a little girl named Jessica. She was nearly four years old when she was carried away, screaming, from the parents, the older brother and the family dog who had loved her from infancy. Jessica's biological mother, on the outs with the baby's father, had told him their child was stillborn. When the couple got back together, she confessed that they had a daughter. Bio dad went to court and demanded custody. The courts ruled in favor of the biological parents, not because it was in the child's interest to be taken away from everything familiar and given to strangers, but because the father had never relinguished his rights.

Friends who watched the televised horror of Jessica's removal from her home took sides with one or the other set of parents. Her adoptive parents were at fault, some said, for allowing the court case to be dragged out for years. Her biological parents didn't deserve her, because the mother had used Jessica's existence to manipulate her boyfriend ~ and because the biological dad who sued for custody had another daughter, a little older than Jessica, whose mother testified that he had never shown any interest in the first child and rarely asked to see her.

I wondered why the debates were about who was at fault for the long court case, and who had the right to raise Jessica ~ and not about the trauma inflicted on a four-year-old. A mother where I worked claimed that being with her "real" parents was Jessica's right; I think she was deluded, but she's the only person I knew who even pretended to argue the rights of the child.

This week it happened again, in Florida. A four-year-old boy was removed from the home of the couple who have raised him since birth. Parents no more, they loaded the boy's favorite toys into the back of a social worker's car, and kept their emotions in check until he was gone.

Again, it's a case of a biological mother who chose not to confide in the baby's father before giving him up for adoption. He was probably within his rights when he sued to stop the adoption from being finalized. What I don't understand is how the courts allowed the process to drag on for years, so that instead of a baby there is now a fully cognizant, attached little boy living in the home of strangers and wondering why his mom and dad don't come for him.

More than that, I wonder how his biological parents can stand to see the child so confused and lonely, no doubt feeling abandoned, and not love him enough to give him up. Does their shared DNA really make up for so much?

Florida passed a law that didn't go in affect in time to save this boy's family: that judges must consider the best interest of the child when determining custody. That certainly complicates things for parents caught up in a battle over a piece of human property.

 

[Kassiana]

Judges are always supposed to consider the best interests of the child. They are also supposed to consider that the biological parents who wanted their children were lied to and denied their right to them. Otherwise, people could just steal a baby from a maternity ward, move to a place with no extradition rights for five years, and then come back and claim you couldn't have your own baby back because she now recognized the kidnappers as her parents.

Of course it isn't an ideal situation for the kid. Of course the kid should have some right to visit with the adoptive parents. But the fact remains that the father was screwed over there too.

Think about it, She. If I lied to you and told you that you weren't pregnant when you were, did an operation to remove your fetus and implanted it in me, raised the baby as my own, and you found out about what I did three years later, are you saying you wouldn't feel you had any right to your child, even though he now thinks I'm his mommy?

I'm not saying it's a great thing. Adults screwed up these kids' lives, sure. But it's better to have the kids back with the biological parents who love them than set up a dangerous precedent like the above, right?

I think so, anyhow.

 

[minsue]

Re: Biological parents to King Solomon: "Split the kid in two. We're okay with that."

Florida passed a law that didn't go in affect in time to save this boy's family: that judges must consider the best interest of the child when determining custody. That certainly complicates things for parents caught up in a battle over a piece of human property.

IIRC, Arizona passed a law that basically stated a man should always assume he impregnated a woman he had sex with. If he does not assert his paternal rights, he has then given them up by default and she is free to put the child up for adoption. Our legislators don't care much for premarital or extramarital sex 'round these parts, in case you couldn't tell. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding this and I've no idea if it has been tested in the courts yet or even if they buckled under pressure and altered the bill before it became law. I tried checking, but I can't find anything online either way.

While I can certainly understand the instinct to fight to claim one's child, the very concept of pulling a child from the arms of the only family the child has ever known has always struck me as unbelievably cruel, regardless of how the child ended up in that family.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Biological parents to King Solomon: "Split the kid in two. We're okay with th

While I can certainly understand the instinct to fight to claim one's child, the very concept of pulling a child from the arms of the only family the child has ever known has always struck me as unbelievably cruel, regardless of how the child ended up in that family.

Exactly.

 

[shereads]

You're wrong about the law "always" considering the interest of the child. Until the new law was passed in Florida, no such consideration was required of a judge. It was all about the parents' rights, as if they were disputing a property line or the ownership of a sailboat.

Your kidnapped-child analogy is a stretch. Suppose that your infant was kidnapped on the day of his birth. Four years later he's located, apparently happy and thriving. If he's in the custody of the kidnappers, there's no issue of custody. They are unfit parents, if for no other reason than that they are kidnappers.

If, on the other hand, the baby hadn't stayed with the kidnappers, but had been raised by a loving family who had no idea he was a kidnap victim, it sounds as if you're still saying that the biological parents' rights should be the first consideration. If the people he knows as Mom and Dad are good parents, and if he's happy and well adjusted, would you be willing to put him through the trauma of changing his life in such a dramatic way? At 3 and 4 years old, kids are learning to overcome separation anxiety, by learning that when mom and dad leave them, they always come back. What a horrible time to teach him that it isn't true ~ and that the strangers who fought so hard for the right to raise him are willing to put him through something from which he may never fully recover. What does he gain?

 

[Kassiana]

If the baby hadn't stayed with the kidnappers, but had been raised by a loving family who had no idea he was a kidnap victim, it sounds as if you're still saying that the biological parents' rights should be the first consideration.
--They should.

If the people he knows as Mom and Dad are good parents, and if he's happy and well adjusted, would you be willing to put him through the trauma of changing his life in such a dramatic way?
--Yes, I would.

What does he gain?
--His rightful parents. Justice.

And yes, my family law professor told me that judges always are supposed to consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody. I'd have to see more about this case to see whether or not she was wrong.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I may be wrong but in both the cases cited, wasn't the child in question a very young baby, counting his age in months rather than years? Didn't the courts rule in favor of the biological parents and didn't the adoptive parents fight it out in court for years before losing? If they had recognized they had no chance of winning, they would have obeyed the first court ruling and saved themselves a lot of grief and a lot of money, saved the bio parents a lot of grief and a lot of money and saved the child a lot of grief. I think they were very selfish, not caring who got hurt because they wanted their way.

I am assuming the bio parents are not unfit parents, which would be another matter.

 

[minsue]

I am assuming the bio parents are not unfit parents, which would be another matter.

I suppose part of that would be one's definition of a fit parent. In my mind, any person that can give their child up for adoption and later decide they've made a mistake and they should be allowed to take their child out of his/her home is not fit to be a parent even if the child is only a few months old. Even leaving aside the trauma to the child, what's to say they won't later change their mind again?

 

[shereads]

If the baby hadn't stayed with the kidnappers, but had been raised by a loving family who had no idea he was a kidnap victim, it sounds as if you're still saying that the biological parents' rights should be the first consideration.
--They should.

If the people he knows as Mom and Dad are good parents, and if he's happy and well adjusted, would you be willing to put him through the trauma of changing his life in such a dramatic way?
--Yes, I would.

You'd allow him to be carried, screaming, away from the only source of love and security he's ever known? As a sign of how much you love him?

Nice.

What does he gain?
--His rightful parents. Justice.

As far as he knows, he was with his rightful parents. The justice is for you, not him.

How frightening these cases must be for people who are in the process of adopting. Is it any wonder so many children languish in state homes and foster care ~ and that it's becoming increasingly popular to seek adoptions in foreign countries?

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boxlicker101

I am assuming the bio parents are not unfit parents, which would be another matter.

I suppose part of that would be one's definition of a fit parent. In my mind, any person that can give their child up for adoption and later decide they've made a mistake and they should be allowed to take their child out of his/her home is not fit to be a parent even if the child is only a few months old. Even leaving aside the trauma to the child, what's to say they won't later change their mind again?

In both the cases cited, the mothers, in fits of pique, lied to the fathers and gave up the babies without the fathers' consent. These might have been examples of postpartum depression, but in neither case did it reflect on the fathers.

 

[Kassiana]

You'd allow him to be carried, screaming, away from the only source of love and security he's ever known?
--Sure would.

As a sign of how much you love him?
--Indeed. If I didn't love him, I wouldn't have pursued him all that time. Sorry you don't see it that way. I hope you do some day.

As far as he knows, he was with his rightful parents.
--But he wasn't. Box is also right. The adoptive parents dragged things out in at least one case I know of.

So you think it's okay for someone to kidnap my baby, sell her to a family in another country, and then deny me my right to raise her when I find out because it'd be HARD on her? How about how hard it's been on me? How about the denial of my right to raise my child? That means nothing to you?

Nice.

As for adoption v. foster care: one of the reasons kids stay in foster care rather than adoption is that the government pays for kids to stay in foster care. It doesn't for adoptions. Sad but true.

 

[minsue]

As for adoption v. foster care: one of the reasons kids stay in foster care rather than adoption is that the government pays for kids to stay in foster care. It doesn't for adoptions. Sad but true.

The reason so many kids stay in foster care is because they are too old, too abused, and/or not white. Children languish in foster care while the waiting lists for people looking to adopt healthy, white infants grows longer and longer.


As for the fathers, I must admit that I do agree somewhat with the legislators in my state. If they fuck a woman, it behooves them to know if she becomes pregnant. Yes, of course I believe a woman has a moral (and should have a legal) obligation to inform a man that she is pregnant with his child, but I also believe any man that leaves the decision of telling him whether or not he is a father completely up to the woman has little grounds to play the victim if she decides not to. For fuck's sake, be a grown up. If it matters to him, he should not go around having sex with women that he'll never see again. We all make choices in this life.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I disagree with most of what Kass is saying. I couldn't put a child through trauma like that. Perhaps when we say "the best interests of the child" we should also be paying attention to their emotional interests.

If bio parents are using their kids in the manner shereads mentioned in the first child case, then fuck no I don't think the child should be legally placed with their bio parents. If I had the power I'd probably disbar the lawyers in that court case. Oh yeah, and I'd get rid of the judge too.

 

[shereads]

I may be wrong but in both the cases cited, wasn't the child in question a very young baby, counting his age in months rather than years? Didn't the courts rule in favor of the biological parents and didn't the adoptive parents fight it out in court for years before losing? If they had recognized they had no chance of winning, they would have obeyed the first court ruling and saved themselves a lot of grief and a lot of money, saved the bio parents a lot of grief and a lot of money and saved the child a lot of grief. I think they were very selfish, not caring who got hurt because they wanted their way.

I am assuming the bio parents are not unfit parents, which would be another matter.

You're assuming rather a lot.

The adoptive parents of little Jessica were on the Today Show yesterday, talking about this latest case. They explained that at the time Jessica's bio-father sued for custody, they didn't even have the legal option of giving the baby to him. The courts were in the process - a lengthy one - of officially removing the parental rights of both biological parents as a final step before legalising Jessica's adoption. Until that legal step was settled, the court would not consider giving him custody. They would have removed jessica to state care if her adoptive parents had said they were changing their minds about keeping her.

It was a circle jerk that caught everyone in its vortex. And by the time the courts had terminated the biological parents' rights and were prepared to consider giving them back, Jessica had become attached to her adoptive family. She had a brother, a dog, and two parents whose hearts would now be ripped out if they had to give her up. They spent the time of the custody suit trying to negotiate visitation with the biological parents, who insisted there would be no contact with the adoptive family. It's been nine years, and they haven't been allowed to see or speak to the child since she was taken from them, crying for "Mommy." They send birthday and holiday cards and gifts, not only to Jessica but to the biological parents' other child, not trying to claim parental rights but wanting her to know she wasn't abandoned. They have never received a reply and have no way to know if Jessica has been told they tried to keep in touch. The bio-parents changed her first name.

For Jessica, I guess that was supposed to wipe out the first four years of her life and provide a clean slate. She's thirteen now. When she's a legal adult, she'll have the right to know why she was removed from her first home. Until then, whatever she's been told will suffice as the truth. She had, and has, no rights.

There are two selfish parents in that scenario: the mother who was ultimately rewarded for lying to her baby's father, and the father who didn't want the daughter he already had - but desperately wanted the one he'd been denied.

Jessica's adoptive parents wrote a book, "Losing Jessica," and used their profits to start a foundation called, "Hear My Voice." They've been fighting from state to state for the rights of children in custody cases. In some states, they've succeeded in getting laws passed that put the child's best interests into play in a number of ways: expediting legal procedures involving babies and young children, to prevent this from happening to more 4-year-olds; requiring that children have legal representatives who aren't beholden to either side; and requiring judges to have what is called a "best interests" hearing where the primary issue is how a change of custody is likely to affect the child.

Florida is now one of those states, but the law didn't go into affect in time to stop the removal of the little boy from his home yesterday.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

You're assuming rather a lot.

The adoptive parents of little Jessica were on the Today Show yesterday, talking about this latest case. They explained that at the time Jessica's bio-father sued for custody, they didn't even have the legal option of giving the baby to him. The courts were in the process - a lengthy one - of officially removing the parental rights of both biological parents as a final step before legalising Jessica's adoption. Until that legal step was settled, the court would not consider giving him custody. They would have removed jessica to state care if her adoptive parents had said they were changing their minds about keeping her.

it was a circle jerk that caught everyone in its vortex. And by the time it was settled, Jessica had become attached to her adoptive family. She had a brother, a dog, and two parents whose hearts would now be ripped out if they had to give her up. They spent the time of the custody suit trying to negotiate visitation with the biological parents, who insisted there would be no contact with the adoptive family. It's been nine years, and they haven't been allowed to see or speak to the child since she was taken from them, crying for "Mommy." They send birthday cards and gifts, not only to Jessica but to the biological parents' other child, not trying to claim parental rights by wanting her to know she wasn't abandoned. They have never received a reply and have no way to know if Jessica has been told they tried to keep in touch.

There are two selfish parents in that scenario: the mother who was ultimately rewarded for lying to her baby's father, and the father who didn't want the daughter he already had - but desperately wanted the one he'd been denied.

Jessica's adoptive parents wrote a book, "Losing Jessica," and used their profits to start a foundation called, "Hear My Voice." They've been fighting from state to state for the rights of children in custody cases. In some states, they've succeeded in getting laws passed that put the child's best interests into play in a number of ways: expediting legal procedures involving babies and young children, to prevent this from happening to more 4-year-olds; requiring that children have legal representatives who aren't beholden to either side; and requiring judges to have what is called a "best interests" hearing where the primary issue is how a change of custody is likely to affect the child.

Florida is now one of those states, but the law didn't go into affect in time to stop the removal of the little boy from his home yesterday.

I'm falling into step with Shereads on her opinions and thoughts on this thread.

I feel outraged knowing that this little girl was ripped away from the only parents she ever knew.

 

[shereads]

So you think it's okay for someone to kidnap my baby, sell her to a family in another country, and then deny me my right to raise her when I find out because it'd be HARD on her? How about how hard it's been on me? How about the denial of my right to raise my child? That means nothing to you?

No, you're right. It's all about you. The kid's feelings are secondary to yours. Adults can't be expected to be as flexible as children.

At what point did I say it's okay for someone to kidnap and sell a baby? You sound like you're about thirteen years old and we're talking about something else.

 

[cloudy]

No, you're right. It's all about you. The kid's feelings are secondary to yours. Adults can't be expected to be as flexible as children.

At what point did I say it's okay for someone to kidnap and sell a baby? You sound like you're about thirteen years old and we're talking about something else.

Shereads, you rock.....thank you.

 

[shereads]

As a sign of how much you love him?
--Indeed. If I didn't love him, I wouldn't have pursued him all that time.

You'd never even met him, if you were the person who filed one of the custody cases we're discussing here. You knew of his existence. You knew that by all accounts he was with a loving family and was thriving. You wanted to change that for some reason, but whether it can be called love is questionable.'

Love sacrifices its own happiness for the sake of the one who is loved.

 

[Guest]

Thinking of my own children, I think they would be very traumatized were they suddenly removed from the only home they've ever known.

And to never be able to see the only people they've known for the first 4-plus years of their lives? Relatives, especially grandparents, friends at preschool or Sunday school, even pets?

I wonder just how damaging this is for a child. It isn't like losing a parent or sibling. This is the loss of everything.

I think it does become an ego or selfish thing for the biological parent at this point. Do you truly love your child? Truly? Honestly?

If so, their needs must come first.

If this were me, I would hope that some sort of arrangement would be made for visitation, joint custody, etc., so that it would be possible to somehow be part of my child's life.

I would grieve, but at least my child wouldn't be miserable. Isn't that what being a parent is all about?

 

[BlackShanglan]

While we're speaking of precedents, let's look at the other side of the coin. I'll provide a real life example. A young girl my mother taught - middle school age, with severe learning difficulities that placed her in the EMR category - had a biological mother and a would-be adoptive mother, in this case her own aunt. Her biological mother had almost zero contact with the child; the child herself was eager to be adopted by her aunt and actively frightened at the threat that her biological mother would come and take her away. When, might you ask, did she hear this threat? Any time her mother wanted money. Her mother was well aware of the legal minimum for contact in order for her to maintain a right to act as the child's mother and demand custody, and she carefully fulfilled that minimum of contact in order to have the power to take the child away if her sister didn't provide whatever she desired at the time - usually money. The father was completely out of the picture, and never had been in it. The home environment, had the mother chosen to re-assert her custody rights, would have been disastrous. The child - yes, this has a happy ending - was ecstatic when her mother's grip was finally prized loose of her and her aunt legally adopted her. But should one interpret the father's rights to this girl as absolute and property-based, he could still show up at any time, any date, and tear her away from her aunt without compunction.

I think that a terrible precedent for the child.

While I would have preferred perhaps a gentler response than that of shereads, I think that she has a point on the topic of who, in a difficult situation, should be asked to make sacrifices and face painful, potentially traumatic realities. Adults are better equipped for this than children. While, of course, most people would make exceptions for children removed as the result of crimes - and I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise - most custody disputes involve the choices the parents made, not crimes that were committed against them. While it is, naturally, unsettling to discover that one has inadvertantly fathered a child and been lied to about that child's existance, it's still one's own choice to maintain little enough contact with an ex-lover to miss nine months of pregnancy. I'm not suggesting that that is a crime that deserves to be punished with heartache, but I would also say that it's better for an adult to deal with that than for a four-year-old child to be torn from the only family s/he has ever known and handed over to people who are, to the child, total strangers.

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

While we're speaking of precedents, let's look at the other side of the coin. I'll provide a real life example. A young girl my mother taught - middle school age, with severe learning difficulities that placed her in the EMR category - had a biological mother and a would-be adoptive mother, in this case her own aunt. Her biological mother had almost zero contact with the child; the child herself was eager to be adopted by her aunt and actively frightened at the threat that her biological mother would come and take her away. When, might you ask, did she hear this threat? Any time her mother wanted money. Her mother was well aware of the legal minimum for contact in order for her to maintain a right to act as the child's mother and demand custody, and she carefully fulfilled that minimum of contact in order to have the power to take the child away if her sister didn't provide whatever she desired at the time - usually money. The father was completely out of the picture, and never had been in it. The home environment, had the mother chosen to re-assert her custody rights, would have been disastrous. The child - yes, this has a happy ending - was ecstatic when her mother's grip was finally prized loose of her and her aunt legally adopted her. But should one interpret the father's rights to this girl as absolute and property-based, he could still show up at any time, any date, and tear her away from her aunt without compunction.

I think that a terrible precedent for the child.

Shanglan

The assumption that a biological link creates love and a sense of responsibility toward one's child has led to so many tragedies in Florida that they're beyond counting. Repeatedly, abused kids have been returned to their homes with fatal consequences, by judges whose expressed goal was "to keep the family together." In a perfect world, people who weren't suited to be parents would have some biological defect that prevented them from spawning.

 

[BlackShanglan]

(Sorry, shereads - edited mine to add the last paragraph after you posted.)

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Since when has biology had anything to do with love? Or responsibility for that matter.

I'm thinking of the bird in 'Horton Hatches An Egg' "The work is all done now, and I want it back."

The biological parents of Jessica are being selfish assholes.

A judge who can't see that had blinders called 'The Law' on.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I don't think that anyone should be allowed to procreate unless they take intensive parenting classes.

 

[shereads]

A test week with a diaper-wearing monkey would weed out the weak.