Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TN: Single Dad Stops Adoption; To Get Custody of Daughter
Fathers & Families, Inc. ^ | May 13, 2010 | Robert Franklin, Esq.

Posted on 05/13/2010 12:26:33 PM PDT by fathers1

This is an unfortunate case in many ways. It is unfortunate that, due to Mother's blatant and calculated lies, Father has had to retain counsel to protect his fundamental parental rights. It is unfortunate that, due to Mother's blatant and calculated lies, Bethany Christian was deceived into believing that it had done what it needed to do in order to notify the biological father of the planned adoption. It is unfortunate that, due to Mother's blatant and calculated lies, the Child has been living with prospective adoptive parents and forming a bond with them and that relationship must now come to an end through no fault of the prospective adoptive parents. Because of Mother's behavior, there are no true winners in this case.
Those are the words of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in this case.

It's an interesting case for a several reasons. The first is that the facts, as agreed to by the parties, show clearly the extent to which a single mother who's determined to do so, can exercise complete control over a father's parental rights. The second is how dogged and frankly lucky a single father has to be to wrest his rights from her grasp. But most importantly, I've seen similar facts in countless cases in which the dad invariably loses in the end, but not so here. I'ts impossible for me to overemphasize the significance of that.

The two people in question are just referred to as Father and Mother by the court, so that's how I'll refer to them here. They met in May, 2008; by late June, 2008, she announced that she thought she was pregnant. They performed a home pregnancy test and sure enough, it came back positive. Father was overjoyed. He told Mother that he was eagerly looking forward to being a dad. They discussed marriage. They told his father and mother. All seemed well and happy.

Sometime around August 20th though, everything changed. Mother left the relationship and forbade Father from having any contact with her. Although the stipulations of the parties aren't clear on this, here's what I think happened: Mother got cold feet and embarked on a plan to destroy the relationship as a means to avoid marriage and family via placing the child for adoption. To that end, she told Father that he might not be the dad, that another man might be the father. Sure enough, that angered Father and he wrote her a nasty letter calling her a "cheating whore."

Mother moved in with her mother. Father sent her letters and money, all of which Mother refused. He attempted to visit her, but she accused him of stalking. Mother went to Bethany Christian Services to place the child for adoption. She lied to them about who the father of her child was. On and around her due date, Father and his mother attempted to locate the hospital at which Mother was to give birth, but no hospital would tell them whether or not she was there.

Some time after giving birth, Mother saw Father's sister in the local WalMart. They chatted and Mother informed the sister that she had miscarried at four or five months of pregnancy. When informed of this, Father's mother didn't believe Mother's story.

The child, Anna, was placed for adoption and notice of the termination of parental rights was placed in the newspaper which Father's father saw and notified Father. He immediately contested the adoption by filing a suit claiming paternity. As part of that suit, paternity was established via genetic testing. Father had never filed a notice of paternity with the state's putative father registry.

So what's the result? Did the court allow Father's parental rights to be terminated and the adoption to go forward? It did not. The trial court ruled for Father and the appellate court affirmed. Although this hasn't happened yet, it looks like Father will get custody of Anna and Mother will pay child support to him.

Obviously, Mother made some mistakes in her effort to bypass Father. But what she did, and what she failed to do provide every single mother a step-by-step primer on how to deny a single father his parental rights and a child its father. Such a primer would look something like this:

Ideally, the father shouldn't know about the pregnancy at all. So once a mother learns she's conceived, she should break off the relationship. She should be nice, but firm. She should tell him she's seeing someone else with whom she thinks she's in love. That way, if he accidentally learns she's pregnant, he'll assume it's the other fellow's child.

If she lets the cat out of the bag and tells the dad that she's pregnant or he finds out some other way, that complicates matters, but not unduly. First, Mom needs to create a crisis in the relationship. Telling the father that she's been cheating on him and the child may not be his is a good way to accomplish that. Then, feigning righteous indignation, moving away from the father and refusing any contact with him is the next step. If he persists, telling the police that he's stalking her, threatening violence, etc. can be very effective.

When it comes to adoption, she shouldn't use a local adoption agency, but one from Utah. They're masters at depriving fathers of their parental rights and once the child is in Utah, there's no way a court of that state will return it to the dad. (We've seen that just recently in the case of Virginia dad John Wyatt.

Whatever adoption agency she chooses, she must lie to them about who the father is. The best way to do this is to say she doesn't know and can't know who the dad is. So, she should tell them she she got drunk one night and had consensual sex with a man she met in a bar. When it's time to deliver, she should go to an out-of-county hospital and, when they ask for information on the father for the birth certificate, tell him she doesn't know who he is. They won't press the matter.

If single mom follows those simple steps, the dad will lose any claim he has quick as turning off a light.

The other interesting part about the Anna S. case is how dogged the dad was in asserting his rights. In the end, that, along with the multiple mistakes made by Mother, allowed him to do what few fathers have done in the same situation - get back a child whose mother was determined to give it away. In the final analysis, if Mother had been smarter about what she was doing, all of Father's efforts would have been in vain. Just ask John Wyatt.

Notice too, in reading the case, all the things statute law in Tennessee requires a single father to do to secure his parental rights. He must, among other things, maintain some sort of relationship with the mother by making at least reasonable visitation with her. He must contribute to her support during pregnancy and contribute to the expenses of childbirth. Failure to do so constitutes abandonment which means he has no parental rights.

So again, as we've so often seen, a single mother's parental rights are established automatically at birth; a single father must take specific actions to preserve his rights.

Interestingly, the Tennessee court emphasized the mother's "blatant and calculated lies" in making its decision. That is, it was her actions that prevented Father from doing the things he needed to do to preserve his rights, and therefore he could not be held responsible for having failed to do them. I've seen many and many a case in which the fact that a mother had intentionally lied to a father for the purpose of separating him from his child was completely ignored by a court in terminating his rights.

Does this case signal a new direction?

One last thing. Notice that little Anna has been living with her prospective adoptive parents since her birth over two years ago. And yet she is now to be taken from them and given to Father. The court rightly calls this "unfortunate." But still, it returns the child to her father. Again, I've seen many cases in which the court fully agrees that the father's rights have been intentionally and wrongly denied him by the actions of the mother, but still terminates his rights because the child has "bonded" with its adoptive parents. The best interests of the child, according to the court, trump all else and taking the child from "the only parents it has ever known" would be too traumatic, so it's "tough luck, dad."

But the court here doesn't do that. Parental rights are parental rights and the child will adjust to her new surroundings, as countless children do in countless situations (divorce, remarriage, parental death, changed custody, foster care, etc.) in which they're moved from one parent to another. For once a court is looking at parental rights as paramount and recognizing that a mother can't benefit from her own wrongful actions. For once it's not penalizing a father for the wrongs of the mother.

Again I ask, does this case signal a new direction?


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: adoption; annas; fathersrights; parentalrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2010 12:26:34 PM PDT by fathers1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Parental rights has always meant the Mother’s rights. It’s about time Father’s rights were figured into the equation.


2 posted on 05/13/2010 12:28:39 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
It is unfortunate that, due to Mother's blatant and calculated lies, the Child has been living with prospective adoptive parents and forming a bond with them and that relationship must now come to an end through no fault of the prospective adoptive parents.

Why must the relationship now end? Are adoptive parents not as good as bio parents?

Prosecute the mother for her fraud, but do not harm the child by removing it from who it considers to be its parents.

3 posted on 05/13/2010 12:30:08 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

Traditionally, until the mid 20th century, the father’s rights were always supreme. Why do you think it changed? What would be the proper balance?


4 posted on 05/13/2010 12:31:15 PM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
Why do you think it changed?

The modern 'feminist' movement.

5 posted on 05/13/2010 12:34:58 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

The Women’s movement. Liberalism. Proper balance? 50/50. No adoption without both parents approval.


6 posted on 05/13/2010 12:35:51 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

This is so sad. I feel sorry for the little girl and her adoptive parents. they are the victims of that awful “Mother”. I hope Father can get this kid the help she needs because she is going to need it.


7 posted on 05/13/2010 12:41:09 PM PDT by Cheesel (So this how democracy dies...with thunderous applause, March 21, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Why must the relationship now end? Are adoptive parents not as good as bio parents?

Not if they are involved in stealing a child from it's father (no matter how mislead they may be)

Prosecute the mother for her fraud, but do not harm the child by removing it from who it considers to be its parents.

and kick the dad in the nuts for good measure as you steal his child.

The only thing we have in this world that lasts is our children. Those of us who want them should never have our kids ripped away from us (assuming of course that we are being good parents which most men in this situation are or would be)

I'm all for adoption in cases where the biological parent doesn't want the child. But in this case the bio parent DOES want the child.

8 posted on 05/13/2010 12:42:24 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

The solution to this problem is Christ. The more kids have a personal relationship with Him the less outside of marriage sex there would be. The less outside of marriage sex means less babies born into these types of situations. Unfortunate all around.


9 posted on 05/13/2010 12:43:01 PM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

Depending on the age of the child, it’s not going to harm the child near as much as it would harm the father...


10 posted on 05/13/2010 12:46:31 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

So true. I believe both sperm and egg donors are selfish.


11 posted on 05/13/2010 12:47:50 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I agree. The judge should have ruled that the child should stay with his adoptive parents. Maybe the biological father should have been given visitation rights, but the child should have not been removed from his home and parents. And, yes, the mother should face criminal charges.

What a heartbreaking story. Imagine having your two-year-old child removed from your home after you and your spouse have been raising him since he was a day old. My youngest daughter is a bit over 1 and 1/2 years old and I’d flee the country rather than give her up if they found out that there was a mix-up at the hospital or something.


12 posted on 05/13/2010 12:49:12 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

“Why must the relationship now end? Are adoptive parents not as good as bio parents?”

Not a biological father who fought tooth and nail to secure his child, no. If the adoptive parents truly loved the child, they would have set out to foster a relationship with the biological father during the years this matter was before the courts.


13 posted on 05/13/2010 12:50:10 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Perhaps the father can find a way to include the “almost” adoptive parents in the child’s life.


14 posted on 05/13/2010 12:50:18 PM PDT by cjshapi (Proudly posting without a tagline since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

This matter was before the courts essentially since the child was born.

The adoptive parents were selfish and unreasonable to not return the child to her father years ago.


15 posted on 05/13/2010 12:52:20 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

The child does have a father and that never changed.

You are right adoptive pares do NOT equal biological parents. It is no different than kidnapping and then saying the stealing people are better parents and therefore the theft should be ratified.

Adoption is a legal fiction created by statute. In a day when children are/were deemed property.

The state should never get involved in terminating parental rights via a court case founded on a lie.


16 posted on 05/13/2010 12:52:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

One of the primary reasons I stopped doing family law: everybody hurts everybody and the kids suffer. Best I could tell, there was never a true winner in any of my cases.

Colonel, USAFR


17 posted on 05/13/2010 12:52:27 PM PDT by jagusafr (Don't make deals with pirates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

The double standard says any child support required of the mother will never have to be paid.


18 posted on 05/13/2010 12:53:15 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

He’s hardly a mere donor; he would be the only father the child ever knew if the biological mother wasn’t evil.


19 posted on 05/13/2010 12:54:16 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Doesn’t the adopted parents have custody right now? I believe they are the real parents now.


20 posted on 05/13/2010 12:55:46 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
The judge should have ruled that the child should stay with his adoptive parents......My youngest daughter is a bit over 1 and 1/2 years old and I’d flee the country rather than give her up if they found out that there was a mix-up at the hospital or something.

How is that different for the biological father? It would be OK for him to live out his life knowing that his child was taken from him?

21 posted on 05/13/2010 12:56:47 PM PDT by txroadkill (I bet if they voted Republican the wall would've been built years ago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Preventing this outcome is simple. Don’t sleep with lying whores.

What is really perverse is that pro-abortion advocates will say an abortion would have prevented heart ache of all parties involved.

What a perverse, wicked, evil generation we live in.


22 posted on 05/13/2010 12:57:27 PM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts soooo good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

They have known about the biological father for the last 1 1/2 years. If they loved the child, they would have done the right thing.

If I steal your baby, sell it to muslims, and they raise him or her for 2 years, would it be OK for them to keep the baby? You know, since it is the only parent the baby knew?

Of course not.


23 posted on 05/13/2010 12:58:02 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cjshapi

Why?

the NON-adoptive parents were attempting to obtain title via a lie.

They are total strangers to this child. There is no need or reason to include them.

The child has a father and the father stepped up and was counted when it mattered.


24 posted on 05/13/2010 12:58:31 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Ridiculous example, but I got your point.


25 posted on 05/13/2010 1:00:40 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

The child must have been born in early 2009. Therefore, I think the child is young enough to not suffer too much from the dislocation from her adoptive parents.

If the child was 3 or 4 I would say the opposite.


26 posted on 05/13/2010 1:00:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

I have seen too many slimy lawyers who say delay is your ally to adoptive parents. It is like the kid who kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he/she is an orphan.

I am always surprised how many pro-life people are more than willing to impose a paternal abortion via court order.


27 posted on 05/13/2010 1:00:54 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

If it was me and I was advising the father, I would recommend that he include the almost adoptive parents in the child’s life because I believe that that would be in the best interests of the child but the father has a right to know and raise his child.


28 posted on 05/13/2010 1:01:30 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

If the child was 17 and 264 days, the answer must not change.


29 posted on 05/13/2010 1:02:05 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

“Prosecute the mother for her fraud, but do not harm the child by removing it from who it considers to be its parents.”

And what of the rights of the father? When exactly did he surrender those?


30 posted on 05/13/2010 1:02:06 PM PDT by Grunthor (Over YOUR dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
The adoptive parents were selfish and unreasonable to not return the child to her father years ago.

Maybe, but we don't really know much about the dad and whether he is a responsible adult. I can see a situation where the adoptive parents thought both biological parents were nuts and thought they were doing what was best for the baby.

Also, as a dad who ended up with custody of an 18 month son 27 years ago, I can safely say the process should never ever be about the parents. My rights were the last thing I cared about.

31 posted on 05/13/2010 1:03:21 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

It is also unfortunate that the father, through blatant disregard for anything but a quick lay, knocked up this dishonest and calculating whore.


32 posted on 05/13/2010 1:06:09 PM PDT by EricT. (Can we start hanging them yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Is the father employed and fit to parent the child? Can he provide a stable, loving home?(I couldn’t figure that out from the article)


33 posted on 05/13/2010 1:08:14 PM PDT by pnz1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

Goodness has nothing to do with this. The biological father wants his child. That child is his. It’s extremely difficult for the adoptive parents, agreed, and for the child too.


34 posted on 05/13/2010 1:09:30 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I know he had enough chutzpah to fight this from the start, family to back him, and money to pay lawyers.

That’s pretty much all I need to know.


35 posted on 05/13/2010 1:10:30 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pnz1

He probably paid $100K to lawyers for a trial and appeal.

His parents and sister backed him up.

Probably pretty damn stable.


36 posted on 05/13/2010 1:11:39 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Following the link and reading further, looks like the father has moved in with another woman and they also have a child now. It says they “plan to get married when they have the money for a formal wedding”..


37 posted on 05/13/2010 1:19:01 PM PDT by pnz1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pnz1

So he shouldn’t have his child because he’s shacking up?

If that was the stanard, 1/2 of the children in this country would be taken from their homes.


38 posted on 05/13/2010 1:21:30 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

As a vetern of multiple adoptions, including one which resulted in a baby taken from us and returned to an unstable birthmother, I can attest adoption law (and many of the folks involved in the process) are a disaster. No shock to see Bethany in the middle of this.


39 posted on 05/13/2010 1:21:46 PM PDT by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

Actually, that’s not accurate. Until the mid to late 20th century, unmarried fathers had no rights.


40 posted on 05/13/2010 1:22:47 PM PDT by mockingbyrd (Remember in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

I didn’t say whether or not I thought he should have the child because I don’t know. I am just posting more info that I found regarding the living situation.


41 posted on 05/13/2010 1:23:28 PM PDT by pnz1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: pnz1

Is the father employed and fit to parent the child? Can he provide a stable, loving home?(I couldn’t figure that out from the article)

+++++++ +

none of that matters. Is he the father? did he surrender his parental rights?

You don’t get to steal children “just because”.


42 posted on 05/13/2010 1:29:53 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

If the transition is smoothe, I hope the father is psychologically mature enough to include “Aunt and Uncle” [the parents wanting to adopt his child] in their lives. Occasional visits, photos, cards and gifts.

He could ask them to be his daughter’s Godparents!


43 posted on 05/13/2010 1:30:26 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (SPEAK UP REPUBLICANS, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU YET! IMPEACH OBAMA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnz1
It says they “plan to get married when they have the money for a formal wedding”..

I'm not sure this dad has learned his lesson. Don't impregnate a woman who is not your wife. If you wanted a formal wedding so bad, you shouldn't have put the cart before the horse. Go to a justice of the peace, get married and save your money for the party later.

44 posted on 05/13/2010 1:33:16 PM PDT by Tamar1973 (Freedom of the Press?! I need Freedom FROM THE PRESS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Doesn’t the adopted parents have custody right now? I believe they are the real parents now.

But the adoptive parents only have custody based on fraud. The rulings that were made were made using lies, therefore the rulings aren't valid.

I'll have to read up on this case, did the adoptive parents really know all along about the father? If so, fie upon them!!! They willfully put this kid's mental health at stake....not nice words for them. Thankfully, tho, the child is young enough that she will have a shorter adjustment period than would an older child, and her chances of emotional scarring are less. In this case, I think the bio dad and the daughter will be the winners, and all other parties should be prosecuted. Too bad the adoption agency will get dragged into it...

45 posted on 05/13/2010 1:33:26 PM PDT by blu (I will no longer tolerate Catholic bashing. The truth, yes, the bashing, no.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: HighlyOpinionated

I would have advised him to end all contact with them.

there is no reason for any continued contact.

Their contact with the girl ended when the court ruled on the fraud which placed the child there.


47 posted on 05/13/2010 1:46:46 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: txroadkill; Jewbacca

With all due respect, it’s not the same thing if I knock up my girlfriend and she breaks up with me and doesn’t let me see my biological child than if I’ve been raising a child as mine since birth until he’s two years old and they take him away from me at that point.

Jewbacca, it takes many months for parents who have been raising a baby over whose custody they received from an adoption agency to actually be able to adopt that baby. Since the biological father did not know for certain that the baby had been born until his father saw a notice of termination of parental rights in the newspaper when the custodial parents were about to adopt the baby, and only then did the biological father have gone to court, the matter was certainly not “before the courts” since the child’s birth, but many months later. What do you suggest, that the parents who had been raising their child for months send the child to a foster home because the guy who knocked up the baby’s mother wants custody?

I know that the biological father got a raw deal from his girlfriend, but that’s what happens when you don’t wait until marriage to have a baby. The woman could have moved to Russia before giving birth or, even worse, had an abortion, and there was not a damn thing that the biological father could do to prevent it. I have no sympathy for the biological mother here, but my sympathy for the biological father does not extend so far as to take away a child from his parents.

I love my two daughters with all my heart, and I would not love them any less if it turned out that somehow I was not their biological father. The experience of raising them since birth, not mere biology, has created an unbreakable bond between us. I have close friends who are adoptive parents, and I know that the bond between them and their children are no different from mine. I know that fathers always get the shaft in custody fights, but taking a child from his adoptive parents is not the right way to right those wrongs.


48 posted on 05/13/2010 1:47:21 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

I’m sure the dad will get custody. I have friends who were foster parents to a new born baby. They took care of the baby straight from the hospital after the birth for an entire year. They couldn’t wait to adopt her, but the grandmother decided at the last minute she wanted to adopt the baby (took grandma a year to make up her mind, but she did). Custody was given to the grandmother, my friends were heartbroken, but this is what happened. (They later ended up adopting a beautiful baby girl from China : )


49 posted on 05/13/2010 1:51:26 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

OK, as posted above, if I steal your next child, give him or her to muslims and you don’t find your child for two years, the child should stay with the muslims because they are his parents?

Of course not.

I don’t know the timing, but the father has been seeking his child probably since 6 months in.

The adoptive parents are selfish, evil, -— yes, evil -— people for not doing the right thing 1 1/2 years ago.

The mother started this fight, but the adoptive parents continued it.


50 posted on 05/13/2010 1:52:04 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson