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

Skip to comments.

Ohio Man Seeks Return of His Daughter Taken in Adoption Try
www.fathersandfamilies.org ^ | 07/12/10 | Robert Franklin, Esq.

Posted on 07/12/2010 12:15:09 PM PDT by fathers1

Doss said the birth mother signed an affidavit stating that she didn’t know the identity of the birth father. “That was what she signed and what we believed,” she said. Several weeks later, she learned that Mills had filed a brief in court claiming to be the father. “We didn’t know if that were true or if he wanted custody,” she said. “The birth mother was adamant he wasn’t the father. It wasn’t until the end of September that we got the result of the DNA testing.”

And so began the heart-rending case of a little girl she named Vanessa, her father, Benjamin Mills and the woman who wants to adopt her, Stacey Doss. It was always a simple matter that became a tangled web for one reason only - Vanessa’s birth mother decided to place her for adoption and lie about her father. Genetic testing has proven that man to be Benjamin Mills of Ohio, but the mom swore to all and sundry that she didn’t know who the dad was.

Ohio has a Putative Father Registry, and Mills had filed the appropriate forms within the appropriate time. According to his attorney,

Before his daughter was one month old, Mr. Mills had registered with the Ohio putative father registry and filed a complaint for paternity and custody of his daughter. In fact, Mr. Mills had filed his complaint for paternity and custody before Ms. Doss was approved as the placement through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and before Ms. Doss and his daughter left the state of Ohio.”

In other words, everyone involved in the matter, including Doss, knew that there was a father who knew about his child and had done everything necessary to preserve his parental rights. But they went right ahead anyway. Doss took Vanessa to California and now she’s enraged that the courts have done what they’ve been required to do all along - decide the matter of custody. Benjamin Mills has rights to his child; he always has had.

What adoption expert Joe Kroll said about the “Baby Jessica” case is no less true of this one:

“The adoptive parents said, ‘we have raised this child from day one,’ but I’m sorry, the law was broken from day one.”

Kroll noted that it’s disingenuous for prospective adoptive parents to argue that the child shouldn’t be “taken from the only home they’ve known” if they’ve been fighting contested custody since the child’s infancy. He advised, “When you as an adoptive parent sees something that doesn’t look quite right, resolve it as expeditiously as possible. If something hasn’t been done right or by the book, don’t push on. Fighting it is a big mistake because you’ll probably lose in the end.”

The news media want us to feel sorry for Doss. This article, for example pulls every heartstring there is (Dayton Daily News, 7/4/10). But seen rightly, Doss shot herself in the foot. She apparently figured that she could take the child and, during the time it took for litigation to run its course, the courts would conclude that, while Mills’s rights were violated, it would be too traumatic for Vanessa to be separated from Doss. That used to happen all the time. But, as Joe Kroll said, “the law was broken from day one” and Doss helped to break it.

For his part, Mills is no prize. He’s got a criminal record. Apparently he’s fathered other children with whom he has little or no relationship. None of that speaks well for him, but under the law, it doesn’t mean that his children can be taken from him, no questions asked, either. But that’s exactly what Vanessa’s birth mother tried to do. She didn’t want the child and she determined that Mills wouldn’t have her either. (After all, if Mills got custody, she’d be stuck paying support for a child she didn’t want in the first place.) And as we see so often, the system of adoption complied with mother’s wishes.

But in this game, Mills holds a winning hand. He’s the father; he filed with the Registry and filed his paternity suit. He can’t have his parental rights terminated without a hearing. His rights can be terminated because he’s unfit or because he’s a danger to the child. As far as has been reported, he’s none of those things.

Meanwhile, Vanessa has no clue that anyone but Doss is her parent. By all accounts, she’s a lively little girl who won’t understand a bit if she’s suddenly removed from Doss and placed in Mills’s care. Of course that would be handled gradually, but the fact remains that the one to suffer the most heartache in all this will be the one least capable of doing so.

The whole reason for that is the birth mother’s deception - her attempt to unilaterally deny Mills his daughter. Adoption doesn’t have to be complicated. Doss and the adoption agency could have filed an adoption proceeding and notified Mills. If he resisted the adoption, someone would have had to prove that his rights should be terminated and that, as a practical matter would mean proving him in some way unfit. Whoever decided to take the back-stairs approach obviously didn’t think that was likely. So the birth mother lied, Doss went along with it and eventually, Vanessa will pay the price.

Predictably, the news media have been playing this as a story about the anguish of Stacey Doss. That is unquestionably real. As surely as Vanessa has bonded with her, she’s bonded with Vanessa. But there’s a much larger truth here. Every adult involved in this shady deal knew or should have known that there was the potential for this “adoption” to be contested by the father. Every adult involved decided to try to circumvent the father’s rights. That proved to be the wrong decision.

As unhappy as Stacey Doss surely is, she should get together with the birth mother and the adoption agency and take a long look in the mirror. If they want to find out how this went wrong, they’ll find the answer there.


TOPICS: Government; US: California; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: adoption; benjaminmills; custody; parentalrights; savethemales; sexism; staceydoss
This is the heart-rending case of a little girl she named Vanessa, her father, Benjamin Mills and the woman who wants to adopt her, Stacey Doss.
1 posted on 07/12/2010 12:15:16 PM PDT by fathers1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Men, keep your pants on until you get married.

It is for your own protection as well as your child’s.

Women can abort your kids without so much as notifying you.

And don’t tell me you use birth control. It is not anywhere near 100% effective.


2 posted on 07/12/2010 12:17:34 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“Men, keep your pants on until you get married.”

Make us.


3 posted on 07/12/2010 12:23:33 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

‘Adoption doesn’t have to be complicated.’

But it does take a long time.

We started trying to adopt an older child 3 years ago. Last year, we finally was introduced to our first child at the end of July (two years into the process).

We are FINALLY going to finalize the process with her at the first of August (one year after we met).

If parents were made to wait that long before they were permitted to have a baby, we might just have better parents.


4 posted on 07/12/2010 12:23:57 PM PDT by Conan the Librarian (The Best in Life is to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and the Dewey Decimal System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

I believe that all of the paperwork involved is sworn so Perjury can be brought to bear on these people. Once this ‘father’ gets his kid back it’s time some States Attorney convenes a Grand Jury or two and bring some indictments.


5 posted on 07/12/2010 12:26:24 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

In the leftist lexicon of Newspeak, racism = I don’t like you. The term has been overused into irrelevance.


6 posted on 07/12/2010 12:28:19 PM PDT by Spok (Free Range Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Make us.

:::rummaging around::::

Now, where's that darned weed eater?

7 posted on 07/12/2010 12:28:26 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

All that heartache for a few moments pleasure.


8 posted on 07/12/2010 12:29:59 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Men, keep your pants on until you get married.

Single, celibate and sane works for some of us.

/johnny

9 posted on 07/12/2010 12:31:33 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Sounds like a tough one to prosecute to me. When a mother says she doesn’t know who the father is, what does that mean anyway? It must mean that there are several candidates and thus no certainty. So, obviously, whenever a woman claims not to know who the father is, she can never mean that there is no father. She must always mean that she can’t be sure who the father is becasue she had multiple sex partners. How could you ever prove that she lied about that?


10 posted on 07/12/2010 12:35:13 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Do we finally understand the wisdom of our ancestors and their adherence to biblical piety?

Do we understand the sanctity of marriage and why it is so vital to a civilized society?

Do we understand that our civil laws were written to protect children?


11 posted on 07/12/2010 12:37:33 PM PDT by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

There should be a way to punish the people here who tried to deny the father his rights. The Mother lied and it looks like the adoptive Mother knew ths wasn’t right but did it anyway. Both here should have to pay.


12 posted on 07/12/2010 12:37:44 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“All that heartache for a few moments pleasure.”

Yeah it doesn’t seem wholly RATIONAL, does it?


13 posted on 07/12/2010 12:39:20 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

It’s not heart rending at all.

I have no sympathy for the kidnapper Ms. Doss. She knowingly tried to steal a man’s daughter.


14 posted on 07/12/2010 12:41:24 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

As I pointed out before, how can you prove the natural mother lied? Claiming not to know the identity of the father is identical to claiming multiple sex partners.


15 posted on 07/12/2010 12:42:23 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Apparently he’s fathered other children with whom he has little or no relationship.

These children are currently living with grandmother who has custody. This is also where little Vanessa would live.

16 posted on 07/12/2010 12:43:19 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

I dont feel sorry for the new “Mommy” one bit...

what kind of example would sher be to this child...lying, deceit, illegal adoption...

She knowingly attempted to deprive the father of his right to his daughter...

She should have included him in the proceedings...

and then if/when he had been proven to be unfit she would have walked free and clear with the baby...

Or if he got the baby and then became unfit in the future...which he may very well do...

She would have a strong case for adoption since she had prior proven herself capable of considering the childs “best interests” and not her own wants...

Now however she has proven to be unfit herself..

and capable of lying to the court and duplicity...

He now has a stronger case than ever...

If he gets the child and is declared unfit in the future, she will not have any rights to claim the child...or very little..


17 posted on 07/12/2010 12:43:22 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

How did Doss know he was the father before seeing DNA test results?


18 posted on 07/12/2010 12:43:22 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Benjamin Mills better be very careful here. He is playing with fire.

I wouldn’t be suprized if some feminist family court judge rules against him, and for the adoptive mother, AND RULES THAT HE MUST PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR 18 YEARS.

(Think that won’t happen?)


19 posted on 07/12/2010 12:43:51 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

No. It isn’t rational. Men give their babies to murderous women all the time.


20 posted on 07/12/2010 12:44:29 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

She would name them and all would be tested prior to the adoption proceeding.


21 posted on 07/12/2010 12:45:57 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

“Make us.”

Well, ok, don’t, but don’t be surprised when your kids get killed, or single mothered, or put up for adoption, or raised by another man. And be prepared for child support bills. All the responsibility of fatherhood with none of the rewards. Then you can get embittered and hate women in general.


22 posted on 07/12/2010 12:47:20 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard; Jewbacca
How did Doss know he was the father before seeing DNA test results?

She didn't know so she took the child and fled before she could be stopped. She KNEW there was a chance that he was Dad. She didn't care. It was about what SHE wanted. And SHE wanted someone else's child.

23 posted on 07/12/2010 12:47:37 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

They did a DNA test.


24 posted on 07/12/2010 12:51:46 PM PDT by smalltownslick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

“Do we finally understand the wisdom of our ancestors and their adherence to biblical piety?

Do we understand the sanctity of marriage and why it is so vital to a civilized society?

Do we understand that our civil laws were written to protect children?”

Amen!!!

Isn’t amazing how the liberals twist things into “It’s for the children,” when it is really just pure selfishness?


25 posted on 07/12/2010 12:52:52 PM PDT by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Ohio has a Putative Father Registry meaning meaning if a guy thinks he’s the *might* be the father he files while they wait for DNA results. It is supposed to stop adoption proceedings and protect the father’s rights in the interum.


26 posted on 07/12/2010 12:53:21 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

I’m not sure I know what you are saying. Obviously, if the natural mother wants to be cooperative, she can help identify the father. But what can she be forced to do? Name names? And what if she names 100 names, and 100 DNA tests come back negative?


27 posted on 07/12/2010 12:55:12 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I like women, generally. One in particular. But not many of us got here becasue a man kept his pants on. And marriage is not sure-fire protection against bad stuff happening either.


28 posted on 07/12/2010 12:57:51 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

He is not going to get the kid back, he has been convicted of child endangerment and the Ohio family court will rule that the now bonded daughter is better off with her family...

It’s sad because they stripped him of his rights without due process when that process would have led to his losing the kids two years ago...

There is nobody in this case who is remotely appealing as a human being, except the baby girl.


29 posted on 07/12/2010 1:01:33 PM PDT by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

But any person in her situation would know for sure that there IS a biological father who might or might not know about the baby.

Perhaps you are arguing for adoption only when there is a clearly identfiied and proven father who has consented to the adoption.


30 posted on 07/12/2010 1:02:32 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: smalltownslick

“They did a DNA test.”

Yes. Which proves paternity, more or less.

I’m not sure where you go with that.


31 posted on 07/12/2010 1:05:08 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
he has been convicted of child endangerment

That's not mentioned in this article.

32 posted on 07/12/2010 1:05:50 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

“Ohio has a Putative Father Registry...”

And the system actually seems to have worked in this case. The natural father has asserted his rights, and they are being recognized.

I don’t think we are in disagreement.


33 posted on 07/12/2010 1:10:17 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

That is how it works and yes they will test all and keep testing. I know a guy who had to go and do this once with a women. He was mortified to find out there were 13 other guys waiting to be tested for the same thing for her.


34 posted on 07/12/2010 1:21:25 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
I was referring to the "adoptive" mother. She knew a man had filed as the father. She left anyway.

This article is embedded at the link.

‘Don’t take my child,’ California mother begs

In fact, Mr. Mills had filed his complaint for paternity and custody before Ms. Doss was approved as the placement through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and before Ms. Doss and his daughter left the state of Ohio.”

Don't take my child indeed. But she'll take someone else's.

35 posted on 07/12/2010 1:22:02 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

“Doss and her mother arrived in Dayton on June 14, 2008, the day after Vanessa’s birth. ... ‘It wasn’t until the end of September that we got the result of the DNA testing.’ “

When was the baby’s DNA tested and why? Was it court-ordered? When did the biological father get his DNA tested? How long did it take to get the results back?

The questions I am getting to are: Who should have been the baby’s caregiver from June 13th to the end of September? Should the prospective adoptive mother been given custody during that period and allowed to take the baby out of state?

Perhaps some believe babies should be taken from their adoptive parents and put into some sort of foster care as soon as a man, any man, initially states “Hold everything! It might be mine!” If so, a whole new method of legal blackmail has just been created.

No easy answers. Other than celibacy, or maintaining a DNA registry of every male in the country and testing every baby at birth, how can cases like this be prevented?


36 posted on 07/12/2010 2:05:52 PM PDT by StayAt HomeMother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
I like how this article doesn't mention he was in prison for Domestic Violence. I think this should play a HUGE part in the case.

Mills Jr. has served time in prison for domestic violence and he does not have custody of any of his five children, family members said. Montgomery County Children Services has an open case involving Mills’ older children.

“He’s changed,” his father said. “He’s a good father to them.”

Mills Sr. said that two of his son’s children, Vanessa’s full siblings, are in the custody of Mills Jr.’s 62-year-old mother, Rena Jordan. Several times during an interview with the Dayton Daily News, the elder Mills said his son intended to place Vanessa in the custody of his mother, but he later said, “I don’t really know what he’s doing.”

37 posted on 07/12/2010 2:06:22 PM PDT by Rezod21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Ouchy, you mean business.......I agree with you....


38 posted on 07/12/2010 2:19:45 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

No, there is no sure-fire protection.

We could all stay in bed to avoid bad things happening to us, and you know, bad things could happen there.

However, the best protection men have against being exploited by devious women is postponing sex until marriage.

After that they can take their pants off all they want! And make many more FReepers.

Sure, they could still get burned. But for example only 3-4% of abortions in this country are performed on married women.

So you have much much better odds.


39 posted on 07/12/2010 2:36:35 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Dear Persevero,

“But for example only 3-4% of abortions in this country are performed on married women.”

Not quite.

Here are two sources - one pro-abort, one pro-life:

“Marital Status

“Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.”

Thus, 17% of abortions are committed on currently-married women.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

“Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions...”

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

The abortion folks say 17%, the pro-lifers say 18.4%.

Close enough for me.

But it's not 3 - 4%.


sitetest

40 posted on 07/12/2010 2:44:45 PM PDT by sitetest ( If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Fair enough, perhaps your stats are more recent than mine.

Some of those “married” women may be separated or whatever.


41 posted on 07/12/2010 3:40:19 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Dear Persevero,

“Some of those ‘married’ women may be separated or whatever.”

Actually, that group comprises roughly another 15% or so of women obtaining abortions.

Never-married women, according to these sources, comprise about two-thirds of women obtaining abortions.


sitetest

42 posted on 07/12/2010 3:51:46 PM PDT by sitetest ( If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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