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.
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.
“Men, keep your pants on until you get married.”
Make us.
‘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.
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.
In the leftist lexicon of Newspeak, racism = I don’t like you. The term has been overused into irrelevance.
:::rummaging around::::
Now, where's that darned weed eater?
All that heartache for a few moments pleasure.
Single, celibate and sane works for some of us.
/johnny
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?
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?
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.
“All that heartache for a few moments pleasure.”
Yeah it doesn’t seem wholly RATIONAL, does it?
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.
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.
These children are currently living with grandmother who has custody. This is also where little Vanessa would live.
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..
How did Doss know he was the father before seeing DNA test results?
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?)
No. It isn’t rational. Men give their babies to murderous women all the time.
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.