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.
She would name them and all would be tested prior to the adoption proceeding.
“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.
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.
They did a DNA test.
“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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“They did a DNA test.”
Yes. Which proves paternity, more or less.
I’m not sure where you go with that.
That's not mentioned in this article.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
Ouchy, you mean business.......I agree with you....
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.
“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
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.