Dad: Son put up for adoption without his knowledge

[deadparrot]

VERONA, New Jersey (AP) -- David Archuletta says he knew his former girlfriend was pregnant in 2001, but she told him the baby was stillborn.

More than a year later, she told him the truth -- that she had given birth after traveling to New Jersey from their home in Colorado, and turned over the baby for adoption.

Ever since, Archuletta has been fighting for custody -- his efforts stymied by what state officials now say was a mistake by the adoption agency involved, Children of the World.

"He looks just like me. I just want to be able to see my son," said Archuletta, who has Parkinson's disease and lives with his mother in Pueblo, Colorado.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/11/adoption.fight.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[malaise]

1. What a horrible story

Women sometimes forget that children have two parents. She hasn't only created a mess for a father but has created severe problems for a child.

[Darth_Kitten]

60. Excuse me, women sometimes forget children have two parents?

Oh, right, aren't women such selfish creatures, especially when it comes to children.

[malaise]

66. Sometimes we are n/t

[Darth_Kitten]

72. Well sometimes men are then?

Thing is with women they are most often left with doing most of the child care work, so I doubt most women have the time to be so "selfish"

If women have to remember there are two parents I guess men have to remember there are two parents as well? ;)

[Zhade]

109. My own mother kind of did, actually.

She took me and ran from my father, then lied for 23 years about him, saying he was an abusive, violent monster who threatened to kill us at gunpoint.

Never happened - she later admitted that she made it up because she was terrified of losing me (she lost custody of her son from her first marriage). My father cheated on her - bad, selfish, dishonorable decision on his part - but he was still my father. Needless to say, I forgave my mom completely once she came clean and explained what happened. I love her very much, and I understand why she did what she did, even though I disagree with her decision.

Haven't ever seen him, btw, though I understand I'm his spitting image.

[maddezmom]

2. heartbreaking story

and as an adopitive mom and adoptee, this is why I'm for open/semi-open adoptions.

[scot]

42. Heartbreaking indeed!

But what is a "semi-open adoption"?

[maddezmom]

53. communication thru a 3rd party

pictures, letters, etc. And when child is 18 records are opened to all parties.

[Bunny]

3. Boy, that adoption agency sure screwed up.

And the father and the little boy are paying the price.

[dsc]

4. The woman should be jailed and the agency disbanded

with any people directly involved in this also jailed. But the adoption should stand. The kid has parents now and sadly this man is left a victim. I would imagine if jailing people who willfully denied people their rights in this type of case became the norm we would have very few of them.

[1monster]

17. I don't believe the natural father should be cut out of this child's life.

But neither do I believe that after all this time the adoption should be invalidated.

Although I've never heard of such a solution, I believe there could be a third way if a joint custody arrangement could be made.

The natural father should be given regular and frequent visitation, starting of with frequent short periods when the child is in his presence, then when the child is allowed to spend a full day, then a weekend with the father. Eventually, the child should be allowed to spend more and more time with the father and joint custody should be awarded to both the natural father and the adoptive parents. (Caveat in the next paragraph)

The adoptive parents, providing they did not now that the natural father had been lied to, are victims in this issue too. I'm sure they must love the child.

We have this kind of arrangements in child custody issues quite often as a result of divorce. It could work here. the child is still young enough that it would not be hard for him to adapt.

It is not an ideal solution, but it is more workable and more humane than to cut off the adoptive parents or the natural father.

[Beausoir]

34. Please don't use the term "natural father".

That implies that parents who choose to adopt are "unnatural".

No offense meant here at all. It's just that the term "natural" can be kind of hurtful to those of us in the adoption triad.

[shanti]

44. right - birth father

is much kinder.

[LisaL]

46. He is not exactly the birth father either, considering he

wasn't even present at birth. I would call him a biological father.

[Chrisduhfur]

56. but but but...

That isn't very kind to him, I mean after all, we wouldn't want to use words that might offend someone. Let's call him "father of a child whose mother lied and then put the baby up for adoption without his knowledge". I think that is much less offensive.

Yes, I am attempting to be a smartass but I am not doing it in a mean way. I just find it amusing when people make such big deal about such semantics, as if it even matters.

[Beausoir]

64. Semantics DO matter..to alot of people.

I was being as kind as I could in pointing out that the terms "natural mother" and "natural father" can be hurtful terms. They are outdated terms from when adoption was a shameful secret to be kept.

If you want to continue to use offensive and stereotypical labels...go right ahead.

Sheesh.

[Chrisduhfur]

67. I dunno.

Any term can be "hurtful" it just depends on how somone takes it. I suppose I grew up in an environment where we were taught not to let words hurt us. They really shouldn't, they are after all just words. Ummm, I also do not see how that is a stereotypical label though, but that isn't the point.

[Gormy Cuss]

70. Please explain.

You have stated why some in the adoption triad are threatened by the term 'natural' because they believe it implies that the adoptive members' relationship is unnatural and that term is viewed as perjorative so I follow you on the offensive part; I can't figure out where there's any stereotyping by calling biological relations 'natural' however --it's simply the truth.

[Beausoir]

81. I obviously explained well enough for you to agree. Why carry it further?

You just explained the point perfectly.

I refuse to get into a flame war over this. The term "natural father" implies that a father who adopts a child must be "un-natural". It's perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable to change that terminology.

Whether or not you wish to use that term is up to you. It only reflects upon you and your knowledge of adoption.

[Gormy Cuss]

95. Sorry that you misunderstood.

I have never heard anyone in my circle (family or friends) who has experienced adoption say that 'natural' was an offensive term for a biological parent. I asked you because you have a different experience. Pardon me for asking. I guess an explanation of why you referred to it as a stereotype is somehow flamebait.


And for the record on the news item, I hope that the biological mother is tried on fraud charges, the lawyers and adoption agency put out of business, but the poor boy should be left with his parents. I hope that his parents can see fit to let the biological father have some contact.

[Beausoir]

120. My bad, then.

Referring to "natural" parents versus "un-natural" parents has been a sad chapter in adoption history. There is so much bad terminology out there regarding adoption and it can cause alot of people pain.

Didn't mean to jump all over you. Really, I didn't.

Thanks for the post.

[harpboy_ak]

184. Stop being so hyper-sensitive, it's ridiculous!

I refuse to get into a flame war over this. The term "natural father" implies that a father who adopts a child must be "un-natural". It's perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable to change that terminology.

No, YOU started a flame war, you didn't refuse. The only "implication" is in YOUR mind, and you are being totally unreasonable about this minor issue of semantics.

Whether or not you wish to use that term is up to you. It only reflects upon you and your knowledge of adoption.

No, it only reflects on you and your ridiculous hypersensitivity on this issue.

I agree that the term should probably be "biological father" but you are just being a total obssessive about this. Get over it.

[hyphenate]

97. A friend refers to the mother

who gave birth to her as the "egg donor." I suppose "sperm donor" could be a comparable term.

I was adopted as well, but since I never knew who my father was, it really makes no difference to me either way. My biological mother was someone I knew all my life as my "aunt" (I was adopted within a family) but since I never knew it until I was 11, she never was my "mother" in my eyes. The father could have been any one of a long assorted bunch of men as my "mother" used to fuck around a lot. I know that's nasty, but hey--it's the truth.

[BiggJawn]

58. Oh, split hairs, why don'tcha?

I got it! Why not call him "the Sperm Donor"? That fits in with the anti-father bias in matters of child custody prevalent in this country....

[CTLawGuy]

59. too late

"let's just call him 'sperm donor.'"

see post 18

[ronnykmarshall]

199. how about ...

the dude that knocked that gal up?

That should be enough to piss everyone off.

[Darth_Kitten]

61. Anti father bias?

Sorry, usually when fathers are absent from a child's life it's from choice.

[zanne]

82. Men walk away all the time.

A man can walk away from a relationship when he learns he's going to be a father, and there's absolutely nothing the woman can do about it. Anti-father? Sheeeeeeeeet.

[BiggJawn]

118. And a woman can take his child 300 miles away....

And there's absolutely NOTHING the man can do about it. The courts say they exist to enforce support orders, NOT visitation.

And when I finally got physical custody and she wouldn't pay support....

"Uh, there's some mistake here...You're a MAN, you PAY support, you don't GET support... (do they?)"

Then I figured out that the courts don't give a rosy red rat's ass about fathers, unless they owe money.

So Sheeeeeeeeeet yourseeeeeeeeeeeeelf.

[Zhade]

110. Please remember, though, that it's often not a choice.

NT!

[Speed8098]

127. Are you kidding me?

Where do you get the nerve to make a statement like that?!

Back that statement up with credible statistics, or apologize to every man here who doesn't have access to his child because some selfish woman thinks she knows what's best.

[trixie]

166. Let's be fair here

True historically women have had to bear the brunt of child rearing. True some men are horrible. Also true that some women use the system for their own agenda. I am a woman, I have a sister who has used the system to her advantage (and very proudly so) for 18 years. She has 4 children by 4 different men. All good men who tried to stand by her and then when she washed her hands of them, stand by their children. It was not her plan to have a second involved parent. Her plan was to get as much child support per child as possible. Having one man pay for 4 kids nowhere equals the amount of money as 4 men paying for 1 child each. She gets $175 per week for 3 kids and $150 + child care for the youngest child. She gets $2700 a month plus medical benefits carried for each child by the father plus $600 clothing allowence per child per year. Let's not forget the fathers pay pretty much 100% of all outside activities for their child. To be fair, all the kids are properly clothed, fed and cared for. Their house is better than our house. When the fathers want visitation she is horrible, it's a game she plays. When they agree to taking the child every single weekend and most of all holidays and summers without paring down their support she relents. The fathers are good men. The family likes them all. Two of them actually share a house now and share the responsibilites of their 2 kids and keep the other two now and then. My sister is going on #5 (she is 38) and he is also a good man and we want to tell him to run as fast as he can.

My point is - keep what is best for the child. Bad parenting has no gender.

[nodehopper]

69. I think that was a sh*tty thing of her to do, but jail? come on!

she did not commit any crime.

[ovidsen]

77. Did you read the full story?

Later, but still months before the adoption was completed, Candelaria sent a letter to the adoptive parents asking for more money for expenses and threatening to tell the child's father about the adoption if the couple did not comply, according to DHS records.

If that's not a crime worthy of time, it should be.

[nodehopper]

123. ah, I missed that part. I suppose that could be blackmail

[trixie]

167. let's not forget

that even without the blackmail she used the child as a pawn not a human. It sickens me when children are treated like furniture.

[dsc]

173. give me money or I tell the birth father

that is called blackmail. But more importantly I think what she did even without that should be a crime. She royally fucked up her kids life because now the adoption is likely to be overturned and the boy will be ripped from the only parents he ever knew. Frankly jail is too good for the woman.

[MADem]

5. Some lawyer will jump on this for contingency fees only--it is a slam dunk

That daddy is gonna be rich, and his lawyer will be even richer. The adoptive parents, per the story, were pressed for blackmail to the mother to keep the daddy in the dark, so they can't use the "WE DIDN'T KNOW" excuse:

Later, but still months before the adoption was completed, Candelaria sent a letter to the adoptive parents asking for more money for expenses and threatening to tell the child's father about the adoption if the couple did not comply, according to DHS records.


And, the Executive Director of the Adoption Agency KNOWINGLY flouted state law:


Steven Sklar, an attorney for the adoptive parents, notified Serio of the letter nine months before the adoption was finalized, but she did not follow up on the information, according to DHS records. Sklar would not comment on the case.

In an interview with state investigators in 2003, Serio said she had only recently learned of the birth father's existence that year, according to the records.

But in an affidavit taken in December 2004, Serio wrote she had received the information in 2001. Serio also said that the father had failed to come forward within the required window of 120 days, and that the agency was not legally obligated to locate him, according to state records.

State officials say Serio's interpretation of the law was wrong....

Yep, there's a BIG PAYDAY there...hopefully the father will share it with his kid.

[dsc]

8. the adoptive parents sound pretty blameless here

after all they did, through a lawyer, inform the agency, whose job it was to get to the bottom of things. all the parents knew was that she had threatened to go tell the father, not that the father even existed.

[MADem]

9. The very first thing the adoption agency director will likely say is that

the adoptive parents knew the rules and were complicit in the fraud. Also, we do not know yet if the adoptive parents PAID the hush money--if that happened, then they've got serious trouble.

It sounds to me, regardless of where blame is placed, that this was a BAD ADOPTION from the get-go. The biological father was clearly defrauded. There will be some redress if this heads to court; the only question is what sort of redress? Will monies be paid, and a joint custody arrangement set up? Will the kid be removed from the adoptive parents and given to the father? Will the father get cash and no kid, owing to his illness?

It's a made for TV movie in the making....

[dsc]

11. even if they paid the hush money

possibly for fear that she would decide to keep the child, they still came forward in plenty of time. It isn't their job to find the parent, nor to know the applicable law. It is the agency's job.

[MADem]

14. Well, if you receive stolen property, ya still don't get to keep it

When the cops come to the door and tell you that plasma TV was stolen, "I didn't know" is not an acceptable excuse.

I'm not suggesting that the child is property, mind you, but this is still a BAD adoption. Fruit of the poisoned tree, and all that...

I think they stand a very real chance of losing the kid, or, if they can work things out with the biological father, having to share custody. Unless they throw money at him, and that makes him go away...but somehow, I don't think that will work in this case. This guy has been dogging the case for several years, now, without benefit of a lot of cash, either.

[dsc]

16. these are the only parents the kid has ever known

it isn't about these parents it is about this kid. The kid has a right to these parents. As you point out kids aren't property. Sadly they get treated as such repeatedly.

[LisaL]

23. The stolen TV is not going to get attached to you.

Unlike a child. The couple had him for five years, for crying out loud.

[MADem]

74. I know that, but it DOES NOT MATTER in law

You can't be rewarded for perpetuating a fraud. And it is apparent that the adoptive parents had lousy legal representation--their lawyer knew the father was known, and also did not insure that the agency notified him. You don't take ANYONE's WORD for something as important as that. You gotta check off all the blocks; and the lawyer failed to do that. He should have been given a copy of the notification letter (gee, there wasn't one!) as well as the certified receipt notice (not one of those, either!).

Emotional appeals don't cut it. As I have said elsewhere, the best solution here is joint custody, if the two sides can come to an agreement. And some serious jail time for those who perpetuated this fraud.

[LisaL]

104. Human beings are not property. The welfare of the child should

be considered. If it's not, then something is very wrong with our system.

[MADem]

137. What's worse? Living with rich people to whom you were sold, like cattle,

or living with a poor parent who loved you so much that he fought for five years to get you back?

I think the welfare of the parent is of equal importance, frankly. If the father is a loving parent, the kid will be ok.

I think it would be far worse for that kid to grow up and find out later in life that his mother essentially sold him, his father wanted him, and his adoptive parents engaged in deceit and colluded with a shady private adoption agency to obtain him.

[Zhade]

111. But it sounds like it's the agency and the lawyer's fault.

I mean, in addition to the mother's fraud.

I don't see how the parents can or should be penalized, unless they knew from the beginning.

[MADem]

136. They did know, though--the woman told them, and their lawyer was

notified. The lawyer did not follow up.

[NashVegas]

30. More Information in this AP Story

MUCH more.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13795150.htm

The woman who gave birth to the child looks like a real mess. The biological father has been treated horribly, but is suffering from Parkinson's. How much energy can he devote to handling a five year old?

The adoptive parents did the correct thing in notifying the adoption agency. The agency screwed up big time.

It is not in this kid's interest to be removed and given to the custody of this biological father. At this age it would rock his whole life. All we know about the adoptive parents is that they seemed to play by the rules. That's one thing in their favor.

[MADem]

73. The story backs up my original assertion though--that the father has a

very strong case, notwithstanding the difficulty the child will experience:

Gary Skoloff, a Livingston adoption attorney not involved in this case, said Archuletta may have a good chance of getting the adoption overturned if he takes his fight to court.

...Archuletta said he still hopes to have the adoption nullified.

"I want to overturn this," he said. "I just want to be able to see my son."

The adoptive parents apparently had a LOUSY LAWYER. That's a shame, but a shame doesn't make for a ruling for them in a court of law. Like it or not, biology will generally trump, absent any demonstration that the guy would be a bad parent. And being disabled is not a disqualifier, especially if he has extended family who will assist him.

The best-case scenario for the child would be joint custody. The challenge is getting the adoptive parents and the biological father to agree to that.

[LisaL]

87. So they will give the child to a sick and penniless man?

Frankly, considering the guy has no money, unless somebody decides to represent him for free, how is he going to afford a lawyer and get anywhere?

[MADem]

135. We know nothing of his extended family

You know how life is in America--if you are sick, chronically ill, they want you to spend yourself into the poorhouse before they will give you a damn dime of medical care. That doesn't mean his family is broke as well.

And we aren't just talking about a father, here, we are talking potentially about grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, a whole family that is connected to that child.

I suspect that the best solution for this kid is joint custody with the adoptive parents, but it isn't really up to them. Their lawyer badly handled this case, made errors, did not follow up on information that she KNEW made the adoption "bad"--and just crossed her fingers. As a result, there's gonna be some hell to pay.

As for a lawyer, they can sue the Agency AND the lawyer and probably come away with a very hefty sum. I am sure a number of lawyers would be eager to take this case on contingency, because it is a slam dunk.

[mondo joe]

143. Are rights restricted to the healthy and well off now?

I rather hoped not.

[LisaL]

24. If you read the article, it says attorney for the parents informed

the adoption agency about the existence of the father once they learned about it from the mother. So, they do sound completely blameless and actually did the right thing.

[MADem]

75. No, the attorney for the adoptive parents SCREWED up!!!

The attorney knew, or should have known, state law. He or she told the agency about the father. At that point, before the adoption proceeded, he or she should have demanded a copy of the notification letter and certified delivery receipt for his or her files. It ain't just CYA--it's ensuring that your client is not entering into a bad deal--that's why the parents paid a lawyer, to double-check that stuff for them.

The lawyer is certainly not blameless. Sloppy, at best, negligent or even complicit, at worst, but not blameless.

Unfortunately for the adoptive parents, they had bad representation, and they'll suffer for it.

[dsc]

107. but we don't know if he knew who the father was

we only know the mother threatened to tell the father, not that she said who it was.

[MADem]

134. Oh, yes, we do--and the attorney plainly didn't cross the T's or dot the

I's--From the AP story cited upthread:

State adoption investigators say Candelaria first told the agency's workers the father was unknown. Later, but still months before the adoption was completed, she sent a letter to the adoptive parents demanding more money for expenses and threatening to tell the child's father about the adoption if the couple did not comply, according to DHS records.
Sklar, the attorney for the adoptive parents, notified Children of the World's Serio, of the letter nine months before the adoption was completed, but she did not follow up on the information, according to DHS records.
In an interview with state investigators in 2003, Serio said she had only recently learned of the birth father's existence that year, according to DHS records. But in affidavit taken in December 2004, Serio wrote she had received the information in 2001. Serio also said that the father had failed to come forward within the required window of 120 days, and that the agency was not legally obligated to locate him, according to state records.
DHS officials say Serio's interpretation of the law was wrong and that she made contradictory statements to investigators...

[LisaL]

39. You just quoted the article stating that adoptive parents

informed the agency after the woman told them about the father. So, exactly what is it you think they did wrong?

[MADem]

76. See my post above, re: their lousy lawyer

They, through their lawyer, should have ensured that notification of the biological father occurred, and had proof of it before proceeding with the adoption. They didn't do that. Either they were sloppy, or their lawyer was sloppy, or they knew and thought they might get away with it.

In any event, a fraud was perpetuated on the biological father, so the adoption is likely to be overturned, unless both parties can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement.

[sandnsea]

6. The child is 5 now

Or nearing 5, it seems. He's old enough to have adoption explained, which would open the door for a relationship with his father. That's what would be in the best interest of the little boy, it's too bad they all can't just come to the logical agreement and get on with their lives.

[Occulus]

45. My experience was sort of opposite to this

I'm adopted. My adoptive parents decided to make sure I knew about it from the time I was old enough to know.

Funny thing, though...

They let me believe all my life that, because of the period of time I was adopted, I couldn't- ever- find out who my biological parents are. As it happens, only a couple years ago I discovered that's not necessarily true. ALSO, as it happens, my mom then told me "well, we never told you that wasn't possible..."

These are the same people who kicked me out for being gay, yanked my school funding for the same reasons, yadda yadda yadda.

Adoptions are crap shoots. I really, really hope adoptive parents are screened better now than they were when I was adopted.

[sandnsea]

54. Life's a crap shoot

No guarantees, with natural or adoptive families. Grass is always greener, you can choose your friends but not your family, yadda yadda. So maybe your natural parents wanted you adopted to somebody who wasn't going to let you turn into one of those nancy boys, who knows. We're in a world that is literally fighting over cartoons, with the Republican Party leaders of the free world guffawing at Star Wars caricatures of Nancy Pelosi, come on sweets, can't take any of this shit seriously anymore. Maybe we'd all be better off if we took George Carlin's approach and just detached and laughed at the freak show. In any event, don't let your parents get ya' down, living well is the best revenge!!

[Canuckistanian]

63. Same with me

My sister and I are both adopted. She went on a ten-year quest to find her real parents and just last year was successful.

As for myself, I don't know my birth parents and it doesn't really interest me in finding them. I've known no other parents but my adoptive ones.

[Maat]

195. Thanks for the reply, Canuckistanian.

I've always been honest with my daughter about being adopted. I've told her she can contact her birthmother when she is an adult.

As far as I'm concerned, and she's concerned, I am her REAL parent. I'm the one that held her through all of those nightmares.

But I have no objection to her finding and acknowledging her birthparent, when she is old enough to be safe.

Her birthparent abused her, and the circumstances of the finding will have to be safe.

[fortyfeetunder]

7. Cry me a river, Daddy.

Where was he when the woman "was" his girlfriend? There were 9 months involved between the time she got pregnant and the birth. Just lose contact with a woman who's carrying your baby?

Sure the mom could have looked for him to see if he wanted the child. But then she wasn't all that diligent about looking for him either, as was the agency.

I think there is enough blame to go around.

[dsc]

10. Did you read the article

He was told by her that the baby was stillborn, and he knew she was pregnant. Next time it would behoove you to click the link first, post second. on edit Hell you didn't even read the post.

[fortyfeetunder]

96. I did read the article, and it's lacking.

I still contend -- from a woman's POV:

They split up during the pregnancy. It really didn't have to be that way. He could have stayed with her through the pregnancy.

[dsc]

100. given the woman's behavior

she blackmailed the adoptive couple, I think he had some right to leave her.

[MADem]

138. From what I have read, she left him

It could have been because he was ill...but she was the one who relocated from CO to NJ.

[PatGund]

125. which doesn't change the fact she LIED to him

They broke up, fine. She then LIED saying the child was stillborn. What the hell was he to do, demand medical proof? Most likely he was devistated both by the breakup and the believed "death" of his child!!

The adoption was *not* done properly, and he was lied to. There is no reason why this man should be kept from his child.

And before you say I don't know anything about adoption, I do. Two years ago, my then-girlfriend and I surrogated for her former sister in law. It was handled as an open adoption, I get regular pictures and updates on the little boy in question, and he's being raised to know both his adoptive parents *AND* his biological parents. So I know adoption procedures quite well and painfully - because even when you know the child you helped bring into this world is intended to complete another family, it's STILL the most painful thing you can do.

[MADem]

12. Uh, the article clearly explains all that--they had split up, and she LIED

It's all in the FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS, in fact:

VERONA, New Jersey (AP) -- David Archuletta says he knew his former girlfriend was pregnant in 2001, but she told him the baby was stillborn.

More than a year later, she told him the truth -- that she had given birth after traveling to New Jersey from their home in Colorado, and turned over the baby for adoption.

Ever since, Archuletta has been fighting for custody -- his efforts stymied by what state officials now say was a mistake by the adoption agency involved, Children of the World.


Seems like the guy took action the minute he knew the facts of the matter. What more should he have done?

[TriMetFan]

13. Amen to that. He knew she was pregnant, so why was he not there

every step of the way? In other words if he would have been there at the birth of the child he would have known if the kid was born alive or died.:shrug:

[MADem]

15. Well, she moved from CO to NJ-- and we aren't flies on their wall

Maybe she told him to get lost until she had the kid. Maybe they had made arrangements for him to be there at the birth; maybe she lied about her due date, too...we just do not know.

We certainly do not know the details of their relationship, but the bottom line is, SHE LIED. She said the kid was stillborn.

If the relationship was problematic, there are mechanisms to deal with that--she chose to falsify information, and received cash benefits as a result.

You can't lie and expect to be rewarded for it. She made a horrific error in judgment, and the kid will end up paying for it. She needs to pay for it too, via the criminal justice system.

[TriMetFan]

119. She could have told him to get lost "Who Knows?"

But if I was a guy and my girlfriend told me that she was with child, I would want to know every step of the way what she planned on doing with my kid too. Even if it meant I moved to another state, sick or not sick.

[MADem]

159. Well, according to one story, she was living with him, and then left

It could be she didn't want to stay with a guy whose Parkinson's had become debilitating.

I find it curious that her conscience started bothering her. If the guy was a total jerk, she could have just kept on trucking and never told him anything. But she went back, and confessed the truth to him--otherwise, he never would have been the wiser. That suggests to me that the guy probably was a nice fellow, and perhaps she just didn't want to stick with him because he was chronically ill.

[RobinA]

21. Curious

The thing that has me wondering is that adoption agencies don't carry out adoptions, courts do. All the agency does is facilitate. Some judge approved this. Unless a huge fraud was involved, or this guy isn't being as honest as he wants us to believe he is, or both, an agency can't make a "mistake" that ends in an adoption without a lot of help along the way.

[MADem]

78. The fraud consisted of the mother representing to the court that the

father was UNKNOWN. Now, the agency knew that to be false, and the lawyer for the adoptive parents knew that to be false, and the mother, of course, knew that to be false. But all of them conspired to keep the court in the dark over that simple fact, in violation of state law.

There's plenty of blame to go around, here!

[mondo joe]

149. If she just leaves town where precisely is he to look for her?

She and the agency have a responsibility to seek him out in the process of surrendering the child.

[DELUSIONAL]

18. Her body -- HER choice--

they weren't married --

sob stories -- are just that -- useless bits of rubbish.

He knew -- she left -- she made the best decision for the child.

The father was merely a sperm donor.

Seems like Florida tried this crap about "father's" rights -- so that means that a rapist get to make decisions for his victim.

Her body -- HER choice.

When men can get pregnant then I'll listen to their "side" of the argument.

[LeftyMom]

19. Nobody's saying he could stop an abortion

but once the kid's born he has as much right to it as the mother and the child is entitled to contact with his father unless a court decides he's unfit. That child should never have gone up for adoption if he has a biological parent who can and wants to care for him.

[anitar1]

55. The Father has Parkinsons disease, is poverty stricken,

and has to live with his Mother in Pueblo,Colo. I am not sure how anyone with Parkinsons can take care of a child, plus if he is 4 yrs old, his Mother has to be 64. This is ludicrous. Read the article, people.

[LeftyMom]

68. I read the article

If he's unfit a court should decide that. The poor and the disabled have every right to raise thier own children. We don't know from the article if he has a good support structure to help him with the child.

We do know that the adoptive parents knew there was a father with rights out there when the mother sent the blackmail letter and hid that fact, which makes me question whether they are morally fit to parent.

[LisaL]

86. And if you did comprehend this article, you would see

that adoptive parents informed the agency about the existence of the father when the mother tried to make them pay. In fact, it's adoptive agency that broke the rules and did not look for the father as they were supposed too.
And it this point, it's too late to remove this child from his adoptive parents and give him to someone he doesn't know. No surprise people are actually afraid to adopt in US.

[LeftyMom]

105. Yeah, 'cause when you buy a foreign kid with parents, nobody cares.

:eyes:

[LisaL]

106. No, you should actually get the kid, raise him for years and

years, and then give him back to mommy or daddy if they change their mind and decide they want him after all.
:eyes:

[LeftyMom]

108. The father naver indicated he didn't want him

a child deserves to be raised by parents, not purchasers. :eyes:

[LisaL]

114. What exactly do you consider to be parents?

Is it someone who has been raising the child from day one, or someone who never even met the child?

[LeftyMom]

115. It's not his fault he never met the kid

This wasn't an available adoptable child and should never have been places with the other couple.

[LisaL]

121. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's not the kids or adoptive parents

fault he hadn't met the kid either. Why should they be penalized for something that is not of their doing?

[LeftyMom]

122. How does being raised by his actual parent penalize the kid?

That's much closer to ideal than being raised by unrelated strangers.

[shrike]

128. I know plenty of kids who NEVER should have been raised by

their "actual" parents. Such as the woman in our state who was sentenced to 100 years for pimping her little kids. Four of them, all under the age of eight, were forced to perform sex acts on her boyfriend while adults paid to watch. Made her a nice living.
Being able to give birth does not make one fit.

[LeftyMom]

133. If he's unfit a court should decide that

Until that point the biological parent is responsible for thier offspring.

[shrike]

139. But so many are NOT responsible

Which makes my whole point.

[Maat]

151. Ummm ... I'm not a purchaser.

I adopted legally in the U.S.

(2) We are her REAL parents, and were the ones that nursed her through horrific night terrors, after she had been physically abused.

(3) A parent is the one who makes the sacrifices and nurtures you; no biological tie is more important than that.

[NorthernSpy]

180. aaay-men!

"A child deserves to be raised by parents, not purchasers"

Ab so lute ly!

:thumbsup:


I'm just not having a lot of warm-n-fuzzy feelings about the babytrade at the moment...

[mitchum]

20. Read the story again (more carefully)

[LisaL]

22. She told him the boy was still born.

So, he didn't know. And then she also apparently tried to get more money out of the adoptive parents by telling them about the father.

[seriousstan]

25. You have quite the appropriate name.

[QC]

29. I have often thought the same thing. n/t

[TankLV]

38. Well, I have to agree with you there.

You stated it clearly.

They were NOT married.

Had she decided to have an abortion, would we expect that the man had ANY say? NO!

It's her body. It's her choice. Period. End of story.

Maybe there is more to this "father" than we are hearing?

Maybe he wouldn't have been a good candidate for a "father"?

Why should be automatically believe what the man says?

I also go for the mom here.

[Yupster]

48. My understanding of the term

"Her body, her choice" referred to a fetus inside a woman's body.

Once the baby is born it is certainly not her body anymore. At that point it is a body of its own.

Am I missing something here?

[LisaL]

51. Jesus Christ. If she had wanted child support, after the baby was

born, it wouldn't be "her body, her choice" no more. The father would have to pay, whether he wanted the child or not.
We are not talking about a fetus here.

[TankLV]

71. Good points all. I hadn't thought of it.

But I don't believe that just because the woman has decided to have a baby, that the man should automatically be forced to pay for HER decision.

So I think that it is still in the camp of "woman's choice".

There is a quesion of responsibility. If the woman lies to the man, and acts against MUTUALLY AGREED decisions, then it should be entirely to her benifit or she should bear the consequences of HER decisions.

That is provided that the man was acting honerably, too.

That's why we have courts, and laws, and disagreements. It is not an easy answer either way.

The best way I can leave it is to do what best FOR THE CHILD. In that case, the birth parents would not automatically get "justice" but the child would.

Too many times, NEITHER of the natural parents/birth parents are fit to be the actual parents.

[CTLawGuy]

52. so you're against forced child support I take it

since the father is simply the "sperm donor?"

[Yupster]

80. I am against forced child support

I believe in a woman's right to choose and also a man's right to choose.

I don't believe anyone should be able to force a woman to be a parent without her agreement and the same for the father.

So here is the proposal that I've explained many other times.

When a woman finds out she is pregnant she has a certain reasonable amount of time to inform the possible dad/dad's of her pregnancy.

The dad then has a reasonable amount of time to sign an official government form where he exercizes his legal right to choose. He either agrees to be the legal dad of the to be born baby, or legally refusus to be the dad. If he agrees, he takes on the rights and obligations of fatherhood. If he refuses, he gives up all rights and obligations of fatherhood.

The prospective mother then gets the form and then makes her choice of whether the baby will be born or aborted. She makes her decision, completely on her own, but armed with the knowledge of whether she will have the baby's dad to help her should she choose to keep the baby.

The reason I think this system is the fairest one is that the woman has absolute choice over whether she becomes a mother or not, but the man also has a choice of whether he becomes a father or not.

This is the fairest system I've been able to come up with. It's much more fair than the current my body, my choice, our responsibility.

[LisaL]

85. The man has a choice whether he becomes a father or not.

Just before conception.

[Yupster]

89. Yes that's the pro-lifer's argument

in a nutshell.

If you don't want to have a baby, then keep your zipper zipped, legs crossed, whatever.

I'm a po-choicer though so I reject the pro-lifer's argument that choice ends at conception. I believe no one should be forced to take on the obligations of parenthood without their permission.

Although I at least can give the pro-lifers credit for not being sexist about it as they think choice ends at conception for men and women. Many seem to think it should end for men but not for women.

[LisaL]

90. I do believe in abortion.

At the same time, once the baby is born, it's too late to abort, so father has to support the child.
I certainly don't believe that a father should be able to make a woman to have an abortion if she does not want one.
If that makes me sexist, so be it. And I don't envision it ever changing either-men will be paying child support, whether they want to or not.

[Yupster]

99. Well we certainly agree on a man

not being able to force a woman to have an abortion.

I don't know where that comment came from.

Did you misread my post and think somehow I was saying a man should be able to force a woman to have or not to have an abortion?

I thought I was as clear as I could be.

Whether to birth or abort should always be the woman's and the woman's alone choice. It's her right to choose whether she becomes a parent or not.

My problem is I think that's where a woman's right to choose should end.

Once she's decided she wants or doesn't want to be a parent, I don't think she should also have the right to choose for the man too.

I think the man should be able to choose whether he wants the rights and obligations of parenthood so he's not forced to be a parent without his wishes either.

[LisaL]

103. This will never happen.

The men will be paying child support, I have no doubt this will not change.

[CornField]

147. Nope, as I've told you again and again, It's biology

The pro-life camp wants to construe it away from biology -- meaning that they don't recognize the further biological choices offered to a woman. The time for a man to decide whether or not he wishes to become a father is before he decided to become intimate with someone he doesn't know well enough to determine if that person will agree to an abortion if conception occurs.

It's not an arguement, it is a scientific fact. It's biology.

[Bridget Burke]

132. Your "plan" will never be adopted.

That's life. Sometimes, it's not fair.

Are there really millions of evil bitches out there, tricking men into unprotected sex & then living in luxury off child support payments? Or did you just meet one?

The laws are set up for the good of the child. Not to punish evil-devil-women. Not to protect guys who would rather not have to send off that check every month.

[Yupster]

157. I've never met any

I just have one kid and we were married when we had him and remain married today.

I just think people should be able to choose whether they are ready to be parents or not. To me that means men and women, not just women.

The "you should have kept it in your pants" argument is something I'd expect to hear from Phyllis Schlaffly or Pat Robertson.

Some people seem to think it's an outrageous thing to say to a woman, but perfectly right to say it to a man.

Oh well. Sexism is alive and well everywhere I guess.

[Bridget Burke]

158. I didn't instruct anyone to keep it in his pants.

Are there really that many men out there having unprotected sex with women they do not know at all? Have they ever heard of STD's? I really DON'T think that men are that stupid!

Child support is for the benefit of the child--not for the woman.

[Evergreen Emerald]

57. I agee with you

[PatGund]

126. Bull.

Did she have a right over her own body? Yes.

However, the MINUTE she decided to carry that child to term, she had a obligation to keep the biological father informed.

She lied to him. That's neither the best decision for the child *or* the father.

Sorry, sounds like he wasn't a "sperm donor", but someone who had been trying to do the right thing for a child that was as much his as hers.

Of course, your last line makes me believe you feel men HAVE no rights.

[mondo joe]

131. After birth it's not in her body any more.

The principle of HER BODY HER CHOICE is relevant only regarding HER body.

[Xithras]

163. A womans right to choose ENDS the moment the baby is born.

Once the baby takes it's first breath, it's an independent life no longer dependent on the mother for its existence. The mothers right to choose ends the instant the "fetus" becomes a "baby". At that instant, the contributions of BOTH parents become EQUAL. The living child is a mix of two seperate people, and both get a say in what happens to the child. If the mother didn't want it, she could have aborted it. Since she didn't do that, no decisions should have been made without the expressed consent of both parents.

Someone should point out to this guy, however, that if he overturns the adoption the biological mother will once again become the childs legal parent. If he's got Parkinsons, he's going to have a heck of a time getting custody of the kid, which means the kid will be stuck with the loser mom who admittedly didn't want him and only saw him as a source of revenue. The best interests of the child will be poorly served by doing so.

I have to agree with people that the adoptive parents and the father need to come to some kind of agreement. He should be able to see his child, but he shouldn't have custody and the child definitely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the biological mother.

[dsc]

174. How if messing up the boys adoption best for the boy

Due to her duplicity and blackmail the adoptions is likely to be overturned and the kid ripped from the only parents he ever knew. She thought of herself, herself, and herself and no one else.

[harpboy_ak]

185. Merely a sperm donor?

You really ARE delusional...

[JVS]

26. Does he have "dibs", so to speak?

[joshcryer]

27. My brother knocked a woman up, and she wanted an abortion.

He said he wouldn't pay for it (she demanded he pay), not that she couldn't have it, simply that he wasn't paying for it, so then she changes her mind, says she's having the child and giving it up for adoption, at which point my brother tells her that he'd want the child and not to give it up for adoption.

Suffice to say, she had the child, and they're both horrible people. Just goes to show how people view life, it's not that the child has a right to exist or not, it's just that a given parent wants to have CONTROL over the child. In my brothers case both of them wanted control over what was going to happen to the child. In the case of this story, the same thing happened. As long as the daddy didn't get the child the mother was happy with it. What a croc of crap.

[dysfunctional press]

28. this happened in illinois a decade or so back...baby richard.

the biological father ultimately prevailed- but it was a VERY ugly situation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. That was so heartbreaking and infuriating

As the little boy was handed over to his biological father, he kept screaming to his adoptive parents, "I'll be good! I'll be good!"

Can you imagine how heartbroken and helpless the adoptive parents must have felt?

:cry:

If the biological father had had any heart instead of a sense of possessiveness ("This is MY kid. I've never met him, but he's MY kid."), he would have given him back to the adoptive parents right there and just asked for visitation rights.

How could anyone take a child of that age from the only parents he had ever known? I don't care if he was the biological father. He had not been through all the parenting stuff with him. He had not spent five years bonding with him.

And what was even worse, he prevented the adoptive parents from having any contact with the child. It really did seem selfish to me, and yes, I would feel the same way about a biological mother who wrenched an older child out of an adoptive home.

In fact, there was a case like that about the same time, in which a woman had given her two-year-old daughter to a co-worker to take care of "for the weekend" and promptly disappeared for five years. The foster parents, unfortunately, had not sued for legal custody, and then the biological mother showed up and demanded her daughter back. The biological mother's own parents thought that she should not have custody of the girl, but the courts sided with her. The judge would not allow the girl to testify, even though she was very bright.

Like the father in that Illinois case, the biological mother just kept saying, "But she's MINE" and declared that the little girl would never see her foster parents again.

There ought to be a statute of limitations on parents' rights to void an adoption, especially if they abandon the child or never knew it existed. If the child is old enough to have bonded with the foster or adoptive parents, then the biological parents should get no more than visitation rights.

[Beausoir]

35. Link to a devastating column about "baby Richard" .

How can any child survive something like this?

It takes more than bloodline to make a parent, a son and a family.

Goddamn the people who torture children like this.

http://remus.rutgers.edu/~rhoads/baby.richard

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. He must be thirteen or so now

I wonder how he's doing. :-(

[NorthernSpy]

178. @ last report, Danny Kirchner was a straight-A student in parochial school

His parents are back together and he has siblings.

The Kirchners gave Karen Moriarty permission to write a book about their family's experience:

“It’s a story that I felt had to be told,” says Moriarty. “We all saw and heard the bad and the ugly of this story years ago. This is the good story— one of personal triumph and the joys and hardships of forming a family. Today, ‘Baby Richard,’ whose real name is Danny Kirchner, is now a straight-A student in a Catholic school, involved with sports, and is just a great kid overall.”

http://www.babyrichard.com/media.php

[shrike]

194. A self-published book. (It's Moriarity's own publishing company)

Kirchner's still not gonna get the big bucks he wanted.

[NorthernSpy]

181. yeah, Bob Greene loves kids -- perhaps a little too well...

Greene never even bothered to talk to the Kirchners, though he certainly went out of his way to vilify them in print.

At last report, Danny Kirchner ("Baby Richard") has been an A-student and active in school sports. He lives with his mother and father (who reconciled) and his siblings.

By the way, Bob Greene -- a married man with children of his own -- lost his job at the paper after it was revealed that he had been having sex with a minor. So who's the child-wronging, family-destroying homewrecker now?

[Maat]

37. California has very strict time limitations.

I know; I was a social worker who worked on and off in Dependency Court for seven years. And once parental rights are terminated, the appeal period is relatively short, and few grounds are allowed. And the "best interests of the child" standard is applied out here regularly - it is the prevalent standard applied in most circumstances, from what I've seen.

[LisaL]

40. Well, hopefully this won't end up the same as in baby Richard's

case. The father has Parkinson's, the mother sounds really bad. Hopefully the common sense will prevail for once.

[Maat]

41. I pray so (n/t).

[Beausoir]

65. But..his parental rights were not terminated...that's the catch.

He didn't even know his child was alive. This is going to be ruled in his favor. Just watch.

[LisaL]

84. The father is broke,sick, and he lives with his mother.

I sincerely hope they leave the child alone with his adoptive family, instead of destroying his life too.

[mondo joe]

141. That doesn't terminate his rights.

Or shall we simply strip parental rights from the sick or poor?

There is a clear legal process for surrendering a child for adoption, that when carried out properly ensures these complications will not disrupt the life of the child. That's not what happened here.

[Maat]

112. Actually, they can terminate a bio's rights without him knowing.

They just have to get a court order and publish. Rights have to be terminated before this kind of adoption, I believe. Then he only has a limited time out here to challenge it if he comes forward.

I know; I researched the law pretty thoroughly; I'm an adoptive parent. I'm not a lawyer, and this is just my two cents' worth.

I do not think he will gain custody of the child. Many years have passed, and the standard is now "best interest of the child." Most likely, it will not be in the best interests of the child to hand the child over to this person; he had NO bonding with that biological father.

At most, they might settle on some visitation.

[mondo joe]

142. Of course it has been decided that being returned to a bio dad was

in the best interest of the child in some high profile cases.

I'm not saying that's what I think is in the best interest --- just that it's gone that way.

And "best interest of the child" does NOT override all other legal rights, but must be balanced with them.

[Maat]

148. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Because, at this point, "best interest of the child" IS the standard that will be applied. While applying the standard, the judge takes many factors into consideration. In California, this does not happen. There are strict time limits after termination of parental rights during which this can be raised - and this guy is long past the date.

I looked up every applicable case in California, and no child was returned at this point.

Perhaps you can name one high-profile case in which the child was turned over (chances are, it was not in California).

Anyway, it is vital that an adoptive couple NOT have to worry about this. Thank God California has laws that protect the new family (otherwise, they could not become a rock solid family, not fearing the future).

I quick fearing after my adoption is finalized; I'd better quit this discussion, for I have had my beloved daughter for seven years now. I fear no more. We have to make it so ALL adoptive parent fear not; we have enough to get through. We do not want to make it so that adoptive parents are discouraged up front from going through the process. That IS paramount.

Peace!

[TriMetFan]

124. Thats what he say's.

[mondo joe]

145. You need not rely on his say so. The simple question is did he

sign off on terminating his rights or not? The legal document should have his signature.

If not, there's no more argument.

[TriMetFan]

153. I will stick to "thats what he said"

None of us really knows if this chick had told or not told this guy about the baby, but if I knew that my girlfriend was with child, I would ask if she plan on keeping the kid. If she planned on keeping the kid and then moved on to another state I would have gone too, sick or not sick. If you truly want the baby guy's you will move the mountain for the baby. Even if it meant that you payed the bitch money for your flesh and blood. Now is not the time to go and rip a five year old kid from the only parents he or her has known.

[mondo joe]

156. Mountain moving is not a legal requirement. But a signature

terminating parental rights is.

She knew he was alive, she knew where he was, she could have and should have sought his agreement to relinquish parental rights. That is a MINIMAL requirement, not an extraordinary one.

You may also have missed this point: "But, in violation of state law, it made no attempt to track him down, Gary Sefchik, Department of Human Services licensing chief, said in a letter to the adoption agency's executive director in September."

Or perhaps you missed this: "Later, but still months before the adoption was completed, Candelaria sent a letter to the adoptive parents asking for more money for expenses and threatening to tell the child's father about the adoption if the couple did not comply, according to DHS records."

[TriMetFan]

160. My point is that he knew she was with child.

I don't care if he was sick or not. He knew, he was going to be father. Now knowing how this bitch was why didnt he move to the same state she moved to and make sure that his kid was going to be born o.k.?? I know I know he was sick. That in my eyes is not good enough. Sorry if that get's any one pissed here. If he truly did love the baby before, he would have done what ever it took for the kid. This all sounds like she lied to me and I'm going to F her over and get back at her. And yes what the agency did was wrong. But the one that is going to get hurt is the kid and his only mother and father he knows.

[mondo joe]

169. How could he know that if she told him she miscarried?

How could he "truly love" a baby he thought didn't exist?

And how on earth could this be about him fucking her over since it doesn't impact her at all?

And if he did know the baby was alive and adopted - which is what you're suggesting - how would she blackmail the adoptive parents with telling him??????????????

Are you thinking at all, or just typing?

[TriMetFan]

170. I'm just putting out some points that need to be made. But...

he still knew she was with child. To have a child stillborn is to mean that she gave birth to a dead child. So again he knew she was pregnant and should have been involved with her to make sure his belove baby was alright. By doing this, she would not have had a chance to screw anyone over. So I see the blame going around to all. Kids are not toys. And I stand by what I said. I don't care how sick he is. He knew what kind of women she was. (A Bitch). And he still needed to be involved. Now I do believe he should be able to see his kid, but I don't think the kid should be ripped from the only parents the child does know. Blood doesn't make you a good parent. Nor money.

[shrike]

129. I knew people who were acquainted with the birth father

in Chicago. What a piece of work. No one could understand why he was pursuing custody so vigorously. Some speculated that it was the potential book and movie deals -- but no one would touch it, so he ended up with naught. He was only paid for an interview with an Aussie news crew: Richard had to go before the camera with him.

I've heard since that he's cleaned up his act -- he and the birth mother were separated (he was with another woman, a habit of his), then reconciled, and they've had children since. I hope for the boy's sake it's true.

[shanti]

31. so how do you make a woman tell you

who the father is? i mean, really. if she doesn't want to name the father, he won't be named!

when terminating parental rights for adoption, any alleged fathers are searched out, advertised, and notified, but this is limited to what the mother provides. was this a case of alleged fraud?

[Beausoir]

33. What is in the best interest of the child?

Once...just once, I'd like to see a story like this focus on the best interests of the child.

Part of the problem is that there are no uniform laws or requirements for every state. Every state requires something different regarding terminating the birth father's rights.

Doubtless, this little boy is about to have his life ruined. And Rita Cosby will have a front row seat to watch it all unfold.

[bleedingheart]

43. agreed...the child's mental and physical welfare need to be

taken into consideration.

[mondo joe]

150. Of course there are different opinions about what is in the best interest

of the child. And even where there is concensus about that matter, it must be balanced with other rights as well.

[neuvocat]

47. Unfit parents

There's something seriously jacked up with that dude there if she's trying to keep the baby away from him like that. That's not an accident that he's prevented from seeing it.

[Solon]

49. Sounds like she's the one with the problems...

Why the prejudgement of the guy in this case, he's the victim here, along with the child.

[neuvocat]

91. She was the one who was with him

so she would know better than your or I just how jacked up he is.

[mondo joe]

203. Gee, do you think her being a liar and blackmailer might indicate

how "jacked up" she might be?

[LisaL]

50. Sounds like something is wrong with her. Especially

considering she was trying to get the adoptive parents to pay her money, otherwise she would tell the biological father about the adoption.

[Darth_Kitten]

62. no she doesn't seem like a winner.....

why do people like these two even choose to breed? Isn't life complicated enough?

[shrike]

130. There was a case in Florida

where the birth mom gave up the baby because she so feared her boyfriend. I saw her interviewed, and she was so upset that he was suing for custody because she'd given the child up to keep it away from him. She also thought it'd have a better life with the couple she'd chosen.
Don't believe he won his case -- a boatload of women came forward, with sworn affidavits that he'd punched them, broken their ribs, etc. . . One even said he'd tried to kill her, but she'd been too terrified to call the police and left town instead.
I don't know ALL the particulars in this case, but maybe an "open adoption" situation would be the answer.
Jacquelyn Mitchard, author of "Deep End of the Ocean," adopted several of her children. When she remarried (she'd been widowed), she and her new husband decided to have a child of their own by adoption. The birth father had been in prison and claimed he hadn't known about the pregnancy. Before the case went to court, however, he contacted them and asked if they could meet without lawyers. He then asked if it would be possible to get pictures and letters from his child, and if he could arrange to meet her when she is older, if she is willing to do so. They said of course, they already had the same arrangement with the birth mother. And he dropped his suit.

[mondo joe]

144. Why do you assume her judgment is trustworthy?

What about the story leads you to that conclusion?

[kalibex]

161. Why do you assume she is not? n/t

[mondo joe]

168. I didn't make any assumption. But you did. Per your post, her

judgement alone is enough to assume this is a bad guy.

Why?

[dsc]

175. I assume she isn't due to her blackmailing the adoptive parents

I tend to look down upon lawbreakers.

[WhiteTara]

79. this is why abortion should be legal and easy

to obtain. What an ordeal for everyone involved. Of course the child will emotionally pay for this all his or her life.

[LisaL]

83. What exactly does it have to do with abortion?

The article says nothing about this woman wanting to have an abortion.

[WhiteTara]

88. Well, if she had wanted the child

she wouldn't have given it up for adoption...unless of course, her idea was to have the child for money and then why would she have told the boyfriend.?

[LisaL]

92. Many people prefer giving child for adoption as alternative to

abortion. I fail to see anything wrong with that. After all, pro-choice means people should have a choice on what to do.
Whether it is to have an abortion, raise the child, or give him up for adoption.

[WhiteTara]

98. since we're both mind reading this woman

truce.

[JI7]

93. it seems the best would be visitation in this case

and i think there should be some law that penalizes women who don't inform the biological father of the baby (exception for cases where the father has a violent record or anything else that makes him unfit).

the best i think would be visitation. this would allow the child to deal with things better also since they would still have the stable family they have known their lives. it can prevent the trauma of totally having your life taken away from you.

[bleedingheart]

94. what about cases where the woman may not know the biological father

if she had multiple partners? If he was a one night stand?

[LisaL]

101. I guess if she knows what her choices are, she has to notify all

of them. I recall one state even demanded a woman published a newspaper notice to give all the possible fathers time to show up.

[umass1993]

102. The bigger question is...do women have any responsibilities at all?

Do women get the benefit of equal share of all the good things without getting an equal share of the bad things..such as accountability?

I know that, as a male, society has some accountability placed upon me, I had to register for selective service.

Maybe we should pass some laws ensuring that women fulfill their side of the deal i.e. make them accountable.

[LisaL]

113. Considering that usually women are the ones that end up

raising the kid, even if the father walks away, I would say women have a lot more responsibilities than men.

[lastliberalintexas]

154. Women get an equal share of the "good things" in this country?

Wow, who knew? :eyes:

[umass1993]

171. anybody who bothered to check.

rather than go by myths.

On virtually any quality of life scale, women do better than men in the U.S. That is simple fact. If you go to the U.N. website and review the quality of life indicators and then compare between men and women, women come out on top in every instance.


Grade school -- girls do better than boys in reading..in every state
College -- women have more
Prison -- men have much much much more
Life span -- women live longer
Suicide - men have a higher suicide mortality rate

I anticipate that you will quote the tired "women earn 76 cents on the male dollar." No doubt they do. Of course, this is irrelevant. Women have greater spending power then men. Spending is much more fun than earning, and I wouldn't try to earn a dime either, if I didn't have to. (see the 60 Minutes special about successful women who choose not to work.)
These are the basics. And if you look at the numbers for minorities, the differences become only more spectacular.

The stat about prison is really the one that is disturbing to me. We bend over backwards worrying about equal representation in college sports for (mostly middle-class) women, but we don't even so much as lift a finger to prevent young men from being tossed into the clink. That is seriously messed up prioritization. It is tragic.

[lastliberalintexas]

176. I'm sure those women who have more education but earn less than men

are heartened to know that they'll at least outlive the men. You may think it's a "tired" stat that women only earn about 3/4ths that of men in equivalent positions, but I doubt the women doing the same work and getting paid less care one whit how you feel. They're too worried about simply paying the bills. Women with masters earn less than men with bachelors, while men with high school diplomas earn more than women with bachelors. And if you look at minority women, the pay gap is actually even worse- much, much worse. Women have more spending power because women buy the household goods for families- not because they have more money to spend on playthings like golf clubs or fishing equipment.

Women's (and their children's) standard of living goes down after divorce, while the man's goes up. Women still perform the vast majority of the household chores, almost exclusively handle childrearing duties, and most still manage to work outside the home as well. Even fathers who stick around and are often judged by society as good dads might be in for a shock if they could see just how little many actually do in terms of childcare. There was a study in the past few years that showed more than 90% (don't remember the exact number) of doctor's visits were handled by the mother of the child(ren), and the dad was almost non-existent in obtaining primary care. There was even a fairly substantial number of dads in the survey who couldn't even name their child(ren)'s pediatrician.

95-98% of women and men- all races and ages- get screwed by the Haves and Have Mores who are Bush's base. For that very reason, we should all be on the same side and remember who the true economic enemies are.

But please do not even try to argue that women have nice, cushy lives based on some 60 Minutes report profiling members of the Haves and Have Mores.


And the 2 most important factors in reducing the prison population are education and a good economy. For as long as the stats have been kept, a large majority of inmates had one thing in common- they never finished high school. But correcting that situation takes time, and it's so much easier for a politician to simply pass some 3 strikes bill in time for the re-election race to pander to the electorate. Not the fault of women, unless of course the pandering politician happens to be female.

[umass1993]

193. Whining doesn't change the numbers...

all you've shown me is that you are better at whining than your typical male. I kept to the numbers. The COLD HARD OBJECTIVE (as opposed to subjective) numbers.

The "76 cents on a dollar" shibboleth is a red herring. This won't change even if you keep repeating it. It just makes it propaganda.

Moreover, I never argued that women have nice cushy lives. That was a STRAWMAN that you invented (another propaganda technique). I simply said they had it better than males.

In fact, your response to this statement tells me that you know nothing about statistics, and the ways they may be skewed. Nothing.

So if you are going to bandy stats about, I would recommend that you learn some statistics, otherwise educated people might think that you don't know what you are talking about.

[judaspriestess]

116. as a person with close ties to adoption

where was the father during the pregnancy? was the dude even around? probably not if the mother had to recieve payment for her living expenses during her pregnancy. Adoptive parents assume this responsibility and the cost of the birth etc.

Now the dad wants the kid, being broke? I don't think so, the mom probably did what was best for the child. Now I do think the dad should meet the boy, I too believe in semi open adoption but he needs to not be selfish and have the childs best interest at heart if he truly loves this child. Let him be raised in what is assuming a loving home and that is all he knows.

Talk about traumatizing this poor child is that fair? hell no

[InsultComicDog]

117. You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here

Perhaps the mother just wanted to cash in on the pregnancy by getting money "for living expenses" during her pregnancy.

I'm not saying this is the case but I wouldn't rule it out.

[mondo joe]

140. Your unsubstantied assumptions ignore a simple fact:

There is an orderly and legal process for surrendering a child for adoption, and that process when carried out properly ensures these sort of complications will not arise.

[mzmolly]

146. I agree that the child should ALWAYS be the first consideration.

Our society does not work that way unfortunately.

I think of that poor 4 y/o years ago who was ripped from her loving adoptive home b/c the parents reconcilled and the father pressed for custody. Why not have joint custody with visitation in a situation like that? I dunno, there are no perfect solutions, but if we always consider the CHILD first, it would help.

[Maat]

152. And the 'best interest' criteria will be applied here.

That child is in my prayers.

If this child is returned to that man (I doubt it), every person on the adoption list going through classes will drop out; you won't be able to find people to adopt the thousands of kids we have in foster homes.

And I would not my child visiting a bio at this age; he would be confused as to her establishes house rules. If he does visit, a therapist should be involved, and it should be made clear that the child only has biological ties; the authority and guidance of the adoptive parents should be honored and preserved. The kid doesn't need the confusion, and it is critical that the adoptive parents do not have to go through a bunch of angry tantrums.

[NorthernSpy]

183. how far does this "best interest of the child" philosophy go?

It is in the best interest of the child to grow up in an intact family. Should we generally stop granting divorces to couples with children? Would that be acceptable to you?

It may well be in the best interest of the child to have one parent stay home as a fulltime caregiver. Should we adopt social policies that penalize couples without a stay-at-home parent?

A decade ago, a judge in Virginia became convinced that it was in the best interest of the child not to live in a lesbian household. Sharon Bottoms -- the dare-I-say natural mother -- lost custody of her son because of this.

I agree that the child should ALWAYS be the first consideration.

The thing is, you simply cannot assume that everyone agrees with you on what actually is in the best interest of the child. I'd be careful with this best-interests-trump-rights-under-law thang. You might not love the results nearly so much as you imagine.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maat]

162. The attitude displayed here towards adoptive parents is so ..

unbelievably ugly (adoptive parents such as myself), I am wondering if this is the right board for me. I have been a member for two years now, and a monthly donor. But I'm clearly not with progressives here.

To call me a human trafficker is unbelievably ugly, particularly with NO knowledge of Dependency Court, or my daughter's particular circumstances.

Unfrickinbelievable!

[Proud_Lefty]

164. Many roses for my friend

You are a fabulous adoptive parent. You are loved.

[Maat]

165. Thanks so much! (n/t).

[NorthernSpy]

177. I haven't called YOU anything...

From the discussion board rules:

People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

You wrote:

The attitude displayed here towards adoptive parents is so unbelievably ugly (adoptive parents such as myself), I am wondering if this is the right board for me. I have been a member for two years now, and a monthly donor. But I'm clearly not with progressives here.

Well, I find the attitude displayed toward parents such as Mr. Archuletta unbelievably ugly.

I mean, "sperm donor"? For a man who has been trying for -- what, three years now? -- to be reunited with his son?

Of course, the empowered affluent have always sought to reduce the status of those beneath them in social hierarchy to something rather less than full personhood. And so we hear that Mr. Archuletta's loss -- fait accompli -- of his son, and his poverty quite take him out of the running for consideration as a parent. Instead, he is to be viewed as some mere contributer of biological matter, to be used and quickly dismissed once his social betters have gotten what they wanted from him ("only" his own flesh and blood, but never mind). Which is pretty damn exploitative, if you think about it.

To call me a human trafficker is unbelievably ugly, particularly with NO knowledge of Dependency Court, or my daughter's particular circumstances.

On the contrary, I've said nothing at all about you, and you know it. I've made NO personal attacks. I have said that adoption is the last legal vestige of trafficking in humans. Which it clearly is. You've noticed that we no longer allow people to simply give away other people as wives, slaves, emigrants, and indentured laborers to whoever else will agree to take them? Eventually, we'll stop viewing children as the transferable property of their parents as well.

[REP]

182. The Psychological Sequelae of Adoption

Adoption has serious mental health repercussions for women who surrender their children to adoption:

J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1999 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-400.

Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: a review.

Askren HA, Bloom KC.

Deer Valley OB/GYN, Mesa, AZ, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature addressing the process of relinquishment as it relates to the birth mother. DATA SOURCES: Computerized searches in CINAHL; Article 1 st, PsycFIRST, and SocioAbs databases, using the keywords adoption and relinquishment; and ancestral bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Articles from indexed journals in the English language relevant to the keywords were evaluated. No studies were located before 1978. Studies that sampled only an adolescent population were excluded. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and information was organized under the following headings: grief reaction, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the relinquishment experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: A grief reaction unique to the relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.

Med J Aust. 1986 Feb 3;144(3):117-9.

Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption.

Condon JT.

During 1986, approximately 2000 women in Australia are likely to relinquish a baby for adoption. A study is presented of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrates a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions which have failed to resolve although many years have elapsed since the relinquishment. This group had abnormally high scores for depression and psychosomatic symptoms on the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire. Factors that militate against the resolution of grief after relinquishment are discussed. Guidelines for the medical profession that are aimed at preventing psychological disability in relinquishing mothers are outlined.

Community Health Stud. 1990;14(2):180-9.
Erratum in:
• Community Health Stud 1990;14(3):314.

Social factors associated with the decision to relinquish a baby for adoption.

Najman JM, Morrison J, Keeping JD, Andersen MJ, Williams GM.

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Queensland.

Little is known about the characteristics, social circumstances and mental health of women who give a child up for adoption. This paper reports data from a longitudinal study of 8556 women interviewed initially at their first obstetrical visit. In total, 7668 proceeded to give birth to a live singleton baby, of which 64 then relinquished the baby for adoption. Relinquishing mothers were predominantly 18 years of age or younger, in the lowest family income group, single, having an unplanned and/or unwanted baby and reported that they were not living with a partner. These women were somewhat more likely to manifest symptoms of anxiety and depression both prior, and subsequent to, the adoption, but the majority of relinquishing mothers were of 'normal' mental health. The decision to relinquish a baby appears to be a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy experienced by an economically deprived single mother rather than the result of emotional or psychological/psychiatric considerations. These findings document a particular dimension of the impact of poverty on health.

Additionally, there are many studies on the children of adoption, which find that while they in general have better educated and wealthier mothers, they have a higher suicide rate and are on behaviorial drugs at a higher rate than their peers (to name the most common findings).

Children are not consumer objects to be handed to those who really want them. Women are not vending machines for the desires of others.

[NorthernSpy]

186. ah yes... the Loving Option (tm) strikes again

It's interesting that discussions of adoption -- which is supposed to exist for the benefit of parentless children -- always end up being more about the desires and demands of child-wanting adults. Make no mistake: this is a market, and a lot of effort is put into persuading women to act as the producers.

The adoptophiles try very hard to convince women (and men, for that matter) that you can produce a child without necessarily becoming a parent. Wrong! A person who brings a child into the world really does become a parent whether they like it or not, and regardless of whether anyone else stands ready to take the kid off their hands.

And down deep, women generally know this. After having the baby, most of us cannot simply give her away without tremendous and lasting suffering. For most people, handing ones own baby over to strangers truly goes against the grain. That's why despite all the pro-adoption propaganda, few women choose "Adoption, the Loving Option™" when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Many -- likely most -- of those who do end up regretting it.

And of course, there are also some cold-blooded sorts who simply breed without the slightest sense of responsibility to the children they produce. As it is now, parents can create and abandon children without any serious consequences to themselves. We don't punish this -- we don't make a serious effort to force parents to live up to their duties -- because this irresponsibility makes a relatively small number of prized healthy white infants available to those more valuable citizens who may have trouble producing children of their own. Of course, this also means allowing a far larger number of, ah less desirable kiddos to end up consigned to various foster homes and late placements and such while their real parents go on their own merry way sans offspring, but never mind. That's just collateral damage. The customers got what they wanted, and that's what really matters in the babytrade. :eyes:

[REP]

187. But Don't You Understand - They Really WANT That Baby!

So they must be entitled to it - no matter who gets hurt. Their wants must be filled. Woman = mother...unless she's poor and young (and even better, living overseas), and then she's just a vending machine.

This is not a new story; just read about the Butterbox Babies (for just the first story of depression-era babyfarms that comes to mind).

Adoption is a great option for the child when the parents/family are dead or dangerous. It is a wretched way of distributing babies to wealthy women who want the latest cool accessory (when was the last time you heard of a middle-class or wealthy woman surrending a child to a poor or working-class woman?).

[NorthernSpy]

188. ... and no wonder: not having kids is officially a Fate Worse Than Death!

You're just not complete til you have a child -- even it's someone else's.

:eyes:

I used to hang around at this unwanted pregnancy counselling thing. There were always tons of Baby Wanted ads -- you know, wheedling these women (and girls, some of them) to "give us this little miracle", "make our lives complete", and "we can give this baby everything that you can't" and so on. Remember, these women were in a rather difficult and often vulnerable position. They needed to be allowed to make their decisions free from the emotional blackmail and manipulation from these self-interested strangers who insisted on imposing themselves on the situation. It was just so utterly predatory. Really turned me off.




(edit: fixed typo)

[shrike]

191. Human trafficking

is a real issue these days. (The original post is deleted, so I have to make an educated guess here.) And to call adoption "the last vestige of human trafficking" is to show a real naivete about how the world works.

I'm sure unethical adoptions are a real problem. In fact, I'm sure they are. But thousands, no millions, of people are "trafficked" into slavery, forced labor, brothels, etc., etc. Children and adults.

I think it's fine that people are concerned about the (very real) psychological suffering of women who give up their babies. But there's also some very real long-term suffering for those who DO keep their babies. AND the suffering the kids go through. Once the thrill of holding the child gives way to the day-to-day grind of rearing it, suffering, and sometimes tragedy, can happen.

This is a very complicated issue and one for which there is no set, easy answer. (Isn't that true of most things, though?) I remember reading a tragic account by a very lovely woman who went through two pregnancies as a (very young) teen-ager and kept both children, daughters.
After she became pregnant again, she decided to give the third child (a daughter) up for adoption. EVERYONE she knew, including her mother, told her what a terrible person she was for doing such a thing. How could she give up her own child? The father signed off on the adoption (he also fathered her older two), but then announced she would give up no more of HIS children. Then, and only then, did he marry her.
Too late, she discovered he'd been molesting both of their girls from an early age. One killed herself in the basement when she was fifteen. The other abused alcohol, though eventually she dried out and reconciled with her mom.
Mom said that if she'd had it to do over again she'd have given all three girls up for adoption. She said she'd be delighted to meet her youngest daughter, but she did plan to be candid -- though kind -- if the girl decides to arrange a meeting.

[Maat]

198. Again, thanks for your info. (n/t).

[shrike]

192. Yes, it is sad

The attitude on this board toward adoptive families.

You might be interested in knowing of an author I met, who wrote a book which tells some very inspiring stories of teen-age moms who "beat the odds."

She was a teen-age mom herself and kept both her children. However, she had an interesting viewpoint on adoption.
There are circumstances, she says, when a teen-age mom would be better off relinquishing her child for adoption -- and remember, this is a woman who kept both her kids.
It has been her experience that young moms (and dads) face enormous pressure from their friends, families and outsiders (kind of like the folks on this board) to keep their babies. They also tend to spend a lot of time listening to their peers, who think it is just "terrible" to give up one's child. But once the child arrives and the initial excitement wears off, the girl's chums are off doing their thing. Sometimes the girl's parents are a big help; sometimes they're not in the picture. Sometimes they deeply resent having to help her parent; sometimes they end up raising the child and she ends up going off on her merry way. (One of the girls profiled in her book became a mom at 14 and everyone assumed that taking care of a baby would come naturally to her. She had no clue, since she hadn't even had much experience babysitting. Her mother and other female relatives criticized her for "not knowing what to do.")
She doesn't think every baby born to a teen-ager should be relinquished for adoption, but she does think it should be an option and part of a well-thought-out process. Most people, she says, give more thought to dressing for a date than they do to bearing a child.

[Maat]

197. Thanks, Shrike.

Hopefully, the adoptive parents aren't going through great pain now. Hopefully, the father will settle for some visitation at the appropriate time.

[Patiod]

200. Not everyone here is an angel - that's what "ignore" is for

I've been on all sorts of boards to do with adoption, and those which don't focus on it, but where the subject comes up. And believe me, EVERYONE involved in the process get beaten up EVERYWHERE. Adoptive parents get beaten up (greedy human rich people taking advantage of the poor birthmother), birthmothers get beaten up (egg donors/abandoners) and birth fathers get beaten up (sperm donors/abandoners), agencies get really beaten up (human traffickers), and adoptees get beaten up (damaged goods destined to be lifelong psychos).

"The attitude displayed here to wards adoptive parents" -- I haven't seen any particular animosity displayed on this thread. A few ignorant posters may have dissed birth parents, but I'm reading a LOT more animosity toward the birthfather, birthmother and agency. It may be possible that this is such a sensitive topic for you for whatever reason that you might be better off only discussing adoption issues on a board for adoptive parents. It's really the only way to be sure no one says anything hurtful about adoptive parents. Coming onto a general interest board such as DU is going to expose you to idiots (like the guy who thinks women have things 100% cushy) and also to the those who need to be educated.

So either try to teach them - which is a good choice here (one thing you can say for DUers is that they tend to be more educable than their rightwing counterparts), put the idiots on ignore, or limit your adoption discussion to boards for adoptive parents.

Oh, and by the way, I have a huge soft spot in my heart for adoptive parents, since some of my best friends are adoptive parents, and my dearly loved parents are adoptive parents! (some of my best friends are adoptees and birthmoms as well)

[Maat]

201. Thanks. (n/t)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. So let me get this straight...

You'd take a child from the only parents he's ever known to be given to a stranger with whom he has never met, but who seems to regard him as some sort of personal possession just because of a twenty-minute sexual act?

You'd break the hearts of the people who did all the 2AM feedings and diaper changes and first steps and first words and birthdays and holidays and everything and wrench a child out of a loving home just so some guy who probably didn't even bother to send flowers to his ex after she told him the baby was dead can enjoy a sense of possession?

See, I have an acquaintance who was literally used as a sperm donor by a woman friend who wanted a child but didn't want to get married. He surprised her by asking for joint custody but eventually settled for halving the child two days a week. He's a very involved father, even though he and the child's mother were never married and indeed, were a pair for only a couple of months.

We're not talking about Elian Gonzalez, who lived with his father half time and had a strong bond with him.

We're talking about taking a child who is old enough to know and love his adoptive parents and giving him to a stranger.

Read the link that Beausoir supplied about a case in which a small boy was wrenched from his adoptive parents and given to a stranger. It will break your heart.

http://remus.rutgers.edu/~rhoads/baby.richard

[NorthernSpy]

179. so let me get THIS straight...

You'd take a child from the only parents he's ever known to be given to a stranger with whom he has never met, but who seems to regard him as some sort of personal possession just because of a twenty-minute sexual act?

Mr. Archuletta has been trying for three years -- for as long as he's known that his son was alive -- to be reunited with him. It hasn't been easy. He can't afford a lawyer, so he is at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to working with the system. The adopters, however, can afford a lawyer: they've had one since the beginning.

You see, that's what adopters very often do in these situations. As a rule, they are more affluent and better connected than the parents, and they know it. In this case, the adopters knew from the beginning that there was a father who had not agreed to give away his child. They took the baby anyway. They've hung on to Mr. Archuletta's child for years now, despite knowing that there was a father who had not abandoned his son.

And why not? I'm sure they are aware that as far as having resources to devote to court proceedings is concerned, they have an enormous advantage over the child's father. So why not take a non-relinquished child, and then drag things out in the courts for as long as possible? That way, they'll always be able to argue -- after their delay tactic has succeeded -- that it has now been "too long" for the child to be restored to his family.

That's abusive.

You'd break the hearts of the people who did all the 2AM feedings and diaper changes and first steps and first words and birthdays and holidays and everything and wrench a child out of a loving home just so some guy who probably didn't even bother to send flowers to his ex after she told him the baby was dead can enjoy a sense of possession?

Please. These people weren't blindsided by this. They were aware that they did not have notice that the father had agreed to give away his son. They took the baby anyway, and have kept him during the entire time that Mr. Archuletta has tried to bring his child home. They are hardly innocent in this.

As for your wild fantasy of Mr. Archuletta perhaps failing to send to flowers (the cad!) to the mother of his supposedly stillborn child... :eyes:

The baby is his son also, just as much as hers. Do you suppose that she sent him flowers in consolation of his loss? Actually, we know what this woman did. She lied to Mr. Archuletta, told him his son was dead, then gave their child to strangers who gave her thousands of dollars in return. She even tried to extort more money by threatening to tell the baby's father the truth about the child. Prison is the very least that this woman deserves.

And as for your other slanderous fantasy -- that Mr. Archuletta is merely seeking to enjoy to "enjoy a sense of possession" over his son -- I've got to ask: what is it about other people's sense of loyalty to family that you seem to find so hard to comprehend? The boy is Mr. Archuletta own flesh-and-blood son. In seeking to bring the child home, he is fulfilling his natural role as father. That is what fathers do: they protect their children, and help to bring them up as full members of the family. It's not a choice; it's a basic moral duty, and I respect it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. But what about the child?

What about the child's attachment to the people who brought him up? Did you read the link about the Baby Richard case?

Perhaps if the father had sued only for visitation rights, not for custody, things could have been worked out.

But the fact remains, the child has bonded with the adoptive parents, not with the biological father.

A father who really LOVED his child instead of thinking of him as a possession would not want to cause the child unnecessary emotional distress.

Yes, I would say the same thing about a biological mother. Read what I said about the case where a biological mother who had abandoned her 2-year-old daughter suddenly came back five years later asking for custody of a child who didn't even remember her.

She didn't care that the little girl felt as if the other people were her real family. She just kept saying, "She's MINE."

What about the emotional trauma to a child who is too young to understand words like "custody" and "parental rights" but only knows that he is being forced to leave the only home he's ever known? The boy in the Baby Richard case thought his adoptive parents were rejecting him because he'd been "bad."

How can you--and the biological father--not care about the child's feelings?

By the way, this is completely different from a case like the one in Tennessee a few years back where a wealthy couple sued for custody of their Chinese servants' child. In that case, the child already had loving parents who had raised him.

I'd say the same if someone sued for custody of the children of the teenage mothers who come to my church's supper for impoverished and homeless youth. They're obviously concerned about their children, and if some wealthy person tried to take them away, I'd be helping them find a lawyer.

That's not what this is about.

[TriMetFan]

190. Well Said.

[Maat]

196. Well said.

Adoptive parents should never have to fear having their children taken away, after the parents' rights are terminated and after the short appeals period. Obviously, an extensive effort is made to find any missing parent in most cases before the termination. Necessarily, if every effort is made, and the appeals period passes, then the adoption goes through after the proper procedures are followed. The child needs to get on with their life - and have loving parents.

I'm praying that this child is able to remain with his adoptive parents, and that the father may settle for some contact at the appropriate time.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

204. Lock

This thread is no longer breaking news. If posters wish to discuss this issue further, please post a general "issue" question elsewhere.

[Moderator]

205. Lock

see above message