1
   

Another King Solomon dilemma; what would you do?

 
 
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 12:50 pm
Biological mom wins 3-way battle
Court removes boy from couple who raised him since birth; biological dad had fought adoption
Published December 31, 2004
By Lolly Bowean and M. Daniel Gibbard, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Lisa Black and Gina Kim and the Associated Press contributed to this report

A 3-year-old boy at the center of a three-way custody battle was taken Thursday from the Florida couple who raised him since birth and handed over to his biological mother, a Glenview woman, after a judge ruled it was in the child's best interest.

The ruling terminated guardianship for Gene and Dawn Scott, both 44, of Atlantic Beach, Fla., leaving them "devastated," their spokeswoman said.

"These are the only people he knows as a family," said Debbie Grabarkiewicz, director of case advocacy for Hear My Voice, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based child protection group. "We're very concerned about the trauma and emotional health of this child. He was petrified to go."

However, a lawyer for Amanda Hopkins, the birth mother, said the boy and Hopkins, who have maintained regular contact since she gave him up, "are doing great."

"They were happy to see each other," said the attorney, Elaine Lucas. "There was no kicking, screaming or anything. He knows his mother and he was happy to see her."

Hopkins and her family could not be reached for comment Thursday, and Gene Scott referred calls to Grabarkiewicz, saying only, "We are doing all we can" to regain custody.

On Wednesday, Dawn Scott had said, "He's our only child. We've raised him since the moment of his birth. We are losing our son, our life."

The custody exchange, which called to mind the bitter case of Baby Richard in the 1990s, took place at an undisclosed location. It was the latest development in a legal fight that began almost as soon as the boy was born in Jacksonville on May 5, 2001.

Hopkins dated the boy's biological father, Stephen A. White Jr., when they both lived in Maine, according to sealed court files obtained by the Tribune. Early in her pregnancy, she left White after a domestic violence incident and moved to Jacksonville, the files show.

Hopkins agreed to place the boy with the Scotts, family friends who filed to adopt him May 9. But White, who did not know about the baby until weeks before the birth, immediately contested the adoption, and in March 2002, a judge dismissed the Scotts' petition but named them temporary guardians, the files show.

In September 2002, White was granted one overnight supervised visitation per month--supervised at his own request to attempt to show his fitness as a father, the record says. Last May, that was increased to two weeks per year, at White's parents house in Dover, N.H., where his father is an attorney.

Neither White nor his parents could be reached for comment Thursday.

The fight began to come to a head this fall, when Hopkins, the Scotts and White all sought custody.

In the ruling that took the boy from the Scotts, entered Dec. 16, Circuit Judge Waddell A. Wallace III concluded that "the evidence fails to show that either mother or father is unfit to raise [the boy]."

Furthermore, he wrote, the complex three-way parenting arrangement was potentially harmful.

"As [the boy] matures, difficult issues are reasonably foreseeable regarding the respective roles father, mother and the Scotts would play in [the boy's] life and [his] awareness and acceptance of these roles," Wallace wrote. "The court is not persuaded that [his] own best interests would be promoted by extending the Scotts' role as custodians until he reaches adulthood."

Left a choice between the biological parents, Wallace awarded temporary custody to Hopkins based on several factors, including her stability. She is a stay-at-home mom who lives in Glenview with her husband, who is in the Navy, and with whom she has another child.

Wallace also cited White's "extremely inappropriate behavior" in court, including outbursts that show he still has difficulty controlling his temper, the judge wrote.

The case may sound familiar to those who recall the agonizing circumstances surrounding Baby Richard, but there are major differences, experts said.

Baby Richard was adopted but then handed over several years later to his biological father, Otakar Kirchner, whom he had never met.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that because Kirchner had been lied to by the boy's mother, who gave the baby up for adoption and told him the infant had died at birth, he was entitled to custody.

In the Florida case, the boy was never legally adopted but was living with custodial non-parents under an agreement made with his biological mother. Both birth parents still retained some parental rights and visitation privileges.

In an adoption, those parental rights are terminated, said Daniel Moriarty, an adoption and family law attorney based in Chicago.

"Baby Richard, that was a clear-cut adoption," Moriarty said. "If your parental rights have been terminated there is no courthouse you can go to."

After the Baby Richard case, the law changed so that a father who is not married to the baby's mother may put his name on a "putative father registry" any time during the mother's pregnancy or within 30 days of the baby's birth.

"I think every judge, every guardian got their antennae very sharpened," Moriarty said. "If there is doubt as to where the biological father is, you have to make substantial efforts to identify [him]."

On Thursday morning, the Scotts packed half of the boy's belongings--his Hot Wheels cars, baseballs and clothing and prepared him for his first transitional visit with his biological mother. By the end of January, the Scotts will lose him for good, court records show.

Still, the couple spent the day reaching out to public officials for help and coping with the separation, Grabarkiewicz said.

"They are devastated and they are trying to be mommy and daddy until they can't be mommy and daddy anymore," Grabarkiewicz said. "They are having a very tough time. They are worried about their little boy."

Florida state Rep. Stan Jordan filed a child-abuse complaint with the governor's office saying it was wrong to remove the boy from his Florida home.

"It's a classic issue of who's right presiding over what's right," Jordan said. "But what is the right thing to do with the child? It has been a very tearful day here."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 967 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 01:09 pm
<gulp>

I don't think I can come anywhere close to unbiased on this -- it hits way too close to home.

I'll be reading along very interested in what others might have to say.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 01:23 pm
This is a classic case of the clash between the rights and values of the family of procreation and the family of orientation. It this culture we value the biological (procreation) links over the social (orientation) links which in IMHO is exactly backwards. We are social animals and the social reproductive role of the family is of more significance then the biological reproductive role. How you biologically get into this world is of less significance that how you are raised socialized and educated.. The child birth mother seems to be consistently making bad choices and I see no reason to assume that she will suddenly change. I think the judge made a perfectly normal, stupid, decision.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 03:22 pm
I'm really surprised this hasn't generated more response.

I really wonder why the bio-father contested the adoption but never sought custody when the child was born. It would have been so easy for him then. Did he decide to join the battle only when it looked like bio-mom might try to get the kid back?

And whats up with bio-mom? How can she think its okay to essentially abandon her child for three years and suddenly decide she wants to be mommy? Did she only decide that she wanted custody when it looked like bio-dad might try to get the kid?

I'm not mad at the judge and I don't hold him responsible. Florida is supposed to have some wacky laws and laws that always favor the bio-parents. He was just doing his job based on the laws currently on the books.

In Oregon, where I live, they have what is called a psychological parent law. That is the law that Mr. B and I were awarded custody of Mo under. The law is very rarely applied because it has such a high burden of proof. It would be difficult but certainly not impossible for them to regain custody of Mo.

My heart really goes out to the couple that were raising this child. It is terribly sad that the law offers them no protection and instead treats them like babysitters. I don't imagine that either bio-parent ever paid a penny for this child's support for the three years he lived with the Scotts.

Acquiunk, I really like that phrase "family of orientation". I've never heard it before.

I agree with you completely.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 03:52 pm
I STRONGLY feel that once custody is awarded--unless in some special circumstance, like abuse or something as compelling--once the decision is made, it is never revoked.

This is the problem with surrogacy. I actually think the surrogate should be interviewed a week or so previous to the birth--and have her last chance to change her mind. After that, STFU. And, she will pay every cost the prospective adoptive parents spent.

It seems to me only an unstable person would do this anyway--except in the case of family members, who do it for a barren daughter/sister.

Seems fraught with probabilities of disaster.

In this case, I think the worst thing was done.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 04:01 pm
This wasn't really a surrogacy issue.

The girl wanted to give the child up for adoption and the people wanted to adopt him and the bio-father stopped it.

I lived for a year with a temporary custody agreement and knew the whole time that it didn't offer me any protection. At the point where we knew we could no longer surrender custody at the parent's whim we hired our own lawyer and took it to court. Most states don't offer anything more than a temporary custody agreement for third parties with no biological tie to the child, as I understand it.

I'm glad my state does and I think more states should.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 04:21 pm
That was a serious senior moment. I was thinking adoption, for some reason called it surrogacy, and then went off on surrogacy.

It still holds that guardianship, IMO, shouldn't be revoked.

Boomerang. I didn't know couples who cared for children as their own only get temporary custody. No wonder it's so difficult to find homes for children. Who would risk a completely broken heart at the whim of unstable parents, who already gave their children away.

Is your case still pending?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 04:37 pm
This part of our case is resolved - the psychological parenting part. We have permenant custody BUT either parent could always come in and challenge it as they are not willing to terminate their parental rights. As long as they maintain at least minimal contact (once a year) the court will not terminate their rights either.

We hope to eventually adopt him but that could be years and years from now. We're taking things a day at a time.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 05:10 pm
I can't imagine how difficult that must be. It must give some comfort to have permanent custody.

It seems the longer you have your child--the more time that passes--the smaller the possibility that anyone would disrupt your child's life.

Things are in your favor, IMO.

<Think it's wonderful you opened your home to a child.>
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 05:16 pm
Thanks.

It is difficult and I've been known to throw myself little pity parties. We were laughed out of several attorney's offices before we found one willing to go to bat for us. But really, it is wonderful and we are all very lucky.

And you're right. The longer he's here (2 years in 12 more days) the more permanant it is.

We haven't heard from his father since June so only about another 6 months before we can begin terminating his rights.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 05:49 pm
Keeping fingers crossed for you and your child. Visiting the bare legal minimum just to keep his options open shows his 'love' for the child.

<I have a good feeling about the outcome.>

I know its corny, but I've always believed that the ones who do the raising, the loving, the cooking, the boo-boo kissing--those are the parents. Biological 'parenting' only requires sex, IMO.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How a Spoon Can Save a Woman’s Life - Discussion by tsarstepan
Well this is weird. - Discussion by izzythepush
Please Don't Feed our Bums - Discussion by Linkat
Woman crashes car while shaving her vagina - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Genie gets sued! - Discussion by Reyn
Humans Marrying Animals - Discussion by vinsan
Prawo Jazdy: Ireland's worst driver - Discussion by Robert Gentel
octoplet mom outrage! - Discussion by dirrtydozen22
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another King Solomon dilemma; what would you do?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 01:00:21