Can someone help me better understand this law?

Thanks Debra! You've condensed all of that down very well. I understand it now!

I'm thinking that our attorney wanted to wait a year from our last legal action just to make sure we were on safe and sound ground when we went back to court for the termination/adoption.


And yes, Noddy, that "incidental" thing seems like very good news. But it confuses me because after the first year of such little contact it was still considered too much contact.

And yes, I have kept a log of every call. Including the ones were "mom" never even asked about Mo.

Well . . . 92 hours sounds like a LOT of time. But, it needs to be placed into perspective.

The 92 hours of time the father spent with the child was spread over a year and a half.

That's 18 months.

That's 547.5 days.

That's 13,140 hours.

Out of a possible 13,140 hours that exist in a year and a half, the father only spent 92 hours with the child. YOU, on the other hand, probably spent over 13,000 hours with the child.



A full weekend is 48 hours.

Two full weekends is 96 hours.

Over the course of a year and a half, the total amount of time that the biological father spent with the child amounts to less than two full weekends . . . hardly enough time to establish any meaningful relationship with the child.

EVERYTHING MUST be put in context. 92 hours over a span of a year and a half is insignificant contact. It's merely incidental contact considering that the child lived more than 13,000 hours over that same period of time WITHOUT contact from his father.

Put it into perspective for both your lawyer and the court.

I had it all calculated out just exactly like that, Debra!

And they still said it was too much contact.

Go figure?

That's why I keep questioning what they mean by incidental.

Maybe if I bump into him at the gas station?

You presented the facts and the attorney said it was too much contact? Where is the "shaking head in disbelief" emoticon?

Remember what the United States Department of Human Services, Administration of Families of Children has determined:

"Failure of parents to be actively involved in the lives of their children has a significant impact on their self-esteem and development. All children need their lives stabilized as soon as possible by the establishment of permanent, safe, nurturing care taking arrangements. Recent knowledge about the critical period of a child's development between birth and his or her early years suggests that parental disinterest and neglect will have long term negative consequences for the child's development. As a result, some jurisdictions have adopted shorter time frames for parental disinterest based on the age of the child."

Dear Judge:

I am a three and a half year old child. I have lived with Mr. and Mrs. B for the last two years, 2 months.

In the last year and a half, I have lived for 13,120 hours without any significant or meaningful contact with my biological parents. My biological father spent a total of 92 hours with me which amounts to less than two full weekends in the grand scheme of things.

Over that same period of time, Mr. and Mrs. B. have spent over 13,000 hours with me. They are there when I get up in the morning. They are there to give me my breakfast along with smiles and hugs and kisses. They are there for me all day long. They bathe me, they dress me, they feed me, they clothe me, they play with me, they love me. They are there when I go to bed at night. They are there if I can't sleep. They are there when I'm sick. They provide for all my needs.

My biological parents show me nothing but disinterest as evidenced by their minimal contact. They provide no emotional, developmental, or economical support. My sense of permanency and stability come from Mr. and Mrs. B . . . and no one else.

*****

PRESENTATION and PERSPECTIVE.

I would have filed for you . . . I hope your attorney will be more enthusiastic the next time you ask him to file . . . and if NOT . . . keep looking until you find one who will serve the best interests of your child.

That was truly an excellent read, Debra! Thank you. Really.

The sad thing is, we talked to a lot of attorneys and they all said the same thing: too much contact.

Our attorney was the first attorney willing to listen beyond the "time spent" element. All of the others just shook their heads and said "I'm sorry. I can't help you. This is a no win deal. Maybe come back when the parents disappear."

Strange, huh?

Apparently, Oregon's psychological parent thing is so hard to prove that most family law/adoption attorneys won't touch it with a 20 foot pole. When we found one who would we hired him, and his partner, at $480.00 per hour each.

... which is one of the reasons that I like to know a bit about what they're talking about before I even pick up the phone.

Really though, I can't complain. They've been worth every penny.

Oregon Appellate Court decisions (from 1998 to the present):

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/

Perhaps we can find some cases concerning adoption, consent, and incidental contact. I'll take a look.

I found a case that discusses an issue we were looking at earlier concerning the parental rights termination statutes and the adoption statutes. After a closer look at the statutes, I found that Boomerang could not directly invoke any of the termination grounds in Chapter 419B -- but rather had to look at the exceptions to the consent requirements in Chapter 109.

Here's the case:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S44137.htm

In the Matter of the Adoption of
Alexander Ferguson Hodges, a Minor Child.

419B.500 Termination of parental rights; generally. The parental rights of the parents of a ward may be terminated as provided in this section and ORS 419B.502 to 419B.524, only upon a petition filed by the state or the ward for the purpose of freeing the ward for adoption if the court finds it is in the best interest of the ward.

In this law ^, it must be the state or the ward who files the petition for termination. As this seems to be the law that all of the other termination laws hinge on, I'm....... confused.

When I go back and look at the original law that I posted it seems the whole thing just goes in a circle when it comes to termination of rights.

I really appreciate you're help, Debra. You've made looking up the laws a whole lot easier for me! This stuff is very confusing.