What do you think of adoptive parents who refuse to return a child during the waiting period...???

Question

Before the adoption is finalized? Or when they found out within a week (or a few weeks) that the adoption is being contested by one of the child's parent, but refuse to return the child, even when ordered by a judge to do so?

The most common excuse for not abiding by a judges order is that the adoption was done between one state & another. The child was born & relinquished in Idaho, but live in Utah & refuse the Idaho judges orders.

The adopters hire attorneys, withhold the child, defy judges orders & delay delay delay. One case in particular went on for a couple of years before the child was finally returned to her biological parents. All the while, the adopters claiming their concern for 'the best interest of the child', & making a GRAND spectacle of the child's return to her parents in hysterics.

Answer 1

I think they are seriously maladjusted people.  They are either profoundly selfish, or mentally unstable.

Either way they are not suitable cartakers, and should be arrested for kidnapping, and have the book thrown at them.

Vile.

Answer 2

a woman was going through this with her son with the PAPs of his child. Luckly for them tem first mom(who omitted the pregnancy to him) was involved in a private adoption. With private adotion the mother relinquishes only AFTER a homestudy is completed and the child hasbeen evaluated in the home (at least in our state). In a agency adoption the mother relinquishes soon after birth and the aegency retains custody until the PAPs complete the requirements.

He found his baby and got to reunite with him and is now raising him with the help of his mother. The first mom relinquished her rights to the baby anyway. They had my support.

Answer 3

It completely depends on the situation. And if it's the case of the biological father stepping in after placement and trying to assert rights that he never  legally established, like in a couple of cases I know about. Then I am completely in favor of the adoptive parents.

Answer 4

Depends on the situation.  

In many cases, the adoptive parents have been foster parents that have been caring for the child for a year or more already.  Would you really want people to be foster parents if they didn't grow to care for a child after a year or more?  

Additionally, sometimes it would be in the best interests of the child to stay with the adoptive parents, even though the law cannot constitutionally take the children away.  In those cases, it can be worth fighting to protect a child you care deeply about.  

In both of these situations, the biological parents would step down if they really cared about the kids interests primarily.

Answer 5

I don't think anyone supports defying a judges order unless the child is truly in danger if the order is followed through with.  (For instance, in cases where one parent KNOWS another parent is abusive, even if the other parent has managed to get the evidence thrown out of court).  

However, I am extremely suspiscious of how the parents managed to hold the child even after the judge issued the order.   Did, perhaps, a different judge issue a different order?  Was there an appeal, and the judge allowed the adoptive parents to keep the baby until the appeal was completed?  If the parents were truly acting out of accordance with the law, then why didn't the police just go in and get the child?  I think maybe we need more information here.  

As for agencies that advise woment to "state hop" to avoid having fathers be able to get custody of their children, that practice is SICK!  It should be prosecuted as kidnapping in my opionion.

Answer 6

i think that they want very much a kid this in case that they can't have a baby

Answer 7

it's kidnapping.  EOM

Answer 8

I think that some people get so desperate to be parents that they become blind to what is good and ethical.

I personally would never in a million years want to go through with an adoption where the biological mother and father were not 100% okay with their decision (which means I would probably never adopt a newborn domestically).

It is not in a child's best interest to be taken from his/her roots unless there is extreme abuse and neglect (or really any abuse and neglect).

Answer 9

I think they're selfish beyond belief, and they cause a lot of harm to the child involved.  The child is not yours until the adoption is legal and final, no matter how in love with it you are.  The first parents will get the child back, the child's life will have been disrupted more than it had to be, and the media will again go bats spreading misconceptions about evil first parents who "change their minds" and take a child out of "the only home it's ever known" for "selfish" reasons.

What if a case went the other way, though?  What if that child grew up in the adoptive home and learned his or her parents had stolen him or her?  What would that do to the child, to his or her relationship with the adoptive parents, to his/her ability to trust?  Do people just not think about these things when they think, "I love the baby, and if I just hold onto it tightly enough for long enough, I'll get to keep it--and to h**l with who gets hurt"?  If I found out my a'parents had done this I would be absolutely sick.  I don't understand how some people sleep at night.  Because loving a person is supposed to mean wanting what's right for them, not you.  

The Anna Mae He case went on for 7-8 years, even though there was no relinquishment and no adoption.  And all the while the Bakers, portrayed as a "good Christian couple" taught that poor kid, to whom they had no legal or moral right whatever, to fear her parents and loathe her heritage.  I'm sure Jesus was proud.

Answer 10

First of all, I think it's the MEANEST thing when adoptive parents change  their minds.....but it's their right to do so.

And they are the biological parents. Adoptive parents are told what to expect before hand also should know that the "real" parents entered the agreement knowing the can change their mind.

It's such a touchy subject...

Answer 11

I think they are horrible.  I don't think we have any of those types here though.  This is going to be long so bear with me.

The cases

Stephanie Bennett, a teen mother who had the support of her parents.  She was being threatened and harassed by the birth father (sorry - this man is truly evil).  He  had threatened to kill her , the baby and her family if she didn't have an abortion or shall we say get rid of it? She walked into her counselor's office to discuss a schedule change Somehow adoption came up and he placed an adoption agency ad in front of her.  They appeared the next day and told her to run away.  It gets worse from there.  The judge order the child returned.  The agency told the adoptive parents to go into hiding.  They have commented on my blog.  They are very very entitled folks.  Everyone I mean everyone is angels compared to them.

Allison Quets revoked at 7 hours verbally, 12 hours later written. She hired an attorney within 72 hours and revoked.  Her case hadn't even gone before the judge yet.  The ICPC laws were violated in her case.  She was held captive for 10 hours in the office of the attorney. She called the police with Michael Shorstein screaming in the background that her kids didn't belong to her.  It gets worse from there.  Email me if you want more details.  

Ibaanika Bond is another one.  

Shawn McDonald who registered on the father putative registry here in the states.  The agency was LDS social services in the Fort Worth area.  The state of Texas slammed this agency for violating his rights.  He is still fighting.

Joshua Simmerson, Bryn Ayre and Cody O'Dea all one agency, American Center of Choice.  This agency specializes in denying parents their rights to raise their children. They have the mother jump states. Bryn Ayre and Cody O'Dea were also on the registries in their states.  How are fathers able to keep up when agencies come to their states and talk women into giving their children up for adoption.  This agency is known for this kind of thing.  Matthew Tenneson is the same situation.  The adoptive parents in these cases have all hired the same attorney, Larry Jenkins.  This agency is also associated with the LDS Social Services in Utah.  

This agency was banned in the state of Illinois by the Governor and the State Attorney General.  These are just the tip of the iceberg.   Many of these cases go unheard in the media because these cases have been placed on gag orders.  Many of these cases are also NCFA agencies.  So this is a buyer beware for adoptive parents.

Answer 12

This is a very sticky and heart wrenching situation. You talk about rights, and who has them. The adoptive parents who have bonded or the biological who have given birth. It takes the wisdom of Solomon to decide what to do because no matter what is decided one set of parents is going to end up hurting. Going against Judges orders is not right. They know when they take the child that all parties have not decided or signed off, then there is a chance they may have to give back. But the waiting period is not for the birth parents to think about the decision, once they sign the decision is made. Just sometimes, the birth father may not sign when the birth mother does and so that is outstanding and the waiting period  does not start till that happens. If the adoptive couple takes the baby, it is taken with what is called an at risk placement meaning the baby may have to be return. I know that some birth mothers sign a conditional relinquishment that if the birth father contest then her relinquishment is voided and her rights restored

Answer 13

I think its kidnapping.

I hope amy posts all of the parents shes been tracking on her blog that are currently facing this same situation trying to get their children back and the prospective adoptive parents have kidnapped him/her.

Answer 14

That tells me everything I need to know about them. They should be arrested and not allowed to adopt...EVER. They've kidnapped someone's child. Just because they WANT someone else's baby, doesn't make it theirs. They are sick. Apparently another homestudy gone wrong. What psychos.

The waiting time after signing the papers isn't for the first mom to change her mind? Where did anyone come up with that? It's too short to begin with.

ADOPTION REFORM CAN'T HAPPEN SOON ENOUGH.

There needs to be something in place so that a woman has a period of time, a place to live, and support before she makes a relinquishment. If, after given the tools and ability to parent, she decides she can't / doesn't want the child, THEN let her follow through with adoption.

Answer 15

Adoptive parents are aware of the revocation period and should be prepared for it.  Period.  And as far as bonding, that child spent 40 weeks bonding with his or her mother in utero, that counts for something.

And if there is really so much concern about an infant bonding with his or her adoptive parents, why are so many infants placed in interim foster care prior to placement?  Isn't THAT disruptive too?

Any potential adoptive parent who does not honor the revocation period is breaking the law and doing a disservice to the child.  Adoption has risks, plain and simple and potential adoptive parents should be well aware of those risks and prepare themselves for the fact that the parents may and have the right to change their minds within the legal time given.

Plain and simple.

Answer 16

Possessiveness over a child that is not theirs.  Don't the agencies explain this properly

Answer 17

I don't agree with it at all but I think it's so heartless to not acknowledge how painful it would be for the adoptive parents.

I have two dogs. I loved my dogs the first day I brought them home. I would have been devasted if something would have happened to them in the first few weeks. Why? Not out of "possesiveness" but for the sheer fact of a little thing called love. Their so cute and innocent and they love you uncoditionally.

If you can feel that way about a dog, imagine how much more you would love a child. I loved my son as much the day we brought him home as the day we formally adopted him.

I'm by no means saying it's right and I definitely don't think it's in the best interest of the child, but sometimes people on this forum are treated so cruelly when they have to give a child back. I faced several times before his adoption the possibility of losing him. It was the MOST painful feeling in the world. If we would have had to give him up, I don't know if I would have ever fully recovered from that loss. I would have felt that pain for the rest of my life (and yes, I do know this is exactly how first moms feel. I'm sensitive to that.). Not to mention having to see my husband go through all the pain too. It was just as painful for me to see my husband hurting as to feel hurt myself. There are a lot of factors involved.

I wish that we could at least acknowledge how painful it must be. I acknowledge the pain first moms go through but lets also acknowledge how painful it is on the opposite side of the spectrum as well.

Answer 18

Hi Isabel,

When I hear stories like that, I am APPALLED at the behavior of the prospective adoptive parents!

No adoption is final until a judge has granted an adoption decree in a court of law.  That means they are NOT the parents of that child.  Every adoption has a waiting period before it can be finalized.  During that time, they are prospective adoptive parents still, or foster parents, depending on the case.  The general public may not understand that difference.

Yes I understand that they really, really, really wanted to adopt a child.  In order to adopt a child, that child must legally be free for adoption.  In order for that child to be free for adoption, the parents must have not decided during that time that they do want to parent their child.  That is totally within their rights to do so.  That's why that provision is in there.  That's why that is clearly explained to the foster or prospective adoptive parents before the child is even placed in their home.  Having a child in their home does not make them that child's legal parents.  They may have physical and legal custody at that time, but that is not the same thing as being parents.  They still must go to court to make it a legal adoption.  After the waiting time has gone by, THEN they may legally apply to adopt the child.  Before then, he/she is not legally free for adoption.

Now onto what do I think of people who would keep a child that they knew they had no legal right to?  I think that's in contempt of court if a judge has ruled that the child be returned.  I think it's selfish of them and may be an indication they are not fit to be the parents if they are trying to deprive that child of his/her right to grow up and be loved by his/her natural family.  To keep a child that is not theirs, makes it harder and harder on everyone, including the child, the longer they drag it out.

It's stories like that that create misunderstandings in the public's mind.  First they may not understand that just because a child is in their home, that does not make them their son/daughter.  That does not make them the parents.  An adoption has not occurred yet!  Parents have rights and when they do choose to exercise those rights due to whatever reason, perhaps their circumstances have changed, it's their right to do so.  I would say in reality, there are far more cases of parents who do NOT get their children returned even when they notify before that time period has expired.  We see this in particular with natural fathers, who struggle to assert their parental rights and more times than not, are unsuccessful.  

In conclusion, natural parents have first rights to their children.  If both of them have legally relinquished their rights and there are no relatives applying to adopt that child, and the revocation period has elapsed, then & only then may other people apply to adopt that child.  Judges do not order the return of children after the finalization if everything is done legally.  To disobey the law in at attempt to obtain a child is wrong, especially if they have been ordered to return the child to his/her family.  Those who use the child and distort the facts of the story to gain sympathy from others are pathetic, imo.  I hope this helps explain things for people who might not understand how it works.  Thanks for asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 19

The biological parents should always have more rights then the adoptive parents. For gosh sakes they gave birth to the child and carried it to term... Adoptive parents should not be able to refuse to give back the child in my opinion that is like kidnapping especially if a judge has ordered to give the child back to its parents.

Answer 20

Some of the previous answers scare me.  Birth parents do NOT always have the rights over the adoptive parents.

that being said, the waiting time is to allow the birthparents time to make sure this is what they want.  and if a judge says give the child back then give the child back.  It is a risk and harmful but the law is the law.

IF the situation is that the parents are trying to get the child back AFTER the waiting period then the rights in my mind lay with the adoptive parents.

Answer 21

It's kidnapping and the people involved should be held accountable and do time just as anyone else who violates a judges orders.

No ethical guidelines are being followed in these situations, and there are plenty of them. It's so much easier for society to turn a blind eye and pretend these strangers who keep other people's babies are the good guys. It's the typical adopter syndrome - they always come out on top - the typical way in which Americans look at adoption as some kind of wonderful solution. Pfft.