This poor little boy is being literally torn away from the only parents he’s ever known for 3 1/2 years, and handed to his biological mother…and this is touted as being in “the best interest of the child”. Actually, it’s got shit to do with the child, who must be bewildered, and brokenhearted, and wondering why his mommy and daddy have abandoned him. It’s got everything to do with fiddly legal crap. And there are many cases like this, including cases of women being impregnated with somebody else’s eggs during fertility treatment, and then being forced to give the babies up to the rightful owner of the egg after going through the pregnancy and everything.
Why can’t the courts leave well enough alone, and let the children stay with the families who love them? It isn’t like they’re being abused. Removing children who are abused is in their best interest (isn’t that what CPS is supposed to do) but removing them because of genetics? God.
I hope that little boy does all right. Because he’s no less bereft right now than all those tsunami orphans, being cared for by strangers who mean well. There’s no logic in it, no justice in it, and he’s the one who will suffer. Well, of course the foster parents will also suffer. It makes me cry just imagining what they must be feeling right now. But that poor kid. What a lot of legal bullshit.
Because the alternative is tantamount to an endorsement of kidnapping. Situations like this one are terrible, and the judge(s) involved should be removed from the bench for allowing decision day to slide for 3-1/2 years, but the law cannot tolerate taking children away from their birth parents unless their parental rights have been voluntarily (and legally) relinquished or terminated upon adequate cause and in accordance with due process.
Put yourself in the birth mother’s shoes: The family you thought was going to adopt your baby cannot do so because the jerk who got you pregnant is asserting his (entirely valid) right to custody of the child. Do you follow through with your promise to relinquish your parental rights, thereby ensuring that the kid goes to the jerk, or do you seek custody yourself? Either way, the putative adoptive parents are not ever going to be allowed to adopt the child because one or both of the birth parents have not relinquished their parental rights.
Even if the birth mother is granted legal custody is there any reason she can’t decide on her own to allow the child to live with the family who raised him? She would be the custodial parent on paper but does that legally necessitate that child must live with her?
The father is being a complete asshole scumbag, by the way. He clearly doesn’t give a shit about this kid or he wouldn’t put him through this kind of trauma.
I believe when custody is granted by the court there is usually detailed rules on how the custody will be maintained. There probably would not be a way for the mother to do what you want without violating the custody order.
Such an arrangement would almost certainly be grounds for the father to seek a modification of the custody order. Giving your kid away to someone else, when there is another competent parent who seeks custody of the child, is a very bad idea.
Really? Couldn’t he just as easily be a dedicated father fighting like hell – for 3-1/2 years – for the right to raise and/or maintain a relationship with his son?
OK, thank you. I just wanted to know if it was a feasible option. I guess it isn’t.
Seeking a relationship is one thing- a little selfish but understandable. But seeking to rip a three-year old away from an established, loving family- the only family he’s ever known- is just cruel and shows a lack of concern for the emotional well-being of the child.
The judge is not the only one at fault ,though. The father filed for custody when the child was about two months old. The prospective adoptive parents surely would have known soon after that the father did not relinquish his parental rights. Why did they keep fighting a battle they couldn’t win? Not because they were thinking of the child’s best interest- the child surely would have been better off if this change had taken place when he was two months old, rather than now. The father’s not thinking about the child’s best interest either- otherwise he wouldn’t have continued to fight for custody after it dragged on so long. The only one who might have been thinking only of the child is the mother, who apaprently didn’t seek custody until it became obvious that the child wouldn’t remain with the Scotts.
What I don’t understand is why all three parites cannot come to some sort of agreement for visitation. Certainly it’s not healthy to just rip the boy from his adoptive parents to his birth mother, so can’t they just all share some liberal visitation rights until the boy has adjusted to his new home. If, “it takes a village,” why can’t his adoptive parents become part of that. Great example of where the adults should all just, GROW THE HELL UP. ™
Sigh. If it were only that easy. Alas, this involves humans and the inhumane shit that they do to children. Working in a custody lawfirm, I see it every day. You wouldn’t imagine some of the shit I could tell you that goes on in custody cases.
I agree that the would-be adoptive parents share a good portion of blame here, since their legally baseless claim has now resulted in . I can certainly understand their willingness to fight, however. A child that was given to them at birth with the expectation of adoption, that was theirs without apparent question for the first two months after birth . . . who wouldn’t fight? That’s why I place more blame on the judges/social workers/etc. who allowed this fight to go on for so long. The fight was inevitable, but the delay in resolving it most certainly was not.
Parenthood doesn’t work that way. I’d fight heaven and earth if somebody tried to give my child away to a pair of strangers, no matter how great they might be and no matter how attached the child became to them and no matter how long the child lived with them. Seriously, at what point would you suggest a parent should say “Oh well, he seems pretty happy. Forget about it, you can keep him after all.”
There is also a case in NY(Brooklyn I think), where the woman WAS forced to give up custody of her child, at least one in London, England, and a few in other European nations. I’ll let you look up the other various custody battles over IVF mix-ups.
Ah, I guess I interpreted chotii’s statement incorrectly. Thanks for the clarification. I thought she was saying there are cases where a woman has willingly agreed to give her egg through a donor egg program, and then changed her mind after the child was born. I know that there have been IVF mix-up cases, but to the best of my knowledge, I’m not aware of any willing egg donors who’ve had custody returned to them over the gestational parents.
Actually, I know of several variations of the theme. THere has been at least one case where an anonymous donor of egg or sperm(don’t remember), sued for some form of custody of the child produced. Since that was an anonymous situation, I’m sure there are easily cases where a person who signed a contract to knowingly donate egg or sperm has sued for custody.
If people can complicate matters of custody and use a child as a weapon, they will.
I gotta say that was one of the worst written articles I have ever read.
When did the father find out about the child?
Did he file suit immediately?
Why in the world is the mother getting custody over the father?
Why is it taking so long to make a ruling?
These are basic friggen questions that the article didn’t even adress.
Then how the hell did the Scotts end up with the child for 3 years?
Is anyone asking themselves the same question I’m asking? Namely, did Steven A. White Jr. do the assautling? Otherwise, why bring up where she was assulted?
Something stinks. I think it’s the reporter.
