No, because the judge made an alternate decision which means there must have been a problem with the father. The article hints at domestic violence so that would explain it. The bottom line is that we do not have enough data to dispute the judge’s decision.
There could be numerous motions and restraining orders filed and argued by all the parties, and the court has taken it’s time in deciding.
And I still think there is a contested allegation of domestic battery that wasn’t reported in the article.
Judge’s aren’t infallible and I am free to dispute their decision anytime I want. The decision seems odd and I want more information about the reasoning behind it. Nothing more Nothing less.
I agree spooje there is something else in this case whether it be domestic abuse or otherwise. I just want to know what it is.
You do not have the requisite data to question the decision so why don’t you take your “questions” outside and pound them up your ass.
this case should serve to illustrate the dire need for good reporters and editors, especially at MSNBC
What a delicious statement, I’m saving that one for future use.
What crawled up ass and died? I have enough information (see spoojes 5 step analysis) to see something is odd with the judge’s decision. I asked a simple question and for some reason you decided to go off on one of your ‘men are assholes’ rants.
From the poorly written article:
The adoption was never finalized. So while one could say Hopkins [the biological mother] started the process of “giving the child up for adoption” she never actually “gave the child up for adoption.”
So, since no adoption ever took place-- the fight over legal custody is between the biological parents. It is unfortunate, but true.
The real pitting should be for courts/legal systems/state laws that allow custody cases to drag on for more than 3 years.
Now, once upon a time I had a roommate who - to make a weird story short - wound up getting pregnant at a church singles retreat. The man in question began harrassing her horribly, calling our apartment at all hours and demanding to talk to her, and threatening to have the child taken away from her and given to him in sole custody. He still lived with his parents and was an absolute jerk, by the way. My roommate went into hiding and I lost touch with her. I hope she did all right.
It is not beyond possibility that the father in question in this story stopped the adoption process, and demanded immediate custody of the child, in order to hurt or control the mother in question. That he would also hurt the child and the adoptive-parents-to-be would then be mere collateral damage, and unimportant (to him).
Of course, this is conjecture.
And I still feel awful for that little boy.
Indeed ** Chotii ** the focus of this rant should be the awful situation that this child is in through no fault of his own. My take on it is that the courts and the Scotts suck ass for dragging this out. It remains to be seen whether the Mother is being a cunt or the Father is an asshole (or both).
I apologize for the hijack.
I can understand the father’s willingness to fight, just like I can understand the would-be adoptive parents willingness to fight. But none of them was thinking of the best interests of the child. They were thinking of their own interests. Parents put the child’s interest ahead of their own plenty of the time. In fact, in my own experiences working in child welfare, biological parents surrendering their children for adoption generally would have preferred to keep the child , but surrendered based on what they thought was best for the child.I’ve known pre-adoptive foster parents who, rather than trying to fight a losing battle when the bio-parents decided not to surrender, instead maintained a close relationship with the child after he was returned to the bio-parents. A relationship that very likely would not have been possible had they fought for custody and lost.
I’d fight heaven and earth to keep someone from giving my child to a pair of strangers, too- but once the child had already been given to the strangers, and had never lived with me, and apparently didn’t have much of a relationship with me ( if any- I doubt the would be adoptive parents allowed the bio-father a whole lot of visitation) I hope that at some point long before three years I would say not “Oh well, he seems pretty happy. Forget about it, you can keep him after all.”, but “My happiness is not worth putting the child through this trauma”.
More articles on this story with more details than the MSNBC article. Everything else appears to be the AP wire story MSNBC quoted. The Tribune article below has by far the most info.
Biological mom wins 3-way battle
Here’s a picture of the adoptive parents froma GMA interview.