Record-Eagle Blogs - Latest Comments in Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

anthonyjack — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:36:17 -0000

Hello my name is Anthony,
I ran across this post while doing research for my own case. My daughter Peyton was also put up for adoption on the day of her birth without my consent.

I was involved with my ex throughout the first six months of her pregnancy until she disappeared. She was upset with me because I did not want to raise our child as a couple. We both had substance abuse problems, but I decided to get help and am still clean to this day. When I finally learned what had happened it was to late. I made a lot of mistakes, like not registering with any putative registry. I didn't know what to do at the time.

The mother had tried to manipulate me into getting back together with her by stating that the adoption was open and that she could get Peyton back, but would only do so if we were together. I later learned from the mother's sisters that she had received $5000 for the adoption. I was extremely angry about the whole situation but continued to see the mother because she was getting pictures and I tried to get as much info as I could about what had taken place.

I eventually ended the little charade with the mother and walked away with some valuable info. I had learned the two first names of the men who adopted Peyton as well as the fact that they live in Delaware. I also had pictures of Peyton that they were in. I live in PA but discovered that the adoption agency was based in NJ. I suspect that they went to NJ because of their laws concerning gay adoption.

Armed with all of this info I was able to actually find profiles of the two men online revealing their full names, phone #, address, and even more pics of Peyton. It's obvious that they have no reason to expect that there's anything wrong with the adoption, otherwise I'm sure that all of this info wouldn't be public.

While I'm glad that Peyton appears to be well taken care of and loved, I never consented. There is no one that could possibly love of care for Peyton more than I do. I want my daughter back but I fear that if I contact them that I'll scare them off and miss my opportunity. I don't have money for a lawyer, and I desperately need some advice.

I started a blog explaining the whole situation and also write letters to Peyton there. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Please visit my blog also. Thank you.

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

jeannemhannah — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:47:45 -0000

Hello Sandra,

I apologize for my earlier confusion of names . . . Fitting blogging into a busy family law practice isn't easy. My answers are often written on the fly or late at night.

I have a great deal of empathy for you in your situation regarding your son Shawn. First of all, it is very hard for a private individual to fund litigation with a huge and well-funded organization like LDS.

Second, although there are certainly times when I feel as though children don't have enough voice . . . as though parents' rights sometimes trump a child's right to a good environment . . . still overall, I advocate for a constitutional resolution of these issues conforming to the current state of the law after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Troxel v Granville (parent vs grandparent) http://tinyurl.com/yhxeldm because it provides families and lawyers with a greater potential to predict an outcome based upon legal precedence -- in other words with greater certainty and ability to resolve issues more quickly.

There is so much good legal precedence about the constitutional rights favoring biological parents. Every case, is of course, dependent upon its own facts. I haven't seen any of the paperwork in your case, so I cannot really give any type of legal opinion. But, as I earlier said, this case sounds so much like the Michigan "Baby Jessica" case, which you may read here. http://tinyurl.com/ycccow3

The fact that Hunter has been able to maintain a parent-child relationship with you gives him a distinct advantage over Baby Jessica who was taken from the only family she'd ever known and returned to her biological parents. A transfer in custody from the "non-parents" to you would not be so traumatic.

Let's hope that the Texas Supreme Court renders a decision soon. Jeanne M. Hannah

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

sandramcdonald — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:09:05 -0000

Hello this is sandra mcdonald . Shawn is my son. Everyone doesn't know that shawn's fight started in Johnson county courts and then moved to the dallas court because that is were LDS filed to take his rights there. That is why it took so long to get into court. The judge let LDS postpone it. Then after the jury let the Hess family keep Hunter the judge took her time in fact 1 year to do the final so shawn could appeal. Then almost a year for the appeal court now we are in the supreme court.. This is so wrong. Hunter loves to come to Texas. We had him for a month this summer. With all the lies that the hess family say it's hard to understand how they can look at theirselfs. Would love to talk to you please write me at sam22254@yahoo.com

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

jeannemhannah — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:27:52 -0000

Amyadoptee,

Your email address is not revealed. Do please give Shawn my email address: jeannemhannah@charter.net

After reading the Texas Court opinion, I was left with a conviction that a stronger constitutional law argument needs to be made. I've assisted with amicus briefs for the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section in cases involving third party custody issues -- arguing for the biological parent. I would love to share some of the legal arguments with Shawn's attorney.

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

Amyadoptee — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:44:47 -0000

Its his son that he is fighting over, not Kaylee. His son's name is Hunter even though the birth certificate still calls him Baby Boy Myers. Yep that has not been changed.

You can email me privately to get their contact information.

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

jeannemhannah — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:09:18 -0000

The fact that Shawn has been able to form the type of relationship that you describe above and that he actually has a relationship with Kaylee puts the child less at risk than Baby Jessica in Michigan's In Re Clausen case! In the Baby Jessica case, there was a huge hue and cry about removing the child from the only parents she had known during her about 2.5 years. I can still remember the emotional removal of the child from the DeBoer's home, which was shown on national TV. But Kaylee knows Shawn, thus a transfer in custody should not be so traumatic.

In my opinion, unless the Texas trial court, on remand, makes the third party custodians prove by clear and convincing evidence that placing Kaylee with her biological father would create a substantial risk of harm to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health, then the Texas court's decision would violate Shawn's constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly favors the rights of fit parents over the claims of third parties in Troxel v Granville, decided on June 5, 2000.

The law doesn't require parents to be perfect. The law isn't supposed to favor two married custodians who might be able to provide a more affluent lifestyle for a child over a fit biological parent. Often, what children get are "pretty good" parents or, in some cases a "pretty good parent." So long as there is no abuse or neglect, that is good enough.

I am interested in discussing this case with Shawn to see if I may be of some assistance to him and his Texas attorneys.

Re: Adoption fraud: Should third parties keep child?

Amyadoptee — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:02:06 -0000

Since I am personally involved in this case, I want to make certain facts known. I have written about this case as an adoptee whose father is denied his parental rights and thus 40 years later am denied access to his information in order to contact him.

The adoptive parents in this case are known as the non parents. His parental rights have never been terminated. Shawn also has a very liberal visitation. He visits his son once a month and then has custody of him for the month of July. His son knows who is his father is. The non parents knew he wanted his child before his child was even born. There is a tape out there that has been submitted as evidence where Samantha and her boyfriend were quoted as saying that they had every intention of hiding this child from him. Shawn did everything right from signing up on the putative father registry to following through with pursuing his parental rights. The adoption agency involved was fined and told to pay Shawn's legal fees. The adoption agency social worker was also placed on probation. Shawn later sued both the LDS Church and the adoption agency which was settled out of court. The so called non parents in this case were told that this was a high risk placement before the birth, after the birth and during this court case. They even signed documentation to that effect. The Hess's are relatives of her current boyfriend. She didn't learn of them. Her boyfriend set the whole thing up. There has been a DNA test that confirms that he is the father. It took several months to get it done because the Hess's delayed in getting it done.

What people do not understand is that his son should have never left the state of Texas. The agency encouraged this to keep the father fighting. They did this to keep him from finding out about his son. The Hess's knew all along that he would contest. They were in the hospital with Samantha when this occurred. They had gotten a room in the hospital to be with her. The hospital social worker told both of them that he was.