Agency, birth mother try to take baby back from adoptive parents

[southcitymom]

Birth mom's make an adoption plan for their child. It was important that her child be placed with a specific family. I not a birth mom but rather and adoptive mom & I can understand what her plan was. Maybe it helped her make her decision for the child, to think that he/she would be an only child or with siblings that were also adopted, to avoid any "possiblity" of favortism. Or she may have wanted to help couples who could not conceive on their own. Lots of birth mom's set guidelines about who will be acceptable for their child. Of course we don't know the whole story, but it looks like the adoptive parents may have skirted the rules. It's sad when these things happen. Most adoptions go very smoothly.

Great post, soobs. It is a shame that this adoption is getting complicated.

 

[Nova]

If I am offending anyone or off base.........

let me know.......I'll stomp off quietly. But personally, I would like to stay and add my two cents worth.

I realize this is an emotional subject, but I have no idea why anyone would be offended by your posts. By all means, you should participate.

 

[Nova]

Great post, soobs. It is a shame that this adoption is getting complicated.

You know what? I don't care what the birth mother wanted or wants and I don't care what the agency's rules are. (If this was so important, the agency should have dealt with the issue BEFORE the adoption.)

This child has been with its parents for over 3 months now. Too late for do-overs.

We must, must, MUST stop this nonsense of jerking children around like they were personal property. Children need stability. Unless it can be proved that their health or safety is seriously threatened, then they must be left wherever they are.

Having a sibling a half-year younger isn't "proof" that a child's well being is endangered.

 

[deanws]

You know what? I don't care what the birth mother wanted or wants and I don't care what the agency's rules are. (If this was so important, the agency should have dealt with the issue BEFORE the adoption.)

This child has been with its parents for over 3 months now. Too late for do-overs.

We must, must, MUST stop this nonsense of jerking children around like they were personal property. Children need stability. Unless it can be proved that their health or safety is seriously threatened, then they must be left wherever they are.

Having a sibling a half-year younger isn't "proof" that a child's well being is endangered.

Great post Nova!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[BarnGoddess]

I don't know how many couples do it, but my husband and I plan to adopt whether we are able to conceive or not. We are planning on adopting from the state because we feel that we can make a big difference for some kids who might otherwise be shunted around foster homes. Since we know we might have trouble conceiving (I have PCOS and endometriosis), we might adopt and try to get pregnant around the same time. I don't feel like our potential trouble conceiving should keep us from giving a child or two a stable, loving home.

You should be applauded for your stance. In our area there are two couples I know who have each adopted older children. In both cases the adopted older children (around 6 - 9 years old) are brother and sister. They helped to keep siblings together. The children are beautiful and the parents are as proud as if they are their birth children. Very stable people.

 

[hipmamajen]

You know what? I don't care what the birth mother wanted or wants and I don't care what the agency's rules are. (If this was so important, the agency should have dealt with the issue BEFORE the adoption.)

This child has been with its parents for over 3 months now. Too late for do-overs.

We must, must, MUST stop this nonsense of jerking children around like they were personal property. Children need stability. Unless it can be proved that their health or safety is seriously threatened, then they must be left wherever they are.

Having a sibling a half-year younger isn't "proof" that a child's well being is endangered.

Yes! This is what I was thinking.

 

[Nova]

I don't know how many couples do it, but my husband and I plan to adopt whether we are able to conceive or not. We are planning on adopting from the state because we feel that we can make a big difference for some kids who might otherwise be shunted around foster homes. Since we know we might have trouble conceiving (I have PCOS and endometriosis), we might adopt and try to get pregnant around the same time. I don't feel like our potential trouble conceiving should keep us from giving a child or two a stable, loving home.

Amen. We'll all agree that ONE child getting a good home with great parents is a good thing! How can TWO children getting a good home with great parents be anything but EVEN BETTER?!

 

[Linda7NJ]

How many times have we read about couples who adopt a child or two, only to end up pregnant later???

oooooooooooh, just read the article

She was pregnant when they APPLIED.......

Well that's a new one............how many married couples apply to adopt a child when they have one concieved naturally together?

Many people adopt for reasons that have zero to do with fertility!

 

[Linda7NJ]

You know what? I don't care what the birth mother wanted or wants and I don't care what the agency's rules are. (If this was so important, the agency should have dealt with the issue BEFORE the adoption.)

This child has been with its parents for over 3 months now. Too late for do-overs.

We must, must, MUST stop this nonsense of jerking children around like they were personal property. Children need stability. Unless it can be proved that their health or safety is seriously threatened, then they must be left wherever they are.

Having a sibling a half-year younger isn't "proof" that a child's well being is endangered.

Great post!:blowkiss:

 

[sherri79]

You know what? I don't care what the birth mother wanted or wants and I don't care what the agency's rules are. (If this was so important, the agency should have dealt with the issue BEFORE the adoption.)

This child has been with its parents for over 3 months now. Too late for do-overs.

We must, must, MUST stop this nonsense of jerking children around like they were personal property. Children need stability. Unless it can be proved that their health or safety is seriously threatened, then they must be left wherever they are.

Having a sibling a half-year younger isn't "proof" that a child's well being is endangered.

you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the best interest of the child factors in somewhere. from what i have seen the courts rarely treat a child as a actual person. it would not surprise me if this case went on for 2 years then a court says the child must be returned.

 

[JinxieJada]

I can't find anywhere it says the Biological mother has actually SIGNED away her parental rights. IF that's the case, then yes, they are on target w/ the 2 days to return the baby.

Case in point. Michigan law states that any time UP UNTIL TPR (termination of parental rights is signed and given to the court) the child can be "asked for and returned" Now in our case, it took our agency almost 3 months to get into court with a date for tpr. She was born in April, and we didn't hit court till the end of June/Beginning of July. ANY time during that point, all we had to do was call the adoption agency and stated we wanted to have custody returned (they (adoptive parents) did an At risk legal placement - basically in "terms" it means, that they agreed to "foster" her w/ the knowledge that they may have to return her...Yes, they bonded,yes they love her, but they knew up front we could change our minds if that's what we decided to do.

IF we placed that phone call, they had 48 hours to return her (our birthdaughter) to the adoption agency. No questions allowed, no legal fight allowed etc. (I'm sure the could have started one, but's not "supposed" to happen)

Is it right? Not sure, BUT if THIS is the case w/ the mentioned article, then she's in her legal right. AND yes I do believe the adoptive couple in the articles case is wrong. They KNEW going in she wanted NO biological children. It's one thing if it "happens' After the adoption has taken place. But to knowingly go in being deceitful?

Well, there's always articles in the media about birthparents and adoption professionals scamming people, in my eyes, this couple was setting up a scam...maybe not for money, but for a baby. I'm sorry they've had difficulty carrying to term prior, BUT there are LOTS of prospective birthparents who could care less if there are biological children in the family, but for whatever reason it was IMPORTANT to this prospective birthmom who was making an adoption plan for her child to state that over several times.

Her agency should be mad, and should be backing her. Because this reflects on them too. A current physical (which is part of the homestudy) should have reflected she was pregnant, so maybe something possibly fell through the cracks, (Even if it was an "old" homestudy, they still have to be updated, just each area is different on how long they are good for) and that "crack" can lead to a giant hole if someone isn't careful.

To those that are saying - well the child's been w/ the adoptive parents for 3 months, they've bonded. Wait a sec...What about those that adopt those 3, 6,9 month old babies, what about international adoptions, or adoptions "out of the system" (the last ones may not apply, since we're talking voluntary adoption, not court ordered or state ordered) OR the countless number of women you find on chat boards, that are thinking they are overwhelmed, end up no an internet adoption site, and are literally BOMBARDED w/ pleas of "I'll take your baby for you, you can have your life back" "we'll do guardianship of your child while you think everything through" Wellll, that child has bonded w/ his/her parents Right? Why is it ok for one type of bonding, and that child should "stay put" yet, it's not ok when someone who may be w/i the legal right to want their child returned to them?

(And up until she goes/went to court that child IS hers. NOT the adoptive parents..the child does not "belong" to the adoptive parents till the court decides, and that's usually (at least here in Mich) SIX months AFTER tpr's are signed.

Stepping off my soapbox, this one burns me though. How DARE they try to pull the wool over someone's eyes. This woman made a decision for the best interest of her child, for whatever reason she was unable to give her child the lifestyle and upbringing, so she sought out those that could, and then is lied to about it? I gurantee if the situation were reversed we'd be reading about it on every chat board, adoption forum etc..because the prospective adoption parents would be shouting SCAM SCAM SCAM...

No I'm not anti adoption, My birthdaughters mother actually now runs an adoption agency, and I've been fortunate enough to learn many,many, things from her. Our birthdaughter has a wonderful life, with a caring, kind, compassionate, beautiful family. She is a happy well adjusted open adoption experiencing girl lol. HOWEVER, adoption IS a permanent solution to an often temporary issue, and I don't think that is discussed often enough when someone walks into an adoption agency. Luckily my bdaughters mom has open adoptions w/ all of her children's birthparents and has applied our conversations to the way she runs her agency!!

 

[dimples37398]

Hopefully this gives a little more insight into this adoption agencies rules and requirements..........this is from their web site.

http://www.nchs.org


What do I do if I become pregnant during the adoption process?
We ask that you inform of us of any changes in your life, including a pregnancy, while you are a client of NCHS. In this circumstance, we would congratulate you and want you to focus on your pregnancy and preparation for your child. Therefore, we would remove you from our group of approved families awaiting adoption, but would not close your file. We ask that you continue to keep us informed of your situation so that


you have an opportunity to continue your adoption journey and rejoin the approved group of families if you wish. In addition to news of a pregnancy, our clients have a responsibility to provide truthful and accurate information and a responsibility to notify the Nebraska Children’s Home Society when any changes occur with them as individuals, as a couple and as a family. The following are examples of this, but are not limited to the following examples:

• Any health changes, to include physical and/or mental
• A change in employment
• Any changes in finances
• Filing for bankruptcy
• A pregnancy

 

[dimples37398]

Jinxie,

I am not sure if this is what you are referring to in regards to the bio mom signing over rights or whatever....This is from the website, and i would guess since the baby is only 3 months old that the adoption is not finalized according to this law excerpt from the site. It states here that it is 6 months after the child being in the home that they can finalize and in this time that there are post adoption visits by the agency. I am guessing and speculating this is how the agency found out about the pregnancy.

What are the adoption laws in the State of Nebraska?
In Nebraska, as a licensed child placing agency, we are required to do the following:

• A home study must be completed prior to an adoption placement.
• Birth parents are not allowed to sign relinquishments until after a minimum of 48 hours after the birth of the baby. Relinquishments will not be signed until the agency is confident the birth parents are ready.
• Nebraska Law requires the agency to duly notify all possible birth fathers before an adoption plan is made. To learn more about birth father’s rights, visit A Father’s Role.
• A petition to finalize the adoption can be filed after the child is in the home for six months. During these six months, NCHS will complete post placement visits with the family before the adoption can be finalized.

 

[T-Rex]

I thought about this really hard. The waiting list for a healthy infant is out the wazoo. Because these people were able to have their own baby, they would rate low on the list. But they hid that, so they rated high. For the baby's sake, it's too late to undo the adoption. But to make amends, I think the family should pay for a surrogate to have another similar baby, to join the adoption pool. I believe the going rate is about $20K. It's a horrible answer, so I think it might be right.