Dad of 'Baby Jane' seeks child support
Anne Warfield
parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
responsibilities as well?
It's weird that I don't remember this particular case, since the Baby
Richard case is so vivid. Anyway, from the [Springfield IL] State
Journal-Register--
Dad of 'Baby Jane' seeks child support
By JAYETTE BOLINSKI
STAFF WRITER
The father of "Baby Jane," the now nearly 10-year-old who was at the
center of a highly publicized custody battle in the early 1990s, is
seeking child support from the girl's biological mother.
Amy Yard, who gave birth to Baby Jane, whose real name is Falon
Brumfield, said she received a court summons in the mail Wednesday and
a notice that Brian Brumfield is suing her for child support and
insurance coverage for Falon.
The documents, dated March 10, seem to indicate that the Illinois
Department of Public Aid is seeking the child support on Brumfield's
behalf. The notices had been forwarded to three other addresses before
reaching Yard. She had lived in Florida and moved to Taylorville
recently.
A court date is scheduled for April 11 in Logan County.
Yard, 28, said she is not sure why Brian Brumfield is seeking child
support at this time, but she would like visitation rights in
exchange.
"It floored me. I had no idea this was coming," she said with a smile.
She has had no visitation rights and hopes this is an opportunity to
develop a relationship with her daughter.
"This is almost like a second chance to make things better," she said.
Brumfield did not return messages left at his home in Lincoln.
The case of Baby Jane made national news 10 years ago when Brian
Brumfield learned that Yard had put her up for adoption without his
consent. He successfully sought custody of the girl even though she
had been living with adoptive parents.
Falon Brumfield was born in April 1993. Yard told Brian Brumfield
their baby had died, then gave Falon to Terry and Keri Ginger of
Morrisonville when she was 6 months old. Keri Ginger and Yard are
cousins.
When Brumfield found out he was a father, he began fighting to get his
daughter. His quest for custody began a month and a half before the
child was born and after he and Yard, to whom he had been engaged,
decided to go separate ways.
In 1995, a Logan County circuit judge denied the Gingers custody of
Falon, prompting them to pursue the case in Christian County.
The Gingers dropped their legal fight for full custody of Falon in
1997, opting instead to settle with Brumfield for visitation rights.
The Christian County circuit court awarded custody to Brumfield that
year.
Falon began living with Brian Brumfield and his wife, Tammy, in 1999
when she was 6. The time between the September 1997 court decision and
the May 1999 custody transfer was spent preparing Falon for the
change.
The Baby Jane case was widely publicized shortly after the Baby
Richard case in Chicago, where an adopted boy was returned to his
biological father.
Yard, who works part time at a movie theater in Taylorville and cares
for her 4-year-old son and her 12-year-old sister, said she does not
have the money to hire an attorney to represent her in the upcoming
child-support case. She last saw Falon two years ago when she was
visiting the Gingers.
Yard said she signed a temporary order when she put Falon up for
adoption that relinquished any parental rights she might have had.
Unbeknownst to her, the temporary order became permanent after one
year, "so I lost my parental rights," she said.
She added that Brian Brumfield, with whom she has not had any contact
in several years, "told me from the get-go that he would not let me
see (Falon)."
"I'm going to be compliant so he'll have to bend where he wasn't
willing to bend before," Yard said.
An employee at the Logan County circuit clerk's office confirmed by
telephone late Wednesday afternoon that Brian Brumfield, or someone
representing him, filed paperwork for some kind of family case last
spring. An order was entered June 21, and a summons was issued in
March.
The file was not immediately available, and the employee was unable to
provide any other details.
Jayette Bolinski can be reached at 788-1530 or
jayette....@sj-r.com.
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/N04032003,h.asp
--
Anne Warfield
indigoace at goodsol period com
http://www.goodsol.com/cats/
Michael Snyder
Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
>Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
>parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
>responsibilities as well?
I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
responsibilities/rights. That's exactly what the "Choice for Men"
movement advocates, and what the feminists adamantly oppose.
JC
"Anne Warfield" <indi...@aolxxx.com> wrote in message
news:3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net...
I'd think if someone else adopted the child, the birth mother's rights would
have been terminated with that paper she signed. And I bet the guy's wife
never formally adopted the little girl either? Gee, this is confusing.
Imagine how that child must feel. People do negotiate custody arrangements
in exchange for support etc. The way it worked out for this birth mother it
seems, is that she signed the custody paper without negotiating any monetary
arrangements, because of the circumstances at the time. I bet it can be
voided too. Maybe like this woman says, it's for the good that this
happened.
I bet the dad applied to receive some sort of state aid? So the state
decided to track down the "deserting" parent? Actually I had a friend in the
midwest (Iowa) who, years ago, did not ever apply for aid, but the state
helped her track down her husb in another state and garnished his wages.
Maybe that was because she already had a court-ordered (or even a mutally
agreed upon) settlement he defaulted on. I think Iowa is very forthright in
those type things.
JC
Hester888Mofet
"Anne Warfield" <indi...@aolxxx.com> wrote in message
news:3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net...
> Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
> parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
> responsibilities as well?
>
> It's weird that I don't remember this particular case, since the Baby
> Richard case is so vivid. Anyway, from the [Springfield IL] State
Rumor has it that the parents of Baby Richard are now divorced and dad is
supposedly a drunk and a gambler on the local Chicagoland boats.
Hester Mofet
Anne Warfield
wrote:
>I'd think if someone else adopted the child, the birth mother's rights would
>have been terminated with that paper she signed. And I bet the guy's wife
>never formally adopted the little girl either? Gee, this is confusing.
>Imagine how that child must feel. People do negotiate custody arrangements
>in exchange for support etc. The way it worked out for this birth mother it
>seems, is that she signed the custody paper without negotiating any monetary
>arrangements, because of the circumstances at the time. I bet it can be
>voided too. Maybe like this woman says, it's for the good that this
>happened.
This is just so incredibly weird. I can't wrap my head around it. If
she must pay support, then she should definitely receive some kind of
visitation.
>I bet the dad applied to receive some sort of state aid? So the state
>decided to track down the "deserting" parent? Actually I had a friend in the
>midwest (Iowa) who, years ago, did not ever apply for aid, but the state
>helped her track down her husb in another state and garnished his wages.
>Maybe that was because she already had a court-ordered (or even a mutally
>agreed upon) settlement he defaulted on. I think Iowa is very forthright in
>those type things.
I bet you're right. The states have gotten really tough on child
support in the last ten years.
Anne Warfield
wrote:
Yeah, I heard that. Poor kid. His bio father promised at the time
that he'd be able to visit his former adoptive family, but he reneged.
Since Bob Greene's career imploded, I don't hear anything new about
the case, though.
TdN
> Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
> >Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
> >parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
> >responsibilities as well?
>
>
> I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
> responsibilities/rights.
Um, wear a condom?
The fact is that "Baby Jane" was established in a home with
financially secure and loving parents, but her bio-dad made a
unilateral decision to change that. I think that unilateral decisions
like that require a unilateral acceptance of responsibility; this is a
very unusual case, after all, not a norm.
The bio-dad made a decision that was in his best interest, not in the
child's. The bio-mom took steps that, in her mind, would guarantee
that the child would have the financial and emotional support she
needed--the bio-dad overturned those steps. It does seem to me like
he made his bed and should lie in it.
To forestall the inevitable question about "what happens if a man has
unprotected sex with a woman because she told him she was taking birth
control and then she gets pregnant and sues him for child support"--I
think that man should file a countersuit against that woman for fraud.
And, in general, I think that people of both sexes should take the
responsibility for their own birth control when they're having sex
with people they don't want to parent a child with.
T.
TdN
>
> Yard, 28, said she is not sure why Brian Brumfield is seeking child
> support at this time, but she would like visitation rights in
> exchange.
>
> "It floored me. I had no idea this was coming," she said with a smile.
> She has had no visitation rights and hopes this is an opportunity to
> develop a relationship with her daughter.
>
> "This is almost like a second chance to make things better," she said.
That's a very mature response. I hope things work out and that she
and Brumfield can develop some kind of modus vivendi to support the
child both financially and emotionally.
It certainly doesn't seem like Yard is trying to "evade" her
responsibility. Good for her.
T.
Hope Munro Smith
@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
> Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
>>parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
>>responsibilities as well?
>
>
> I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
> responsibilities/rights. That's exactly what the "Choice for Men"
> movement advocates, and what the feminists adamantly oppose.
>
It isn't? I need to notify the writers of "General Hospital" immediately!
(On the show, one of the main characters was blackmailed into signing away
his parental rights, but is constantly trying to get them back. I knew
this could not be possible in the real world!)
Mhw61
>It isn't? I need to notify the writers of "General Hospital" immediately!
>
>(On the show, one of the main characters was blackmailed into signing away
>
>his parental rights, but is constantly trying to get them back. I knew
>
>this could not be possible in the real world!)
Wait . . . something happened on a soap opera that couldn't happen in the real
world???!!!
It's getting to where you can't trust anyone any more.
Max
"Better jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war."
--Winston Churchill
Hope Munro Smith
Michael Snyder
Hope Munro Smith wrote in message ...
Note to hope -- I said rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Sarah
> Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
> >Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
> >parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
> >responsibilities as well?
>
>
> I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
> responsibilities/rights. That's exactly what the "Choice for Men"
> movement advocates, and what the feminists adamantly oppose.
Michael, you are full of shit.
Any parent that completely signs away their parental rights is _also_
absolved of parental responsibility. That includes responsibility for
financial support.
However, what the "Choice for Men" movement wants is the privilege of
declaring themselves not responsible for their own actions: fathering
a child which they are thereafter expected to support. They want to
get their rocks off, but they don't want the consequences. They have
this idea that they have a _right_ to sex without consequences.
The reality: no form of contraception is perfect. Any time you fuck,
you run the risk of becoming a parent, whether you are male or female.
It takes the willing decision of 2 people (excluding cases of
rape/incest). You wanna fuck, you tacitly accept the risk.
If the woman chooses _not_ to carry the fetus to term (which is her
right, as it is her body/life at risk during the pregnancy), that is
her prerogative. Yes, we have _two_ chances to deal with
"consequences", once before and once after. That's how biology set it
up. (In point of fact, something that 3/5 pregnancies are
auto-aborted/fail to "embed" before the mother ever notices she _was_
pregnant. We'd be overrun with babies and diapers if Mother Nature did
not take care of the non-viable conceptions.)
The male _ALWAYS_ has the right to decide not to run the risk at _all_
by not engaging in sex. Your choice. You don't like it, change
species and try another planet.
Michael Snyder
Sarah wrote in message ...
>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<473ja.2829$JX2.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
>> >Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
>> >parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
>> >responsibilities as well?
>>
>>
>> I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
>> responsibilities/rights. That's exactly what the "Choice for Men"
>> movement advocates, and what the feminists adamantly oppose.
>
>Michael, you are full of shit.
>
>Any parent that completely signs away their parental rights is _also_
>absolved of parental responsibility.
Sarah, you are full of shit. Men aren't allowed to do that.
If we are, then how come the gimmie is still coming after
so many of us for child support arrears? Did all those guys
just not KNOW that they had the right to sign away their
parental rights and responsabilities?
Hope Munro Smith
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@nospam.net> wrote:
That's the other weird thing on GH. The character who is being
prevented from being a dad (AJ Quartermaine) is a millionaire, wants to
support his son, be in his life, etc. But the mother (Carly Corinthos),
now married to a mobster (Sonny Corinthos), who conceived her son
(Michael) during a drunken one night stand with AJ, made her mobster
husband blackmail the real father out of any contact with his son (the
reason for blackmail -- tried to burn down the mobster's warehouse to
make Carly look like an unsuitable parent). In real life, the
millionaire would have denied parental visitation but sued to bankrupcy
for child support. But this IS a soap... ;-D
Nancy Rudins
>
> That's the other weird thing on GH. The character who is being
> prevented from being a dad (AJ Quartermaine) is a millionaire, wants to
> support his son, be in his life, etc. But the mother (Carly Corinthos),
> now married to a mobster (Sonny Corinthos), who conceived her son
> (Michael) during a drunken one night stand with AJ, made her mobster
> husband blackmail the real father out of any contact with his son (the
> reason for blackmail -- tried to burn down the mobster's warehouse to
> make Carly look like an unsuitable parent). In real life, the
> millionaire would have denied parental visitation but sued to bankrupcy
> for child support. But this IS a soap... ;-D
>
>
I love The Young and the Restless. It's a cartoon for grownups.
I'm not going to start into the Foster/Chancellor lineage.
Kind regards,
Nancy
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
Hope Munro Smith
<Pine.HPP.3.95.103040...@kelgia.ncsa.uiuc.edu>,
Nancy Rudins <nru...@kelgia.ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Hope Munro Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > That's the other weird thing on GH. The character who is being
> > prevented from being a dad (AJ Quartermaine) is a millionaire, wants to
> > support his son, be in his life, etc. But the mother (Carly Corinthos),
> > now married to a mobster (Sonny Corinthos), who conceived her son
> > (Michael) during a drunken one night stand with AJ, made her mobster
> > husband blackmail the real father out of any contact with his son (the
> > reason for blackmail -- tried to burn down the mobster's warehouse to
> > make Carly look like an unsuitable parent). In real life, the
> > millionaire would have denied parental visitation but sued to bankrupcy
> > for child support. But this IS a soap... ;-D
> >
> >
>
> I love The Young and the Restless. It's a cartoon for grownups.
> I'm not going to start into the Foster/Chancellor lineage.
>
What about Passions, that's even more of a cartoon!
;-D
Bo Raxo
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:26:25 +1000, "JC" <jonesi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'd think if someone else adopted the child, the birth mother's rights
would
> >have been terminated with that paper she signed. And I bet the guy's wife
> >never formally adopted the little girl either? Gee, this is confusing.
> >Imagine how that child must feel. People do negotiate custody
arrangements
> >in exchange for support etc. The way it worked out for this birth mother
it
> >seems, is that she signed the custody paper without negotiating any
monetary
> >arrangements, because of the circumstances at the time. I bet it can be
> >voided too. Maybe like this woman says, it's for the good that this
> >happened.
>
> This is just so incredibly weird. I can't wrap my head around it. If
> she must pay support, then she should definitely receive some kind of
> visitation.
>
Why? The court should be ruling in the child's best interests. It is
perfectly possible that the kid's best interests is to be receiving support
from her mother, and at the same time to not be visited by her.
Particularly if the kid has a healthy mother figure in the father's wife,
and the actual mother is a mess (I don't know that this is the case here,
I'm speaking hypothetically) it would be easy to see how a court could hold
that mom should pay but not get to play.
Bo Raxo
BethF
"Bo Raxo" <cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:b6o41t$q3e$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
This case is quite a bit different than a woman who hasnt' paid child
support for a few years. Its much more complex than that. I personally
think this man has alot of nerve asking her for money.
Anne Warfield
<cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote:
>"Anne Warfield" <indi...@aolxxx.com> wrote in message
>news:3e8ece7d...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>> This is just so incredibly weird. I can't wrap my head around it. If
>> she must pay support, then she should definitely receive some kind of
>> visitation.
>>
>
>Why? The court should be ruling in the child's best interests. It is
>perfectly possible that the kid's best interests is to be receiving support
>from her mother, and at the same time to not be visited by her.
>Particularly if the kid has a healthy mother figure in the father's wife,
>and the actual mother is a mess (I don't know that this is the case here,
>I'm speaking hypothetically) it would be easy to see how a court could hold
>that mom should pay but not get to play.
But she gave the kid up for adoption. Her parental rights were
terminated. There is no parental relationship. If the state is not
recognizing the termination and is stating that there is some claim on
her as a parent to this child, why shouldn't she sue for visitation
rights?
Nancy Rudins
> In article
> <Pine.HPP.3.95.103040...@kelgia.ncsa.uiuc.edu>,
> Nancy Rudins <nru...@kelgia.ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > I love The Young and the Restless. It's a cartoon for grownups.
> > I'm not going to start into the Foster/Chancellor lineage.
> >
>
> What about Passions, that's even more of a cartoon!
> ;-D
>
I haven't seen that one yet. I'm betting they haven't had
someone die by falling into a trash compactor :) :)
Bo Raxo
I never said she shouldn't be able to sue for visitation rights. She had
due process.
I just said it is quite possibly reasonable for the court to rule against
her and not grant them.
In which case, you would have her paying child support and not being able to
visit. All because each is in the child's best interests.
Do you see now how that can end up that way? Just because you CAN sue for
visitation rights doesn't mean you will be granted them, it isn't an
automatic right, it is a matter of the child's best interests.
Note: in some states and situations, the court is ruling in the family's
best interests, not the child's. Which is a big difference, actually.
Bo Raxo
Anne Warfield
<cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote:
Certainly I can see in general a parent having to pay custody yet
having no visitation rights. It's just this particular case that's
bugging me, because she gave the kid up for adoption. Does this mean
that other birthparents who gave their kids up may also be liable for
child support?
Bo Raxo
Sure. Just because you offer a kid for adoption doesn't mean the adoption
happens. In most states it takes six months (or more) to become final. If
it doesn't work out, someone is still liable for the child's needs.
And in this case, the mother picked the adoptive parents and chose not to
notify the birth father. It's her own fault for trying a do-it-yourself and
not telling the father the truth.
Sarah
> Sarah wrote in message ...
> >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<473ja.2829$JX2.2...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >> Anne Warfield wrote in message <3e906bdb....@news.earthlink.net>...
> >> >Maybe someone could explain this to me--if someone has signed away all
> >> >parental rights, aren't they then also relieved of all parental
> >> >responsibilities as well?
> >>
> >>
> >> I know there is no legal way for a -man- to sign away all parental
> >> responsibilities/rights. That's exactly what the "Choice for Men"
> >> movement advocates, and what the feminists adamantly oppose.
> >
> >Michael, you are full of shit.
> >
> >Any parent that completely signs away their parental rights is _also_
> >absolved of parental responsibility.
>
> Sarah, you are full of shit. Men aren't allowed to do that.
> If we are, then how come the gimmie is still coming after
> so many of us for child support arrears?
WTF is a "gimme"?
The only cases I've heard of guys being chased for years of back child
support is when they were legally _required_ to pay it by a court and
_THEY KNEW IT_. They had their fun, they decided they wanted a new
girlfriend or a sport car and didn't want to pay for their kids. Kids
cramp their bachelor lifestyle. Kids mean they have to work to support
someone else. Kids mean responsibility, which they don't want to own
up to.
You wanna get your rocks off, get some KY jelly and a Playboy.
> Did all those guys
> just not KNOW that they had the right to sign away their
> parental rights and responsabilities?
No man has the _right_ to impregnate a woman and then completely
disown all responsibility without consulting her or a court of law.
They have the right _IF_ the court is willing to allow them to do it.
Which means _ ONLY IF_ the woman is willing to settle for a one-time
lump sum or _if_ she has someone to take up the slack and is therefore
willing to allow the spineless worm to wiggle off the hook HE IMPALED
HIMSELF ON. If she doesn't, she is perfectly entitled to expect him to
pay his fair share of support for the children he fathers.
This is not about men's rights -- it's about the right of a _CHILD_ to
know his/her parents and to receive adequate care and support from
_both_ parents.
USE A CONDOM, YOU SILLY PRICKS. Any act that involves 2 people
involves responsibility. If you're not that bright, someone should cut
it off for you and save your limited brains from worrying about it.
tiny dancer
"Sarah" <solit...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d7f82a0.03040...@posting.google.com...
Been there, done that with mikey........he just doesn't seem to 'get
it'.........
BethF
> Certainly I can see in general a parent having to pay custody yet
> having no visitation rights.
i can't see this unless the reason for no visitation rights is because the
parent is a danger to the child.
scooter34
Child support and visitation are not supposed to be linked. My
ex-husband pays no child support and still receives regular
visitation. Like Bo said, it's about what's best for the child.
Anne Warfield
I phrased this very badly. What I meant was, in general, I can see
that's it's possible for a judge to rule that a parent must pay
support but is barred from visitation, and I had in mind a situation
where that parent is considered a danger to the child.