AMC: Laurel's speech about Erica
teb...@us0624tb.denver.ncr.com
Have you ever had one of those things that angered you to the point that you
can't get it out of your head? Well, that's the way I felt about Laurel's
little speech to Turbo Lawyer about Erica and KenDevil.
Where does she get off saying that Erica was a horrible mother for not
keeping her daughter to keep the family together? Doesn't she know that
children are conceived from rape? From incest? That giving a child up for
adoption is one of the most generous, thoughtful, selfless things a mother
can do? I'm adopted and thank my natural mother every day that she had the
strength and courage to give me the chance at the kind of life she couldn't
provide for whatever reason. It's not who raises you, it's that you've had
a chance to grow up in a loving household.
Laurel's gotta be reacting to some life experience that has got her
priorities all screwed up.
Ok, off the soapbox. That little speech can finally leave my thought waves.
Feels better already...
V.
ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
>
>
>Have you ever had one of those things that angered you to the point that you
>can't get it out of your head? Well, that's the way I felt about Laurel's
>little speech to Turbo Lawyer about Erica and KenDevil.
>
>Where does she get off saying that Erica was a horrible mother for not
>keeping her daughter to keep the family together? Doesn't she know that
>children are conceived from rape? From incest? That giving a child up for
>adoption is one of the most generous, thoughtful, selfless things a mother
>can do? I'm adopted and thank my natural mother every day that she had the
>strength and courage to give me the chance at the kind of life she couldn't
>provide for whatever reason. It's not who raises you, it's that you've had
>a chance to grow up in a loving household.
Or, something people who know me are sick of hearing,: Biology does not
a parent make. Love, caring, respect and responsibility (along with a
million other things) make a parent -- not a roll in the hay.
Going out on a limb: I am so MAD about that case in Iowa or Michigan
or something where the mother gave up a child for adoption and since
married the father and wants the baby back (story much simplified).
The couple who adopted the child are that child's parents--plain and
simple (in my mind, anyway). They have raised her, stayed up nights
with her, loved her for 2 years. Is anyone thinking of that child's
situation? The reason I get so passionate about this is that the child
is about the same age as my daughter and I just think about all we've
been through with her in the past (almost) 2 years since she was born
--regardless of the fact that I am or am not her biological mother (I am).
I try to imagine what it would be like if we all of a sudden had to give
her to someone else -- just like that. She knows who we are. She knows
her house, her car, her crib. How can people even think that she would
just get over an experience like that? That's akin to being a refugee--
to suddenly be wrenched from everyone/thing you know and love?
Meanwhile, the adoptive parents waited years to adopt this little girl.
What are their chances of being able to adopt again soon? And the
biological mother is pregnant again.
>
>Ok, off the soapbox. That little speech can finally leave my thought waves.
>Feels better already...
Here, let's give each other some help getting down, we're pretty
far up there!!
Debbie
>V.
>
Marilyn R Wulfekuhler
a little more info on this case. I am originally from Iowa and currently
live in Michigan, so I've gotten info from both states :-)
In article <1993May26.2...@news.cs.brandeis.edu> ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>Going out on a limb: I am so MAD about that case in Iowa or Michigan
>or something where the mother gave up a child for adoption and since
>married the father and wants the baby back (story much simplified).
>The couple who adopted the child are that child's parents--plain and
>simple (in my mind, anyway). They have raised her, stayed up nights
>with her, loved her for 2 years. Is anyone thinking of that child's
>situation? The reason I get so passionate about this is that the child
>is about the same age as my daughter and I just think about all we've
>been through with her in the past (almost) 2 years since she was born
>--regardless of the fact that I am or am not her biological mother (I am).
>I try to imagine what it would be like if we all of a sudden had to give
>her to someone else -- just like that. She knows who we are. She knows
>her house, her car, her crib. How can people even think that she would
>just get over an experience like that? That's akin to being a refugee--
>to suddenly be wrenched from everyone/thing you know and love?
>
>Meanwhile, the adoptive parents waited years to adopt this little girl.
>What are their chances of being able to adopt again soon? And the
>biological mother is pregnant again.
>
For those not familiar with the case, the biological mother is from
Iowa, listed the wrong person as the father on the birth certificate,
and signed the appropriate adoption papers. The guy who was named the
father also signed. I believe she INTENTIONALLY named the wrong father.
(This becomes important in the court cases, because of a rule that you
can't benefit from your own action of breaking the law) Maybe we can
feel a LITTLE bit sorry for the biological father for not knowing, but
by all accounts, he is a low-life anyway (see below).
After a while (I think it was a few months or more)
the real father found out about the baby and for whatever reason (my
guess is that he was in hopes of scoring a TV-movie deal-- do I sound
cynical?) decided he wanted it. He (only then) reconciled with and married
the mother and they sued to get custody of the baby who is now two years old
and happily living with her adopted parents in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The
biological father has a couple of other children (all illigitimate) that
he does not support (he claims the respective mothers won't let him see his
children -- should we be surprised?).
The Iowa courts all ruled that the biological parents had the right to
custody of the girl, but the Michigan couple managed to block sending
her back with other legal stuff. Now, a Michigan court has ruled in
favor of them, saying that she should stay with her adoptive parents.
I think the legislature even subsequently passed a bill along the lines
of "best interests of the child prevail over biological rights" or something,
specifically with this case in mind.
My mother reports that 90% or more of the population of Iowa want to see
the little girl stay in Michigan. As far as I know, the Michigan ruling
is the latest development in the case, and the girl is still with her
adoptive parents in Ann Arbor.
DISCLAIMER: I may have a few of the facts wrong, my memory is going. Also,
I am sure my bias is coming through loud and clear. Anyone who has more up
to date or other info, feel free to correct me.
Marilyn
Caroline Marsh
>I changed the subject line to a TAN, and thought people might like
>a little more info on this case. I am originally from Iowa and currently
>live in Michigan, so I've gotten info from both states :-)
(synopsis of case deleted)
>DISCLAIMER: I may have a few of the facts wrong, my memory is going. Also,
>I am sure my bias is coming through loud and clear. Anyone who has more up
>to date or other info, feel free to correct me.
>Marilyn
The adoptive parents are manipulating the media and the public.
The baby is not being stolen from them; she is being returned to
parents who never fully relinquished custody. The adoption was
never finalized and the adoptive parents decided to fight in
court. They will be responsible for a 2 year old being torn from
the only parents she has known. If they truly had the "best interests
of the child" as their paramount concern, they should have backed
away when the baby was a few weeks old and the birth parents said
no to the adoption. That baby is the one who will suffer because of
the selfishness of adults ... but not only on the part of the birth
parents.
As far as the birth father being a low life in concerned, it is
the adoptive father who has an arrest history.
Caroline
Donna Wicks
>Marilyn
Ok I'm going out on a limb I know very few people are on - I think
the biological parents deserve the child back. A few facts missing
from the above are that the "adotption" (no adoption has ever taken
place) was contested immediately - not just within the past few
months. Also the Michigan couple sent their attorney in to talk to
the biological mother within 40 hours of birth - Iowa law says they
must wait 72 hours. So she lied about the father - I don't think it
was intentional. I think the woman was in a very traumatic situation
and was being forced to make a decision she was not ready to make.
I think the Michigan couple deliberately kept the child knowing
the longer it took to battle it in court the better their odds
of keeping her - best interest of the child, etc. Within a month
the Iowa courts had ordered them to return the child and for
at least a year there has been an arrest warrant for them pending
in Iowa which is why they must fight it out in Michigan court
system.
Also as far as the biological father being a low-life, I think
that is extremely unfair. He has fathered two other children.
The son he did not see for many years because the mother remarried
and asked him to step aside for the sake of the child. He did so
but now has his son living with him and the kid appears very
happy. He refuses to talk about the other daughter he fathered
other than to say he did not know about her for the first few
years of her life and the mother refuses to let him see her.
Do we start taking kids away from parents who we think are low
lifes? What is that based on? How do we define low life?
And of the most interesting note is that the "adoptive" father
was convicted of trespassing when as a 17-year-old he attempted
to rob a former employer. A plea bargain reduced the charge.
He lied on the adoption application about never being convicted,
but did say he had gone by another name previously. The adoption
agency failed to pursue this and is now under investigation
by the state. A few days ago an official from Michigan said it
is pretty clear that if the agency had done its job the adoptive
parents would never have been approved!!!!
As someone who is facing the possibility of going the adoption
route, I hope I never become so desparate for a baby that I forget
others are involved.
D. Wicks
p...@brutus.aa.ab.com
Unlurking for a not-so-quick comment:
ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Going out on a limb: I am so MAD about that case in Iowa or Michigan
>>>or something where the mother gave up a child for adoption and since
>>>married the father and wants the baby back (story much simplified).
>>>The couple who adopted the child are that child's parents--plain and
>>>simple (in my mind, anyway). They have raised her, stayed up nights
>>>with her, loved her for 2 years. Is anyone thinking of that child's
>>>situation?
>>>
Marilyn:
>>For those not familiar with the case, the biological mother is from
>>Iowa, listed the wrong person as the father on the birth certificate,
>>and signed the appropriate adoption papers. The guy who was named the
>>father also signed. I believe she INTENTIONALLY named the wrong father.
>>(This becomes important in the court cases, because of a rule that you
>>can't benefit from your own action of breaking the law)
>
>
>>DISCLAIMER: I may have a few of the facts wrong, my memory is going. Also,
>>I am sure my bias is coming through loud and clear. Anyone who has more up
^^^
MOst of us have one, Maryiln]
>>to date or other info, feel free to correct me.
>>
>>Marilyn
>
(Donna Wicks):
> Ok I'm going out on a limb I know very few people are on - I think
>the biological parents deserve the child back. A few facts missing
>from the above are that the "adotption" (no adoption has ever taken
>place) was contested immediately - not just within the past few
>months. Also the Michigan couple sent their attorney in to talk to
>the biological mother within 40 hours of birth - Iowa law says they
>must wait 72 hours.
>I think the Michigan couple deliberately kept the child knowing
>the longer it took to battle it in court the better their odds
>of keeping her - best interest of the child, etc. Within a month
>the Iowa courts had ordered them to return the child and for
>at least a year there has been an arrest warrant for them pending
>in Iowa which is why they must fight it out in Michigan court
>system.
>
Have to add my understanding of the case, as I think the story is
getting a little confused (and I may as well just add to that :-)
First off, Cara (?) Schmid, the biological mother (Bmom), put the wrong
father on the birth certificate (intentionally) and GAVE THE BABY UP
FOR ADOPTION. This baby **was** adopted. Was it legal? Technically,
no, because BMom gave her up after only 40 hours, not 72 as required
by Iowa law. To further complicate matters, Dan Schmid, the biological
father (BDad), who was not listed on the certificate, never "legally"
gave up rights to his child.
The DeBoers (AMom and ADad), went home with their new adopted daughter.
Sometime within a few months of the birth, I believe (I do not know the
specifics except that it WAS early on, but not "immediate"), the B's
(who got back together and got married) tried to get teh baby back.
Lots of court stuff went on that I do not know particulars of.
I never heard about the A's being under arrest in Iowa. THe way I
understood it, the A's lost to the B's in Iowa courts for custody of
the baby (repeatedly). They then tried to go through the Michigan
court system to try and get another result. Michigan granted A's
custody (this was within the last year or 6 months). Michigan then
overturned this, saying that Michigan courts didnt have jurisdiction
or some such (help me out here). THe child has lived in Michigan
all this time. I believe that the baby (no longer
a baby, she's 2 now) has now gone to Iowa (as of a few weeks ago),
but I am not sure.
This case is full of tragedy all around, bad behavior all around,
and strange legal points all around. The adoption shouldnt have
taken place before 72 hours, to be on the right side of the law.
Does a biological father have any rights to his biological child
if he is not named on the birth certificate? Can he overturn
an adoption? Bmom shouldnt have lied about the father. The B's
might have respected this adoption, even if it was slightly illegal.
A's might have realized the trauma to the child and given her back
to the B's as soon as they said they had a change of mind.
Everybody has a good motive, everybody did something iffy, except the
poor kid. Something must be done about the court system if two sets
of parents and one child are dragged through court proceedings for
2 years like this] Makes no sense for the well-being of the child.
All through this case over, it seemed that everyone is thinking
of the child as a possession -- at lease that's how the media presented
all the opinions and facts. She's mine] NO, she's mine] We can
provide a better life] With money??? So what, we have love] You're
lowlifes who didnt want her] Well, she is OUR CHILD and has OUR GENES]
And on and on. No matter who is right and wrong, or what is legal, at this
point I guess I feel that she belongs with her adoptive parents,
the only parents she has ever known (for two years). If she is in
Iowa now, though, as time goes by I will think she should be with the
B's, so as not to upset her any further. In this case, I think
just about everybody loses, because even the couple who ends up with
custody will have a hard time not being bitter about the whole ugly
mess. Let's hope Jessie never thinks that it is her fault when
she figures out her parents are bitter about her birth/adoption. She's
the only one not to blame.
Back to lurking....
pk.
ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Actually, I heard an interview yesterday with one of the mothers of one of
his other children and she said she can't understand why he wants this baby
back so badly since his child with her lives only 25 miles away from him
right now and he has never bothered to see her all while she was growing up.
>
>The Iowa courts all ruled that the biological parents had the right to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHY!?!
>custody of the girl, but the Michigan couple managed to block sending
>her back with other legal stuff. Now, a Michigan court has ruled in
>favor of them, saying that she should stay with her adoptive parents.
>I think the legislature even subsequently passed a bill along the lines
>of "best interests of the child prevail over biological rights" or something,
>specifically with this case in mind.
Bravo Michigan!!!!
>
>My mother reports that 90% or more of the population of Iowa want to see
>the little girl stay in Michigan. As far as I know, the Michigan ruling
>is the latest development in the case, and the girl is still with her
>adoptive parents in Ann Arbor.
>
>DISCLAIMER: I may have a few of the facts wrong, my memory is going. Also,
>I am sure my bias is coming through loud and clear.
Well, I agree with every single thing you've said -- Good job
>
>
>Marilyn
ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
>wulf...@allouez.cps.msu.edu (Marilyn R Wulfekuhler) writes:
>
>>I changed the subject line to a TAN, and thought people might like
>>a little more info on this case. I am originally from Iowa and currently
>>live in Michigan, so I've gotten info from both states :-)
>
>(synopsis of case deleted)
>
>>DISCLAIMER: I may have a few of the facts wrong, my memory is going. Also,
>>I am sure my bias is coming through loud and clear. Anyone who has more up
>>to date or other info, feel free to correct me.
>
>
>>Marilyn
>
>
>The adoptive parents are manipulating the media and the public.
>The baby is not being stolen from them; she is being returned to
>parents who never fully relinquished custody. The adoption was
I think the mother who intentionally mis-named the birth father,
signed the child over for adoption and then changed her mind when
the real birth father found out relinquised custody. And, as men-
tioned by someone else previously, it is illegal to benefit from
your own intentional manipulation of information (i.e., not naming
the real father on the birth certificate because she knew that the
man she named would agree to reliquish custody but that the real
father would not). Therefore, she sank her own boat so to speak.
>never finalized and the adoptive parents decided to fight in
>court. They will be responsible for a 2 year old being torn from
>the only parents she has known. If they truly had the "best interests
>of the child" as their paramount concern, they should have backed
>away when the baby was a few weeks old and the birth parents said
>no to the adoption. That baby is the one who will suffer because of
>the selfishness of adults ... but not only on the part of the birth
>parents.
>
>As far as the birth father being a low life in concerned, it is
>the adoptive father who has an arrest history.
For a minor charge, years and years ago (something like shoplifting
or disturbing the peace or something) -- nothing related to children.
And the birth father (as stated previously) has a history of neglect
of his birth children. A more important charge in a case like this.
Debbie
Marilyn R Wulfekuhler
<Lots of stuff deleted for brevity:>
Well, Donna and pk added some more food for thought. I agree that everyone
(the adults, that is) have behaved badly all around, and the one to get
hurt of course is the poor kid. A lot of trouble (but not all) could
have been avoided if the DeBoer's stupid lawyer had waited the proper
72 hours, making the adoption legal. Then the only(?!) problem would
have been the biological father not explicitly giving up his rights.
But surely this kind of situation has been dealt with before (a biological
father not knowing he even had a child when it was given up for adoption).
So can someone clear this up for me?
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:
woman gets pregnant, father is long gone, only the woman signs
adoption consent. Is it ok that the father never gave his consent
to the adoption? I seem to vaguely remember a Donahue or similar
talk show where biological fathers were complaining about their
lack of rights if they are not married to the mother. I guess it
depends on individual state law.
Since I only know what I read and hear from the media (and my mother,
who gets the story from the Iowa media), I'm sure I don't know the whole
story. It wouldn't be the first or last time I've been manipulated
by the media.
But I haven't heard diddly about the girl being recently sent to Iowa.
I've been sort of following this case, so I'm surprised if it's true
and I didn't hear about it. But then, I was out of town for the last
week and a half. Can anyone confirm the new development? Email is
fine if you want to get the discussion off the newsgroup.
Marilyn "manipulated by the media" Wulfekuhler
wulf...@cps.msu.edu
ma...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
>
>Have to add my understanding of the case, as I think the story is
>getting a little confused (and I may as well just add to that :-)
[bulk of post deleted]
Excellent synopsis and many, many right-on-the-$ points!!
Especially, that there is enough blame to lay all around and that, given
that situation, the child should be let be.
Thank you for your insightful post.
Debbie.
Caroline Marsh
>Debbie
The birth father may not have been a wonderful father in the past
but that has nothing to do with terminating his parental rights
in this case. He was not abusive to his other children.
I'm just irritated that everyone jumps so quickly to the "poor
adoptive parents" side. Either they had bad legal advice or
chose to take a risk but they knew the adoption was not finalized.
It's a compelling image of a child being torn from the only
family she knows, but the adoptive parents created the
situation by trying to fight a losing battle.
Don't flame me for being unsympathetic to adoptive parents. I just
don't think easing their pain from infertility is more important
than the legal rights of birth parents.
Caroline
Kelley Trombly-Freytag
I have read most of the articles people are posting here,
with the claims of irregualarity of adoption (40 vs 72 hours,
intensionally wrong father on birth certificate, adoption
challenged soon after it happened), and I feel the one point
brought out earlier in these posts has been obscured and forgotten.
No matter what the legal implications of all this stuff are,
the child has lived and loved one set of parents for two years.
SHE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY UNLESS THOSE PARENTS ARE DECLARED UNFIT
(like abusive).
Thats what I think. Thats what I think is in the best interests of
the child. The HELL with the adults and their "rights". SHE IS NOT
A POSSESION!!!!!!!!!!
--
Kelley Trombly-Freytag
June Cummins Lewis
>or something where the mother gave up a child for adoption and since
>married the father and wants the baby back (story much simplified).
>The couple who adopted the child are that child's parents--plain and
>simple (in my mind, anyway). They have raised her, stayed up nights
>with her, loved her for 2 years. Is anyone thinking of that child's
>situation? The reason I get so passionate about this is that the child
>is about the same age as my daughter and I just think about all we've
>been through with her in the past (almost) 2 years since she was born
>--regardless of the fact that I am or am not her biological mother (I am).
I've been following this story very closely myself. There was a long
article about it in The New Yorker. The child involved is EXACTLY the
same age as my son, and it just infuriates me that they might take her
away from the parents who have been with her since birth.
A little more information about the biological parents: the mother
originally named someone else as the father, and both she and that man
waived their parental rights. Then she decided that this other man
was the father, which I think was proved. So he says since he didn't
sign anything, they get the kid back. The courts in that state (Iowa,
I think) said his right to the child completely negates anything the
mother signed. Also, this man has already abandoned TWO other
children he has fathered (one of them was his legal child, but not the
other). This has no effect on the Iowa court--clearly, they are not
considering the best interest of the child at all.
Meanwhile, the Michigan courts (where the adoptive parents live) say
that they believe the child should stay with those parents. So this
has basically become an issue of state's rights. I would not be
surprised if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Also, this whole thing started when the biological mother joined a
radical organization that believes that all adoption is exploitative
of the birth mother and that all adoptions should be banned.
They make me sick.
June
--
"Saying that men talk about baseball in order to avoid talking about their
feelings is the same as saying that women talk about their feelings in order
to avoid talking about baseball."
--Deborah Tannen, author of _You Just Don't Understand_
Richard N Kitchen
Iowa seems to have a strange view of what parental rights are all about.
There was a case several years ago where a couple had gotten divorced,
the mother gained custody of the child, and she moved to Iowa to be near
her parents. the mother wound up dying, and the father tried to gain
custody of the child, but the Iowa court ruled that custody should go to
the grandparents who lived in Iowa, because the child's father lived in
California, and the California lifestyle was not appropriate for a child
to be raised in.
--
Rick Kitchen
da...@cleveland.freenet.edu
(This is a .sig, not an autograph)
Patricia Peterson
>In article <930524193...@ncrcom.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, teb...@us0624tb.denver.NCR.COM writes:
>>
>Going out on a limb: I am so MAD about that case in Iowa or Michigan
>or something where the mother gave up a child for adoption and since
>married the father and wants the baby back (story much simplified).
>Meanwhile, the adoptive parents waited years to adopt this little girl.
>What are their chances of being able to adopt again soon? And the
>biological mother is pregnant again.
I agree with you hear. I can't believe the judge thinks it is
in the best interest of the child to give it back to its
biological parents. As you said she is pregnant again, which
means they will have less time to give to this child who is going
to need a lot of attention. Lets face it for this child it will
be like her parents have died. I would like to see an update
on this kid when she is about 8 or 9 and see how she is handling
the abandonment issue. What will these people tell her about her
adoptive parents. Can you imagine later if she finds out about
this and they haven't told her? I'm not saying that the bio-
parents are not good people, I just think they are being very
selfish in this case.
Patricia
>>
>>Ok, off the soapbox. That little speech can finally leave my thought waves.
>>Feels better already...
>Here, let's give each other some help getting down, we're pretty
>far up there!!
>Debbie
>>V.
>>
--
Patricia Peterson (608)273-4573
Inet: patricia%pete%nicmad%astroa...@spool.cs.wisc.edu
Or : nicmad!pete!patricia%astroa...@spool.cs.wisc.edu
Or : uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!pete!patricia
Mary Molly G Taylor
>So can someone clear this up for me?
>HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:
>woman gets pregnant, father is long gone, only the woman signs
>adoption consent. Is it ok that the father never gave his consent
>to the adoption? I seem to vaguely remember a Donahue or similar
>talk show where biological fathers were complaining about their
>lack of rights if they are not married to the mother. I guess it
>depends on individual state law.
>
In North Carolina they look for the birth father for six months.
If he's not found (to either claim the baby or sign adoption
consent) the court has the right to take away the father's rights.
A woman in my office recently adopted a baby where the father was
not found and the court took away his rights. She doesn't know
of any cases like the MI-IA one being tried in NC. She's already
had one baby taken away from her within the six months and now
that the six months with this child are up, it would totally destroy
her to have this child taken away.
--
MaryMolly G. Taylor
mgta...@eos.ncsu.edu | Applied Energy Research Laboratory
(919) 515-5240 | Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Dept.
Fax: (919) 515-7968 | North Carolina State University