Adoptive Parents Ordered to Surrender 3-Year-Old to Biological Father

[thundley4]

In what may be turn out to be a nightmare come true for adoptive parents, an Indiana couple risks losing their son today to the child's biological father in Ohio, after fighting to adopt the boy for nearly three years.

The couple, Jason and Christy Vaughn, arranged to adopt the boy, Grayson, from his biological mother after his birth in 2007. However, after a series of legal battles that ascended to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Vaughns have been ordered to immediately turn the boy over to his biological father, Benjamin Wyrembek, according to the Toledo Blade.

The Vaughns were present at Grayson's birth in October 2007, and have had custody of the boy since they took him to their home in Indiana just eight days later, according to ABC News. However, within 30 days of his birth, Wyrembek, registered with the Putative Father Registry in Ohio, affirming that he might be the boy's father. Wyrembek then filed a suit to establish parental rights in December 2007, just weeks before the Vaughns filed for adoption, according to court documents.

Wyrembek had been seeing the biological mother -- who was married to another man at the time -- when she became pregnant. Ultimately, she broke off the relationship with Wyrembek and divorced her husband, then surrendered the child at birth to a Columbus, Ohio, adoption agency, according to the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.

Grayson's biological mother tells ABC News she lost contact with Wyrembek early in her pregnancy, and wasn't required by law to provide his contact information to the adoption agency. Court documents confirm that the biological mother and her husband -- the legal father -- filed the necessary papers to surrender custody of the child within weeks of his birth.

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/09/28/adoptive-parents-ordered-to-surrender-3-year-old-to-biological-f

A tough decision, to be sure. I'm in the minority among the voters on the issue.

[MrsSmith]

Incidents like this are far too frequent.  While I totally feel for the father, this little boy has had a Mommy and Daddy for all his life...and it's in HIS best interest to leave him home.  If his father cared about him, he would do just that. 

This also illustrates why so many adopt from overseas.  Not only are the orphans in many countries far worse off than our own, there are seldom complications and heartbreak like this. 

[longview]

This does tug at the heart strings.  I feel for the adoptive family, but understand the father's position and am glad he wants to raise his son.

[thundley4]

Incidents like this are far too frequent.  While I totally feel for the father, this little boy has had a Mommy and Daddy for all his life...and it's in HIS best interest to leave him home.  If his father cared about him, he would do just that. 

This also illustrates why so many adopt from overseas.  Not only are the orphans in many countries far worse off than our own, there are seldom complications and heartbreak like this. 

Normally, I would agree, but it seems that the biological father did what he could to get custody shortly after the birth of the child.  The fact that it has taken three years to settle this, is a problem with the laws.

[Celtic Rose]

Normally, I would agree, but it seems that the biological father did what he could to get custody shortly after the birth of the child.  The fact that it has taken three years to settle this, is a problem with the laws.

A paternity test should have been ordered within weeks of it being filed, and if he were shown to be the biological father he should have been given custody at that point.  I see no reason that it should have dragged on for 3 years. So much more painful for everybody now.

[MrsSmith]

Normally, I would agree, but it seems that the biological father did what he could to get custody shortly after the birth of the child.  The fact that it has taken three years to settle this, is a problem with the laws.

You do have a point there, and fathers definitely should have the right to raise their children if they choose.  However, unless the adoptive parents have been willing to give Dad visitation all this time, what will happen is that this little boy will be ripped from the only home and parents he's ever known and put into a strange house with someone he does not know.  I feel for the father, but I still think that, if he truly loved his son, he would leave him home...unless the adoptive family is abusive in some way.  A parent just does not have the right to put his or her own feelings above the best interests of their child(ren).

[thundley4]

You do have a point there, and fathers definitely should have the right to raise their children if they choose.  However, unless the adoptive parents have been willing to give Dad visitation all this time, what will happen is that this little boy will be ripped from the only home and parents he's ever known and put into a strange house with someone he does not know.  I feel for the father, but I still think that, if he truly loved his son, he would leave him home...unless the adoptive family is abusive in some way.  A parent just does not have the right to put his or her own feelings above the best interests of their child(ren).

What about that little girl that was kidnapped and held prisoner in California? Was it wrong to take her from the only family she had known for years and give her back to her biological family? 



Yeah, I know that's a strawman, but I feel that fathers have had their rights trampled for too long.

[vesta111]

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/09/28/adoptive-parents-ordered-to-surrender-3-year-old-to-biological-f

A tough decision, to be sure. I'm in the minority among the voters on the issue.

Darn you Thund, you and this story reminds me of another case in the 1980's where a father came back to claim his child as he had now married the mother and both regretted that she had given the child up for adoption.  The father never knew for years about the existence of a child.

Millions of us around the country watched as the POLICE forceably removed this 4 year old from his family and carried the child kicking and screaming into the police car to never see his parents again.

Up shot, within 2 years the biological parents divorced and neither on wanted the child. The child did not go back to his adopted parents.

How can this happen in America we ask, Since when does a sperm donner have the right to raise a child that may have been conceived by rape, or a one night stand 4 years later.?

I can see why young pregnant woman get abortions now, if the woman is raped, the fella in jail, can demand to visit with the child in jail when proven he is the father. This is horrid and inhumane to the victim of rape and the child.   What happens when the rapist gets out, can this Monster take his 3 year old daughter for weekend visits ??  

My Lord what kind of civilization have we become where we can murder our children unborn, or if born alive be walking the streets in less then a year.

Then the baby's that have no rights that are adopted and torn from their parents to live with strangers that really don't care about them, all because some scum bag judge decides the child should be with DNA parents that cry they made a mistake. So for years the parents never sent the kid a birthday card and now they want to raise them .??

Really if I were young and pregnant as much as i detest woman that kill their own children ----shit like this would make me wonder if the child would be better off never living then having to live a life as these kids do.

Now Thund, I wonder if this will cause me nightmares, we are sinking below the level of animals here.

[MrsSmith]

What about that little girl that was kidnapped and held prisoner in California? Was it wrong to take her from the only family she had known for years and give her back to her biological family? 



Yeah, I know that's a strawman, but I feel that fathers have had their rights trampled for too long.

Um...abuse.      

Fathers have rights.  However, a father that loved his child above himself would let the child stay where he is happy.  Demand visitation...absolutely.  But a parent puts the child first.   The child's welfare/happiness/security comes above everything. 

[Boudicca]

Um...abuse.      

Fathers have rights.  However, a father that loved his child above himself would let the child stay where he is happy.  Demand visitation...absolutely.  But a parent puts the child first.   The child's welfare/happiness/security comes above everything. 

Based on what facts of the case I know, I don't see that the biological father did anything wrong.  If anything, it's the foster parents who should have surrendered the man's son to his care when he first tried to obtain custody three years ago.  It's their fault, IMHO, that the boy is now going to be traumatized.  The biological father has been victimized, first by the biological mother, and then by the people who were trying to take his son away from him permanently.
I don't think the foster parents were putting the best interests of the child first from the beginning, when they knew there was a willing and loving father out there begging to raise his own flesh and blood.  Why could they not surrender the child and adopt one that had no one else?

Admittedly I don't have all the facts, but a father has as much right to his own child as a mother does and I have to wonder if the situation were reversed would it have taken three years for the biological mother to gain custody?

[MrsSmith]

However, the Vaughns say that although they were aware of Wyrembek's intentions early on, he refused to meet or talk with them after Grayson's birth. So, as time passed, they became convinced that the law was on their side, the Blade reports.

"He's never contacted us directly. He's never asked how the child is doing. He's never sent a birthday card," Jason Vaughn tells the Blade. "What they'll say is they've litigated this from the beginning, that he filed a paternity action in the very beginning; that he's done everything he can do."

...

Jason Vaughn says litigation is not the same as support.

"We want him to have contacted Grayson and to have supported him," he tells ABC News. "And our position is he has not done that."

...

Reacting to the 24-hour turnover order, the Vaughns are asking that a transition be mandated, and have hired a child psychologist to draft a recommended transition plan for a slower, measured transition. That plan filed has been filed with the court in Ohio and is awaiting decision.

"If we're going to lose Grayson -- we don't think we should -- but if we're going to, then it's got to be done right, and the current order that stands isn't right, and anyone should know that," Jason Vaughn tells ABC News.

The father has demanded his rights...but has he ever done anything to demonstrate any love for the child?

[Boudicca]

The father has demanded his rights...but has he ever done anything to demonstrate any love for the child?

I am not sure I would take the word of the adoptive parents at face value.  It's in their best interests to paint the man as an uncaring parent.
My MIL sent birthday and Christmas cards and gifts to one of her granddaughters for 18 years and never received an acknowledgement.  The divorce was acrimonious; the mother took the daughter and remarried and for all we know the girl never received anything my MIL sent.

And think of the impending separation this way:  a child may become an orphan at any age and be forced to transition into a new family.

It would be interesting to know the entire background of the case, that's for certain. 

[longview]

The father has demanded his rights...but has he ever done anything to demonstrate any love for the child?

I wouldn't have contacted the child as long as he was with them, either.  Would not trust them to not twist anything I said, did, or a facial expression and use it to block me getting my child.  Would they have given him an honest chance with his son?  Doubtful.

I wonder if he wasn't advised to not have contact with the people who wanted to adopt.

[MrsSmith]

I am not sure I would take the word of the adoptive parents at face value.  It's in their best interests to paint the man as an uncaring parent.
My MIL sent birthday and Christmas cards and gifts to one of her granddaughters for 18 years and never received an acknowledgement.  The divorce was acrimonious; the mother took the daughter and remarried and for all we know the girl never received anything my MIL sent.

And think of the impending separation this way:  a child may become an orphan at any age and be forced to transition into a new family.

It would be interesting to know the entire background of the case, that's for certain. 

Yeah, my parents spent years sending things to a grandchild that received nothing.  Thankfully, in her mid-20's, she contacted "the family that threw her out," and found out the truth.  Unfortunately, it was just in time to attend my parents' funeral...  She has never forgiven her mother.

If the father truly has done nothing to contact this child, we're not talking about a child tragically orphaned...we're talking about a child taken from loving parents and placed with a total stranger ON PURPOSE, by a system that is supposed to consider the child's welfare above all.  And it is being done by a man that is considering his wants and rights as more important than the child's.

My brother raised 2 of his 5 kids, not because he demanded his rights, but because one mother was a neglectful drug-addict, and the other was totally unable to provide any discipline for a very difficult child.  The first mother lost custody of all her children. The second kept her oldest...and he is mess, despite being the type of kid that wouldn't have been any big problem to raise. 

I have no doubt that fathers are capable of raising their kids, and are often the better choice as parents.  However, if the facts presented are at all accurate, I have doubts that this particular father considers his son as being a separate human being instead of animated "property."

I currently have to beg, plead and threaten in order to see one of my grandchildren...and have done the same to demand that they allow my son to see his kid.  Evidently, the last discussion lead to them consulting a lawyer and finding out that Nebraska law does not allow them to refuse visitation, because the last year or so have been much simpler.  However, that said, my son is in no position to seek custody of his kid...though the child lived with him and the mother for 5 years, so knows his father and would love to live with him again.  The child does not know us well enough to have any wish to live with us, so despite feeling strongly that we could give him a more comfortable home, the facts today are that the child is well cared for, well loved, doing well in school and sports, and happy...and we are willing to put up with the difficulties of visitation in order to see the child remain happy. 

Children are our responsibilities, not our possessions.  As their parents or grandparents, we are responsible for considering what is best for the child before our own wishes, needs, dreams, loves, interests.  Anyone that is not willing to put the child first should not be a parent. 

[TheSarge]

This does tug at the heart strings.  I feel for the adoptive family, but understand the father's position and am glad he wants to raise his son.

Bullshit. If he'd wanted to raise his son he'd have been there in the delivery room.  NOT the adoptive parents.  He'd have made an effort to meet with the family.

To decide three years down the road you want to be daddy just doesn't cut it.  Not after the adoptive parents have spent all that time and effort and emotion of raising this child as their own.

If the sperm donor for my two kids ever tried a stunt like this...the law would have to FIND me first.  Me the wife and the kids would disappear like we never existed.

[TheSarge]

The father has demanded his rights...but has he ever done anything to demonstrate any love for the child?

Nope!

[Eupher]

You do have a point there, and fathers definitely should have the right to raise their children if they choose.  However, unless the adoptive parents have been willing to give Dad visitation all this time, what will happen is that this little boy will be ripped from the only home and parents he's ever known and put into a strange house with someone he does not know.  I feel for the father, but I still think that, if he truly loved his son, he would leave him home...unless the adoptive family is abusive in some way.  A parent just does not have the right to put his or her own feelings above the best interests of their child(ren).

Completely agree. It's all about the boy and what's best for him - or should be.

[littlelamb]

That poor baby it is so sad. Why is the father all of a sudden doing this?

[MrsSmith]

Bullshit. If he'd wanted to raise his son he'd have been there in the delivery room.  NOT the adoptive parents.  He'd have made an effort to meet with the family.

To decide three years down the road you want to be daddy just doesn't cut it.  Not after the adoptive parents have spent all that time and effort and emotion of raising this child as their own.

If the sperm donor for my two kids ever tried a stunt like this...the law would have to FIND me first.  Me the wife and the kids would disappear like we never existed.

To be fair, it appears that he didn't know the mother was pregnant...especially since she was some other man's wife.  It seems that, once he found out, he filed for paternity almost as soon as the boy was born.  I do feel for this guy, and it's good that he wants to be a dad...I just don't think he is considering the boy, he is thinking only of himself.

[Zeus]

Incidents like this are far too frequent.  While I totally feel for the father, this little boy has had a Mommy and Daddy for all his life...and it's in HIS best interest to leave him home.  If his father cared about him, he would do just that. 

This also illustrates why so many adopt from overseas.  Not only are the orphans in many countries far worse off than our own, there are seldom complications and heartbreak like this. 

I disagree.  Sorry Mrs. S but it's that kind of reasoning that undermines the importance of a father figure in a childs life. It also enables the female to cut the father out of decissions affecting the child.

I feel for the adoptive parents but they should have inquired about the biological father to begin with.

It is highly possible the birth Mother intentionally misled others by lies of omission.

[MrsSmith]

I disagree.  Sorry Mrs. S but it's that kind of reasoning that undermines the importance of a father figure in a childs life. It also enables the female to cut the father out of decissions affecting the child.

I feel for the adoptive parents but they should have inquired about the biological father to begin with.

It is highly possible the birth Mother intentionally misled others by lies of omission.

The woman was married, and her husband, the boy's legal father, had no objection to the adoption.  How were the adoptive parents to know that there could be another interested party?

[bijou]

The adoptive parents knew before they filed for adoption and before the child was a month old, that the father was contesting paternity and paternity was established when the boy was 17 months old (at which point the father won custody) the rest of the time has been taken up with failed appeals. The tragedy is that this has taken so long to be finally decided.

[Zeus]

I have a question for you folks that think a man should give up his rights and responsibilties as a father because of the wrongful actions of others. Would you be so willing to do what you think the biological father should do if it was you who wasthe biological father ?
 
I think society has done fathers wrong for long enough. It's to the point where fatherhood is only considered important when it's advantages for the person thinking that way.

If a biological father is to have no rights then how can we as a society force a father to live up to their responsibilities.

[MrsSmith]

I have a question for you folks that think a man should give up his rights and responsibilties as a father because of the wrongful actions of others. Would you be so willing to do what you think the biological father should do if it was you who wasthe biological father ?
 
I think society has done fathers wrong for long enough. It's to the point where fatherhood is only considered important when it's advantages for the person thinking that way.

If a biological father is to have no rights then how can we as a society force a father to live up to their responsibilities.

I would feel exactly the same way about the mother...for example, if she'd been in a coma or something when the kid was born, recovers a few months later, and then tries to get her child back.  It's not about the parent.  That is the whole point.  The parent is responsible for doing the best thing for the child.  It is irresponsible for the father to demand his own rights over the welfare of the child.  Why would any loving parent remove a child from a safe and loving home just because they can?  The father has the right.  The father has the responsibility.  However, the father is using his rights to be irresponsible.  The father is demanding his own rights regardless of the trauma to the child.  What kind of father is he going to be if he already puts his own emotions above those of his little boy?