Adoption - does this really happen?

[Ronda93]

Discussion at work the other day... after a domestic adoption birth mothers can come back years later and reclaim their children.

Does that actually happen?

I know there have been some horrible cases where foster kids are returned and some where there was some question on the legitimacy of the adoption in the first place, e.g., fathers not informed. The news image of a crying child being ripped from the loving arms of the only parents she's known is powerful stuff, but is it true?

If there's a completed, legal adoption, do the birth parents retain any rights to the child?

 

[Texan Mouseketeer]

My DH adopted my son and I was told that even thought it would be very very difficult and most likely thrown out of court, there is a small loophole where my ex husband has 5 years to come back and fight it. It's frustrating because just when you think it is all over and everything is great, you have that nagging feeling in the back of your mind that it could all start up again.

 

[Stitchfans]

Let me get this straight. Even though a parent signs off their rights to their child they can still come back years later and reclaim the child? This is a human being we are talking about. If you didn't give two hoots and signed your rights away wew, I can't go on with what I want to say.

 

[ZachnElli]

No,not really. It has happened, but usually the adoptive parents knew all along there was a problem. Like the little boy last year who was 3 1/2, the adoptive parents knew within 30 days that the birthfather wanted his son and wouldn't sign the papers giving up his son. They knew but fought it anyway. If everyone signs the papers, then no it can't happen. In my case, my son's birthparents both signed the papers and had 30 days to change their minds, after that a judge dissolved all their rights to him. They can't do anything after that. The cases that make the big headlines are less than 1% of all adoptions. Over 99% of adoptions, after placement, happen with very little problems. I say after placement because if they change their minds, it will most likely be before they place the child with someone else.

 

[ZachnElli]

My DH adopted my son and I was told that even thought it would be very very difficult and most likely thrown out of court, there is a small loophole where my ex husband has 5 years to come back and fight it. It's frustrating because just when you think it is all over and everything is great, you have that nagging feeling in the back of your mind that it could all start up again.

I bet that law has changed. Adoption laws are always changing and they are changing in favor of what is best for the child, not the parents birth or adoptive. If not, write your Congressman! I have!

 

[Lessa of Pern]

this is a child we're tlaking about, and parental rights. our laws are written in favor of the birth parents. generally, the law allows a birth parent to rescind his/her consent to an adoption within a specified time frame because this is a child we're tlaking about. it can be a very difficult decision to give up a child for adoption, and a birth parent is under considerable emotional strain when he/she is signing the consent to release the child for adoption. the adoption can't be finalized until the birth parent's consent becomes irrevocable. when you adopt a child you must be aware of the law. I supose that's why many people choose foreign adoption -- because it's far less likely that a birth parent from another country will rescind consent to adopt after you've invested so much time and emotion into a child.

 

[disney4us2002]

Discussion at work the other day... after a domestic adoption birth mothers can come back years later and reclaim their children.

Does that actually happen?

I know there have been some horrible cases where foster kids are returned and some where there was some question on the legitimacy of the adoption in the first place, e.g., fathers not informed. The news image of a crying child being ripped from the loving arms of the only parents she's known is powerful stuff, but is it true?

If there's a completed, legal adoption, do the birth parents retain any rights to the child?

The simple answer to your question is no; however, it is those extreme cases that make the news and get everyone in such an uproar that sometimes parents choose international adoption because they feel the distance increases their odds of permanence. It is very sad because there are many, many children available for adoption right in this country.

Adoption laws may vary by state. In Md a parent has 30 days to appeal a termination of parental rights or revoke consent to adoption. It is a pretty widely-accepted concept that children need early permanence and stability to form healthy attachment ultimately resulting in healthy adults.

 

[mcnuss]

I bet that law has changed. Adoption laws are always changing and they are changing in favor of what is best for the child, not the parents birth or adoptive. If not, write your Congressman! I have!

These are state laws. You have to write to your local legislators, not to Congress.

As others have mentioned, most of the cases you've heard about in the media are the abnormal extremes (why else would the media care?). In at least 2 of the cases that have been in the news, the adoption was contested by a birthparent within the statutory recission period but the judge allowed the child to stay with the would-be adoptive parents until the dispute was resolved. When the final outcome was not in favor of the adoptive parents, they would not let the child go. In other cases, the issue has been that the birthmother has committed some kind of fraud (claiming she did not know who the biological father was, for instance, when she actually did) which made the adoption fraudulent and "defective". These are heartbreaking cases, but what do you say to a biological father who was told by the mother that she had an abortion just to spite him (or make the process easier on her) when he would have taken the child had he known about him or her?

 

[Ronda93]

Thanks for the quick feedback. I suspect this is a matter of irregularities in the adoption and not a widespread problem. Thanks again.

 

[lynetteSC]

No,not really. It has happened, but usually the adoptive parents knew all along there was a problem. Like the little boy last year who was 3 1/2, the adoptive parents knew within 30 days that the birthfather wanted his son and wouldn't sign the papers giving up his son. They knew but fought it anyway. If everyone signs the papers, then no it can't happen. In my case, my son's birthparents both signed the papers and had 30 days to change their minds, after that a judge dissolved all their rights to him. They can't do anything after that. The cases that make the big headlines are less than 1% of all adoptions. Over 99% of adoptions, after placement, happen with very little problems. I say after placement because if they change their minds, it will most likely be before they place the child with someone else.

Ditto! I know the laws vary by state. Our birthmom had to wait 24 hours after birth before she could sign the papers, but as soon as she signed them, they were irrevocable in our state. We are VERY lucky in the fact that our birth mom and our birth father both signed papers for our adopted ds. In fact, our ds was born the day before our 10th anniversary and our bmom and bdad signed on our 10th anniversary! Our lawyer said it would be VERY VERY difficult for anything to ever happen in the future because of the laws in our state.

It is bad that you hear the horror stories and not many postive happy ending type stories of domestic adoption. When we firsts started our adoption process, we almost did international adoption because of those horror stories ... then we found our lawyer who explained all the laws.

 

[Denine]

If you work with an agency that knows how to dot all it's i's and cross all it's t's, then there won't be a problem, even with an absent father.

We got lucky and both birth parents consented to waive their rights.

 

[Marseeya]

No,not really. It has happened, but usually the adoptive parents knew all along there was a problem. Like the little boy last year who was 3 1/2, the adoptive parents knew within 30 days that the birthfather wanted his son and wouldn't sign the papers giving up his son. They knew but fought it anyway. If everyone signs the papers, then no it can't happen. In my case, my son's birthparents both signed the papers and had 30 days to change their minds, after that a judge dissolved all their rights to him. They can't do anything after that. The cases that make the big headlines are less than 1% of all adoptions. Over 99% of adoptions, after placement, happen with very little problems. I say after placement because if they change their minds, it will most likely be before they place the child with someone else.

Are you talking about Evan Scott? That was such a heartbreaking case.

 

[RadioNate]

Let me get this straight. Even though a parent signs off their rights to their child they can still come back years later and reclaim the child? This is a human being we are talking about. If you didn't give two hoots and signed your rights away wew, I can't go on with what I want to say.

I see most people glossed over this but I just can't let it go. Just because someone gave up their child for adoption does't mean they didn't "give two hoots" about it and signed their rights away. Giving a child up for adoption is a heartbreaking and difficult loving decision. It should never been seen as throwing away a child. People who don't give "two hoots" about their child don't give them up to a loving family so they can have a better life than the parents can provide, they keep them around to be ignored and abused.

And no you don't have it right, people can't come back years later and regain parental rights.

The cases we have seen over the years when birth parents regain custody are almost always adoptions where there were problems with the adoption from the start.

 

[kdibattista]

I see most people glossed over this but I just can't let it go. Just because someone gave up their child for adoption does't mean they didn't "give two hoots" about it and signed their rights away. Giving a child up for adoption is a heartbreaking and difficult loving decision. It should never been seen as throwing away a child. People who don't give "two hoots" about their child don't give them up to a loving family so they can have a better life than the parents can provide, they keep them around to be ignored and abused.

As a soon to be adoptive mommy, I couldn't agree more. I will thank God every day that the mother of my daughter was selfless enough to want her child to have a better life and she will grow up knowing that she was that loved.

 

[mickeyfan2]

It depends on the state. I know of two cases where the birth mother got the infant back. Both infants were about 1 year old. This is what has fueled the popularity of international adoptions.

 

[Stitchfans]

Not to start a big arguement, but my comments and feelings was coming from being an adoptee. Yes, saying not giving "two hoots" was harsh, and yes she could of aborted me. The way I was looking at it though was in a case like with my birthmother were she was very poor and knew she couldn't take care of me, then what if all of a sudden she decided she made a mistake, she'd give it a try and she took me away from my parents who were wonderful.
Granted yes, I am an adult, with 2 daughters of my own, but this subject is a real sore one with me.

 

[RadioNate]

Not to start a big arguement, but my comments and feelings was coming from being an adoptee. Yes, saying not giving "two hoots" was harsh, and yes she could of aborted me. The way I was looking at it though was in a case like with my birthmother were she was very poor and knew she couldn't take care of me, then what if all of a sudden she decided she made a mistake, she'd give it a try and she took me away from my parents who were wonderful.
Granted yes, I am an adult, with 2 daughters of my own, but this subject is a real sore one with me.

Try looking at it as your birth mother couldn't give you everything she thought you deserved so she gave you to people who could. She cared enough to make sure you had the best life possible.

I know a lot of adoptees who feel like you do, and have self esteem issues because of it, which I why I think it is so important that we try to paint birth parents in the best light possible.

The overwhelming majorty have put their child's interests first.

In the case of Evan Scott and the one in Michigan so many years ago that I can't remember the girls name, petitions were filed when the child was very young by the birth fathers who DIDN'T agree to the adoption.

I agree that laws need to put the interests of the child first and that is something we should be working on changing.

But it is unfair to say that people who give their children up for adoption don't care about the children they are giving up.

 

[Marseeya]

Try looking at it as your birth mother couldn't give you everything she thought you deserved so she gave you to people who could. She cared enough to make sure you had the best life possible.

I know a lot of adoptees who feel like you do, and have self esteem issues because of it, which I why I think it is so important that we try to paint birth parents in the best light possible.

In the case of Evan Scott and the one in Michigan so many years ago that I can't remember the girls name, petitions were filed when the child was very young by the birth fathers who DIDN'T agree to the adoption.

Why do you think we need to paint an unrealistic picture of birth mothers' motives? It's not always the case that they give up their children for unselfish reasons. Many do, yes, but not all. My birth mother wasn't being unselfish in the least when she gave me up.

Regarding Evan Scott, I think his birth father gave up all rights to his son when he pushed his pregnant girlfriend through a window. But that's just me. It's obvious the judge saw that differently.

 

[RadioNate]

you know what I don't want to debate it. I just thought it was unfair to characterize birth parents as uncaring people who wanted to throw away their children.

Regarding Evan Scott, I think his birth father gave up all rights to his son when he pushed his pregnant girlfriend through a window. But that's just me. It's obvious the judge saw that differently.

I agree I don't think he should have rights and I said that I thought we should work toward better laws that put the childs rights about the birth families rights. But legally he did have rights that he didn't give up making the adoption less than iron clad.

I'm not adopted and haven't given up a child but we are seriously considering adopting a child. I guess I don't see what is wrong with letting that child believe that they were so loved that they were placed with someone who could give them a 'better' life. Obviously I'm wrong in feeling like maybe we should emphisize the positive and maybe I should spend way more time thinking about wether or not we should even be considering adoption.

 

[ZachnElli]

It depends on the state. I know of two cases where the birth mother got the infant back. Both infants were about 1 year old. This is what has fueled the popularity of international adoptions.

How long ago was that? Laws are changing and for the better. These cases are what are getting the laws changed. Many states have updated their laws since 2000 and later.