Today's Dr. Phil, "Forced Adoption" ?

[DawnCt1]

Sorry, I only saw the first 15 minutes of this show and had to leave but the content disturbed me. Apparently a single woman underwent invitro fertilization to fullfill her dream of being a mother. She conceived twins. During her pregnancy she was extremely ill and hospitalized with hyperemesis gravidarum, a serious and potentially life threatening complication of pregnancy. She delivered the twins at some point by c-section but was so dibilitated that she allowed herself to be coerced by a former boyfriend into putting the infants up for adoption. In the lawyer's office she signed a paper and realizing what she had done, demanded it back. The demand was refused and she called 911 from the lawyers office asking for help. It seems that since that point she has been fighting for the return of her children and fled to Canada for five days during a visitation. She is now in jail for fleeing. I hope I have this right so far. Anyway, here is the debate; While I fully support adoptive parents as the just and legal guardian, shouldn't there at least be a point of retraction where a depressed, ill mother can say, "wait a minute, I just made the mistake of my life time". It sounds like she came to that realization in a few moments. How was this allowed to proceed to the point that it did. Anyone know?

 

[singingpixie]

I would think there would be a way for her to be proved medically incompetant to make that decision at the time she signed away her rights... that would make sense at me. How awful for her (and the adoptive parents too!)

 

[MosMom]

I thought most states had a time period for a birth mom to change her mind? Does the state she live in not offer that? Isn't that one of the "stings" of American adoption? That a birth mother can change her mind after you've already adopted the child.

 

[mickeyboat]

Revocation of Consent

Adoption is meant to create a permanent and stable home for a child; therefore, a validly executed relinquishment and consent to adopt is intended to be final and irrevocable. As a result, the right of a birth parent to revoke consent is strictly limited. Mississippi, Nebraska, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands make no provisions in statute for revocation of consent, and Massachusetts and Utah specifically require that all consents are irrevocable.

In most States, the law provides that consent may be revoked prior to the entry of the final adoption decree under specific circumstances or within specified time limits. The circumstances under which withdrawal of consent may be permitted by a State can include:

Consent was obtained by fraud, duress, or coercion.23
The birth parent is allowed to withdraw consent within a specified period of time, after which consent becomes irrevocable.24
The birth parent is allowed to withdraw consent within a specified period of time, after which consent becomes irrevocable unless there is evidence of fraud or duress.25
The birth parent is allowed to withdraw consent within a specified period of time, after which consent becomes irrevocable unless it can be shown that revocation is in the best interests of child.26
There is a finding that withdrawal of consent is in the best interests of the child.27
The birth parents and adoptive parents mutually agree to the withdrawal of consent.28
An adoptive placement is not finalized with a specific family or within a specified period of time.29
Consent becomes final and irrevocable once the court issues a final decree of adoption

I copied this, and now I can't find the link - but several other articles I read say basically the same thing. I am also guessing that most birthparents are counseled as to this fact during the waiting periods.

While I feel really sorry for this mother, she really needs to be able to show fraud or duress to be able to revoke her consent.

 

[inaminute]

Apparently, she was able to get the papers back when she called 911. She then went back a couple of days later and signed the papers. She then changed her mind again.

I thought they said there was, legally, a window for her to change her mind, but it was pretty much ignored. Her parental rights were never terminated, either.

Based on the information provided, I do believe this woman was coerced into giving up her children. The ex-boyfriend/friend/whatever introduced her to the potential adoptive parents. She was very ill, and barely able to care for herself, much less two babies.

I wish there had been someone on the show to present the other side. It's hard to make an informed opinion without the whole story. So far, based on what I've heard so far, I'm on the mother's side.

 

[mickeyboat]

I thought most states had a time period for a birth mom to change her mind? Does the state she live in not offer that? Isn't that one of the "stings" of American adoption? That a birth mother can change her mind after you've already adopted the child.

Almost every state has a waiting period from the time you make your decision until the time you give consent. But once the consent is give, there is little room to revoke it.

 

[DawnCt1]

Apparently, she was able to get the papers back when she called 911. She then went back a couple of days later and signed the papers. She then changed her mind again.

I thought they said there was, legally, a window for her to change her mind, but it was pretty much ignored. Her parental rights were never terminated, either.

Based on the information provided, I do believe this woman was coerced into giving up her children. The ex-boyfriend/friend/whatever introduced her to the potential adoptive parents. She was very ill, and barely able to care for herself, much less two babies.

I wish there had been someone on the show to present the other side. It's hard to make an informed opinion without the whole story. So far, based on what I've heard so far, I'm on the mother's side.

That was my opinion too. I will check to see if the DVR recorded it. I was at the health club at the time it aired and saw only the first part of it there.

 

[kdibattista]

At what point should that be? 24 hours? 3 days? 4 weeks? 2 years?

No, once the relinquishment period is up then there is no going back... and people always ask us why we aren't adopting domestically

ETA: I didn't mean for my post to sound cold hearted and rereading it, it may come across that way. I have sympathy for the biological mother... for ALL biological mothers. I cannot begin to imagine the heartache associated with placing a child for adoption. If I were in this situation, I don't think, as the adoptive parents, I would procede knowing the biological mother is having issues. I also don't know all the cicumstances dealing with this case. I do not dispute the fact that preplacement counseling is lacking (as far as I can see) and maybe that is where we need to rally for change. It's obvious that she was not counseled properly and while I do understand the legalities of her being under "duress" or "incompetent" I don't see how we can proceed with domestic adoptions giving the birthmother's any sort of room to recind after the law mandated waiting period because then where do we draw the line.

We must consider what is in the best interest of the child... not the biological mother and not the adoptive parents.

 

[ZachnElli]

Dr. Phil hasn't aired here yet. So she says she was forced to sign the papers, then called 911 and got the papers back, then she changed her mind and signed the papers terminating her parental rights, then changed her mind again and wants the babies back? Is this right? How many times do you think she should be allowed to change her mind? And in what time frame did this all take place?
When Noah's birthmom was suppose to sign the papers, a nurse had given her more pain killers (still in hospital after giving birth) and we had to wait until those had worn off before she was allowed to sign them. She had another 30 days, but would have to prove why the adoption shouldn't go through. Once 30 days hits a judge signs the papers that officially terminates parental rights, there is no going back. Every state is different though.

 

[Makdyn]

I thought most states had a time period for a birth mom to change her mind? Does the state she live in not offer that? Isn't that one of the "stings" of American adoption? That a birth mother can change her mind after you've already adopted the child.

I though this too.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

I'm not understanding the case.

She had IVF? So, it wasn't like getting pregnant was an accident. I would imagine she wanted the children.

I also don't understand why she would change her mind not once, but twice about going through with the adoption.

 

[Laura]

In my state, once you sign the papers, unless you weren't aware of your actions (drugged, drunk, etc), that's it. Birth parents get 72 hours after birth before the papers can be signed; it can't be any sooner.

Sounds like this woman may have been coerced, but she would need to prove that she did not willingly sign those papers and/or did not understand what they meant. I think she's out of luck.

But in this situation, the prospective adoptive parents should have been informed about what was going on. I don't think I'd be adopting children from that birthmother. Getting IVF, then changing her mind about signing her parental rights away--just sounds like she'd be trouble down the road as a birth mother.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm not understanding the case.

She had IVF? So, it wasn't like getting pregnant was an accident. I would imagine she wanted the children.

I also don't understand why she would change her mind not once, but twice about going through with the adoption.

I agree. Nothing against the OP, but the whole story sounds a little off...maybe a better explanation of the circumstances are in order.

That being said, I can imagine an adoption being revocable. It would kill the legal adoption industry and would probably force it underground.

 

[MushyMushy]

I've read quite a few heartbreaking stories of forced adoptions. It's so sad all around, for the birth mothers, the adoptive parents, and the children involved.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm not understanding the case.

She had IVF? So, it wasn't like getting pregnant was an accident. I would imagine she wanted the children.

I also don't understand why she would change her mind not once, but twice about going through with the adoption.

In the 15 minutes that I was able to view, it sounded like her entire pregnancy was difficult. She was hospitalized with hyperemesis gravidarum, she had a c-section, she had no support systems and she had a boyfriend convincing her that she was incapable of taking care of herself, let along infants. She obviously was thrown to the wolves by her boyfriend with little time to take stock of the situation. I am usually ALWAYS sympathetic with adoptive parents, but in the short segment I saw, I found her situation extremely compelling. I will watch the rest later, if its on my dvr.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

That makes a little more sense.

It sounds like she has "issues" though and perhaps the children are better off with another family. I only say that, because she seems to allow herself to be manipulated, although I suppose she could have been suffering from PPD. I would have to hear more though.

It is a sad case and I feel for all involved.

 

[DawnCt1]

That makes a little more sense.

It sounds like she has "issues" though and perhaps the children are better off with another family. I only say that, because she seems to allow herself to be manipulated, although I suppose she could have been suffering from PPD. I would have to hear more though.

It is a sad case and I feel for all involved.

Her issues however sounds like they were temporary and as a result of poor, physical health. Families endure illness and hardship frequently but we don't remove their children because the family down the street might be a better situation. I might have been better adjusted if I had grown up with the Hearst family and lived in the mansion but I got to stay with my lower middle class, loving parents.

 

[goofygirl]

Apparently, she was able to get the papers back when she called 911. She then went back a couple of days later and signed the papers. She then changed her mind again.

I thought they said there was, legally, a window for her to change her mind, but it was pretty much ignored. Her parental rights were never terminated, either.

Based on the information provided, I do believe this woman was coerced into giving up her children. The ex-boyfriend/friend/whatever introduced her to the potential adoptive parents. She was very ill, and barely able to care for herself, much less two babies.

I wish there had been someone on the show to present the other side. It's hard to make an informed opinion without the whole story. So far, based on what I've heard so far, I'm on the mother's side.

So the ex BF is the father of the twins- I assume so, anyway. I would think he would assume custody if the mother was too ill to care for them. He's pretty quick to give them away. Why the heck did he conceive babies (and see her go through the trouble of IVF)with her in the first place if he didn't want to be a parent? And why would she choose to procreate with a man like this? I don't understand the logic here.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

So the ex BF is the father of the twins- I assume so, anyway. I would think he would assume custody if the mother was too ill to care for them. He's pretty quick to give them away. Why the heck did he conceive babies (and see her go through the trouble of IVF)with her in the first place if he didn't want to be a parent? And why would she choose to procreate with a man like this? I don't understand the logic here.

Maybe he isn't the father and she used a donor? That would explain why he wanted her to given them up.

 

[kdibattista]

Her issues however sounds like they were temporary and as a result of poor, physical health. Families endure illness and hardship frequently but we don't remove their children because the family down the street might be a better situation. I might have been better adjusted if I had grown up with the Hearst family and lived in the mansion but I got to stay with my lower middle class, loving parents.

If your mother had consented to giving you up for adoption, changed her mind, changed it back, changed it again and then kidnapped you back and took you across country away from the only home you knew... yeah, I think you would be better off with "the Hearst family living in a mansion".