Skip to main content

There has been a topic on the News forum about an unwed biological father denied is rights to be an active parent and raise his child because a childless minister and his wife carried the child home from the hospital with intentions of adopting. This couple hid the adoption proceedings from the father and they knew the father wanted the child. View News Forum Postings Here

The father stepped up to the responsibilities once testing verified he was the father, but the couple purposely prevented the father-child relationship since that time. While there has been NO legal finding the father is unfit, Judge Sandlin denied the father his legal rights based on the father did not sign the Ala. Putative Registry within 30 days.

Should a man claiming to be a minister of the gospel be allowed to serve in a leadership role under these circumstances?
"The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum."
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I have read about this and feel really bad for the father. Often times fathers are really screwed over in court and I wish the best for him. If I can offer any advice it is to not give up and make sure you have a good attorney, private investigator, and expert witnesses.
His is a whole different story than mine as I fought for custody of my 3 children from my ex wife and won, even though it was in the best interest of my kids to be with me it still cost a whole lot of time and money because I had to have proof of my fitness and her unfitness whereas a woman does not need anything but to ask.
There is not anyone that should try to interfere with a father's and/or mother's relationship with their child barring abuse or neglect, much less a minister and if his church congregation is really worth their salt they will not support this behavior from him and should condemn it. What he is doing is wrong and cannot be forgiven as long as he continues such an evil deed.
Let's let the Bible speak:

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 – For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Judging is a necessary part of life in the church. These verses show the apostle Paul's judgment of the man who was openly sinning while fellowshipping with the Corinthian congregation. Paul not only judged, he judged on the basis of the testimony and judgment of others he trusted! He then disfellowshipped the man without hearing the man's own testimony! This is the same man who wrote in Romans 14, "Who are you to judge another's servant?" (verse 4) and "But why do you judge your brother?" (verse 10). He obviously strongly believed that when the spiritual and moral integrity of a congregation was threatened by blatant sin, judgment was necessary.

Romans 16:17-20 – Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ I be with you. Amen.

This scripture begins with disfellowshipping because it is a biblical means of dealing with brethren who are trying to deceive others. We often speak of disfellowshipping those who cause division. Any kind of deception will cause division. After a while, deceived people do not believe the same things as the rest, and this difference causes separation.

To answer your post question “Does Church Leadership Approve of Minister Actions.” The answer is no, the church should disfellowship from this person Biblically speaking. Many people may think he is acting in the best interest of this child, but from the looks of things, he is acting selfishly for his own personal gain. And that is sin. Not to mention taking a child from a young man that wants his child. I don’t see any good coming out of this from this man’s action. More than likely there is already division in the church and the community. The leaders of the church should have a heart to heart meeting with this man.
It is just a matter of time before the AP will have to give up this child.


In Ex Parte C.V. 2001 Alabama Supreme Court

CONCLUSIONS of the Trial court:

"Clearly, upon the evidence presented, it would amount to a violation of Baby Boy [G.'s] constitutional due process rights to remove him from the only home and only parents he has ever known solely on the basis of biology. As stated by Dr. Calvert, to remove the child from the [prospective adoptive parents'] home at this point in time would be tantamount to the psychological trauma he would experience from the death of both of his parents. The [prospective adoptive parents] have become this child's parents. To deny the child the benefit of his relationship without some substantial rational basis is a violation of his constitutional rights.


WHAT THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT SAID


A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). "`The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, ... [262 U.S. 390,] at 399 [(1923)] ..., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, ... [316 U.S. 535,] at 541 [(1942)] ..., and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 ... [(1965)] (Goldberg, J., concurring).'" Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).

Termination of Parental Rights

As a common-law state, Alabama follows the English common law that is not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of this State. � 1-3-1, Ala. Code 1975. "Proceedings to terminate parental rights were unknown at common law. In re Zink, 264 Minn. 500, 119 N.W.2d 731 (1963). Therefore, termination proceedings are purely statutory." In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights of P.A.M., 505 N.W.2d 395, 397 (S.D. 1993). See also Carroll County Dep't of Social Servs. v. Edelmann, 320 Md. 150, 577 A.2d 14 (1990); In the Matter of McDuel, 142 Mich. App. 479, 369 N.W.2d 912 (1985); Petition of Sherman, 241 Minn. 447, 63 N.W.2d 573 (1954); S.K.L. v. Smith, 480 S.W.2d 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972); D.J.A. v. Smith, 477 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972); A.E. v. State, 743 P.2d 1041 (Okla. 1987); In the Matter of Edmunds, 560 P.2d 243 (Okla. Ct. App. 1977); In re A.A., 134 Vt. 41, 349 A.2d 230 (1975); Church v. Church, 24 Va. App. 502, 483 S.E.2d 498 (1997); Willis v. Gamez, 20 Va. App. 75, 455 S.E.2d 274 (1995). Because the termination of parental rights is purely statutory, statutes governing the termination of parental rights must be strictly construed. See Ex parte Sullivan, 407 So. 2d 559, 563 (Ala. 1981).

"[T]he primary focus of a court in cases involving termination of parental rights is to protect the welfare of children and at the same time to protect the rights of their parents." Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. 1990). See � 26-18-7(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975. Termination of parental rights is a drastic measure and once done cannot be undone. "[A] court should terminate parental rights only in the most egregious of circumstances. Moreover, the age-old principle that, as against a challenge by a nonparent, a parent who is neither unfit nor guilty of forfeiting his or her parental rights is entitled to custody has been strengthened by the 1984 adoption of the Uniform Child Protection Act[, � 26-18-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975]." Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d at 952.

When a nonparent is the petitioner seeking to terminate the parental rights of a parent, the petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child is dependent, (2) one of the grounds in � 26-18-7 exists, and (3) no viable alternative to termination of the parental rights exists. Ex parte Beasley, supra. Clear and convincing evidence is

"[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt."

The prospective adoptive parents assert that the father abandoned Baby Boy G. and the birth mother by neglecting and abusing the birth mother, by failing to provide financial support to the birth mother before the birth of Baby Boy G., and by failing to provide support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. They assert also that the father's abandonment continued "for a period of six months next preceding the filing of [their adoption] petition."

The Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court further considered the father's prebirth conduct in determining Baby Boy G. to be a dependent child. In January 1997, the Alabama Legislature had not enacted a statute requiring a putative father to support his unborn child and authorizing Alabama courts to consider the putative father's prebirth support or lack thereof in determining whether the father had abandoned his child.(1) At that time, a putative father owed no duty of support to a child until his paternity of the child had been established. Ex parte State of California, 669 So. 2d 884 (Ala. 1995). See Keener v. State, 347 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1977), Upton v. State, 255 Ala. 594, 52 So. 2d 824 (1951), and Law v. State, 238 Ala. 428, 191 So. 803 (1939). Therefore, the father did not owe a duty to support Baby Boy G. until the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court established his paternity as to Baby Boy G., when that court simultaneously terminated his parental rights! Noteworthily, the November 27, 1996, emergency temporary custody order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court in favor of the father was interlocutory only, and never final.

Moreover, because the prospective adoptive parents shielded their identity in the various Florida court proceedings, the father did not learn where Baby Boy G. lived or who had physical custody of Baby Boy G. until January 1997, when the prospective adoptive parents dropped their shield of anonymity and petitioned the Tuscaloosa County courts to terminate the father's parental rights and to grant their adoption of Baby Boy G. To penalize the father for not providing support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. while the prospective adoptive parents were hiding their identities and address and were hiding Baby Boy G. himself would violate the spirit of the "clean hands" doctrine. J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999) ("The purpose of the clean hands doctrine is to prevent a party from asserting his, her, or its rights under the law when the party's own wrongful conduct renders the assertion of such legal rights `contrary to equity and good conscience.'" (quoting Draughon v. General Finance Credit Corp., 362 So. 2d 880, 884 (Ala. 1978))). To penalize the father for failing to contribute to the prospective adoptive parents after they revealed themselves and Baby Boy G. but while they did their utmost to deny and to terminate the father's parental rights would be equally unfair.

Additionally, once prospective adoptive parents have received an adoptee into their home and have filed a petition for adoption, a court "shall [enter an interlocutory order] delegating to the [prospective adoptive parents] (1) custody, except custody shall be retained by ... the licensed child placing agency which held custody at the time of the placement until the entry of the final decree and (2) the responsibility for the care, maintenance, and support of the adoptee, including any necessary medical or surgical treatment, pending further order of the court." � 26-10A-18. Therefore, once the prospective adoptive parents petitioned to adopt Baby Boy G. they assumed responsibility for his care and support, and, thus, relieved the father of any duty of support. Finally, while the father' prebirth conduct toward the birth mother and his alleged lack of financial support for the birth mother could be relevant to the father's fitness as a parent, the prospective adoptive parents did not allege, and the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court did not find, the father to be unfit. Therefore, the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court's finding of dependency is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Because the prospective adoptive parents failed to prove dependency and any statutory ground for termination of parental rights, we do not address the issue whether there were any viable alternatives to termination.

Implied Consent to Adoption

"`Adoption is not merely an arrangement between the natural parents and adoptive parents, but is a status created by the state acting as parens patriae, the sovereign parent. Because the exercise of sovereign power involved in adoption curtails the fundamental rights of the natural parent[s], the adoption statutes must be closely adhered to.'" Ex parte Sullivan, 407 So. 2d 559, 563 (Ala. 1981) (quoting Davis v. Turner, 337 So. 2d 355, 360-61 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976)). "Adoption is strictly statutory .... Being unknown at common law, it cannot be achieved by contract ...." Id.

The prospective adoptive parents assert that the father impliedly consented to the adoption of Baby Boy G. by emotionally and financially abandoning the birth mother before the birth of Baby Boy G. While the father's prebirth conduct towards the birth mother and his alleged lack of financial support for the birth mother could be relevant to a determination of his fitness as a parent, the father's prebirth conduct towards the birth mother was not relevant to determining whether the father abandoned Baby Boy G. �26-10A-2(1), Ala. Code 1975. The definition of the term "abandonment" in the Alabama Adoption Code, � 26-10A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, differs from the definition in the 1984 Alabama Child Protection Act, � 26-18-3(1). Section 26-10A-2(1) in the Alabama Adoption Code


Accordingly, the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court erred in terminating the father's parental rights and in awarding custody of Baby Boy G. to the prospective adoptive parents, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court, and we reverse its judgment. Because the evidence in this case does not tend to prove any of Alabama's applicable statutory criteria for terminating the father's parental rights, judgment is rendered in favor of the father. Because of the nature of this appeal and because of the length of time custody of Baby Boy G. has been at issue, we remand this cause directly to the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court to order the prospective adoptive parents to surrender Baby Boy G. to the father within 14 days following our issuance of our certificate of judgment.

Read the entire case Ex Parte C.V. in Ala Supreme Court Adoption Case


DC AND E2 What do you have to say?
quote:
DC AND E2 What do you have to say?



The case you give goes back to 1997. What year was the putative fathers registry enacted into law? That is going to be critical, because, the putative registry sets the actual time frame for determining the time allowable for determining abandonment.

There is no mention in your case cited of a putative fathers registry. If there was no registry in 1997, the case you quote will not apply.
Well, the entire document is listed on the News forum. Regardless what about the clean hands doctrine? The minister couple are only doing wrong by this child and father. ONLY a matter of time!

To penalize the father for not providing support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. while the prospective adoptive parents were hiding their identities and address and were hiding Baby Boy G. himself would violate the spirit of the "clean hands" doctrine. J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999) ("The purpose of the clean hands doctrine is to prevent a party from asserting his, her, or its rights under the law when the party's own wrongful conduct renders the assertion of such legal rights `contrary to equity and good conscience.'" (quoting Draughon v. General Finance Credit Corp., 362 So. 2d 880, 884 (Ala. 1978))). To penalize the father for failing to contribute to the prospective adoptive parents after they revealed themselves and Baby Boy G. but while they did their utmost to deny and to terminate the father's parental rights would be equally unfair.[/quote]

A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). "`The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, ... [262 U.S. 390,] at 399 [(1923)] ..., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, ... [316 U.S. 535,] at 541 [(1942)] ..., and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 ... [(1965)] (Goldberg, J., concurring).'" Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).
quote:
Well, the entire document is listed on the News forum. Regardless what about the clean hands doctrine? The minister couple are only doing wrong by this child and father. ONLY a matter of time!



I would say the clean hands doctrine does not apply here. This biological Father did not begin to establish paternity until 45 days after the birth. Well after to 30 days required under the putative father registry. He did not sign the registry for 4 to 6 months afterward.

He, according to you, was allowed to see his child until he got a lawyer and sued for custody.

Once again, his failure to protect his intersts legally takes him beyond the 30 day window of when he could protect his rights.
The adoptive parents did not keep him from establishing peternity within the 30 days required by law, HE DID THAT ON HIS OWN ACCORD.
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). "`The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, ... [262 U.S. 390,] at 399 [(1923)] ..., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, ... [316 U.S. 535,] at 541 [(1942)] ..., and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 ... [(1965)] (Goldberg, J., concurring).'" Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). "`The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, ... [262 U.S. 390,] at 399 [(1923)] ..., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, ... [316 U.S. 535,] at 541 [(1942)] ..., and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 ... [(1965)] (Goldberg, J., concurring).'" Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).


Nurture,
What myself and others have tried to make plain to you is that the STATE has a compelling right and interest in cases where children are born out of wedlock. It is the STATE who has to pay Medicaid, the STATE has to pay fostercare, the STATE has to decide what is best for children.

It is not in the INTEREST of the STATE for adoption processes to be cloudy, incoherent, and otherwise dysfunctional becuase it runs off potential Adoptive Parents. If the process is not condusive to adoption, the STATE gets saddled with the cost of caring for these children. Therefore it is the STATE who sets guidelines as to the acceptable time to conclude that fathers have abandoned or otherwise show no interest in the welfare of their children. The STATE has set 30 days as the guidline for unwed fathers to step up and assume their responsibility.

Your young man waited 4 to six months to step up to his responsibility. In the interest of the STATE, someone had to feed, clothe, and care for this child. Six months without care and THE CHILD IS DEAD. The STATE has made a decision, good luck on getting it overturned.
The father stepped as soon as it was clear he was the father, yet the AP have prevented his parent-child relationship. You have no proof the State has been responsible for costs of anything in this particular matter other than they have denied the father-child relationship.

Unclean hands and denial of fundamental parental rights.

Yep, that's what the law says.

This is a given with most people.


To penalize the father for not providing support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. while the prospective adoptive parents were hiding their identities and address and were hiding Baby Boy G. himself would violate the spirit of the "clean hands" doctrine. J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999) ("The purpose of the clean hands doctrine is to prevent a party from asserting his, her, or its rights under the law when the party's own wrongful conduct renders the assertion of such legal rights `contrary to equity and good conscience.'" (quoting Draughon v. General Finance Credit Corp., 362 So. 2d 880, 884 (Ala. 1978))). To penalize the father for failing to contribute to the prospective adoptive parents after they revealed themselves and Baby Boy G. but while they did their utmost to deny and to terminate the father's parental rights would be equally unfair.[/quote]
quote:
To penalize the father for not providing support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. while the prospective adoptive parents were hiding their identities and address and were hiding Baby Boy G. himself would violate the spirit of the "clean hands" doctrine. J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999)



These people never hid their identity, in fact, they allowed the bf to see the child.

Again, you don't have much of an argument. Your bf was not willing to fight for his child until the process of elimination eliminated everyone but him. Then and only then did he purue paternity, after the state staute on the legal time frame had expired. (30 days)
quote:
To penalize the father for failing to contribute to the prospective adoptive parents after they revealed themselves and Baby Boy G. but while they did their utmost to deny and to terminate the father's parental rights would be equally unfair.


A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1981). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). "`The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, ... [262 U.S. 390,] at 399 [(1923)] ..., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, ... [316 U.S. 535,] at 541 [(1942)] ..., and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 ... [(1965)] (Goldberg, J., concurring).'" Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).

Make your argument if you want, but this is what the Alabama Supreme Court said.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
To penalize the father for not providing support to the prospective adoptive parents for Baby Boy G. while the prospective adoptive parents were hiding their identities and address and were hiding Baby Boy G. himself would violate the spirit of the "clean hands" doctrine. J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999)



These people never hid their identity, in fact, they allowed the bf to see the child.

Again, you don't have much of an argument. Your bf was not willing to fight for his child until the process of elimination eliminated everyone but him. Then and only then did he purue paternity, after the state staute on the legal time frame had expired. (30 days)


I would like to see debates that answers the post on this forum. Let me ask you, E260, if this was your child, would you still have the same argument?
People can argue all day about what the law states. To me this is more a moral issue to do what is right and what is wrong. Yes the two teenagers had sex. They were both wrong, but they are forgiven. Do you know the story of the Samaritan woman at the well with Jesus? (read it: Mark 4) So at this point that is forgotten and forgiven. What has became of this immoral act was a precious little boy. Who is entitled to raise this child? The laws of the court are not always right as history has proven over and over again. So, I throw those laws out and base my decision on what God deems to morally right. People want to hold the BF accountable for not stepping up fast enough. They ignore the fact that he did and has done proven over and over to be a fit parent. People want to praise the AP for taking this child in but ignore the fact they have kept this child from the BF and/or anyone stepping up to be the father. The AP have hid the child from everyone that wants to love him, even their own family. The AP has to take responsibility also. They KNEW that the father was one of three boys and they should be held accountable for not doing the right thing. The right thing to do was contact each of the three potential fathers and talked to them about adopting the child. They chose not to do this. Instead, they fought two of the boys stepping up and starting the adoption process before the child was born and while the two boys were waiting on DNA test. Again, they started the adoption process while two boys were fighting for their rights as the father. How did the AP get custody and adoption proceedings started the day the child was born while two boys were claiming to be the father. An assistant pastor is to be a man of God that shows the example of Jesus. You have to ask yourself, would Jesus keep this child from his biological father? Some have used scripture about that we should be a father to the fatherless, but in this case, this child was not and never has been fatherless. The BF has not been ruled unfit by the courts and has shown to the community that he is and wants to be the father. I leave you with this question, what criteria can you use to justify a couple actions of keeping a child from his father, other than abuse? Morally speaking? I know some will use the PFR, if didn’t exist, the BF would be with his child.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
If you go to the original thread -- there are debates for 30+ pages...it's been beaten and killed over and over...nothing new to say about it...we'll see what the court decides and hopefully they will make the right decision for the child...


Agreed Dixie.


True. There is really nothing else to say except let the courts decide and hope and pray they make the right decision.
quote:
Originally posted by George:
People can argue all day about what the law states. To me this is more a moral issue to do what is right and what is wrong. Yes the two teenagers had sex. They were both wrong, but they are forgiven. Do you know the story of the Samaritan woman at the well with Jesus? (read it: Mark 4) So at this point that is forgotten and forgiven. What has became of this immoral act was a precious little boy. Who is entitled to raise this child? The laws of the court are not always right as history has proven over and over again. So, I throw those laws out and base my decision on what God deems to morally right. People want to hold the BF accountable for not stepping up fast enough. They ignore the fact that he did and has done proven over and over to be a fit parent. People want to praise the AP for taking this child in but ignore the fact they have kept this child from the BF and/or anyone stepping up to be the father. The AP have hid the child from everyone that wants to love him, even their own family. The AP has to take responsibility also. They KNEW that the father was one of three boys and they should be held accountable for not doing the right thing. The right thing to do was contact each of the three potential fathers and talked to them about adopting the child. They chose not to do this. Instead, they fought two of the boys stepping up and starting the adoption process before the child was born and while the two boys were waiting on DNA test. Again, they started the adoption process while two boys were fighting for their rights as the father. How did the AP get custody and adoption proceedings started the day the child was born while two boys were claiming to be the father. An assistant pastor is to be a man of God that shows the example of Jesus. You have to ask yourself, would Jesus keep this child from his biological father? Some have used scripture about that we should be a father to the fatherless, but in this case, this child was not and never has been fatherless. The BF has not been ruled unfit by the courts and has shown to the community that he is and wants to be the father. I leave you with this question, what criteria can you use to justify a couple actions of keeping a child from his father, other than abuse? Morally speaking? I know some will use the PFR, if didn’t exist, the BF would be with his child.


Gearge,
There are quite a few inconsistencies between your statements and the statements of those who say they know the father and are close to the case.

Your young man was not kept from establishing paternity, he chose not to until the statue had expired. The child was not kept from him, but he had visitation with the child, only after he decided to fight custody did his access get restricted, after the legal time for his paternity rights had expired.

You bring up the fact that the Foster parents somehow wronged the other two boys by fighting their paternity, but as it turned out, they were not the fathers, so your point is mute, they had no legal claim. But on the other hand, your young man knew he could be the father and did nothing to establish paternity. When the AP found out he was the father they didn't fight him at all, untill he decided to turn it ugly.

Let's keep the facts straight here and not go strictly on emeotion.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Gearge,
There are quite a few inconsistencies between your statements and the statements of those who say they know the father and are close to the case.

Your young man was not kept from establishing paternity, he chose not to until the statue had expired. The child was not kept from him, but he had visitation with the child, only after he decided to fight custody did his access get restricted, after the legal time for his paternity rights had expired.

You bring up the fact that the Foster parents somehow wronged the other two boys by fighting their paternity, but as it turned out, they were not the fathers, so your point is mute, they had no legal claim. But on the other hand, your young man knew he could be the father and did nothing to establish paternity. When the AP found out he was the father they didn't fight him at all, untill he decided to turn it ugly.

Let's keep the facts straight here and not go strictly on emeotion.


I think I have the facts straight. I'm a member of one of the families involved and it's not the family you may think. I know more than you could ever possible know. How did the BF turn it ugly? He wanted to raise his son, that's it. I don't agree with how the AP handled this situation. And yes they did keep his son away from him with the exception of 6 times, that he had to beg for. Keeping a child away from a father is morally wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by George:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Gearge,
There are quite a few inconsistencies between your statements and the statements of those who say they know the father and are close to the case.

Your young man was not kept from establishing paternity, he chose not to until the statue had expired. The child was not kept from him, but he had visitation with the child, only after he decided to fight custody did his access get restricted, after the legal time for his paternity rights had expired.

You bring up the fact that the Foster parents somehow wronged the other two boys by fighting their paternity, but as it turned out, they were not the fathers, so your point is mute, they had no legal claim. But on the other hand, your young man knew he could be the father and did nothing to establish paternity. When the AP found out he was the father they didn't fight him at all, untill he decided to turn it ugly.

Let's keep the facts straight here and not go strictly on emeotion.


I think I have the facts straight. I'm a member of one of the families involved and it's not the family you may think. I know more than you could ever possible know. How did the BF turn it ugly? He wanted to raise his son, that's it. I don't agree with how the AP handled this situation. And yes they did keep his son away from him with the exception of 6 times, that he had to beg for. Keeping a child away from a father is morally wrong.


According to posters on here, the BF did not want to get custody of his child until he had a "mystic moment" when he held his child for the first time. this was in the home of the AP. The adoption process was already underway.

When you wait over 45 days to step up to your responsibility, someone else may take your place.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:

According to posters on here, the BF did not want to get custody of his child until he had a "mystic moment" when he held his child for the first time. this was in the home of the AP. The adoption process was already underway.

When you wait over 45 days to step up to your responsibility, someone else may take your place.


I do know that the BF wanted his son before he got to see him. That is the reason he got to see him. He wanted his son the minute he found out he was the father. I have seen that you made light of the "mystic moment" like it is a gibberish. I will tell you that when you hold your child for the first time, it is a moment that you will never forget. If you are a parent, you should know this and not make fun of that fact.

BTW, it wasn't 45 days for him to step up. A lot of things had to take place before he could take responsibility. How long do you think a DNA test takes? Actually if you want to get technical about it. The other two boys DNA tests came back 3 weeks after child was born, at this time the BF stepped up. By the time he got his DNA tests back and communicated with the AP, time had pasted. I'll say it again, the BF wanted his child as soon as he knew he was the father. And while all this was going on the AP had started the adoption process without telling the BF. he found out by an ad in the newspaper. The AP did say they considered adopting with his consent, but went behind his back and started the adoption process. this is when he got legal counsel and stopped the adoption.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
The other two boys DNA tests came back 3 weeks after child was born, at this time the BF stepped up. By the time he got his DNA tests back and communicated with the AP, time had pasted.



According to those who posted on here who knew the BF, his DNA test was a home test.


Home DNA test is not like a pragnancy test, you don't know the results immediately. You have to swab parties involved and send back for the results. Takes about 3 weeks.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×