Posted on 12/04/2012 12:24:52 PM PST by Slings and Arrows
A Texas man is battling for custody of his first-born daughter after his wife successfully gave her up for adoption without telling him - to a family who now refuses to return the girl.
Terry Achane, 31, a drill instructor in South Carolina, says it was just days after he left his pregnant wife for his new job out of state that she quietly signed over their unborn baby to a family of seven in Utah.
His newborn baby, whom he had wanted to name Teleah, was given to Jared and Kristi Frei, who now say the girl is theirs and won't give her back without a fight.
Mr Achane says that he and his wife, Tira Bland, were having marital problems not long after learning she was pregnant in 2010, leading to her decision and his now spiraling struggle today despite a judge ordering the girl returned to him last October.
The now ex-husband says Ms Bland had suggested having an abortion or giving their child up for adoption - fearing she would end up as a single mother - but he said no, encouraging their daughter's birth.
It was just months later in February of 2011 that Mr Achane found himself sent to Fort Jackson in South Carolina for work, believing he’d leave and come back a new dad.
Ten days after his move, however, his wife went gave birth to a premature baby and signed away their child before cutting all contact with her husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Family courts in this country are just completely out of control.
Does he have to pay them Child Support?
Hmm, I know for a fact that in Texas both the biological mother, the biological father, the legally married husband, and the legally married wife all need to legally sign away their rights to the child. The mother can’t do it on her own.
21 months the baby has bonded with the new parents. He needs to move on, it really is sad, but the damage of taking a little one away from the bonded parents is very devastating... The child´s rights at this time are greater than the sire´s right.
Another version here:
The judge had some rather harsh words for the ex-wife, agency, and adoptive parents.
This is the purpose of redefining marriage to include queers: so children become nothing more than chattel to satisfy the "needs" of adults.
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
Article goes into more detail.
Achane!? Bland!? Married!?
NOT making much sense here. I thought when people got married the husbands name was now the wifes as well.
Curious.
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
These Frei people do not look very good, if this article is at all accurate.
Pardon the multiple postings.
Doesn’t it seem like the U.K. press is breaking a lot of interesting stories the U.S. press is not? It was true during the campaign as well.
If the poor little girl was given a sensible name by the adoptive parents, can she keep it?
So a couple who defrauded the father and contumaciously ignored the court’s order has thereby bestowed new rights upon the child? Hardly.
Why the hell doesn’t our media pick these stories up? Something is rotten here, and it ain’t even partisan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.