[rovenstinez]

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.

[Mr. Lucky]

So a couple who defrauded the father and contumaciously ignored the court’s order has thereby bestowed new rights upon the child? Hardly.

[wideawake]

the damage of taking a little one away from the bonded parents is very devastating

That's life.

Stockholm Syndrome is not an enduring basis for family law.

[svcw]

What the hell?
She is not even two, he is the father and the child is hers.

[WVKayaker]

The child´s rights at this time are greater than the sire´s right.

What the hell are you thinking? That child HAS NO RIGHTS, unless her FATHER signs them away. Children are not chattel, but they do belong to the birth parents, EXCEPT IN A SOCIALIST STATE. WE ARE CLOSE, BUT NOT THERE YET. Mayby you need to go stand in a corner and think about it.

At 21 months, the baby may cry for a couple of days, or may not. At 21 months, she is still a toddler, depending on someone to clean her crap. She will be happier in the long run, WITH HER FATHER. It will make an interesting story, but she will KNOW how much she is loved! **

UPDATE:

A South Carolina man whose wife put their baby up for adoption without his knowledge or consent will be reunited with his daughter after a nearly two-year legal battle, a Utah court ruled.

A Provo judge ruled he was “astonished and deeply troubled" by an adoption agency’s deliberate efforts to circumvent the legal rights of father Terry Achane, who was serving as an Army drill instructor when his child was adopted without his knowledge. -click pic to read full article

[longtermmemmory]

21 months?

that is nonsense.

The court returned custody, the ex did adoption fraud. The father is known, and so he gets the child. The case law supports a pro-active father.

The delay caused by adoptive parents is a legal tactic to prevent the inevitable via nusance.

The law is on the father’s side on this one.

[bramps]

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.

---

...even if the adoptive parents are prima facie rotten? Also, do you have an actual example of such a thing happening and bad repercussions on the child (by being returned to her father)?

[moovova]

“He needs to move on...”

You would abandon your child?

[Jedidah]

You fail to take into account that these “bonded parents” are keeping a child from the biological father who wanted her even before she was born, who kept the mother from aborting her, and who has jumped through hoops to get custody and raise her.

Not so sure the little girl is better off with such people. who already have a houseful of kids.

My vote is with Dad.

[Responsibility2nd]

I see there were lots of replies to your ignorant post. Here’s mine

And none of them are in support of you. I didn’t check to see if - by now - you backed off that dumb remark. But unless you are stuck on stupid - I’m sure you have.

[frnewsjunkie]

The damage was done with the illegal adoption. It’s easy for someone else to say “move on”. That little girl has a father who wants her and she needs to be with him.

[Chainmail]

"The child´s rights at this time are greater than the sire´s right"

Horsehockey! He's the child's father not a "sire". You aren't a parent, are you?

[SeaHawkFan]

Hi, Kristi.

[SoldierDad]

By your thought processes, children placed in foster care at birth and spend the first year and a half or longer in the care of a guardian must be adopted by that guardian, or suffer dire consequences. Or, children placed in foster care in the first three to five years of life, and who move from one foster-care home to another WILL face dire consequences. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that supports your contention.

[GeronL]

“the childs rights”

to stay with the kidnappers?? (as far as I am concerned)

you seriously think the child would make a conscient choice to stay with non-family?

[DBeers]

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.

Parental rights are inalienable and removing them ALWAYS exceptional and only through due process.

WOW. You better do some soul searching and get your house in order because you have been duped by leftist propaganda.