Skip to comments.US married father's horror after wife places his child with an adopted family without telling him
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 hed 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 ...
Stockholm Syndrome is not an enduring basis for family law.
My guesses as to why:
1. The US has four times the population of the UK; i.e., four times the news, all things being equal.
2. It’s safer for UK papers to report on US events - UK libel laws are very biased in favor of the plaintiff.
3. Human nature - misery is more entertaining when it’s far away.
4. The US is the world’s big dog - when we bark, everybody hears.
She was married.
The adoption is not valid.
Good luck to the father, the adoptive family is being absurd.
I am sure they love the child, but she is not theirs.
What the hell?
She is not even two, he is the father and the child is hers.
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! **
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 agencys 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
Judging by the woman’s character the bio father should request a DNA test on the child before he goes any further to be sure the child is his.
The family court got it right. The couple knew the father had not consented to the adoption as did the agency. The adoption was concealed from him by his wife and the agency. The court has ordered the child returned to her father.
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.
succinct, and to the point. I had to get wordy and seek more info... see update above
Thirty years ago when I still read three newspapers a day Russell Baker wrote a piece entitled “In Praise of Ignorant Contumely,” which was very fine and very funny.
I carried around the faded newsprint copy for some years but eventually it was lost.
Even now in the near-deathless age of google I have been unable to dig it up again. But thanks for resurrecting the term, for me at least.
How is this not kidnapping??
Wow, I learn something new on this board every day.
(1) We knew the father hadn't given permission. We were willing to accept that challenge! So reward us for parenting through challenges!
(2) We had already adopted a child of this ethnic background, and we wanted to steal another in order to have a matching set! You are going to throw off my whole family decoration scheme!
Absolutely what I would do. Women be crazy.
He will get the baby back. The marriage contract trumps all bonds and the family would be fools to fight it.
Happended to a friend who adopted, years and years ago. Sad crazy women.
lawyers for the couple adopting in these cases have only one option. delay delay delay. The longer they delay the more they can game the system. Demand fitness hearings, mediation, offer supervised visitation, offer unsupervised visitation and so on and hope the child will become aware enough to bond with the couple and learn to hate the father.
The couple, in this case, should sue the mother and the adoption agency. I am willing to bet the mother had the baby and gave it up for adoption as a vindictive passive agressive action.
(btw the court would have already ordered paternity first)
“How is this not kidnapping??”
I agree. They all knew the father wpuld object and proceeded anyway — the mother, the agency, and the adoptive parents.
He’s serving in our military and this is what happens behind his back? I think there should be chargtes too.
Maybe his wife knows something he doesn’t.
Has he done a DNA test?
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.