Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(3-year old) Adopted Boy Sent Back to Biological Mom
Associated Press ^ | December 24, 2004, 11:32 AM EST

Posted on 12/24/2004 10:05:06 AM PST by Peace4EarthNow

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A couple must return a 3-year-old boy they adopted shortly after birth to his biological mother, a judge has ruled.

Evan Parker Scott has lived with Dawn and Gene Scott for most of his life, but the adoption petition was dismissed because the boy's biological mother did not get consent from the father.

Judge Waddell Wallace III last week ordered the Scotts to take the child to a naval base in Illinois where his biological mother lives. The mother, Amanda Hopkins, will have custody, but the court ordered that the boy's biological father be given liberal visitation rights.

The Scotts are "trying to prepare Evan the best way we know how for the horrific event he faces," the couple said in a statement. "We are spending our last few days together as a family preparing for Santa and trying to make a happy holiday time for Evan."

Hopkins and the boy's father, Steven A. White Jr., never married, and she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show.

Hopkins supported the Scotts' adoption of Evan until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody.

"She took an adversarial position against them because she felt it was not in Evan's best interest to live with the father," said Debbie Grabarkiewicz, director of case advocacy for Hear My Voice, a nonprofit network of child advocates.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; US: Florida; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: adoption; amandahopkins; evanscott; florida; stevenwhite
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-338 next last

1 posted on 12/24/2004 10:05:07 AM PST by Peace4EarthNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Peace4EarthNow

Not enough information in this article to really know what the situation is. If the father is a nutjob, this could be a good thing.


2 posted on 12/24/2004 10:08:37 AM PST by TheRatHunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peace4EarthNow
I wonder what Judge Waddell Wallace III is saying to justify this as being in the best interest of this child.
3 posted on 12/24/2004 10:09:53 AM PST by spinestein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peace4EarthNow

Judges like this have ruined adoption in this country. My sister adopted two girls from China for exactly this reason. She did not want a knock on her door someday.


4 posted on 12/24/2004 10:12:21 AM PST by microgood (Washington State: Ukraine without the poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peace4EarthNow
It would only be fair for the biological father that wants this child now to reimburse the adopting family all of the money they have spent in this ordeal. Three year old boy? Yes, that sounds about right, let the adopting parents go through all of the trouble of the diapers, training, and sleepless nights then find some Judge to get your kid back to you after its been adopted out to an unsuspecting family.
5 posted on 12/24/2004 10:13:45 AM PST by vetvetdoug (In memory of T/Sgt. Secundino "Dean" Baldonado, Jarales, NM-KIA Bien Hoa AFB, RVN 1965)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRatHunter

http://www.news4jax.com/news/4018908/detail.html

more here with video and pictures..


6 posted on 12/24/2004 10:13:50 AM PST by alisasny (We get 4 more years, you get OBAMA...: ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

The SCOTUS ruled years and years ago that adoptions must have consent of both parents, or else the father has to have his parental rights terminated first.

Why should the mother be able to give away the child without the father's consent?


7 posted on 12/24/2004 10:15:05 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheRatHunter

I don't think you read the article correctly. The biological father is NOT the adoptive Father. So, basically, they're taking this child away from the only parents he's known and giving him to total strangers. Wow, that sounds like the best interest of the child, doesn't it?


8 posted on 12/24/2004 10:15:10 AM PST by Hildy ( To work is to dance, to live is to worship, to breathe is to love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheRatHunter

There is enough information to know this isn't in the best interest of the child. The judge is a disgrace


9 posted on 12/24/2004 10:15:21 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: microgood

I agree that the Judges have ruined adoption in this country. I had always wanted to adopt a child, but I will not adopt an American child because I know that one day, even YEARS after the adoption, they might take the child away.

If I ever do adopt, it will be from overseas.


10 posted on 12/24/2004 10:15:35 AM PST by dandelion (http://thequestionfairy.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheRatHunter

The bio dad did not sign off custody. It was not a completed adoption. As long as the laws give rights to birthfathers, this stupidity will keep on happening.


11 posted on 12/24/2004 10:15:52 AM PST by mlmr (Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Chri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue

It doesn't matter. If the biological Father had any compassion in his body he would let the situation stand. Maybe when the child was older he could establish some kind of relationship with that child. But why should the child be punished for the mistakes of the adults. It's outrageous. It just makes me want to cry.


12 posted on 12/24/2004 10:16:36 AM PST by Hildy ( To work is to dance, to live is to worship, to breathe is to love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheRatHunter

Hmm, she found out she was pregnant when dad assaulted her. Now, they are going to take this baby away from his loving, adopted family, and return him to this unstable environment?

How can that ever be a good thing?


13 posted on 12/24/2004 10:17:52 AM PST by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paul51
Hopkins and the boy's father, Steven A. White Jr., never married, and she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show.

Hopkins supported the Scotts' adoption of Evan until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody.


This reads to me like the mother supported the foster family adopting the child, but then when his biological father turned up and wanted custody, she decided to fight for him herself to keep the father from gaining full custody. It sounds like she fears for the kid if he goes with his real father. I'm going to hold off on judgement on this one until I know more.
14 posted on 12/24/2004 10:17:56 AM PST by TheRatHunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Over my dead body.

I would flee the country if I had too.

15 posted on 12/24/2004 10:18:34 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Why should the mother be able to give away the child without the father's consent?

She shouldn't. But punish her, not the child and the adoption process.
16 posted on 12/24/2004 10:18:37 AM PST by microgood (Washington State: Ukraine without the poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Why should the mother be able to give away the child without the father's consent?

She shouldn't but she did. Punish her, not the child. At some point the child's best interest should trump the father's.

17 posted on 12/24/2004 10:18:40 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mlmr

Or, there needs to be a statute of limitations. Like 6 weeks.


18 posted on 12/24/2004 10:18:41 AM PST by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

The judge is putting the child in his mother's custody, which she sued for obviously to protect the child from a potentially abusive father. The biological parents are separated. Let's not jump to conclusions.


19 posted on 12/24/2004 10:19:32 AM PST by TheRatHunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peace4EarthNow

I don't envy judges for having to make decisions like these. They weigh the evidence and base their rulings on the factors enumerated in the statute.

If you want to see a furious domestic relations judge, tell them you think they don't care about a child.


20 posted on 12/24/2004 10:20:43 AM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-338 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson