Posted on 09/30/2010 8:06:25 AM PDT by fathers1
The war on fathers’ rights in adoption proceedings continues and fathers are starting to win a few battles, like the one described in this article (Toledo Blade, 9/24/10) and this Ohio Supreme Court opinion (Leagle, 7/22/10).
Benjamin Wyrembek had a brief affair with a married woman. She became pregnant in 2007 and, along with her husband, decided to place the child for adoption. Wyrembek had no way of knowing if the child was his or not and possibly neither did the woman, although neither the article nor the opinion says. But he timely filed his claim of paternity with the Ohio Putative Father Registry and brought suit in juvenile court in December, 2007 to establish paternity. In January, 2008, the adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn, filed their suit to adopt the child.
Genetic testing determined that the child is Wyrembek’s and every court has since ruled in his favor. Basically, he’s the biological father who’s done every legal thing in his power to get custody of his son and every court has ruled that the adoption can’t go forward. It seems that biological fathers have a few rights after all; it seems that the many United States Supreme Court cases so ruling actually mean something.
But, you may ask, “it’s been almost three years since genetic testing determined Wyrembek’s paternity; why does he still not have possession of his son?” Well, the answer is that adoption attorneys for many years have understood that when they’re caught trying to force adoption on a child who doesn’t need to be adopted because it has a fit father who wants it, the best thing to do is to stall.
In the past, that tactic worked well. Years of litigation often mean that fathers run out of money and give up. Personally, I’ve encountered cases in which the dad sees his child growing up in the household of another couple and comes to believe that, as much as he wants his child, as much as he’s entitled to be his/her dad, it’s better for the child for him to just walk away. So he does.
And in the past courts have ruled that, whatever the law on fathers’ rights may be, after a certain amount of time has passed, the best interests of the child demand that the dad butt out and the child remain in its adoptive home.
So adoption attorneys believe that stalling is, if not right, at least effective. Their credo is “if you keep father and child separated long enough, maybe the adoption will happen.” As the Blade article none too subtlely puts it,
On Tuesday, the Vaughns were served with an order from Lucas County Juvenile Court to hand over the nearly 3-year-old boy named Grayson to Mr. Wyrembek, prompting their attorney to file another flurry of motions to prevent the surrender.
That’s a pretty accurate description of what’s been going on since early 2008. Face it, everyone in the case knew almost three years ago that Wyrembek was the boy’s father. Then, or at any time since then, they could have done the right thing and turned the boy over to him, but they didn’t. The attorney kept filing motions, kept filing appeals and, the judicial system being what it is, time passed - a lot of it.
By now, that’s the Vaughn’s only claim - that their keeping the child in their custody in the face of every court ruling against them constitutes some sort of right that trumps those of the boy’s father. As I said, in the past that often worked. But it doesn’t any longer.
Now courts in Ohio and many other states are starting to take the rights of biological fathers far more seriously than ever before. The narrow ruling in the Ohio case is that a biological father has one year from the time his paternity is established to file suit to stop the adoption of his child. That means that mothers can no longer hide a child or a child’s paternity from a father and deprive him of his parental rights via adoption. A father’s rights can’t be diminished or terminated until he knows he’s the dad; once he does, he’s got a year in which to act.
Amazingly enough, the attorney for the Vaughns and the article in the Toledo Blade want us to believe that Benjamin Wyrembek doesn’t care about his child. They cite the fact that he hasn’t communicated with his child during the course of the protracted litigation. Of course the idea that he might be trying to consider his child’s feelings and not intrude unduly into his life seems never to have occurred to them. Whatever his reasons, the idea that a man will spend however much time, money and emotional energy over three years pursuing custody, but at the same time doesn’t care about the child is borderline crazy.
The takeaway? The rights of biological fathers in adoption cases are no longer the pushovers they once were. This case and others stand for the proposition that, in adoption cases, courts will no longer allow mothers to control fathers’ rights. A mother’s hiding the child or hiding information about the child’s paternity will no longer suffice to deprive a father of his parental rights. It’s a win for dads.
That being said, I do support the rights of unmarried men to claim paternal rights to children born of unmarried women, especially if it means preventing an abortion.
It makes bout as much sense letting the adoptive parents keep the child because the child has been raised by them and it is “good for the child”, as it would leaving a kidnap victim with the kidnappers because the kid has always known them as the parents...
I have to disagree with that. Particularly your assertion that adoptive parents are the same as kidnappers. They legally gained custody of the child and they have loved and cared for him. It would not only be a terrible shock for the child to be taken from the parents he knows but also an incredible financial and emotional burden for the adoptive parents.
. . . Except restricting his amorous attentions to a woman he's actually married to. Personally, I don't see that he has any rights. Marriage is the price you pay to have authority over the children you father. Adulterers—if they know the woman is married—don't deserve anything except the end of a rope.
I applaud the fact that courts are beginning to recognize fathers' claims to their own kids. But it's sick—and seems typical of Marxist jurisprudence—that such a claim is essentially against the sanctity of marriage, rather than in support of it.
Fathers should have all kinds of rights if their current or ex-wives try to restrict their access to their own children. And fathers should get custody no-questions-asked if the wife is not leading an upright life. But this situation is weird. I guess hard cases make bad law; but occasionally, crazy cases can potentially lead to better law.
This has nothing to do with marriage. The married couple put the kid up for adoption. The biological father then tried to establish his rights. The people fighting him are a possible adoptive couple, not the cheating wife and her husband.
How do you know that he new she was married? He may have been told she was leaving her husband. What you assume is not in the article. He did not try to get custody until the child was put up for adoption.
When the biological mother does not want the child and gives the child up for adoption, your argument leaks. The woman was just as careless when she spread her legs. It was all about a cheap thrill for her, in this case, apparently. True in all to many similar cases.
Dad rights prevail.
Some of these posters sound like the legal team for the mother. Vigilanteman made several assumptions that were not in the article to justify his intial statement.
If I were trying to adopt a child and the father came forward, said he wanted the child, and appeared to be sincere and able to care for the child, I would simply step aside.
The woman may have actually been more careless because she knew she was married. What she actually told the guy who impregnated her is pure speculation.
What is not debatable, however, is:
As previously stated, the law is in place to protect traditional marriage and families, not the rights of men who wantonly poke their dicks where they don't belong or women who wantonly spread their legs for such men.
If neither are married then, yes, men should have equal rights, perhaps even more than equal rights since they are expected to financially support said children.
But when they are not married and the woman is, then the results of any semen squirted into said married woman ought to belong to the lawfully married couple.
You posted
“But when they are not married and the woman is, then the results of any semen squirted into said married woman ought to belong to the lawfully married couple. “
Only problem is they gave up the rights to the child by putting it up for adoption. The married couple is not involved in the court battle. Only the biological father and a possible adoptive couple.
Sticking your dick into the vagina of a woman you know you are not married to has consequences. From a pure fairness point of view, the guy may have an argument, but there is a reason for the traditional legal standard that all children born to a married couple belong to said couple, regardless of the actual biological origin of those children.
Another thing being forgotten by the "biology first" crowd is the rights of adoptive couples. Adoptive couples have invested considerable resources in the adoption-- not only legal fees, but love, care and time. Their invested resources are considerably greater than those of one man emptying his testicles, an activity which generally involves pleasure and not sacrifice.*
* unless the woman looks like Helen Thomas.
Just like they used to say at Burger King.
Relatives of mine have some recent experience (last ten years) with disputed parental rights. Their case, other cases they have become familiar with in the process and what they have learned from their various lawyers, in two states - California and Montana - is that NONE of the cases are permitted to be finalized expeditiously, even when the case evidence is very strong in one direction or another.
The system seems set up to INSURE that the child will be a legal football for years.
While I can agree with your moral sentiments, in this case the biological mother and her lawful husband DID NOT keep their own legal rights to the child, but passed them to another set of parents; while the biological father WAS the one seeking to KEEP the paternity that was his in favor of HIS relationship with the child.
Answer: our moral views must go to the spirit of the law and not stand on the black and white letter of the law.
The biological parents made an error and through that error a child was conceived. If the biological mother was not going to maintain her paternity with the child, she was morally obligated, I believe, to so inform the biological father and give him the opportunity to take up a father’s responsibility. They both made an error, but I believe he was the “better man” in this case.
You are also forgetting that the article clearly states the child is 3 years old and the battle for custody began 3 years ago, immediately after the child was born. Unfortunately, the adoptive couple refused to give up the newborn child back then. The adoptive couple would NOT have any invested love, time, or money if they had done the right thing and given up custody to the father 3 years ago.
Since you are so big on consequences for the father, then maybe the adoptive couple are now facing the consequences of their own selfish actions.
God gave us this gift not just for the wonderful physical pleasure which results but to ensure propagation of the human race whom he created.
What is not arguable is that the man knew he was not married to the woman whom he was emptying his testicles into. In this day and age when single motherhood is celebrated, it is entirely possible his mind was also hoping for the pleasures of single fatherhood.
But it is far, far more likely he was simply hoping for the age old thrill of an erect penis repeatedly thrust in and out of a woman's vagina with the pleasure resulting from the biological activity of emptying testicles which generally follows said action.
I am not so cold as to fail to understand that said things happen and, indeed, are often inevitable when a man gets alone with a woman, particularly when either or both may be inebriated and/or undressed. I am also not so cold as to understand that nudity (or at least the partial nudity necessary for successful intercourse) also is a generally inevitable result of inebriation and/or simply being alone together.
But a man has plenty of choices to make before he gets himself into said situation and this guy made all the wrong choices-- the first one being a basic inquiry as to what the woman wanted long before she spread her legs for him.
Yes, women have an unfair advantage because their brain cells still function once the process of seduction, undress, foreplay, erection, entry of the penis into the vagina, thrusting and ejaculation progress whereas a man's brain cells generally cease to function sometime between the point of undress and foreplay, but a man still has plenty of choices to make before he gets to that point. Undressing for a woman to whom you are not married is probably a good boundary to consider. Ditto for necking, petting, heavy kissing and all such activty which can proceed but can also follow the activity of undressing.
It's not that difficult to draw that line before reaching the point where all the blood which supplies your brain is transferred so making your penis erect. Sorry if I embarrassed anyone with the straight language, but it is the straight truth.
And, if this is true, then it may have created a unique ruling in this case which justifies the unique outcome.
A key issue here would be whether the married woman (and her husband) were motivated more by the best interests of the child or simple revenge against a guy who poked his dick where it didn't belong, albeit with the full cooperation (and possible or even probable seduction) of the married woman.
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.