What happened to the best interest of the child? Why do some states care about the best interest of children and others do not? The best interest of children, while a default standard in family law cases (i.e. divorce), seems not to matter to some states when it comes to adoption. Baby Vaughn is a case in point.
I wish this were this was the first time I was writing about an Ohio adoption gone awry. But, as some of you may recall, I recently wrote about a heartbreakingly similar case of mother Stacey Doss with Baby Vanessa. (See my article on Stacey Doss who is fighting to keep her child -- who was also adopted in Ohio.) What is going on in Ohio and why don't the judges care about what is objectively in the best interests of their children?
Three years ago in Toledo, Ohio Drucilla Bocvarov decided to give up her child, conceived while she was having an extramarital affair with Benjamin Wyrembek. She terminated her parental rights to allow Christy and Jason Vaughn to adopt the baby through an Ohio adoption agency. She carried the child with the intention of giving him up for adoption and chose the Vaughns to be his parents. Christy Vaughn was the first one to hold that child, brought him home nine days after his birth, and has been his mother ever since. That child, now Grayson Thomas Vaughn to me and Grayson Bocvarov to others, is three years old and may be ripped from the only family he has ever known: Christy and Jason Vaughn -- his mom and dad.
The details of this case are fairly complex because the legal issues have involved numerous courts at several different levels and are being played out in two states: Ohio and Indiana. The Vaughns live in Sellersburg, Indiana but the adoption of Grayson occurred in Ohio. The biological father, Ben Wyrembek, lives in Ohio and it is the Ohio Juvenile Court that wants to take away Baby Vaughn from his family. This is a critical moment for Grayson's family. The Ohio Supreme Court now has the authority to stop Grayson's removal from his home, but the court seems to be choosing to ignore the law and the best interest of this child.
An adoption in Ohio is a two-step process, which involves first a determination whether parental consent is required, and, second, whether the adoption is in the best interest of the child. In general a child in the adoption process has the right to "early permanence and stability". The Ohio legislature supposedly designed their adoption process to promote this concept, but the law in practice does not measure up. The current adoption statutes provide for a hearing to weigh evidence on the birthfather's showing of support to the mother and unborn child and decide the best interests for a baby within a few months of the filing of a petition for adoption after birth. But in Grayson's case he is now three years old and there is still no resolution. The "early permanence" Grayson is enjoying with his loving adoptive family threatens to be crushed with the Ohio court's order to make Grayson return to his bio dad.
The decision by the Ohio court is just plain wrong. A leading national group, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, is against the Ohio decision and filed a brief to the Court asking it to reconsider the ruling. In the decision the Court's dissenting opinion said in fact there was "nothing in the adoption statutes that allows for a birth father to attack the adoption simply by establishing paternity."
Even the Ohio legislature recognizes their law is wrong. So why isn't the judging applying the law that is IN effect? Current law reads "a man who has intercourse with a woman is on notice that if a child is born as a result and the man is the putative [purported] father, the child may be adopted without his consent." Current law also states that if a biological father does not register with the Putative Father Registry thirty days after the birth then legal consent by the father was not required.
While courts are tossing Grayson around like a piece of chattel one cannot help to thing about Grayson. Permanent damage would be done to this three year old child if he were to be removed from his parents, Christy and Jason Vaughn and that reality cannot be discounted.
Psychologist Kathleen Kirby, after performing a child and family evaluation concludes that "in the case of Grayson Thomas Vaughn, the likelihood of irreparable harm is more than likely; it is inevitable." Indeed Grayson has been endangered by the very judges involved in his case who are supposed to be "guardians of his care." What can these parents do when a Judge's order has endangered their child? This is a critical issue and is not the first time Ohio has ruled arbitrarily and unfairly on the putative father issue in an adoption case.
The black robes of the court have actually cast a dark shadow on the care, treatment and protection provided to the children and families in the Floyd County Circuit Court. We can only hope that the attention of Grayson's case will shine some light. We must discuss and reveal the injustices adoptive children and families are suffering with the unfair application of the adoptions law everywhere but IMMEDIATELY in Ohio.
Follow Robin Sax on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robinsax
Not so in this case. Grayson was never eligible to be adopted, because his father wanted to raise him. His mother relinquished all rights to decide his fate, as did her husband. The agency knew this but couldn't bear to lose the fees involved, so they tried an end run around the law - and got tackled. Now those who think with their ovaries cry "best interest of the child" to justify attempted kidnapping. Judges are supposed to follow the law, not popular opinion - upon that foundation rest our rights and liberties!
Parents are entitled to raise their children unless they have been proven unfit. To rule otherwise would emperil all parents, adoptive or biological. Read 'em and weep, Vaughn supporters...
Yes, in the end mediation was tried. However, it seems likely that too much litigation had occurred. The courts had already made the decision, the resentment and hostility between the parities had been fed and manipulated through the system for 3 years. Both sides positions were firm. What if mediation had occurred that the beginning? When everyone’s focus was truly on Grayson and not the fight. From the beginning it was a was tragic situation, but likely it was one that could have been resolved through mediation.
Mediating, instead of litigating this case, would have resulted in: a resolution where both families and Grayson were saved the anguish of the last 3 years, a custody agreement where everyone wins, and immediate stability for Grayson.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7755989
What do you mean by "after the fact"? The biological father identified himself and asserted his rights 17 days after the child was born, before the adoptive parents' even filed their adoption petition in court. They were aware he could be the father before they even filed their petition. He actually beat the adoptive parents in the race to the courthouse and put them on notice. But apparently you think adoptions should not have to wait for a judicial decree to be legally "final." You want them to be final and incontestable the second the adoptive parents take physical custody of the child, no matter what circumstances cause the biological parent to be unable to stop this handover of physical custody. Even if the biological parent were totally unaware that an adoption was planned, unaware of the child's location, unaware that the child was theirs, or even unaware that the child existed. Perhaps you have heard about that Arizona mother who told the father she killed their son, but police suspect she really gave the boy to an adoptive couple (maybe for a fee). If that were the case, would that "adoption" be "final" under your standard, since the accepting couple took physical custody of the child?
Really? So if a court determines that a divorce would not be in the best interest of the child, the court can force the parents to stay married for the duration of the child's minority?
The adoption activists portray Ben W. as a dead-beat dad who shows up 3 years later to snatch a child. The father's rights activists portray him as a saint and victim. Both sides are misguided.
Ben has a criminal record for assault and drugs. He filed for paternity on day 17, but didn't make an effort to visit his son during the 3 years of court proceedings. I doubt he'd be a good father father for Grayson.
But you can't deprive someone his constitutional right to be a father just because you think he won't be as good at it as someone else. A criminal record doesn't disqualify him from parenthood. He followed proper legal protocol to get rights to his son.
The best interest of Grayson now is to stay with the Vaughns, but to uphold this illegitimate adoption would allow upper-middleclass families to snatch babies from disadvantaged homes on the grounds of 'best interest of the child'.
The real victim is Grayson. Very sad, but the proponent before the court is not Grayson. It's the U.S. Constitution. If you apply it arbitrarily, you invite tyranny.
As an adopted child of extremely loving parents, I think I am somewhat authoritative (if anecdotely) on this issue.
Adoption in the face of a biological parent's legitimate objection is nothing more than child theft.
Baring abuse or neglect, a child's best interests first and foremost lies with the biological parents willing to raise them. PERIOD.
This "system" also totally disregards and harms female partners and children of men who have made a wrong first-choice of partner. I can testify in detail that if a female is angry, combative, and chooses an abusive, inappropriate second partner, no woman should ever become involved with woman A's "ex." The system could not care less about any children of a new, second relationship or any children the second partner might have themselves. It only cares about the first "wife" and whatever she and her partner want to do. Felonies included.
At any time the Vaughns could have also taken the higher road and simply turned the child over to the natural birth father. Instead they decided to roll the dice with this kids life, and risk his emotional tearing between two families. This is both narcissistic and selfish--having literally nothing to do with "best interests of the child".
Your disdain for the rights of the father are truly disturbed. I wonder who you would be rooting for if a mother in the armed force reserves had shipped out just after giving birth and the dad put the kid up for adoption. Would you now expect the birth mother to bow out for "the good of the child"? Or should justice prevail even if there may be mild harm to the child?
I also notice certain posters referring to the birth father as a "sperm donor". Does that make the mom a "sperm receptacle"? When you switch the genders, most women's (and nearly all feminists) hate for men to literally scream off the page. Any man who talked about a mom as a "sperm receptacle" would be rightly derided--but women feel free to call fathers "sperm donors" w/out a 2nd thought.
Were this case about an automobile, the Vaughns would be facing charges of interstate theft and contempt of court. EVERY court decision has gone in favor of the father's right to parent his son; while the Vaughns and their supporters may feel entitled to Grayson, the simple fact is they have no legally recognized adoption and the child was not ever theirs to claim.
And yes, children do learn to bond with their parents. I did, as have millions of adoptees.
Shouldn't people's parental rights be guarded even more zealously? Shouldn't children be protected much more than an auto?
This father deserved a timely solution to these two couples trying to sever his parental rights. He and the child have lost 3 years in which they could have been bonding and building their life together. They will never get this back. The Vaughns (and the cheating birth mother) in my estimation should have criminal charges brought against them--as well as the adoption agency.
"The best interests of the child" is a smokescreen to create a squater's rights doctrine for those who have the resources to delay returning a child wrongfully taken and are able to use the media to trumpet their cause.
As an attorney, Robin Sax and her friends in the American Association of Adoption Attorneys, who make millions separating babies from their mothers, know well that courts have rejected the "best interests because we've been able to thwart the legal process for a long time" argument. Among other things, this argument would lead to legalized kidnapping, violating parents' constitutional right to nurture their children unless proven unfit by clear and convincing evidence.
The tragedy in Grayson's case is that the Vaughns, knowing of Benjamin Wyrembek's wish to raise his son, selfishly withheld him, spending thousands of dollars on legal fees which could have been better spent adopting a child from foster care..
"But just weeks after the Vaughns brought their baby home to join their family, they were stunned by word thst Grayson's estranged biological father had petitioned Ohio courts for custody of his son."
So, this isn't a case that the bio dad just came into this, he has been fighting for custody since soon after the child was born. Also that the Vaughans have been ruled against in every court and as yet have given custody over to the father. It is another case that while the courts have ruled for the father, if the adoptive parents can hold on long enough they will eventually win by saying that the child will now be harmed. But it is the adoptive parents that have done the harm by not handing custody over to the father>
That's a good question. Why wasn't that thought of when the adoption agency placed the child when they knew the father wanted to raise his own son? Ditto for the family who was giving the child in the first place. The people at fault are the misandrists responsible for keeping this child and father separated to begin with. It's nothing short of child stealing.