Sgt. Reunited With Baby Given Up for Adoption

[mpg]

Sgt. Reunited With Baby Given Up for Adoption - Yahoo!

An army drill sergeant whose estranged wife put his daughter up for adoption without his knowledge or permission while he was stationed in another state, has been reunited with the little girl, following a nearly two-year battle to get her back.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well thats good.

 

[Fisher]

Sounds to ne like they have not been reunited yet. Hopefully the two sides can come to some kind of compromise, but the girl is well-loved either way it appears.

 

[MaggieD]

Sgt. Reunited With Baby Given Up for Adoption - Yahoo!

This is very sad. I hope the woman goes to jail for a long time. Just imagine what this did to the family who'd adopted the baby...just imagine. Somebody screwed up for THIS to happen -- besides just the mother.

 

[Capster78]

This is very sad. I hope the woman goes to jail for a long time. Just imagine what this did to the family who'd adopted the baby...just imagine. Somebody screwed up for THIS to happen -- besides just the mother.

Besides, just the mother? Who else screwed this up?

 

[Capster78]

I would also be very curious to know how a mother can put a child up for adoption without the fathers consent?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This case still breaks my teeth. The adoptive couple are the only parents this child has ever known. The girl's biological father was never presented the child by her mother, after they were separated and after she had threatened to abort the child. Other than biologically, there is no basis upon which to call him the father of the little girl.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would also be very curious to know how a mother can put a child up for adoption without the fathers consent?

The biological father isn't always known. It's easy enough to claim that he isn't-- even if the biological mother was married to him.

 

[Capster78]

The biological father isn't always known. It's easy enough to claim that he isn't-- even if the biological mother was married to him.

That makes no sense at all. It would only take a little bit of investigation on behalf of the adoption agency to find out the child also has a father. This woman should be charged with kidnapping at the very least.

 

[Capster78]

This case still breaks my teeth. The adoptive couple are the only parents this child has ever known. The girl's biological father was never presented the child by her mother, after they were separated and after she had threatened to abort the child. Other than biologically, there is no basis upon which to call him the father of the little girl.

Are you serious!!!!!!! This man has every right to HIS child. If the woman choose to withold the knowledge of the childs birth to the father then how is he to claim his rights as a father. FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS ALSO!!! Society brandishes men who walk away from their children as dead beat fathers... but then in the same breath, gives them no rights to be a father in these kind of situations. What a bunch of hypocritical crap!

 

[MaggieD]

Besides, just the mother? Who else screwed this up?

Her marriage was obviously a matter of record. Any child born within that marriage was considered to be his no matter whose it was. From the link:

According to Achane, Bland gave the agency Achane's old address in Texas where he lived prior to being stationed in South Carolina, and suggested he would not consent to the adoption. The agency attempted to contact him once in Texas, but seems not to have made any other efforts to receive his consent, Wiser said.

 

[Capster78]

Her marriage was obviously a matter of record. Any child born within that marriage was considered to be his no matter whose it was. From the link:

So it was his fault that the mother knowingly gave a bogus address. Anyone who has ever been married to a military member knows exactly how to get into contact with them. There are many avenues. All you need is their SSN and be near a military installation. Hell, she knew what installations he had worked at prior to being moved. She could have easily gone thru the chain of command of his previous work location and they would have found him within a day or two and ordered him to get into contact with his wife.

If that does not work, you could always go to the Red Cross and they have the ability to locate a military member anywhere in the world thru their chain of command.

This woman was using the child as leverage because she knew he cared about the child. It is obvious by her actions that she was probably not the best wife in the world and I would not blame the guy for leaving her. But he still cared about his child. Does he not have these rights just as a mother does. If she no longer wants to be in a relationship with someone, can she still not have the right to care for her children. Well, that goes both ways!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Are you serious!!!!!!!

Yes, I am.

This man has every right to HIS child.

Upon what basis do you call it his child? He didn't gestate the girl for nine months. He didn't raise the girl for twenty-two months. The only claim to fatherhood this man had-- before the court wrongfully tore the child away from her parents-- was the fact that he ****ed the child's mother. Maybe. Has there even been a paternity test to find out the child was not the product of an affair? That's a fairly common reason for married women to abort, after all.

If the woman choose to withold the knowledge of the childs birth to the father then how is he to claim his rights as a father.

Again, what makes you think he should have rights under these circumstances?

FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS ALSO!!!

Fathers have rights. Sperm donors don't. Until his wife-- his ex-wife now-- places that child in his arms, he's not a father and he should have neither the rights nor the responsibilities thereof.

Society brandishes men who walk away from their children as dead beat fathers... but then in the same breath, gives them no rights to be a father in these kind of situations. What a bunch of hypocritical crap!

Society does a lot of things wrong. Look at this case. Just because society isn't consistent doesn't mean that I'm not.

 

[Henrin]

Upon what basis do you call it his child? He didn't gestate the girl for nine months. He didn't raise the girl for twenty-two months. The only claim to fatherhood this man had-- before the court wrongfully tore the child away from her parents-- was the fact that he ****ed the child's mother. Maybe. Has there even been a paternity test to find out the child was not the product of an affair? That's a fairly common reason for married women to abort, after all.

If it's his kid and he wants the kid, why does he need anything more?

Fathers have rights. Sperm donors don't. Until his wife-- his ex-wife now-- places that child in his arms, he's not a father and he should have neither the rights nor the responsibilities thereof.

Sperm donors sign away their rights and responsibilities for the children that come about from their donation. That has very little to do with a father generally speaking.

 

[smalltime]

Fathers have rights. Sperm donors don't. Until his wife-- his ex-wife now-- places that child in his arms, he's not a father and he should have neither the rights nor the responsibilities thereof.

I'm having a hard time believing you're a moderator for this forum with views like that.

Just so we're clear here.....
Because he fathered the child, this gives him NO rights?
Because the mother is a whore, he has no saying in the raising of HIS Heirs?

Views like yours are the reason There are so many abortions in this country.

 

[Capster78]

Yes, I am.



Upon what basis do you call it his child? He didn't gestate the girl for nine months. He didn't raise the girl for twenty-two months. The only claim to fatherhood this man had-- before the court wrongfully tore the child away from her parents-- was the fact that he ****ed the child's mother. Maybe. Has there even been a paternity test to find out the child was not the product of an affair? That's a fairly common reason for married women to abort, after all.

By this logic, men should not pay child support if a woman demands a divorce. If fathers don't have rights, then why should a father be obliged to pay for a child he has no parental rights for? If this woman had an affair with another man and the child was not his, I am most positive, given the evidence, she would have used that against him. Instead, she threatened to abort THEIR child. She knew it was THEIR child and used it to threaten him.

Again, what makes you think he should have rights under these circumstances?

By law, a woman has the right to demand support from the father if he is no longer around. By the same law, a man should have the right to a child if the mother does not wish to support the child. If you are going to say that men do not have parental rights, then you have to also abolish their obligation to support women who claim child support on the grounds the woman has a right for male support if he is not around.

Fathers have rights. Sperm donors don't. Until his wife-- his ex-wife now-- places that child in his arms, he's not a father and he should have neither the rights nor the responsibilities thereof.

Well women are nearly sperm recepticles. See how that sounds? If you walked around saying women are no more than sperm recepticles you would probably be burned at the stake! You reduce a man to nothing... That is a very misandric view!

Society does a lot of things wrong. Look at this case. Just because society isn't consistent doesn't mean that I'm not.

Then you have to clarify your stance on many things so that we are all clear on your beliefs..

If a woman demands a divorce and also demands sole custody, does the man still pay child support against his will?

If a woman and a man have unprotected sex and the woman gets pregnant and the woman wants an abortion, does the man have a say if he wants the child?

We will start with those questions first.

 

[Fisher]

If it's his kid and he wants the kid, why does he need anything more?

In my state he would have a tough time with this due to how the law works and the appeal time and the finality of orders so long as the adoptive parents did not knowingly participate in the fraud. At the same time, the mother just giving a fake address wouldn't have been enough to get this adoption to go through in the first place. "Unknown father" causes some hurdles; known father creates some very high hurdles.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If it's his kid and he wants the kid, why does he need anything more?

You are not answering my question. Upon what basis do you say the child is his?

Sperm donors sign away their rights and responsibilities for the children that come about from their donation. That has very little to do with a father generally speaking.

He wasn't a father until the courts made him a father. He wasn't even supporting the mother while she was pregnant-- maybe through no fault of his own, but this is still the fact.

Just so we're clear here.....
Because he fathered the child, this gives him NO rights?
Because the mother is a whore, he has no saying in the raising of HIS Heirs?

You're not answering the question either. Why should it?

We're not talking about a man who has raised a child as his own for years. We're talking about a man who didn't know that a child existed until another family had raised that child for twenty-two months. They are the rightful parents.

By this logic, men should not pay child support if a woman demands a divorce.

Men should not pay child support at all, unless the mother has offered the child to him and he has accepted it. If a couple divorces after they have children, he should absolutely pay child support-- and he should absolutely have full parental rights.

If this woman had an affair with another man and the child was not his, I am most positive, given the evidence, she would have used that against him.

Yes, but then would you still support his "right" to demand custody of the child? Or would you instead insist that the "right" belongs to the piece of **** that slept with a married woman?

Instead, she threatened to abort THEIR child. She knew it was THEIR child and used it to threaten him.

HER child, that existed solely within HER womb. She had every right to abort the child.

By law, a woman has the right to demand support from the father if he is no longer around.

This law allows women to coerce men into becoming fathers against their will. This is considered wrongful when women are subjected to it, and yet people use the same arguments to justify coercing men into fatherhood without so much as noticing the irony-- "he made that decision when he had sex"; "he should have kept it in his pants then" and so forth, arguments that are rightfully dismissed as misogynist, "slut shaming" garbage when applied to women in the abortion debate.

By the same law, a man should have the right to a child if the mother does not wish to support the child.

The mother gestated the child in her womb for nine months. What did the "father" do?

Then you have to clarify your stance on many things so that we are all clear on your beliefs..

I'm fine with that.

If a woman demands a divorce and also demands sole custody, does the man still pay child support against his will?

Assuming he's been father to the child, yes. And she should not have the right to demand full custody unless it can be proven that he is an unfit parent. He is a father, and he has rights.

If a woman and a man have unprotected sex and the woman gets pregnant and the woman wants an abortion, does the man have a say if he wants the child?

Absolutely not. If he wanted a child, he should have slept with a woman who wanted to give him one.

 

[StringBean]

Imagine waiting years to become eligible for an adoption, finally being blessed with a child to call your own, raising and loving that child for two years, and then one day being told that child no longer belongs to you and is being given to a man who has never seen nor loved that child.

It's awful, and don't pretend the sgt is the only victim in this situation.

 

[Fisher]

Imagine waiting years to become eligible for an adoption, finally being blessed with a child to call your own, raising and loving that child for two years, and then one day being told that child no longer belongs to you and is being given to a man who has never seen nor loved that child.

It's awful, and don't pretend the sgt is the only victim in this situation.

It is an awful situation, but neither the courts nor the father caused this. The mother should be charged with fraud. The rest is a no-win situation for the adults. I hope whoever wins will be willing to let the other(s) be involved as much as possible in the child's life for so long as they want.

 

[Henrin]

You are not answering my question. Upon what basis do you say the child is his?

Genetics. If he didn't give up the kid than his rights were never given up and therefore the child should go to him since this fact would void out the adoption.

He wasn't a father until the courts made him a father. He wasn't even supporting the mother while she was pregnant-- maybe through no fault of his own, but this is still the fact.

We are clearly running off a different basis on what a father is then.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Genetics.

Pfeh. That is an entirely arbitrary and senseless standard upon which to base paternity.

If he didn't give up the kid than his rights were never given up and therefore the child should go to him since this fact would void out the adoption.

He should never have had rights to the child to begin with.

We are clearly running off a different basis on what a father is then.

A father is a man that raises children and has sworn an oath to do so. Knocking a woman up doesn't make you a father.

 

[Henrin]

Pfeh. That is an entirely arbitrary and senseless standard upon which to base paternity.

What? Why?

He should never have had rights to the child to begin with.

You mean other than it's his kid?

A father is a man that raises children and has sworn an oath to do so. Knocking a woman up doesn't make you a father.

Like I sad, a different basis for our argument.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What? Why?

Because siring a child has absolutely nothing to do with raising one. At least the mother spends nine months gestating the child before giving birth.

You mean other than it's his kid?

You keep saying this, but you still haven't justified it-- how is it his kid when he's had nothing to do with it until the courts stepped in?

 

[MaggieD]

So it was his fault that the mother knowingly gave a bogus address. Anyone who has ever been married to a military member knows exactly how to get into contact with them. There are many avenues. All you need is their SSN and be near a military installation. Hell, she knew what installations he had worked at prior to being moved. She could have easily gone thru the chain of command of his previous work location and they would have found him within a day or two and ordered him to get into contact with his wife.

If that does not work, you could always go to the Red Cross and they have the ability to locate a military member anywhere in the world thru their chain of command.

This woman was using the child as leverage because she knew he cared about the child. It is obvious by her actions that she was probably not the best wife in the world and I would not blame the guy for leaving her. But he still cared about his child. Does he not have these rights just as a mother does. If she no longer wants to be in a relationship with someone, can she still not have the right to care for her children. Well, that goes both ways!

I have no idea what you're talking about. Well, yes, I actually do. But it is non-responsive to my post since I think the mother and the adoption agency were lower than low.