I actually saw this on CNN this morning. The adoptive parents were discussing it in their living room, Christmas tree in background, after the girl had been returned to the biological father. I felt sad for them,and for the girl...just had a discussion with my partner and he thinks the biological father should have custody. It seems to me that something should have been worked out so that they all are part of her life.  This was the only article I could find about it online.

I understand the biological father's desire to raise his child.

I understand the adoptive parents heart ache.

I deplore the way the transition was done. Despite the distance couldn't visits have been arranged over 6 months so the wee girl had 2 homes she was comfortable with and then the adoptive home slowly fade from the picture. That's how foster kids -or at least my friends 8 year old was adopted.

A similar case happened in Edmonton about 20 years ago. Mother-from a refugee camp-remember the boat people-signed daughter over for adpotion. Adpotive mom was a nurse.

3 years later biological father resurfaCED. bIO MOM THOUGHT HE HAS DIED. Parents got together and petioned for return of child.

Court awarded return based on -among other things-fact that adoptive parents weren't vietnamese. Lots of heartache

Fathers are accorded very few rights ( in some places, none) when it comes to a mother surrendering a child for adoption and this adoption should never have been permitted without this father's consent.

Here's the difficulty - if an adoption shouldn't have been permitted, does that mean the adoption should stand even when it happened under false or misinformed circumstances? How could it be considered to be in the best interests of a child to continue to be legally severed from their family of origin, without connection to them and with no opportunity to form an identity within that family context when a family member, particularly a parent, wants to raise that child and has the means to do so? If fathers continue to be separated from their children without their knowledge or consent, how is that fair to them?

"The best interests of the child" is the guiding principle in law when it comes to child custody issues. Article 9 of The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

In this recent case Bio Dad had signed a paper agreeing to adoption. He then said he thought the paer was just giving Bio mom sole custoday and relieving him from support.

So adoptive parents thought , I assume, all was in order.

From the article:

"Matt works for Boeing and Melanie is a developmental psychologist, and Veronica's biological mother liked them. She even let Matt cut the umbilical cord when the baby was born on Sept. 15, 2009, and they took her home." (emphasis mine)

The practice of allowing prospective adoptive parents into the delivery and other hospital rooms or even meeting with the expectant mother is coercive and illegal in some countries such as Australia. Transferring physical custody to the adoptive parents before the revocation period is over is ethically dubious at best.

Are you a birth parent? is a link to a page on the website of the government of the State of New South Wales, Australia. Take note of the significantly different information and approach taken there compared to current practices and beliefs here.

Also, a first parent in the US and Canada who is considering signing adoption papers is seldom offered and never required (unlike in most other child custody situations) to have legal advice. It is no exaggeration to say that there are more checks and balances when one enters into a contract to buy a car than there are to signing these documents, as evidenced by this man's situation. 

Contrast that with the counselling required in the State of South Australia. 

Evelyn Robinson is an author from Australia who has a wealth of knowledge and experience in relation to the long term outcomes of adoption separation. She has experienced post-adoption services from every perspective; as a client from 1989 to 1993, as a volunteer from then until the present day and as a professional since 1996.

This piece from an article she wrote on adoption practice in New Zealand  speaks volumes:

Wow lots of variation in practices.

The not letting adoptive parents meet baby until after the revoction period is passed-matches what happened to my friend.

She (like me) is in her early 50's. Always knew she was adpoted. Is more than 10 years younger than her brother and sister.

Knew she arrived at her house from Children's Aide at 3 months.

When she was 18 her mother told her the names of her bio parents. Her Aunt "Susie" was her bio mom-bio dad  in nearby town-she never chose to meet him

So even in this case of family adoption there was a delay.

And yet my coworkerSally and her husband apoted 21 years ago in Edmonton, from a reputable private non-profit agency. They were unable to conceive.

They were present at son's birth. They tried to adpot 2 other times and both times birth mother changed her mind, one time after chid was in thier house. The heartbreak was too much and they withdrew from further adpotions and raised their 1 son-who is now 22 and no longer at home.

The not meeting, while intended to protect the expectant and post-partum mother from undue influence, also protects prospective adoptive parents since they are not connected with the child until that child is legally adoptable. The thorough counselling and investigation that takes place in NSW and SA also has the same effect.

By ensuring that all of these steps are taken, the end result is that the child's best interests are safeguarded because the risk of what happened in the opening post has been significantly reduced.

Most of the responses, while I can understand, have to do with the parents rights in the situation. I am concerned with how the little girl is feeling, how she is adjusting. Adoption agencies usually visit new adoptive parents (don't they?)...will anyone visit her new home with her biological father to make sure she's okay and adjusting...or is it a done deal? As Tabitha said, I would think that some sort of dual custody or a gradual handing over of parental responsibility would happen...for the sake of everyone, especially the child.

Do the adoptive parents get the equivalent of grief counselling? That would be a good idea too.

Wow, Mo5, I appreciate your wealth of information.   I wish it had been available to my grand-niece 15 years ago - especially the part about legal counsel before giving a baby up for adoption. 

In her late teens, Gullible found herself pregnant (the young man soon disappeared from the scene).   Gullible already was a single parent of a little boy and she knew that she didn't have the financial or emotional resources to raise a second child.  She also knew that her uncle and his wife who lived in a different province were unable to have a baby and were trying to adopt.  She contacted them and offered them her baby.

At first it was understood to be an open adoption.  Uncle & wife were overjoyed to have a baby - especially one that was actually related to one of them.  Gullible was happy that her baby would be raised in a stable home within the family.  

But nothing was put in writing, and the final adoption papers were signed.  The baby is now entering his teens.  He knows he was adopted but has no idea who his birth mother is.  Nor does he know that he has a brother a few years older than him (a brother who has a health condition that might take him before he reaches adulthood).   He also has a little sister  (yes, no-longer-Gullible is married and, after years of struggle in public housing, she and her husband have a small home in a nice neighbourhood).  

But the adoptive family no longer visits the extended family in the east, or invites them to visit in the west.   In fact they have cut off almost all communication - phone calls, pictures, information.   Uncle phones his mother a couple of times a year, but never his sister or his niece who gave him her baby.  

No-longer-Gullible would like to meet her son, to talk to him, to have him know who she is.  She would like to introduce him to his half-brother, to her husband and their little girl, who is also his half-sister.  

But Uncle and his wife no longer give any pretense that this was an open adoption.  This is their son - they can give him all the advantages:  good schools, sports, comfortable home, toys and sports equipment, electronics.  They can take him on vacations to the west coast, the States, Europe - anywhere it seems but the GTA.    But they can't let him know that he has a birth mother, a brother and a sister. 

Yes, a bit of legal advice from the start might have prevented a lot of heart-ache since then.  

i also have to stand on the side of the child on this one.

it is not at all in the best interests of the child to have had this situation handled in this manner. 

whatsoever.

at all.

i can see this kid having huge issues in the future because of this... for a kids world to be COMPLETELY changed like this overnight??  thats nightmare inducing, imho.

whenever we did moves from our foster home to the bio homes, it took AT LEAST a month, and it was done completely at the speed best for the child.  when the child felt comfortable with everything, they moved on.

this transition, especially at christmas, was so wrong on so many levels.

i can't imagine this child will be able to enjoy christmas ever again, and will be looking at it with a feeling of impending doom for the rest of their life.

eesh.

Just a comment  on the not meeting of babe and adpotive parents until waiting time is through-I wonder about the infant who bonds iniatially with the foster parents and then has these bonds broken at 3 months when babe goes to adptive parents.

There is no one perfect solution

Ideally, in cases where there is uncertaintly about who is the rightful parent and all parties want to be part of the child's life and it is safe for that to happen...I think they should put the child's interest's first, and should all be part of the child's life--with some family couselling-- and should learn to get along for the child's sake.

It might be uncomfortable for them to embrace such an extended family at first, but it is possible, and good, for the child's sake!

It's my view and well-documented that separation from family of origina is extremely traumatic and thus, should not be done without due cause. Erroneous or deceptive behaviour that leads to an adoption order shouldn't qualify otherwise, adoption becomes about "act now, ask forgiveness later" and judges obviously don't want to remove a child from the adoptive home once the child is established there. However, since adoption is about providing a family for a child, and not meant to be about providing a child for family, when a child's family is available, able and willing to raise that child, it is in their best interests to be with those family members. 

Transition should/could have been done gradually and it's not clear by the article why that didn't happen. It sounds to me as though there was a month between the time the order was made and the final deadline. The adoptive parents appealed the decision and maybe weren't open to having her spend time with her father while they awaited the outcome; maybe the distance didn't allow for the possibility especially in winter; maybe the article isn't accurately portraying the story either. 

MO5,

Thought you and others may find this video interesting - relating to why the law has been changed in many Australian states - concerning adoption coercion.

Those of us that lived in the sixies were familiar with this situation - as described by the birth mother in the video.

If it wasn't us - it was one of our friends.........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-16/state-government-to-apologise-for-adoption-scheme/2301924

Hi Pilgrim,

Thank you for posting that. I was aware of the apology when it took place but didn't give credit to Western Australia where credit is due.  

The same adoption practices were followed in Canada and there is much work to be done to educate people about that. 

a lot of research has been done on this, and interestingly enough there isn't much stress to the infant when this happens.  the situation you describe happens constantly in foster parenting... i myself have had numerous children come into my care as newborns from the hospital, and go home to their bio family after months with us.

the studies overwhelmingly show that children 'learn' attachement to an adult as newborns, whether that adult is their biological parent or not.  once this attachement is learned, the children are able to 'transfer' this attachement to another adult who is able to provide them with the understanding that no matter when they feel stress, they will be cared for. 

again, the only issue is that there must be one person in that infants life who will help the child when they feel stress.

in the situation above, the child will be able to attach to her father if he is able to assist her when she feels stress consistently.

the issue is the way that the transistion was handled.  basically, this child was abandoned by her primary caregivers.  THAT will f*(&) a kid up.