[browneyes0707]

The issue that the court is deciding on is not who has rights to the child. That's not what a legally binding OA document is. That's been and done. The issue here is prior to placement, both parties drew up an agreement on how to proceed for the next 18 years. They agreed on X,Y, and Z and signed it. Now, who did what to whom is unclear but it's obvious that in this case, there were promises made and broken boundaries crossed and I don't think you'll ever know the full story here. But the bottom line is that X,Y and Z are not happening. So now you DO need a third party to mediate because communication has deteriorated and the agreement is not being upheld. I know that sounds awfully cold and clinical, because no we aren't talking about a car, but that is the blunt truth of it. When you sign a legally binding paper, you are agreeing that you will uphold whatever it is that you are signing to. If you default, you run the risk of being held accountable for that in a court of law.

Now, I'm not just talking about the aparents here. If the birthfather overstepped his boundaries than he too is held in default of the original agreement and he too needs to be held accountable. And that's why it goes to court, for a judge to decide what's what.

I don't know why people constantly confuse an OA with rights to raise a child. OA is not co-parenting. It drives me insane.

Court: I respect what you said in regards to the fact that if someone wanted you to sign an OA agreement that they weren't the match for you. Nicely said. No one put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign this paper. If you don't feel comfortable, don't sign it. There is a shoe for every foot, and if something like this makes you uncomfortable, you have every right to say no and move on. But once you sign that paper there is no turning back.

It's unfortunate that we even have to have legally binding OA agreements, but the truth is that boundaries are crossed and promises broken by BOTH sides that some states felt this legislation was necessary.

I personally think stories like this are sensational for a reason. And most of the time it makes news because it IS uncommon. If it happened "all the time", it wouldn't be news.

To make a judgement about OA off this case is like me at 17 remembering all the articles that I read about the Joel Steinberg child abuse case in the late 80's, and me saying "I'm not going to choose adoption because if THIS a-parent killed his daughter than what if MY daughter's parents did this to her? Because this must mean ALL adoptive parents are capable of something like this!"

Seriously how stupid is that?

I feel badly for the child.