[kxl164]

In our state, anyone can petition the court for custody of a child.

That doesn't mean it won't be thrown out of court, but legally anyone can petition the court for the custody of a child.

Following that, a birthparent could sue for custody of their birthchild after either relinquishing or termination of their parental rights.

Does it happen?

Has anyone heard of this happening, post adoption?

Our SW had a conversation with the birthparents today. They are strongly considering relinquishing their rights, but they mentioned that maybe they could sue for custody in a few years when they got themselves together.

Does this happen?

Could our adopted children (for arguement's sake), who have already been through the foster care system, be forced to deal with a custody dispute and either possibly be forced to either visit with or be returned to the birthparents they were removed from in the first place?

I KNOW that they could apply for custody, I do know that anyone can, but would a court actually listen to a case like this?

Has anyone heard of a birthparent who lost parental rights due to termination and/ or relinquishment after being a part of the foster care system come back and successfully sue the adoptive parents for custody and/or visition of the child?

Thanks,

[Boulderbabe]

I do not think it is at all likely that a court would hear this kind of a case. Finalized adoptions are almost impossible to overturn, and your rights as the adoptive parent would be the same as a natural parent who had never relinquished. What court would remove a child from his or her legal parent to give him or her to a legal stranger? None, that I can think of.

I wouldn't worry much about this.

[mommaDre]

I wouldn't worry either, we were worried about this same thing. The bparents would have to have a lot of money to do this. It is a long process, many court hearings, retaining a attorney, money, money, money. Plus I have a friend who has a family court judge as a father-in-law and he said that when a bparent looses their child through foster care it is almost unheard of for these kind of cases to make it to appeals court and usually bparents are just making threats.

if they wanted their children to began with they have had plenty of chances, help and time to get it together and get the child back. Now if some sad mislead forced women gave a child up through private adoption that might be different, but your still talking 5,000 plus for a retainer fee, then hourly wages for court hearing, paper work, time for phone conferences, paid professionals for psych exams, the list could go on and on. I wouldn't worry about it.

[hkolln]

I know here in Florida they have 1 yr to overturn an adoption and then they can't. My current husband adopted my biological daughter (after her bio father signed away his rights) and it stated on the adoption decree he had 1 year to contest and after that he can't. I'm not sure if each state is different or not but that's how Florida was back in 98 when our adoption was done.

Plus to overturn it they would have to prove they are fit and also pay for an attorney.

[DianeS]

I'm in agreement with everyone else - once the adoption is LEGALLY COMPLETED, then the birth parents can sue all they want, but they won't win. Courts have always honored the legitimacy of completed legal adoptions.

However, we all have heard about times when the adoption was not legally completed, and the birth parents have won their cases for custody or visitation. Either somebody skipped a legal step, or somebody didn't notify somebody else, or somebody was forced into signing something, etc. If the basic legality of the adoption is in doubt, it is possible that the birth parents could win.

And I have heard of ONE single case, several years ago, where a woman whose son was taken from her and placed in foster care, and her rights terminated, actually did get her life back together and kept it together for several years. At that time she discovered that her son was still in foster care and had not been adopted - he was a teenager by then. She petitioned to be allowed to adopt him, and she won. But that was soley because he had not been adopted.

I hope that helps.

[mom2GRLC]

After my foster sons TPR was complete I ran into a close family friend of the paternal birth grandmother(who used to attend some of the supervised visits). She knew we were going to adopt him and even gave us her blessing on many occasions.

But this time she had the nerve to say...."well when "birthfather" gets out of jail and gets his life together he'll be able to get custody of his son won't he?" I was completely astonished was she REALLY asking me this?

I of course told her NO, once the TPR occured he had 30 days to appeal the termination and that would be his only way/time to try and regain custody of his son(who I might add was 2 weeks old when he went into jail and the birthdad was in jail the entire time he was in fostercare up to that point,and still had time to serve. (this was actually before the 30 days were up) and I even told her, his time was running out and if he really wanted to appeal he needed to get with his lawyer immediately.

Well, he ddi not appeal...infact her had tried to surrender his rights at the TPR hearing but the judge couldn't accept it as a volutary relinquishment so he had to do it as a "involuntary" relinquishment.

So yes, there are people out there that actually think that way. I guess they figure adoption really doesn't mean anything and we will always just foster "their" kid until they get their life together years later. It just doesn't work that way...THANK GOODNESS!!!

[Hadley2]

I really wonder if you have it straight on your state law. For any lawsuit, the petitioner must have standing to get it actually heard. They could file all day, it wouldn't matter if the court won't hear it. (There may actually be some sort of law against multiple pointless filings, I would think so.) Who has standing in a particular matter is also usually a matter of law.

In the case of custody, that would be other parents, step-parents, guardians, and close relatives, maybe, but TPR cuts those legal ties.

I can't imagine a situation where anyone could sue anyone for custody of a child. Forget winning--of couse you would win--the big worry is cost of defending.... I can't believe courts would tie themselves up hearing cases brought by people who have no legitimate or legal interest in the issue at hand and force essentially innocent bystanders to pony up the cost of the litigation. If that were true, you'd have neighbors suing neighbors for children.

This is one reason why we, as relatives, refused a custody-only deal and insisted the state proceed with its duty to free our niece for adoption. We did not want to be stuck carrying the legal cost of defending custody suits for the next 12 years.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[kxl164]

In our state anyone can sue for custody of a child.

You do have to prove a relationship with the child and that it would be in the child's best interests. At least you have to say this in order for it to get heard in a court of law. You do NOT need to be a relative, just be able to prove a relationship.

Yes, a neighbor can sue for custody of the children next door if they can prove a close relationship with them and if they can show that it would be in the child's interests for the case to be heard.

A case brought by the birthparents would probably be thrown out, but probably is not 100% certain.

The money isssue is a good point though. I really think that this was more just "talk" than anything else, but the thought of it just makes me sick.

Dh says we should consider moving to another state once everything is done and I'm not sure if he was joking or not, but after being told that we might be pulled back into court by the birthparents is a bit much to swallow and it may be worth consideration.

[mom2behappy]

No judge will grant birthparents custody of a child they were formally tpr'd or relenquished. there are some instances where older children wish to return home who have not been adopted where it may happen but an adopted child custody will not be given

[Bug-n-Bears-Mommy]

I know that our adoption papers say that once it is signed it is forever. Even our open adoption agreement states that shoudl either party NOT follow the terms of the agreement it would in no way effect the adoption itself and that once finalized the adoption was permanent.

I think the possibility of it actually happening is pretty slim. After the cases in the past where you see children ripped from the arms of the only family they have ever known only to be given back to their biological family it has really pressured the law to ensure that it does not happen. I am sure I am not the only person who remembers the 6pm news where (I believe his name was Richard) was screaming as he was taken from his family. This media attention puts HUGE black marks on adoption and great fear in potential adoptive parents. No judge wants to be responsible for such a story these days.

[AKMama]

I agree with the other posts that it does not seem right for the birth parents to even be given a day in court to reclaim TRP or relinquished children. We have an open adoption and I know our adoption degree states the children will never be allowed to return to the bioparents care. Perhaps you could look into getting something similar put in writing in your adoption degree. I know for us, even if we did not follow the degree and completely disappeared and had no contact for a very long time, the bioparents can sue all they want and the most that would come out it would be a judge saying you need to have some form of contact so send them a picture or write a letter. Now, we are not planning on disappearing or cutting off contact, but we've been told that would be in an extreme case, especially since the bioparents would have to pay for a lawyer themselves.