[controllnmychaos]

Did anyone see the story on Nightline(ABC) about an adoption being contested?
Adoption Battle Over 5-Year Old Boy Pits Missouri Couple Vs. Illegal Immigrant - ABC News

I feel for all the families involved. I didn't think it was fair of them to go on the attack with the AP's. They should have stopped with reporting their problems with the system. Reading the comments on the story, if they are accurate, it seems there was a lot of info they didn't include to make the bmom seem like a victim.
Even if this case is ruled in favor of the AP's, this is now a cause, and more cases are likely to follow. If any members here are in this situation, I just wanted to say I'm sorry for what this means for your adoptions.

[elk134]

Wow- this is not far from where I live at all. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Definitely an argument as to why all I's should be dotted and T's crossed to make sure TPR is valid and legal, and all bio parents' due process has been followed. Because either way this case goes, the one who loses the most in this case is the child.

I was so frustrated because bio parents were given extra "chances" in our case (above what is required by law) before TPR happened, but now I am so glad as I feel there is no way it could ever get overturned.

[MomInCorazon]

This is the part that troubles me most: "It wasn't until two months after Dally's decision legally transferred parental rights to the Mosers that Bail Romero was appointed a lawyer by the court. Then, seven months later, Bail Romero was appointed another lawyer, one who was initially contacted by the Mosers. Without any policies in place to regulate the care of U.S. citizen children while their parents are detained, immigrant parents are unable to attend court hearings, contact caseworkers, complete parenting classes or take any of the necessary steps to meet the strict timelines dictated by juvenile courts."

One other issue, unaddressed by this article, is that undocumented aliens are not allowed to be kinship providers so if a parent is detained by ICE their child may have a network of people capable and willing to take him/her in but unable to do so. In which case the child loses out because of politics.

[2xaround]

I read about this yesterday. Of course I'm very new here and don't understand all the ins and outs of the system (although I'm not sure anyone does), but I found myself wondering how this is so different from other cases in which the birth parent(s) is put in prison for a crime, child is placed in foster care, judge terminates rights and child is adopted? I completely understand that this woman wanted a better life for herself and her child and felt that coming to the U.S. would provide them that. I really do get that. However, she broke the law by coming into this country illegally. And I also understand how very, very difficult it is to get a visa in a country like Guatemala. She took on the identity of another person and was charged and convicted with identity theft then served time for that crime. How do the courts make the determination that rights should be terminated in situations like this. Are parental rights typically terminated when the birth parent(s) is sitting in prison? I really am trying to understand this aspect of the system.

[CaddoRose]

Being a criminal in any way is not an automatic road to termination of parental rights. The laws aren't written that way nor should they be. Just because a person commits a crime, that does not effect their parental rights even if they end up in prison. It can have an impact on termination if a parent can not work a plan or if a parent is in prison for life, etc., but that in itself does not mean a quicker TPR because the law must be followed in terms of time given to a parent to work the plan or sign over rights. This is why TPR takes a long time so that every avenue is given to keep the family together.

[2xaround]

Originally Posted by CaddoRose

Being a criminal in any way is not an automatic road to termination of parental rights. The laws aren't written that way nor should they be. Just because a person commits a crime, that does not effect their parental rights even if they end up in prison. It can have an impact on termination if a parent can not work a plan or if a parent is in prison for life, etc., but that in itself does not mean a quicker TPR because the law must be followed in terms of time given to a parent to work the plan or sign over rights. This is why TPR takes a long time so that every avenue is given to keep the family together.

Thanks for helping me understand this a little better.

[sandysis]

I just wanted to add that women in prison can (and do) even parent their children while in prison.

In my state, being in prison is not a criteria for termination of parental rights.

[controllnmychaos]

Originally Posted by MomInCorazon

This is the part that troubles me most: "It wasn't until two months after Dally's decision legally transferred parental rights to the Mosers that Bail Romero was appointed a lawyer by the court. Then, seven months later, Bail Romero was appointed another lawyer, one who was initially contacted by the Mosers. Without any policies in place to regulate the care of U.S. citizen children while their parents are detained, immigrant parents are unable to attend court hearings, contact caseworkers, complete parenting classes or take any of the necessary steps to meet the strict timelines dictated by juvenile courts."

One other issue, unaddressed by this article, is that undocumented aliens are not allowed to be kinship providers so if a parent is detained by ICE their child may have a network of people capable and willing to take him/her in but unable to do so. In which case the child loses out because of politics.

Evidently, in this case, the child did go to relatives first. He was neglected to the point of physical harm. Here is a local link with more info.
Carthage couple battle for their adopted child » Local News » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO

The AP's also have a site pleading their case,
In The Interest of Carlos Jamison Moser

I am not saying this paticular child should not go back to his mother if she was not allowed the same opportunity at a case plan as citizen BP's. My question is where were the relatives during the adoption process? Was she never allowed contact with them? One of her reasons for contesting the adoption is that the government should have put more effort in placing the child with relatives instead of allowing the adoption.
This case is probably going to have more adoptions contested. Will states that now push for quick permanency now have to rethink their policies?

[JLMom]

Bail Romero says she's thankful to the Mosers for taking care of her son, "but, as Carlitos' mother, I need him to be with me," she said, "because I'm his real mother."

Not to argue any of the points in this case, cause I'm sure we don't have many of the actual facts & the media puts their spin on things, but the above sounds almost exactly what I heard bmom in our case say. She didn't care that she put him in harms way daily, failed to protect him, etc, etc. So what that 2 + years she did nothing while he was in someone else's home growing to love them. To her it all boiled down to possession - all about her.

[racingwife20]

I read the article and the court decision - and I feel badly for the mother in this case, but also frustration that she didn't do more to keep in contact with her son. It was pretty clear that she made no attempts to continue a relationship with her son, because she thought he was with her brother. I don't necessarily agree with the proceedings that led to the adoption either, but I don't think it was done with malicious intent on the part of the adoptive parents.

There's a difference between parents who are incarcerated and fight to maintain contact with their children, and those who seem to believe that bond will remain intact once they are released from prison and do nothing to maintain that bond.

From what I understand, the case is going to be retried once the adoptive parents' attorney can present all the required paperwork to show that the procedures were followed as cited by the regulations governing TPR and adoption.

The case is further complicated by the fact that the child is a US citizen (as he was born in the US) and the mother is not and entry into this country was illegal.

[MomInCorazon]

Originally Posted by controllnmychaos

I am not saying this paticular child should not go back to his mother if she was not allowed the same opportunity at a case plan as citizen BP's. My question is where were the relatives during the adoption process? Was she never allowed contact with them? One of her reasons for contesting the adoption is that the government should have put more effort in placing the child with relatives instead of allowing the adoption.

From my reading of the article the judge (and presumably the APs attorneys) received a letter from the mother asking that her child be sent to live with relatives in Guatemala. Had she been immediately deported her child would have gone with her but since she was detained for two years they were separated. Why wasn't this option pursued? I imagine it would have been very difficult for her relatives in Guatemala to do anything in the court system and with what resources? Putting aside anyone's beliefs on her being in this country illegally, people do not come here and work in our factories or fields to live the good life. They do it to provide for their families on a very basic level.

"The appeals court said that and other errors “resulted in manifest injustice to the mother.”" We all know that adoptions and TPRs are rarely rarely overturned on appeal and this in itself tells us that there were huge mistakes made in this case that were very likely forseeable. I am sorry for everyone in this case that is hurting but my main concern is for the child. What will his APs tell him one day when he finds out his bio mother was not even appointed a lawyer until after his APs got custody? That she didn't have a fighting shot to get him back? How will they explain that to him? I feel for the APs, I do, but this is the type of case that promotes the idea that FPs and APs are out to steal another's child and with enough resources can do so.

[MomInCorazon]

Originally Posted by racingwife20

I read the article and the court decision - and I feel badly for the mother in this case, but also frustration that she didn't do more to keep in contact with her son. It was pretty clear that she made no attempts to continue a relationship with her son, because she thought he was with her brother. I don't necessarily agree with the proceedings that led to the adoption either, but I don't think it was done with malicious intent on the part of the adoptive parents.

There's a difference between parents who are incarcerated and fight to maintain contact with their children, and those who seem to believe that bond will remain intact once they are released from prison and do nothing to maintain that bond.

With what resources was she to fight? Did someone put money in her commissary account for stamps? Who was there to accept her collect calls? Inmates do not get free tools of communication in most places. Was she giving opportunities that she declined? Plus, the mother did not speak English and did not have the APs' address. How was she supposed to maintain contact? What could she have done and known she could do in a country that wasn't hers with a language she didn't speak?

[elk134]

In our county jail, all offenders (even those with no money in their commisary account) are allowed to order personal hygiene items, writing materials and postage for private and legal matters up to $6. I can't imagine any jail not offering some way for an offender to communicate with the outside. Most jails also offer inmates opportunity for work to earn money for their account. It may not be much, like a couple dollars a day, but it would be enough to buy paper, an envelope and a stamp.

And she did know the adoptive parents address as she was served process in jail less than two weeks after the child went to live with them, according to the official court doucments.

Don't get me wrong, after reading the full court document, I can't say I agree with how fast custody was transferred to the adoptive parents or how much time mom was given to respond. But bio mom was served notice of that so she did know where her son was. Mom also would have been offered an interpreter for the language barrier.

[MomInCorazon]

Originally Posted by elk134

In our county jail, all offenders (even those with no money in their commisary account) are allowed to order personal hygiene items, writing materials and postage for private and legal matters up to $6. I can't imagine any jail not offering some way for an offender to communicate with the outside. Most jails also offer inmates opportunity for work to earn money for their account. It may not be much, like a couple dollars a day, but it would be enough to buy paper, an envelope and a stamp.

There were several letters received by the judge and the attorneys in the case from the mother. She may not have communicated as much or as often as some think she should have but she *did* communicate and what she communicated was that she wanted her son with her sister in Guatemala, that she did not want him adopted. "But the appeals court cites two letters, one dated Oct. 29, 2007, and another dated Sept. 16, 2008, indicating the mother did not want the child adopted. One was sent to the court, and the other to Hensley."

Many jails offer prisoners the opportunity to work, true. But there are far more inmates than jobs and an inmate who doesn't speak English would be low on the totem pole. Having known people in jail I can assure you that unless an offender has someone to put money on their books (commissary) or accept their collect calls they can absolutely be cut off from the outside.

Originally Posted by elk134

And she did know the adoptive parents address as she was served process in jail less than two weeks after the child went to live with them, according to the official court documents.

Don't get me wrong, after reading the full court document, I can't say I agree with how fast custody was transferred to the adoptive parents or how much time mom was given to respond. But bio mom was served notice of that so she did know where her son was. Mom also would have been offered an interpreter for the language barrier.

"The appeals court, however, noted there was nothing in the record indicating the mother knew how to contact the child once he was placed with the Mosers. That information was on the documents filed but “it was clear from the testimony at trial that the mother did not speak English,” said the appeals court." I do not believe that mom would have necessarily been provided a translator in jail either. Should have been? Yes. But no evidence to suggest she was.

I believe in RU and I believe in TPR/adoption but most of all I believe in respecting the rights of the child. Whatever the rights of the bio mom in this case or the APs the child had a right to be reunited with his mom or at the very least to be sent to live with his/her family in Guatemala. I think everyone in this case failed this child.

As for the arguments, incl. the GAL's, that this child is better off in the US than in Guatemala I would suggest that we do not separate children from their families because of poverty in this country and we should not do so because of poverty in another. ICE deports children EVERY DAY with their parents. ICE also keeps children in detention facilities every day with their parents.

I am not saying the mother did not make mistakes in this case but I do not think she deserved to lose her child for them.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by MomInCorazon

I am sorry for everyone in this case that is hurting but my main concern is for the child. What will his APs tell him one day when he finds out his bio mother was not even appointed a lawyer until after his APs got custody? That she didn't have a fighting shot to get him back? How will they explain that to him? I feel for the APs, I do, but this is the type of case that promotes the idea that FPs and APs are out to steal another's child and with enough resources can do so.

That is exactly right, this case will serve to continue the false stereotype of FP/AP "stealing" children from the poor.

Obviously there needs to be a MUCH better checks and balances in place for illegal immigrants who get detained. This judge should be ashamed of himself. Does he possibly realize what he has done now to the system that already was a mess and too often siding with bio despite the best interest of the children. Now there will be children forced to suffer more abuses by illegal immigrants just because agencies will be scared of lawsuits by taking them.

I haven't read all of the details, but I suspect that there is far more to this story than we are seeing here. But by the judges own quotes, it doesn't seem that he acted in the best interest of anyone.

One question, why has it taken 4.5 years for this to be being appealed?