[poullafouca]

I read today that Queen Latifah is planning to adopt, she said the following,

"There's a law that tries to keep the family together, so if you've had an adopted child for up to three years or so, the birth mother can come back and reclaim the child if they pull themselves together.

"The law is good in a way because you love to see parents pull themselves together, but that's got to be tough on the adoptive parents, who've grown up love that child."

What on earth does that mean? I am a bit shocked.

Any clues out there?

Poulla

[sneezyone]

It probably means she plans to adopt. It probably means she plans to adopt through foster care. And it probably means that she has not yet had the training to know and apply appropriate terminology. If you're really that interested in what it means, Google her publicist and ask.

[ChristieS]

All I can say is that this is what is happening in my case. I have a child about to turn 4 (bmom was 13 when pregnant and 14 when born - and I think that made a difference in my case) - but she can still come back and rescind the adoption. I can't speak for others - only my own case - but in my case this is absolutely true.

[momofmykids]

Christie,
Good grief, that would be nerve wracking for me!!!! Hope things work out for you.

[jaenelle]

Originally Posted by Christie S.

All I can say is that this is what is happening in my case. I have a child about to turn 4 (bmom was 13 when pregnant and 14 when born - and I think that made a difference in my case) - but she can still come back and rescind the adoption. I can't speak for others - only my own case - but in my case this is absolutely true.

How exactly is that the case, so I can know to avoid something similar?

[danhanan]

Well, I don't know about how other states handle things, but in NH once the bparents sign, there is know rescinding. There is one exception that I'm aware of. There was one case a few years ago in which the bparents signed in a lawyer's office and they were able to reverse it. It absolutely has to be done in front of a judge. As long as every i is dotted and t crossed, it's a done deal. Thank God, because we had an attempt made and nothing came of it.

[poullafouca]

As a California resident and mother to a fourteen month old son, whom we adopted at birth, I did find the Queen Latifah statement confusing, I wondered what did she know that we didn't? I was never under any impression that after a birth mother terminated her rights, and then an adoption was finalized that the security of the adoption was in any way questionable.

I found it quite troubling, even the suggestion of it.
I'm concerned to hear that there is some truth in it.

Poulla

[poullafouca]

Originally Posted by Christie S.

All I can say is that this is what is happening in my case. I have a child about to turn 4 (bmom was 13 when pregnant and 14 when born - and I think that made a difference in my case) - but she can still come back and rescind the adoption. I can't speak for others - only my own case - but in my case this is absolutely true.

Christie, all I can say is I wish you luck, and will keep you in my prayers for a happy outcome; this situation must be really unbearable.

Poulla

[Linny]

The only time I can see this happening (revoking the adoption), would be if the biological parents can prove-in court---that their signatures to release their child were forced under fraud or coercion. Sadly, this does happen.

More often than not, a lot of problems with adoption lead back to the poor practices of a bad attorney/agency. (ie, signatures were obtained fraudulently, the bio parents were lied to, the attorney didn't go back into court to TPR rights when needed, etc.)
It pays to investigate both before using them for an adoption.

In the case of state system adoption...well.......as far as I'm concerned, that's often a 'toss up'. IMO, the system is seldom 'there' for the children.

Sincerely,

Linny

[ChristieS]

In my case there were several problems: 1) bmom was a minor
2) Judge refused to completely TPR her as a result
3) Sorry, sorry, sorry lawyering
4) I did not leave the hospital with a consent - only custody papers.

**The best way I know of to keep this from happening to you is never leave the hospital with a child without a signed, valid consent - and then the MINUTE the time limit is up move forward to make it final.** My case is still dragging on four years later. We do have a complete adoption (birth certificate and all) - but not full TPR so she CAN come back - and SHE HAS.

[lisa in venice]

Queen latifa is talking about foster/adopt. Our county is pretty good and CA is pretty good in general but some of our counties are slow to TPR and in some states they don't even BEGIN the process until kids have been in foster placements for several years. Foster/adopt in many palces means a serious legal risk for the aprents with an uncertain time period until TPR. I am not advocating for parents to lose their children without due process but I think it is reasonable to set a time limit. I believe she lives in NJ and it can take a looooooong time there to TPR EVEN if the birthfamily has had not contact and has made no effort to comply with the reunification plan.

lisa

[ChristieS]

Same in Alabama - in some counties. Even with complete and absolute abandonment - they can still come back years later. Again, not sure how the minor status of bmom came into play - but somehow it did. Also, my lawyer could have pushed the case forward but waited until the bmom decided to TPR on her own - which never happened. Yes, bparents can come back years later and do come back years later - and yes, it is a nightmare to live through every day, not knowing what is coming today.

Best case scenario is force a TPR through abandonment ASAP and force the adoption through at the first available moment. Had we done that before the bmom got placed in juvy with 5 free lawyers we would probably have ended this long ago. Instead, her lawyers get paid every time we go to court so we have been in and out of court for years. Do the math. My lawyer failed in waiting for her to make the first move, and in not having a signed, legal consent prior to our leaving the hospital with our child. Hope this helps some of you.

[Guspiv]

She is probably refering to adopting through foster care when the birth parents parental rights have not been terminated. I wish people exspecially people in the spotlight who are quoted to the public would get there facts straight and or specify what they are talking about.

[hotspice58]

All I can say is that this is what is happening in my case. I have a child about to turn 4 (bmom was 13 when pregnant and 14 when born - and I think that made a difference in my case) - but she can still come back and rescind the adoption. I can't speak for others - only my own case - but in my case this is absolutely true.

Christie S, you and your family are in my prayers. That's horrible!!

[Guspiv]

I did not mean to imply that it was impossible. I just meant that when someone in the spotlight is speaking on a topic they should be more specific. Say something along the lines of "the goal of foster care is to give children a loving home while birthparents work reaching goals to reunite their families" or specifically say that if a birthparents rights have not been terminated a child can be returned to his/her birthfamily at anytime, but this only happens in extreme circumstances.
Because now I know I am going to have to field questions from people saying "Queen Latifah said xyz and aren't you scared."