[court5505]

I just read this article in the paper today. What do you think?

Baby's birth mom, agency ask court to nullify adoption
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



A Nebraska adoption agency and birth mother want to take back a 3-month-old baby boy from a couple who wanted to give him a home, after learning that the adoptive mother was pregnant.

The biological mother, Megan Lynn Morgan, 22, of Sutherland, Neb., said in court documents that she wanted the parents who adopted her son not to have their own biological children. She wanted them either to raise her son alone or adopt more kids if they wanted to expand their family.

But Jason and Angela Vesely of Verdigre, Neb., say they didn't purposely hide Angela's pregnancy when they applied to adopt a child. They say they were never asked by the private agency if she was pregnant and didn't know the agency had rules against pregnant mothers applying.

Angela Vesely, 32, said she planned to tell the biological mother and caseworker about her pregnancy but was waiting because she had miscarried three times. Jason Vesely said his wife was more than four months' pregnant when the Nebraska Children's Home Society assigned the child to them. They applied to adopt in 2005.

The baby was living with the Veselys, who brought him to their home in Verdigre from the hospital four days after he was born in North Platte.

The agency confronted the Veselys after finding out in December that Angela was pregnant. The Veselys were told they had to return the baby two days later, Jason Vesely said.

Instead, the couple turned to the courts, and a Knox County judge granted them emergency guardianship of the baby. The agency has since filed a motion asking the judge to order the Veselys to turn over the baby to the agency.

"We have bonded as a family and cannot imagine our lives without (the baby)," Angela Vesely said in an e-mail to the Associated Press. "He is our son."

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for today, and the judge in the case appointed an independent lawyer to represent the interests of the baby.

Attempts to reach Morgan, the birth mother, were unsuccessful. Lawyers for Morgan, the Nebraska Children's Home Society, the Veselys and a court-appointed attorney for the baby did not return multiple phone calls from the Associated Press.

Couples with children under 18 months cannot apply to adopt children from the Nebraska Children's Home Society, according to the private agency's eligibility requirements. And couples must wait until their own children are 2 years old before the agency will place a child with them.

Meanwhile, Morgan has filed a separate complaint, asking a judge to invalidate the original adoption agreement she signed with the Nebraska Children's Home Society and grant her permanent custody. Morgan said in court documents filed in Lincoln County that she would never have let the Veselys adopt her son if she knew they wanted to have their own biological child.

A hearing on Morgan's complaint had not yet been scheduled.

Morgan says in the complaint that she suspected Angela Vesely was pregnant when they met and that she asked an agency official about it. But the official said the adoptive mother was "just chubby, not pregnant," according to the complaint.

The agency generally tries to find out whether couples applying to adopt a child are already expecting children, said Karen Authier, executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society.

She would not say specifically how that is done — if applying mothers are asked whether they are pregnant in a written application or whether caseworkers followed proper procedures in this case.

"We've been doing adoption for 115 years, and this is a most unusual case," Authier said. "We know that successful adoptions are based on a circle of trust and truth."

[Oceans]

WOW - If the aparents signed something stating it was against the rules to adopt while pregnant, and then failed to disclose that they were, then the bmother should get her child back. That's fraud IMHO. As for the rest of the article...

Megan Lynn Morgan, 22, of Sutherland, Neb., said in court documents that she wanted the parents who adopted her son not to have their own biological children.

Someone should have made it clear to the bmother that this is term she can't dictate. They have every right to get pregnant AFTER the adoption (and even before, they just have to disclose...)

Angela Vesely, 32, said she planned to tell the biological mother and caseworker about her pregnancy but was waiting because she had miscarried three times.

Not good enough...

A Nebraska adoption agency and birth mother want to take back a 3-month-old baby boy from a couple who wanted to give him a home...

a couple who wanted to give him a home.. (??) A little inflammatory - that baby would not have been homeless.

The fact that the agency is backing the birthmom says a lot to me.

[rtsmom]

I'm guessing the a-parents are going to need a pretty slick lawyer to win this one.

[loveajax]

This aggravates me and I think gives a parents a bad name. You don't adopt a baby to "hedge your bets" because you have suffered pg losses (which stinks, I know). How could they not think this was important info to share with the agency and the mom?

The other thing is is that by the time this works its way thru the courts, the kid will be totally bonded with the a parents and it will be so disruptive if a judge orders him returned to the birth mom.

Of course, as bad as the a parents "sound," I wouldn't be surprised if the agency never really told them their "pg rule." so sad....

[Mommy24]

I am disgusted all the way around. This is a human life we are dealing with, not a defective car, or a lawnmower that doesn't have the attachements they thought it would have so it needs to be returned, OMG, this makes me angry.

Obviously everyone is at fault in this case, everyone but baby. This baby has been with his parents for 3 months and obviously it will be longer than that by the time this mess is settled.I understand Bmom wanting what she wanted, I undestand agency having their rules, but since they both dropped the ball on making sure that aparents weren't pregnant, why should the baby have to be moved around??????

[kelceesmom]

I'm really appalled with everyone in this case. Bmom shouldn't put that kind of stipulation on any couple. But, if the couple agreed to it they should be abiding by it. It sounds like the agency did not come right out and ask. Their bad. Everyone did not follow thru.

The baby should not suffer for the adults doing in this. No person should put those kinds of stipulations on another human being. Very sad for all.

[lovemy2boys]

I agree with everyone here.

Maybe the agency didn't make their "rules" clear, but surely they must have told the paparents who the expectant mother felt...but let's say for arguments sake they didnt...

The paparents were expecting, and got a call from the agency....I understand completely wanting to wait to tell people of the pregnancy, esp. after 3 miscarriages - but upon receiving the call, why not say, "Look - because of our history, we haven't shared this with anyone, but we are x amount of months pregnant - how do we procede?"

That was one of the first classes the couples in our homestudy group asked, "What do we do if we are waiting and we get pregnant?"

[ericamhc]

It is very sad for all. And as someone who has had 4 miscarriages I can understand their position too. I mean I got to the point where if I was pregnant I just assumed I'd miscarry, and planned to be surprised if not.

[Oceans]

Michelle & Loveajax: You make a good point. I hope the they resolve this quickly!! How quick is quick? Well, it's probably impossible in "court time". I also hope the mom's (and dad) in this situation can put their love of the child first and not drag it all out...

After posting I began to wonder, what changed with the birth mom? Does she want to parent now, or place the child elsewhere.... I'm assuming she wants to parent so an interesting question is, should she be evaluated for her ability to do so? I can make an argument for "yes" and "no" I think...

Also Loveajax - I think this gives adoption as a whole a black eye... YUK!! Everyone’s nightmare, disruption & lies (even if by omission)...

[loveajax]

I know...bad bad bad all around. This is breaking my heart (I wonder how this little boy will feel when he is old enough to understand).

I mean no one can "hold" someone to things that happen in the future. We told DD's birth parents that we did not know if we would adopt again and if we did it would be when DD was a lot older. Well, we were presented with a situation when she was a year old and I really hoped it would work out. (I would never have expected I would have felt that way until that time. Unfortunately, it didn't. But I probably would have felt pretty "sheepish" if it had.).

I keep thinking that the agency really, really flubbed up here. Their comment that they "generally" check to see if p a parents are expecting is a red flag for me.

[musemoon]

This kind of thing is really really sad, but it asks some interesting questions, like do we have the right to govern whether a biological event will/can take place? I mean what if they thought they couldn't have kids and became pregnant? What would the amom have to do abort? adopt? it doesn't seem like this is a fair thing to ask the aparents to promise. But the agency has rules they should have demanded a current medical exam which would include a pregnancy test in order to be matched and before the paperwork is signed (two pregnancy tests) if they were that strict about the rule (strict enough to consider disruption).

The second problem to me is what is the bmom planning??? On adopting the child to another family? or parenting? I don't really understand her concern, her son will have a sibling who shares DNA with the adoptive family, I don't see that as a bad thing, the child will have a sibling close in age, there's nothing to say the the afamily won't adopt again. I feel as an adoptive parent that I couldn't love my daughter more so if I were to have a bio child, I couldn't see myself ever feeling more love for that child than I do my daughter, it's simply not possible, so is the bmom worried that the afamily will not love the child? I would understand her concern if the aparents where abusive or neglectful...but that doesn't seem to be the case. And please don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of ebparents parenting....totally, I think it must be the hardest pain on earth to endure, losing a child, BUT that being said...I don't think it should be right for a bparent who has signed the paperwork to back out of the adoption and parent if aparents are not abusive or neglectful (ie, child services have been called and the child has been removed)

It adds a very scary and interesting twist into the adoption world....can agencies mandate pregnancy and are bparents allowed to disrupt an adoption for a reason other than health and safety of a child?

[HBV]

Angela Vesely, 32, said she planned to tell the biological mother and caseworker about her pregnancy but was waiting because she had miscarried three times. Jason Vesely said his wife was more than four months' pregnant when the Nebraska Children's Home Society assigned the child to them. They applied to adopt in 2005.

Look at the timing here, too. They may have filled out an initial application and honestly stated that they weren't pregnant or weren't actively trying to get pregnant when they initially filled it out in 2005---I think there was a question like that on our application. And, having endured so many miscarriages, they may have assumed this would be the same---the story doesn't say how far along she was in each of her previous miscarriages.

I just think there's quite a lot missing from the article, and frankly I don't see how the baby's interests are served by removing him.

I do agree that it's a black eye for adoption in the press.

[loveajax]

The weird thing is is that doesn't the agency technically have "custody" of the child until finalization? I mean what are the a parents' legal rights right now anyway? (This is why I sooo wanted to blast my agency for some total nonsense they pulled, but decided not to until after finalization).

I can see everyone's point. I keep thinking was this like a "shoot! we hope nobody finds out!" kind of thing or just the a parents having no idea about the rule and not realizing there was something they should have revealed. I don't know if that will matter for the courts, but gosh, I hope it's the latter.

Erica, I am sorry for all your losses.

[belleinblue1978]

What a mess.

I agree that no first parent should be able to say NO biological kids for you, we have no right to dictate anything. However if she would have chosen another couple and this couple knew that, well think about it.

As for why a firstmom would choose a couple that couldn't have bio kids, yep I can see that. Think about the horror stories about how people love their bio kids more than their adopted kids. I'm not saying any of you would do that, but just b/c that is how it is for you doesn't mean there aren't creeps out there that wouldn't love their bio kid more. I"ve been active online in the adoption community for ten years and I have seen alot of selfish, mean people adopt.

If they with held the information that they were pregnant because they knew this woman wouldn't place with them, they are deceptive and why should that baby stay with them? I wouldn't want my child raised with dishonest people.

As for the other mom's plans if she gets the baby back, not really anyone else's business. She would be the mom and get to make the choices.

[Oceans]

Love - Yup... was what I was thinking too.

The agency confronted the Veselys after finding out in December that Angela was pregnant. The Veselys were told they had to return the baby two days later, Jason Vesely said.

Instead, the couple turned to the courts, and a Knox County judge granted them emergency guardianship of the baby. The agency has since filed a motion asking the judge to order the Veselys to turn over the baby to the agency.

For the baby' sake, I hope he remains with his aparents until this is settled. Since he is only 3 months old, I doubt the adoption was finalized but I don't know NE rules. Still another part screams at me that if the agency can not remove the child, then why bother with the finalization wait time?

I continue to believe that IF they knew the rules and IF they violated those rules, the baby should be returned. Adoption has too much at stake for the child to open up a can of worms such as, "if no one finds out... I can get away with it"

I hope all agencies with this policy take note and make sure it's included in their contract going forward. and BTW, if this is the only policy...

Couples with children under 18 months cannot apply to adopt children from the Nebraska Children's Home Society, according to the private agency's eligibility requirements. And couples must wait until their own children are 2 years old before the agency will place a child with them.

Then I don't think they violated the agreement..