[manni28]

I think people should start out small and work in more if they feel good about it.

I think everyone has valid points however, the above quote says it all-Don't bite off more then you can chew.

I guess I would never sign an agreement for someone to see my child, whether it be birthparents, friends or other relatives. It seems too much like a custody case in the event of a divorce and that is certainly not the case here. I don't want the law to tell me who and when my child visits with.

I agree with this statement 100%. I think part of the problem was the agency allowed the bfather to think OA meant joint custody and the aparents, happy to be parents, they went along with the program. I do believe that problems like this happen when people who have nothing in common (except the child) sign legal papers like this. Sad.

I do believe in legally enforceable OAs. I know cases like this are going to scare PAPs, but I just think if you are going to make an agreement, it's only "fair" that it should be enforced. The thing that stinks though is as someone said, you are making these really "important" agreements without really "knowing" each other (there's just not usually enough time) and in cases like this, obviously the kid is going to suffer when a dispute like this happens. Sad. The reality is is that no matter what the court decides here, there is likely never going to be a "healthy" OA in light of what has gone on so far.

I don't believe the law should tell aparents who the child should see. It makes them second rate in my eyes. I agree to cut of contact without warning is wrong, but when you have people who cross boundaries and disrespect the aparents, why should they go to court (and send money and time) to defend their actions? I truly believe if you want to have a role in your child's life, then raise them.

Another thing that got me wondering was, he ( bdad) borrowed money for legal fees, but couldn't do so to raise his child?

[Mommy24]

Originally Posted by manni28

I truly believe if you want to have a role in your child's life, then raise them.

Ya know Manni, some of your words are so hurtful!
Would it make you feel good to hear "If you really wanted to have kids without any birth parent involvement then you should have had your own?"

Somethings are just better left unsaid....

[manni28]

Ya know Manni, some of your words are so hurtful!
Would it make you feel good to hear "If you really wanted to have kids without any birth parent involvement then you should have had your own?"

Somethings are just better left unsaid....

Michelle:

I'm sorry if my statement seemed harsh, but it's the truth, and what you said can also be taken as the truth as well, too. But the fact remain, if you want to a role in your child's life, raise them. Bdad borrowed money for legal fees but he couldn't do the same in order to raise his child?

[BethanyB]

Ya know Manni, some of your words are so hurtful!
Would it make you feel good to hear "If you really wanted to have kids without any birth parent involvement then you should have had your own?"

Somethings are just better left unsaid....

I agree. Or how about, if youre not ready to live up and therefore sign an agreement to your OA than dont agree to one. Dont tell a woman who is about to place her child into the hands of someone she trusts enough to place HER BABY with, that you will stick to your word if you cant sign an agreement.

The reason I said take it to court is because there will be a third party who is not involved emotionally and will be able to make a good choice based on the facts.

There is always the option of a closed adoption. But then the wait for a child may be longer and who wants to have to do that? It is so much easier to agree to an open adoption, have a shorter wait and know you can get out of it if need be. THAT is what bothers me.

Oh Bethany, after your posts on this thread I think I love you! haha

[Mommy24]

I am not to stand in judgement of this man and his reasoning for placing his child, I do not know of his circumstances. Please remember that financial reasons are NOT the only reason that adoption plans are made.

I have lived a piece of this situation, though not a totally open adoption, I know the pain of having promises broken. Unfortunately the child WILL be the one hurt in all of this, may not be today or tomorrow, but someday.

Sigh...

[manni28]

The reason I said take it to court is because there will be a third party who is not involved emotionally and will be able to make a good choice based on the facts.

Bethany:

Let's say you're in an open adoption and thing begin to change. How would you feel that someone who isn't raising YOUR child takes you to court, makes you spend money and time on legal fees, but isn't contributing to upbringing of the child?? I know I would be ticked off. The thought that I signed something in good faith with a person and then find out they aren't who they presented themselves to be, would make me very angry that I, THE PARENT, would have to go to court to stop visits!!!!

That's insane! I don't need the courts to tell me who my child will see when they're not financially, morally or physically helping me raise the child!

[thanksgivingmom]

Originally Posted by manni28

I don't believe the law should tell aparents who the child should see. It makes them second rate in my eyes. I agree to cut of contact without warning is wrong, but when you have people who cross boundaries and disrespect the aparents, why should they go to court (and send money and time) to defend their actions? I truly believe if you want to have a role in your child's life, then raise them.

The law isn't telling aparents who the child should see. The law is that when parents adopt the child is their child. The fact of the matter is some parents choose to participate in OA's, some of which are legally enforceable. They signed on to it! No one "forced" their hand.

And you seem to be of the mind that the only reason that anyone would go to court over a legally enforceable OA is because bparents are overstepping boundaries. Like it could absolutely never be because aparents broke a promise. I'm not speaking about this case specifically - it looks like too much finger pointing and flaws on both ends for me to even begin to try to decipher what's going on entirely - but it seems that you're not speaking JUST about this case either as you seem to think it makes the argument against OA's altogether.

As for your lovely statement at the end, it's entirely unacceptable to talk to people like that. I'm sorry, but I do want a role in my child's life (and have one) and I am thankful that her Mom knows that, respects that, and above all encourages that.

[manni28]

As for your lovely statement at the end, it's entirely unacceptable to talk to people like that. I'm sorry, but I do want a role in my child's life (and have one) and I am thankful that her Mom knows that, respects that, and above all encourages that.

Thanksgivingmom:

Sorry, it is what it is. When you want to have role like the bdad in this article does, then you DO need to raise your child. Why is it unacceptable? If you want to have liberal visits, be called "the other mother/parent" or have a say in how the child is raised-then raise your child!

[thanksgivingmom]

But manni, don't you see? You generalize. You didn't say, "If you want to visit your kid every third weekend and take them on trips then you should really consider your ability to parent your child before placing them." You said the blanket statement that if firstparents want a role in their child's life then raise them.

Can you see the difference?

I think a LOT of us see issues, on both sides, with the specific article. Yes, I think the birth father said things that were entirely uncalled for. Yes, I think the parents agreed to things that were nearly impossible to live up to. I don't have a problem discussing those things in the context of that particular open adoption.

The problem becomes when you take those actions and make statements that are about the rest of us.

[BethanyB]

Manni I could pose your same question to you but changing a few words to tell how a birthparent may feel.

The thought that I signed something in good faith with a person and then find out they aren't who they presented themselves to be, would make me very angry that I, THE Birth PARENT WHO GAVE BIRTH TO THE CHILD AND TRUSTED THE APARENTS ENOUGH TO PLACE MY CHILD IN THEIR ARMS, would have to go to court [b]to see the child I WAS PROMISED I COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH.[/B

]

Adoption is not the same as giving birth. I dont understand anyone who would not sign an agreement to something they agree to unless they knew they may want to break it. A promise is a promise right? Dont sign an OA agreement if you wont sign that you agree. Do a closed adoption then.

I just dont get it. If you promise not to break your agreement, why not sign? And I agree that it is sad that the bio parents in the conversation are always the ones who are the bad guys. They are the ones overstepping the boundries or making the aparents uncomfortable. But those woman are always the wonderful birth parents who gave aparents the greatest gift in the world until a few months later when the fairy tale wears off and now the bio parents are just an inconvenience.

I have read many a thread where aparents wanted out of an OA for trival reasons. Aparents promise many things that they change their minds about. This is not a car we are talking about. We are talking about a child that a mother placed because she felt she had to but CHOSE an open adoption because she knew she needed contact in order to go through with the adoption plan. And then all of a sudden parents can say...Ah, nope. This is too hard. We change our minds...Then that woman never gets to see the child again. How horrible!!!

[manni28]

But manni, don't you see? You generalize. You didn't say, "If you want to visit your kid every third weekend and take them on trips then you should really consider your ability to parent your child before placing them." You said the blanket statement that if firstparents want a role in their child's life then raise them. I think a LOT of us see issues, on both sides, with the specific article. Yes, I think the birth father said things that were entirely uncalled for. Yes, I think the parents agreed to things that were nearly impossible to live up to. I don't have a problem discussing those things in the context of that particular open adoption.

The problem becomes when you take those actions and make statements that are about the rest of us.

Where am I generalizing? I think any time you want to take aparents to court over visits, then you need to raise your child. See it from a parent's view: we are raising the child. We are responsible financially, morally and physically for the child-and you want to take me to court because you want to see the child; a child who someone else is raising?

In short, if you want to have full rights as a parent then raise your child.

[manni28]

Adoption is not the same as giving birth. I dont understand anyone who would not sign an agreement to something they agree to unless they knew they may want to break it. A promise is a promise right? Dont sign an OA agreement if you wont sign that you agree. Do a closed adoption then.

I just dont get it. If you promise not to break your agreement, why not sign? And I agree that it is sad that the bio parents in the conversation are always the ones who are the bad guys. They are the ones overstepping the boundries or making the aparents uncomfortable. But those woman are always the wonderful birth parents who gave aparents the greatest gift in the world until a few months later when the fairy tale wears off and now the bio parents are just an inconvenience.

I have read many a thread where aparents wanted out of an OA for trival reasons. Aparents promise many things that they change their minds about. This is not a car we are talking about. We are talking about a child that a mother placed because she felt she had to but CHOSE an open adoption because she knew she needed contact in order to go through with the adoption plan. And then all of a sudden parents can say...Ah, nope. This is too hard. We change our minds...Then that woman never gets to see the child again. How horrible!!!

Bethany:

I agree it's is horrible. But you know what, it's the reality of adoption. I have read many times about the drama between bparents and aparents. Do you think as a parent I want someone to have power over me in regrads to MY child? I am the one raising the child. When you contribute to raising the child with me, then you have rights.

[court5505]

The whole issue for me is the formality of it. I would not sign a legally enforceable agreement to see my best friend every 4 weeks. Does that mean that I plan on cutting ties with her down the road? No way! It just means that life happens and there may be times that we see each other two weekends in a row and then not again for 5 weeks. I think one of the goals of a healthy, open adoption is for the relationship to be as natural as possible and by signing something, it would be getting off on the wrong foot.

Again, this is just my opinion and if someone said they wouldn't place their baby with me unless I signed something, I don't think I would be the right choice for them. Luckily we have a very comfortable and natural relationship with DD's bparents and they just call when they want to visit and we set something up. Just like with any other family members or friends. It works for all of us!

[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.