Ohio SC Decision a Clear Win for Dads in Adoption Cases

**Tyrael** · 28th-September-2010

Ohio SC Decision a Clear Win for Dads in Adoption Cases
September 27th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The war on fathers’ rights in adoption proceedings continues and fathers are starting to win a few battles, like the one described in this article (Toledo Blade, 9/24/10) and this Ohio Supreme Court opinion (Leagle, 7/22/10).

Benjamin Wyrembek had a brief affair with a married woman. She became pregnant in 2007 and, along with her husband, decided to place the child for adoption. Wyrembek had no way of knowing if the child was his or not and possibly neither did the woman, although neither the article nor the opinion says. But he timely filed his claim of paternity with the Ohio Putative Father Registry and brought suit in juvenile court in December, 2007 to establish paternity. In January, 2008, the adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn, filed their suit to adopt the child.

Genetic testing determined that the child is Wyrembek’s and every court has since ruled in his favor. Basically, he’s the biological father who’s done every legal thing in his power to get custody of his son and every court has ruled that the adoption can’t go forward. It seems that biological fathers have a few rights after all; it seems that the many United States Supreme Court cases so ruling actually mean something.

But, you may ask, “it’s been almost three years since genetic testing determined Wyrembek’s paternity; why does he still not have possession of his son?” Well, the answer is that adoption attorneys for many years have understood that when they’re caught trying to force adoption on a child who doesn’t need to be adopted because it has a fit father who wants it, the best thing to do is to stall.

In the past, that tactic worked well. Years of litigation often mean that fathers run out of money and give up. Personally, I’ve encountered cases in which the dad sees his child growing up in the household of another couple and comes to believe that, as much as he wants his child, as much as he’s entitled to be his/her dad, it’s better for the child for him to just walk away. So he does.

And in the past courts have ruled that, whatever the law on fathers’ rights may be, after a certain amount of time has passed, the best interests of the child demand that the dad butt out and the child remain in its adoptive home.

So adoption attorneys believe that stalling is, if not right, at least effective. Their credo is “if you keep father and child separated long enough, maybe the adoption will happen.” As the Blade article none too subtlely puts it,

On Tuesday, the Vaughns were served with an order from Lucas County Juvenile Court to hand over the nearly 3-year-old boy named Grayson to Mr. Wyrembek, prompting their attorney to file another flurry of motions to prevent the surrender.

That’s a pretty accurate description of what’s been going on since early 2008. Face it, everyone in the case knew almost three years ago that Wyrembek was the boy’s father. Then, or at any time since then, they could have done the right thing and turned the boy over to him, but they didn’t. The attorney kept filing motions, kept filing appeals and, the judicial system being what it is, time passed - a lot of it.

By now, that’s the Vaughn’s only claim - that their keeping the child in their custody in the face of every court ruling against them constitutes some sort of right that trumps those of the boy’s father. As I said, in the past that often worked. But it doesn’t any longer.

Now courts in Ohio and many other states are starting to take the rights of biological fathers far more seriously than ever before. The narrow ruling in the Ohio case is that a biological father has one year from the time his paternity is established to file suit to stop the adoption of his child. That means that mothers can no longer hide a child or a child’s paternity from a father and deprive him of his parental rights via adoption. A father’s rights can’t be diminished or terminated until he knows he’s the dad; once he does, he’s got a year in which to act.

Amazingly enough, the attorney for the Vaughns and the article in the Toledo Blade want us to believe that Benjamin Wyrembek doesn’t care about his child. They cite the fact that he hasn’t communicated with his child during the course of the protracted litigation. Of course the idea that he might be trying to consider his child’s feelings and not intrude unduly into his life seems never to have occurred to them. Whatever his reasons, the idea that a man will spend however much time, money and emotional energy over three years pursuing custody, but at the same time doesn’t care about the child is borderline crazy.

The takeaway? The rights of biological fathers in adoption cases are no longer the pushovers they once were. This case and others stand for the proposition that, in adoption cases, courts will no longer allow mothers to control fathers’ rights. A mother’s hiding the child or hiding information about the child’s paternity will no longer suffice to deprive a father of his parental rights. It’s a win for dads.

Article source.

**Marx** · 28th-September-2010

This shouldn't even be a case. There should be NO issue whatsoever. The child should be with his Father from word go... just as the child would be if it were the Mother fighting for custody if the Father had put their child up for adoption.

Has any case like that ever happened, a Mother fighting for custody of her child after a Father put the child up for adoption behind her back?

**rohara** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from Marx

Has any case like that ever happened, a Mother fighting for custody of her child after a Father put the child up for adoption behind her back?

Never!

**Bmiricle** · 28th-September-2010

In the past, that tactic worked well. Years of litigation often mean that fathers run out of money and give up. Personally, I’ve encountered cases in which the dad sees his child growing up in the household of another couple and comes to believe that, as much as he wants his child, as much as he’s entitled to be his/her dad, it’s better for the child for him to just walk away. So he does.

These lawyers, litigators, and judges in question should have charges brought against them. This is sickening.

More ammo for the "best interest of the child" saga.

Fucking snakes.

**rohara** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from Bmiricle

These lawyers, litigators, and judges in question should have charges brought against them. This is sickening.

More ammo for the "best interest of the child" saga.

Fucking snakes.

These are the real enimies of the rights of fathers-the lawyers and the courts. They make money off of the whole thing and they couldn't give two shits about the child or the father. They are some of the most cynical and evil people on the planet.

**Bmiricle** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from rohara

These are the real enimies of the rights of fathers-the lawyers and the courts. They make money off of the whole thing and they couldn't give two shits about the child or the father. They are some of the most cynical and evil people on the planet.

I have been arguing this point for several years now. My ex-wife is not a bad person. Those who imposed on us as a couple and as parents (ie: the family court system) are the true bastards. Although she made out in the whole ordeal and I was railroaded, they took our family into their own hands and ultimately ruined it.

What could have been an amicable separation, was thrown into an uncontrollable spiral of fucked. Especially for myself and my daughter.

**RobYork** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from rohara

These are the real enimies of the rights of fathers-the lawyers and the courts. They make money off of the whole thing and they couldn't give two shits about the child or the father. They are some of the most cynical and evil people on the planet.

Excatly !!!

**Marx** · 28th-September-2010

Similar here. When my ex & I split, we had our own private agreements on all areas and it worked out well.

Then the C$A got involved and claimed (lied) that my ex had 'requested' their involvement (she hadn't). I called up and asked the case-worker why they are allowed to lie, create hostilities and interfere with people who otherwise get on reasonably well... she answered "it's the law".

**Bmiricle** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from Marx

... she answered "it's the law".

No kidding? I got the same reply from my case worker when I asked the same question. The "law" seems to only be able to be bent and skirted when it has to do with murderers, drug cartels, and the mob. When it comes to a father and his rights to be a piggy bank then it's as solid as rock.

**omegaflux** · 28th-September-2010

Screw all of these motions the adoptive family keeps filing. I'd be at their house with an assault rifle. I'd tell them it's real simple, multiple courts have ordered you to turn over my child to me, since you have no legal standing as to guardianship of my child this is kidnapping, give me my kid or die. That would draw national attention to the raw deal men get.

**JohnLocke** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from Marx

she answered "it's the law".

Quote from Bmiricle

No kidding? I got the same reply from my case worker when I asked the same question.

Upon presenting to the judge our Parenting Plan/Divorce Agreement that we amicably developed just the two of us, it was the judge who told us we "cannot just decide to not involve Friend of the Court." Upon looking over the detailed document and asking some questions he realized it was a complete agreement.

**Bmiricle** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from JohnLocke

Upon presenting to the judge our Parenting Plan/Divorce Agreement that we amicably developed just the two of us, it was the judge who told us we "cannot just decide to not involve Friend of the Court." Upon looking over the detailed document and asking some questions he realized it was a complete agreement.

Friend of the Court? As in Michigan? Or are there other states who refer to this establishment of third party extortionists as the "friend of the court?"

What a perfect name. They could also be called the "friend of the state", or the "enemy of the father."

**JohnLocke** · 28th-September-2010

Quote from Bmiricle

Friend of the Court? As in Michigan? Or are their other states who refer to this establishment of third party extortionists as the "friend of the court?"

What a perfect name. They could also be called the "friend of the state", or the "enemy of the father."

LOL Exactly correct on all counts!

Before I decided to proceed with my divorce without a lawyer I interviewed a few, including a female lawyer. I thought having a female attorney might help me gain sympathy. I did not realize I had walked into the lions den - she was a well known rabid feminist, attacking me for having both a pre and post nuptial agreement and every question she asked was as if she were already by wife's lawyer. Interrupting this feminazi train, she stopped the interview to tell me she is required "by law" to inform me of the role of the Friend of the Court then handed me a pamphlet.

Without reading it, I looked her in the eye and asked, "Is the Friend of the Court a friend of mine or a friend of my wife's." Staring at me like a dear in headlights for a few moments, she took my consultation check and literally threw it at me saying she cannot work with me and I better leave her office! :-)

**Kargan3033** · 28th-September-2010

Well it's about bloody time, now only if we could root out these evil scum bag and throw them in jail for this bullshit.

Quote from omegaflux

Screw all of these motions the adoptive family keeps filing. I'd be at their house with an assault rifle. I'd tell them it's real simple, multiple courts have ordered you to turn over my child to me, since you have no legal standing as to guardianship of my child this is kidnapping, give me my kid or die. That would draw national attention to the raw deal men get.

Amen to that, if I was in such a sittuation I'd do it in heart beat and I agree it would most certienly make headlines but you know the spin doctors would make you out to be a complet wack job and then you would never get your kid(s) back which would be reason enough to make some heavy judgement calls on these assholes, don't these retards understand that there are something you just don't do in this world such as keeping a father from his kids?
Stupid, evil greedy fuckers that lot of them.

Army Soldier · 25th-October-2010

Well the courts decide what is best for the chil(ren). But what happens when they make the wrong choice? Who says the choice is right it should be fallowed up by a caseworker who is to make sure the best interest of the child(ren) is being met. Not for a few weeks but on a surprise inspection like random drug test. If they miss 3 or 3 bad reports then it should go back to the courts to change custody of the parents.