9 Year Old Begs to go Home

[jjenny]

Her father was in prison. He couldn't take care of her. Who is supposed to be taking care of his child while he is sitting in prison?

 

[MyBelle]

Her father was in prison. He couldn't take care of her. Who is supposed to be taking care of his child while he is sitting in prison?

Her mother or whomever took care of her half-brothers for a start.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

The adoptive parents did not falsely accuse the father of abandonment from what I can tell at this point. He did abandon the child. He failed to show up at several hearing to determine her custody and instead decided to commit further crimes while custody was being decided.
All of that was his choice.

As to what the kid wants, I'm familiar with how DCF and GALs can act when they are angry and want to retaliate against a party who calls them out for not doing their job.

It would be super hard to convince me that the child we heard on the phone has severed her bond with the only family she can remember and is totally comfortable and bonded to a stranger.

That being said, baby Jessica (who was admittedly much younger), apparently has no memory of her adoptive parents and is quite content with her bio family and baby Richard who was 4.5 when his adoption was terminated, was said to be quite happy with his biodad only a couple weeks after the transfer.

But what do we know? Baby M who split time with her bio mom and adoptive mom and bio dad was pictured snuggling with her bio mom at age 8 or so, seemingly quite content. At age 15 or so she began refusing to visit her bio mom and at age 18 she severed all contact and publicly denounced her. She stated her adoptive mom is her real mom.

Then there's a story quite similar to this one of a boy whose adoption was interrupted at age 8. He was sent back to his bio family. He describes how he adjusted and looked content but inside was ripped to shreds. At age 18 he immediately went back "home".
He tells his story in the website supporting this child's adoptive parents.

This is an issue of biology versus nurture, parental rights, the best interest of a child, adoption, the foster care system and the dependency court system in the US and the desire for a child. I don't know the ultimate truth here but either way this kid has suffered and my feeling is disrupting her life to give her back to a man who cared more about crime than his child is questionable at best to me.

 

[gitana1]

Her mother or whomever took care of her half-brothers for a start.

JMO

Her mother's parental rights were terminated in both Nebraska and Tennessee.

The grandmother, btw, lost custody of the paternal uncle when he was a child, due to abandonment and neglect, and one of her grandkids recently, due to neglect.

The half brothers were essentially abandoned by dear old dad from what I can tell as also have criminal histories.

 

[jjenny]

Her mother or whomever took care of her half-brothers for a start.

JMO

Excuse me. I have seen no evidence her biological mother ever wanted to take care of her. Even as an infant this child was living with the bio-dad. I don't know who is taking care of her half-brothers, but I presume it's their biological mother. Why would she want to take care of a child not related to her?

 

[Hejlena]

Has this child been appointed her own attorney besides a GAL? If not, I hope one is appointed very soon. She has a right to speak for herself.

 

[Supernovae]

BBM. Most importantly, she doesn't want to be in foster care. It's finally over.

JMO

You say that as if being in "foster care," as you put it, is automatically some unending nightmare. She's been with the same family from just before she was two to aged nine. That shouldn't be underestimated. They're the only family she's really known. I don't think any of us has the (authoritative, unbiased) information needed to offer an opinion as to what she really feels.

I know that with these things what's published is rarely the whole story, but the whole situation seems a mess, and the main guilty parties, as I see it, are social services and/or the system more generally. From the perspective of someone whose not American, so many aspects of this seem bizarre. The fact that social services would allow some sort of quasi-official fostering situation continue, by a family who weren't official foster parents and, who's only connection to the child (at that point) was that they cared for her part time at the behest of someone who was paid to care for her by the father. That they would allow this arrangement to continue to the point of adoption, then reverse that decision once the child has spent most of her childhood with the now adoptive family. They can't blame the adoptive parents for "misleading" them or "blocking;" it was their job to ensure a proper fact finding at the outset and if they were at all unhappy with the arrangement at any point, surely they could have removed her at once, as these people, pre-adoption would have had no real standing at all?

In the UK, where I'm from, social service have very many problems without doubt but as soon as the situation had been discovered the child would almost certainly have been taken into local authority care and moves would have been made for permanency relatively quickly. Once it became apparent the natural mother didn't want to know, the maternal family were (presumably) not on the scene, the father had an extensive violent criminal record and the paternal family were dysfunctional with allegations of sexual abuse, no, it would be end of story, and the child would likely be adopted, either from foster care by the official foster carers or by another family.

Reversal of adoption orders here is almost unheard of even in cases where the parents ostensibly experienced a real injustice. In one case the children had been originally removed on the grounds of what was thought at the time to be a non-accidental injury but later turned out to be due to a vitamin D deficiency. The biological parents were refused permission to overturn the adoptions:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/feb/12/child-adoption-appeal-court-ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/59.html#para145

In one of the cases referenced in that ruling, which is very pertinent to this case, where the adoption order had been overturned on the grounds of irregularity the child nevertheless remained with the foster parents:

http://www.4pb.com/case-detail/re-k-adoption-and-wardship

This fact has been a source of consternation amongst some aggrieved parents' groups, but the reasons behind it are sound. It's clearly unacceptable to remove an older child from a basically stable home, the only one she's really known, to put her back with a family that's struggling, to put it at it's very kindest.

 

[jjenny]

Has this child been appointed her own attorney besides a GAL? If not, I hope one is appointed very soon. She has a right to speak for herself.

She has an attorney ad litem in addition to GAL. I can not verify this information since it comes from the blog, but supposedly her attorney ad litem said in court (in April) that S. told her she wants to go home to Tennessee.
This child was raised for years by the couple. They adopted her (although adoption was later overturned since father had his sentenced reduced). For court to then say she has to go back to her bio dad (who is a convicted felon)-it boggles my mind.
Based on his past, this guy could not stay out of trouble for long. Somehow I find it hard to believe he has reformed. Having children certainly hadn't stopped him from committing crimes in the past.

 

[MyBelle]

You say that as if being in "foster care," as you put it, is automatically some unending nightmare. She's been with the same family from just before she was two to aged nine. That shouldn't be underestimated. They're the only family she's really known. I don't think any of us has the (authoritative, unbiased) information needed to offer an opinion as to what she really feels.

I know that with these things what's published is rarely the whole story, but the whole situation seems a mess, and the main guilty parties, as I see it, are social services and/or the system more generally. From the perspective of someone whose not American, so many aspects of this seem bizarre. The fact that social services would allow some sort of quasi-official fostering situation continue, by a family who weren't official foster parents and, who's only connection to the child (at that point) was that they cared for her part time at the behest of someone who was paid to care for her by the father. That they would allow this arrangement to continue to the point of adoption, then reverse that decision once the child has spent most of her childhood with the now adoptive family. They can't blame the adoptive parents for "misleading" them or "blocking;" it was their job to ensure a proper fact finding at the outset and if they were at all unhappy with the arrangement at any point, surely they could have removed her at once, as these people, pre-adoption would have had no real standing at all?

In the UK, where I'm from, social service have very many problems without doubt but as soon as the situation had been discovered the child would almost certainly have been taken into local authority care and moves would have been made for permanency relatively quickly. Once it became apparent the natural mother didn't want to know, the maternal family were (presumably) not on the scene, the father had an extensive violent criminal record and the paternal family were dysfunctional with allegations of sexual abuse, no, it would be end of story, and the child would likely be adopted, either from foster care by the official foster carers or by another family.

Reversal of adoption orders here is almost unheard of even in cases where the parents ostensibly experienced a real injustice. In one case the children had been originally removed on the grounds of what was thought at the time to be a non-accidental injury but later turned out to be due to a vitamin D deficiency. The biological parents were refused permission to overturn the adoptions:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/feb/12/child-adoption-appeal-court-ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/59.html#para145

In one of the cases referenced in that ruling, which is very pertinent to this case, where the adoption order had been overturned on the grounds of irregularity the child nevertheless remained with the foster parents:

http://www.4pb.com/case-detail/re-k-adoption-and-wardship

This fact has been a source of consternation amongst some aggrieved parents' groups, but the reasons behind it are sound. It's clearly unacceptable to remove an older child from a basically stable home, the only one she's really known, to put her back with a family that's struggling, to put it at it's very kindest.

It's a complicated case and much misinformation is being distributed. I'm comfortable believing the court does have all the information and has made its decision accordingly. The child and her father have rights. She should have never been removed from her father's custody, he had legal and physical custody of her when some detective decided arbitrarily to call in Tennessee DCS. The child's babysitter kidnapped her and handed her off and she was handed off again.

The child's grandmother was approved by DHS in 2005 prior to the father being sentenced. The former foster parents tried to circumvent the rights of the child and the father and failed. The Court had to put an end to it.

However, Sonya never returned.

By the end of the month, McCaul went to Tennessee to collect his daughter.

But the carer's parents contacted Dickson County sheriff's department and told them they believed the father 'had a violent history' and was coming to Tennessee to take the child back.

It's unclear whether McCaul did in fact have a violent history at that point and it is also unknown whether he had harmed the infant in the past.

But Detective Amy Longtin stopped McCaul from taking Sonya back and called the Department of Children's Services.

The next month, the Dickson County Juvenile Court placed Sonya in the carer's parents' home but soon after she went to live with Kim Hodgin, a co-worker of the carer's mother, and her husband.

Read more: http://fixmoneyy2minutes.com/news/a...logical-father-Josh-McCaul.html#ixzz321HwonLe

 

[jjenny]

Who writes these articles? How is it unclear if the father had a violent history?
Does the author not know about his criminal history which includes robbery convictions?

 

[wonders]

This is ridiculous...Put the child back with the people who raised her. IMO the father relinquished his rights when he broke the law and should have spent 15 years in prison but instead spent 7.5 years or whatever, I don't care, she was the last thing on his mind as he was breaking the law. IMO if it attracts media attention then dollar signs are rolling in the minds of the people who should have cared the most about her. In other words, if you screw it up the first time then too flipping bad you lose, end of story. It's about the CHILD and nothing else should be top priority.

 

[jjenny]

He had information about a homicide.
It sounds like he made a deal with LE to get his sentence reduced because of this information.
It's too bad, because if he sat in that prison for 15 years as he was originally sentenced to, the child would have had a chance to grow up with her adoptive family.
What exactly is he doing to earn money now?
Got to be difficult to find a job with his criminal record.
Can he actually stay out of prison?

 

[MyBelle]

He had information about a homicide.
It sounds like he made a deal with LE to get his sentence reduced because of this information.
It's too bad, because if he sat in that prison for 15 years as he was originally sentenced to, the child would have had a chance to grow up with her adoptive family.
What exactly is he doing to earn money now?
Got to be difficult to find a job with his criminal record.
Can he actually stay out of prison?

What it 'sounds like' and what is reality are often two completely different things. He never gave up on his child. According to DHS, there is no adoptive family.

Whether he stays out of prison or not, for now his daughter and he have rights fully intact. And in America, that is the way it should be.

 

[MyBelle]

This is ridiculous...Put the child back with the people who raised her. IMO the father relinquished his rights when he broke the law and should have spent 15 years in prison but instead spent 7.5 years or whatever, I don't care, she was the last thing on his mind as he was breaking the law. IMO if it attracts media attention then dollar signs are rolling in the minds of the people who should have cared the most about her. In other words, if you screw it up the first time then too flipping bad you lose, end of story. It's about the CHILD and nothing else should be top priority.

It is ridiculous in whose opinion? Certainly not in the opinion of the appellate court. Are they supposed to bow to public opinion when making decisions?

 

[Supernovae]

It's a complicated case and much misinformation is being distributed. I'm comfortable believing the court does have all the information and has made its decision accordingly. The child and her father have rights. She should have never been removed from her father's custody, he had legal and physical custody of her when some detective decided arbitrarily to call in Tennessee DCS. The child's babysitter kidnapped her and handed her off and she was handed off again.

The child's grandmother was approved by DHS in 2005 prior to the father being sentenced. The former foster parents tried to circumvent the rights of the child and the father and failed. The Court had to put an end to it.

However, Sonya never returned.

By the end of the month, McCaul went to Tennessee to collect his daughter.

But the carer's parents contacted Dickson County sheriff's department and told them they believed the father 'had a violent history' and was coming to Tennessee to take the child back.

It's unclear whether McCaul did in fact have a violent history at that point and it is also unknown whether he had harmed the infant in the past.

But Detective Amy Longtin stopped McCaul from taking Sonya back and called the Department of Children's Services.

The next month, the Dickson County Juvenile Court placed Sonya in the carer's parents' home but soon after she went to live with Kim Hodgin, a co-worker of the carer's mother, and her husband.

Read more: http://fixmoneyy2minutes.com/news/a...logical-father-Josh-McCaul.html#ixzz321HwonLe

This is my point. Why didn't they "put an end to it" in 2005, ensure a proper fact finding was done, and an appropriate permanent placement was found? The idea of the girl's prospects if she had been with the natural father's family from infancy doesn't fill me with joy, but then it wouldn't have ended up with this mess. Nine years later is simply too late to be trying to wind the clock back.

 

[jjenny]

What it 'sounds like' and what is reality are often two completely different things. He never gave up on his child. According to DHS, there is no adoptive family.

Whether he stays out of prison or not, for now his daughter and he have rights fully intact. And in America, that is the way it should be.

If he doesn't stay out of prison, how can he raise a child? That's absurd.

 

[gitana1]

What it 'sounds like' and what is reality are often two completely different things. He never gave up on his child. According to DHS, there is no adoptive family.

Whether he stays out of prison or not, for now his daughter and he have rights fully intact. And in America, that is the way it should be.

How is not showing up for hearings and committing multiple crimes at the very time your child is being held in another state, not giving up on your child?

 

[Zuri]

I have been lurking here and I really appreciate the posts. This child has only known one family, and it appears she loves them very much. The biggest gift her biological father could give her would be to let go. If he truly loved her and cared about her, he would Put his daughter's needs above his own. Isn't that what we as parents do? JMO

 

[gxm]

So, parents who have prison records do not have parental rights? Complete strangers should be able to strip children from their families and lives forever because the parents have engaged in previous crimes?

The Court, the GAL, and child protective services are all in violation of the law because they feel the best interest of the child in this case is best served by her biological father?

I'm not following this line of reasoning at all and thankfully, the courts do not, either.

JMO

A man who makes money selling underage girls' bodies should NEVER be allowed to raise a daughter. (Or a son, IMO.) It's absolutely insane that this criminal was allowed anywhere near Sonya.

 

[jjenny]

DCF just keeps on doing things that I don't understand. For them to support the bio dad who has an extensive criminal history and hadn't been able to see this child in years is mind boggling.
What exactly in his past makes DCF think this guy can raise a young child?
Could he stay out of trouble for long? Not in the past.
Do they care about child's well being? Not even a hearing to determine what is in child's best interest. No indication whatsoever there were any issues with the adoptive family. Child seemed to be doing extremely well with the adoptive parents. Doesn't appear to make any difference whatsoever to DCF.
What does the bio dad do for a living now?
What if he can't manage to stay out of trouble?
DCF is already on record saying that they won't place the child back with adoptive parents.
What kind of life are they signing up this child for?