9 Year Old Begs to go Home

[Shari_Gal]

Did anyone claim she was his aunt?

Well he is the widower of her niece, who he had 9 children with, I would think he qualifies as a nephew by marriage.

 

[Shari_Gal]

It's also important to note that the grandmother lost custody of her own son, the child's uncle, due to admitted neglect and abandonment and recently lost custody of one of the seven grandkids due to a founded allegation of neglect.

What could be fair to this child is if she were to live with the Hodgin family in Tennessee,in guardianship, have visits by her father to Tennessee, visits to Nebraska; it's too bad Tennessee is so far, 700 miles from Nebraska.

 

[wonders]

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?

Respectfully please, did you read the post at all?
It's MY opinion.
Again *in my opinion* the appellate court see's a case # instead of a child who has lived with the people for at least 7 years. Why up-root her now? That is NOT in the best interest of the child.
All of the above is IN MY OPINION.

 

[Harmony 2]

Do not sleuth family members or post information about them.

 

[Shari_Gal]

I think she may have received a lot of support from the community and social services due to the bizarre circumstances. But I'm also baffled why it even matters considering they don't live in the same city as McCaul.

Because reportedly, the child will have visits often to the grandmother's home.

 

[Vinny]

Respectfully please, did you read the post at all?
It's MY opinion.
Again *in my opinion* the appellate court see's a case # instead of a child who has lived with the people for at least 7 years. Why up-root her now? That is NOT in the best interest of the child.
All of the above is IN MY OPINION.

What is legally right and morally right are unfortunately not always the same.

I hope something can be worked out. I think it's good the father wants to be in her life, but it didn't have to go like this.

 

[MyBelle]

Respectfully please, did you read the post at all?
It's MY opinion.
Again *in my opinion* the appellate court see's a case # instead of a child who has lived with the people for at least 7 years. Why up-root her now? That is NOT in the best interest of the child.
All of the above is IN MY OPINION.

We must not be talking about the same decision. The appellate court decision I was referencing was decided five or six years ago and wasn't about the child it was an appeal on the parental rights issue. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Hopeful One]

This is our justice system gone wrong.

That child should be with the parents she's known most of her life. PERIOD.

Biological father or not, he messed up, lost his rights, and now it's only the child's best interest that matters.

 

[Soulmagent]

Respectfully please, did you read the post at all?
It's MY opinion.
Again *in my opinion* the appellate court see's a case # instead of a child who has lived with the people for at least 7 years. Why up-root her now? That is NOT in the best interest of the child.
All of the above is IN MY OPINION.

Easy to say when it isnt your child.

The short story here is ,the officer who refused the father his child even though he had a valid order of custody was wrong ,DCS was wrong in taking the child with no proof of abuse or neglect . The was record of him trying to get the child back from early on . The child was not a resident of the state and the courts were not notified of the custody papers from another state in early procedings . Not to mention the parties in the case made sure to withhold from the state they had the infant ,until they could claim she was a resident.
If I were this childs father ,I would seek a lawsuit or more.

 

[Ausgirl]

I find it sad that meth-using, gun-toting, child-prostituting, thieving, irresponsible dirtbags can reproduce at all.

But if they must, and don't put their children --first-- then as far as I am concerned, they don't deserve to keep them.

Those more concerned with correct paperwork and the bio dad's rights, I wish they could see and feel what damage was done to me by people with those same ideals, who prevented me from being fostered out with the rest of my siblings and thus doomed me to years of abject misery and harm.

I wish to heck and back I'd had a babysitter who cared enough to see the danger signs and make sure I was not returned to harm's way. It might not be the legal thing to do, but it would have been the -right- thing to do.

And as is plain here, legal and right are not always the same thing.

Also, the lack of evidence for physical abuse shouldn't really be a case for him being the best parent for this child. There's many other ways to harm a kid. I'm pretty sure he's already exercised a few, or this sweet little girl would never have been put through all this in the first place.

Regarding another post made earlier, I can state for a fact that children often say nicer things about a bad parent than is accurate, sometimes just out of guilt. Many kids don't want to be the cause of bad feelings even if the parent -is- abusive, so they'll put themselves in danger to avoid it because they don't have the capacity to think of the ongoing consequences.

Children first. Parents second. How sad this isn't how we all really live.

 

[MyBelle]

I find it sad that meth-using, gun-toting, child-prostituting, thieving, irresponsible dirtbags can reproduce at all.

But if they must, and don't put their children --first-- then as far as I am concerned, they don't deserve to keep them.

Those more concerned with correct paperwork and the bio dad's rights, I wish they could see and feel what damage was done to me by people with those same ideals, who prevented me from being fostered out with the rest of my siblings and thus doomed me to years of abject misery and harm.

I wish to heck and back I'd had a babysitter who cared enough to see the danger signs and make sure I was not returned to harm's way. It might not be the legal thing to do, but it would have been the -right- thing to do.

And as is plain here, legal and right are not always the same thing.

Also, the lack of evidence for physical abuse shouldn't really be a case for him being the best parent for this child. There's many other ways to harm a kid. I'm pretty sure he's already exercised a few, or this sweet little girl would never have been put through all this in the first place.

Regarding another post made earlier, I can state for a fact that children often say nicer things about a bad parent than is accurate, sometimes just out of guilt. Many kids don't want to be the cause of bad feelings even if the parent -is- abusive, so they'll put themselves in danger to avoid it because they don't have the capacity to think of the ongoing consequences.

Children first. Parents second. How sad this isn't how we all really live.

Children also have rights that must be protected. Not even biological parents are allowed to take their children from the other parent and refuse to return them. Almost daily the news media carries stories of biological parents who do that and are arrested.

Baumann told police the last contact he had with Everett or Lilly was May 6. He said the girl's mother left a note.

"The note stated that she cannot allow a judge to dictate how to raise her daughter, and therefore she has to leave," Baumann told Local 10's Liane Morejon in a telephone interview.

http://www.local10.com/news/sunrise-police-seek-woman-accused-of-kidnapping-2yearold-girl/26065276

 

[Donjeta]

That father reported his two year old child missing on the day the mother failed to return her, he didn't wait until his daughter turned nine to try to get her back.

 

[MyBelle]

That father reported his two year old child missing on the day the mother failed to return her, he didn't wait until his daughter turned nine to try to get her back.

The father showed up for his visitation time and the mother was gone and left a note whining about the judge. An arrest warrant has been issued.

Whining and misrepresenting facts and lobbing baseless accusations usually end in the same result whether it takes days or years.

JMO

 

[Donjeta]

The father showed up for his visitation time and the mother was gone and left a note whining about the judge. An arrest warrant has been issued.

Whining and misrepresenting facts and lobbing baseless accusations usually end in the same result whether it takes days or years.

JMO

The other child's father was happy enough to commit crimes that took him away from his child for years. Not a baseless accusation, just what happened here.

It's not the same result, it makes a huge difference for the child whether it takes days or years. It means the difference between returning to a parent and returning to a stranger.

Does he get a tax break or welfare benefits if he claims a minor dependent?

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully please, did you read the post at all?
It's MY opinion.
Again *in my opinion* the appellate court see's a case # instead of a child who has lived with the people for at least 7 years. Why up-root her now? That is NOT in the best interest of the child.
All of the above is IN MY OPINION.

The appellate court did not order the child to be returned to her father though. It overturned the adoption and the termination of his rights. The dependency court then had to make a new decision as to whether reunification would occur or the child would stay with the foster/adoptive parents.

It appears the child remained with the foster parents for four or five more years as the case proceeded and eventually, the court determined that the father should have custody back. (I guess when he got out of prison)

The father's side argues that there was a reunification plan, therapy, etc., ordered to gradually reintroduce the child to the father, but that the foster parents refused to play ball. They argue that's not true and they did everything they were supposed to. If the father is right, then it wasn't only he who failed this child.

Because reportedly, the child will have visits often to the grandmother's home.

Grandma has already been quoted by the media as caring for the child and seeing her frequently.

That father reported his two year old child missing on the day the mother failed to return her, he didn't wait until his daughter turned nine to try to get her back.

Hi friend. To be fair, this father didn't wait until the child turned nine to try to get her back. Several weeks after the babysitter took her, with permission, to TN, he had some friends come down and try to get her.

It's true that he failed to attend any dependency court hearings after that and then continued to commit multiple crimes and was sent back to prison, but during all of that, he did eventually contest the proposed termination of his rights, appear (telephonically, since he was incacerated) for a depo regarding the termination of his rights, and then appealed the decision. He won the appeal in 2009.

I'm totally appalled by and against what happened here but I like the facts to be accurate.

 

[gitana1]

The other child's father was happy enough to commit crimes that took him away from his child for years. Not a baseless accusation, just what happened here.

It's not the same result, it makes a huge difference for the child whether it takes days or years. It means the difference between returning to a parent and returning to a stranger.

Does he get a tax break or welfare benefits if he claims a minor dependent?

Both.

 

[Donjeta]

Hi friend. To be fair, this father didn't wait until the child turned nine to try to get her back. Several weeks after the babysitter took her, with permission, to TN, he had some friends come down and try to get her.

It's true that he failed to attend any dependency court hearings after that and then continued to commit multiple crimes and was sent back to prison, but during all of that, he did eventually contest the proposed termination of his rights, appear (telephonically, since he was incacerated) for a depo regarding the termination of his rights, and then appealed the decision. He won the appeal in 2009.

I'm totally appalled by and against what happened here but I like the facts to be accurate.

OK, thanks for the correction.

Maybe I'm too cynical but if he was too busy committing crimes or doing drugs or whatever to attend hearings to get his child back I don't believe he particularly wanted her back.

 

[MyBelle]

The other child's father was happy enough to commit crimes that took him away from his child for years. Not a baseless accusation, just what happened here.

It's not the same result, it makes a huge difference for the child whether it takes days or years. It means the difference between returning to a parent and returning to a stranger.

Does he get a tax break or welfare benefits if he claims a minor dependent?

And the same child's mother gave up her parental rights leaving sole custody to that father who had a criminal record before the child was ever born.

I think it is extremely cruel to any child kidnapped and removed from their parent to intentionally drag out the legal process for years and to prevent a gradual reunification with the parent. In this case, the Judge and child protection authorities apparently share my opinion because the child has been back with dad a couple of months now.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

OK, thanks for the correction.

Maybe I'm too cynical but if he was too busy committing crimes or doing drugs or whatever to attend hearings to get his child back I don't believe he particularly wanted her back.

I 100% agree. With his looooooong criminal record it is clear where his priorities lie. Sadly, I predict he will re-offend and the child will be shuffled to yet another home - it is highly unlikely the foster parents will ever get her back.

 

[MyBelle]

OK, thanks for the correction.

Maybe I'm too cynical but if he was too busy committing crimes or doing drugs or whatever to attend hearings to get his child back I don't believe he particularly wanted her back.

If he truly didn't want her back, he wouldn't have appealed the decision terminating his parental rights.

JMO