Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boca Raton

Baby is taken into protective custody by Missouri.

Baby is placed with Biological Cousin and his wife.

They provide a loving home and seek to adopt Baby.

State removes Baby from Biological Cousin and places Baby with unrelated couple.

Generally, children’s welfare agencies prefer to place children with suitable relatives rather than strangers.

Why would the state remove Baby from biologically-related foster parents to strangers?

Well, Biological Cousin alleges that it was because he was obese.

The Court said that he didn’t properly follow state procedures for bringing a child into the state.

It took six months, but Biological Cousin got Baby back - after having gastric bypass surgery …

Read more in this Kansas City KMBC TV 9 article: Judge Rules In Baby Max Custody Case and this Kansas City KMBC TV 9 article: Baby Max Stuck In Middle Of Custody Battle.

Florida Baby’s biological mother is incarcerated for trafficking in narcotics and prostitution.

Baby’s biological father left the state when Baby was just three weeks old.

Baby was placed in foster care with a loving family, the only family she has since known.

Baby is now four.

Foster family continues to want to adopt Baby.

But, now, biological father, long absent, returns, out of the blue, to assert his right to take Baby to his new home in California.

It was recommended some time ago that social services terminate the biological father’s parental rights, to free the child up for adoption to her loving foster family.

Only it never happened, let alone in a timely fashion. Had it happened, the courthouse door would most likely have slammed in biological father’s face.

What is particularly sad in this case is that the foster family could have - and undoubtedly would have - asked the Court themselves to terminate the biological father’s parental rights - if they had only known that they had that power and right.

But no one ever told them … until it was too late.

Meanwhile, the biological father is allegedly still battling substance abuse problems of his own, even as the Court appears to be ordering reunification.

But the biological father has rights.

And, according to the family courts, Baby apparently doesn’t.

Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article: Orlando-area family faces losing foster child.

Four month old baby removed from parents’ home by social services.

Baby placed with foster family.

Biological parents’ parental rights are terminated.

Foster family wants to adopt Baby, who is a dual citizen of the USA and Mexico.

Twenty two months later, Baby’s biological grandmother in Mexico seeks to adopt him.

Trial court holds that Baby should be turned over to biological grandmother in Mexico.

Appellate court agrees.

Case draws national and international media attention.

Oregon’s child welfare services agency took something of a beating in the case, accused of misleading all concerned. Then agency arranges a mediation in Oregon - which lasts for ten hours.

As a result, everyone agrees that Baby should remain with foster parents in Oregon and that foster parents may adopt him.

They also agree that biological grandmother should have visitation and access rights and that Baby should learn to speak and write Spanish fluently.

Last, but not least, agency agrees to pay the Baby’s foster parents’ legal fees in the matter.

Read more in this Newport News-times article: Foster child to remain in Oregon.

November is National Adoption Month.

In her new book, an author reminds potential adoptive parents that many children, particularly special needs children, are waiting for them … and adoption out of the foster care system into loving homes.

She would know. She is the adoptive parent of a special needs child herself.

Learn more from this PRWeb press release: Best Selling Author Speaks Up For Special Needs Adoption and the author’s own website.

Woman adopts eleven children in New York City. Woman later moves to Florida.

Woman raises children - with no education beyond fourth grade, no medical care, without adequate food, without normal social contact, without freedom.

Why?

She adopted the children to collect payments from New York City. Over a million dollars in fact.

All of the children, now aged 15 to 27, suffer from physical and mental disabilities.

The woman, now 62, faces criminal charges of abuse and neglect in Florida.

And the Florida court can now request that the New York courts unseal the normally confidential adoption records.

The records are needed to nail down the identities of the victims, nine of whom are now disabled adults in the care of the state of Florida.

The whereabouts of two others is unknown.

The state just took the woman’s grandchildren from her biological son into protective custody as well.

Read more in this ABC ActionNews.com article: Florida prosecutors can ask judge to unseal records in abuse case and this Newsday article: NY adoption records relevant in Florida abuse case, judge says.

Widowed Mother sentenced to jail.

Mother gives temporary custody of her children to late minister-husband’s parents.

Mother’s sentence is almost discharged.

Husband’s parents move to terminate Mother’s parental rights and to adopt the children.

The reason Mother was incarcerated was her conviction for killing her minister-husband.

Now Mother appeals to stop her in-laws’ applications.

Appeals court refuses to hear the Mother’s appeal - at least at this early stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, termination of parental rights of Mother may proceed, clearing the way for the husband’s parents to adopt the children.

Of course, the Mother may have a basis to bring an appeal later.

Read more in this WMC-TV Memphis Action News 5 article: Appeals court declines to intervene in Winkler custody case.

In a far-reaching case, the Florida Supreme Court has held that adoption agencies must notify unmarried biological fathers that their children are going to be placed for adoption and how to register in the state’s paternity registry to protect their rights. If the father still fails to register after thirty days, his parental rights may be terminated.

A statute imposing a time limit on biological fathers to assert their rights was intended to facilitate adoptions and give adoptive parents and the baby finality.

But there have nagging questions with regard to how many biological fathers are actually aware of paternity registries, both in Florida and in other states, let alone how to register with them.

In the case before the Court, the biological father promptly filed a paternity case in court, but failed to register with Florida’s paternity registry. The father maintained that he was unaware of the registry.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding.

Read more in this Citrus County Chronicle article: Court rules for unmarried adoptive [sic] fathers.

A Michigan appeals judge is crying out that the state’s budget cuts are causing the state’s child welfare and protection sytem to fail Michigan’s children.

On average, ten Michigan children per year die in foster care.

Adoptions get bogged down, because the prerequisite termination of parental rights can’t be timely finished, because an appeal is still pending.

In recent years, appeals have been moving substantially faster, because of the services of outside contract attorneys.

But no longer. Due to budget cuts.

Before long, the judge fears, appeals will remain open longer.

And more children will die. Due to budget cuts.

Read more in this Lansing State Journal editorial: William Whitbeck: Vulnerable children victimized by crisis in Mich.’s finances.

Last April, I posted on Biological Parents from Abroad Challenge US Adoption Six Years After Placing Child into Foster Care.

Now the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the now-seven year old girl, having spent nearly all of her seven years with the former family friends who raised her, must return to live with the birth parents who voluntarily placed her with them.

This after a lower court terminated the birth parents’ parental rights, which ruling was previously upheld by an intermediate appellate court.

The birth parents have rights.

However, the unfortunate child impliedly does not.

Read more in this Memphis Commercial Appeal article: Anna Mae ruling likely will stick.

In the shadow of courts grappling with the concepts of gay civil unions and gay marriage, and rights of gay couples to adopt children, comes a different sort of case out of Maine.

A gay woman formally adopted her partner in a lesbian relationship, with the intention of securing her dependent partner’s rights to inherit from her wealthy family in the event of the wealthy partner’s death.

As a result of the couple’s eventual breakup, complex cases are now pending in two different states - cases which turn upon technicalities, policy arguments and substantive legal grounds.

Some of the Technicalities: The couple actually lived in New York, which explicitly barred adoption between sexual partners, reserving it for parent / child relationships. The adoption in question apparently took place during an extended vacation in Maine, which had no such explicit prohibition. Maine’s jurisdiction is called into question based both on failure to meet the residency requirement and affirmative fraud upon the court.

Some of the Policies: If the elected officials of a state deny inheritance rights to resident gay partners through either marriage or civil unions, should resident gay partners be allowed to circumvent their home state’s social legislative policy by exploiting the less stringent adoption laws of a different, convenient state?

Some of the Substantive Legal Grounds: The creator of the trust that is at the heart of the matter reportedly did not even know about the adoption which transformed the woman that he knew only has his daughter’s gay partner into his legal grandchild - and an heir to his trust. As a matter of estate planning law, should his alleged intentions be thwarted by undisclosed, unforeseeable legal maneuvers by his daughter and her partner?

On the practical side, if the adoption is upheld, Maine might develop a “cottage industry” of hosting gay partner-adoptions for inheritance rights on behalf of homosexuals all over the country.

Of course, none of this would be in issue if gay couples could simply automatically inherit from each other by virtue of marriage or civil union.

This unusual case may turn out to be more significant than it may appear at first blush.

Read more in this Portland Press Herald article: Unusual adoption case has high stakes.