Talk about courts that delay and laws that are stacked against natural parents of children! This is another case of what is out-and-out child snatching passively approved by our slow-moving legal system in America. But at least in this case an Ohio judge saw the light of right and has ordered that the three-year-old in question, now called Grayson Vaughn, be returned in 48 hours to his rightful, natural father. However, since the prospective adopters live in Indiana, they have been fighting the return of the child to his father in both states.
But there they were, Jason and Christy Vaughn, this morning on Good Morning America holding on to the son they got three years ago and expecting that the world agree with them--just as did the insufferable DeBoers nearly two decades ago--as they insisted that they be allowed to keep this child because--it is in his best interests. And what about his siblings? Our natural (biological) children who have gotten used to having him around, protested Christy. I love him just as much as I love my other children. Good for you, I was thinking, but you Go Directly to Hell for keeping this child when his natural father stepped up as soon as he learned of the child. He is not your child to keep.
I was screaming at the television set this morning and my husband wanted to know what was wrong. Adoption, I shouted. It's all cockeyed! These people are stealing another man's son!
Why do these people even have the gall to say their keeping him from his natural father is in Grayson's best interests? Because the Vaughns have fought him, whose name is not public, in two states since he began fighting to raise his own child. But are they going to do the right thing, now that an Ohio court has ruled against them? Oh no:
“We can still win this thing,” Vaughn said. “It’s just a matter of getting one of the motions to go our way. We can still stall, have a transition period or win or lose.”The gist of the story is this: A divorcing woman, Drucilla Bocvarov, is having a child; the woman and her ex-husband decide to put the as-yet-unborn child up for adoption for; the Vaughns are in the delivery room.* But her husband is not the child's real father; that is another man, Benjamin Wyrembek, and about 30 days after the child, called Grayson, joined the family in Sellersburg, Indiana-- and while they were still waiting for the appropriate paperwork to file adoption--he filed a paternity action in an Ohio court because he believed the child might be his. A year later, the court ruled Wyrembek was Grayson’s biological father, and the child should be returned to him immediately.
The Vaughns continued to fight on in Indiana, where they live. However, Circuit Court Judge J. Terrence Cody of Floyd County reviewed the case on Aug. 18 and determined Indiana does not have jurisdiction. The court ordered the Vaughns to return Grayson in 48 hours, but the Indiana Supreme Court (in a 4-3 vote) ordered an emergency stay with 29 minutes to spare and a sheriff’s department officer waiting in their driveway, Vaughn said.
Though the Ohio court ordered the return of Grayson on Wednesday, the Vaughns ignored that and plan to sit tight in their Floyd Country home until all the adoption are custody cases pending in several states are resolved, or until law enforcement officials show up to take Grayson away. If that happens, I fully expect that the media will be called by the Vaughns so we can see a crying child being pried from Christy's arms. Christy, incidentally, was four months pregnant at the time, and undoubtedly the adoption process was started before she knew she was pregnant.
While the adopters chose to go to the media in an effort to drum up public sympathy for their "plight," the attorney, Alan Lehenbauer, for the real/biological/natural/birth father sent this statement to ABC: “My client has sought the return of his child since shortly after birth and will not relitigate this matter in the media.”
Why can't people just understand that they do not have the right to another man's child simply because they want that child? What is wrong with their moral compass? Where do they get this sense of entitlement? It is worth quoting here Justice James Heiple, Illinois Supreme Court in the "Baby Richard" case, another case where father's rights finally prevailed:
If ... the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases ... persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less affluent and children of single parents might be considered particularly fair game."You are free to leave a comment at the (Indiana) News and Tribune website: Sellersburg family continues fight for adopted son. I did but the only one that is visible as I write is from another adopter who says if the child must be returned adoptions will go down. OMG. The world needs to hear from us, including adoptive parents who would not stoop to insisting that they are owed another man's child just because they already have him. --lorraine
Note: It is in evening as I make changes to the above post (adding names and further information) and I am getting comments about the character of the father and being called names (see comments) myself and hateful towards all adoptions; I am not printing the slanders about the father. No matter what, the fact remains: the boy is the son of someone other than the Graysons, and their keeping him from the minute Wyrembek, the natural father, proved his paternity and asked for him is tantamount to a kidnapping condoned by the courts. I stand by my words.
I had great parents, but I had to struggle to go to college; perhaps wealthier parents, if they had whisked me away in a grocery store when I was an infant, might have been so-called "better" by a court. But I doubt I would have felt that way when I grew up and wondered why I did not resemble anyone I knew.
*(See previous blog, The Case for More Time Before Signing Surrender Papers, to hear what I think of that.) And yes today I am using the word: adopter. These people deserve no better, and in any event, the adoption of course has never been finalized.