Friday, October 8, 2010

Dad Wins Custody of Son, Again, in Ohio Court

Grayson's father will be able to take him home soon. We hope. From the Toledo Blade:
The Ohio Supreme Court Thursday said it will not reconsider an earlier decision that allowed Benjamin Wyrembek to have custody of his biological son, Grayson. He has been raised since birth by Jason and Christy Vaughn, of Sellersburg, Ind.Although his biological son remains with an Indiana couple seeking to adopt the boy, a Swanton man may be able to bring his almost 3-year-old son home.
In a 4-3 decision, the high court rejected the Vaughns' motion for reconsideration and lifted the stay it had placed on other court orders in the case, including the order from Lucas County Juvenile Court that required the Vaughns to turn Grayson over to Mr. Wyrembek last month.
Mr. Wyrembek's attorney, Alan Lehenbauer, declined to comment, saying the two sides had agreed in court not to speak to the media. 
What does this mean for the future of adoptions, as those who contend that the boy called Grayson should remain with the family that has never adopted him? Well, at least one woman predicts more international adoptions: As the Blade reports:
"I can't tell you how many families I've talked to who want to go international because they don't want to deal with something like this," said Betsie Norris, executive director of Adoption Network Cleveland, a support organization for adoptive parents, birth parents, and adoptees. "I tell them this doesn't happen the vast majority of time … and there were things done wrong. You have to be so careful from the beginning that you're working with a reputable agency and reputable attorney, and everyone's going to do everything right and dot every i, cross every t."
Sounds to me like Betsie Norris is quite involved in promoting adoptions, and not that concerned about natural/biological parents who wish to raise their own children. From our careful reading of this case, Benjamin Weyrembek did everything right, he registered with the putative father's registry in Ohio in the required time, he continued to fight for his son the whole time, he doted ever i, crossed every t. Why do I not think Ms. Norris is talking about him in her quote? And the Vaughns knew from the very beginning that the boy's father wanted him:
Jason Vaughn said in a previous interview with The Blade that he and his wife decided to adopt after the birth of their 7-year-old son was followed by a series of miscarriages. Mr. Vaughn said they knew Grayson's biological father opposed the adoption, but he said they felt from the beginning that the law was on their side. Their attorney maintained that Mr. Wyrembek's consent was not required for the adoption to go through because he allegedly had failed to support the child's mother during her pregnancy and the child after he was born.
However, at the time of "Grayson's" birth, Christy Vaughn was four months pregnant.
We've written about this before so if you need background see: Biological Father Wins in Court, Again; Will the Vaughns Comply?  and Transition Time in Contested Adoptions: Just Another Excuse for Delay and Biological Dad Seeks Return of His Son; Adopters Resist, Claiming: Best Interests.

For the story in the Blade today, see Swanton dad wins custody of son, 3. 

Hooray!  The Vaughns and their minions are still praying that the boy stays with "the only family he has ever known." We are thrilled God is busy doing other work and let man decide that a father has the right to raise his own son.--lorraine

6 comments :

  1. I hope the Vaughns don't find some other horrible way to drag this out further. Grayson needs to be back with his REAL daddy so they can start their life together asap!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm holding my breath, hoping that Grayson and his father are finally and permanently reunited this time...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Way too much of this sort of thing going around.

    Did you know about this one:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100105831.html

    I was particularly shocked - but upon thinking about it, not surprised - at the part where it said, "In Utah, a birth mother's consent is irrevocable once she signs the paperwork."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since you're following the case, this might interest you and people on facebook.

    http://thinkingoutloudcafe.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/timeline-in-the-vaughn-wyrembek-adoption-custody-case/

    ReplyDelete
  5. If a father were to take his infant child from the mother, and LEGALLY drops the child off at a Hospital ER under the State Safe Haven Laws, should the mother be blocked from getting the child back, as this father was, and the child placed up for adoption? If she challenges the adoption, and wins three years later, should she get her child back?
    http://Single_Fathers_N_Safe_Haven_Laws.Dads-House.org
    http://FaceBook-Give_Grayson_Back.dads-house.org
    http://Fathers_Rights_Petition.dads-house.org

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find the entirety of this interesting...all the stories quoted or linked. Interesting because for the first time father's are stepping up and fighting for their children.

    While I can't place any blame on my daughter's father, and in fact he did attempt to fight for her and was told that he would NEVER get custody, I can on the other fathers out there that don't step up.

    What is being ignored is the simple fact that these adoptions have no legal standing. Not according to any of the adoption law I have ever read. A.R.S. with regard to the adoption of a minor child states clearly that no adoption that is in contention can be completed.

    I would rather a natural father or mother raised a child...

    Another thing, we all stand up for adoptees rights - why aren't we standing up and being counted on this man's rights?

    ReplyDelete

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. We are trying to find a way to end the endless anonymous comments, which drive many of us crazy. Pick a name! Any name. Choose the NAME/URL selection. You do not need a URL. Your name does not have to be your name IRL though we appreciate those who do, and we understand due to the sensitive nature of our subject, many will prefer to use a nom de plume. Okay with us, but the endless Anons are tiresome for everyone. If you post as "anonymous" you run the risk of not being posted.

We try to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.