Archive for January, 2008

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT ADOPTION COULDN’T GET ANY SICKER

January 29, 2008

Oh my friggin God, what the hell are we doing? The mother revoked her consent. Entitled adoptive parents abound. Sick Sick Sick.

Adoption ruling Court transfers custody of 19-month-old girl

Birth mother must return her to S.C. couple who want to adopt her

By RICK BRUNDRETT – rbrundrett@thestate.com

A 19-month-old girl is caught in a back-and-forth legal battle between an S.C. couple who want to adopt her and the girl’s birth parents in Illinois.’

The S.C. Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ordered the birth mother to return the girl to the couple within 15 days.

The couple had custody of the girl four days after her June 2006 birth, but last February, courts in Illinois and Richland County ordered them to return her to her birth mother, the ruling said.
“We note that this is a difficult case,” state Supreme Court Justice John Waller wrote for the high court. “It is complicated, both factually and legally, and of course, it is an emotional issue for all the parties involved.

“Most significantly, the ultimate decision impacts the life of a very young child.”
The identities of the S.C. couple, the girl and her birth parents were not disclosed in the ruling.
Efforts Monday to reach the S.C. couple’s attorney, Raymond Godwin of Greenville, were unsuccessful. Columbia attorney Robert Jackson, who represents the birth mother, had no immediate comment, saying he had not reviewed the ruling or talked with his client.
Columbia attorney Earl Ellis, who represents the child, said Monday he has not recommended to any court who should have custody of the girl, explaining that the courts have “not yet gotten to the issue of whether either of these parties are appropriate parents.”
The S.C. couple returned home with the girl June 20, 2006, after the birth mother initially agreed in an Illinois circuit court to relinquish her parental rights and consent to the adoption, Monday’s ruling said.

In court papers, the mother said she did not know the identity of the girl’s father, contending she was raped and knew the father “through friends of friends,” the ruling said.
But in July 2006, the father asked the Illinois court to throw out the original order, contending the mother knew his identity and his whereabouts at all times and had told him the child was born dead, the ruling said.

The mother also asked the Illinois court to vacate her consent to the adoption and to return her daughter to her. She contended then that the father had been living with her before the birth and had been arrested on charges of assaulting her, the ruling said.
She said when she found out she was pregnant, she contacted an adoption agency, which put her in contact with the S.C. couple, the ruling said.

The Illinois court in September 2006 ordered the S.C. couple to return the girl to the birth mother. Richland County Family Court Judge Dorothy Jones last February upheld the September ruling.

But the S.C. Supreme Court said Monday that under federal law, South Carolina retains jurisdiction in the case; that the September ruling was “flawed” because the S.C. couple were not named as parties and were not given the opportunity to be heard; and there was “no evidence” the girl’s placement with the S.C. couple had “become unsafe in any way.”

Reach Brundrett at (803) 771-8484.

Advertisements

ALARMING NEWS – WE NEED TO REFORM ADOPTION

January 29, 2008

News is flying left and right off the shelves about adoption and adoptees. We adoptees in Canada are not shutting up any longer. In recent stories out of Canada, adoptees are in agreement with a woman who is suing the hospital, the agency and her adoptive parents because she says that her adoption was illegal. It is most definitely making the adoption forums in the United States. Most adoptees know that this has happened to our natural mothers. I KNOW it happened to my mother and father.

Another story coming out of Florida is that their state registry is not being run properly. Adoptees are requesting their non identifying information. Information that they are ENTITLED to. They are being denied this information because the Department in Vital Statistics doesn’t have the proper funds and staff to get this information in order. So adoptees and their natural families are not being reunited because of neglect. The NCFA says that these things work. Uhm NO THEY DON’T. The NCFA probably makes sure that they don’t work by seeing to it that the finances are not there to make it work. Many adoptees in other states are probably wondering the same thing. Lord knows we all get treated badly by those staff members in the Offices of Vital Statistics. I have been treated badly by the Indiana Department of Vital Statistics. I have heard from many adoptees out of Indiana that say the same thing.

Then you come across another adoptee whose information is totally false. A Colorado adoptee recently wrote some members of Bastard Nation. She paid a good thousand buckeroos to have a Confidential Intermediary make contact with her natural family. The CI thinks all of her information in her file is false. So where does this adoptee go? How many adoptees, natural parents suffer at the hands of the unscrupulous agencies? When does it stop? When do we hold these folks accountable for their actions? Its time for American Adoptees to stand up and demand an end of this kind of bull crap. If a lawsuit in the United States were to occur, I would want to be added to it. I am tired of all of us being treated like crap.

MORE NEWS ON MATT TENNESON

January 28, 2008

Here is the link to the story. Now the story itself so that it is forever immortalized on a blog. The entitlement of the Nielsons utterly sickens me. Shame shame on you. I guess you want his child to hate you. Hey Attorney Jenkins from the American Center of Choice and LDS Social Services how many cases are you going to try with these fathers? You are an evil man. Hope you rot in Hell.

Baby Harvey: American Fork couple wins round

By Amy K. StewartDeseret Morning News

Published: January 26, 2008

PROVO — The American Fork couple who want to finalize an adoption are breathing a sigh of relief for now but realize their fight to keep baby Harvey is far from over.
“It’s a battle,” said Cally Nielson, 24.
Fourth District Judge James Taylor declined to enforce an Idaho court order that would have placed the 7-month-old baby with the birth father, Matt Tenneson, 20, of Coeur d’Alene.
Attorneys representing the Nielsons, Tenneson, the birth mother, and the adoption agency LDS Family Services, appeared in a court hearing Friday afternoon in Provo.
Taylor’s ruling means baby Harvey will remain with the Nielsons, at least for now. More court hearings will be scheduled.
In court Friday, Cally Nielson sat holding back tears while her mother, Anette Stephens, of Highland, put her arm around her. Jed Nielson, 26, sat leaning forward on the bench, his hands clenched together.
The Nielsons’ attorney, Larry Jenkins, told the judge he believed he should refuse to confirm the Idaho custody order and leave baby Harvey with the Nielsons for two reasons: first, the Idaho court lacked jurisdiction over the baby; and second, the Nielsons weren’t served notice of the Idaho proceedings or allowed to participate.
Taylor ruled as he did Friday because neither the Nielsons nor LDSFS were notified of the court proceedings in Idaho, nor were they allowed to participate.
“All I want is a fair trial — a right to be heard,” Cally Nielson said.
However, regarding the jurisdiction issue, Taylor said he will have to come back to that. He said he intends to take evidence in a future hearing and make an informed decision.
Tenneson’s attorney, Brent Chipman, said Tenneson has legal rights to his son. He argued against using Utah as an appeals court. “We tried in Idaho and couldn’t do it, so now we’re going to try here?” he said.
Jenkins said he felt the judge’s ruling was appropriate.
“It was really the only way he could go, based on what the law says,” Jenkins said. “The Nielsons are doing a good job taking care of Harvey and they are going to be allowed to continue to do that — at least in the short run.”
Cally’s father, Flint Stephens, of Highland, said, “It’s nice to win one finally. We’ll take any victories we can get.”
Neither Tenneson nor the birth mother, Cammie Knight, 19, of Coeur d’Alene, appeared in court Friday.
After hearing of the judge’s decision Friday evening, Knight said, “I’m happy. I was really worried.”
Knight flew into Utah County on Thursday and spent a couple hours visiting Harvey at the Nielson’s home. She said she plans to fly back to Coeur d’Alene today.
Tenneson declined to comment when contacted at his home in Idaho on Friday evening.
The Nielsons have had baby Harvey since July. The adoption was never finalized because the birth father’s attorney showed up at the adoption hearing, shortly after the baby’s birth, to contest the adoption.
In December, in Kootenai County District Court, Idaho Magistrate Barry E. Watson ruled Tenneson would have temporary primary custody of the baby with Knight having visitation rights.
Watson’s ruling stemmed from an earlier court decision by Idaho Magistrate Robert Burton who ruled Tenneson has some parental rights. Burton ruled as such despite the fact Tenneson hadn’t filed for his paternal rights during the required time period.
“That is the bottom line,” Cally Nielson said. “The law clearly says he needed to do that before the baby was placed.”
Burton’s ruling is being appealed by LDSFS. This appeal could go to the Idaho Supreme Court, according to LDSFS attorneys.
Attorney David McConkie, representing LDSFS, said he believes there will be a hearing in magistrate court regarding the appeal in early February in Idaho.
“This child’s whole life has been with his adoptive family,” McConkie said in court Friday. “It would be a tragedy to tear the baby away from them. He has known no other parents. The interest of the child does have to be considered.”
Chipman argued that the longer Harvey stays with the Nielsons, the longer the birth father misses out on important bonding time.
“Return the child to his natural parents who, for seven months of the baby’s life, have not been allowed to bond with their child,” Chipman said. He pointed out that Tenneson, who lives with his parents, has a nursery all ready for the baby in the home.
But Taylor said he doesn’t like to move any child of any age back and forth. “If I’ve got to change custody, I would want to do it once,” he said.
After the hearing, in an interview with the Deseret Morning News, Cally said she was “perfectly willing” to allow Tenneson to visit Harvey, and she can send him photos. “I always have been willing,” she said.
But Cally said she wouldn’t want Harvey to be flown to Idaho for a weekend. “I’d prefer Matt come here because I think it would be less traumatic on Harvey. It’s a hard thing for a kid to be away from their mom for a weekend,” she said. “What is best for Harvey is what we need to do.”
E-mail: astewart@desnews.com

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU KNEW THAT THE ADOPTION AGENCIES USED THESE TACTICS?

January 27, 2008

Recently a story from Canada has emerged about an adoptee filing a lawsuit against the adoption agency, the hospital and her adoptive parents for her illegal adoption. I wonder what effect this will have on the United States. Now Canadian adoptees are coming out of the woodwork in this article.

Here is an adoptive family trying to keep their ADULT adoptee in the dark about his/her adoption. This is very very sick. Shame on this family.

How many American adoptees have faced this issue? I know I did. The only people I would sue would be the adoption agency itself. They knew that my father wanted me. They intentionally violated his rights. I know of another mother whose mother went back to the agency to get her child was told to get on with her life. The agency was my own. How many stories does it take to make the legislators stand up and take a stand?

NEW JERSEY ADOPTEES MAKING A RUN FOR IT

January 25, 2008

There are several stories that have come out about the fight in New Jersey. There are several with DMC’s testimony. Here. Here. Here. Here This one is particular is just plain offensive. How can anyone associate adoptee rights to abortion? Oh yea that’s right the right to lifers think that us adoptees should shut and be grateful that we weren’t aborted. Sorry we aren’t your poster children for abortion issues.

Some other interesting stories that came up as well that you should check out.

This one is written by Joyce Bahr of the New York’s Unsealed Initiative.

This one is about State Senator Finch out of Connecticut.

This one is about Massachusetts screw up. Yes it is a screwup. Here you had the power to make it for all adoptees but NO you had to sell out.

Another sellout is this one. Sorry Roberta you sold adoptees out on this one. If you had pulled the bill, you could have come back this year and probably won it with Adam Pertman’s help. I hope it does get better and easier. I know that I have been hitting nothing but walls in Indiana. No I don’t want them doing any study. Indiana has had this law for a few years now. Adam Pertman has done it already. I want my records now. Not when they deem it best for me to have them.

This one is Missouri’s battle. Please oh please do not settle for second best. Fight for the right for all Missouri adoptees to have access to their original birth certificates. It is their civil right to have the document that accurately records their birth.

INTRODUCING BRYCE AND AUTUMN FAITH

January 25, 2008

I have been blessed in recent weeks. I mean truly blessed. I got to meet Shawn McDonald this past weekend. I was lucky enough to have been given a photo of Shawn and Hunter. I have placed it upon my desk as motivation. I mentioned that he makes these most awesome floating staircases. He and his father are true artists. To create such a work of art is an awesome thing. To make something with your own hands and know that it is in some of the most beautiful homes in Texas is truly a site to see. I got to watch this young create this piece of art. I also got to hear the full story of his child’s abduction. It is a sad story. If there is ever a young man who is a parent in mind, body and spirit, it is this man. He doesn’t drink, smoke or even date. He hasn’t in two years. His children are his main and sole concern. Men like that are few and far between.

I have been blessed in that I have spoken with another one. His name is Bryce Carkhuff. He is currently fighting a set of adoption attorneys in Oregon. Many have read his story as I have posted it here. Bryce has done his share of bad things in the past. He has long since cleaned up his act. He is another whose sole concern is his daughter, Autumn Faith. Faith is because this young man has a deep abiding faith in the Lord. He believes that the Lord will stop this injustice of his daughter’s abduction. Bryce is quickly learning the ropes of this thing called adoption. I am in the process of finding court cases that support his side. I am making sure he has the ammunition to fight the powers that be in adoption. He is a good kind hard working young man fighting for his right to raise his daughter. This man also deserves the opportunity to do so.

CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CASES

January 25, 2008

Today New Jersey discussed their adoptee access bill. It was wild listening to the testimony. As always, natural mothers were the main of the argument. Catholic Charities, ACLU, and the New Jersey Right to Life all argued against opening the access for ADULT adoptees. This is not opening it to the public. This is just opening it to adoptees, their decedents, and their adoptive families. Now I do believe that they should open it for natural parents. Debra Ellis who worked for the ACLU actually stood up against that organization. She gave testimony on a research paper written by Elizabeth Samuels. According to Ms. Samuels, the records were sealed to protect the adoptive parents. She did an awesome job presenting this research. Adam Pertman testified also. He was awesome. He kept it to the records being a civil rights issue. He mentions his adopted children. He mentions that for his own kids, adoption is not a level playing for his kids along with everyone else’s adopted child. He stated that there was no document proving confidentiality. I believe one legislator actually stated that adoption is supposed to be about the child’s best interest. If the child now adult wants their records, then its in their best interest to have it. Cool. I couldn’t have said it better. One legislator then said that there is an expectation of confidentiality. What I was screaming at them during this testimony, the right to privacy is about the right to be free from GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE. What boggles my mind is that these folks don’t understand is that 95% of mothers and fathers WANT CONTACT. In states that have never closed their records to adoptees, Kansas and Alaska, have increased adoptions and decreased abortions. If there is a problem with someone taking it too far, then the mothers and adoptees can take it to the next level with law enforcement. The bill was released from committee and will be sent to the legislature to be voted on. Hallejah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ohio is the next state that is presenting a bill. I can’t understand if the added stuff is added or if this bill was added to this. What I have read has lead me to side with both sides on this issue. The bill in question is HB 7. I am all for adoptees having access to their records; however, the Ohio legislature has taken it up to emphasize even further. The bones of contention amongst the natural mothers are these:

· Adds the birth mother’s living expenses (up to $3,000) incurred during pregnancy and up to two months after the child is born to the payments that may be made in connection with a child’s permanent surrender, placement, or adoption.

· Requires the Director of Job and Family Services to adopt rules aligning the adoption and foster care home study content, time periods, and processes.

· Eliminates the requirement that a juvenile court consent to an adoption before a probate court can grant certain adoption petitions involving legal guardians or custodians.

· Specifies that the court must meet the clear and convincing evidence standard when determining whether a parent’s consent is needed for his or her child to be adopted in certain cases.

· Provides, generally, that an interlocutory order of adoption is to become final not less than six months and not more than one year from the date of the adoptee’s placement in the adoptive home rather than the date of the order’s issuance.

· Requires a juvenile court to consider an adoptive parent’s ability to meet the needs of all other children residing in the adoptive home when deciding whether to issue a support order when the adoptive parent enters into an agreement with a PCSA or PCPA to place his or her adopted child into the temporary custody of the agency.

· Requires certain programs to emphasize adoption as an option for unintended pregnancies.

· Requires the Department of Job and Family Services to establish a Child-Centered Recruitment Task Force and details the function, members, and expiration date of the Task Force.

· Prohibits a juvenile court from extending a temporary custody order beyond two years from the earlier of the date the complaint was filed or the child was placed in shelter care.

It urges that adoption is emphasized as an option in other venues. It is bringing adoption as an option into the schools. Even that I have an issue with that. I don’t want my child to have adoption presented to her as an option. Adoption will never be an option in my family ever. I will be the last one lost to adoption. Stephanie Bennett’s case is a perfect example of that. I think its this that natural mothers disagree with. Its the reason why they will fight against this bill. It has nothing what so ever to do with adoptees having access to it. In this I do support the mothers’ differing point of view on it. They no longer want this to be on their backs. They are tired of being blamed for sealed records. They are tired of women and men losing their children to adoption. They don’t want the legislators, adoption agencies, and attorneys speaking for them. What folks don’t seem to realize is that the decisions we make now will affect the ten generations that follow us.

One good thing is that it does make open adoptions more legally binding than ever before. It gives ammo for a natural parent to fight back against adoptive parents who back out of an open adoption agreement.

So what is an adoptee to do? I personally want to reform not just adoptee rights but adoption in itself. The way that it is continually practiced in the United States is bringing shame unto the United States itself. I would like all of our rights protected.

WHY DO I DO THIS?

January 23, 2008

Recently someone told me that I am the daughter that all the natural mothers wish was theirs. I love the compliment. Its truly beautiful. They do fill a void for me just as I do for them. It helps heal my wounded soul just a little more every day. I fight because its my right that I am trying to regain. I fight because every single one of these fathers are my father. I fight because I truly get the pain and loss that my natural mother felt. I fight because it could very well have been my adoptive mother that was scammed. I fight to make it right for all of us. I point out the flaws within this system because they hurt the future adoptees, natural parents, and adoptive parents. The entitled adoptive parents give other adoptive parents, the good folks, a very bad name.

Everyone who reads here knows something of my story. My natural mother supposedly refused. I say supposedly because the agency confidential intermediary lied to me on other levels. So I doubt what she has told me. I can only imagine that if she spoke with my natural mother, what was really said. Honestly if my natural mother is anything like me. Katrina Carlisle probably ticked her off royally. You see, Katrina told me that she was the only CI in the state of Indiana that I could use. I found out wrong. She also told me that the law only allows natural mothers to be contact. Funny the law doesn’t state “birthmother.” It states birth parent. So does the Indiana DCF handbook. I have a preadoptive sibling but since this is my father’s oldest daughter, I can’t make contact. If the law states differently, why does the state and the agency interpret it differently?

I spent months being angry with her. Thanks to the many adoptees and natural parents along the way, I have long since forgiven her of everything. I know how badly she was treated at the home courtesy of other mothers that were there around that same time frame. I understand fully that she is probably one of the walking wounded. Between losing me and the love of her life, she has done everything to make things right in her life. Is it really right though? I don’t think so. I hate to think of her going to her death bed without ever telling my brothers about me. They too have the right to know. They too have the right to make their choices.

I don’t expect a perfect reunion. Heck I really don’t expect any kind of relationship. I just hope to see her once in my lifetime. To see her walk, to hear her talk, to see my face in her and in my father. To understand truly who my youngest daughter is. To see myself in my own daughters. I don’t fully understand the nature in myself or my children. I want to feel good in my own skin. I want completeness in my life.

I don’t hate her for relinquishing me. I know why and it makes all the sense in the world to me. Did I have a perfect life? No but it was good. It still has a great deal more work but I can handle that. I want her to know that I do love her. I love her because of what she did and in spite of what she did.

I feel that I have paid dearly for both of their sins. By God they both better be up in heaven when I die because I paid for it here on earth with blood, sweat and tears. I have felt that I was created in sin therefore I am the sin. Their sin is deeply imbedded into my soul. They should be free by the time this life is done.

Ann, no matter what the agency, the state, and the industry tells you, I do love you for who you were back then and now. I never forgot YOU. I remembered. Although that knowledge does painfully hurt sometimes, it still keeps me going in hopes that one day you and I meet. You can rest your weary head upon my shoulders. I will carry you for you made me strong. Forever your daughter, Michellin.

January 22, 2008

Missouri Parents Craig Lentz and Ibbaanika Bond fight for the best interest of their son, Noah Levi Bond

Two years ago Megan and Stuart Taylor coerced Ibbaanika Bond into signing away her parental rights through legal fraud. When she tried to get her baby back the local Jackson County family court denied both of her motions without so much as a hearing, and put her under a gag order for the next two years, threatening to throw her in jail if she talked about what had happened to her or held a protest. The baby’s father, Craig Lentz, never signed away his rights and did everything the state said he had to do to establish his paternity. The local family court said that under a new law, sect 453.030 of the Missouri Statutes, he had no right to his son and would not allow him to present any evidence of his paternity. Craig was on the birth certificate, and the local court would not take that into account. He had a DNA test, and the local family circuit court barred DNA from being admitted. He had been involved and supporting his son from the time he found out Ibbaanika was pregnant but the local court deemed that to be inadmissible. They gave Craig’s baby to the Taylors and put him under the same gag order as Ibbaanika.

Craig’s case went to the Supreme Court of Missouri in December of 2006. He won unanimously. The Taylors tried to have the Supreme Court case put under a gag order but the Supreme Court denied their request to gag the case. The Supreme Court found that it could never be found that Craig abandoned his son. He had done everything the state required to establish his paternity. The Supreme Court sent it back down to the local court so Craig could present evidence of his fitness as a parent and get his son back.

When Craig got back down to the local level, instead of letting him present evidence of his fitness as a parent, the local court refused to acknowledge the Supreme Court of Missouri’s finding that his paternity had been established—that he had the same rights as any married father under the Missouri State constitution and the United States constitution. Instead they let the Taylors just file for a third adoption even though the other two adoption petitions that they had already filed were overturned by the Supreme Court of Missouri. This was illegal. This child was unadoptable without the legal father’s—Craig Lentz’s consent, but this court just imposed another gag order and did whatever it pleased. The main reason that was stated on the petition for the adoption and termination of Craig rights were that he had neglected and abandoned his son for 6 months prior to the filing of this third petition for adoption. The Supreme Court had already made a finding that he did not abandon his son. Craig was winning in the Supreme Court three months prior to the filing of the new petition. He also sent a check for $450.00 for child support, though he was never ordered to pay child support, which the Taylors received a day before they filed this third petition for adoption. However the Commissioner John F. Payne just gave an order for the date of filing to be back dated six days and let them file the adoption anyway.

Then Commissioner Payne just kept scheduling hearings and at the last minute he would cancel them. He canceled one for a procedural reason a week after the Supreme Courts decision was finalized. Two months later he canceled the hearing because he “had a divorce that was running long.” (This was illegal because according to state law contested adoption proceedings are supposed to be heard before all other hearings because the permanency of the child is of utmost importance) Three months later Commissioner Payne gave an all summer, three month long extension to the Taylors because their attorney Cheri Cole Simpkins’, 9 month old son might have to have a tonsillectomy that he never had. The Commissioner Payne was removed from the case for letting the Taylors have that extension. The new commissioner Molly Merrigan tried to have a hearing at the end of July but the Taylor’s attorney Cheri Cole Simpkins said that “no time would be good for her until the end of August,” In August Commissioner Molly Merrigan was supposed to have a hearing on the adoption and Craig’s fitness as a parent.

At that hearing she acknowledged, and gave an order stating, that indeed Craig’s paternity had been established, and that it had been a finding by the Supreme Court that he was Noah Levi Bond’s natural father and that his paternity was established. As such the Adoption petition should have been dismissed then, because Craig was a fit parent and he did not consent to the adoption of his son. Instead though, Commissioner Molly Merrigan refused to have a trial and started a 211 DFS investigation for abuse on Craig even though he had never abused or neglected his son and had never been accused of any abuse, neglect, or wrong doing. At the cost of the taxpayers Commissioner Molly Merrigan had Craig investigated up one side and down the other—just like a person that committed child abuse would be, only he never committed any abuse. She only gave Craig supervised visitation—just like a child-abusing parent would get though there was never any abuse. A court date was then set for October 22, 2007 where the petition for adoption was to be decided and the abuse investigation was to be decided.

On October 22, 2007 the juvenile officer for the DFS dropped the investigation against Craig because he had never done anything wrong and he was a fit parent and the DFS therapist recommended a six week plan for reunification with his son. As such the court had no jurisdiction and they definitely should have given Craig’s son back to him. But Molly Merriggan continued on with hearings on the adoption petition. In court it was revealed that the Taylors had actually been breaking the gag order, that they had requested, for three years with a blog that chronicled the way that they planned to steal baby Noah, which was posted online. This blog also revealed in their own words that they had been committing welfare fraud and lying to the court about it, that they were mean to Noah when his parents sent gifts, and that they were planning to flee the country with baby Noah. In this blog Megan Taylor describes herself as semi-stable and talks about how she wants Craig dead when he sends his son a Christmas present because it would simplify her life. Though the court allowed this to be entered into evidence, Commisioner Molly Merrigan said that she thought it was normal for these things to be written, given the stress of the trial and that even though specific information was posted about trial dates and their outcomes on the internet Commissioner Merrigan said that she didn’t think that the blog violated the gag order.

On January 1, 2007 Commisioner Molly Merrigan terminated Craig’s parental rights for the exact same reasons that the Supreme Court had already overturned the earlier petition. She directly defied the Supreme Court of Missouri and cut off all visitation that Craig had with his son immediately. Craig didn’t even get a chance to tell Noah good-bye. Craig had been visiting with Noah twice a week in Craig’s home for six months, planning for Noah’s homecoming. Noah is a very sweet boy and has gotten very close with his father and his grandmother as well. He tells them he loves them all the time. He has his own room at Craig home that he calls his room, with toys he picked out and furniture bought just for him. Now his room sits empty and according to Commissioner Molly Merrigan Craig will never see his son again.

This is a kidnapping. The Supreme Court of Missouri already decided that Craig was Noah’s legal father. He did everything he was supposed to, as required by the state, to establish himself as Noah’s legal father–as was found by the Supreme Court. Through a DFS investigation the state has declared him to be a fit father and found that he never abused or neglected his son. Commissioner Molly Merrigan cannot just terminate Craig Lentz’s parental rights and cut him out of his sons life forever just because she feels like it. That is illegal–and that is what she is trying to do. She is defying both the Missouri state constitution, the US constitution, the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri state laws governing adoption. This Commissioner must not be allowed to kidnap this child—she must be stopped. This court has wasted a year of Noah Levi Bonds life.

NEITHER PARENT HAS EVER ABUSED OR NEGLECTED NOAH. NOAH BOND IS BEING GREATLY HURT BY THIS COURT’S ACTIONS! The court has played around with this case for two and a half years. Noah has parents who love him and who are entitled by the United States Constitution to raise him. THE COURT IS NOT TAKING THE BEST INTEREST OF NOAH SERIOUSLY.

THE LOCAL FAMILY COURT IS DEFYING THE ORDERS OR THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. IF WE CANNOT COUNT ON OUR COURTS TO OBEY THE LAW HOW CAN WE BE A CIVIL SOCIETY? AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS WE MUST STAND AGAINST THIS. PLEASE STAND WITH US!

HIGHLIGHT AND PASTE THIS TO READ CRAIG’S BRIEF BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT FOR YOURSELF: http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/74d3f52ba33838ff8625720d005619ab/$FILE/SC87291_Lentz_brief.pdf

HIGHLIGHT AND PASTE THIS TO READ THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION FOR YOURSELF: http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/cd66e41a4fa779528625725e0050747c?OpenDocument

If this is being done to them, it will happen in other cases as well. This couple has gone above the call of duty. The courts are against the natural parents in almost every case. Its time to demand justice. To the adopters in this case and the many others, this is now public news and knowledge. You will end up losing in the end. You will pay hell in God’s eyes. These children will find out exactly what YOU have done. You will pay for your greed.

AN ADOPTION FACILITATOR IN INDIANAPOLIS

January 21, 2008

The link is here. Since the Indianapolis Star only leaves their stories up for one week, I am posting it here.

A woman accused of bilking seven others out of nearly $15,000 by telling them she was caring for a pregnant woman who was willing to give up her child has pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft.Diana Groves of Bloomington pleaded guilty in exchange for prosecutors agreeing to dismiss a habitual offender charge and leave sentencing to the discretion of the judge.Greene Circuit Judge David Holt, a special judge who took the plea agreement under advisement, told Groves during Friday’s hearing that she could face six months to three years in prison. Holt ordered Groves to appear again in Monroe Circuit Court on Feb. 1.Groves was charged in April following an FBI investigation that took place between July and September 2006.The FBI said Groves solicited money from women eager to adopt a child by telling them she was caring for a pregnant woman in need of prenatal care.According to court documents, Groves contacted women in Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Michigan, asking each for money to pay for various expenses including rent, ultrasounds and other care.One woman sent more than $6,000, another about $3,000, court documents show.In January 2007, Groves received a three-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty to a felony charge of neglect of a dependent. That case stemmed from a police investigation that resulted in 13 foster children being removed from Groves’ care.Investigators said she confined children with duct tape and whipped them with a tennis racket and paddle, as well as putting a child in a clothes dryer and spinning it for several minutes.

Adoption reform needs to start taking place. If we are all being taken advantage, then we need to start making changes. Lets not sit on our proverbial thumbs.