twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Baby Vaughn: Failed Adoptions and False Choices

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

Guest blogger Robin Sax: Few people would disagree that abortion is one of the most hotly contested issues in our country. The passion from the pro-choice and pro-life camps is evident. From printed words to television screens, from debate podiums to our living rooms -- whenever the issue is even mildly discussed, tensions flare on both sides. Seldom is there an opportunity or an issue that bridges both viewpoints. But now we have one: the broken adoption system in the United States. That's because the right of a mother to choose (pro-choice) and the desire for the child to be born (pro-life) are both at play whenever a mother takes the adoption route.

Abortion laws affect many areas of American life. Take their effect on crime, for example. Many are familiar with the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory argue that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States after Roe v. Wade has reduced crime in years since. Opponents generally dispute these statistics and will point to some negative effects of abortion on society. This camp encourages women to choose to put their children up for adoption rather than have abortions. 

Every mother has a right (and a responsibility) to develop a life plan for her unborn child. Today, as most of us already know, there are essentially three legal options for an American woman who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy: 1) Keep and parent the child, 2) Have the child and place him/her up for adoption or 3) Terminate the pregnancy. Obviously the choice is very difficult, and thus the source of many heated debates. But the great misfortune is that the adoption system is truly broken in America. 

The mechanisms to both put a child up for adoption and to adopt a child are fraught with so many problems. Many will pursue an adoption option in a foreign country (sometimes risking medical difficulties in the child) rather than stay domestic. The domestic system has a high probability of failed adoption, legal difficulties or failed placement. Therefore, women who have an unwanted pregnancy are choosing to terminate rather than pursue adoption as a viable alternative. In turn, more Americans must go abroad to China, Russia, etc., to adopt.

A woman should have a valid alternative to either aborting her baby or being forced to raise a child she does not want. Adoption should be that valid alternative. But some states will not recognize a mother's right to place her child up for adoption. This leaves a woman with only the two alternatives: aborting or parenting. In the case of Baby Grayson Vaughn, the birth mother had the constitutional right to place her newborn child up for adoption. Her choice was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of her constitutional right to choose what to do with her body, no man should be able to object to this newborn adoption. Any interference from a unwed father can be viewed as a violation of freedom of choice, a violation of privacy rights and of Due Process. 

So how is that 3-year-old Grayson is caught in a torturous battle between his prospective adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn of Sellersburg, Indiana, and his birth father, Benjamin Wyrembek of Swanton, Ohio? Will this case end in tragedy on October 30 -- the day the Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the boy to be returned to his birth father (a total stranger) and be taken away from the only parents he has ever known? 

While some people criticize the Vaughns, thousands of their supporters are in a fight against the clock to save Grayson from what experts have deemed "court-sanctioned child abuse." How is custody of Baby Vaughn even an issue when his birth mother herself chose the Vaughns as parents, acknowledged her own inability to care for the child and expressed the belief that Benjamin Wyrembek is not fit to parent his child? Why are we punishing this mother for choosing adoption as a viable option and selecting the Vaughns -- loving parents -- to be her child's mom and dad?

It has been three years since Christy Vaughn first held Grayson after he was born; she took him home nine days later. Now the courts want to take this child away from the only parents -- and siblings -- he has ever known. One question we might ask: Does Grayson's mother regret having her child? Any birth mother faced with this kind of contested adoption could understandably regret that she did not choose abortion

A woman must have the constitutionally protected right to place her newborn up for adoption, and not be forced into electing either abortion or parenting an unwanted child. While the "father's rights" people may be going crazy out there, please know that I agree that fathers deserve rights (of course!). But in this specific case, the woman's rights trump. And I am not alone in my thinking: The Supreme Court agrees. In Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, the Court made it clear that the reproductive rights of a woman are constitutionally protected and superior to the claimed rights of all others, even her husband. 

Adoptive children and families are suffering injustices, as in Baby Vaughn's case, with the unfair adoptions laws. We must speak out and begin to mend this terrible state of affairs.

next: Bob Saget Posts Video of Screaming Baby
151 comments so far | Post a comment now
phyllis  October 13, 2010, 5:16 AM

Why should a man because he denoted a sperm be allowed to make a decision for a child when is has contributed nothing financially or emotionally? No one can force a woman to carry a child, no man including a husband can block an abortion if the woman makes that choice. Why then should a man who has invested nothing be able to block an adoption when he did not step up and demonstrate his willing to take responsiblity until someone else chose to do his job. He knew this baby was his. He knew he could establish paternity pre-natal or at birth. Everyone is so sympathetic to him and I’m not convinced he deserves all the sympathy. Putting all of our bias aside, Grayson deserves to remain in his family. He should not be punished for any wrong doings of any of the adults involved. Shouldn’t his rights trump everyone else’s?

Jennifer October 13, 2010, 5:31 AM

Totally right, the system is broken.
I’m married and done having children, so clearly this doesn’t directly apply to me, but honestly, if I were in this position… If I were pregnant, didn’t want to be a parent or didn’t have the resources for it, with all this in mind, I simply wouldn’t tell the “birth father”, or sperm donor as the case may be, that I was pregnant. Don’t list them on the birth certificate, make sure to sever all contact before you’re showing, and they’d be none the wiser.

Any thinking woman who wants to put her unborn baby up for adoption and anticipates issues should seriously consider that.

My friend has been unable to have her husband adopt her own son because of the legal wrangling involved. Has the sperm donor- because that truly is all he did- ever given her the time of day since she announced being pg? Nope. Her husband is the only father her son has ever known.

reading is fundamental October 13, 2010, 5:36 AM

Back to addressing Josh Smith’s half-truths.

“The Vaughns position is that 25 dollars from the time of conception to the child’s first birthday isn’t enough. The Ohio Revised Code agrees with that position.”

I see you’ve finally admitted that the father sent money to his son, contrary to what you said before…but you’re still not telling the whole truth. In their adoption petition the Vaughns themselves admit to the court that he sent TWO more paymenta of MORE MONEY between September 2009 and December 2009. That’s in their petition to the Indiana court filed December 2009 - you can read it, it’s attached to the Ohio Supreme Court documents uploaded by the court for the public to read.

As for the Ohio legislation agreeing with you, that’s a bad joke. The Ohio courts, 4 of them, including the Ohio Supreme Court have disagreed with you.

“notification of this mystery insurance”

Maybe if you say it often enough it will become true…is that what you’re hoping? The OHIO Juvenile Court Judge, wrote as a “Finding of Fact” in their decision AWARDING CUSTODY TO THE FATHER, that the Father has has his son on his insurance since he was declared the legal father in March 2009. Are you implying neither you nor the Vaughns bothered to read the court decision giving the man custody of his son? Or is this just a blatant example of your dishonesty? Regardless, that document is also available online for the public to read.

“It strikes me that the advocates on this page have spent more time in the last 24 hours communicating and caring that the birthfather did in the first 24 months of Grayson’s life.”

It strikes me as offensive that the Vaughns would file two appeals and an Emergency petition in a different state to try to block the father’s court approved 4 hour weekly visits with his son. Then their supporters would have the unmitigated gall, when a court allows them to block those weekly visits, to claim the father didn’t communicate with his son. That’s like gagging someone with duct tape then asking why they won’t speak up. Simply dishonest.

“By Grayson’s 2nd birthday, 25 dollars no phone calls, no letters, no birthday cards, no presents, notification of this mystery insurance, nothing from the Dad. As everyone can agree. Legal documents don’t buy diapers and formula. He simply didn’t support.”

By Grayson’s second birthday, the father had been awarded visitation with his son by a court, that the Vaughns were not allowing. He should have been able to spend part of his child’s birthday celebrations with his son. But perhaps the same people who would ignore a court order for him to see his son, would allow him to call. Right. Also by his second birthday, per the Vaughns own admission, he had sent more money - hopefully that wasn’t used to pay attorney fees for the people holding his child. Remember no court has ordered child support, but one court did order a suspended jail sentence against the adoption agency’s director.

As for buying diapers, the man has been asking from December 2007 to be the child’s parent. To buy everything his child needs. As of January 2010, he was legally given that right, but of course, the agency did not comply with the custody order. Hopefully at the conclusion of this month, he will be the one buying everything for his child for the next 15 years.

“Litigation is not support.”

I’ve already addressed the ‘litigation is not support’ argument for a THIRD adoption petition. No one is buying it. The man has legal custody of his child, but if you don’t comply with the orders, you can’t turn around and ask the courts to ignore the time that he’s had to fight you for compliance.

“The Indiana order was a valid order.”

I guess that means you can and do read the court documents, you’re just very selective in what you’ll post about it. So you know in that petition the Vaughns asked the the visitation be stopped from September 2009. It’s also good that you know what a valid order is, it’s the compliance part that’s an issue.

The same Indiana court that issued the order, vacated the order AND dismissed the Indiana adoption petition.

We will not be tricked by half truths and convoluted arguments about undefined constitutional rights. We can and have read the court documents, in plain english, in black and white. We can find out the facts for ourselves. We will reason for ourselves.

Supporting GRAYSON October 13, 2010, 5:37 AM

Rebecca, I am guessing you do not have children of your own! Otherwise you could have never made the statement that “clearly he wasn’t that attached at 17 days”! Are you INSANE?? I wouldn’t “roll over” after 5 minutes of having my child in my arms, much less 17 days! Never mind to a man that the biological mother finds UNFIT…and proven himself to be UNINTERESTED! Yes, this article is outstanding and YES, a mother and father have rights, if and only if they don’t choose to forego them (which through all of this process)like Mr. Wyrembek! So, Yes, Mr and Mrs Vaughn have RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES and VALUES and LOVE and all the things that are sooo clearly evident in making Grayson’s life happy and well adjusted! If you can’t see that, again, you clearly do not have children! But again, this is not about winning a prize! We are talking about a family here and a little boy that will be irreperably harmed if he does not remain in the only home he has ever known!

Jenny Taylor October 13, 2010, 5:38 AM

I believe this child might be in serious danger. There is certainly enough smoke to at least go see if there is a fire.

According to the birthmother he pulled a tire iron out of his trunk and threatened another driver.

He has arrests for assault, drug related charges, disorderly conduct.

The adoption agency filed a restraining order to prevent him from returning to their office because of threatening behavior.

He refused a drug test.

There has never been a risk assessment done on this man.

There has never been a psychological evaluation done on him.

I hope and pray that the courts haven’t made a serious mistake.

reading is fundamental October 13, 2010, 5:44 AM

“Why should a man because he denoted a sperm be allowed to make a decision for a child when is has contributed nothing financially or emotionally?”

It’s interesting that you should use those terms phyllis.

A sperm donor, is not someone who files for custody of his child. Anymore than an egg donor is someone who fights for three years to get custody of their child. By definition of the term, they would walk away from the child. But clearly that’s not what happened in this situation. This man is the FATHER. The courts have said repeatedly, his actions have demonstrated it consistently.

In fact, here’s what to Ohio Juvenile Court Judge had to say in her ruling awarding the Father custody of his Son.

“Plaintiff has made efforts to obtain possession and custody of his child since December, 2007. He was granted visitation and there was an interim agreement for visitation resulting from a mediation held at this Court. The Vaughns were present, participated in the mediation and agreed to an interim order for visitation. A subsequent mediation was scheduled to which the Vaughns failed to appear.”

“Plaintiff has the ability to financially and emotionally care for the child.”

“Plaintiff is the legal, biological father of the child. His rights were never terminated.”

“There is no adoption.”

“It is in the best interests of this child that custody be awarded to the Plaintiff and that he be designated as the residential parent and legal custodian of this child. Any further delays in these proceedings do not serve the best interest of the child.”

reading is fundamental October 13, 2010, 5:50 AM

Jenny Taylor,

Where is the proof of ANYTHING you’ve said?

Why is it not in the Ohio Supreme Court documents? Why is it not in the Indiana Circuit Court Documents?

Why did the juvenile court of Ohio, the court that decides custody in the best interests of the child, award custody to the father saying,

“It is in the best interests of this child that custody be awarded to the Plaintiff and that he be designated as the residential parent and legal custodian of this child. Any further delays in these proceedings do not serve the best interest of the child.”

The Ohio probate court, the Ohio juvenile court, the Ohio court of appeals, the Ohio Supreme court, the Indiana circuit court, the Indiana Supreme court, have ALL listened to the arguments the Vaughns made. NONE have found him to be unfit. They have all UPHELD his right to have custody of his son. So if you’re looking for smoke or fire, more than a dozen judges have already said, there isn’t any.

reading is fundamental October 13, 2010, 6:04 AM

Supporting Grauson

“I wouldn’t “roll over” after 5 minutes of having my child in my arms, much less 17 days!”

So if someone held your child and fell in love with them, would you allow that person to keep your child? If it took the court 3 years to return your son, you would walk away? If you couldn’t walk away after 17 days, how could you expect a father to walk away after 3 years of court battles? You said 5 mins was enough, Mr. Wyrembek was able to be with his child for 4 hours before the Vaughns got a court to block visitation. So by your reasoning he would of course not give up his child.

“Never mind to a man that the biological mother finds UNFIT…and proven himself to be UNINTERESTED!”

This standard is truly mind boggling, because how the heck does one parent get to unilaterally decide the other parent is unfit? How does the parent who doesn’t even want to raise the child, get to decide that the other parent isn’t fit to raise the child? How does that parent not get a chance to prove otherwise in court? When that parent PROVES TO A COURT that they ARE FIT, and the COURT AGREES, how can you say he’s disinterest?

I think of parents like David Goldman, whose wife abducted their child to Brazil. She’d decided he wasn’t the father she wanted for her son, and he was proven fit in every court, just like this father, and had to fight years to get his son back, just like this father. I don’t know how anyone can be ‘uninterested’ but still fighting for years to be part of their child’s life.

Cargen October 13, 2010, 6:29 AM

All of nae sayers out there don’t really seem to know the real merits to this case. The fact is Grayson’s biological father KNEW the biological mother was pregnant and chose to abandon her during her pregnancy. At that point, he chose to give up his rights and provided no monetary or emotional support. Then, when Grayson was 17 days old, he changed his mind. Well too little too late my friend. Ohio law was followed in this case and Grayson should stay where he is because bio dad gave up his rights.
That’s the problem with our society and adoption is that no one really has to take accountability for his/her own actions. So a bio parent can say (with actions) I don’t want you, oh never mind I do want you, oh never mind I don’t want you, oh oops I do want you…. Where does it end?
So, I do agree with you on one thing, it isn’t about the bio mother’s rights… but it also isn’t about bio dad’s rights. It is and should only be about Grayson’s rights and if anyone ever bothered to stop and ask him what he wanted I guarantee you he would want to stay where he is with mommy, daddy, and siblings.
I also have to question if this case would even be going on if Grayson were a girl. Would bio dad really want his girl seed back???

Anonymous October 13, 2010, 7:03 AM

Amen Phyllis.

Disgusting that this child is being stolen from his REAL parents to be given to what is essentially a sperm donor. Who I’m sure will now sue the biological mother for child support, forcing her to be involved with a child that is no longer hers.

KrisMc October 13, 2010, 7:24 AM

I find it humorous that these same few people keep commenting over and over to “Give Grayson Back.” First of all, there is NO BACK. Grayson was grown prenatally without this biological father, he was born into this world without this biological father, and he has been raised, his whole life thus far, without this biological father. Unless we can change Grayson BACK into a spermatazoa, and give him BACK to the biological father in that form, THERE IS NO BACK. A father is much more than biology, PERIOD.

I like the mother’s rights stance. She was looking out for her unborn child by choosing adoption. The Vaughns grew their family by adoption. Shame on you aggressive, ridiculous people, with ZERO ties to the case, but such a headstrong opinion, for calling the Vaughns “kidnappers.” You obviously don’t hear how stupid you sound. It’s not the black market people, it’s America. And adoption.

The Vaughns grew their family BY adoption. Once they were handed their child in the delivery room, both their family, and hearts grew. So, why is it so hard to realize that Grayson is their son, and they are NOT going to give up the fight for him?

Same stale people, commenting the same stale stuff. I’m tired of reading it. Ignorance is bliss, though, isn’t it? I like your simple stance: someone fathers a child, they should be a father to the child. Very “all you need to know you learned in Kindergarten.” Now, let’s have our snack, and all lay down for our nappy-nap.

In reality, this is life. And life is tough. So tough, in fact, that the courts are failing a 3 year old boy who deserves his mother, father, siblings, cousins, grandparents, and community. All of whom are fighting to give him what he deserves. So, to all you “Fathers-rights activists,” I say this: Rules and laws are meant to be broken. And changed. So that a little boy can stay where he belongs. And, we’ll fight it to the end.

Good Day.

Emily October 13, 2010, 8:37 AM

I think the saddest part of this case is that Grayson’s best interest has been forgotten. It seems the legal system is failing him. If his biological father tried to get custody when he was only 17 days old, why did it take almost a year and a half for anything to come of it? At this point, Grayson’s rights should be of the utmost concern, even above his
adoptive and biological parents. Is it in his best interest to be sent to live with someone he has only begun to get to know in the past couple of months, even if he would make a great parent? It seems to me it would be best for him to stay with the loving & intact family who have raised him. If his biological father wants a relationship with him, he should create one that doesn’t turn his entire world upside down. I realize it may not be fair to ask this of the biological father, but isn’t it better to ask an adult to make a sacrifice than a child, especially one of such a grave nature? Did the legal system fail the biological father? Yes. Did it fail the Vaughn? It seems so. Most importantly, though, it can and should not fail Grayson, the toddler at the center of this struggle.

Sarah October 13, 2010, 9:44 AM

Robin Sax, if you are a lawyer, you should really brush up on your constitutional law. Reproduction/Abortion rights have nothing to do with raising a child once that child is born. Try looking at Meyer v. Nebraska or other cases that deal with a natural parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit. In the eyes of the law, mothers and fathers have equal rights to their children.

The only reason the birth mother in this instance was allowed to almost get away with this is because she wasn’t married to Ben. So he had to prove he was the father, which he did. He didn’t support her during the pregnancy because as she admitted - SHE broke up with HIM. She was also married, so she had someone to provide financial support.

More importantly, you seem to have forgotten what adoption is supposed to be about. Adoption is for children who NEED homes and families. Grayson has a home and a family in Ohio. The Vaughns knew this when they filed to adopt him. How anyone could try to adopt a child who already has a family is beyond me.

They had him home for 9 days when Ben filed with the Putative Father Registry and they knew that. It would have absolutely been in Grayson’s best interest to be returned ASAP. The Vaughns pursued the adoption when Grayson was an infant because THEY would have a hard time letting go. Grayson would have been just fine if he was returned within 2 months. When Grayson was infant the Vaughns did what was in their own best interest. Now that they’ve unnecessarily hung onto this child for 3 years they’re screaming “Grayson’s best interest.” It’s twisted.

The whole litigation is not support argument is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I’ve heard. If the Vaughns had returned Grayson there would be no litigation. Ben would have been completely responsible for the child which is what he WANTS. The only reason he hasn’t been able to support the child is because the Vaughns haven’t let him. What is he supposed to do - send the people who are keeping from his child money? Who of you would give money to the people who are keeping your child from you?

He is not just some sperm donor, and that kind of thinking is detrimental to society. More fathers should fight for their kids. This young man has not given up after 3 years because Grayson is HIS child, not the Vaughns’. They knew that when they taught Grayson to call them Mommy and Daddy. The courts found him fit, which is what matters. The Vaughns have done irreparable damage to this child by trying to adopt him when he wasn’t in need of adoption. I know they love him, but it’s his constitutional right to raise him.

Robin, it scares me that you are a lawyer who is responsible for the welfare of children. Adoption should not be granted without the consent of BOTH parents when possible. One parent cannot unilaterally refuse to raise a child and then simultaneously bar the other parent from raising the child. Thanks for setting the woman’s rights back a couple generations.

Nancy October 13, 2010, 10:01 AM

I have worked for 50 years 35 of which was in the legal field. 12 of these years I worked for a Circuit Court Judge and have been involved in many adoption cases. It is so hard for me to understand the sudden surge the last few years for the movement by activists, etc. supporting “Fathers” rights. These people are more than likely being furnished legal counsel through a public advocacy office while adoptive parents that are bearing all expenses of an adoption proceeding and by choice chose to adopt, love, care for a child that a birth mother made a sacrifice from her heart to give up. Last but not least, the welfare of the child’s rights. I sincerely promote adoption, birthmother rights, and children rights.

D28Bob October 13, 2010, 10:18 AM

Why isn’t the agency (Adoption by Gentle Care) held more accountable in this entire case? The old saying on Wall Street holds here as well; “He who sell what isn’t his’n/ Should expect to go to prison.”

The agency is charged with making sure that a child they represent as eligible for placement is in fact not encumbered by legitimate claims. The relinquishment form executed by the ex-husband of the mother clearly stated that he was not the biological father; that should have been a red flag to the agency. That they continued to try to continue the adoption calls into question whether they should remain an approved child placement agency.

While I sympathize with those who fear adverse psychological effects upon Grayson, the fact is that millions of children have been separated from their original families through death, adoption, foster care, divorce, wars, earthquakes and other disasters. We develop coping mechanisms and find ways to function.

These events will not wreck or destroy Grayson’s life any more than being torn from the only world I knew twice before age 2 destroyed me. Yes, it left marks that will never disappear (as do all adoptions) but I have had a pretty happy, successful life anyway.

Family therapy for all involved would be a good idea; I nominate Adoption by Gentle Care to pay for it….

Anonymous October 13, 2010, 11:24 AM

Jenny: please documents your accusations against Ben. Nothing appears in the Lucas County Clerk of Court or Toledo Muni Court records.

Lacie October 13, 2010, 12:07 PM

I do see the point some of you are maiking. The birth mother could have had an abortion and the sperm donor would not have any right to stop that. I thought adoption was an alternative to abortion when choosing a birth plan?

It just seems wrong that someone tries to do the right thing and chooses life over abortion and then the father who abandoned her while she was pregnant gets to disrupt the birth plan the mother wanted.

nv October 13, 2010, 12:43 PM

There are some good points in this article and in the comments. People are right, this has drug out way too long and includes way too many court filings. And here we find the root of the problem. It’s not the vaughn’s and its not the bio fathers. its the courts.

Ohio law states the Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. The general assembly created this law to eliminate the issues we see in this case.

To me, just because the courts have ruled a certain way does not mean they are correct.

The reason there have been so many filings in an attempt to keep the juvenile court out of it is it causes problems, confusion, and delays and more importantly sets precendence nullifying the written law. This is the effect of all these actions.

Remember, a putative father is someone who MAY be the childs father. That also means a putative father is someone who MAY NOT be the childs father. Allowing someone who has no interest at all with any party should not be able to delay or impact an adoption. Yes, in this case it turns out he was the bio father. However, in many other cases the putative father won’t be the biological father.

The probate court would order a dna test to determine if the putative father is the bio father or not. If he is, he remains a party in the adoption. If he is not, he is no longer party to the adoption. It’s simple. Really simple actually.

The reason you fight and keep fighting is to prevent a new case precedence from being established thats in direct conflict with the written law. (which is what has happened)

The current law is written really well. It took 10 years to craft. Problem is, courts aren’t following the law. They reference case precedence in order to support their preferred ruling. That’s not the way its suppose to work. The people elect their leaders, the leaders craft the laws and the courts uphold the written law and intent of the general assembly.

Legally there is a big difference between a parent, a legal father and a putative father. All of which have distinct characteristics and all of which have been upheld in the US Supreme Court.

So this has taken way too long and either way it goes people are going to get hurt and the child will lose either way and that’s not fair to the child. He didn’t ask for any of this. He doesn’t know what a biological father or an adoptive father is….all he knows is who has cared for him and who he’s bonded with. I don’t think its fair to negatively impact him. I don’t think its fair he loses the mother he knows and his siblings. its not his fault, he shouldn’t suffer.

Its the courts fault. The supreme court is absolutely wrong. Their ruling is only going to make adoptions worse going forward. A different constitutional approach would be allowing a putative father who is NOT the childs biological father to delay/interfere with an adoption procedeing. I just don’t see how that makes sense. I see the argument for when the putative father IS the bio father, I just don’t see the argument if he’s not. And remember, the law needs to account for both instances. The current written law DOES. The Supreme Court ruling has changed that and they are wrong. I won’t go in to details how and why they are wrong, the role of the court, why the cases used don’t apply or the future issues it will cause.

All the other filings just distract from the failures of the Ohio Courts. If the adoption attorney didn’t fight, the laws HE worked so hard to help create would be destroyed. This is much bigger than 1 case. This is bigger than the bio father or prospective adoptive parents.

C4 October 13, 2010, 12:44 PM

First and foremost let me say that I am definitely “Team Vaughn.” The Vaughns have been there for Grayson since Day 1 and will continue to be, and I will support them in their fight to keep Grayson home where he belongs.

For whomever posted that the Vaughns said behind closed doors that if they couldn’t keep Grayson that they never wanted to see him again…WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?!?!?! They love that child and would NEVER abandon him! That was a closed court room and no one but the parties involved know what went on behind closed doors.

For those of you who continue to post that Ben has been filing motion after motion and believes that should count as “being there” for Grayson, it doesn’t. No matter what he should have been there during the pregnancy and immediately after birth, not days after. Sending money 3 times in 3 years, (if that is correct,) isn’t the same as supporting him either. It was said that the Vaughns didn’t comply with the visitation and that it was wrong on their part for taking little Grayson to see Ben only once, that may be true, but if Ben had Graysons best interest in mind then he would have been the one to drive the 5 hours to visit Grayson and not expect the Vaughns to subject Grayson to being strapped in a car seat for that amount of time. I only live an hour from my mother and when she wanted to visit with her grandchildren she didn’t expect me to bring them to her, she CAME TO THEM!! That is what having a childs best interest is.

Graysons best interest is to STAY in his home with the only family he has ever known. It is possible for that to happen and for him to have a relationship with Ben. Just ask any child that is from a divorced home.

Anonymous October 13, 2010, 12:54 PM

Nancy, I am disturbed that you have ever had a job in this area.

I support mothers’ rights, fathers’ rights, and children’s rights. Ignoring any one of those three is dangerous. Have you not heard the hideous stories of kidnappings that go on all around the world - children taken from distracted mothers or fathers - in order for the kidnappers to make money from the international, mainly American, market? It happens throughout the whole world. Many orphans in Russia have living parents but the gorvernment has decided to take them away, not always because of drugs or alcohol but because they’ve voiced political opinions the government doesn’t like.

Saying that this case is all about the mother is stupidly simplistic, as is suggesting that only people who love children would ever want to adopt them. There are people who like children in a more physical way, and those people do not hesitate to take advantage of the lost, abandoned, or confused.

As for the kidnappers in this particular case, they know exactly the game they are playing. They know that legal wrangles can often take a long time. They knew that from the beginning. And they knew that Grayson would grow up in their care while they ignored each and every court order. They are banking exactly on bleeding hearts people talking about how terrible it would be for Grayson himself to be taken away from them. Such manipulative people should not be trusted with any children at all.

Not only that, their blatant disregard for court proceedings and the law shows exactly what kind of parents they’re going to be ten years down the line:

Grayson shoplifts and gets arrested, the kidnappers tell him the cop is insignificant.

Grayson gets angry and beats up a teacher, the kidnappers get a lawyer in who gets him off on some kind of technicality.

Grayson likes a girl and rapes her, they say, “Hey, she must have deserved it.”

These people have no rights and I hope, Nancy, that if my sister or my sister-in-law ever die, YOU will NOT be the one who decides what happens to their children. Their fathers are the people who deserve to be with them.

Being taken away from them might hurt Grayson. Giving them legal custody would set a dangerous precedent that will hurt thousands of people from now on in. I wish Grayson’s father the best of luck.

Back to top >>