Adoptive Parents Ordered to Surrender 3-Year-Old to Biological Father
Filed under: Just For Moms, Just For Dads, Adoption, News, In The News, Weird But True, Single Parenting, New In Pop Culture
In what may turn out to be a nightmare-come-true for adoptive parents, an Indiana couple risks losing their son today to the child's biological father in Ohio, after fighting to adopt the boy for nearly three years.
The couple, Jason and Christy Vaughn, arranged to adopt the boy, Grayson, from his biological mother after his birth in 2007. However, after a series of legal battles that ascended to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Vaughns have been ordered to immediately turn the boy over to his biological father, Benjamin Wyrembek, according to the Toledo Blade.
The Vaughns were present at Grayson's birth in October 2007, and have had custody of the boy since they took him to their home in Indiana just eight days later, according to ABC News. However, within 30 days of his birth, Wyrembek, registered with the Putative Father Registry in Ohio, affirming that he might be the boy's father. Wyrembek then filed a suit to establish parental rights in December 2007, just weeks before the Vaughns filed for adoption, according to court documents.
Wyrembek had been seeing the biological mother -- who was married to another man at the time -- when she became pregnant. Ultimately, she broke off the relationship with Wyrembek and divorced her husband, then surrendered the child at birth to a Columbus, Ohio, adoption agency, according to the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.
Grayson's biological mother tells ABC News she lost contact with Wyrembek early in her pregnancy, and wasn't required by law to provide his contact information to the adoption agency. Court documents confirm that the biological mother and her husband -- the legal father -- filed the necessary papers to surrender custody of the child within weeks of his birth.
Seventeen months later, after genetic testing confirmed Wyrembek as Grayson's biological father, and before the adoption could be finalized, an Ohio court ruled that the Vaughns had filed their adoption petition prematurely -- since paternity had not yet been determined -- and awarded custody to Wyrembek.
The custody decision has since been upheld by the Ohio Court of Appeals and, most recently, by the Supreme Court of Ohio, according to court documents, which refer to the "right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his children (as) one of the most precious and fundamental in law."
However, the Vaughns say that although they were aware of Wyrembek's intentions early on, he refused to meet or talk with them after Grayson's birth. So, as time passed, they became convinced that the law was on their side, the Blade reports.
"He's never contacted us directly. He's never asked how the child is doing. He's never sent a birthday card," Jason Vaughn tells the Blade. "What they'll say is they've litigated this from the beginning, that he filed a paternity action in the very beginning; that he's done everything he can do."
Glenn Sacks, national executive director of Fathers and Families, a national family court reform organization, tells ParentDish he sees this type of case all too often.
"These cases are very difficult because what usually happens is that the adoptive parents will hold onto the child as long as they can," Sacks says. "And then by the time it winds its way to a decision, they say, 'How can we rip the kid from the only family they've ever known and give him to his biological father?' "
But the attorney for the Vaughns, Michael Voorhees, asserts that the Ohio courts have not followed state adoption law.
"The law says you don't need (the birth father's) consent for adoption if he willfully abandoned the birth mother during the pregnancy," Voorhees tells the Blade.
In response to the decision, Wyrembek's attorney, Alan J. Lehenbauer tells ABC News: "My client, the biological father, was awarded legal custody by an Ohio court after consideration of all evidence." Lehenbauer adds that his client "has sought the return of his child since shortly after birth and will not relitigate this matter in the media."
Jason Vaughn says litigation is not the same as support.
"We want him to have contacted Grayson and to have supported him," he tells ABC News. "And our position is he has not done that."
Sacks says he thinks there's an enormous amount of prejudice against biological fathers who want to raise their kids.
"People say, 'Gee, could he really raise a kid on his own like that?' " Sacks tells ParentDish. "But when motivated fathers have a chance to raise their kids, they're usually very effective, and the research bears that out."
The Vaughns tell ABC News there are currently two different adoption petitions pending in Ohio, and they haven't had their day in court yet; they are now appealing the 24-hour order to turn Grayson over to Wyrembek.
"I just want to ask, if there's a congressman, a judge, a senator, the Ohio governor, the Indiana governor, please get involved. Please, I am begging you; this is our family," Christy Vaughn tells CBS News.
Reacting to the 24-hour turnover order, the Vaughns are asking that a transition be mandated, and have hired a child psychologist to draft a recommended transition plan for a slower, measured transition. That plan has been filed with the court in Ohio and is awaiting decision.
"If we're going to lose Grayson -- we don't think we should -- but if we're going to, then it's got to be done right, and the current order that stands isn't right, and anyone should know that," Jason Vaughn tells ABC News.
Christy Vaughn says she can't imagine telling her two other children that they'll be losing their brother.
"There's absolutely no difference. He's our child, and he has been since the moment I held him. I don't know anything else but that," she tells ABC News.
Neither of the attorneys in the case could be reached for comment.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Would you want to to pick your own security . ? im sure they get homes paid for by the state or political party also. 18 =20 votes before 98
- Twitter followers
- If i own all or most of the property in dc think the mayor already knows. president and others including Embassies. on my property for 20 +years











ReaderComments (Page 1 of 38)
9-28-2010 @ 3:18PM
Rhonda said...I don't think the biological father should have the child, not because his rights are not as important as the adoptive parents, but because a man who slept with a married woman and didn't hang around long enough to find out if she was pregnant with his child probably is going to be a lousy parent. I would say the biological mother did the right thing for the child by turning him over to adoptive parents who have a stable family. Even if she concealed the pregnancy from the biological father, people who don't respect marriage vows - their own or other people's - make terrible parents because good parenting means doing what is best for the child, and participating in an adulterous relationship shows that you are thinking of what you want - not what's best for everyone involved.
Reply
9-28-2010 @ 3:31PM
HOWCANYOUBESOSURE said...How can you be sio sure that he knew she was married? People present themselves to others in ways which often mask the truth of their situation. The article says SHE broke off the relationship, so she probably didn't disclose to him that there was a pregnancy, let alone a child. This mans rights could CLEARLY have been violated and while I feel for the adoptive parents AND the child, justice is best served by recognizing the rights of the biological father. To adoptive parents - BUYER BEWARE!
9-28-2010 @ 3:40PM
vickie said...I think the mother was just as much at fault ...or more at fault...she was married....How could she give her baby up??I don't think he abandoned her at all....she just had a tyst with another man and it work out....The boy needs to know his real father wanted him.Hw will look for him some day ,anyway.....
9-28-2010 @ 7:55PM
pat savo said...I have 4 natural and 2 adopted children. The law is the law.The child should have been turned over at age 2 months to his biological father.Law does not consider morals, both birth parents committed adultery but by right the father filed in time.
9-28-2010 @ 4:02PM
MRED205 said...I totally agrre with thriceshy. The heartache that this child will go through is completely the adoptive parent's fault. They were fighting a custody battle from the beginning of this child's life?! why did they not go ahead and right away get a paternity test done, and hand over the child to his biological father? This man has sought out his son for 3 unecessary years! I feel for all parties involved but it could have been avoided from the beginning and they could have saved another child stuck in the foster care system's life....
9-28-2010 @ 4:06PM
Rich said...Rhonda, You are so out to lunch. Get with it. Fathers have equal rights just as mothers do. What makes a fathers right differant.
And as far as sleeping with a married woman. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO. I could go on forever, but men desrve the same rules. Why do you think the rules for men are differant. Equal rights is what woman want? Dont they
9-28-2010 @ 4:17PM
Doris said...do every man you have sex with or had sex with hang around to see if you became pregnant? far to many times peopl do not think. put your selves in the father place. it's mostly woman with that bs. the law need to make it mandatory for the father to give up their rights.
9-28-2010 @ 4:44PM
Martha said...I agree with Rhonda that the dad shouldn't have any rights to him. But also he is low scumb for even thinking he should now come into this childs life now ,he doesnt even know him an to take him away from the security will mess this childs mind up--wait an see. I hope the Judge is smarter than that to give him to the dad.
9-28-2010 @ 4:36PM
Sarah said...The Vaughn's received custody of Grayson at birth. The father, whom was aware that his "girlfriend" was pregnant, and abandoned her during the pregnancy. He did not immediately request paternity testing. When he did, he let 17 months go by before he did anything with the knowledge that he was the biological father. 17 months that Grayson was living with his parents and brother and sister. Between then and now the father has only contacted them once for a three hour visit. The Vaughn's are the only family that he has ever known. He can't be given back or traded. He is a child and to be tore from his parents will be an absolute tragedy!
9-28-2010 @ 4:39PM
Jazz said...OOOOOOOOK, First of all, the mother got pregnant by this guy while she was married and he took off! He didn't want the child then and now he wants to take the child from the only family he knows? The mother and her husband had the legal right to surrender the child and they did. If he had wanted that child, he should have been an active part of her pregnancy and the child's birth-instead of just being there when he was conceived! And how about sending birthday and Christmas rememberances to his son for these past three years-no matter what the adoptive parents thought about it, if he cared for the kid, he should have done that so that one day he could tell the child that he did-but he didn't because he didn't even realize that he should have. Guess why that is? Because he isn't and wasn't a father, but simply a sperm donor who now wants his 15mins of fame at the expense of this little boy. And, sorry guys, but if he truly cared about this little boy's welfare, he would simply step back, leave him in his family and negotiate an arrangement to have visitation and be a part of his life. I wonder just how much he will want that little boy when the reality of caring for a three year old hits him in the side of his head?????? THAT should be interesting.
9-30-2010 @ 4:02AM
Doris said...and another thing or two, they haven't been granted the child, yet, so much for their son. this double standards of living in these states make my pressure go to stoke level. PEOPLE, you can not have your cake and eat it to, half the time a woman have to inform the man that she is pregnant, so much for the law on leaving a pregnant woman.
9-28-2010 @ 4:49PM
Cary said...@Jazz, maybe you didn't actually read the story. But there's nothing that says the father knew about the pregnancy or took off because of it. The mother says she lost contact with him early in the pregnancy but doesn't say why or if he knew about it.
He's not trying to get 15 minutes of fame. He came forward when his son was days old and filed for him. He's not even speaking to the media.
Maybe you could send presents and cards to the people keeping your son from you in the hope that they would tell the little boy the truth, but I don't blame him for not doing that. For all we know that could have damaged his case. He wanted to be there full time for his son, somehow a card just doesn't compare.
9-28-2010 @ 5:42PM
Judy said...Rhonda-you are so right on. He should not get the child because filing a lawsuit does not make a parent. He was a sperm donor, nothing more. He was not there for the mother/child for the first 9 months and has not been present for the child since birth. No cards or presents. No love. Nothing. This is so, so sad for the adoptive family and child. Reminds me of Baby Jessica in Iowa. No one wins. Tell the birth father to go get a fish. No, he probably won't be there for the fish either. Kudos to the birthmother for doing what was right for the child. I don't understand why a person can get an abortion without the sperm donors consent, why can't the person who grew the baby within their own body decide what she wants to do with her baby. It is a screwed up world. Guardian angels please watch out for this innocent child.
9-28-2010 @ 5:01PM
sharon said...As an adoptive parent, I see what the Vaughn's are going through as the ultimate nightmare. Even though they did all the right things, they are still in danger of losing their child, and that child is in danger of being harmed by taking him from everything he knows. Had the birth father taken an active interest in Grayson, seeing him, been a presence in his life, etc. it might be different. Although Indiana law does not require the termination of his rights, especially since he abandoned both the mother and the child. As far as abruptly removing the child, should it come to that, very detrimental and harmful to any child. Gradual integration with the new parent is the proven best option, short of leaving well enough alone, of course.
9-28-2010 @ 5:13PM
Astasia S said...First off he didnt abandon his child. The mother stated she left him early in pregnancy. She was having an affair there are many fathers out there who dont care about where there children are what there doing or even what happends to them. This man on the other hand wants to step up to the plate and take care of HIS kid. Let him. Im sorry for the adoptive family but if they are mad at anyone it should be the mother who didnt allow this man to be the father of his son she just put her husband on the birth certificate because she was having an affair. This is not the father or the sons fault. The little boy deserves to know his dad and if his dad is stable and capable to take care of this child he as wells deserves to raise his child.
9-28-2010 @ 5:28PM
PackrLovr said...Sounds like the biological father abandoned the woman who was carrying his baby.( i don't give a crap if she was married, or if he knew) DUH! how long did it take for him to realize that having unprotected sex could make a baby? Probably about as long as it took for him to plan on not adopting the kid too soon? Whether by intention or not, he was not there and didn't fight too soon or too hard to "be the parent." PLEASE~ he filed "when the law allowed him to?" Seems like that is a great fall back---he didn't want to be a father at that point----That is, until the child was beyond the havoc of newborn feedings, diaper changes and constant care. Sure, the kid is three, potty trained, can get food to his own mouth and sleeps on a schedule....NOW, being a father is much more appealing, isn't it? Why not just let someone else raise your child and visit.....it would be much better for the child.
9-28-2010 @ 5:42PM
Kate said...packrlovr..I must ask did you read the article? This man filed when the child was 17 days old he did not wait until the child was three. The potential adoptive parents have kept his tied up in the courts even with every judge deciding in favor of the father. So not sure why you think he waited til the child was past infant stage since had they turned the baby over when the father first filed the child would not have been quite a month old. There is no evidence that the man even knew the woman was pregnant. He did not abandon her, she states that she left him, then divorced her husband. How is that his "Running out on his pregnant girlfriend?" This guy and that baby are the victims here first of that birth mother then these selfish self involved potential adoptive parents. Put the blame for his mess where it belongs...on those 3 but not the biological father.
9-28-2010 @ 5:43PM
nana7 said...Now that the child is potty trained, can speak, he wants the child.. Why wasn't he sending money, visiting, sending birthday cards and such. I believe fathers also make good parents but this guy is a loser.
9-28-2010 @ 5:57PM
angeleyes0074 said...Where was the father for the last 3 years????....Leave him with the parents he knows.
9-28-2010 @ 5:55PM
phil said...This piece of s**t sperm donor is no father at all. He should be given 2 things - 1. a restraining order to stay away from the child and the child's real (adoptive) parents; and 2. A court order to provide child support. Maybe next time he will keep his pants zipped up until he is married and mature enough to raise a child responsibly.