Adoptive Parents Ordered to Surrender 3-Year-Old to Biological Father

One cannot judge one's morals; we don't know the whole story! Single fathers have been denied parental rights far to long. Do we know if she told him that she was married? Did she tell him that she was in the middle of getting a divorce…
With what I read in this story that barley divulges the facts let alone the truths, is that this man stood up and said, I might be the father?? Umm, who in their right mind would be sick enough to withhold this information from a biological father? The only intention on the mother’s part was to hurt this man.
It appears to me that this man was “Man” enough to stand up and say wait a minute here, this may be my son. He did not run or hide from his God given and legal right to be a parent, instead he took the methodical approach of “choosing” not to disrupt or interfere with what had tragically transpired in a veil of secrecy on the mother’s part.
This Man took a path of being a Man and sought the legal course and has held this family in such regard as not to interfere or allow himself to give any reason of any kind to the courts to deny him custody of his son. Now for this upstanding family, did they invite him to their home to visit his son? Did they invite him to his son’s birthday parties, did they attempt to set up visitations so that he could feed and hold his son? If they had you can bet we on the public side of this story would have heard about it so that they “the family” could be painted in a more considerate-passionate light.
My God, the pain and torment this man must have gone through.
All we know is what this family wants us to know --and that is “ please view us as victims!” in this matter. Lastly far be it for me to have never made a mistake in my life? As for victims, this father who from the very day he suspected that this was his son never ran, never hid and has spent countless hours in legal counsel and has spent countless dollars defending his right to have custody of his rightful and biological son so that he could spend his life with his son doing what fathers and sons do TOGEHER.

The bio dad abandoned the birth mother as soon as he knew she was pregnant. That in and of itself negates his right as a parent. DNA is not the only thing or the most important thing that makes you a parent. One has to wonder what this guys real motives are here. Is he even fit to raise a child and how will he provide for this child? These are serious questions that don't seem to be answered at this point. If this case in not unusual than something needs to be done and soon. Children are being harmed!

as a person that was adopted, i don't believe that parents that have natural children will ever treat them all the same. second, the vaughns have 2 children already. give this poor man his child already. HE has waited 3 years. third, if the vaughns had not fought him all this time, he would have had his child already.

Wow, what world do you live in??? Not the real one. People seek comfort from others for many reasons. This doesn't make them bad parents. As a divorced parent, the best thing I EVER did was to break my "marrage vows" and find another wonderful caring person who love both me AND my children. Don't underestimate kids, they know if they're parents are miserable together. My kids are adults now and agree we were all happier when their father and I divorced.

We don't know if the father even knew the child's mother was married, let alone any other details of the case. They may have broken up because he found out she was married -- women lie too. The fact that he wants to take his child suggests to me that he is not a monster nor is he heartless -- it is likely he is as much a victim as the child and the adoptive parents are. He deserves a chance to raise his child, and I hope that he can work out an arrangement with Grayson's adoptive parents where they all can love him and see him grow into adulthood with all the support he needs.

The Vaughn’s were on notice that there was a man who may be the child’s biological father. They were given notice of this information within weeks of the child’s birth. The child’s biological mother knew the child did not belong to her husband and decided to do the wrong thing and have her husband sign the surrender forms instead of the child’s biological father.

The absolutely filed the adoption papers prematurely since custody had not yet been determined. The law was NEVER on their side and the child’s biological father had no reason or duty to speak with them – they were after all trying to take his son away from him.

What the Vaughn’s should have done is let this man have his child from the very beginning instead of trying to litigate rights that do not belong to them. They should have not caused this father to spend god knows how much in legal fees to have custody of a child that is rightfully his. The Vaughn’s are continuing to drag out a very painful process for both the child and his father – if they really wanted what is best for this child, they would have let him go with his father right from the beginning. They are the ones now responsible for causing additional psychological harm to this child by not doing the right thing in the first place and by compounding the problem by not obeying the court order after it was issued

First Rhonda just because people make mistakes does not mean that they will make lousy parents. We are not perfect and everyone of us makes mistakes including YOU. It is not up to us to judge a person for their mistake(s) in life who are we. SERIOUSLY!!! you need to check yourself. So yes I think the child should be with his biological dad since the biological mother gave him up. I believe what's best for this child is to grow up with his bio dad than later on in life thinking none of his parents wanted him.

disagree. You are making an overall judgement and you don't know any of these people.

The hell with the rights of this sperm donor.....this is about what is right for the CHILD and if you don't get that, somethings wrong with you.

It doesn't really matter whose fault this is. The fact is, a three-year-old boy is going to be torn from the arms of the only family he has ever known. This is a terrible tragedy for this child. What kind of a father would be so selfish as to inflict this kind of pain on a child he is supposed to love. And where has he been for three years? He can say he has rights and legally he does, but he hasn't even supported the boy or tried to have an ongoing relationship with him - unless we don't have the whole story. I think some men have an ownership issue when it comes to fathering a child. But this little boy will not understand now, nor ever, the abandonment he will feel when his adoptive family is no longer a part of his life. I weep for this child. I am a foster parent and I have seen the pain separation causes children who are taken from their parents. This boy knows these people as his parents and his experience will be very traumatic. Trauma damages children and it infuriates me that his father doesn't love him enough to let him stay where he feels loved and secure.

The father did know and chose to abandon her during her pregnancy.

Agreed.....I am adopted and every adoptee knows the feeling of that nagging question...why was I given up (no matter how wonderful the adoptive parents)? If you are siding with the Adoptive family, you are not adopted and should not be commenting on the matter. The father has an equal say to give up his child. If the Mother did not inform him, she should be ashamed of herself and must be mentally disturbed. This should be the law. This father is NOT just a sperm donor or he would not be fighting for custody for over 3 years. Shame on this state for not closing this loophole and violating the Father's parental rights.

These adoptive parents knew that the biological father wanted his son. He filed for paternity tests shortly after the birth and just because our DNA testing system and court systems take so long, doesn't mean the real father should be punished. The adoptive parents should have been prepared to give up their rights as soon as those tests came in. I'd really love to see you give up your own child because testing took too long.

Nowhere does it state that bio dad knew about the pregnancy. Also, it states the bio mom broke off the relationship.

Do any of you anti-father readers ever look at the fine print?
"...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...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...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."

How many of YOU would give up your biological child if another couple had gotten them unfairly? NONE I suspect. Whether you like it or not, the ADOPTIVE PARENTS are the ones who created this: they HELD on to the child despite early signs that there was an error. Then they STILL fought it once the adoptive father was discovered. What are you going to tell that child when he gets older: we didn't want you to be part of your "real" dad's family!

BS.

I can fully understand where the adoptive parents are coming from on this. If the birth father wanted a part in his childs life why did he only have ONE vist with his son for three hours? Why did the birth father not go for visitation rights when he found out that he was the bio father at 17 months? I agree the birth parents have rights but when you only see your child for 3 hours one time, this is where he knew about his child, why not ask for more time with his child? Some states do say that if a bio parent knows about a child, which he did after the results of the paternity test, that you must make reasonable effort to see your child. So is seeing him once for three hours in the last 3 years reasonable effort to father his child? Did he even ask for visitation? Now after three years of this child being in the only home he has known they are going to rip him away from this family. What about the child's rights? What about the affects ripping this child away from the only family he has a bond? Who is going to be held responsible when this child has separation problems? Who is going to be heloo responsible when this child has trust issues? Who is going to be held responsible when this child, in the future, has attachment issues. Does anyone not think about what they are doing to a child? Again where are the childs rights? The right not to be distressed, not to have attachment issues? What happened to what is in the best interest of the child? This is another story that if removed from the only home he knows will harm a child.

He filed EXACTLY when the law allowed him to! What is wrong with that. He filed within 30 days of the birth. The adoptive family should have not dragged this out. His FATHER wanted him!

This father has been fighting for her son in court since he had knowledge that he is the father of the child. The adoptive family had knowledge that the father never gave up his parental right for the child to be adopted since the birth of the child. How would they like it if someone else comes along to adopt their biological child without their permission? If they truly love the child, they would not have fought the father in court for 3 years and would have given the child back to the father where he belongs. How do they know they are better parents for the child and not the father? How do they know someone else who could not be better parents for their children? The adoptive parents are more interested in possession and control than in the child. They are the ones who put the child in the terrible position, not the father.