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.










ReaderComments (Page 4 of 38)
9-28-2010 @ 4:35PM
Cary said...The father was more timely than the 'adoptive parents' since he filed for his son before they filed adoption papers.
9-28-2010 @ 4:38PM
katiej said...Replying to linda as well as Diana, why are you finding the father at fault here? he filed immediately when he learned the child existed. The adoptive family knew from the beginning he wanted his child and had won in court so if you want to blame someone for a 3 year old being ripped from the only family he's known...blame them. They could have turned the child over when the courts first awarded the father custody before the child was aware of any of this, they didn't...so now who should have "loved the child enough to let go?" That absolutely goes for the adoptive family. That child has a father that wanted him and the adoptive family is the one that kept on holding on the child knowing the courts had sided against them. So do NOT say the father should have loved him enough to let go ...the potential adoptive parents should have let him go back when he was a baby knowing the longer they kept him the harder it was going to be on the child when the courts made them turn him over and they are the ones that didn't care and put the child in this situation at 3 years old not the biological father.
9-28-2010 @ 3:25PM
telvis said...this is why people adopt from other country's.America is too hard to deal with in this matter.
Reply
9-28-2010 @ 5:19PM
Julie said...AMEN!
9-28-2010 @ 3:30PM
Kara said...Rhonda? Did some man cheat on you? Is that why you say the father doesnt deserve the child because he committed adultry? The biological mom did too. Thank God no one examines your life as harshly as you are doing here. I just bet you wouldnt pass the test.
The biological father's rights arent important?! The child belongs to him! He petitioned and identified himself as the father within 30 days of the child's birth. How dare the mother just give the baby away with no regards towards the father's feelling. I hope he gets the child. It is after all HIS child and he wants it.
Reply
9-28-2010 @ 3:50PM
CAT said...as hard as it might be he did try to get his child 30 days after knowing about the child and he should go to real dad and since they had him for 3 yrs adopted him the courts should make them be able to have vistionn rights i fell sorry for the child involved. i know how it is to lost a child because mine were taken away fr me when they were babies could not find them untell they were grown my kids dad raised them well all have grown into wondefull adults they thought there step mom was there mom and i was dead for yrs and it still hurts today they say they love me and they had agood life i was only 16 for 1 set of twins and 17 for 2 set of twins to young at that time god blessed me with my kids untell this day i pray to get over the hurt and i will oneday so i pray for that child he has a good life and god does what is right for him and i pray that god grants the adopted parents some rights to for the child sake bless you all in this mater but let the real dad be there for that kid because it will hurt him later in life like it did me and my kids
9-28-2010 @ 4:07PM
Cmorrisjac said...I attended Brooklyn College in a new specialized program called the Rights of the Child. The program included contact with NY Supreme Court Justice and many hours in court.
Have none of you heard of the "Best Interests of the Child?" It is the basis for an international law and upheld by the United Nations. In no way is Ohio's decision in compliance, nor does any of the commentary, especially by the lawyer, have the child's welfare in mind. Let's return to chattel law, and lead women by a bull nose ring.
9-28-2010 @ 4:07PM
Dave said...The child BELONGS to him????? Like a oiece of property??? I can't believe you believe that. In every way that is meaningful, he is the child of the adoptive parents.
9-28-2010 @ 4:08PM
van said...I totally agree! Well said
9-28-2010 @ 4:45PM
Kyla said..."It's his child and he wants it." Like "It" is a TV or stereo or other inanimate piece of property. If he really, really wanted "it" he should have hung out while she was pregnant. Doesn't matter if it was adultery or not; the child had no say in who did whom, but he's the one that will suffer. This kind of nonsense is why so many Americans go adopt kids from other countries while so many adoptable kids here in the US go unadopted. Adopt some Chinese or Somali orphan and no DNA-donors are going to show up and claim him after you've gotten bonded and done all the care-giving, walking the floor, wiping the tears and changing the diapers. As an adopted child myself, my worst fear as a child was that someone would take me from the family I loved and give me back to "my" mother, a total stranger to me.
9-28-2010 @ 6:02PM
Alan said...@Cmorrisjac. Rights of the child is great, but what about what IS right? Also, what about parental rights? Would you argue rights of the child in this scenario: Kidnappers want to raise a child as their own. They keep a stolen baby from birth to age three. They are exemplary parents -- except for being kidnappers. Should they be allowed to keep the child after they're arrested? After all, they are the "only family the child has ever known".
9-28-2010 @ 3:30PM
RNB said...This is a sad situation. At 3 years of age this innocent child will be taken from the only family he has ever known. Is this really in the child's best interest?
Reply
9-28-2010 @ 4:19PM
Jeff said...The only reason it was 3 years was because the adoptive parents fought the father when he identified himself as the potential father within the 30 days. What I want to know is why it took 17 months to confirm that Wyrembek was the true father. In situations like these, it was the court that hurt him by allowing a potential biological father to sit for 17 months without knowing if he was actually the father or not. It the test was done promptly, this story would have ended at 60 days instead of three years. Just because the courts and the adoptive parents drug this out doesn't mean that he is any less entitled to raise his own kid.
9-28-2010 @ 5:43PM
Karen said...Everyone is so sure that the father deserves the child, but no one ever ask the child. I know from personal experience it does hurt a child and it will hurt him for a long time to come. I hope the father gets his son some professional help, as he has no bond. It will be ashameful thing if the father does not try and create a new bond with this childl. It is not as easy as it seems.
11-01-2010 @ 5:42PM
ChrisMT said...Another story I read said that the Father that they are turning this child over to has a criminal record of assault and drug use...definitely not in the best interest of the child!
9-28-2010 @ 3:32PM
thriceshy said...I'm supposed to feel badly for these people? The FATHER of this child made his wishes and intentions known less than a month after the birth of the child, made his first attempt at custody BEFORE they filed for adoption, and they've been fighting THE CHILD'S REAL FATHER for THREE YEARS! Whose fault is it that the child will now be removed from the home he's known? THEIRS! They should have sadly handed the baby over as soon as the real father made clear his interest and the courts deemed him fit. The real father isn't the bad guy here, he's the victim. These people, in their understandable quest for a baby, sought to deny the real father in favor of their desires.
As for the child's psyche, a three year old won't even remember the almost-adoptive parents in a few years. Sad but true. I actually do feel for these people, but what on EARTH were they thinking, intentionally withholding custody from a biological parent who very early on expressed his desire for his child? What, did they just hope to fight him until he ran out of resources and wandered away?
Reply
9-28-2010 @ 3:48PM
JustinOpinion said...You are a complete and total MORON. Imagine yourself at 3 years old, being yanked out of the arms of your family, never to see them again. Yeah, no trauma there, huh? Dumb a**.
9-28-2010 @ 3:52PM
ayers said...You said it perfectly. You would think that these parents who already have TWO other children would understand this man's desire to have his son. Any trauma Grayson's suffers is on their head.
9-28-2010 @ 3:53PM
Sue said...I agree with your thoughts on this. At first I thought how horrible that the father is now wanting custody but then I read the whole thing and the adoptive parents should have willingly given him up since he asked for the child almost immediately after the birth. Who knows when the father became aware that he had a son? Might not have ever known. It doesn't matter that he had a one nite stand, so did the mother and no one is bashing her for being a slutty married woman are they?
As for the accusations of the father having no contact? He was probably told not to and if he had tried, I doubt very much if these people would have allowed it.
If the father is willing and able then they should have given the child to him right away. It's THERE fault if the child is devastated and their other children are hurt, since they could have and should have done this when asked to do so
9-28-2010 @ 4:00PM
jan said...did you miss the part that paterinity wasn't established for 17 months? Should they have turned him over to this guy then maybe found out that the birth mother's husband was really the bio dad? Get serious.