Father’s Right to Parent his Son in Attempted Forced Adoption Upheld in California

I was thrilled last week to see that the California Fourth District Appellate Court had seemingly upheld the lower courts findings from August that established the parental rights on behalf of forced “birth father” Garrett Joiner in regards to his now 1 year old son.

The courts final ruling; a 35 page PDF ( Garett Joiner baby boy California appeals court 2015) certainly provides a very detailed look into the different legal somersaults that a father must perform to prove his worth and rights when he is unmarried to the biological mother and thwarted in an adoption attempt. It also provides a very interesting account of the mentality of a mother who has, for whatever reason, decided that adoption was to be the “right” answer. Luckily, Garrett did all the right things to support his claim as father and had the proof of his attempts. I happen to feel that in this case, the keyword is luck. There are many other father’s fighting unethical forced adoptions and they don’t happen to have the documented evidence, though I am glad that Garrett did. Usually these things take Dad’s by surprise. They just have no clue the monster they are fighting.

No Adoption, But Still No Real Custody

It is worth it to note, again, that this is not an “overturned” adoption of Garrett’s Joiner’s son; but as in many of the cases where father’s rights and custody of the children have been fought over, this was a “contested adoption” that was not an adoption. IE; the adoption of the baby was NEVER finalized as Garrett was fighting the legal process since before his child was born and the wanna-be-adoptive-parents*.

Hopefully the wanna-be’s, after losing now twice, are ready to accept defeat and stop the legal BS. ( NO!) I suppose they could appeal yet again to the California Supreme Court, though I would hope that the Supreme Court would just refuse to hear the case and cite the rulings of the lowers courts as enough.

ETA: Indeed, I have just read that the wanna’s be HAPs WILL be attempting to take to this to the Californian Supreme Court.  Just gross.
3-18-15 : GREAT NEWS for GARRETT JOINER!!!!!

W. (BABY BOY), ADOPTION OF Case: S223845, Supreme Court of California

 Petition for review & depublication request(s) denied!!!

The Supreme Court of California had the sense and decency to say ENOUGH!!

Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t hear the case again, it does seem that Garrett will still continue a legal process as he has only been given 12 hours each month in visitation despite having joint legal custody with his son’s mother. According to the statement by Garrett on Birthfather’s United Garrett’s son lives in the home with the PAPs in Oregon, yet under the care of his biological mother, who also now lives with the PAPs. Apparently, the mom moved in with the PAPs pending the appeal when her and Garrett were granted legal and she was given physical custody.  The wanna-be’s kept their hooks in that baby and their control over the mother.

Garrett, did request that mom be not discussed in a disparagingly way, so I will refrain from writing about that further in deference to his very kind request. I will say this, however, this mother might not realize it now and she might not realize it for some time, but one day, I can bet, she will see how thankful she ought to be for Garrett’s actions and his steadfast refusal to concede to the adoption of their child as an answer. Because he fought for his child, her rights are still intact and, through that, she has a second chance to reclaim her motherhood. I doubt she realizes how close she was and still dodged a bullet. How many of us would have given anything for a chance like that.

Anyway, while overall, we rejoice at the California courts rulings, there are some things I am seeing that are disturbing and, dare I say, unfair.

What About the Emotional Considerations of the Father and his Family?

The courts said about their ruling:

“We have not reached this decision lightly. We understand that the consequences of our decision, i.e., halting the Hs’ adoption of Baby Boy W., will undoubtedly be heartbreaking for the Hs, who have had custody of Baby Boy W. since the day after his birth. We also realize that removing Baby Boy W. from the Hs and placing him with Garrett and/or Jacqueline will require a period of adjustment for Baby Boy W. However, those emotional considerations, precipitated by Jacqueline’s unilateral decision that adoption was in Baby Boy W.’s best interests, do not override Garrett’s constitutional right to establish a parental relationship with Baby Boy W.”

And then at the conclusion:

“Regrettably, the result of this litigation, which has spanned the first year of Baby Boy W.’s life, will inevitably be enormously painful for the Hs and disruptive, at best, to Baby Boy W.”

Here’s the thing: If the court is going to bring up the “heartbreak” and “adjustment” and “emotional considerations” and the “enormously pain” separation on behalf of the feelings of the wanna-be parents, then really, could they have at least have given a bit of fair and unilateral lip service to acknowledge the pain and suffering that this poor guy has had to go through for the last two years?  What about his parents? What about his extended family? Again and again, we see this measure of understanding and sympathy being lent in favor of the wanna -be adoptive parents who CHOOSE to FIGHT a loving FATHER. I am sorry, but their actions deserve nothing but our contempt. They get no points for trying to strong-arm a young guy who just wanted to love his girlfriend and parent his own son.

They talk of the disruption to the child, his adjustment required, yet fail to acknowledge that if NOT for the actions and choices and influence of the wanna-be’s, this baby would not NEED to adjust to anything as he would have been with his father as he should have. I am just so sick of these unethical entitled jerks getting emotional sympathy that reinforces their bad and, ultimately, selfish behavior.

Double Standards in Social Media and Public Support

The other thing that really is irksome is this whole spiel from the court regarding Garrett’s “social media campaign”.  For most of this process, Garrett was gagged by the courts and  was not able to discuss what was happening.  This censorship in behalf of adoption legal proceedings is a gross and an often accepted attempt to keep the truth about these adoption proceedings away from the public’s knowledge. When the courts do grant these requested codes of silence, they are allowing the adoption industry to continue to operate under the false ideals of the adoption PR message of ” providing loving homes for unwanted babies” rather than the truthful “separating intact families needlessly.”

“Disappointed with the trial court’s stay of proceedings on his petition, Garrett created an online petition through the Change.org Web site urging “California law makers” to “[a]llow unmarried fathers to be able to have rights in determining the futures of their biological children,” and “specifically in halting an unwanted adoption.

He also created a related page on the social media Web site Facebook asking readers to “Help me Keep my Child From Being put up for Adoption.” Garrett’s online posts did not identify Jacqueline by name, but she believed that the posts revealed enough demographic information about her that people who knew her would know to whom Garrett was referring. In the trial court’s words, “many crazies and malcontents” responded to Garret’s social media postings; Garrett did not disclaim them. To the contrary, he forwarded to Jacqueline an e-mail that he received from a woman who said that she regretted having given up her child for adoption and offered to talk to Jacqueline to encourage her not to go through with the adoption. Jacqueline was devastated when she read the e-mail. She cried so hard that her mother was afraid that she would go into labor. Although Garrett testified that he thought that sending the e-mail to Jacqueline was supportive, the trial court found that “[i]t was nothing of the sort, of course, and no sensitive person would have said it was.” Garrett also gave a radio interview that was broadcast in San Diego.”

And then they bring it up again;

“We turn now to the conduct for which the trial court found that Garrett “has much to be modest about”—his social media campaign. While we agree that the campaign may have been ill-conceived and poorly executed, opening a Pandora’s box of hurtful commentary from uninvolved third parties, the trial court was aware that Garrett resorted to it only “in response to [Jacqueline’s] attempt to terminate his paternal rights”—that is, after their interests had diverged and they had become litigation adversaries. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err by finding that the social media campaign did not disqualify Garrett from obtaining fatherhood status under Kelsey S.”

What an Interesting Undercurrent of Hypocrisy

What really gets to me is that the mentioning of Garrett’s public outcry and requests for support reads like a slap on the wrist – though they did not hold it against him. What I find disgusting is reading  in-between the lines that the opposing counsel must have attempted to use the public postings as a reason to disqualify Garrett from the fight. As if fighting for your own child by any means possible, even though the internet, somehow makes a person not worthy of actual parenting? I fail to understand that logic no matter how it is spun.

I don’t believe any court or natural family fighting has been able to use the public antics of wanna-be parents against them. For example:

• The Cappobianco’s, “winners” in the baby Veronica Brown case had hired a PR firm, went on Dr Phil, Had the asshat “Locator” Troy Dunn drag his video camera’s around, and whined on public TV.
• The losers in Bring Sonya Home likewise employed the same PR bullies and had Troy Dunn speaking half-assed lies on Good Morning America.
• The horrible Jason and Christy Vaughn  likewise went on what I like to call the “Whine Tour”; here they are crying about the injustice of not being allowed to obtain the child they want on ABC.

Really, every time we hear of a contested adoption legal custody battle in the media, it is the perspective of the wanna-be adoptive parents that is given and the original family is silenced.  Now finally, we, in AdoptionLand, are learning that these are the rules and we have to also gone to the media. The answer is to gag and silence and wrist slap the natural families for the very same tactics employed by the adoption industry  and wannas-be’s selfish desires for decades? How is this fair?

It’s the same thing that was recently attempted in the Baby Camden/Carri Stearns Ohio case. Adoption by Gentle Care actually tried to add the whole damn internet as a party in the case to get everyone to stop speaking the truth!  It’s an attempt an legally sanctioned censorship, that would be acceptable IF the same rules had been applied to both sides historically.

However, that is not that case. Historically, the  wanna be adoptive parents have been allowed, without any concerns nor considerations against them, to conduct a public relations campaign designed to skew society’s perspective on their behalf; meanwhile, original parents are gagged  and our PR attempts are used against us. I cry foul; flag on the play, deflated balls and all that.

Thank goodness Garrett’s  “social media campaign” did not disqualify Garrett from obtaining fatherhood status; however, we know for a fact that in Carri’s case, AGC decided to “punish” her by refusing to return Camden back in late April/early May of 2014 because she dared to go public. In both cases, losing  practically  the whole  first year of a child’s life is certainly punishment enough for any loving parent. Those years, those first, will never be replaced and have a value much greater than a mountain of gold.

The double standard applied unfairly makes me see red.

Still a Good Out Come for Ethical Adoption& Father’s Rights

In the end, despite my grumblings, I will say that I am very pleased. I think the California courts have sent a strong message. I can only hope that the adoption industry takes heed and realizes that perhaps they cannot get away with as much unethical crap as they have been allowed to do in the past.

“Under California law, an unwed mother does not have an unqualified, unilateral right to decide that her baby will be adopted and to deny the biological father his right to parent his child under either section 7611 or Kelsey S. Jacqueline prevented Garrett from qualifying as a presumed father under section 7611 solely by refusing to sign the voluntary declaration of paternity, which led to protracted litigation over whether Garrett qualified as a quasi-presumed or Kelsey S. father. Regrettably, the result of this litigation, which has spanned the first year of Baby Boy W.’s life, will inevitably be enormously painful for the Hs and disruptive, at best, to Baby Boy W.”

I commend Garrett Joiner and his family for effectively doing what so many cannot: they took on a forced and unethical adoption and have won.  This outcome is, by my definition, BEST indeed for Baby Boy W.  He is not an adoptee. These battles are horrible and heartbreaking and really do take any person’s last bit of sanity, and often, hope. Garrett Joiner, for a young man, a David, fighting the formidable Goliath  has held himself up wonderfully and is a fine example and representative of natural families fighting for their parental rights in forced adoptions. I bow my head to him and would like to leave you reading his own words:

“It has been a two year battle that is far from over, but worth every second of heartache I’ve been through . . . I would like to close by saying that I know I am not perfect. The opposing council capitalized on the fact that I was a 21 year old college student who was not only scared to be on the stand, but terrified that any little word I said could mean losing my son forever. I do not lose sleep about how I presented myself in court and would gladly make the same choices again tomorrow. I am not ashamed of who I am or the fight I have fought.”

*”WANNA-BE Parents”  insulting term used with feeling in cases where a potential adoptive family have willingly and knowingly chosen to fight a biological parent for the legal rights to a child when the original family member is ready, willing, loving, capable and able to parent.