Adoption Tramples Rights of Father in California
“Baby Hailey” is almost three years old. Since before she was born in 2010, her Father has been trying to establish his parental right to parent her. It is unconscionable to image that for this child’s entire life, various family courts have been ruling over who is the custodial parents and who has the right to parent Hailey. Once again, we have a biological Father, unnecessarily having to fight for his right to be dad because his daughter was slated for adoption.
A Paternal Right and the Child’s Right have No Place in Adoption Law
Much like the Terry Achane Utah Adoption Custody Battle, Hailey’s biological mother had her adopted right out from under the Father. The Father’s ex had decided when she was pregnant to give the baby up for adoption. Father has been fighting ever since to have his daughter with him but as we know, too many adoption agency’s find father rights to be dispensable.
I would like to share it with everyone as I think it is so important for people to know. This Father has been fighting for the right to be his daughter’s full time parent.
Here’s the Timeline of this Fathers Fight for Justice:
February 2009: The would be biological father and mother of Hailey begin seeing each other.
May 2009: Hailey is conceived and her parents began renting the two bedroom apartment. After a month, the mother turned in her apartment keys and moved out. The relationship was determined to be rocky, but by August 2009, they had planned to marry and put a down payment on wedding rings.
September 2009: The mother withdrew the money for the rings and closed the account. Soon after, the relationship ended and the mother stopped the father form receiving any medical updates.
October 26, 2009: Two months before baby Hailey was born, Father filed a Petition to Establish Parental Relationship and DNA Test, Sacramento Superior Court No. 09FL07459.
October 28, 2009 Bio mom filed a
Temporary Restraining Order noting
abuse from May 2009 to the present, claiming verbal harassment and an intent by father to ―take her ―unborn child. successfully keeping Father “out of the picture” while she arranged an adoption without the Father’s knowledge or consent.
December 10, 2009: At the TRO trial, her application failed. Her testimony was found to be not credible. However, the “adoption damage” was already done and the agency in
question was already in the picture. The bio mom had arranged a pending adoption.
January 1, 2010: Baby Hailey/ “Kelsey S” was born.
Bio-mother relinquished her parental rights and turned Hailey over to the wanna-be adoptive parents at the hospital.
January 8, 2010: The wanna-be adoptive parents filed a request to adopt minor in the Placer County Superior Court. They also filed a petition to terminate father‘s parental rights, contending that since he learned of her pregnancy, Father failed to assist mother either financially or emotionally. The Sacramento County case involving paternity was transferred to Placer County.
According to the Court, the wanna-bes, the Rosts, knew the attempted adoption was against Father’s wishes, that he would not consent to adoption, that he wanted to raise his own child, and that they were taking custody his child behind his back. They nevertheless unethical took child custody his child and have held her in their/her possession ever since. Father had court-ordered supervised visitation during the trial for 4 hours per week.
April 10, 2010: An outstanding Ms. Rost psychological report was to be submitted to the court via a court order before a termination decision was rendered. However, this report remains hidden to this day.
July 2010: In a two day trial, the courts heard various argument regarding the termination of paternal rights. The wanna-be adoptive parents argued that the Father had forfeited his parental rights by avoiding any
support of the mother or pregnancy by making the mother afraid of him. Father argued he was a
Kelsey S. father because he had come forward to establish paternity, tried to get married, and paid expenses commensurate with his ability to do so. Father had argued that the standard for termination of parental rights was not the best interest of the child but detriment to the child or unfitness. Meaning, if the courts see that he had tried to support the pregnancy, then the court could not rule “on the best interests of the child” but rather have to prove him unfit or a danger to Hailey.
October 20, 2010: Court ruled that father participated as far as mother would allow during her pregnancy and attempted to marry her, concluding that he was a Kelsey S. father. However, the court concluded father would not meet minor‘s needs and could not ―provide the stability and protection that the prospective adoptive parents could. Because placing minor with father posed a substantial risk of harm to her and ―her best interests are served by not placing into [sic] an unfit home”
October 5, 2010: The wanna-be adoptive father filed for dissolution of marriage from the wanna be adoptive mother. He later withdrew his request for adoption and consented to the female wanna -bes proceeding with the adoption as a single parent.
November 10, 2010: The court held a hearing on whether to reopen the termination case based on the dissolution of the wanna-bes marriage. Finding that ―stability for minor was a significant factor in its earlier decision, the court stayed its statement of decision for reconsideration and continued visitation. In other words, they put it all on hold.
April 12, 2011: At hearing Father, contended that the court needed to reexamine its finding that father was an unfit parent. He pointed out both in his post-trial briefing and argument that section 7807 stated that in a determination of parental rights, the court should not rely on section 3041.
May 2011: Visitation ceased; any attempts at contact with his daughter were rebuffed.
July 20, 2011: The final ruling came in that again found father to be a Kelsey S. father, citing his participation, as far as the mother would allow, in prenatal care, his attempt to marry mother, their living together a short time, and father‘s seeking a determination of paternity and DNA testing. Yet, they also agreed with the ruling that the father was “unfit” and the court ordered father‘s parental rights terminated.
June 2011: Father appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals to reverse the termination proceedings.
April 24th, 2012: The Father won on every level possible on his case. (Case accessible as
C068485).
The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated his parental rights by issuing a blistering opinion. Baby Hailey, by this determination, is not eligible for adoption. The 3rd District appeared prepared to award custody to Father, but could not because it needed a trial judge to assess the current state of affairs.
Full Reversal of the Termination of Father’s Rights
This should be the end of this story. The Court of Appeals reinstated this Father’s paternal rights to his child and decreed that he was her legal father. The adoption was not finalized and Hailey was not free for adoption. However, as we often see in contested adoption custody battles, the wanna-be adoptive parents do not honor the judgment of courts and in some instances, the courts decisions are not honored by the other members of the court. We begin to see a complete travesty of justice and abuse of a father’s rights.
Bogus Guardianship Petition; Gaining Rights of Possession to an Unrelated Child
As you read the continued saga of this custody case, consider this: What if your child’s baby sitter kept your child? What if your kid went to a friend’s house for the weekend and then they decided to keep your kid and filed for guardianship? Would you be willing to share your child “like as in a divorce” just because someone else wanted him or her? What if you had to concede to what you know to be wrong as that is the only way you could ever be in your child’s life again? What if the only measure we had to determine who got to care of a child was determined on possession? That’s what we have here.
April 30, 2012: Ms. Rost filed for legal guardianship of baby Hailey, claiming that since she had been with her since birth, Hailey was better off with her. It is worth noting that now, Ms. Rost, now divorced, is living with her parents.
In a new Custody Case, Placer Case SPR 0006572. Rost fails to notify the court of the related failed adoption case, Rost attorney offers “secret testimony”, she fails to attach appellate court decision, fails to notify baby Hailey’s relatives, and assumes that Father will be appearing pro per.
The bio-mother nominated Rost as guardian. However, per Probate Code 1500(b)(2), she cannot nominate anyone without Father’s approval.
11:30am May 9, 2012: Father is served at with the Petition for Guardianship.
2:30am May 9, 2012: a Placer County “Guardianship Court Investigator” working under a cancelled license, Jeanne Ivary, shows up unannounced at Father’s presumed residence (prior address) without a Court Order or any prior notification – she wants to “investigate.” She is sent on her way as Father does not live there.
May 18, 2012: Father’s atty contacts Ivary with questions and Ivary fails to respond. Father files his Opposition to Rost’s Guardianship Petition. In it, it shows all the improvements and preparations that he has made in anticipation of receiving Hailey, including working with a reunification expert. Father is already working with a transitional/reunification expert in order to protect his child’s best interests.
June 1, 2012: Guardianship Hearing– Rost’s atty lies on the record, claims the appellate court found detriment, admits that the guardianship petition was filed improperly. Father asks for sanctions. Judge Curry (Placer County, Dept. 3, Historic Courthouse/Auburn) defers sanctions, continues Petition until after the appellate court remitterer (30) has been properly recorded.
“Investigator” Ivary serves Father with a “Investigator’s Report” based on Ms. Rost informing her that there is still an adoption pending. She recommends that Hailey stay with Rost “until the adoption is final”. She never contacted Father nor checked the facts of the case such as Haily is not free for adoption and relies solely on the information provided by Ms. Rost and her family, and bio-mother Ms. Gallup. This author finds it incredibly remiss of this Guardianship Court Investigator to not fact check her information with courts or to get the father’s version of events.
June 15 – July 7, 2012: – Rost files for sanctions based on Father’s websites publicizing the case. Again, misrepresentations abound. Father files for sanctions based on Rost’s improper guardianship petition and deliberate misrepresentations to the court. Judge Curry stays these motions.
On June 29, 2012: Father files a Habeas Corpus Petition based on the fact that Rost has no legal or other right to baby Hailey but continues to hold her in her possession. By law, Judge Curry had 60 days to rule on Father’s Petition.
July 27, 2012: “after remitterer” Hearing: Judge Curry takes attys into chambers.
In court, he states that he wants to treat custody of Hailey “like a divorce” and send Rost and Father to Mediation. Curry tries to talk Father into agreeing to a Rost guardianship. Father and Rost have already been to mediation before; the case was deemed “not suitable for mediation” both at the trial and appellate levels.
In exchange to agreeing to mediation, the court orders visitation to commence at 4 hours 2x per week to start. Judge Curry admits on record that he saw nothing wrong with 50/50 custody. Judge Curry stays all motions/Habeas Corpus Petition until after mediation.
July 28, 2012: Visitation with Hailey starts again. It is magical. Hailey recognizes her daddy – the bond was never broken.
September 1, 2012: (approx.): Father asks Rost to increase his visitation time while they wait for their mediation date. She refuses to do so.
September 17, 2012: Mediation. As before, nothing is agreed upon or resolved. Rost refuses to increase visitation beyond current 4 hours 2x per week and demands guardianship; she infers that Father is nothing more than a sperm donor, refuses to accept that Father and Hailey have a bond. Father counters with no legal standing for Rost, 36 days of courtesy visitation per year or as his reunification recommends.
Regarding mediation, since the adoption failed, the bio-mom’s parental rights continue in some fashion. She was not a party to the mediation. Consequently, it is legally impossible to mediate this “as if this were a divorce” as Rost wants.
Also, due to the failed adoption, Rost can never even be a guardian. Probate Code 1516.5, prohibits that by explicitly allowing guardians to adopt. Because Rost cannot adopt Hailey, she cannot be her guardian.
October 10, 2012: Father files a “Request for Ruling on Habeas Corpus Petition”. It has now been 103 days, way past the 60 day deadline for a ruling. Cutoff: November 9, 2012.
October 17, 2012: Rost filed an incomplete Opposition to Father’s Habeas Corpus Petition (only received 3 of 8 pages/improperly served), a Motion in Limine, and Rost’s Supplemental Declaration.
In the Limine Motion, Rost is demanding that the court exclude everything that has happened since the date of Father’s (reversed) termination of parental rights, May 2011. The court, according to Rost, is to forget the appellate decision and everything that has happened since that time….just depend on a decision that has been since reversed by the appellate court, the inappropriate Rost guardianship, the positive steps Father has taken in preparation to receive his daughter into his home, etc., etc.
In Rost’s Declaration, she continues to vilify Father and appears to be trying to cut him out of his child’s life yet again. She is now claiming that he is “bullying” and “threatening” her at the visitation exchanges. At the very least, she wants to make it prohibitively expensive for Father to see his own daughter, as she is asking Father to pay for “supervised” exchanges. It does not matter that Father always has a witness with him to counteract her claims.
October 19, 2012: Hearing: They are supposed to set for trial; yet Judge Curry exclaims that the legal threshold issues are not appealable. He appoints Minor’s Counsel for Hailey without consultation. Rost and her atty. does not show; Father objects /asks for sanctions for and to telephonetic appearance, Curry ignores and does it anyway.
November 8, 2012: Hearing on all Motions, Petitions, including the Guardianship.
November 8, 2012: Judge Curry failed to rule on the motions (including the Habeas Corpus) and the Guardianship. He denied the objection re the guardianship petition being res judicata and that bio-mother could not nominate failed adoptive parent for guardianship without Father’s consent. Judge refused to address the constitutional issues (1516.5) re CA guardianship – he said he would “hear that argument” at the end of the upcoming contested guardianship trial. He also ruled to allow evidence/testimony from the (reversed) 2010-11 trial to be applied to the upcoming guardianship trial.
December 2012: Father recieved more visitation over the failed adopters protests.
December 13, 2012: The Attorney for Ms. Rost, the wanna-be adoptive parent quit. Along with the filing to be removed from the case, she also asked that the court take judicial notice of the REVERSED lower court trial decision as well as testimony that the appeals court had decided was not credible.
The next hearing is December 21, 2012. In the meantime, a failed adoptive parent with no rights to Father’s daughter keeps Hailey in her possession.
The California Courts Creates Further Injustice
Allowing this case to become a “guardianship” issue even considered by the courts is just ludicrous. The wanna-be adoptive mother, had no right to even file for the guardianship petition after the Father had his termination reversed. The fact that Judge Curry even entertains this woman based on her own selfish needs is reprehensible. There is no cause for mediation. This is NOT a divorce where each parent has a right to their child. Ms. Rost has NO right at all except the fact that she maintains possession of a child and refuses to stop her detrimental court battles. Judge Curry is, by de facto, ignoring the earlier court’s rulings by considering the guardianship as the results of granting guardianship to Rost would be effectively the same as granting the adoption. The Awarding of the guardianship to Rost will not terminate Father’s parental rights, but “suspends” them. It is basically the same thing. Father has no say as to his own daughter.
If adoption had not entered the picture, this case would not even be considered.
The court is once again distracted by the “best interest” argument yet ignores that the concept of “being ripped away from the only home she has ever known” is a situation created illegally and without merit by the wanna-be adoptive parents.
Please show your support for Father and Hailey and join Bring Hailey Home on Facebook.
There is also a site for legal fund donations here: https://rally.org/bringhaileyhome
This case has made new case law for fathers and mothers it is in the law books they use today the case is Adoption of H.R.
Tweet
Google+
So a divorcee with no biological connection to a child has more rights to her than her own biological father? Right! I do suspect that many PAPs look into adoption when their marriages are rocky thinking it will bring them closer together. Back in the day it was believed that having another baby would bring a couple closer but in today’s world it is known that another child adds more stress. I am suprised by the number of adoptive parents who divorce when the child is still very young. But I think in some cases the adopted child is being used as some kind of salve for their marriage woes and may not even be that wanted.
It’s outrageous to think of how much time and money has been spent on this case. If Ms. Rost wins her petition then it really is true that someone can claim squatter’s right to another person’s child. Scary.
This is so what, crazy, unbelievable, yes, outrageous. If the baby had gone into foster care, the social workers would have searched up and down to find biological family to care for the child/baby. But because an adoption agency got involved, well it was a cluster f***. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Laura
I kinda doubt that. My husband is the non-offending parent and has been involved since day 1 and, over 2 years later, we just got the CW to admit that they never considered him for reunification because they were too focused on providing the mother services.
The OFFENDING mother. Sounds like they would rather place a child with a lousy mother than a fit, willing, and non-offending father. Where’s the logic?
The attorney on the case is incompetent and immoral. The judge does not have the balls. The courts need educate these incompetent judical officers in the family/probate court. …and just think the attorney for the Rost was just appointed superior court judge in Sacramento California -family court division by our own Govenor Jerry Brown. Where are the ethics There?
What ethics? What kind of attorney would not be ashamed of promoting the PAP’s actions and hurting Hailey further? OUTRAGEOUS. The attorney is following a long line of unethical tradition, as the position this “officer of the court” is filling became open when Sacramento Family Court Judge James Horton was arrested and convicted of child molestation charges. HAILEY DESERVES BETTER THAN THIS CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION.
I was adopted in 1971. Growing up, I was always told that I had to be placed for adoption because fdad ran away from fmom when he learned she was pregnant.
In fact, when I reunited with my fmom when I was 26, I discovered that they had broken up before she even knew she was pregnant. He never even knew I existed.
Suddenly, at age 44, he gets a call out of the blue from fmom that he has a 26-year-old daughter. He never had (any other) children, and so devastated was he to learn he had a child that no one had ever bothered to tell him about, that for the first two weeks when I called him, all I did was listen to him cry.
I really didn’t know what to do with this. All I could think was, “Well, this isn’t what I was told.” So, I grew up hating men . . . for nothing?
You had me in tears!