• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Sibling visitation after adoption

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

V

vankern

Guest
What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband terminated his parental rights to his two children from a former marriage in 1998, at the request of his former wife so that her new husband could adopt the children. After repeated denial of visitation and denial any contact whatsoever, my husband finally agreed, mostly concerned about the children and hoping she would treat them better if he was not in their lives any longer. Since the divorce and up until requests for adoption had been presented, child support was being paid.

She had indicated that he could still stay in contact, but just not overnight or as often. We asked our attorney if we can write up a sort of contract on this, and he said the court would not allow it. Visitation was strictly up to her after that. Well, needless to say, the first time my husband called, he was told never to call again. When our son called (he was 5 years old), he was hung up on or told not to call again.

In 2002, they moved to Minnesota because of a job change of their step-dad, but they are planning to move back next year.
My question is ... does our son have any visitation rights? He could not control what his dad did - give up his parental rights. My son still talks about them and would like to talk and write to them. He was actively involved in their life until the adoption occurred, and as often as could be, since visitation was denied many times before the adotpion.

I'm trying to do a little research until they come back around mid 2004. Is there any hope for our son being connected in some way to his half-brother and half-sister? We know the kids do not necessarily feel as their mother does because we accidentally bumped into our son's brother last year, and he was smiling from ear-to-ear as he was talking to him, even though it was only for a minute or so.
 


T

TLWE

Member
We have been through this same situation. Minors don't really have any rights in this, it is up to the mother and adoptive dad whether to allow the child contact.
 
V

vankern

Guest
TLWE said:
We have been through this same situation. Minors don't really have any rights in this, it is up to the mother and adoptive dad whether to allow the child contact.
Click to expand...
I kind of thought this, but I guess I'm hoping there's someone out there who has or wants to try to fight this. It is so cruel.
 
C

craftymom

Guest
vankern said:
What is the name of your state? Illinois

She had indicated that he could still stay in contact, but just not overnight or as often. We asked our attorney if we can write up a sort of contract on this, and he said the court would not allow it.
Visitation was strictly up to her after that.

***That would be because your husband is no longer the legal father. He is a legal stranger, with no rights at all.

Well, needless to say, the first time my husband called, he was told never to call again. When our son called (he was 5 years old), he was hung up on or told not to call again.

***So, after your husband already had his answer, you both allowed a FIVE YEAR OLD to make such a call??? SHAME ON YOU!!!

In 2002, they moved to Minnesota because of a job change of their step-dad

****He is not their STEPdad any longer---he is their DAD.

My question is ... does our son have any visitation rights?

*** Nope

I'm trying to do a little research until they come back around mid 2004. Is there any hope for our son being connected in some way to his half-brother and half-sister? We know the kids do not necessarily feel as their mother does because we accidentally bumped into our son's brother last year, and he was smiling from ear-to-ear as he was talking to him, even though it was only for a minute or so.

***"Accidentally" bumped into them?? Why do you still know so much about their lives?? Quit prolonging the children's potential upset over all this. After all, that is all you're really accomplishing in your 'push' for a continuing relationship that is evidently not wanted by their mom.
Click to expand...
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
vankern said:
What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband terminated his parental rights to his two children from a former marriage in 1998, at the request of his former wife so that her new husband could adopt the children. After repeated denial of visitation and denial any contact whatsoever, my husband finally agreed, mostly concerned about the children and hoping she would treat them better if he was not in their lives any longer. Since the divorce and up until requests for adoption had been presented, child support was being paid.

She had indicated that he could still stay in contact, but just not overnight or as often. We asked our attorney if we can write up a sort of contract on this, and he said the court would not allow it. Visitation was strictly up to her after that. Well, needless to say, the first time my husband called, he was told never to call again. When our son called (he was 5 years old), he was hung up on or told not to call again.

In 2002, they moved to Minnesota because of a job change of their step-dad, but they are planning to move back next year.
My question is ... does our son have any visitation rights? He could not control what his dad did - give up his parental rights. My son still talks about them and would like to talk and write to them. He was actively involved in their life until the adoption occurred, and as often as could be, since visitation was denied many times before the adotpion.

I'm trying to do a little research until they come back around mid 2004. Is there any hope for our son being connected in some way to his half-brother and half-sister? We know the kids do not necessarily feel as their mother does because we accidentally bumped into our son's brother last year, and he was smiling from ear-to-ear as he was talking to him, even though it was only for a minute or so.
Click to expand...

My response:

By terminating his rights, and allowing the adoption, your husband legally killed himself. That's right. The law does not recognize him as having ANY relation to his son, and for all intents and purposes, is dead - - insofar as his son is concerned.

Under the United States Supreme Court decision in Troxel vs. Granville, Momma Bear has the final say-so as to who sees her son, and who doesn't. The Troxel constitutional principles equally apply where a sibling of the child seeks visitation (relative visitation upon parent's death). Therefore, absent compelling facts overcoming the presumption that a "fit" parent, like Momma Bear, is acting in the child's best interest, awarding sibling visitation over the surviving parent's objection unconstitutionally infringes upon the parent's fundamental liberty interest. [See, for example, Herbst v. Swan (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 813, 820, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 836, 841, which is an example of how the courts from all over the county are viewing situations like yours.]

You're fighting a 90 degree uphill battle.

IAAL
 
V

vankern

Guest
Re: Re: Sibling visitation after adoption

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:
My response:

By terminating his rights, and allowing the adoption, your husband legally killed himself. That's right. The law does not recognize him as having ANY relation to his son, and for all intents and purposes, is dead - - insofar as his son is concerned.

Under the United States Supreme Court decision in Troxel vs. Granville, Momma Bear has the final say-so as to who sees her son, and who doesn't. The Troxel constitutional principles equally apply where a sibling of the child seeks visitation (relative visitation upon parent's death). Therefore, absent compelling facts overcoming the presumption that a "fit" parent, like Momma Bear, is acting in the child's best interest, awarding sibling visitation over the surviving parent's objection unconstitutionally infringes upon the parent's fundamental liberty interest. [See, for example, Herbst v. Swan (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 813, 820, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 836, 841, which is an example of how the courts from all over the county are viewing situations like yours.]

You're fighting a 90 degree uphill battle.

IAAL
Click to expand...
As I said before, I kind of knew this, but hoped there was something in the courts that might overturn this. I know in my heart that none of the kids wanted this, and my husband knew in his heart she would do this, but he always had the eternal hope she would not and that people would put their wants aside and do what is best for the kids. It's kind of hard, but we realize our son may never see his brother or sister again. Anyway, thanks for the info and know we shouldn't try any more.
 
V

vankern

Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sibling visitation after adoption

craftymom said:
For my further amusement, care to clarify the "likewise"?:)
Click to expand...
you are not worth the effort. No response sought.
 
A

anabanana

Member
But about those children...

Look, legal is legal and moral is different.

Your husband was a retard. I'm not even going to bother getting into the recriminations about what a reallllly dumb choice that was on his part....

But I will tell you that you are NOT wrong to be willing to make an effort on behalf of those kids knowing their sibs. Some adoptive parents will get nasty and indignant at you about this, but if you keep your focus on those children, and remember that this might be a lonnnnng-term obligation, at the end of the day, THEY will have something to show for it, thanks to YOU.

I just took my adopted twins out West for their older birth sister's wedding. Their brother attended too. He's 18 and allowed to make that choice. Big sister hurt, hurt, hurt for years over this. There were no step parents in any of this, these kids were all removed by the state. But they have a right to each other. They just do. Don't harass those people. but keep quiet and respectful track of where those kids are. They'll be 18 sooner than you think. In the meantime, MommaBear might get a damn soul and remember that it's not about your husband anymore, or punishing him, or any of that. CHILDREN ARE PEOPLE--not their parents' passengers or appendages.

ana
 
V

vankern

Guest
Thanks Ana,
I'm apprehensive about answering and thanking you with all the people out here ripping you apart when you are looking for some support or advise.

Yes, it was not the best answer to give up his rights, but not knowing the circumstances, it's hard to judge. In all honesty, our life has improved so many hundred fold without her (not the kids) in our life. She probably feels the same way! It's just sad she didn't keep her promise about letting the kids stay in contact.
That's what we are doing, just keeping abreast where they are so that when the time comes (18) it will be easier to make a connection.

The people who criticize my wish to keep the kids in contact are the same people who know and have relationships with their siblings. They don't know what it is like. It's hard to hear your child talk about his brother and sister who he cannot see or talk to any longer. This is something my husband's former wife has done, believing it is in her children's best interest, she has taken a good relationship they had with their father (10 years) and half brother (5 years) and has robbed the children of the knowledge of each other in their childhold. Hopefully, when they come of age, they will be able to respond back.

I knew that the law currently did not provide this, but I guess I have hope everlasting that there's a new case in the courts to help fix this. And, that's what I was hoping to hear about, but I guess there's no chance.

Yes, kids are people, and sometimes their wants are not their parents wants. I just don't know how their mom can watch an emotional news cast or talk show where children are reunited with their siblings or birth parent after many years of separation or watch a movie about divorce and how the families interact, without feeling a bit awkward or ashamed.
 
C

craftymom

Guest
vankern said:

The people who criticize my wish to keep the kids in contact are the same people who know and have relationships with their siblings. They don't know what it is like.
Click to expand...
Wow! Are you ALWAYS this friggin' ignorant to think that there is no one else on the planet that is going through/ went through what you're talking about??
 
C

craftymom

Guest
Re: But about those children...

anabanana said:

Some adoptive parents will get nasty and indignant at you about this, but if you keep your focus on those children, and remember that this might be a lonnnnng-term obligation, at the end of the day, THEY will have something to show for it, thanks to YOU.


***As and Adoptee, *I* am indignant over your suggestion. That a parent who WILLINGLY signed over their rights would be so SELFISH as to continually invade the adoptees life so they never had any peace is just plain disgusting.


I just took my adopted twins out West for their older birth sister's wedding. Their brother attended too. He's 18 and allowed to make that choice. Big sister hurt, hurt, hurt for years over this. There were no step parents in any of this, these kids were all removed by the state. But they have a right to each other

***You're talking about VERY different circumstances. The children you speak of were "removed by the state"---there is sometimes a 'push' to keep these children in contact with each other when the state is unable to place them in one family. Also, the siblings you mention in your own situation are over the age of 18.

***Vankern's situation is that her husband WILLINGLY signed over his kids so he didn't have to deal with the hassle of the ex-wife (or child support), and the children are all minors
Click to expand...
 
V

vankern

Guest
Craftymom,
You make lots of incorrect assumptions about why my husband gave his rights up. You weren't there and I haven't exactly given all of the facts, which are unnecessary and irrelevant to the question.
Get a life other than criticizing other people via internet. No response requested - none will be viewed by me on any future replies! I work for a living, I suggest you do so to fill in your spare time!
 
C

craftymom

Guest
vankern said:
Craftymom,
You make lots of incorrect assumptions about why my husband gave his rights up.

**I doubt it.

You weren't there and I haven't exactly given all of the facts, which are unnecessary and irrelevant to the question.

**This just makes you "fair game" for assumptions. But then, you and yours aren't exactly the type to take responsibility for bringing things on yourself now, are you?

Get a life other than criticizing other people via internet. No response requested - none will be viewed by me on any future replies! I work for a living, I suggest you do so to fill in your spare time!

**Some people NEED criticism, as it is the only way they learn. And I do work for a living, thanks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top