Hi. I joined the step-parent adoption board looking for information on something different...but as we lived through your question, I thought I would put my two-cents in. I think this comes down to state law. In my state (FL back in the 80s) once the adoption took place, everything reverted to those kids being my husband's kids...for all intents and purposes, everything became as if the ex never existed...therefore, no monies. While you took a poster's earlier comments as harsh, they truly weren't. If your lawyer or the judge doesn't or didn't lay it out as flat and blunt as that, then they were in the wrong. Of course here I'm assuming that state laws in this area will be somewhat similiar. In fact, in our case, my husband was almost treated as the bad guy...even getting a lecture that if something should happen causing our marriage to end in divorce (like I was the bad guy...the ex ended up going to jail over what he did to me, and I ended up in the hospital), that my husband would have to be prepared to pay childsupport for the kids (well, DUH!).
I'm guessing since the adoption process has already gone through, that they've already weighed in what kind of standard of living you and your husband can provide. Honestly, in my case, there was more money owed to my children than what you say your ex owes. Now, I do, I do understand that that money *should* have been given over for the children's care while the ex was still standing in the position as a parent. I do, I do understand that no matter what the quality of life you provided your children, 30K would have helped a whole heck of a lot more...not just with material things, but with experiences/opportunities they could have had...and I do, I do understand, that having that money during that time would have also aleviated (sp?) a lot of stress on you when looking at paying grocery bills, rent/mortgage to house, clothe and feed your kids. I do, I do understand that the money could have also been invested on their parts for their future. But, and I say this in a position of empathy, the former poster was exactly correct. If the need (as in nitty-gritty not surviving if ya ain't got it) is/was there for this money to come full, then an adoption shouldn't have taken place without considering that you still wanted ties to this other man in a supportive role. If OAG is stating that the extent that they are willing to go is A & B options, then that is all you are able to get, if you choose to go that route. If it were me, and if those options were given to me, and there wasn't hospitalization, disabilities or the like draining our family budget, then I would thank God for the blessing of a united family, and a man willing to be a father in every way that a father is supposed to do, and begin that family without tying stress and emotion and time on this man who, having known your children, walked away.
Many blessings to you and yours.
