Addison was leaving her pre-pre-school on Thursday.  As she was leaving the teacher offered her some candy for having such a good day.  Addy took her piece of Candy and then looked a Christy and asked for one more piece.  Christy said “No, you can only have one piece”.  Addy looked back up at her and said “No, ‘dis’ one is for Grady”.  The teacher said “You want the whole bag?”. 

We miss you buddy….Even that little sister of yours that is always bugging you.

The Codes don’t lie.

Even after all the explanation I’ve given there appears to be some people that insist I am not telling the truth.  This will be the last time I address this issue.

1.  Legal parents can surrender a child for purposes of adoption. 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5103.15 — Check out (B)(2).  I’ve included the links in case you believe I’m actually making these laws up.

The parents of a child less than six months of age may enter into an agreement with a private child placing agency surrendering the child into the permanent custody of the agency without juvenile court approval if the agreement is executed solely for the purpose of obtaining the adoption of the child. The agency shall, not later than two business days after entering into the agreement, notify the juvenile court. The agency also shall notify the court not later than two business days after the agency places the child for adoption. The court shall journalize the notices it receives under division (B)(2) of this section.

2.  Legal Parents are the Mother and the husband of the mother.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3111.03

Presumption of Paternity is the husband of the mother

(A) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child under any of the following circumstances:

(1) The man and the child’s mother are or have been married to each other, and the child is born during the marriage or is born within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, divorce, or dissolution or after the man and the child’s mother separate pursuant to a separation agreement.

3.  By law Wyrembek was a putative father for purposes of the adoption.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3107.01 — Check out (H)(3)

(H) “Putative father” means a man, including one under age eighteen, who may be a child’s father and to whom all of the following apply:

(1) He is not married to the child’s mother at the time of the child’s conception or birth;

(2) He has not adopted the child;

(3) He has not been determined, prior to the date a petition to adopt the child is filed, to have a parent and child relationship with the child by a court proceeding pursuant to sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 of the Revised Code, a court proceeding in another state, an administrative agency proceeding pursuant to sections 3111.38 to 3111.54 of the Revised Code, or an administrative agency proceeding in another state;

(4) He has not acknowledged paternity of the child pursuant to sections 3111.21 to 3111.35 of the Revised Code.

4.  Consent to an adoption is not required from a putative father who doesn’t support mom or baby.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3107.07 — Check out (B)(2)(b) and (c)

Consent to an adoption is not required by:

(B) The putative father of a minor if either of the following applies:

(b) The putative father has willfully abandoned or failed to care for and support the minor;

(c) The putative father has willfully abandoned the mother of the minor during her pregnancy and up to the time of her surrender of the minor, or the minor’s placement in the home of the petitioner, whichever occurs first.

5.  Legal fathers must support their babies or their consent is not required to an adoption.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3107.07 — Check out (A)

(A) A parent of a minor, when it is alleged in the adoption petition and the court , after proper service of notice and hearing, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the minor or to provide for the maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year immediately preceding either the filing of the adoption petition or the placement of the minor in the home of the petitioner

So, there you go.  Legal fathers and putative fathers must support their kids.  That’s our allegation.  There has never been a trial where our allegations have been heard. 

Our adoption petition is set to be heard on Jan 12th.  I’m sure the Juvenile Court judge is still dening it’s existence.

Good morning Grayson, we miss you.

Unanswered Questions

 Let me start by addressing some questions that appear to raise concerns with the father’s rights activists. 

 Why did we go to Indiana after litigating in Ohio?  We never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Lucas County Juvenile Court.  We believed the adoption started first and paternity should have been established through the adoption process.

 When Judge Cubbon entered an order granting visitation without a home study, background check, criminal records search or any other verification of Wyrembek we felt like Grayson was in danger.  Through the ICPC Indiana had jurisdiction to take temporary emergency custody in the event Grayson was in harms way. 

 We informed the judge of the original adoption petition, the appeal, the visitation order, the lack of due diligence by Lucas County Juvenile Court, a fraction of Wyrembek’s criminal history and Ben’s conduct.  That Judge felt Grayson may be “irreparably harmed” and gave us temporary emergency custody.  In my opinion, that wasn’t an order against Wyrembek, it was an order to protect Grayson from a court that wouldn’t do their job to protect a baby.

 Grayson had only lived in Indiana.  Indiana was the home state.  We believe that Indiana had jurisdiction to hear all matters related to custody and visitation.  Because the adoption agency was in Ohio we filed the adoption in Ohio.  As it turns out, we could have filed in Indiana.  I just didn’t know that at the time.  Believe me, I know much more about Ohio adoption than I ever expected to know.

 Why didn’t we return Grayson at PFR, Paternity or any other time before?

 This appears to be the question that drives our opposition the craziest.  There are a number of reasons:

1.  We love Grayson.  He is and will always be part of our family.
2. The written law says that putative fathers and legal fathers must support and communicate with their birthmom’s  and children.  He didn’t.  Period.  No court has said that he did to this day.
3. We were never ordered to return Grayson.  Until after we were given custody by Indiana.  Then that order was not enforceable.
4. Dru believed Ben was dangerous.
5. The agency never asked us to return Grayson.
6. When we reached out to Wyrembek.  He wouldn’t talk with us.
7. He never called.
8. He never wrote
9. He never texted
10. He never supported Grayson
11. He never asked how Grayson was doing.
12. He never sent a birthday card.
13. Even during the visitation he didn’t give Grayson a gift a birthday present anything.
14. Even during the visitation he didn’t have diapers
15. Even during the visitation his house wasn’t prepared for a baby.
16. He dropped Dru on the side of the road, while pregnant.
17. He wouldn’t take Dru to the hospital when she called with some bleeding.
18. He never helped her pay for Grayson’s invetro care
19. I believe he abandoned Dru and Grayson.
20. I believe babies have a right to early permanence and stability
21. I believe babies are not property that can be claimed after a series of tests and discussions.

My favorite myth is that we prevented visitation with Grayson.  Folks, Wyrembek never called to ask for a visit.  Refusing a visit and contact is what he is doing to us right now.  This man never cared for Grayson, that’s my opinion.  If he did he would have called or contacted us.  He wouldn’t even take our calls.  This concept that “He did everything he could” is simply not true.  You may not like us, but we can all agree that he could have called

 Most of all……I believe in protecting children.  The right’s of a man who abandons his child and his child’s mother are not my concern.  These are helpless infants.  They are all over the world.  Babies of deadbeats, drug addicts, criminals, abusers all of these babies need protecting.  Somebody needs to help them, might as well be me.

 I didn’t and don’t take my role as an adoptive parent lightly.  I didn’t see Grayson any differently than by biological children.  I will not give up until I know Grayson is safe.  I’m an adult.  I can handle the pressure from the public, the courts….whoever.  Grayson’s safety is my primary concern.  Always has been.  Always will be.

 He is a baby.  He cannot defend himself.  Wyrembek abandoned him when he abandoned Dru.  Dru needed someone to care for Grayson.  I did it.  I would do it again.

 Father’s who fail in their responsibilities, in my opinion, forfeit their rights.  That’s my opinion.  I didn’t need a court order or a DNA test to support my kids.  I didn’t need a court to tell me to buy diapers or a crib.  Father’s do that naturally.  I didn’t need a court order to pay for my birthmother’s health expenses.  I didn’t need a court order to call Grayson to speak with him.  I wanted to make sure he was ok.  Wyrembek took a different approach.  I believe it was abandonment.

 We didn’t go to the media for nearly 3 years.  It was only after Grayson was order to be returned in 1 day did we go to the media.  A one day transition plan was unacceptable to us.  We exercised all available remedies available to us, media was one of them.   A 1 day transition plan, according to the PHD child psychologist would have been harmful to Grayson.  So we went to the media.

 We went back to the media when we found out the rest of Wyrembek’s criminal history.  When we found out other allegations that went into the GAL’s most recent report was again excercised all available remedies to make sure he is o.k.  Grayson is in harm’s way, that is what I believe.

 We didn’t break the law.  We didn’t kidnap a baby.  We wanted to make sure Grayson was OK.  Any parent would do the same.

 So that’s more of my position.  I have nothing to hide.  Nothing.

Reader Letters | So wrong
Published in the Courier-Journal

A cold chill of past memories went through me as I read the article, “Indiana couple forced to give up adopted boy.”

This is wrong on every level.

I was adopted as a 4-month-old infant. I was told of this from as far back as I can remember. I was special; I had a loving family and what would be (and has been) a good life. So I hoped … but secretly I lived (for years) with the fear that one day there would be a knock on the door and someone whom I had never known would now “want me back” and I would have no say in the matter.

Thankfully, that never happened. Not so for Grayson Vaughn.

This is so wrong.

LINZIE CRAIG
Shelbyville, Ky. 40065

Read the full story by Adrianna Hopkins WHAS11.com

 How has the Guardian Ad Litem limited her ability to evaluate Grayson’s adjustment with the biological father? 

 A letter describing the reasons Judge Cubbon may ONLY be meeting legal requirement necessary to block an appeal which is not in the best interest and concern for the well being of 3 year-old  Grayson Vaughn.

 Read Dr. Kirby’s Psychological Evaluation: Child/Family Report  and Recommendation

  CV of Kathleen Kirby, Ed.D., Ph.D.

Few people would disagree that abortion is one of the most hotly contested issues in our country. The passion from the pro-choice and pro-life camps is evident. From printed words to television screens, from debate podiums to our living rooms — whenever the issue is even mildly discussed, tensions flare on both sides. Seldom is there an opportunity or an issue that bridges both viewpoints. But now we have one: the broken adoption system in the United States. That’s because the right of a mother to choose (pro-choice) and the desire for the child to be born (pro-life) are both at play whenever a mother takes the adoption route.

Abortion laws affect many areas of American life. Take their effect on crime, for example. Many are familiar with the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory argue that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States after Roe v. Wade has reduced crime in years since. Opponents generally dispute these statistics and will point to some negative effects of abortion on society. This camp encourages women to choose to put their children up for adoption rather than have abortions. [continued at MomLogic]