Caught in tangle of adoption laws, children suffer

The pictures were riveting, the heartbreak almost palpable. Evan Scott, a distraught 3 ˝-year-old, was handed over early this month by the people who adopted him at birth to the mother who belatedly fought to get him back. TV and newspaper coverage drew the nation into this most private of wars in Atlantic Beach, Fla. — just as the public was engrossed more than a decade ago by the sagas of “Baby Jessica” and “Baby Richard,” other children at the center of adoption fights. The scenes conjure the worst nightmares of parents everywhere. Yet, despite all of the attention, these heart-rending tugs of war have failed to garner constructive solutions from lawmakers and judges whose job it is to ensure that children don't suffer. The culprit is seldom bad intentions of those fighting over a child. State laws on adoption just fail in setting rules for resolving the fights. Courts can take forever to untangle adoptions gone wrong.

Sound solutions lie in a model law crafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in six years of discussions with experts. But just one state, Vermont, has adopted the uniform act. Many others have ignored useful ideas working elsewhere. Among them:

• Tight time limits. Infants are often thrown into limbo when birth parents initially consent to an adoption, then change their minds. New York, for instance, gives birth parents in some cases 45 days to revoke consent; they may need to prove the adoption is not in the child's "best interest." That's a loose standard that invites endless fights at the child's expense. The uniform law requires informed consent by both birth parents, then gives them only eight days to revoke it. That provides certainty to adoptive parents and, more critically, the child.
   
• Fathers' registries. Unmarried birth fathers are sometimes unaware of a pregnancy. Laws requiring "public notice" to get their consent - often by advertising in an obscure newspaper they're unlikely to see - are more a show than a real effort to find them. Difficult cases arise when fathers belatedly show up and seek custody. More than half of the states allow a man to sign a registry if he believes he may have fathered a child. People seeking to adopt the child must check the registry and get his consent. If he doesn't take the simple step of registering to assure his rights, he can't come back later to claim custody.
   
• Judicial deadlines. Even the best laws can't prevent all mistakes or fraud in adoptions. It's up to courts to set matters straight. Yet in many high-profile battles, cases drag on for years. Evan Scott's case involved three separate legal actions, handled by three sets of judges, that bounced around Florida courts for more than three years. That allowed Evan to bond with his adoptive parents and set up his wrenching removal. Children would benefit from rules that require the same judge to hear all actions involving one child and set deadlines for speedy rulings. Appeals, too, should move swiftly.

Opponents argue that speed and limits may give short shrift to valid claims by birth or adoptive parents. They may.

Sad as that is, even meritorious claims by adults may need to take a back seat to the rights of children, who are helpless in these matters. Children have rights to stable, permanent homes. Rights not to be treated as property or to be wrenched from families they have come to love. If lawmakers have the good sense to give those rights priority, other Evans won't have to suffer.

24 January 2005

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=4&u=/usatoday/20050124/cm_usatoday/caughtintangleofadoptionlawschildrensuffer

home / Previous feature