Monday, December 28, 2015

Colorado terminates dad's rights

The Colorado supreme court just ruled against a dad:
1. This appeal is about two little boys and the question of who will be their parents.M.C. was unaware that he had become a father to twin boys because the children’s biological mother, J.Z., had previously told him that she had suffered a miscarriage. Subsequently, J.Z. relinquished her parental rights and in doing so provided false information about the identity of the biological father. As a result, the trial court terminated M.C.’s parental rights and the children were placed for adoption. T.W. and A.W., who were unaware of J.Z.’s deception, then adopted the children. After M.C. learned that he was the children’s father and that the children had been adopted, he petitioned the court to void the termination of his parental rights based on J.Z.’s fraudulent statements. The court reinstated M.C.’s parental rights, and he sought to gain custody of the children. Because the birth mother had relinquished her rights and consented to the twins’ adoption, the case proceeded to trial to determine if termination of M.C.’s parental rights under section 19-5-105, C.R.S. (2015), was appropriate.

2. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found, pursuant to section 19-5-105(3.1)(c), that M.C. had failed to promptly take substantial responsibility for the children and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Therefore, the trial court terminated M.C.’s parental rights and awarded custody of the children to the adoptive parents. ...

JUSTICE EID, dissenting.

60. Today the majority affirms the trial court’s termination of M.C.’s parental rights based on the insufficiency of his $250 payment to the adoptive parents during the three months following the restoration of his rights. If this seems like an exceedingly slim reed upon which to base a termination of parental rights order, that is because it is. The reed becomes even slimmer considering the trial court “informally” raised the issue of child support but never settled a dispute over whether the adoptive parents were required to disclose financial information to set the amount of child support; in other words, the issue was never formally settled.

Robert Franklin has posted rants against this decision here, here, and here.

No need to read the details. The mom gave up her rights, and this was the dad against two strangers who had taken advantage of dishonesty to take possession of his kids.

So what was the dad's fault? He only paid $250 to the two strangers! He should not have paid them anything.

He spent money on the kids when he was permitted to visit them, and he had to spend money on travel and legal expenses. He just didn't voluntarily hand a lot of cash to the couple that had effectively kidnapped his kids.

There is also some justification in terms of the Best Interest of the Child (BIOTCh). The court said that the dad is black, and that he and his fiancee did not have a psychological plan for the kids moving to live in a black family. I guess the adoptive parents are white and the kids are half-black. The kids are 3 years old now, as the case has been going on for 3 years.

40 years ago, psychologists were arguing that white couples should not be adopting black kids.

I cannot stand this crap anymore. Read Franklin if you need an explanation of what is wrong in this case.

Update: Franklin has another rant on this today. More proof that an anti-father ideology controls the courts.

No comments: