Tuesday, April 10, 2007

ADOPTION HORROR IN MISSOURI

Damn I hate hearing these kind of stories. It came through on an email list that I am on. It sets me on fire when first parents rights are violated. This is just plain wrong. How can a judge even allow this to go any further? Someone, somewhere made a buck. You can not violate a parents rights just because you want a kid. That situation will bite you on the ass. That child will grow up and hear this story. You will have to face the shame that you took a child away from his parents. Let that child go home to its parents. It doesn't have to happen this way. Folks its time to start writing again. This is another reason why we need open records.

Craig Lentz although he won his Missouri case concerning the 15 day Law pertaining to fathers rights he has many hoops to jump before baby Noah is back with them. You can read about it below there will be a hearing this Thursday to determine several things but one is visitation. We have no idea how the court will rule on visitation for Craig and Ibby but we want to be prepared if it does not go their way. We also know from past experiences our newspaper The Kansas City Star is not favorable in writing negative adoption stories. So here is the deal read their story and please from the bottom of our hearts please be ready to write our newspaper and tell them this story needs to be printed that is all we ask. I will let you know as soon as possible if we need your help. Baby Noah is 16 months old. This is a horrid story which no one can justify. thank you for taking the time

Actually the name of the commissioner that presided over our case is John F. Payne, not John R. Payne. Here are some links to corroborate some of the information and get more details:
Here is a link to the Supreme Court of Missouri opinion:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/cd66e41a4fa779528625725e0050747c?OpenDocument

You can access the pdf file of Craig's brief in the briefs and arguments section of the Missouri Supreme Court website or through this link:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/74d3f52ba33838ff8625720d005619ab/$FILE/SC87291_Lentz_brief.pdf

Here is a link to RSMo 453.030:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4530000030.htm

The pretrial hearing on the April 12th will be at:

The Family Justice Center
625 East 26th StreetKansas City, MO 64108(816) 474-3606

I have sent you the map and will be sending you the time.

I am trying to build support quickly. I have already gotten two people from my work to come and will be asking more. I will try to get members of my family to come also. When you email people you can give them this information to clarify things:
Background
Noah Levi Bond's father Craig Lentz is challenging an adoption attempted by Megan and Stuart Taylor. I, Ibbaanika Bond, am Noah's mother and I was pressured by the Taylors to relinquish my parental rights. We went to the same church and they said they wanted to help me, instead they defrauded me out of my child through the family court system. Neither Craig nor I have ever been accused of any kind of abuse or neglect. Craig has been involved with Noah's care and support from the beginning, and he never signed his rights away. To date there have been two trials, the first in the Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mo, the second in the Supreme Court of Mo. April 12th there will be a pretrial hearing to determine the date of the third trial along with visitation and other issues.
Wider Issue
The Taylors have used RSMo 453.030 to claim that because Craig didn't get on the birth certificate until after the 15 day period following Noah's birth, he has no right to contest the adoption. Because of this law, Craig was denied the opportunity to present the mountain of evidence of his parental fitness and that he didn't abandon his son at the first trial, violating due process. The arbitrary and severe restriction of the 15 day law on an unwed father's rights, compounded by the state's failure to inform unwed fathers of this restriction by "wide means of publication", as was written into RSMo 453.030 itself, violates equal protection.

On February 14th the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded the adoption. Their opinion only stated how the 15 day law was misused in this case and not how it is altogether unconstitutional. Our case crippled this law because it can be used as case law if this situation were to arise again, but the law needs to be struck down completely. Exposure of this law and how it's being used to steal our son would help us get physical and legal custody of our son as soon as possible, finally putting an end to this injustice, and preventing this from happening to anyone else (especially those too poor to fight in court).
Specific Issue
A protest, especially a large one, would draw media attention to this law and our case specifically. Because of the Supreme Court of Mo decision we have parental rights, what is at stake now is custody. Commissioner John R. Payne presided over the first trial and, apart from the use of the 15 day law, he perpetrated other acts of misconduct that violated our rights. Payne put us under a gag order, at the request of the Taylors, for the first trial (the Supreme Court of Mo wouldn't allow for the second trial), he affirmed the Taylors' additional claim that Craig abandonned his son, which was found to be completely groundless by the Supreme Court of Mo, he denied Craig a continuance when the Taylors were granted one, he decided in favor of the Taylor's request to prohibit a DNA test before Craig's lawyer was given his alotted time to respond, and he met with the Taylor's lawyer about the case without Craig's lawyer being notified. Our requests for a change of commissioner for the 3rd trial have so far been denied so our future is put in the hands of a man who is clearly biased against us and whose decision has been rejected by the Supreme Court because of us. Commissioner Payne has recently allowed the Taylors to file a request to adopt our son that is identical to the request that was rejected by the Supreme Court of Mo. It would be illegal for Payne to go against a Supreme Court of Mo decision and, if nothing else, consideration of this ludicrous request is allowing the Taylors to use a stalling tactic that creates bias in favor of a decision to grant them permanent custody. Payne's same bias is creeping up again, but this time we don't want him to be able to hide behind gag orders or the iron curtain of the family court. Because Criag and I have parental rights the only thing that should be considered is parental fitness in order for us to get custody. We are both very fit parents so we have the right to custody of our son. Payne should not allow anymore stalling, we and our son have a right to visitation now. Anything else is against Noah's best interest. A protest will show the support of the community. People in the community showing that they know and that they care about families being ripped apart will prevent Payne from flagrantly violating our rights again and further disgracing the reputation of the court. A protest will draw the media attention that will get higher authorities to put a check on the power he is abusing and force him to respect the rules of the court.

This demonstration will focus on the specific issue of reuniting us with Noah. It will protest the biased behavior of the family courts in general and Payne specifically. If it is large enough, it will help bring light to the plight of parents victimized by the adoption system and with the suffering caused by the neglect and outright abuse of the rights of the poorer, lower class people of America. I hope that anyone who cares about any of these things will be there.

13 comments:

3rd generation adoption said...

Amy,

Don't have your email - but please read my post and if you will, link or post it on your site because you have a much greater following than I.

Cheers,

John

ONE MEAN ANGRY ADOPTEE said...

I have to wait until I get home to post a comment on it. The article and maybe the movie does throw around that we are objects to be shopped for. I will comment on it tonight

amy said...

I don't usually comment on blogs - but I stumbled upon your blog this afternoon. My husband and I adopted a baby boy last October and we too live in Missouri so this issue is close to my heart. However I feel the complete opposite - I agree with the originally ruling. Why didn't he fight for the child sooner and why so many foster homes. Sounds to me like the birthparents were trying to take advantage of the adoptive parents if you ask me. Why wait so long - why not have his name on the birth certificate? There is more to this story. This is just my opinion - but remember there are always two sides to every story and adoptive parents aren't always the bad guys and biological parents aren't always the good guys. Again this is just my opinion and my view of the documents. This child is 16 months old – old enough to know his family – biological or not.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there are many inaccuracies in the inflammatory comments making the rounds about this particular case.
The father has certainly righfully won his day in court to state his case, but the facts are not necessarily flattering to him.
Furthermore, the child is 28 months old, NOT 16 months old. He was born in December, 2004.
Before making rash judgments, interested parties should carefully and completely read the facts of the case, which are public record.
I agree with the previous commentor - there IS more to this case. This is an emotionally charged issue, but one should check out the facts before assigning "right" and "wrong" to the parties in this case.

Anonymous said...

To anounymous--which is Megan and Stuart Taylor or their close friends-- Eileen and Randal Baker-- who have stolen a child from her mother and taught the Taylors how to get away with it. There is no distortion in what has been said. It is inflamatory. You out right stole Ibbaanika Bonds baby. If there are so many distortions why don't you clear them all up and just release the facts of the case? Why do you fight for a gag order to constantly cover up what you're doing. Thats because you know that if people knew the things you had done they would want to kill you. And make no mistake, soon people will know the things you've done.

Anonymous said...

Megan and Stuart Taylor - I feel for your situation. I hope you keep fighting as long and hard as it takes to keep this little boy where he belongs. My heart and prayers are with you and your son.

Infinite EMF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Infinite EMF said...

Anonymous leaving veiled death threats for anonymous?

Nice.

So, you'd consider killing people you don't know based upon twisted details of a story you've only heard one side of?

If that's your idea of "reason" or "logic" please do the universe a favor and refrain from voting or reproducing.

The facts behind this story are VASTLY different from what is portrayed at the head end of this blog. There was no "pressure" for Ibby to give up her son. The choice and here options were laid out for her quite clearly by people who were, at that time, sincerely trying to help her make the best out of a personal crisis.

She was not "defrauded" out of her baby. She, in a sane and sober state of mind, reviewed all of her options, and by exercise of her own freewill decided that giving her son up for private adoption was the best choice.

It was -- and still is -- the best choice. All this way down the road, the current foster family is the only family this boy has ever known.

In the wake of that choice, however, birthfather got guilt pangs, came back, and convinced her that she made a bad choice. The very same birthfather who did NOT want his name on the boy's birth certificate, AND who later wrote "not the father" on an official, notarized document, did a complete 180 and decided that he needed to get involved and contest this adoption.

Thinking people might pause and wonder "Why?"

Why would a guy who so obviously wanted NO association with this child become so intent on contesting the boy's private adoption?

Perhaps he's on a tear to keep power over birthmom; so he can be her "Kinght in Shining Armor"?? Spending all this $$$ to crusade for her baby?? Convincing her she made the wrong choice so that he now has a cause she cares about in which he can be her hero??

Perhaps this is his self-assigned penance, handed down in the bathroom mirror to assuage his personal guilt over carelessly fathering this boy in the first place???

Well, for his expensive efforts, birthfather has been smacked down at almost every stage, up to and including the resounding defeat last week in court. And, no, the decision in the Supreme Court of Missouri was not a victory for him; it was a "reboot" of the case that sent it back to the lower courts. As of last week, that's all water (and money -- lots of money) under the bridge, now.

There are a few instigating hotheads who'd really like to blow this up into a big, bad ugly. And there are plenty of ignorant fools more than ready to suck up that "booga-booga" storyline and spew it back augmented with their own psychic detritus.

All of them are WRONG, and when all of the facts become known, they will be seen as the gullible "tools" they are. They will understand that they've been had; that they've made themselves willing little pawns in somebody else's mendacious scheme.

If they maintain claim to humanity, they will all, at that point, feel appropriately ashamed, but I won't bet on it.

Anonymous said...

To Infinite EMF, no one knows the facts of this story except what was posted by the Supreem Court of Missouri in thier breif online. The facts are under a gag order which Meagn and Stuart Taylor keep asking for (and apparently the local court keeps giving) in order to cover up the fact that they stole a baby. I didn't read anything about Ibby's coersion in the Supreem Court brief. To know that Ibby was coerced out of her baby you'd have to have done the coercing--you'd have to be Stuart and Megan Taylor. And "the resounding defeat last week in court," you talk about? The only thing I have been able to read about this case is the Supreem Court of Missouri verdict online. If you have been told anything negative about another court date that means that either you are the Taylors, or that the Taylors are breaking the very gag order they asked for. Fact is, everyone has to speculate to a certian extent about what really went on because Megan and Stuart Taylor keep fighting for a gag order. As soon as the facts of the case are released we can all know for sure, and I'm confident that we will see that the Supreem Court didn't come to a unanimous decision against the Taylors because the court didn't know what it was doing. Thats why Megan and Suart Taylor don't want the facts released. So go ahead Megan and Stuart, break the gag order, break it all the way, stop fighting for a gag order and have the court release all the records. America deserves to know the facts of this ridiculous case and how innocent children and parents are abused through this system. And Megan and Stuart Taylor--you deserve to be brought to justice.

Anonymous said...

This case is clearly adoption fraud. Adoption Fraud, adoption fraud, adoption-fraud. Adoption Fraud, adoption fraud, adoption-fraud.Adoption Fraud, adoption fraud, adoption-fraud.Adoption Fraud, adoption fraud, adoption-fraud. Adoption Fraud, adoption fraud, adoption-fraud. Everyone needs to know about this.

Anonymous said...

You do not know all the facts. I cannot post them without defying court orders. Without the all the facts, it is impossible to make an informed decision. You have heard lies.

Infinite EMF said...

Look, uh, "Anonymous,"

Has it crossed your mind that it's just a teeny-weeny bit hypocritical for you to bloviate about getting records unsealed, the gag order lifted, and the facts out in the open when you're posting as "Anonymous"?

Hello??? At LEAST get a regular pseudonym so the rest of us can keep score. It's a bit unclear who's responding to who with all these Anonymouses (Anonymice??) running around.



I didn't read anything about Ibby's coersion in the Supreem Court brief. To know that Ibby was coerced out of her baby you'd have to have done the coercing...

Uh, nnnoooo, I'd have only had to read the entry below the paragraph in RED at the top of this page. You DID read THAT before you started posting, here, right???

Or, maybe you wrote that yourself, but it's been so long ago you'd forgotten some of it? Hmmm??

Sherlock Holmes you're NOT.

Stil, despite your stunning display of inductive reasoning, you want me to give full credence to your spin on this case.

HA! Not bloody likely, mate.

AND, you can keep right on guessing (incorrectly, I might add) about my true identity, but I'll give you this one hint: you don't know me from Jesus Christ. I could be standing in line behind you at the grocery store, or pumping gas on the other side of the service station island, and you'd have ZERO clue.

I AM InfiniteEMF.

I have the ways.

I have the means.

And THAT is all you really need to know.

Ciao

Marie said...

well, infinite, i do wish they would open the court records so everyone could see the truth. then the birth mother would have to stop posting lies on every site she can get on. of course, you didnt read the Supreme Court briefs, you read lies first and decdided to believe them. your choice. and i dont care if you stand behind me in line anywhere. I am not easily intimidated.