This video was the final decision for me. The way John McCain completely avoids the issue drives me insane. Ibby also has confronted Michelle Obama. I honestly appreciate the little more gut response that Michelle gave. There is supposed to be a release of this video soon on youtube. So be patient she is getting it done. Ibby and Craig now have a website up that you should check out.
You can find a in depth summary of the case here.
They are having to go back to the Supreme Court of Missouri to get the original Supreme Court order re-instated. I have been reporting on this case for a year and half. My first blog post on this is here. I began noticing a MSN group called "Contested" linking to my blog. When I noticed which post they were targeting, I contacted Ibby about this. I had a friend of mine join the group. From what I understand, I was described as an anti adoption organization. Little old me an anti adoption organization. Sorry folks its just me on this blog. As you read that previous post, you will see the entitlement in these folks that is shocking.
Megan and Stuart Taylor on the MSN group resorted to calling Ibby and Craig some seriously horrible names. Ibby was called an egg donor, BM (Normally that would be birth mother but it became bowell movement in this group), and incubator. They called Craig a sperm donor.
According to the MSN messages posted, Megan and Stuart resorted to getting help from others. He I guess quit his job. They moved to another area in Missouri. They filed falsified documents in order to receive restraining orders against Ibby. When in fact they were stalking her. They showed up at her place of work, her home, and other areas. I also know that these so called adoptive parents have their daughter currently on psychotropic drugs. I have also heard that both of these folks are also on these types of drugs as well. They have also abused their son. There is medical documentation of this in the court records.
You can also read the court documents yourself. Here and Here.
The Missouri Supreme Court gave this decision.
Even if the trial court's finding had referred to abandonment for a 60-day period prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, rather than abandonment for a six-month period prior to the filing of the second amended petition, the evidence was still insufficient. The original petition was filed on February 15, only 65 days after the birth of the child. The uncontroverted evidence was that father was present for the birth of the child, that mother placed the child in foster care, that father and mother recovered the child from foster care on January 20 and each paid half of the $300 for the cost of the foster care, and that on the same date father transported the mother and child to Kansas City for a different foster care placement. The statutory requirement to prove abandonment "for a period of at least sixty days," implies abandonment for a continuous period of sixty days, and father's conduct in caring for the child on January 20 alone refutes the allegation. Even assuming that the placement of the child with father's acquaintances in Kansas City constituted an abandonment, the period of abandonment "immediately prior to the filing of the petition" ran only from January 20 to February 15, a mere 26 days, rather than the requisite 60 days.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded.
All concur.
What did the trial court do? They ignored all of it and still terminated the rights of the parents. I don't think the Missouri Supreme Court will be too pleased with this case being before them again.
Listen to the Adoption Show to hear both Craig and Ibby tell their story. Michelle is an awesome reporter.
No comments:
Post a Comment