Michael Oher’s shocking conservatorship exposes court failures

by Nina A. Kohn, opinion contributor

Baltimore Ravens offensive tackle Michael Oher sits on the bench during the first half of an NFL football game against the Buffalo Bills in Baltimore, Sunday, Oct. 24, 2010. Michael Oher, the former NFL tackle known for the movie “The Blind Side,” filed a petition Monday in a Tennessee probate court accusing Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy of lying to him by having him sign papers making them his conservators rather than his adoptive parents nearly two decades ago.(AP Photo/Nick Wass, File)

In recent years, the national media have been awash in stories of unscrupulous guardians and conservators. Most prominently, headlines screamed about Britney Spears’ father — enemy number one of the #FreeBritney movement — who was accused of profiteering off his daughter.

Last week, NFL player Michael Oher became the focus of the nation’s newest high-profile conservatorship case. Oher, the subject of the blockbuster movie “The Blind Side,” filed a court petition alleging that he had been duped into “agreeing” to a conservatorship, and asking for it to be terminated and his conservators sanctioned.

Unlike Spears, he did not allege that his conservators absconded with his earnings or prevented him from making personal decisions. And within days of the lawsuit being filed, the conservators announced they were “glad” to terminate the arrangement (although that actually can be done only by the court that appointed them to make decisions for Oher).

Oher’s story is unfortunate, but it could have a silver lining. With past high-profile stories, the focus on “bad” people (Spears’ father, a Nevada guardian turned abuser, a scam artist obtaining guardianship over elderly marks) masked a much bigger problem: probate courts run amok. 

Oher’s case, in contrast, lays the core problem bare: courts unnecessarily strip people of their rights and then fail to monitor the risky arrangements they create.

Oher was put under conservatorship in Tennessee. Tennessee law prohibits a judge from imposing a conservatorship unless the judge finds clear and convincing evidence that the person is disabled and needs that assistance. Yet a Tennessee judge imposed a conservatorship on Oher despite explicitly finding that he did not have any disability. Likewise, the judge never found that conservatorship was needed, and there is no evidence the judge considered whether Oher’s alleged “needs” could be met in a less restrictive way.

The sheer wrongness of the court’s order is shocking. But it is an open secret that courts appoint conservators (called guardians in some states) without fully considering the alternatives, or evaluating the person’s needs and abilities. Likewise, courts routinely grant conservators broad powers when more limited ones would be sufficient to meet the needs of the situation.

The Oher case also reveals another core problem: inadequate representation for those alleged to need a conservator. Although conservatorship can strip people of the right to make even the most basic, intimate decisions about their own lives, many states — including Tennessee — do not ensure that they have an attorney to represent their wishes.

Worse yet, Oher alleges that a single attorney purported to represent both him and those petitioning for conservatorship over him. That’s akin to an attorney representing the plaintiff and defendant in the same lawsuit.

In addition, the Oher saga reflects courts’ failure to supervise their appointees. Oher alleged that in the 19 years during which he had been under conservatorship, his conservators did not file a single accounting of his funds even though Tennessee law requires this annually. That a court would allow no accounting to be filed for 19 years, with potentially millions of dollars at stake, is appalling if true. Moreover, as Oher’s apparent continued confusion about his conservatorship suggests, courts often fail to adequately explain to people subject to conservatorship what that arrangement means and what their rights are under it.

In short, the Oher case shows that we must fix court systems, not merely punish bad actors. 

Fixing court systems will require ensuring that all judges who appoint conservators have the training needed to understand when an appointment is legally appropriate, and how to determine if that standard is met in a particular case. It will also require ensuring that courts have the systems they need to track cases and monitor those they appoint. 

Congress could help. Conservatorship is governed by state law, but Congress could jumpstart court improvement by appropriating funds for state court systems to adopt needed reforms.  

For example, they could make funding for court improvement available to states that adopt the Uniform Act designed to prevent these types of court failures. Likewise, Congress could — much as state court leaders have urged — appropriate funds specifically for judicial training or case management. And recognizing that the federal Constitution is violated when states strip people of constitutional rights without due process, Congress could create new avenues of redress for people whose rights are unlawfully removed.

Voters can help too. Many of the judges who appoint conservators are elected. Voters and the media should ask judicial candidates running for probate court positions key questions.

How much time will they spend considering a petition for conservatorship? Do they believe the court should obtain an independent evaluation of a person’s needs and abilities before imposing a conservatorship? Will they remove people’s rights without hearing from them first? Many do. 

That could change if voters become savvy to the problems with conservatorship and select judges who will only impose it when there are no other feasible options for meeting individuals’ needs. 

“The Blind Side” inspired many with its powerful story of hope and redemption. Oher’s conservatorship saga could have greater power. By exposing profound court failures, it could inspire the changes to the court system that are needed to ensure that Americans won’t have to worry that, like Oher, they may be swept up in an unnecessary conservatorship.

Full Article & Source:
Michael Oher’s shocking conservatorship exposes court failures

See Also:
"The Blind Side" lawsuit: Former NFL star Michael Oher sues

 Conservatorship Gone Wrong: Why Does it Seem to Happen So Often and How Can I Prevent It?

 What is a conservatorship? The legal arrangement at the center of Michael Oher's case.

 Devastated Tuohys ready to end conservatorship for Michael Oher, lawyers say

What is a conservatorship? The legal arrangement at the center of Michael Oher's case.

By Khristopher J. Brooks

Ex-NFL player Michael Oher shocked "The Blind Side" fans this week after revealing in court papers that contrary to the 2009 film's depiction of his life, the Tuohy family of Tennessee didn't actually adopt him.

In a reversal of the film's heartwarming ending, Oher alleges that Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy misled him nearly 20 years ago into signing documents which gave them a conservatorship over him. The legal documents, which Oher claims he was falsely told was "for all intents and purposes, an adoption," provided the Tuohys with the ability to profit from his name and likeness. 

The conservatorship continues today but should be discontinued going forward, Oher claimed in his petition, arguing he's old enough to handle his own business affairs. 

In response to the petition, Sean Tuohy said this week that if Oher wants to end the conservatorship now, the family would "of course" be willing to end it. 

Here are more specifics about what a conservatorship is and how the legal action became the center of Michael Oher's case.

What is a conservatorship?

Under Tennessee law, a conservatorship is a legal proceeding where a court strips the decision-making abilities from someone who is a minor or has a disability or someone who cannot make decisions on their own. A conservatorship includes transferring that decision-making ability to someone else (a conservator) or a group of people (co-conservators). 

One of the most famous cases involving a conservatorship was that of singer Britney Spears, who lived under a court-appointed conservatorship from 2008 until 2021.

• Britney Spears' conservatorship, explained
• Amanda Bynes' conservatorship terminated after nearly 9 years

Because conservatorship laws vary between states, it's difficult to determine how many people live in conservatorships across the country, ACLU attorney Zoe Brennan-Krohn told CBS News in 2021 when speaking about Spears' case. She added that they are often granted when an individual encounters difficulties or age-related disabilities. 

Conservatorship vs. adoption

In a conservatorship, the conservator is legally allowed to make decisions on another person's behalf without technically making them a family member. The person with a disability or other challenge only needs to sign the proper legal documents to grant the conservatorship, as Oher did in August 2004. 

Under adoption laws, an adoptee legally becomes a permanent member of the applicant's family. 

Adoption laws vary by state, with a few states placing age limits on adoption. Tennessee, the home state of Oher and the Tuohys, is among the states that allow adults to adopt someone who is over 18, according to law firm Anderson Hunter.

Conservatorship meaning

Having a conservatorship also plays a role in the person's finances. A conservator or co-conservators typically have authority over the finances and personal affairs of the person they're overseeing.

Oher claims in his petition that the Tuohy family generated millions of dollars off the book "The Blind Side" by best-selling author Michael Lewis and its film adaptation starring Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw, both of which carried Oher's name and likeness. Oher claims that he himself has received nothing off of the book or Oscar-nominated movie. The Tuohys will continue to profit from his name if the conservatorship isn't ended, he argues.

Aside from Britney Spears, actor Amanda Bynes also recently successfully fought to end her conservatorship, giving her full control of her medical, financial and personal decisions.

Full Article & Source:
What is a conservatorship? The legal arrangement at the center of Michael Oher's case.

Illinois Lawyer Faces 3-Year License Suspension

An attorney who questioned the integrity and fairness of four judges should lose his law license for three years and until further court order, a lawyer-discipline panel recommended.

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission Hearing Board found 'Lanre O.Amu knowingly made false statements or statements with reckless disregard for the truth.

"Given the respondent's lack of remorse, failure to understand the wrongfulness of his misconduct and inclination to personalize adverse rulings, we are concerned that he will be unable to conform his future conduct to professional standards," the hearing board report says.

The ARDC administrator filed a four-count complaint against Amu in December 2011 asserting that he made statements about the integrity of four judges that were false or made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.

Amu represented clients in two personal-injury cases, a medical-malpractice action and a legal-malpractice lawsuit. Those cases were before then-Cook County Circuit Judges Francis J. Dolan and Thomas R. Chiola, along with Circuit Court Judges Lynn M. Egan and Irwin S. Solganick. 

The four judges all made rulings adverse to Amu's clients.

Amu asserted that Dolan's ruling in a personal-injury case barring all the plaintiff's witnesses was improper and attacked the judge's integrity and fairness.

 

Amu, who represented himself before the hearing board, testified that he "stands by [his] statements," and his statements were 100 percent correct, the report says. Amu also called his statements "courageous."

The ARDC administrator's office urged that Amu be disbarred. The hearing board disagreed.

"While we recognize respondent's misconduct is serious and deserving of substantial discipline, we do not believe disbarment, the harshest possible sanction, would better advance the goals of the disciplinary system," says the hearing board report, which was issued last week.

"We do, however, believe a three-year suspension is necessary to impress upon respondent the wrongfulness of his misconduct and deter future misconduct."

As for the suspension-until-further-court-order condition, the report says, "We are confident this hurdle is necessary for respondent because he continues to view his conduct as not only acceptable but necessary, lacks remorse and has demonstrated throughout these disciplinary proceedings that he will likely continue to engage in the same course of conduct whenever he believes he has been treated unfairly."

The hearing board consisted of its chair,  Debra J. Braselton (pictured at left), Andrea D. Rice and Donald D. Torisky, a non-lawyer. In the matter of Lanre O. Amu, No. 2011 PR 00106.

Amu said the ARDC is "abusing its processes" and he plans to file exceptions to the hearing board report with the ARDC Review Board, an appellate tribunal.

"What they have done there is a miscarriage of justice," he said. "I reject it completely."

ARDC Deputy Administrator James J. Grogan declined to comment about the hearing board report.

Full Article and Source:
Lawyer Faces 3-Year License Suspension
See Also:
Information regarding 'Lanre O.Amu

Landmark Ruling

What experts say was a landmark Supreme Court ruling allowed their maternal grandfather, George Smith and his wife Brenda to adopt the children.

The legal battle over their adoption may have ended their relationship with their paternal grandparents, an outcome one attorney involved called heartbreaking.

Smith, whose daughter La Shonda was the children’s mother, and his wife first petitioned to adopt the children in April 2005. That was about a month after their 27-year-old father, Eduardo Silvils, died in a car accident.

Silvils’ parents did not ask to adopt the children but did seek guardianship. Their position was that neither set of grandparents should adopt the children, thus creating a situation where both sets of grandparents had the chance to see the grandchildren regularly.

In 2006 a family court judge supported their position, giving the Smiths primary guardianship of the children but denying adoption. In his order, the judge wrote that it was in the children’s best interest to “enjoy the love, affection and involvement of all their grandparents in their lives.”

The District Court of Appeal upheld that decision. But the Florida Supreme Court ultimately disagreed.

The high court called a split guardianship “the antithesis of the right to permanence and stability that is afforded by adoptions.”

The children also have financial security after a Jacksonville jury awarded them and George Smith $2.83 million in a wrongful death lawsuit filed after their mother’s death.

Full Article and Source:
Jacksonville grandparents adopt after landmark decision

Budget Cuts For Child-Welfare

Tough economic times create a classic catch-22 for state government: With people struggling to get by, there's more demand than ever for government aid, from health care to child welfare. But the recession also means the state has less money available to provide that aid.

More people need food stamps, yet the agency that oversees the program is closing 17 offices around the state. While increased child abuse is a concern, money for guardianship and adoption is being cut at the state's child-welfare agency. People are turning to community organizations for help just as the state is cutting support for those groups.

Full Article and Source:
Less money, more demand for government aid

Adoption Support Checks

All Jennifer Lawson wants to do is take good care of two kids she assumed legal responsibility for two years ago. One of the ways she intended to do so seemed simple enough.

The kids' adoptive father had been charged with taking indecent liberties with a different child and she'd been named their legal guardian. So Lawson figured it'd be easy to transfer to her the adoption-support payments that the stepfather had been receiving through a program for people who adopt foster children.

She had the law on her side. Her stepfather, Vance Oxendine, was a convicted sex offender, and she had a strongly worded order awarding her sole custody of the kids, a girl who's now 11 and a boy who's now 7. She also had a judgment in hand that ordered Oxendine to pay $543 a month in child support. In her mind, it really shouldn't have been difficult to channel the adoption-support money to the kids.

If the courts can garnish someone's wages from a private employer, Lawson reasoned that one government agency surely could get another to transfer the payment of public money intended to support two kids who'd had a rough start in life. She figured wrong.

Not only did Oxendine ignore the child-support order -- he only made two payments before he went to prison in October 2007 for violating his probation -- but also the state continued to mail those adoption support checks. Somebody -- it's not clear who-- continued to cash them. And Lawson's children never saw a dime.

Because Oxendine refused to give up his parental rights, and a petition to terminate those rights had never been filed, he was still eligible for adoption-support payments.

Full Article and Source:
Money should be going to woman taking care of kids

Madonna Failed Adoption Bid

The controversy surrounding the attempt by Madonna to adopt a second child from an orphanage in Malawi brings to light the confusing situation in international adoption. On Friday, a judge in that nation rejected the singer's adoption request on the grounds that waiving an 18-month residency requirement would set a dangerous precedent. Madonna was granted such an exemption when she adopted a Malawian boy in 2006.

This is just another example of how the intricacies of each country's legal system, cultural mores and poverty level intersect with the guidelines of The Hague treaty on intercountry adoptions.

The result has been a decline in the number of orphans from developing countries being adopted by Americans. While adoptions become harder, the number of orphans grows, especially in Africa because of the tragedy of the AIDS crisis. Malawi has an estimated 1 million orphans, and untold numbers of orphans languish in other African countries as well as in Romania, Russia, China and Latin America.

Full Article and Source:
Madonna, Malawi and adoption madness

More information:
Madonna, who was seeking an interim adoption, appealed against a High Court decision refusing her bid to adopt a four-year-old girl named Mercy James. Malawian rights groups, who accused the government of skirting residency laws when Madonna adopted David Banda in 2006, also opposed the latest adoption attempt.They say celebrities should not be allowed to fly in and adopt children at will.
Madonna leaves Malawi after failed adoption bid

The adoption was denied by Judge Esme Chombo because Madonna had not met residency rules requiring adoptive parents to live in Malawi for 18 to 24 months. Madonna's lawyer, Alan Chinula, described the judgment as "incomprehensible", saying the court had approved her adoption of David Banda in 2006. He said they were appealing in Malawi's Supreme Court.
Madonna's hopes of adopting Mercy James are in limbo

Two Dads on a Birth Certificate

A federal judge has ruled that Louisiana has 15 days to add the names of both fathers to the birth certificate of a boy born in Shreveport and adopted by a gay couple from out-of-state.

The state is asking the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey, and to halt the order, state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said.

He wrote in a brief e-mailed statement:"The federal district court has significantly misinterpreted Louisiana vital records law, forcing Louisiana to import and adopt New York law."

Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, who now live in San Diego, but adopted the boy in New York state, want both their names on his birth certificate.

State officials say that's illegal because, under Louisiana law, two single people cannot adopt a child. Zainey ruled in December that because the adoption became formal in New York, the Office of Vital Records must recognize that state's adoption law on the matter.

New York officials decided in January that same-sex couples could list both names on their children's birth certificates.

Full Article and Source:
La. must add 2 dads' names to birth certificate

Adoption Ban Trial

A lawsuit seeking to undo Arkansas' voter-approved law limiting access to adoption and foster care survived its first challenge when a Pulaski County circuit judge ruled the case should go to trial.

But Judge Chris Piazza did side with state attorneys in throwing out one part of the 11-point lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union - a challenge to the title of the ballot initiative that became Initiated Act 1 of 2008 by attracting 57 percent of the vote in the November election. The ACLU, representing 24 adults and children, is seeking to overturn the law, which bars cohabiting unmarried adults from fostering or adopting children, claiming the measure is unconstitutional.

Byron Babione, an Arizona attorney representing Family Council Action Committee, the conservative Christian political action committee that championed the law, Cordi contended that the ACLU was trying to fabricate a constitutional right that doesn't exist, a right by children to be adopted or placed in foster care. Adoption and foster care law arises from state statute, not the Arkansas or U.S. constitutions, they argued.

Babione: "There's no deep-rooted right in this nation's laws or history to adopt or foster."

Full Article and Source:
Trial on adoption ban approved

See also:
Halted Efforts

Act One Under Fire

Guardians' Adoptions

The state Supreme Court upheld a law making it easier for legal guardians to adopt children, saying youngsters need a stable home and a guardian doesn't have to prove that the child's biological parents are unfit.

The case involved children placed with guardians at a family member's request, usually because the parents can't care for them. If parents object, a judge must decide whether parental custody would be harmful to the child.

A 2004 state law allows a guardian to adopt a child after two years if a judge agrees. Before the law was passed, guardians could adopt only if the parents had abandoned the child, committed a crime showing unfitness or were mentally ill.

In upholding the new law, the court unanimously rejected a Yolo County woman's challenge to her 5-year-old daughter's adoption by guardians who had taken care of her for 3 1/2 years.

"After years of guardianship, the child has a fully developed interest in a stable, continuing and permanent placement with a fully committed caregiver," the court said.

Kimball Sargeant, lawyer for the Yolo County woman, argued that the law is unconstitutional because it removes rights from a parent without proof that the parent is unfit.

Full Article and Source:
California court upholds guardians' adoptions

More information:
California Supreme Court bolsters guardians' right to adopt

High court makes it easier for guardians to adopt children

Giving Up Parental Rights

An out-of-work widower who left 9 of his 10 children at a Nebraska hospital under the state's old safe-haven law has given up his parental rights.

Gary Staton dropped off the children last September, saying he was overwhelmed by his family responsibilities.

Court records show he has relinquished his parental rights. The step paves the way for the children to be adopted or be placed in long-term guardianship.

Staton left his children, ranging in age from a toddler to 17, at Creighton University Medical Center. His tenth child, the family's oldest, was too old to be taken in by state authorities.

Nebraska's old safe-haven law had no age limit. It was amended last November to put an age limit of 30 days.

Source:
Neb. man gives up rights to 9 kids

More information:
Safe Haven Dad Gives Up Parental Rights

Father of nine gives up parental rights

More about the Safe-Haven Law:
Finding a Fix for Nebraska's Safe Haven Law

'Safe Haven' bill advances; compromise work ahead

Neb. senators want $30 million for safe-haven bill

Children in the Mental Health Void

Lengthy Legal Battle

The fate of a 4-year-old boy at the center of a bitter custody battle may now be decided inside the Jackson County Family Court.

The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District recently ruled that the rights of the biological father cannot be terminated, stopping attempts by another metro area couple trying to adopt the child.

In legal documents, the Appeals Court will send the case back to the Jackson County Family Court a third time to decide if the child should remain with the one family he has always known or the biological father who began his fight for custody weeks after the child was born.

Full Article and Source:
Fate of 4-Year-Old Boy in Legal Limbo

More information:
Investigators: Adoption Dilemma

Legal Battle over KC Child Remains in Court

Opposition to Adoption Legislation

Senate Bill 68, sponsored by Shelby County Gary Tapp, would prevent unmarried couples from adopting children in Kentucky. Gatewood, a family court attorney who works on cases where abused and neglected children are looking for permanent homes and is also openly gay, said he believes the bill's intent is to prevent gay couples from adopting and is similar to legislation already filed in states.

Gatewood: "They're essentially creating a 'Catch 22.' They're arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to be parents because we're not married and they pass a law that says we can't be married...Senator Tapp wants to send the Cabinet for Health and Family services into people's bedrooms. Instead of looking at whether people are appropriate placements, have an acceptable home, or whether they have a criminal record, let's see if they're having sex."

Gatewood said the bill would have unintended consequences that would limit the number of homes where abused and neglected children could go.

David Edmunds, with the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said his nonprofit educational group supports the bill.

Edmunds: "This bill is about children's needs, not adults desires. All the statistics show that children do better in a married home. Unmarried homes are more likely to break up, more likely to foster abuse, and the statistics bare that out pretty consistently."

Edmunds rebuffed the idea that SB 68 was specifically targeting gays and lesbians.

Full Article and Source:
Opposition Grows To Kentucky Adoption Legislation

Adoptive Dad Fights For Benefits

Wayne LaRue Smith wanted to ensure that the foster child he was raising wouldn't be taken from him, so he sought permanent guardianship. He really wanted to adopt the boy, but under a 32-year-old Florida law that bans adoption by gay people, that seemed out of the question.

Now, two years later, Smith faces a legal Catch 22. In August, a Key West judge declared the state's gay adoption law unconstitutional, allowing Smith to adopt his foster son. But state child welfare administrators have declined to provide the boy a host of financial benefits available to foster kids who are adopted.

Their reason: Because the boy was already in a guardianship, he was no longer a foster child when he was adopted.

Department of Children & Families Secretary George Sheldon: ''We have never granted an adoption subsidy in a guardianship case.''

Full Article and Source:
Gay adoptive dad fights for state benefits for his child

See also:
High Court To Rule

Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Bankrupt California Buys Ads

Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family" campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting "gay" adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

Proponents claim sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue because thousands of kids need loving homes. Robyn Harrod, spokeswoman for Southern California Adoption Agency: "They provide loving, stable and permanent homes for kids who need them."

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns. "At a time when the state doesn't have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it's a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda."

Full Article and Source:
Bankrupt California buys ads for 'gay' adoption - Facing $42 billion deficit, state pushes homosexual guardianship

See also:

Suspending Funds Owed

Torn Apart

The author of “Torn Apart” lost touch with his brother and sister in what’s known as a closed adoption. His siblings’ records were sealed and he wasn’t allowed to have any contact with them.

But more and more, child welfare experts say that siblings—in most cases—should be able to stay connected both during foster care and after they’re adopted. That means trying to have siblings adopted into the same family, and, if that’s not possible, setting up an open adoption so that they can remain in contact.

If you’re trying to stay connected with your siblings, it’s important to know what’s happening with your case and to speak up about your wants and needs. Here are a few tips:

• Stand up for yourself. Caseworkers, judges and lawyers must listen to you and consider what you want when it comes to placement and adoption. And a new federal law now requires agencies to make reasonable efforts to place siblings together in foster care.

• You always have the right to ask questions about your siblings, and you should. If it’s not possible for you to be placed with your siblings during foster care, your agency should set up sibling visits and cover transportation costs so that you can keep in touch. If that’s not happening, tell your lawyer (and the judge at your next permanency hearing).

• Your lawyer is your advocate. Stay in touch with him/her, keep repeating your wants and needs, and if you feel like you’re not getting what you need, speak up.

• If you find out that you or your siblings are being adopted, ask whether an open adoption is possible. If it’s not, try to make a plan with your siblings for staying in touch. (If you have access to a computer, e-mail or MySpace can be a good way to do this.)

• If you’ve been separated from siblings through a closed adoption, you may still be able to reconnect with them. Laws vary state by state, but generally once your siblings have turned 18 (or in some states 21), you are legally entitled to search for them.

• Just make sure that you’re emotionally ready to start that journey. Joe Soll, director of Adoption Crossroads (a nonprofit organization for people dealing with family separation due to adoption or foster care), suggests reading up and joining a support group six months before beginning your search for family so that you are as prepared as possible for the strong emotions that can come up.

• For information on support groups in your state, visit the Adoption Crossroads website at http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/and click on “search support sites.” Some of these groups can also help you with your search.

Full Article and Source:
FCYU Represent Feature Story

Write a letter in response to this story. If selected, your letter could be published in the next issue of Represent

Halted Efforts

The American Civil Liberties Union has halted its efforts - at least for the time being - to delay implementation of a law that bans unmarried cohabiting couples from fostering or adopting children after state's attorneys pointed out that the new law hasn't been applied to anyone.

Proposed Initiative Act 1 went into effect Jan. 1, and the ACLU, which is spearheading a lawsuit to have the law declared unconstitutional, had sought a temporary restraining order to block its implementation until the case can be heard in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

The restraining order was necessary to protect the interests of one of the 29 plaintiffs, Sheila Cole of Oklahoma, the ACLU said.

The attorney general's office opposed the restraining order, saying that proceedings involving Cole's granddaughter have not reached the point where Act 1 would apply. The new law wouldn't apply unless the state attempts to terminate parental rights to the child, which hasn't happened and might not happen.

ACLU lawyers agreed to withdraw their request for a restraining order on the condition that the attorney general's office notify them if Act 1 is going to be applied against Cole or anyone in a similar situation to permanently affect their eligibility to become foster or adoptive parents. The order requires the attorney general's office to notify the ACLU two weeks before it takes any action under the new law.

Full Article and Source:
ACLU halts effort to toss adoption ban

See also:
Act One Under Fire

Adoption Battle

Opening your home to adopted children is an emotional undertaking. However, a family in Cleburne County says emotions are running higher than they should be.

Britton and Heather want to adopt 2 year-old Corey and 3 year-old Brandon. The boys have been living with them since May, but the adoption isn't finalized.

All Britton and Heather have is a copy of their "match agreement" from ABBA Adoption Agency.

They say the owner of that agency is legal guardian to Brandon and Corey.

Britton says: "We thought everything was fine and then out of the blue, pounding on the front door in the middle of the night and she's here with the police. Are you kidding me?”

Heather and Britton say the owner of ABBA Adoption Agency came to their house with a Cleburne County Sheriff's Deputy. "She said I have guardianship and I'm taking my children back.”

The sheriff decided not to remove Corey and Brandon that night without a court order, so even though the boys are under their roof, Britton and Heather say they're waiting for the worse.

Full Article and Source:
Adoption Battle

Complicated Adoption

Megan Morgan relinquished her rights to her son, Brett, after he was born. But, after learning his adoptive mother, Angela Vesely, was pregnant, she fought for his return.

In many adoptions it's necessary for the adoptive parents to notify the adoption agency of any "changes in their lives". This includes pregnancy. Some agencies even require couples not to have children under the age of two. In this case the birth mother had also asked that the adoptive parents have no biological children.

After learning Brett's adoptive mother, Angela Vesely was pregnant, the Nebraska Children's Home took back custody of the child.

Morgan family's lawyer P. Stephen Potter: "The consent was based on representations that certain criteria would be made prior to the child being placed for adoption. The criteria weren't met and the Childrens Home took the child back."

For the last 11 months the child has been in the custody of the birth mother's parents while the two sides wrangle it out in court. The child is now in custody of the Nebraska Children's Home. The agency will then give the child back to the Vesely's. The Morgans have already filed motions to get the 14-month-old back.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of the adoptive parents, but the birth family say it's far from over.

Full Article and Source:
Two Families Battle for Custody After Complicated Adoption

A Decade-Long Battle

A Family Court judge had awarded Darryl Davis, biological father, custody of Darryl six years ago.

Hal and Pat Wilcox had wanted to adopt Darryl from the time they took him into their home as foster parents when he was a baby. They still consider him their son.

Darryl, 16, is in the middle, torn between the Philadelphia father he was born to and the Bucks County couple with whom he has bonded. The two homes are less than 30 miles away.

For Darryl, life in limbo began in January 1993 — five months after his birth. His aunt called the city's Department of Human Services and said that Darryl's father had dropped the infant off at her house a week earlier and never returned. She said that Darryl's mother was on drugs and her whereabouts were unknown.

DHS stepped in and placed Darryl in foster care. He spent nearly a year with another foster family before being placed with Pat and Hal Wilcox in 1994.

Last month, Darryl ran away to be with the Wilcoxes, who are again fighting for custody of him in Family Court. They hope to resolve the dispute at a Feb. 4 hearing.

Davis: "He's not with them. I'm the father, They don't seem to understand that I worked hard to get him."

Full Article and Source:
Boy caught in the middle as dad & couple vie for custody