While we have held that adoption statutes are in derogation of common law and therefore must be strictly construed, Lemley v. Kaiser (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 260, 6 OBR 324, 326-327, 452 N.E.2d 1304, 1307, strict construction does not require that we interpret statutes in such a manner that would mandate an unjust or unreasonable result. R.C. 1.47(C).
Every attorney reviewing or working on this case is appalled at what has happened. They openly state that the violations of law are egregious and this entire process is invalidated many times over. Yet, my children are not home and everything possible is being done to quiet me and block my attempts to get a fair hearing.
I am petitioning the FL court to unseal the records so the many errors, omissions, and illegalities are known to all for the sake of accountability.
This case involves so many errors that it should have been reversed or never have even gone to trial. The most important ones include the following. After reviewing them, you have to wonder really "who kidnapped whom" in this case. Click on each one to see the documentation and other substantiating details.
Many judges acting in conjunction with attorneys, abuse the judicial independence
given to them in trust and confidence of the people. The myth is dispelled when we are confronted by judges who disregard the rules; allow the distortion of facts sometimes to the point of perjury; exclude evidence; rely on laws which have no relevance to the legal and factual issues; issue decisions which fabricate facts and are contrary to the record; deliberately omit critical facts from the record; fail to follow the controlling law and precedent; or issue decisions without any stated facts or law; and approve unreasonable and unconscionable fees for attorneys. [MORE]
IMPROPER JURISDICTION FOR SIGNING FINAL ORDER OF ADOPTION
Allison retained full parental rights until Sept 17, 2007, when they were unlawfully terminated in FL. On this date, the original trial court Judge signed the final order of adoption even though federal law requires this order must be executed in the state where the children reside, which would be NC.
To determine which state has proper jurisdiction to make
an initial
determination of child custody, the UCCJEA
proceeds in the
following order of priority:
1. The state which is currently the "home state" of the child...
According to federal law, the final order of adoption is not valid because FL who does NOT have jurisdiction, thus Allison technically retains parental rights to her children. She is continuing her legal quest so the rights and interests of her children are no longer disregarded. However, a clause was added to the Open Adoption Agreement that it would be litigated in the local court where adoption attorney, Michael Shorstein, "picks his judges" who will rule in his favor and rule according to his interests. This is not legal.
This is complicated further by the fact the OAA was signed in FL but is not enforceable by either FL or NC. Any visitation and custody matters are in the hands of NC judges.
DOCUMENTS SIGNED UNDER DURESS or fraud ARE INVALID
If a document is signed during a time when someone feels so threatened that they are compelled to call 911, I would call that duress. The experts sure agreed. Despite this finding, the court wrote that there was no fraud or duress. No amount of evidence would invalidate that in the eyes of the court because that would result in the adoption attorney being charged with fraud, as well as possibly losing his license to practice law.
When I signed the Open Adoption Agreement, there was no law saying they were enforceable, yet the consent was contingent upon it. Adoption attorney, Michael Shorstein, promised to enforce the agreement at no cost to me.
[SOCIAL WORKER]
EXPIRED OR INCOMPLETE PAPERWORK WAS IGNORED
The papers required by the ICPC, were not completed for both of my twins. The ICPC office in NC was not notified of my revocation and thus allowed the placement. By the time the final order of adoption was inappropriately filed in FL in September of 2007, the home study and ICPC documents had long expired. However, the judge did not require an update or that they be resigned. Many changes had occurred since the initial home study, creating concern over the twins being adequately provided for. I have written letters to many officials regarding this, but have had little response.
Further, the home study was suspect in the first place and no mention or documentation was ever made of any follow-up evaluations or the completion of the final home study. The final order was just signed by the trial judge who presided over this case from start to finish.
FL Statutes: 63.125 Final home investigation.--
(1) The final home investigation must be conducted before the adoption becomes final.
2) The department, the licensed child-placing agency, or the professional that performs the investigation must file a written report of the investigation with the court and the petitioner within 90 days after placement.
"You know, my point from a
psychological standpoint is, if you know someone is impaired...
to the
point that they can't make rational decisions, I don't think that you
hold
them accountable for those decisions while they're in that arena. That's
why
we don't let people that are severely depressed, severely in pain,
severely
debilitated make decisions. That's why we try to protect them." Dr.
Phil, 2007 Twin Tug-of-War
WITNESSES & nOTARIES MUST BE UNRELATED TO EITHER PARTY MUST NOT HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE TRANSACTION
The social worker, Kathleen Stevens, is being brought before the board of health in FL after a complaint detailing the many improper actions of this case. She was paid upon success of this adoption, and actively worked to persuade me to sign. She also witnessed and notarized documents, which is illegal. Ultimately, she plead the 5th Amendment about her notary actions.
[click document to enlarge]
CONTINGENT CONTRACTS ARE INVALID AS ARE CONTRACTS WHERE THE PARTIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS
In this case, the consent that I reluctantly signed was entirely based on their compliance with the Open Adoption Agreement. I was told this agreement was enforceable and would be enforced by the adoption attorney, Michael Shorstein, at no cost to me. However, the law did not provide for this enforceability, thus constituting a fraudulent agreement. The agreement also included the standard reimbursement of pregnancy expenses, amounting to approximately $32,000, which they have refused to pay.
With all of the violations in this contractual agreement, it should be immediately voided and my children returned to me. If someone was buying a car, the contract would no doubt be voided based on these violations. How much more important are the rights of these children.
[It was ONLY referenced in the final order - thus the NC court ruled it was unenforceable.]
DOCUMENTS IMPROPERLY SIGNED, NOTARIZED, OR BACKDATED ARE INVALID
The number of document issues in this case is beyond belief. Any unbiased court would never have allowed such conduct.
This was a notary stamp for the Needhams who live in NC. The Notaries admitted under oath that they do not keep a log book, and one plead the 5th Amendment to avoid further questioning. Reports to the licensing boards are still in process.
STATUTES REQUIRE THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTEREST BE CONSIDERED
The best interests of my children were never discussed or considered. The final order order of adoption was filed with the original trial court judge without a final home study, or even a valid one - that first one had long expired. Further, it was filed in an improper jurisdiction.
It is the intent of the Legislature that in every adoption, the best interest of the child should govern and be of foremost concern in the court's determination. FL ST § 63.082(2)
The Needhams were given custody even though I was fit and I retained parental rights. The courts even gave them preference by giving me limited visitation for unknown reasons, and then both FL and NC courts refused to enforce the Open Adoption Agreement that the consent was contingent upon.
My children were not thriving in the care of this couple as evidenced by Tyler's weight dropping to the 10% after placement, and both children missing milestones. He was also very anxious and clingy during visits. Our bond was documented by the pediatrician.
Instead of someone assessing how my children were doing in this home, an emergency motion was filed to terminate my visitation after I took them to the doctor one weekend when they were ill.
They complained I endangered them because I took them to the doctor without knowing their medical history. They refused me that information repeatedly. There was no evidence that my children were receiving medical care for their failure to thrive or illnesses. The Needhams refused any motion or request to produce information on the twin's medical care, and tore labels off of medication bottles to prevent me from knowing who the pediatrician was. It is not known if they have medical insurance or if my children are now meeting their milestones.
Further, as public documents show, they sold their home and have taken out numerous equity loans or credit line. This was unrelated to the cost of litigation as they sold their home during litigation and have not yet paid their legal bill. They are suing me to pay it. There is no legal statute allowing this.
Currently, they rent a home in Apex. No final home evaluation was docketed by the court, so there is no one ensuring my children are thriving. They will not allow me to see my children despite the contractual agreements they signed saying I would always play an important role in my children's lives.
TESTIMONY THAT IMPEACHED WITNESSES WAS NOT DISCREDITED
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Federal and state ICPC statutes were violated, as were my constitutional rights to due process and fundamental fairness.
The Needhams were awarded custody and I was only given limited or no visitation for the entire two years this was litigated in FL. The Final Order of Adoption was NOT entered lawfully, nor was it signed by a judge until September of 2007. Why then was I denied custody of my own children!
When the custody dispute is
between a natural parent and a third party, however, the test must include consideration of the right
of a natural parent "to enjoy the custody, fellowship and companionship of his offspring . . . . This is
a rule older than the common law itself." State ex rel. Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18, 20 (Fla. 1957).
Further, before that order was entered, the Needhams filed numerous motions to terminate my visitation and asked the court to restrict my involvement in decisions regarding the health and well-being of my children. They called the Needhams the parents. After all that, the NC judge stated that the Needhams had a constitutional right to parent my children unless I proved them unfit. What happened to my right to parent them? I was never considered unfit in any way. The final order stated it was in the best interests of my children, although this was never discussed.
This tactic of restricting contact between the natural (biological) mother during "termination of parental rights" proceedings is intended to bias the court in favor of the adoptive parents. This contradicts the courts and statutes.
“Florida has established a strong public policy in favor of protecting the relationship between natural parents and their children.”
In the Interest of E.H., 609 So.2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1992).
However, the only way adoption professionals get paid is by completing an adoption.
[ALLISON'S ATTORNEYS]
In conclusion, the Academy believes that from the child's perspective, the relationship with his/her adoptive family is not different from the most traditional parent-child relationships protected in the past from state interference by courts... The Academy is asking courts and legislatures to recognize that children have a constitutionally based liberty interest in the protection of their established families, rights which are at least equal to, and we believe outweigh, the rights of others who would claim a "possessory" interest in these children. AAAA
Because the adoptive couple has had more time with the children, it will be assumed that the children have adjusted and there is no need to force them to adjust again to uphold the rights of the natural mother. As it was with my case, I was told I would likely lose custody just because the Needhams had custody for so long and I was given so little visitation. That is the reason I felt I had to go to Canada for sanctuary.
It is the intent of the Legislature that in every adoption, the best interest of the child should govern and be of foremost concern in the court's determination. FL ST § 63.082(2)
.
How can any one, especially the court, say
this agreement is legally binding and valid!
