The cost of this prolonged litigation
has cost so many, so much, and needlessly so.
My children could have gone to medical school
on the money lost to this legal process.
An attorney working on my case shook his head and told me this case was unbelievable and ultimately, no one wins.
"It's a very sad case," Craven said. "There are no winners. It's just sad all the way around."
Shortly after the Needhams took custody of my children, they took out equity credit lines, and eventually sold their home and moved from Chapel Hill to Apex.* My fear that it would be difficult to provide for a family of five on a single income seemed to be coming true.
About four months later, the trial was about to begin. My pleadings early on to avoid litigation were refused, along with my offer of $150k as an out-of-court settlement for any legal fees they had incurred, in addition to adoption fees for other children. They wanted to continue the process at any cost, which for them has not been great since their attorneys have not required them to pay their legal fees thus far.
The trial ended up being spread over 4 months, totaling 9 days, and costing me about $300k. This was twice what I offered the Needhams more than once to just do the right thing and return my children. I revoked before they even had a few hours to bond with the children.
Instead, their legal team debated the legality of the consent, the possibility of fraud, and if I was under any duress. There are a few clues, including the 911 tape (mp3 audio) and an uncharacteristic, scrawled signature was - not the typical fluid shape I sign. Plus, it's implausible to think that a half-starved, new mother who is also sleep-deprived and suffering from Postpartum Depression and trauma, would be in any condition to make such life-altering decisions.
Instead, they have a suit pending in FL to force me to pay their legal fees. In January, they tried to freeze my assets for the same purpose. I am already devastated financially and could not pay the over $200k, so they have now filed suit against my trial attorneys.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
This could be due to the fact the adoption attorney, Michael Shorstein, enjoined with them making any judgment against the Needhams also affect his firm, Shorstein & Kelly.
This created a significant conflict of interest for the Judge, Hon. EM Mathis to preside over the trial due to his long-standing employment and social relationship with State Attorney Harry Shorstein, uncle of Michael Shorstein. Unfortunately, no one mentioned this conflict until after trial. We petitioned for a new trial with a new judge unrelated to any party, but of course, the motion was denied by Judge Mathis.
Ironically, a judge for the appeal had a brief meeting with one of the attorneys involved in the case regarding a non-legal matter involving the city, and offered to recuse himself for conflict of interest. It's hard to understand how a 10 year employment history with a judge would not be accepted as a significant conflict of interest.
I do not feel that anyone can honestly believe that the trail proceedings could be without any risk of bias. I have asked legal experts outside the court to review the trial documents and judgment to determine the level of bias that may exist. This may be due in part to the enormous size of the trial record, which totals about 4,000 pages. Again, my right to due process and a fair trial was denied.
It is no longer a litigant's right to have their day in court, but "now they have their day on papers submitted". JudicialAccountability.org
Consequently, the decision handed down by Judge Mathis will continue to impact me adversely without regard to its validity or accuracy. I welcome a full review by an unbiased panel of Superior Court judges and hope that this will one day be completed so my reputation will be restored.
APPEALLATE DECISION
Should an appeal be taken, often that is a mere pretense of a review by the higher court, which simply never happened just merely a PCA a rubber stamp, or
some further fictionalized version of the case, supported with authorities that are
relevant only to the fictionalized version and not to what was before the court. JudicialAccountability.org
In the month before my case was decided by the appellate court, the Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision denying a father the right to parent his child after an adoption agency overrode his attempts to claim paternity. The opinion of the Supreme Court included the following statement and returned custody to the biological father.
"Instead of the required notice under section 63.062(3), J.A. was
provided with misleading information by the adoption entity which
misstated Florida law and misinformed him of the steps necessary
to preserve his parental rights."
HOA v. JA)
Ultimately, my success in this prolonged litigation would cause a loss of millions of dollars for the adoption industry. Why? [CHECK BACK SOON FOR THE ANSWER.]
Thus, there was not way I would win, although I did not realize this at the time. The American Bar Association recommends an opinion in every appellate case or at least a statement of grounds; however, none was given in my case, even after our motion requesting an opinion. The judgment simply affirmed the lower court and did not answer any of the questions of law being challenged.
This practice is common in FL but not allowed in other states where there are regulations in place. Further, not all opinions are published in FL. There accountability and opportunity to be heard are limited.
OPEN ADOPTION AGREEMENTS
I was offered a an Open Adoption Agreement (OAA). which is the best way to encourage wavering mothers to consent. Mothers are promised ongoing contact or maybe even a close relationship with their children, only to find that a few months or years later, the adoptive family moves or files an order denying visits. These mothers are then left with just memories and a lifetime of grief.
In my case, I was promised that the adoption attorney would personally enforce the OAA. The consent I signed was contingent upon the OAA, meaning if it was violated, the consent was null and void. The OAA was presented as an ongoing relationship, something like a co-parenting arrangement. It was suggested that I could move next door and see my children every day.
In my sleep-deprived and malnourished state, that sounded like the help I needed at that moment. I could not think beyond the moment or realize what an OAA meant long-term. The temporary help I asked for over and over, was just met with requests to sign the consent. No other options were offered by anyone, the social worker, attorneys or others present.
VISITATION
When the children were not brought for a visit in violation of the court's order, the pain nearly overwhelmed me. I feared I would never see them again each time I dropped them off. Ultimately, I had to file for contempt of court because I was being denied the visits the court ordered, and having to fight their repeated motions to terminate all of my visitation, which cost me tens of thousands of dollars. Each motion was thrown out by the judge or I offered a resolution such as paying for their travel, or maintaining an apartment in NC for the comfort of the twins.
I tried to increase visitation frequency, but was denied. Requests for information about my children's medical care, and their health and development was repeatedly refused. I maintained medical insurance for them in case of emergency. I never missed a visit and cared for them when they were ill or well.
Surprisingly, after the trial ended, Judge Mathis decreased my visitation without reason. I had abided by every court order but was being penalized for pursuing a hearing by the appellate court. It was devastating, and I feared the pain and anxiety the separation would cause my children.
A NEW CHAPTER IN LIFE
Meanwhile, I am trying to reestablish myself and avail myself of my due process rights. Not only were they violated by the major conflicts of interest among several members of the opposing party and counsel, but the appellate court denied my petition for an opinion on the many significant questions of law in my case.
This goes against the FL Judge's Handbook on issuing PCAs In the state of Florida, this blocks any review of the case by the Supreme Court. So, yet again, my case would not be heard by a panel of unbiased judges.
"Since it
contains no discussion of facts, no
disclosure of the court’s reasoning,
and violates the appealing party’s
need for what social scientists call
voice and validation, the PCA is
antitherapeutic." FL Bar
As a result, I have now lost my home, my job, my car, my retirement, my freedom, and worst of all, my children. Legal bills to date have totaled about one million dollars. I have watched my children confused and anxious by the change in caregivers for visitation. It was excruciating to return them after each visit.
Nothing has made sense throughout this entire litigation. No one can tell me how the court can justify severing the ties with my children when I am a fit and willing parent, just because I signed a consent in a moment of duress and exhaustion.
The law states that the best interests of the children are paramount to any decision issued regarding the custody of the children. Yet, the rights and interests of my children were never considered in any proceeding. All decisions were strictly debates over technicalities of the law and evidence. Nothing has ever been said or even proposed to explain why my children would be better off adopted by strangers. Nothing! .
Thus, the records are sealed and any efforts to regain custody result in inconsistent judgments, or harsh penalties. What am I supposed to do? My children are not property - they are human beings with feelings and rights. They deserve to have a relationship with their mother and I hope the court will eventually acknowledge this and reinstate custody to me, their mother.
BONDING
I can only hope that a judge in NC will have the time to review the case in full and realize the short and long-term impact of unnecessarily severing ties between me and my children.
Research finds children often suffer greatly from early separation.
Further, adoptee blogs often have the theme of grief when adoptee's find their biological parent wanted them but was disallowed. Their anger and resentment destroys their relationship with the adopters and creates enormous confusion and a sense of insecurity. It is painful to think my children may have to unnecessarily suffer this emotional burden in the future.
Their crucial, first bond was broken without merit - they were removed abruptly from a mother they knew and bonded with - and placed with strangers. This is a violent act according to justices in another FL custody case.
Although it is true that a parent's rights are important, so are the child's rights. As our supreme court said in Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565, 570 (Fla.1991), a child also has a fundamental liberty interest in being free from physical and emotional violence, and being
given away to strangers is a pretty emotionally violent act. It might not be such a bad thing if the courts of this state let parents know that children are not just property to which parents have rights, but persons to whom they owe a sacred trust.
(641 So.2d 84)
I pray every day for my children and will never lose hope of being with them again in the future, when the courts resolve this once and for all. That day will hopefully come sooner than later. I miss the hugs and cuddles from my son, Tyler, and the laughs and playful spirit of my daughter, Holly. One day, we will be given the right to restore our relationship and they can know that I will be here for them when that day comes.
* Sources: News report, public property reports available online
SEAL IT!
Even though the general details and all names were widely available in the media, the court chose to seal the civil case filed on my behalf in 2006. Guess no one wants the details to be known.
ADOPTIVE FAMILIES
True or False? Are most adoptive families as good as natural families?
