« Ind. Gov't. - "Group for gay teens sues over denial of license plate: Nonprofit claims BMV's standards violate Constitution" | Main | Courts - "Unfinished transcripts put district court reporter behind bars: Wayne Co. judge: Court reporter has stalled cases" »

Friday, September 24, 2010

Ind. Decisions - "Indiana couple fights to keep child raised since birth"

This order issued by the Supreme Court, dated Sept. 21, 2010, in State of Indiana ex rel. J.V. and C.V. v. The Floyd Circuit Court and the Honorable J. Terrence Cody, as Judge Thereof, gives no indication of the issues behind it.

But this lengthy, don't miss story dated Sept. 23rd in the Louisville Courier Journal, reported by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, gives the details. Some quotes:

INDIANAPOLIS – A Sellersburg couple is waging court battles in two states to keep a boy they have been trying to adopt for nearly three years.

“The thought of losing Grayson literally rips my heart out,” said Jason Vaughn, a UPS manager who with his wife Christy was chosen by the child’s mother to adopt him.

But Grayson’s biological father is seeking custody in Ohio, where Grayson was born three years ago in October, and a judge there has ordered the boy’s return to that state.

The Vaughns did not meet a noon Wednesday deadline for taking Grayson to Toledo. Instead, they plan to sit tight in their Floyd County home until the adoption and custody cases that are pending in several courts are resolved – or until law enforcement shows up to take him away. * * *

So far, the dispute has reached at least eight different courts, including the federal system.

It started when Drucilla Bocvarov of Toledo chose the Vaughns in 2007 to adopt the baby she was carrying. Bocvarov and her then-husband signed papers terminating their parental rights and allowing the Vaughns to adopt the baby through a private service.

The Indiana couple was present for the birth and when Grayson was delivered, the doctor handed him first to Christy Vaughn. * * *

But within 30 days of Grayson’s birth, [Benjamin Wyrembek, the biological father] signed up with a state registry in Ohio saying that he could be the boy’s father. That entitled him to notification about the adoption and he objected.

So began the saga that has led the families to a situation that could be heart wrenching no matter which side wins.

The dispute has largely focused on the rights of biological fathers in Ohio adoption cases, particularly where they are not legal fathers. Bocvarov, the birth mother, was married to someone else when she conceived Grayson and, under Ohio law, her husband became the legal parent.

In some cases, Ohio law allows the legal parents to proceed with an adoption, even without permission from a biological father. That’s particularly true when the biological father has abandoned the pregnant woman or failed to support the child, which the Vaughn’s attorney, Mike Vorhees of Cincinnati, contends occurred in this case.

Still, Wyrembek was not without all legal rights. So as the adoption was proceeding in the Lucas County (Ohio) Probate Court, he was working to establish paternity in the county’s juvenile court.

Eventually, the latter court determined his paternity and named him the legal parent. The Lucas County Probate Court then halted the adoption, a decision that a divided Ohio Supreme Court upheld in an order issued this summer.

But Vorhees said that throughout the case, the courts have ignored Ohio law and long established state adoption procedures. The recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling – which Vorhees has asked the justices to reconsider – has created “anarchy” in the adoption community, he said. * * *

The Vaughns tried to fight the case in Indiana, where the couple has also filed to complete the adoption. The case went to the Indiana Supreme Court, which decided this week that Indiana had no jurisdiction in the matter. * * *

[T]he Vaughns have now asked courts in both states to require that a transition plan be in place before Grayson is removed, if that eventually happens. Such a plan could allow for Grayson to gradually get to know his birth father in places familiar to the toddler before he is transferred to the Ohio man’s custody.

More on this in a story also dated Sept. 23rd by Matt Thacker of the New Albany News & Tribune:
The Vaughns argued that Indiana should have jurisdiction since according to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the child’s home state has jurisdiction in intrastate custody matters.

Floyd County Circuit Court Judge J. Terrence Cody reviewed the case on Aug. 18 and determined Indiana does not have jurisdiction. The court ordered the Vaughns to return Grayson in 48 hours, but the Indiana Supreme Court ordered an emergency stay with 29 minutes to spare and a sheriff’s department officer waiting in their driveway, Vaughn said.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 24, 2010 09:45 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions