Not So Permanent & Irrevocable After All

A little over a year ago, the daughter I had not seen since just a few months before her second birthday was in my arms again. You can catch up on that BY CLICKING HERE ON THIS HYPERLINK.

I never would have imagined we’d be where we are now. Without going into too many details, I’ll just say that the same rights a parent has to their minor child have been returned to myself and my husband via a permanent order of custody.

I spent last week reading IKL the story of my pregnancy, her birth, & relinquishment by way of the book I wrote covering it, Whispers of Grace.  How surreal to read the book I wrote about her, written just before we had contact with her, while she was sitting next to me, living with me, her bedroom just across the hall. I made it through almost the whole thing without shedding a tear. But there is no way to read aloud about what it’s like to permanently and irrevocably surrender your rights to your newborn TO that once newborn who is now beside you without shedding some tears. Her arms flew around me fast and she said, “It’s okay. I’m here now.”

How did I get this lucky? Why does my luck have to come at the expense of her leaving her friends, her culture, her home? How does she handle all of this with such grace?

I don’t know. I just know that I love her. It doesn’t feel like she’s been gone all these years. At the same time it’s so obvious she has and that hole where those years are can never be given back. We can only move forward. One day at a time.

 

Advertisements

Killing Them With Their Love

IMG_9514303055617

“Had I loved him any less – one ounce less – he would be with me now! My love for him was the only thing that could enable me to break my own heart.”

I saw this picture floating around social media the other day. I was bothered by it immediately. On the surface it looks nice, pleasant, loving, and the epitome of what a mother is. A mother breaks her own heart for the good of her own child because her love is so great for that child. If her love was any less – one ounce less – she wouldn’t dare break her own heart in order for her child to be okay. This is a true statement. Certainly not of all mothers, but biology says us mothers are wired to protect our young, because of our immense love for them, even if it means great personal cost or pain. This is precisely why the picture above bothered me. I found it manipulative of the strong instinct a mother has for her child. This picture says, “It was only because I loved my son so much that I gave him up. Those who choose to parent their child in less than ideal circumstances do not love their child as much as I do. As much as the world says a mother should.”

This is the message being portrayed to expectant mothers everywhere. If you love your child you will not let them be parented by you. You are harmful. You are detrimental. You are not good enough. You must give him up or you don’t really love him as much as you should. There is a demand for newborn babies to be adopted. It’s just reality. While pictures such as this don’t seem like all out coercion, it is a subtle manipulation which, to me, is just as bad. There is a psychology behind all of this. Not every agency, attorney, or facilitator will use manipulation or coercion to convince a mother that adoption is what’s best for her baby and she is NOT what’s best. A great deal of them do, however. This manipulation plays on the most important thing given to mothers. The maternal instinct that will drive a woman to sacrifice her life for her child. This instinct is used against expectant mothers who don’t have nearly as much as a prospective adoptive parent to offer their unborn child. If you are able to manipulate a mother into believing that keeping her child means she doesn’t love them as much as she should, you have struck the jackpot, in regards to securing the relinquishment of her parental rights to fulfill part of the demand I mentioned above. I will affirm, once again, that adoption should never be about finding children for homes that want them and should always be about finding homes for children who need them. There is a huge difference between the two.

I’m not sure where this quote originated from, but a quick search brings me to an adoption agency website with a more thorough version of this quote. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where it originated. The quote, in its entirety, is attributed to “Tamra” and is featured on America Adopts.

“I once heard a girl who had decided to parent her child say, “My baby’s the best thing that ever happened to me.” I believed her. But I wanted to ask, “Are you the best thing that could’ve happened to your baby?”…Had I loved (my son) any less—one ounce less—he would be with me now! My love for him was the only thing that could enable me to break my own heart. I didn’t just feel love; I did what love dictated.”

I once heard a girl….sure you did. I don’t believe that for a minute. The above quote was carefully configured to play on the heart strings of worried expectant mothers everywhere. It was created with the hope that it would help secure more babies to meet the demand.

There are many other similarly manipulative quotes on their webpage entitled “Inspirational Adoption Quotes.” 

I pondered this quote for a few hours. A few things came to mind. I’m an avid reader and a huge fan of Stephen King. Even if you aren’t a reader, I’m sure most of you have probably seen the movie “The Green Mile” based off of a short story by Stephen King. If you haven’t, I won’t spoil it all the way for you, but you may want to stop reading (and miss the point of my post). There’s an inmate, John Coffey, who is accused of committing a heinous crime. Two young sisters have been murdered. John was found with both girls in his hands. He is crying and says, “I tried to take it back but it was too late.” He is arrested for the crime and sent to death row. We learn, later in the movie, that Mr. Coffey has an amazing gift of healing. He is also a bit cognitively delayed so he doesn’t understand many things. He is a huge man, and African-American during a time where the color of your skin could automatically implicate you in any crime. We learn that John Coffey is a gentle giant who was trying to “take back” the murder of the girls with his healing power. At the end of the movie we are shown who the true assailant is; a man named Wild Bill, who takes the girls and keeps them both quiet so he can commit his crime, by telling each of them that he will kill the other girl if she is not quiet. He says, “You love your sister? You make any noise, you know what happens. I’m gonna kill her instead of you. Understand?” Wild Bill relies on the love the sisters have for each other. A love that is willing to sacrifice their selves to protect the other. A love like that of a love a mother has for her child. With this threat, Wild Bill is able to keep both of the girls quiet long enough to assault and brutally murder the girls. He manipulates them both with their love for each other.

John Coffey sums it up perfectly. He says, “He kill them wi’ their love. Wi’ their love fo’ each other. That’s how it is, every day, all over the world.” Some of the wisest words ever spoken. While no one is being physically killed in adoption, an emotional death does occur for many people. Especially people who start to realize, sometimes years later, that they were manipulated out of their child, that they were good enough (even if they were not well off financially), and that keeping their child didn’t mean they didn’t love them or loved them less. They become angry when they realized their loved was used against them in order for someone else to gain their child.

And then they find their voices. And then, sometimes, adoptees find theirs and become angry as well. Is it so hard to ask people involved in facilitating adoption to act ethically, responsibly? Let’s make this clear, for those who aren’t aware – legal and ethical are not always the same thing. What’s legal is not always ethical and vice versa.

Is it right to use subtle manipulation to convince a mother to give up her child? It is ethical? Is it right to convey the message the mothers who decide to parent, regardless of their circumstances, love their child less? Is that ethical?

He kill them wi’ their love. Wi’ their love fo’ each other. That’s how it is, every day, all over the world.

A Look at the Laws: Termination of Parental Rights for Fathers and Mothers – Who Does It Protect?

When we talk about domestic infant adoption, who do the laws, which vary by state, really protect? Do they protect the biological or expectant mother? What about the alleged or assumed father? The prospective adoptive parents? How about the child in question? There are fifty states, plus the District of Columbia, within the United States. Each state has their own laws and rules that are governed under more broad federal laws. While most states follow the same general guidelines, some states are uniquely different. Let’s take a quick look at the general practices from most states.

Generally speaking, the most accepted standard of practice, and laws, state that a mother cannot sign a consent to adoption or termination of parental rights unless 72 hours (3 days) has passed from the time of the baby’s birth. Most states allow for no revocation period but do allow for the consent to be challenged if duress or coercion can be proven. Some states don’t even allow for the revocation of consent if duress or coercion can be proven, but most do. In regards to the alleged or assumed father, most states will only consider his rights if he has jumped through a series of legal hoops to acknowledge he wishes to retain his parental rights. Putative father registries are the most common hoops to jump through but many states also require that he show proof he had been financially supporting an expectant mother during her pregnancy in order for his rights to not be terminated against his will. Note that no state anywhere in the country requires a mother to show she has supported herself during her pregnancy in order to safeguard her parental rights (as it should be).

The only time a child would be considered the legal father, in regards to an adoption, would be if the mother and father were married at the time of the birth or if the father signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, and had it notarized (which can only be done after the birth of a child and the mother must consent to this). Even if the husband of the mother is not the biological father of the baby, because they are married he becomes the legal father, no matter what.

These are the general guidelines and rules but, as you will see, not all states are the same and every one of them has their own spice mixed into the batter that will eventually bake the cake called “adoption.”

I’d first like to take a look at some of the more “adoptive parent friendly” states that are out there. This is putting it nicely, though. Let’s start with Utah, shall we?

Adoption Laws in Utah

In Utah, a putative father is defined as a man who had a sexual relationship, with a woman, which will/has resulted in the birth of a child. A father need not sign consent to terminate his parental rights in Utah as they will be terminated for him if he does not jump through the following hoops:

– Petition the courts in Utah, no matter what state he may live in.

– Sign an affidavit stating he is willing, able and capable of providing for and taking care of a child. The affidavit must also include a plan on how he is going to go about caring for the child as well as agreeing to pay child support and all incurred expenses surrounding the pregnancy and birth of the child.

– This “Notice of Commencement of Paternity” must be filed PRIOR to a mother signing consent to terminate her parental rights.

And how long after birth is a mother required to wait before she can voluntarily terminate her parental rights? 24 hours. Yes. One day. Once she signs, any petition a father may file is considered INVALID. His rights are terminated with the stroke of her pen unless he is extremely proactive and resourceful, which is sometimes impossible to do.

Let’s look at what I call the “Utah Strategy.” The Utah Strategy involves an agency, who has learned that an expectant mother is having doubts that the father of her baby will consent to the adoption, moving that mother, unbeknownst to the expectant father, into the state of Utah to live for the duration and remainder of her pregnancy. She is counseled not to tell him she is there. Why? Because this will assure his parental rights will be terminated, per the law above. The Utah law states that any baby born within Utah borders automatically makes that baby’s biological parents subject to Utah laws in regards to adoption. If you are a father and the pregnant mother of your child disappears to Utah, without telling you, how in the world are you to ascertain your parental rights according to Utah law? You don’t. And that’s why so many father’s are losing this battle with Utah. Utah is the most unfriendly state in regards to the rights of biological parents. It doesn’t stop with fathers however. Let’s take a look at mothers.

As we went over before, a mother can sign her rights to her child away, permanently and irrevocably (since Utah has no revocation period) 24 hours after giving birth. 24 hours isn’t even enough time to recover from a hard night out on the town let alone bringing another human life into the world, especially if that mother ended up having a c-section, which is pretty major surgery. Before a mother would even be able to be safely discharged from a hospital, she is able to sign her rights away. Even worse, if extreme duress was placed on the mother or even blatant coercion from an adoption agency (threats or promises of gifts) her consent to terminate her rights is IRREVOCABLE. Only two states do not allow for consent to be revoked in at least some circumstances. They are Utah and Massachusetts.

Alabama Adoption Laws

Like Utah, Alabama requires alleged or assumed father’s to sign up with the putative father registry. Unlike Utah, however, Alabama allows a putative father to register and safeguard his rights up to 30 days after the birth of the child. Now here’s where it gets a little tricky. If the expectant mother allows for it, and agrees to sign her rights away before birth (oh yes, in Alabama a mother can terminate her rights before the baby is even born) then the putative father can “legitimize” the child. This means he will become the child’s legal father, before birth, regardless of the marital status between him and the mother. By doing this a father has fewer hurdles to jump through, in court, later on. However, most women who have made the “choice” to give their babies up usually won’t be on board with facilitating a father in fighting this. In other words, registering with the putative father registry, in Alabama, will only make you aware of court proceedings in regards that child’s adoption. It does not make you the father, legally, and gives you no rights whatsoever. It only gives you the right to fight for the rights you should have automatically had.

As I was saying, an expectant mother, in Alabama, can voluntarily terminate her parental rights to her child before the child is born as long as it is done before a probate judge. I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry when I learned a probate judge (not a regular judge which is required after the baby is born if a mother wishes to terminate her rights) needed to be present for TPR. Probate. Think about that for a while. Back to what I was saying…

An expectant mother, in Alabama, can terminate her parental rights while she’s still pregnant. As in before a person even legally exists. Yes, people exist before they are born, technically, but legally there is no person. No birth certificate. They haven’t even been born. Now, to Alabama’s credit, a mother, for any reason, can revoke her consent up to five days after the baby is born.  But I do wonder how many agencies tell her this and I also wonder how successful any woman may be in actually achieving this. If the mother calls the social worker on day four and says, “I’ve changed my mind, I want my baby back!” and the social worker decides to ignore her for a couple of days does this count? I actually have a birthmom friend that this happened to. Her rights were terminated anyway.

Adoption Laws in Wisconsin

Oh the great state of Wisconsin. Even though pretty much all laws governing termination of parental rights for a domestic infant adoption SUCK, Wisconsin is probably the most “natural parent friendly” state in the Union. Of every state, it has the longest waiting period and strictest requirements in order for a voluntary termination to take place. A court hearing is needed for termination to even be considered. A court cannot even be petitioned to get the hearing until after a child is born (no legal person exists = no hearing can be filed for – take note Alabama). This hearing can take anywhere from a week to thirty days to get. It is usually more like 2-3 weeks. During this time a parent can bring their child home with them or choose for the state to place the baby in foster care while still retaining all legal rights to that child. The hearing will consist of a judge asking a series of questions and then determining if he/she will allow for the termination to be signed. If the judge feels that any form of duress or coercion is present, he will not allow for it to be signed. There is no revocation period in Wisconsin but this is probably because of how long it takes to actually terminate parental rights.

Like Alabama, and most states, Wisconsin has a putative father registry. Unlike Alabama, however, rights will be terminated 14 days after the birth of the baby or 21 days after he has been notified, by an agency or attorney, that they intend to terminate his rights if he does not respond. Again, same old song and dance when we are talking about fathers and their rights when it comes to adoption.

What if?

There are so many “what ifs” that can be asked in every law about terminating parental rights. What if the mother is married but he isn’t the biological father? What if she knows the biological father would never consent to an adoption so she never tells him she is pregnant and for every legal purpose uses her husband?  What if an expectant mother disappears so that the father cannot find her and his rights are terminated? What if he finds out later but only after it’s too late, which is what would be the case in Utah. Shouldn’t a father’s rights to his child always be intact regardless of what some state law says? Why is there no recourse for him?

What if a mother has been convinced that adoption is definitely what she wants to do? Promises were made, a rainbow picture was painted. With the euphoria of birth comes all these emotions. Love for the prospective adoptive parents and a sense of loyalty to fulfill their dreams. What if these raging hormones within her body are telling her one thing but, later, her heart will say another? It certainly takes more than 72 hours for a woman’s hormones to balance out after birth. What if a mother is on painkillers when she is signing consent? In Utah it wouldn’t matter. NOT IRREVOCABLE FOR ANY REASON.

Who do adoption laws benefit?

I asked a question at the beginning of this article. Who are these laws benefiting? If this was truly about doing what is “best” for a child then why is there such a rush to terminate the rights of parents. Why does it have to be done before birth or within hours after? It should be quite obvious to anyone reading this that today’s adoption laws, are tailored to help adoptive parents. Greatly. They are the beneficiaries of these laws. If it is so important to attain a consent to adoption from biological parents within hours after birth then why does adoption work in Wisconsin without this practice?

Not only do these laws not help fathers, they actually hurt them. The states that allow for almost zilch in the way of fathers’ rights are carving a path for agencies and attorneys to convince vulnerable and naive pregnant women to victimize the father’s of their children. Fathers and prospective adoptees benefit the LEAST from these laws. If adoption is about finding a home for children who need them then why are we passing laws to make sure that we create orphans that “need” homes by removing their original families from the picture as quickly as possible and sometimes without choice. Families who would otherwise be safe and loving. Because there is a DEMAND for newborn babies. And to meet this demand laws had to be enacted. How did the laws get enacted? Follow the money. It is these large, powerful and RICH groups and organizations that have lobbied our government for years. And how many adoptive parents do you think are in positions of power to continue to facilitate laws like this? Justice John Roberts, the deciding vote in the Veronica Brown case, is an adoptive father. Don’t you think his status as such was a huge conflict of interest in that case? Take that one example and multiply it by thousands.

What can you do?

You could read this, forget about it, go on with your life. Or you can start writing your congressmen, senators, governors, or even The President of the United States. Tell them what you think about all these laws that protect adoptive parents but do essentially nothing to protect anyone else. Get involved, donate money. At the end of this blog post I will list a few very good organizations. If you’re an expectant mother, don’t sign anything until at least 30 days has transpired. Be up front about it. Give yourself time to let your body heal. If there is a father in the picture, keep him in the picture. How would you like it if someone took your child away against your will? Whatever you do to others DOES come back to you two-fold. If you’re an expectant father – REGISTER WITH THE PUTATIVE FATHER REGISTRY. I cannot tell you how important this is. Even if you think your relationship is great with the mother. Even if you think she would never give your baby up for adoption – DO IT. I have heard of cases where the mother never even mentioned adoption but went ahead and did it anyway. The father had no idea.

We’ve come to a point in this country where we are no longer tolerating the current oppressive practices, in regards to adoption, that have been used for so many years. The great adoption experiment is failing. The subjects of that experiment are now grown ups and they are speaking out. With the beginning of these adoptees finding their voices a new era was invented. The great experiment of open adoption. And now we are speaking out. It’s all just a big experiment with people’s lives. Ethics should be THE most important thing in adoption. How can we expect agencies, attorneys and prospective adoptive parents to behave ethically if our laws don’t even reflect this sentiment?

Organizations to Donate To or Become Involved With 

American Adoption Congress

Concerned United Birthparents

Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform (PEAR)

The Alma Society

Musings of the Lame and Claudia’s domestic infant adoption reform bill

Saving Our Sisters – S.O.S.

Scandalous Stepmother Tries to Terminate Father’s Parental Rights

**Names have been changed for privacy and legal reasons**

Fathers. They are the most under-recognized victims of unethical adoptions. But this reaches far further than just domestic infant adoption. All over the internet you will find hundreds of “Fathers Rights” groups, pages, and resources. You would think that in this day and age it would not be so easy for a woman to systematically eliminate a father from a child’s life. You would be wrong.

Today I will tell you a story. It is the story of a cousin that is more like a brother to me. It’s a sad story and will end even sadder without the help of social media. I am hoping that by sharing we will be able to stop two more unnecessary adoptions.

Wayne and I were born 8 days apart. Our mothers are sisters. We have always been close and lived together on and off for almost half of our childhoods. We’ve both had our issues, in life, in the past. We’ve both made mistakes. We’ve both done things we weren’t proud of, but here we are today, still standing, still fighting, still trying to do right by our children and families.

When Wayne met Theresa he was not in a good spot. Theresa was a close friend of my younger sister and stood up in her wedding. It was at this wedding that their meeting took place. Wayne was living out of his van, had sole custody of his daughter, after her biological mother all but abandoned the child. Throughout his younger years Wayne struggled with issues, as we all do, but was beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Wayne’s mother, Cathy, helped to raise his oldest daughter, Brittany. So, Wayne meets Theresa and feels there is an instant connection.

They begin to date and Theresa is a big influence in giving Wayne hope to help him straighten his life out. They move in together, they get married. Wayne slips up early in the marriage, they have arguments, they make up. Wayne isn’t perfect, like I said. Wayne has never hit Theresa or his children…which Theresa admits. Let’s fast forward 6 years.

Two years after the birth of Wayne and Theresa’s daughter, Theresa begins to record their arguments. She does not record her part in the argument, however. Only his. She then begins to throw the word “divorce” around. One minute she acts totally in love, the next she says, very matter-of-fact, she wants a divorce because she doesn’t love him anymore. She is systematically messing with his mind to instigate a reaction. Granted, everyone is in control over their own actions, but there gets to be a point where it becomes torturous.

Then, one day, the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camel’s back. Theresa asks for “romantic relations” with Wayne one evening and then the first thing she says the next morning is she wants a divorce. This sent Wayne into a tailspin. So while the kids were at school and daycare he drank two forty ounces of beer (over an 8 hour period), cried, cursed, cried some more, became angrier, and then went to pick the kids up from school. Upon arrival at the school one of Theresa’s friends (in Wayne’s opinion) began to taunt him, while he sat in his car. He screamed at her and drove home, erratically. Which was wrong. He knows this. He was at his breaking point, which is what Theresa wanted and what she had been counting on in her planning and plotting. She had also been in contact with, and advised by, an attorney during all of this time.

Brittany, Wayne’s oldest daughter, becomes frightened and calls Theresa’s parents, who come get the kids from Wayne. Wayne then goes upstairs, calls Theresa and says he’s going to kill himself. And then proceeds to try. Theresa doesn’t call 911 upon receiving this information. Instead she waits a little while and then goes home. She finds Wayne upstairs, having attempted the deed. She calls an ambulance and they come take Wayne away.

As soon as they leave the house Theresa heads to the courthouse and files for a restraining order against Wayne for her and the kids. The way the law works, anyone can file for a restraining order. A judge will later determine if it has basis to stand.

Let’s review the facts.

Wayne was not drunk when he picked up the kids. Wayne stands 6’3″ tall and weighs 250 pounds. Eighty ounces of beer over an eight hour period would not put him at a risk to drive.

Wayne did not attempt to kill himself while the kids were in the home.

Because Wayne was having a “breakdown” over the state of his marriage and the actions of his wife, his oldest daughter is scared. She has never seen her dad cry or yell or act that way.

Wayne DID drive erratically. That was wrong. However, no one was in an accident and the kids were okay.

Where were we?

Theresa secured a temporary restraining order. Wayne was placed on a 72 hour hold in the psych ward of the hospital. Theresa would not take his calls and did not go to visit him. She filed a motion for sole custody of both children and requested supervised visits for one hour a week for two years. In the meantime, while my family is questioning her actions (specifically her lack of concern for the mental well-being and life of my cousin as she waited to do anything about his threats of suicide) she is reassuring us that she is only doing what she thinks is best for the kids, that everyone will still see them, including Wayne, and things just need to settle down first before Wayne goes back to regular visits with them.

(Side note: To this day Wayne says he still loves Theresa)

So, we are all respectful and try to understand. Wayne’s psychiatrist clears him to leave the psych ward citing a momentary breakdown that he is fully recovered from. There are no long-term meds prescribed. Wayne voluntarily goes to see a psychiatrist to prove he is fit for his kids. That psychiatrist clears him and says he is not a danger to them.

Upon release from the hospital, Wayne learns, via my family in messages Theresa had written, that she has put a restraining order in and that if he goes home he will be arrested. Even though Wayne had not yet been served with it, it still existed. Everything he owns is in the house. His wallet, his phone, his clothes, his truck….everything. Theresa agrees to leave everything in his truck and drive it to his father’s house.

Wayne gets his stuff and all his money from his income tax return that was in his bank account is gone. He’s broke. She took it all out so he would have no access to it. He has nothing. He has to start over. He doesn’t even have his kids.

The courts give Theresa what she wants. Supervised visits one hour per week. Our uncle is the designated “supervisor.” He is an upstanding member of his community and is known for the work he does with “at-risk” youth as well as his coaching throughout the years of little league teams. And the court battles rage on, for a year. Theresa tries to have the supervised visits extended to five years. That is still up in the air at the moment. Wayne continues to see his psychiatrist (even though it isn’t needed) and the psychiatrist continues to state he is not a danger to his children and is not suicidal. Wayne has no representation because he has just enough money to start his life over again and find new employment (as his former employer was the church that Theresa’s family has attended their whole lives). He is also paying child support for his children, to Theresa, as he should be. Starting over is hard. Trying to find the money to fight all of this is even harder, almost impossible.

Yesterday, Wayne had court for a new motion Theresa had put in. Our Uncle accompanied him this time. Wayne has been representing himself thus far, ineffectively. The motion was to ban Wayne from asking his children about their home life. It was denied. The new motion wanted to remove our Uncle as the “supervisor” based on another false claim by Theresa. She instead wanted a social worker to supervise the visits. She stated that my Uncle yelled at her and verbally abused her (same claim she used to start all of this with the restraining order – and used those one-sided arguments she recorded to get it). She failed to bring in the police report that existed that proved her claim wrong. Yes, a police report exists because she called the police. My Uncle, however, refused to speak to her until the police got there. The judge was very interested to know why her attorney did not also show the police report. The background check Theresa’s attorney had done on my Uncle also showed the exact opposite as what she was hoping for. Police, school and government officials from his town gave him glowing reviews. That motion was denied. The final motion that she is attempting to push through is to TERMINATE MY COUSIN’S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO HIS CHILDREN.

Remember, his oldest is not even Theresa’s child.

Here’s the catcher. Here is why Theresa brought the police with her the last time she dropped the kids off at my Uncle’s. She has a new boyfriend. According to the kids he frequently sleeps over….think “moving in.” Think “terminate parental rights and he can adopt the kids??” My Uncle, by happenstance, pulled into the gas station, in his hometown, at the exact same moment she was letting the new boyfriend out of the car before she took the kids to their supervised visit at my Uncle’s house. She was caught and thought that lying would work again.

This is my plea. The judicial system, as we all know, is CROOKED. Without representation my cousin is really at risk of losing his rights to his children, unjustly, based on the lies of one woman. While we have the retainer fee for an attorney, he won’t have representation for long with this case without raising more money. I know that money is really tight for everyone. So if you can’t donate I totally understand. I’m not even in a position to do anything right now. But if you can please SHARE this. Share it far and wide.

Save these children from their amended birth certificates, loss of their father, loss of their heritage. Save this father from this travesty.

Thank you.

GoFundMe Page for Wayne and His Children