Advertisements
Advertisements
Are there any birthmothers around that had a separate attorney who represented only your interests during the adoption process?
If so, what did that attorney do for you?
I'm asking because, as I've posted before, we have been asked by M (our son's bmom) and her family (M is over 18 but incapacitated--- fairly severe developmental disability, unable to live independently) to consider adopting the baby she is expecting later this fall. We have a good relationship with M and her family, and, provided bdad consents, will probably do this adoption privately (I can't see spending the agency fee in this situation) contracting with our agency for an update to our homestudy and counseling for M.
Here's the reason for my question. It's been recommended to us by the agency (I called them about a homestudy update) that we hire a separate attorney for M. We did do that the first time around, as there were issues w/ her disability and the effect that had on her ability to consent. Her parents were made guardians to act legally on her behalf.
What purpose would her own attorney serve this time? We want to do what's right for her, of course, but I can't quite figure out what role her lawyer would play in this scenario where she has approached us to take this child. I totally understand why it was appropriate for her the first time given the need for a guardianship and the need to explain to her the permanence of an adoption, what her rights were, etc. This time, she knows about the permanence, and the attorney we are planning on using will go over her rights and the procedure again as a refresher.
I'm absolutely willing to hire a separate attorney for her again if there's some benefit for M, but I can't quite figure out what that is under these circumstances where she's already identified us as adoptive parents, has an ongoing open relationship with us, and to the best of her ability to understand abstract concepts, understands that the adoption is permanent. What am I overlooking that the attorney could provide her?
Like
Share
HBV
Are there any birthmothers around that had a separate attorney who represented only your interests during the adoption process?
If so, what did that attorney do for you?
I'm asking because, as I've posted before, we have been asked by M (our son's bmom) and her family (M is over 18 but incapacitated--- fairly severe developmental disability, unable to live independently) to consider adopting the baby she is expecting later this fall. We have a good relationship with M and her family, and, provided bdad consents, will probably do this adoption privately (I can't see spending the agency fee in this situation) contracting with our agency for an update to our homestudy and counseling for M.
Here's the reason for my question. It's been recommended to us by the agency (I called them about a homestudy update) that we hire a separate attorney for M. We did do that the first time around, as there were issues w/ her disability and the effect that had on her ability to consent. Her parents were made guardians to act legally on her behalf.
What purpose would her own attorney serve this time? We want to do what's right for her, of course, but I can't quite figure out what role her lawyer would play in this scenario where she has approached us to take this child. I totally understand why it was appropriate for her the first time given the need for a guardianship and the need to explain to her the permanence of an adoption, what her rights were, etc. This time, she knows about the permanence, and the attorney we are planning on using will go over her rights and the procedure again as a refresher.
I'm absolutely willing to hire a separate attorney for her again if there's some benefit for M, but I can't quite figure out what that is under these circumstances where she's already identified us as adoptive parents, has an ongoing open relationship with us, and to the best of her ability to understand abstract concepts, understands that the adoption is permanent. What am I overlooking that the attorney could provide her?
I have placed two sons for adoption. In our first adoption, I had my own private attorney separate from my son's afamily. (And I was well over-age) Here is what I think are the benefits:
This attorney was MINE...she represented ME, I was her client, her main concern. She handled everything with me, from paperwork to consents. She kept me up-to-date on everything she heard from the other attorney. I knew that their attorney was exactly that - THEIRS. He worked for THEIR best interest, not mine. Even though I knew our adoption was simple and I pretty much knew what to expect, there was a certain comfort level knowing that I had someone that was there for only ME and my interests. A bmom having her own attorney basically ensures that there is no coercion or persuasion going on, kwim? I hope that makes sense.
Now, looking back, here is a disadvantage. I understand that hiring two attorneys is not cheap. I also remember feeling a bit of "obligation" towards my son's aparents because I knew they were paying those bills. (and it didn't help that they brought that up from time to time) My only suggestion is that if you do end up hiring an attorney for your emom, don't bring up the financial end of it with them. Take it from me - it's not a comfortable thing to discuss.
I know that the idea of hiring more than one attorney isn't ideal financially, but IMO, I think it's the best way to go to make sure that everyone is represented equally and fairly. I hope this helps!
Like
Share
Advertisements
A bmom having her own attorney basically ensures that there is no coercion or persuasion going on, kwim? I hope that makes sense.
No, of course I agree about that. I think you've kind of helped me clarify my thoughts, though. What I should have mentioned in my post probably is that we weren't looking for this at all and have already told M and her family that while we think it would be great for H to grow up with his sibling, we will not take the placement if there are any consent issues. In our first adoption, the bdad turned out to be Native American and we had the threat of a disruption from the tribe about 10 weeks into the adoption.
We aren't up for this at all unless there is consent.
Like
Share
HBV
No, of course I agree about that. I think you've kind of helped me clarify my thoughts, though. What I should have mentioned in my post probably is that we weren't looking for this at all and have already told M and her family that while we think it would be great for H to grow up with his sibling, we will not take the placement if there are any consent issues. In our first adoption, the bdad turned out to be Native American and we had the threat of a disruption from the tribe about 10 weeks into the adoption.
We aren't up for this at all unless there is consent.
I'm not sure if I know what you mean. Are you saying that you'll wait until BOTH the efather and the emom sign TPR? If that's the case, then you wouldn't need to hire her an attorney, and because of what happened in your last adoption, makes perfect sense.
Like
Share
I'm not sure if I know what you mean. Are you saying that you'll wait until BOTH the efather and the emom sign TPR? If that's the case, then you wouldn't need to hire her an attorney, and because of what happened in your last adoption, makes perfect sense.
Yes, exactly.
Like
Share
I did not have a separate attorney and, oh goodness, could both adult parties have benefited from separate legal representation. Not only was I continuously screwed over by the lawyer involved in the adoption but the lawyer put the adoptive family in a very precarious situation by not having the appropriate number of signatures on the TPR. Had I also had representation, perhaps my lawyer could have caught that their lawyer was a dimwit and we could have avoided another signing of the TPR. (Which, btw, meant that I could have taken my daughter back without any legal question since the first TPR was null and void due to the error on the lawyer's part. Obviously, I didn't but I don't think too many people want to be left IN that situation. Right?)
Like
Share
Advertisements
SchmennaLeigh
I did not have a separate attorney and, oh goodness, could both adult parties have benefited from separate legal representation. Not only was I continuously screwed over by the lawyer involved in the adoption but the lawyer put the adoptive family in a very precarious situation by not having the appropriate number of signatures on the TPR. Had I also had representation, perhaps my lawyer could have caught that their lawyer was a dimwit and we could have avoided another signing of the TPR. (Which, btw, meant that I could have taken my daughter back without any legal question since the first TPR was null and void due to the error on the lawyer's part. Obviously, I didn't but I don't think too many people want to be left IN that situation. Right?)
Hey Jenna---glad to see you up and around! No, of course we would not like that, but probably not an issue here. There aren't too many adoption attorneys in our town, and I am familiar w/ all of them now, both from working as a volunteer w/ our agency and because both dh and I are also attorneys and fairly active in the local bar association. The one we are using is excellent and has been doing this for more than 20 years.
If it is something you feel you can share, in what way did the attorney treat you unfairly? (And I will understand if you can't) I ask only because that's exactly what I want to avoid putting M through. But part of me feels like a separate attorney for her under these circumstances is just window dressing. (read my cross post on Adoptive Parents)
Like
Share