Forever but not really...

Beachy - Can you explain how someone went through the entire process, then travelled to China, and then did a re-adoption in their home state - didn't want the role of parent to the child? Actions over months, if not years leading up to the actual adoption - indicate otherwise. As to robbing your child of an inheritance - what does that have to do with this case? I cannot see how this case, where the intent was written in the will in 96, death occurred in 97, and the child re-adopted in 06 (nine years after the will went into effect) - yet the other's wanted to cut her out because they didn't want her anymore, has anything remotely similar to your statement. We are talking about people who wanted to keep for themselves - someone else's inheritance provided to them in a will, and trying to use the excuse of she was surrendered and re-adopted 9 years after his death. Kind regards,Dickons

I'll respond because I think I had a "tone" and not the scolding type... People are not disposable. This woman and her late husband signed a contract making promises about how this girl would be treated as part of her family. Money aside, I can't imagine how it must feel to be rejected by original family, country and then a 2nd family. They weren't forced or coerced to take a child from another country. They had an obligation to her and not only did this woman renege on her responsibility she and her biological children greedily attempted to steal from her. And yes, I think resources matter. After losing my first born I have worked tirelessly to ensure I have the resources to help any member of my family and extended family keep family intact. Would I shame a someone for relinquishing at birth? No, I wouldn't (though I would be very sad). But if they decided to re-home a child like a pet 10-years later, I would be disgusted.

I know this is a sensitive subject, I know that saying what I really feel is probably going to subject me to some scolding, BUT, I have to admit that anytime I read about a disrupted adoption I am gutted. I am not an adoptive parent-- I am not even a parent yet-- I am an adoptee and reading stories about disrupted adoptions absolutely sickens me. It brushes against a wounded spot I have myself, a spot where I never felt that I was enough for my adoptive parents. I can't help feeling that on some level these children feel the same thing. Only in their case it is so much worse because their adoptive parents' actions proved this fear was well-founded. That there was something flawed and unwelcome in their very character, that the mere fact of their existence is inconvenient. I can't imagine a world where disrupted adoptions happen, where adults who signed and swore to care for a child as if she were their own can decide years later that it isn't working. People say "how is that different than birth parents deciding to relinquish their child?" They say "most times there are behavioral problems or special needs that must be considered." Those words make logical sense to me. The reasoning is sound. But the emotional truth underlying those arguments feels completely different somehow. Disruption. What a word. What a euphemism for such a heart-wrenching and dark thing in this murky world of adoption. Disruption. As if it is merely static on the line, a temporary rough patch. I wonder what word the children who are 'disrupted' would use if anyone were to ask them, if they were able to answer honestly. Regarding this particular story, I am glad that Emily's new parents fought for what she was promised, and glad that Emily's original adoptive father cared enough about providing for her that he put it writing.

I think any adoption creates a loss. I also know that in some states, one must relinquish rights to a child to be able to get treatment. I was lucky as the law in my state had been changed and I was allowed to keep my son and still get treatment. There's two sides in most disruptions-had one of my son's adoptive parents not relinquished custody, he would have been forced to be institutionalized at 10. His parents were told he could no longer remain in the same home as his sister. He physically attacked the mom many times. They didn't want to give him up, but they chose to find him a family rather then to institutionalize him. In this article, this mom with her millions had placed the daughter in a "boarding school" which is often code for residential treatment. I don't know why. But I would bet the girl had a better life with a new family then she would have raised in a "boarding" school. I have come across many children who did poorly in their original adoptive homes but thrived in the second ones. Is if fair that they had to go through this? NO. Other then more education for pre-adoptive parents, I don't know what the answer is. I do know, there is far more information and treatments available now then there was when I adopted my first child in 1996. And I'm honest with my kids. My youngest was adopted by a woman that should never have been approved for an international adoption. He's 16 now and came to me at 4. He knows that SHE was the issue and that there was nothing wrong with him. And I probably didn't say any of this right either.

Actually, in my state a biological child that was placed IS entitled to their bio parents' estates, as well as the estates of their adoptive parents. If a parent wishes to exclude their child (adoptive or biological, including bios placed for adoption), they must have a valid will that specifically & expressly names them & excludes them.

I don't know how to break up quotes so have to answer this in a block. I don't know the family so I can't tell exactly what happened to lead to the re-adoption. I can see several things happening. The father was the person who really wanted the adoption and who provided active care for the child and when the he passed away the mother decided she couldn't (didn't want to) provide care for the child anymore. The mother on her own decided that the caring for the child in the home was too much for her and placed her a facility. Now do either of these things make this woman a nice person? NOPE!!! What she does deserve credit for is for allowing the child an opportunity to be loved and cared for by another family. Was there some alternate motive on her part? Perhaps. At the end of the day, I don't actually think its a good idea to teach people lessons like, "Children aren't disposal," "You have to live with your mistakes," on the backs of the children. Which what I see and hear every time someone calls someone who places a biochild or has an adoption disruption a horrible person. I am happy this child was able to move on to a family that could love her and not stay with one that could and I would believe that even if girl and new family lost the case. The inheritance part actually has everything to do with this case because that is what the case is about the ability of a child to receive an inheritance from a family they are no longer legally related to. The court in this case says yes if the intention of the now deceased parent was to provide an inheritance. As I said there some legal nuance to the case and how that was determined leads me to believe its an appropriate legal decision but I can certainly see it going the other way. With regard to my DD if her bgrandfather leaves a will which allows for inheritance by all his great grandchildren and he fully knows of DD existence I can certainly see this case as establishing some precedence for her to inherit. I guess I don't understand why you would be comfortable with her being disinherited from her bfamily but not this girl being disinherited from her original adoptive family? Again, these are my perception of the general tone of the posts and not specifically what you said.

I think the issue of 'disruption' is simply a huge hot button for adopted individuals. Words cannot adequately express how the fact that disruption is even possible can send chills down an adopted person's spine and wake a dormant rage. I know, like I said previously, that the reasons a-parents must disrupt sometimes make perfectly logical sense. It also makes logical sense that these children frequently end up in empirically 'better' circumstances, but this does not erase the incredible injury that not fitting in could cause. Adoptees are accustomed to making everyone else in the triad comfortable with their adoption. This impulse is well documented on this site as well as in psychological studies. It seems impossible to me that a child who goes through a disruption isn't saddled with an enormous amount of psychological trauma, whether they have a vocabulary for it or not. It is am impossibly sad occurrence. and for many of us adoptees it isn't about the logic or the justification. We see these stories and simply have an emotional reaction. My heart goes out to every kid that gets disrupted. I can't even imagine how deep that hurt could go.

(copy and paste the code) The father died within a year of her adoption back in 1997. The girl wasn't sent away until 2006 (?). Funny how she was able to care for her 5 biological children that she had also raised since they too were infants - but not the one that didn't match her genetic code - one thing to send her to a boarding school - another thing to try to cut her out of an inheritance from her father. Beachy - I explained this before. It has nothing to do with your example. It is an example of how the inheritance laws are designed and carried out once a will has been made and the person has died. The law is clear that people have a right to designate how their property / money is dealt with after they pass away. That the intentions must stand unless the opposing party can prove either mental incompetance and/or fraud or other compelling reason at the time the will was signed. The law is also clear that future inheritance laws cannot play a role in changing the outcome (unrelated to this case but just being comprehensive because it went the opposite way in another adoption case for that very reason). There is no way that any judge could rule that the child who was an "infant" at the time the will was signed was party to fraud - nor that the father was incompetent when he swore in the re-adoption that he intended for her to inherit as if she was his biological child, nor when he signed his will, which would have been just prior too, or just after the re-adoption (adopted in 96 and he (the father) died in 97). Just because the mother (still living) decided to get rid of the child 9 years AFTER the father died while she was still legally a member of that family (i.e. back in 1997). Her re-adoption YEARS after his death does not change the fact that at the time of his death (1997) she (the child) was a beneficiary of his will and also LEGALLY still a member of his family. The "tone": seeing as you have brought this up twice now perhaps if you have an issue with the "tone" talk to Crick or a mod. I think I have been remarkably restrained. Kind regards,Dickons

[QUOTE=Dickons](copy and paste the code) The father died within a year of her adoption back in 1997. The girl wasn't sent away until 2006 (?). Funny how she was able to care for her 5 biological children that she had also raised since they too were infants - but not the one that didn't match her genetic code - one thing to send her to a boarding school - another thing to try to cut her out of an inheritance from her father. Exactly Dickons.It is sad to realize this happens at all. :(

My thoughts exactly. And really, Dickons you have said it more succinctly than I ever could and in a respectful and matter-of-fact tone. That the girl was not sent away for several years after the father's death raises more questions than answers.

Agreed, that will went to into effect when the child was still with that family, she should inherit under the will. I don't see any tone in this thread at all. Disruption is a raw subject for many adopted adults because it is a fear for us.

Here's what I think you're missing. The adoptive father's rights weren't terminated. He didn't give up the right to parent. He didn't disrupt the adoption. He died. And at the time of this death, this was still his daughter, entitled to a portion of his estate. Now, at the time of disruption, the amom of course has the ability to then remove the child from her estate. She does not however have the ability or the right to remove her from the husband's estate. The confusion is coming in as those the disruption changed the legal status between this young girl and her dad. It didn't. It changed the relationship between her and her adoptive mom.

Hey - thanks for taking the time to write this out so clearly...For some reason, I couldn't wrap my head around this whole story (mom brain - I can barely think straight some times!) You totally cleared it up for me! :grouphug:

That's a nice quote you have ther..very well said.

I am so glad the court ruling went as it did. I would also like to say this about disruption--as an adoptive parent, I can only imagine what the very idea of disruption must be like to any adopted child, whether they have experienced it or not. I hate the fact that my daughter will have to find out such a thing exists. I would not necessarily condemn anyone who disrupts because you never know until you walk in those footsteps. This does not make it any less awful. This may be offensive to some but in my opinion I liken disruption to cancer--it just an awful thing that some people have to deal with, regardless to whether the outcome was favorable.