Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched an old episode of Dr Phil this morning and it was about a woman named Allison Quets who, with the help of donated eggs and sperm, gave birth to twin girls at age 47 after spending five months in the hospital with severe hyperemesis. She clearly wanted the babies since she had sacrificed so much to have them but when they were six weeks, as she was suffering from post-partum depression and weakness from a c-section and illness, she decided to give them up for adoption to her boyfriend's cousins. Her boyfriend was encouraging the adoption. But just one day after giving the babies up she realized her mistake and wanted to revoke her consent but the adoptive parents refused to return her twins. According to Florida law a signature is final and the only way to undo it is to prove fraud or duress. Allison claimed that she had been pressured into signing by the adoptive parents' lawyer, a social worker and her boyfriend who all tried to convince her that she could not care for the babies. During all this the PAP's were sitting in the next room crying, fearing that she wouldn't sign. So she signed.
Once the AP's refused to return the twins Allison got a lawyer and went to court but her efforts eventually failed due to the finality of a birthmother's signature under Florida law.
How can this happen? Why on earth do some states have a law where a stroke of a pen in something so important is final and irrevocable? That clearly just benefits one party in the deal, but why are their "rights" treated as superior to those of the other parties? Where the heck is the fairness that a mother can't change her mind after 12 hours? The AP's can hardly argue that they've bonded with the babies or that it would harm them to go back at that point. In fact, wouldn't it be better for 6-week old babies to be returned to their mother after only a day apart?
I'm curious how other adoptive parents view this. Were the AP's right in this case to not return the babies once the mother said that she wanted them back? Do you guys think that birthmothers should have some time to withdraw consent or is it right that her signature is final?
I watched an old episode of Dr Phil this morning and it was about a woman named Allison Quets who, with the help of donated eggs and sperm, gave birth to twin girls at age 47 after spending five months in the hospital with severe hyperemesis. She clearly wanted the babies since she had sacrificed so much to have them but when they were six weeks, as she was suffering from post-partum depression and weakness from a c-section and illness, she decided to give them up for adoption to her boyfriend's cousins. Her boyfriend was encouraging the adoption. But just one day after giving the babies up she realized her mistake and wanted to revoke her consent but the adoptive parents refused to return her twins. According to Florida law a signature is final and the only way to undo it is to prove fraud or duress. Allison claimed that she had been pressured into signing by the adoptive parents' lawyer, a social worker and her boyfriend who all tried to convince her that she could not care for the babies. During all this the PAP's were sitting in the next room crying, fearing that she wouldn't sign. So she signed.
Once the AP's refused to return the twins Allison got a lawyer and went to court but her efforts eventually failed due to the finality of a birthmother's signature under Florida law.
How can this happen? Why on earth do some states have a law where a stroke of a pen in something so important is final and irrevocable? That clearly just benefits one party in the deal, but why are their "rights" treated as superior to those of the other parties? Where the heck is the fairness that a mother can't change her mind after 12 hours? The AP's can hardly argue that they've bonded with the babies or that it would harm them to go back at that point. In fact, wouldn't it be better for 6-week old babies to be returned to their mother after only a day apart?
I'm curious how other adoptive parents view this. Were the AP's right in this case to not return the babies once the mother said that she wanted them back? Do you guys think that birthmothers should have some time to withdraw consent or is it right that her signature is final?
Opinions?
I have to say that I do have a problem with very short non-revokable periods. Most states have a period which is the minimum time one can sign eg 48 hours and then a longer period where the mother has time to revoke - eg some states it is about 1 week, others longer.
However, others have laws where the earliest time one can sign is about 24-48 hours but once signed, the mother can't revoke. Unfortunately, what actually has been known to happen at times is that the mother is pressured into signing at the 24-48 hours (i.e. she is told she must sign BY that time rather than told the truth, i.e. that is the earliest she can sign).
On another adoption forum, I know of a case where the forum member was matched with a pregnant woman. I remember a few posts by the FM saying that she thought that the pregnant woman's social worker seemed to be pressuring her - this was a few months before the birth. Forward to the birth, the emom gave birth, signed at 24 hours and then less than 24 hours later tried to get her baby back, saying she had been pressured. The forum member was fighting her every inch of the way. Everyone was on the side of the forum member but I felt that judging by the earlier posts, it did seem to me that it was quite possible the SW had pressured the bmom into signing before the 24 hours. The APs may have had the legal right to hold onto the baby but I am not entirely convinced in this case that they did what was morally right.
As for those states with short irrevokable periods eg 24 hours, I've known of some members of yet another site who specifically sought out those states so that they could guarantee that the mother would sign BY 24 hours - even though that period is supposed to be the minimum period of time.
All I can say is that one should think about how this translates when one tells one child their adoption story.
I think if anything there should be a law on when a birthmother can sign and then how much time she has before it is irrevokable, and how much time before the adoption is finalized across the board. Every state should have the same laws so everyone is clear on how it works, and it works the same way for everyone no matter what state they live in.
My daughter was born in a state where there is a birthfather registry, where if the birthfather does not sign up on that registry and if he does not financially support the birthmom, his rights are terminated in court. The birthmom can sign papers anytime after 48 hrs. and she has to sign in front of a judge. My daughter's birthfather never supported her birthmother at all, and he never signed the registry. (that was literally checked on right before court to assure he didn't sign up at the last minute) Our daughter's birthmom had her on Saturday morning by c-section. Monday was a holiday, so we did not go to court until Tuesday after she was released from the hospital. The birthmom had been taking pain pills for the pain of her c-section. The hospital stopped giving her any pain medication the day before court so that she was not under the influence of any medication. In court the judge asked her if she was under the influence of any medication and she said no. He asked her also if there was anyone pressuring her to place, paying her, or forcing her in any way to place the baby for adoption, and she said no. She proceeded to sign the paperwork and it was irrevokable from that point on. I left court with my daughter and had to stay in-state until interstate compact was cleared. Then once we got home a court date was set to finalize the adoption. I never saw or got a copy of the original birth certificate. Once finalized we got a copy with our names as the parents on it in the mail weeks later. I know all the t-'s were crossed with my daughter's and her birthmother has told me that she never has regretted her decision. We have an open adoption. Even though our daughter's adoption was in a state that was efficient BUT quick, I still think all states should have laws in place that make it fair for both the birthparents as well as the adoptive parents.
I saw part of the show on Dr. Phil last night. My understanding is that Florida laws are such that once the birthmother signed it was irrevokable right then. I don't think it was a matter of the adoptive parents not giving the twins back. It is a very sad story because this woman was under quite a bit of stress when she signed. I don't know, but am assuming she did not have to do it in front of a judge where maybe her frail condition might have been seen. She called 911 soon after she signed and it was very sad, she was frantic. Unfortunately she took the children and fled the US to Canada when she had a visitation with them. She should have pursued this legally and not fled.
She actually did pursue it legally. She fought for 16 months to get the babies back but a few weeks before she took them the other couple was awarded custody and Allison was feeling desperate at that point and took off. Doing that certainly didn't help her situation but I highly doubt that she would have gotten her kids back anyway since her signature was final.
Although it was a matter of her consent being irrevocable it was also a matter of the AP's not giving the babies back. They definitely could have when they found out after only a day that their mother had changed her mind and according to an article I read the lawyer and social worker asked them to but they refused. I realize that they were within their legal rights to do so but I think it's morally reprehensible to take the babies from a mother who was so weak, depressed, desperate and pressured and who so clearly desperately wanted these babies since she spent two years trying to get pregnant and months being severely ill so she could carry the pregnancy to term. They should have done the right thing and given them back but they were clearly most concerned about themselves.
The law that allows these things to happen has got to be changed and I agree with the above poster that laws should be the same in all states. There has to be safeguards in place to ensure that the mother, and father, are in a good, stable physical, emotional and mental state. Clearly Allison Quets was not and that should have been obvious to everyone. It's not right on any level that a decision made in a desperate and confused moment could be permanent and final. Why on earth have the laws been made like this anyway. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's in the best interest of the child.
It's a tricky issue though. How long should the birthmom have to change her mind? For her sake I believe that she should have a few weeks to recover and let the decision sink in before it's final. However, I'm not so sure that's what would be best for the baby. Where would the baby go in the meantime? I know that some states put the babies in foster care until the mother has made up her mind, but is that fair to the baby? We know how important the first year and attachments to caretakers is and changing caretakers like that could cause harm. The baby doesn't only lose his mom but also the foster mom. It may be best for the baby to go home with the adoptive parents right away but it's not fair to them to have the possibility of losing the baby hanging over them for weeks and then maybe go on to actually lose him.
So what do you do?
There should always be a revocation time frame. I also agree with Brokencrayola that the mother going before the judge makes more sense. The mother is out of hospital and any pain meds should be out of the system. It makes more sense to ensure it is a clear decision on the mother's part.
Just ask yourself if you sign a contract for a major service, or new car, or appliance over a certain amount of money - does your state have a consumer protection law that provides you with a cool-off period to revoke the contract? Most states do. Because sometimes people get caught up in the heat of the moment from pressure and regret the decision. If that is a given, why isn't it a given in something so monumental as surrendering your parental rights within hours after birth?
So I actually hadn't heard of this case until I read this post. I looked it up as well as the Florida law before commenting. It is sad, but unfortunately for Ms. Quets, I don't think the courts were wrong with regard to her signing under duress. Here's why:
If Quets was under medical care, prescription drugs, hospitilization, etc., no documents could have been signed and recognized legally. The fact that they were, means that her frame of mind was in tact.
The twins were 17 months old at the time of abduction. She had visitation rights. She clearly planned to abduct them because she purchased passports for them and her. Not good. This is not someone who is well enough to parent in the eyes of the court. Sorry.
She used IVF, donor eggs and donor sperm. Ironically, she "adopted" her twins yet had the physical connection to them via gestation/pregnancy. Then, when fearing she would die, likely because she was too old or too much of a risk to carry children, she terminates her rights and agrees to have them adopted...again. Only to feel that she wasn't going to die and regret her decision.
It is too bad her sister didn't speak up for her and step in to care for the twins until Quest got better. A better contingency plan should have been made. Adoption for the most part is very final in terms of terminating parental rights. The attorney had to tell her that her signature would be final. No going back. Finis. This fact should have made her pause, and only give temporary guardianship until her health improved.
I don't believe she was forced. I believe she underestimated what pregnancy is and how she could handle it, I believe she regretted the pregnancy, and afterwards, realized that it may be too much for her to bear -- raising twins and being single and still being quite ill.
We don't know how she was with the twins during those six weeks she had them. Florida law states a mother cannot sign until at least 48 hours after giving birth. She had six weeks, and observers clearly agreed with her that she could not care for these twins. Changing her mind 12 hours later to me signals the instability of her state of mind but not in the way it is being viewed on this thread. I just don't think she thought through any of it: the IVF, the pregnancy, the caring for the twins. Who lets a boyfriend "find" adoptive parents? He wasn't even the father of the children. So, she had to have discussed it with him in depth to feel comfortable with his recommendation.
As far as the AP's, clearly they wanted to adopt infants. They would have never given them back to her without a fight. This was going to be a tug-of-war either way. I do feel sorry for her, this is extremely traumatic to all involved. But Quest, as the adult who decided to go through great lengths to carry out a pregancy, at 47, should have also taken more time before relinquishing her rights. Did the doctors tell her she was going to die? Was she on medicine for PPD? None of these questions were ever answered. It does appear she vacillated on whether to parent or not, and did so one too many times too late. But, at 47, why was she still so indecisive six weeks AFTER giving birth? If it was PPD this would not have been an enforceable contract. Medical records would have proven that.
BTW, I would have given the twins back after 12 hours.
There should always be a revocation time frame. I also agree with Brokencrayola that the mother going before the judge makes more sense. The mother is out of hospital and any pain meds should be out of the system. It makes more sense to ensure it is a clear decision on the mother's part.
Just ask yourself if you sign a contract for a major service, or new car, or appliance over a certain amount of money - does your state have a consumer protection law that provides you with a cool-off period to revoke the contract? Most states do. Because sometimes people get caught up in the heat of the moment from pressure and regret the decision. If that is a given, why isn't it a given in something so monumental as surrendering your parental rights within hours after birth?
I agree too with Artful Dodger and Brokencrayola that the mother going before a judge makes sense. I don't think anyone should be signing anything while lying in a hospital bed.
As I said earlier, one problem with the states where there is a non-revokable period of only 24-48 hours is that unethical operators are well known for taking advantage of that by telling the emom that she must sign BY that time rather than that being the earliest time. If one isn't going to make signing before a judge mandatory, I do believe then that it should at least be mandatory that the form that the person is signing should make it quite clear that the NR period is a MINIMUM length of time not a SIGN BY time, i.e. pointing out that the NR period is the earliest she can sign and that she can sign at any time after that time. I know that it must happen quite a bit that women are being told that it is a SIGN BY time because I've seen many PAPs on other forums say that they went with a particular agency in a particular state because they knew that the agency would make sure the mother signed BY the 24-48 hours.
The revoked consent is important, but at the heart of this case is what inspired the consent to be revoked - apparently she learned that the Open Adoption Agreement was not enforceable after she signed away her parental rights. Unless the specifics of the agreement are included in the adoption decree, it appears the AP's are free to ignore the OAA.
It seem a OAA is a 'contract' which is subservient to the 'decree', and once the adoption decree is finalized, the birth mother cannot enforce the terms.
The revoked consent is important, but at the heart of this case is what inspired the consent to be revoked - apparently she learned that the Open Adoption Agreement was not enforceable after she signed away her parental rights. Unless the specifics of the agreement are included in the adoption decree, it appears the AP's are free to ignore the OAA.
It seem a OAA is a 'contract' which is subservient to the 'decree', and once the adoption decree is finalized, the birth mother cannot enforce the terms.
This makes the situation make more sense. So she knew her parental rights being terminated was final, it was the Open Adoption agreement and she was afraid it would not occur and knew it couldn't be enforced.
So I actually hadn't heard of this case until I read this post. I looked it up as well as the Florida law before commenting. It is sad, but unfortunately for Ms. Quets, I don't think the courts were wrong with regard to her signing under duress. Here's why:
If Quets was under medical care, prescription drugs, hospitilization, etc., no documents could have been signed and recognized legally. The fact that they were, means that her frame of mind was in tact.
No it doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all. Not being under medical care does in no way mean that you're frame of mind was intact. Some of the craziest people out there are not under any kind of care.
Quote:
The twins were 17 months old at the time of abduction. She had visitation rights. She clearly planned to abduct them because she purchased passports for them and her. Not good. This is not someone who is well enough to parent in the eyes of the court. Sorry.
The abduction is really irrelevant. The mother changed her mind hours after signing the adoption documents and started to fight it in court right away. By the time she took the kids she had already lost custody and that decision had nothing to do with the abduction since it hadn't happened yet.
Quote:
She used IVF, donor eggs and donor sperm. Ironically, she "adopted" her twins yet had the physical connection to them via gestation/pregnancy. Then, when fearing she would die, likely because she was too old or too much of a risk to carry children, she terminates her rights and agrees to have them adopted...again. Only to feel that she wasn't going to die and regret her decision.
That's not an accurate description. She didn't terminate her rights because she felt too old to carry children because by then they were already born. This woman had gone through months of severe illness (can you imagine having food poisoning or a stomach flu day in and day out for months?), a c-section, postpartum depression, and on top of that taking care of two newborns while being this sick and weak. She was at her lowest, desperate and allowed herself to be convinced that adoption was best just to change her mind the next day. Thinking or not thinking she would die has nothing to do with it.
The fact that the babies were conceived with donated eggs has nothing to do with it either. She carried them for nine months and had all the hormones that causes women to automatically fall in love with their babies that a bio mom would and she should be treated no different.
Quote:
Adoption for the most part is very final in terms of terminating parental rights. The attorney had to tell her that her signature would be final. No going back. Finis. This fact should have made her pause, and only give temporary guardianship until her health improved.
Yes, consent to adoption is very final in Florida and that's the problem. Had this woman been at her normal state of mind I'm sure she wouldn't have made this decision and would have done something more rational.
Quote:
I don't believe she was forced. I believe she underestimated what pregnancy is and how she could handle it, I believe she regretted the pregnancy, and afterwards, realized that it may be too much for her to bear -- raising twins and being single and still being quite ill.
I don't believe she was forced either. I think she succumbed to pressure because of her state of mind which had nothing to do with inability to handle pregnancy. She didn't have a normal pregnancy. She had a condition that is debilitating and sometimes even fatal, and in her case it was severe. Other women who has had hyperemesis describe it as torturous. The fact that she went through it and didn't terminate the pregnancy when it made her that sick tells me that she didn't regret the pregnancy at all but really wanted these babies. She spent two years and thousands of dollars to conceive them and months of extreme suffering in order to have them. Had she been in her right state of mind and not encouraged to put the babies up for adoption she would never have done it.
Quote:
We don't know how she was with the twins during those six weeks she had them. Florida law states a mother cannot sign until at least 48 hours after giving birth. She had six weeks, and observers clearly agreed with her that she could not care for these twins.
Yes, clearly she had trouble caring for them and needed help. That's quite common in cases of postpartum depression and doesn't mean that the mother is unfit.
Quote:
Who lets a boyfriend "find" adoptive parents? He wasn't even the father of the children. So, she had to have discussed it with him in depth to feel comfortable with his recommendation.
He didn't find them. They were his cousins and he suggested them to her. How much it was discussed or how comfortable anyone was I really don't know. I do know that Allison was in no shape to be making such decisions and was very vulnerable to pressure from others.
Quote:
If it was PPD this would not have been an enforceable contract. Medical records would have proven that.
Medical records would only have proven PPD if she had seen a doctor about it and that's not always the case.
I may be wrong - I'm not very familiar with Florida contract law - but I don't believe that being depressed would make a contract you sign null and void. According to what I read about this case the only way to make the contract unenforceable was if Allison could prove fraud or duress. Depression or being under medical care, etc., isn't duress. Allison did claim that she signed under duress and it seems like the courts in Florida didn't agree that what happened rose to the level of duress. But that doesn't mean that she wasn't depressed, sick, tired, very vulnerable and under a lot of pressure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
