Non-Relative Paternal Adoption

[Ctesibius]

My question involves adoption law for the State of: IN

I am interested in attempting to adopt the paternal rights to child. I am married but not to the mother of the child. I am in no way biologically related to the child. The child's mother would likely not sign off of her rights. However I believe the child's father might voluntarily sign off of his rights. Since potentially only the father would sign off, I would have to pursue "adopting" the paternal rights to the child only rather than both myself and my wife adopting the child completely.

There is a long back story, but those are the basics.

Is there any realistic situation in which a court might allow such an adoption of only the paternal rights to a 3rd party male with no biological relationship who is also not married to the biological mother? I contacted one local attorney and she said no, the only option would be a step-parent adoption which I wouldn't fall under. I'm trying to determine if it's worth pursuing other attorney's to assist or if this is a pipe dream.

[jk]

, I would have to pursue "adopting" the paternal rights to the child only rather than both myself and my wife adopting the child completely.

It doesn't work that way.

As you were already told by the lawyer, it just isn't happening.

[Ctesibius]

Can I ask why that is the case? I guess I don't understand the reasoning if one parent is willing to release their rights and someone else is willing to step in and fill that role.

The only rational explanation I can think of is because we're not a "household" which is ideally what the family courts would probably like to see. But with a divorce rate of 50% or greater I fail to see how this is realistically any different than a separated "household" that is the product of divorce. The only difference is one of biology, but if that can be solved legally (via adoption) what does it really matter to the courts as long as all parties are doing so voluntarily?

I realize no one here makes the laws we just have to live by them, I'm just wanting to understand why this isn't something that the courts would allow.

[jk]

what benefit is there to the child?

You would have child custody and visitation to deal with. Somebody is going to be paying the other parent child support.

on top of that, especially in your situation, you will be tossing in another mother figure to confuse the child.


Seriously guy, there is no good reason to allow this and a lot of reasons to not allow it.

[Dogmatique]

Why on earth would you want to force Mom to have a coparenting relationship with an unrelated legal stranger?

I'm not understanding. How is that in the best interest of the child?

[Ctesibius]

what benefit is there to the child?

1) Her father has seen her once in her life (she's 3yrs old). I have been having "visitation" with her since she was 6 months old, starting at 2 weekends a month and for the past 18 months every weekend Fri - Sun. There have been periods where she has stayed with us for close to a week straight during the 2.5 years she has been coming over. I have helped her learn to crawl, walk, talk, potty train, etc. I have been there every step of the way in this child's life. I'm the only father figure she knows. She doesn't know her biological father at all. He has 5 other kids by as many moms and doesn't support any of them, at all.

2) The father is frequently and presently incarcerated and has never paid child support or supported the child in any manor. I have the financial means to pay support as well as the ability to atleast maintain our current level visitation occurring every weekend.

3) The individuals the child is currently living with (her mother is just recently out of prison herself and does not currently have legal custody) live at poverty level, the child support the father is unable to pay but I could would be a significant assistance to their living situation.

4) Related to the above, they do not have the economic means or long term goal planning to give the child much of a hope for the future. I do and can give her what she needs to be a success later in life.

5) The child already has a father-daughter bond with me, and honestly a mother-daughter bond with my wife. When she first started talking she called me by my name. We've never encouraged her to call me dad, she knows my name and addressed me by it. She, on her own accord, chose to begin calling me dad. I'm the only father figure the child has, and I love her just as much as I would if she were my biological daughter, so I wasn't going to object. She calls my wife her Mom (always has), she calls my daughter her sister and my son her brother. She calls my dad her grandpa and my wife's mom her grandma. She understands the family structure and has that bond and structure with us.

6) The child does not have a strong bond with her biological mother and literally no bond with her father or any of their immediate family. Her strongest bonds are with her primary caregiver who currently has legal custody, and then myself and my immediate family. It would honestly be detrimental to her if god forbid there were a change in status and she was not allowed to see us anymore. We have been an important part of her life for almost literally all of her life.

I could go on, don't want this single post to turn into a novel.

You would have child custody and visitation to deal with. Somebody is going to be paying the other parent child support.

You would have that with any separated couple, so what's the difference? Her father and mother are not married, are not nor have they ever been in a relationship. The mother got around, and this child is the result. IF the biological father were in the picture, they would have exactly those same issues to deal with. However and unfortunately, the father is not. I'm willing and capable to step in and fill that role and continue to provide her a paternal figure. So how would this be any different than either a divorce situation or a child born out of wedlock and the parents separate? Other than I'm already the only father figure she's known in her life and would like to make that a legal title in addition to one I've earned.

on top of that, especially in your situation, you will be tossing in another mother figure to confuse the child.

It is a confusing and unfortunate situation, however she already has 2 mother figures + one biological mother. The biological mother doesn't currently have legal custody and even when she did was less than a stellar parent. The child has spent literally all of her life being primarily cared for by the current guardian and my family. So although confusing, it's no different than the child has experienced thus far in life and honestly is a better situation than being not cared for by her biological mother and having a father that's seen her once in her life.

Seriously guy, there is no good reason to allow this and a lot of reasons to not allow it.

I think if you understood more of the back story (which is my fault for not providing it, but again it's a long story and hard to explain) and the amount of care and bond we have with the child and the child has for us it would be a little more clear as to why this would be a benefit to the child.

- - - Updated - - -

Why on earth would you want to force Mom to have a coparenting relationship with an unrelated legal stranger?

I'm not understanding. How is that in the best interest of the child?

See above. It would be far more clear if I could give the entire back story in detail, but it would be a very long post.

There are numerous of benefits to the child from both an economic and emotional perspective. The parental bond has already formed between not only myself and the child but also my wife and the child as well, in addition to the bonds she has with my children. She's not receiving that from the biological side, either from a maternal or paternal perspective. The mother is a mother in biology only. True dialy care for the child is provided by the current guardian and myself and my family and has been almost since birth, not the biological mother or father. The current guardian has been caring for the child since birth, and we came in around 6 months of age.

As far as she's concerned, we are her parents. We've raised her and cared for her almost her entire life, which is something neither of the biological parents have provided. How would it not be a benefit to the child to establish a legal relationship which would allow her to maintain her emotional bonds as well as provide atleast one legal parent with the economic means to provide her stability in her life as well as the ability to provide a relative secure future? She has nothing like that with either of her biological parents. She has no emotional bonds to either of her biological parents and both are significantly challenged financially, her current guardian is economically challenged as well.

For reference, there is an extremely high likelihood that the mother would consent to the transfer of paternal rights. As a matter of fact I assumed that if it was legally possible for me to adopt only the paternal rights that the mother's consent would be required. So to conclude that the courts would be "forcing" the mother to co-parent with a "legal stranger" isn't a correct conclusion at all. In fact she would probably prefer I be the legal father as if/when she regains custody she would receive the child support I would be paying, as using the child for money is about the only interest she has in her.

[Dogmatique]

I'm almost speechless.

There is no legal way to accomplish what you're trying to do, unless you can prove that the legal guardians are unfit AND you are actually accepted as placement.

[Ctesibius]

I'm almost speechless.

There is no legal way to accomplish what you're trying to do, unless you can prove that the legal guardians are unfit AND you are actually accepted as placement.

I understand that. I was explaining the motive and rational as that was in question in the later responses. I know it sounds sketchy on the surface, but with an understanding of the entire situation (which still hasn't been explained in great detail here) and witnessed her interactions with us every weekend when she's here, it'd be more than evident it is a benefit to the child on many different fronts and no one would have been "forced" into doing anything. It's really not as loony as it sounds. We do more to raise her, support her, care for her and bond with her in one weekend than her biological parents have done over the past 3 years combined.

But it's a unique situation with unique circumstances that unfortunately doesn't fit within the confines of current laws.....which is most unfortunate for the child. She stands to lose the most.

[Dogmatique]

The fact remains, you cannot accomplish what you wish to do.

[jk]

But it's a unique situation with unique circumstances that unfortunately doesn't fit within the confines of current laws.....which is most unfortunate for the child. She stands to lose the most.

actually, it's not. In fact there was another person on here not long ago asking about the same thing.


Bottom line; unless the mother's and the father's rights are terminated AND you somehow are given rights to the child by the courts, this is just not happening.

3) The individuals the child is currently living with (her mother is just recently out of prison herself and does not currently have legal custody) live at poverty level, the child support the father is unable to pay but I could would be a significant assistance to their living situation.

So, there even another party involved here that already has custody.

4) Related to the above, they do not have the economic means or long term goal planning to give the child much of a hope for the future. I do and can give her what she needs to be a success later in life.

and just like the other guy here asking about the same type of situation:

I AM THE CHILD'S SALVATION. They will live forever in poverty and forever be a drain on society if I'm not allowed to adopt the child.

5) The child already has a father-daughter bond with me, and honestly a mother-daughter bond with my wife. When she first started talking she called me by my name. We've never encouraged her to call me dad, she knows my name and addressed me by it. She, on her own accord, chose to begin calling me dad. I'm the only father figure the child has, and I love her just as much as I would if she were my biological daughter, so I wasn't going to object. She calls my wife her Mom (always has), she calls my daughter her sister and my son her brother. She calls my dad her grandpa and my wife's mom her grandma. She understands the family structure and has that bond and structure with us.

So you are knowingly screwing with the child's head...

and you think you are what's best for the child? Seriously dude, you are screwing the kid up, not helping. She has parents. You have taken them away from her in the most important way. You have apparently usurped their positions with not only you as her father but your entire family an pre-made family for her.

speaking of custody and visitation:

You would have that with any separated couple, so what's the difference?

actually, in this child's situation, you wouldn't have that since the father is already absent from the child's life. You are adding a layer of complexity that does not have to be.

It is a confusing and unfortunate situation, however she already has 2 mother figures + one biological mother.

and whose fault is that? YOURS!!!! Gee. I guess you might as well schedule the psychiatrist appointments. She's gonna need them.

For reference, there is an extremely high likelihood that the mother would consent to the transfer of paternal rights.

Gee, do you just go to the BMV and get a title transfer?

Seriously, kids are not chattel that you can simply transfer ownership to. The courts would have a huge impact and actual control on anything that happened. You seem to be leaving them out of this altogether.

So how would this be any different than either a divorce situation or a child born out of wedlock and the parents separate?

In that situation, there are only two parents. You have a situation where there are at least five parental figures in this child's life now.

But it's a unique situation with unique circumstances that unfortunately doesn't fit within the confines of current laws.....which is most unfortunate for the child. She stands to lose the most.

Well, here's the deal;


You apparently are already allowed to see this child as if she was yours. Unless the courts step in, there is no reason that cannot continue (although I see a really screwed up kid in the end).

Then, you can spend all the money you want on this child. You can buy her clothes and toys and food and take her to the dentist (with the guardian's permission). You can put a million bucks in a college fund for her. You can buy her a her own pony and then her own private island. You do not have to be a legal parent to do any of that, just somebody that cares so...


get out your wallet and start that college fund and put the down payment on the island. Nothing is stopping you from doing that right now.

You have already started a college fund for her, right?

If not, I guess you don't really see her as your child after all.