Non-Relative Paternal Adoption

[Ctesibius]

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.

I read through that thread before posting mine. It seemed his situation was a little different as he sounded like he was trying to involuntarily terminate rights (atleast that's how the thread started), I wasn't. Attorney's are a little like mechanics. With a 2nd opinion it's possible to get a different answer. One attorney told me it wasn't possible, so I came here looking to for some 2nd opinions. It is clear that it's not going to happen unless both parents give up their rights, which I don't foresee happening. I've stated several times I understand this now, so I'm not sure why people keep repeating it.

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

Correct.

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.

I don't want to make it sound like I am a saint nor can I see the future, but they literally live in the ghetto at poverty level on state assistance in an environment that is not very nurturing. It is not a far stretch to imagine the child living the life she's been raised in. I'm not saying I'm a guaranteed path to salvation, but it stands to reason the child would atleast have a better chance at a brighter future if the circumstances would allow our continued legal involvement. Sadly, they don't.

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.

How can you "take" a child away from a father that has seen his child once 2 years ago, has had no desire to see the child since and provides no support? How can you "take" a child away from a mother that has never taken cared for the child in any substantive manor for any length of time and has instead voluntarily relinquished those duties to third-parties (the guardian and my family) during the child's entire life? They aren't in the child's life because they've chosen not to be.

Don't make it sound like we've weaseled our way into this child's life in some evil plan to force her parents out. If either of her parents were actually parents, we wouldn't be in this situation. If her parents had any interest in being a part of the child's life, they would and could be. They've taken themselves out of that role.

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.

Having no father present in the child's life is better than having a non-biological father in the child's life.

Guess that will solve all of the issues related to same-sex adoption.

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

It's my fault she was born to two terrible parents? I would beg to differ.

The alternative to this situation would be foster care. That's no joke either, both of her parents were incarcerated at the same time and none of the biological extended family is involved by their own choice. She WOULD have went to foster care.

According to your argument it's a much better option and would be much less stressful to her psyche to be in a foster home with perfect strangers and no one who loves her than surround by those who she's been able to bond with but are not biologically related.

So far we've established no father is better than having a father, and foster care is better than being with those who they love and have bonded with. I guess I never realized the courts were so cold towards children.

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.

I never said that the mothers consent was all that was required. I understand that the courts would be in control. Someone had mentioned "forcing" the mother to parent with a "legal stranger". I was responding that the mother would likely consent so there would be no "forcing" involved. I'm not leaving the courts out, the problem seems to be the fact you are either not comprehending everything or reading something into my comments other what was intended.\

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.

You are taking that out of context, yet again we return to the issue of reading comprehension.

My comment was specifically regarding visitation, custody and child support if I were to adopt the child (which we have established isn't possible legally). Any divorced couple has those issues. And if I were to adopt the child, that would remove one parental figure (the father) from the picture, making it four. And since the current guardian can't adopt the child, if/when she relinquishes custody back to the mother that would leave only my family and the mother, making it three. And since my wife isn't able to require visitation, the only issues would be custody between myself and the mother. And if we compare this to a divorced couple, it would be no different than a divorce couple faces in which one of the parents remarries (which would be my wife in this scenario).

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).

Done, done, done. Haven't taken her to the dentist or doctor yet, simply because we didn't have the Medicaid card so we had to meet the guardian at RediMed.

You can put a million bucks in a college fund for her.

I don't have a million. If you send me the money, I'll gladly throw it in the fund along with the money I have set aside.

You can buy her a her own pony and then her own private island.

Needed to feed your ego and make yourself feel better than someone on the internet? I see no other reason for the sarcasm. Up until this point I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread. Glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds.

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.

Why the sarcasm again? I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread up until this post. Again, glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds. Guess I should have known better than the follow the results on google sorted by who has the best SEO rather than the quality of members. It's the same in just about every genre of forums. The sites near the top in google also have the lowest quality of membership. You are proof of that fact.

[jk]

Ctesibius;633736]I read through that thread before posting mine. It seemed his situation was a little different as he sounded like he was trying to involuntarily terminate rights (atleast that's how the thread started), I wasn't. Attorney's are a little like mechanics. With a 2nd opinion it's possible to get a different answer. One attorney told me it wasn't possible, so I came here looking to for some 2nd opinions. It is clear that it's not going to happen unless both parents give up their rights, which I don't foresee happening.

I've stated several times I understand this now, so I'm not sure why people keep repeating it.

maybe because you don't seem to be getting the message even though you claim to.



Correct.

I don't want to make it sound like I am a saint nor can I see the future, but they literally live in the ghetto at poverty level on state assistance in an environment that is not very nurturing. It is not a far stretch to imagine the child living the life she's been raised in. I'm not saying I'm a guaranteed path to salvation, but it stands to reason the child would atleast have a better chance at a brighter future if the circumstances would allow our continued legal involvement. Sadly, they don't.

You deny claiming to be salvation yet again, unless this child comes to live with me, she is condemned to an eternal Hell on Earth.

Seriously, it is not you who gets to decide who the child's parents are. There are a lot of children that live in poverty. Do you plan on taking on all of them as your own? I bet not. For some reason you have singled this child out to want to make your own.

Don't make it sound like we've weaseled our way into this child's life in some evil plan to force her parents out. If either of her parents were actually parents, we wouldn't be in this situation. If her parents had any interest in being a part of the child's life, they would and could be. They've taken themselves out of that role.

and you have conveniently stepped right into that role without the control of child protective services doing what they do; protect children in situations like you are describing.

Having no father present in the child's life is better than having a non-biological father in the child's life.

I didn't say that but YOU are the one putting yourself in the role of father. Who put you in charge?

It's my fault she was born to two terrible parents? I would beg to differ.

I'll give you a list of a thousand other kids that were born to horrible parents. I would expect you will be willing to adopt all of them.

The alternative to this situation would be foster care. That's no joke either, both of her parents were incarcerated at the same time and none of the biological extended family is involved by their own choice. She WOULD have went to foster care.

and you have a problem with that? That is where she should be if her parents are absent and there is no actual family to step in. You have somehow decided you know better than those that are trained to deal with kids like this that you are the salvation.

According to your argument it's a much better option and would be much less stressful to her psyche to be in a foster home with perfect strangers and no one who loves her than surround by those who she's been able to bond with but are not biologically related.

You really don't understand anything about the foster care system. You are intentionally making is sound as bad as you can to make it appear your way is the only way. Sorry but you are wrong.

So far we've established no father is better than having a father, and foster care is better than being with those who they love and have bonded with. I guess I never realized the courts were so cold towards children.

but you aren't the father. You have put yourself in that position without legal authority.

I never said that the mothers consent was all that was required. I understand that the courts would be in control. Someone had mentioned "forcing" the mother to parent with a "legal stranger". I was responding that the mother would likely consent so there would be no "forcing" involved. I'm not leaving the courts out, the problem seems to be the fact you are either not comprehending everything or reading something into my comments other what was intended.\

Oh, so the courts placed the child with you? If not, you missed a big step that the courts wouldn't. In that aspect, yes, you are leaving the courts out. The only time you want them is when they will bestow upon you what you want and apparently no other time.

You are taking that out of context, yet again we return to the issue of reading comprehension.

I'm not taking anything out of context. You simply are not understanding the situation other than your narrow vision allows you.

Done, done, done. Haven't taken her to the dentist or doctor yet, simply because we didn't have the Medicaid card so we had to meet the guardian at RediMed.

cash buddy. Now you want the state to support the child. Get out the wallet. You can do it anytime. You do not have to use Medicaid.

or is there a problem with you paying for a kid you have already claimed to be your own?

I don't have a million. If you send me the money, I'll gladly throw it in the fund along with the money I have set aside.

I don't want to raise the child. You go ahead and put the money in there yourself.

Needed to feed your ego and make yourself feel better than someone on the internet? I see no other reason for the sarcasm. Up until this point I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread. Glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds.

the point is; you can spend all the money you want on the child. You do not have to be the legal father. It can remain as it is. Apparently you do have a problem with this for some reason though.

Why the sarcasm again? I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread up until this post. Again, glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds. Guess I should have known better than the follow the results on google sorted by who has the best SEO rather than the quality of members. It's the same in just about every genre of forums. The sites near the top in google also have the lowest quality of membership. You are proof of that fact.

what? because I won't tell you what you want to hear? Again, you don't have to be a legal parent or guardian to financially assist this child. You want to help the kid, then do so. If you want to buy the kid, then you have problems. It sounds like the latter to me.

[Ctesibius]

Ctesibius;633736] maybe because you don't seem to be getting the message even though you claim to.

Again your reading comprehension fails you horribly. Outside of my initial question verifying the validity of the information I was provided, I've not once disputed the legal aspect. It's you jackasses pretending you know what is going on in anyone's life involved in this situation because you've read the snippets of information I've provided that I've been debating with. You pretend to know what's going on in the child's head, and pretend to know what's in her best interests, because you've read this thread on the internet? I'll not debate the fact that my perspective is a little skewed, but to pretend you have any ****ing clue of what is going on and what's in her best interests based on this thread is laughable. Yet you are the high and mighty forum troll with 16000 posts, so you MUST be right because you need the boost to your self-esteem and feel as though you've prevailed over someone on the internet.

You deny claiming to be salvation yet again, unless this child comes to live with me, she is condemned to an eternal Hell on Earth.

She'll have a better chance with me, yes. But again, YOU DON'T HAVE A ****ING CLUE OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON. So who are you to disagree?

Seriously, it is not you who gets to decide who the child's parents are. There are a lot of children that live in poverty. Do you plan on taking on all of them as your own? I bet not. For some reason you have singled this child out to want to make your own.

That's because you have terrible reading comprehension and a narcissistic need to feel you know what's best for people you don't know and about situations where you truly have no real idea of what is going on. It's easy to talk on the internet about things you don't know.

The question arose of where the benefit was to the child. I can provide more than the parents or current custodian can. That was one example of a benefit to the child, in addition to several others I listed and some that I didn't. There isn't a single reason it's a benefit to the child, but the totality of all the benefits that would arise. You seem to be implying that because that is one benefit out of many I listed and many I didn't, I should therefore expand that to include all children who would fall under that one category. That is a rather moronic assumption.

and you have conveniently stepped right into that role without the control of child protective services doing what they do; protect children in situations like you are describing.

I don't need the courts or CPS to do what we're presently doing. I have the permission of both the mother and legal guardian. You're point is completely invalid.

To make myself a legal parent I would need the courts, but since that's not an option we'll keep doing what we're doing for as long as we can. Which requires zero court approval.

I didn't say that but YOU are the one putting yourself in the role of father. Who put you in charge?

The mother and custodian put me in charge of her well being and care every weekend. They are the ones with the legal authority to make those decisions, so who are you to question them? We've spent time with the child and that is how she views me. She doesn't have any other father figures, so it's not a role I'm going to deny.

I'll give you a list of a thousand other kids that were born to horrible parents. I would expect you will be willing to adopt all of them.

Again you take one example given to explain the question of where the benefit was to the child, and apply it incorrectly. Your logic is horrible.

and you have a problem with that? That is where she should be if her parents are absent and there is no actual family to step in. You have somehow decided you know better than those that are trained to deal with kids like this that you are the salvation.


You really don't understand anything about the foster care system. You are intentionally making is sound as bad as you can to make it appear your way is the only way. Sorry but you are wrong.

And who are you to decide what is best for a child? Who you put in charge of this or any child's well being? Who are you to decide where this child should be? The foster care system is a system of last resort. It's not a replacement for a loving and caring household. The mother, who has the legal right, decided this was a better arrangement than foster care. Who are you to disagree? What court appointed you to oversee this child's well being? No one. You just stepped right into this role without any court approval or legal bearing.

I'm wrong about what? Foster care being a better alternative than living with the only 2 people in her life who have ever cared for her? Yeah, that's a brilliant revelation.

You have put yourself in that position without legal authority.

Wrong. We have parental and custodian consent for everything that has occurred up to this point. There is no other legal authority necessary. I've never acted as her father in the legal sense (since I can't), so again there is no other legal authority necessary other than what has been granted to us by those legally responsible her.

Oh, so the courts placed the child with you?

Again, reading comprehension fails you. The courts don't need to place her in my custody dipshit, the mother and legal guardian grant her the right to come with us. No court involvement is necessary. You're just pulling shit out of your ass now.

The quote in proper context was specifically in regards to the mother being ok with my adoption of her, which AS I'VE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES I understand now isn't legally possible, but that was in regards to the courts "forcing" the mother to "co-parent with a legal stranger". If the action has the mother's consent, then how would that be "forcing" anything up her? It wouldn't, but since it's not legally possible it's a moot point. You idiots are the only ones who can't seem to understand anything.

If not, you missed a big step that the courts wouldn't. In that aspect, yes, you are leaving the courts out. The only time you want them is when they will bestow upon you what you want and apparently no other time.

I didn't miss any step. You missed the classes in grade school in which they taught reading comprehension. I don't need the courts for the child to come visit me, I only need parental/guardian permission, which I have. Now, on the other hand if you had actually took that statement in context you would have understood that it was only in regards to the courts potentially "forcing" a mother to "co-parent with a legal stranger" and the fact they wouldn't have been "forcing" anything. But as I said, it's not possible so it's a moot point.

I'm not taking anything out of context. You simply are not understanding the situation other than your narrow vision allows you.

False. You routinely take statements out of context, misapply them as best suites your needs, and fail horribly at reading comprehension. It's like you missed grade school.

cash buddy. Now you want the state to support the child. Get out the wallet. You can do it anytime. You do not have to use Medicaid.

I'm thought you fully supported the governmental systems in place to deal with children? You support the use of foster care when it supports your argument, but not the use of Medicaid when it doesn't? Who knows best than the government? Who am I to say what care she is to receive and how it is to be paid for? I have no legal standing, remember?

Stay consistent please. Your inability to think logically forms gigantic inconsistencies in your argument. First you tell me to trust the state's systems and that I have no legal standing to make any decisions, then you tell me to ignore my lack of legal standing and confront parental issues myself while ignoring the state programs established to protect the well being of children?

or is there a problem with you paying for a kid you have already claimed to be your own?

That would be a parental issue which I do not have the legal grounds to make decisions on. When the child is sick we have no choice, legally, but to do as instructed by the guardian. The guardian wishes to take the child to the doctor and use medicaid, we have no choice but to oblige. This is entirely consistent not only with the law, but also with the arguments you've been making throughout this entire thread.

I don't want to raise the child. You go ahead and put the money in there yourself.

I have and will continue to do so.

the point is; you can spend all the money you want on the child. You do not have to be the legal father. It can remain as it is. Apparently you do have a problem with this for some reason though.

Not at all. Again, you are talking out of your ass about situations you know nothing about. I'd be afraid to tally all of the money I have spent and will continue to spend on the child. You don't know what the **** you are talking about, plain and simple. You don't know me, you don't know shit about the situation. You just have to make yourself feel important by talking about shit you don't know on an internet forum. That's all.

what? because I won't tell you what you want to hear? Again, you don't have to be a legal parent or guardian to financially assist this child.

Again ****tard, it's because of your dickhead attitude for absolutely no reason and pretending to have any idea of what's actually going on and what I've done for the child without any ****ing CLUE of what the hell you are talking about. I have supported the child emotionally and financially just as much if not more than anyone else in her life, I have no problem doing so and no problem continuing to do so without any legal status. I would have liked to have been able to gain that legal status, but it's not going to happen. That's not going to change a damn thing on my end until someone with the legal status to do so decides differently.

[jk]

wow, you sure get upset when somebody tells you you wrong. Maybe that is why you want to keep this away from social services. They will see you really are not the angelic father figure you claim to be.

Have a great night. Be sure to spend a lot of money on the kid.

[jk]

And coming from one that was screaming that I have no idea of your situation; The fact is, I have the facts you presented and the fact is, you have no idea of my situation.

Wow. You not only seem to fail as parent figure but are also quite hypocritical.


Again, have a good night.

[Dogmatique]

And you are most certainly the kind of guy who accumulates 17K posts on an internet forum because he has no social life and no other means by which to feel important. Enjoy making yourself feel special by pretending you know anything about people you've never met and situations you don't know anything about because you've been so downtrodden in life it's the only way to maintain any semblance of self esteem.

I'm not male.

I have a fine social life.

I'm very important to begin with.

And I agree with what jk has said here. Your diatribe is actually quite disturbing.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, if I were either one of the biological parents or legal guardians and witnessed this tirade myself? I'd have a restraining order hit you so fast your head would spin. You would NOT be around my child.

Period.

[jk]

Period (because that's better than just putting a "." at the end of a sentence?)

wow, not only is that so insightful, it's so forceful.


Don't ya just love sarcasm.


tag, you're it.

[Ctesibius]

wow, not only is that so insightful, it's so forceful.


Don't ya just love sarcasm.


tag, you're it.

Sorry, it's 1am here and I'm out of witty responses for the evening.

In all seriousness, I did over react, and I apologize.

If someone wants to contact a mod or point me in the direction of one to see if they will clean up the thread or just delete the whole damn thing, please do so. Apparently the time limit to edit the prior posts has expired.

[jk]

You might be able to edit your own posts. Go to any given post and click on "edit" if it is still available.

seriously though. While I understand your situation, it just is not how the courts work. You cannot simply give a kid to somebody else (and that is what you are actually suggesting), no matter how admirable your intent may be.


Now, given your situation, there actually might be a possibility but I do not know enough of the fact to say if it is a possibility. You say there is a current guardian but you do have a lot of contact with the child. You might speak with a lawyer about seeking guardianship of the child and yes, sometimes guardianship can lead to adoption if the courts see a reason to actually terminated the parents parental rights. A guardian has a bit of a "foot in the door" position.

[Ctesibius]

Time period to edit most of the posts has expired

I do appreciate the suggestion.