Sunday, September 26, 2010



Ind. couple, natural father fight for 3-year-old


An Indiana couple is holding on to the son [NOT their "son"] they've tried to adopt for nearly three years even though a court has ordered them to surrender the child to his biological father in Ohio.

The Lucas County Juvenile Court this week ordered Jason and Christy Vaughn to hand over the nearly 3-year-old boy named Grayson to Benjamin Wyrembek, prompting their attorney to file a flurry of legal maneuvers to prevent the surrender.

"This isn't my fault and, quite frankly, it's not the birth father's fault. It's not the birth mom's fault. Everybody is doing what they think is right," Jason Vaughn told The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Ky.

Wyrembek's attorney, meanwhile, says courts have ruled in his client's favor and the case shouldn't be tried in the media.


Yet one MORE case of abductors refusing to follow the law and allow a son and his father be together AS GOD and the law intends them to be!!

What gives people the right?

How can they justify KIDNAPPING?!

UPDATE here.


Susie said...

These kidnappers knew that the father wanted his child before they had even filed for adoption. It is a crime that this couple has been able to keep the baby & father apart. The couple, as well as the lawyers & anyone else involved should be charged with kidnapping.

Anonymous said...

you have NO idea what you're talking about!!!! The "birth father" abandoned the birth mother during pregnancy, READ THE LAW, it states that if she is abandoned that he GIVES UP HIS LEGAL RIGHTS AS A PARENT!!!! He should have been a man and stayed with her if he wanted this child! The family Grayson is with now is his FAMILY!

Mirah Riben said...

Apparently the courts see things quite differently than you do.

Anonymous said...

I could not agree more with Anonymous!!! The Vaughns are his Family! If the father wanted to be a part of his life it should have been from the beginning of conception, not when it is convenient after he grew a conscience. It just makes me ill that a judge would say to turn Grayson over to a man that he does not know, that may have a bad record. I hope and pray that they keep Grayson with his family, who by the way are not kidnappers.

Anonymous said...

It is not kidnapping. Ben Wyrembek abandoned the birth mother by failing to support her during the pregnancy! The Vaughn's have loved, nurtured, and cared for Grayson, while the birth father has yet to even send a card or anything. Filing some legal motions doesn't equate to love or supporting a child.

Mirah Riben said...

"The Vaughns are his Family!"

EXCEPT LEGALLY AND GENETICALLY...oh, gee...that makes them tortal strangers to him by law and blood! they are NOT his family. THEY may feel that attachment, but....

"If ... the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases ... persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less affluent and children of single parents might be considered particularly fair game." -- Justice James Heiple, Illinois Supreme Court in the "Baby Richard" case.

Mirah Riben said...

What began with good intentions to be a legal adoption became a kidnapping when they chose to violate a court order to return the child!

If they do not abide, they are on the wrong side of the law - as well as morality. The father's relationship to the mother is totally separate from his relationship to his child. His right to parent his child is protected by the constitution.

If "abandonment" of one's spouse was an issue, divorce custody would be settled based on that. it is not because family courts have determined that childrenhave right to an ongoing relationship with both parents regardless of their relationship with one another.

Ff they keep this child, how will they explain to him that they fought his father for him? That the denied his father's rights - knowing all along that he wanted his child? How will the child feel about their choices??

Likely, he'd feel victimized, kidnapped, betrayed...and he might hate them for their choices. They are NOT thinking of him but of themselves. it is no [picnic to hand away a child you've cared for and formed a bond with. I know. I fostered children. But that's all they ever were - temporary foster parents because of the father's involvement from the very start that they were well aware of. They never adopted this child. He was never "theirs" by law or blood and still is not and never will be.

Anonymous said...

Good dont have a clue. You think that its in his best interest to go home with a man he doesnt know, a man with no job, a criminal record and didnt file for paternity until he was 17 days old?? And even then after that never tried to contact or see the child, not by sending cards, calls or anything?? The only meeting they ever had was court ordered and not by the requests of the "father." Donating sperm doesnt make you a father. Abandonding your childs mother while pregnant surely doesnt show ones intentions of being anything great as a parent. If anything I question why in the world he is even pursuing this child. To call this kidnapping is beyond ridiculous. So, if you think that this sweet 3 year old should be ripped from the only family he knows and have his security and trust taken away, I am more than grateful that you are not in charge of his welfare.

Mirah Riben said...

and yet "a court has ordered them to surrender the child to his biological father in Ohio." The court ordered it, not me!

I do not pretend all of the details of the case, just that he is ordered returned and it is the Vaughns who are now in violation of this court order, not Benjamin Wyrembek.

Anonymous said...

We have two biological children and one of them is a three year old boy. He would be traumatized if we placed him in a different and strange place all of the sudden. This boy needs to stay with this couple who love him and know him. he has siblings who love him. He will be forever changed if the courts take him away. His biological father apparently has never sent a card, tried to get in contact, etc. Why now?? If he cares at all for this boy, he would leave him alone or set up visitation at the adopted familys consent!!

Mirah Riben said...

CORRECTION: "the" court did not agree, ALL the courts who heard this case said the father was within his rights!!! He did everything he needed to do to properly claim paternity and his right to custody of HIS SON!!

Here's someone else who agrees the courts' decisions. You can spread your arguments around:

Please also see my new post on this case:

Mirah Riben said...

I absolutely agree that is will be terrible for this child. But he will recover. Baby Jessica recovered and so did Baby Richard...

The fault lies with the Vaughns for not returning him when the FIRST court ordered it! THEY and they alone are the ones who chose to drag it out for 3 years when they had no right to this child. If THEY cared for him they would have returned him sooner so it wouldn't come to this.

Should every kidnapper keep the kids who no no other family???

Let's be real!

"If ... the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases ... persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less affluent and children of single parents might be considered particularly fair game." -- Justice James Heiple, Illinois Supreme Court in the "Baby Richard" case.

Anonymous said...

i totally agree--why did the biological father abandon mom in the beginning?? this is NOT what i call a dad. a true dad is there for it all and doesn't run from the start. this little fella has a family who is all that he knows--to tear him from them would be a disgrace and injustice to the child. leave him alone where he is.

Mirah Riben said...

Where does this "abandonment" allegation come from??? The mother was married and committing adultery...

She may or may not have known who the father was. She wanted the child adopted.

Anonymous said...

it comes from those of us that know the story inside and out rather than just speculate and throw around insane kidnapping claims. The abduction "allegations" are true. The birth father had/has no rights to this child.

Mirah Riben said...

One more time (feel free to just repeat this as my mantra): The COURTS ALL disagree with you!

This is not my opinion versus yours. it's the law versus violating the law. it is the vaughns who are in violation... NOT Benjamin.

Them's the FACTS folks, NOT speculation!

And I know exactly who you are: family and friends of the Vaughns. Look, no one has said this isn't hard on them.But there is right. legal and moral...and there is WRONG, Unfortunately, they are in the wrong and have bene for YEARS!

You can come here and plead their case as much as you want - it will not change the facts on iota. because yet again: I did not decide this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio did!!

The fat lady has sung...Read it and weep:

"The right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his child is one of the most precious and fundamental in law." Ohio Supreme Court, 2010 in the case of Jason and Christy Vaughn v. benjamin Wymrembek

Anonymous said...

What I find interesting about this website is the hypocrisy. Family Preservation would imply that in itself you would advocate seeing children raised in a family environment. However with this argument you should be only an advocate for genetic preservation.

As an educated person, it only makes sense to put the welfare of the child first. To say that this little boy would be better off to be raised by a single father who is unemployed and has a history of assault and drugs versus being raised by 2 obviously loving, capable, economically stable parents is ridiculous.

If the genetic father was so decent and moral he wouldn't have been with a married woman, he would have offered paternal support throughout that pregnancy and he wouldn't have waited to pursue legal options until after the birth of the child. Obviously, the birth mother knew enough of his character to know that he wasn't father material or she would have given the child to him in the first place.

You can keep quoting that the law disagrees and legally you may be correct, however that doesn't override the overall decency of the decision. In addition, the law is not an absolute. Mel Ignatow was tried and acquitted in a murder trial, later photographs showing him torturing and murdering his girlfriend were found. Legally, he could not be tried again for the crime. Is that just? No, it's just law.

I find in particularly offensive that you would classify people who were in the legal process of an adoption as "Abductors." I am curious if you think all adoptive parents are "abductors" and if you had your way that you would end adoptions all together? If so I suggest you visit your local children's home, volunteer with these unwanted children, and see if your opinion on genetic parents is altered? If you are unwilling to do that then I believe you have not one right to maintain your argument or your slanderous verbage.

Mirah Riben said...

Please click the FAQ and "About Family Preservation" tabs near the top of this page to read my positions. My positions on Family Preservation are in line with many others, including the UN and many NGOs who care for and about the world's neediest and most vulnerable: children, whose first right is continued care by their parents.

You are right that the law is not always just or fair. Not by a long shot. Juries get it wrong and free men are put in jail or executed and the guilty walk free. Yup. Happens.

But in THIS case EVERY court who has heard this case - which as been appealed all the way to the state Supreme Court - all found in favor of the father. They regarded him as FIT. All. Every one. Do you understand that? Are you saying that YOU know better than all those Family Court judges???

Why would you judge this man - who assume you don't know - so harshly and then say the mother knew what she was doing not to hand him her child? From what I read she was the adulteress (not him) and she didn't know for sure who the father was until he came forward and demanded a DNA test!

Why do you need to be so judgmental of a man who IS the father and WANTS to care for his son? What is so evil about that???

What is it evil or wrong of any parent wanting to care for and provide for their own child?

You judge him to justify your friends immoral actions. That's they! That's the only reason.
You feel their pain in not wanting to let go.

According to you, he should merely step aside and let strangers keep his child, even after every court agrees with him and had ordered the Vaughns to return the child?? What kind of man would do that?!?

If the court of public opinion means anything, you few (or is it all one person?) posting here are in the minority. According to the sites I've read, the public is NOT on the side of the Vaughns who knew this fathers' involvement and interest from the very start!

THE Vaughns - not all who adopt - are abductors because they have violated court order after court order to return the child!! They are holding this child hostage like kidnappers!! Their actions are cruel and IMMORAL and not something someone does to a child they claim to love. How do you deny a child his own father who wants him? What do you tell that child who you have kept from his flesh and blood from him?

Shame in them! And that seems to be the consensus of opinion on the sites I've seen.

Interesting that you stick to commenting here, but not on my newer post on this case, despite my having providing the link already:

Anonymous said...

If you are going to admonish others for judging, I suggest you hold yourself to the same standard. You have determined that the Vaughns are doing something cruel and inhumane to the child. That they are simply keeping a child away from a parent as a pasttime? They sought to adopt a child, were there for its birth, and have simply raised the child to this point and provided for him. It is ridiculous to assume that the child is being mistreated. For the record, I do not know the Vaughs or have any relationship with them.

You cannot claim to know the personal details of that biological woman's relationship with the biological father. It provides for good effect to claim "She didn't know until he demanded a DNA test", but no one has factual evidence of that. It does stand to reason that if she didn't want to raise the child and the biological father did, and was a fit and stable parent that she would have allowed him to do so. You can't judge the Vaughns or the father as fit or unfit, because you simply do not have that knowlegde. You can however look at known criminal records and make the assumption. The father has an assault and drug record. Period. If you have children and were choosing someone to watch them for you, would you choose the person you know has those issues or one without? If you can answer that honestly that you would allow someone with a criminal record to watch your children, then I think we can all accurately assume that this entire website is lacking in forethought or intelligence.

As a factual response to " All the courts decided" consider the following.

Last year, LA Weekly reported on the death of a child named "Lance": He had been happily living with his aunt, who was willing to adopt him. Instead, in the name of "family reunification," L.A.'s Dependency Court returned him to his father, despite a history of heroin addition and abuse in the family. Eleven weeks after his return home, Lance was beaten to death by his father's girl-friend; his body had been used as a virtual punching bag.

The same court had given a pedophile father, who repeatedly raped his retarded daughters, unmonitored reunification visits for 60-day periods. The subsequent abuse was so heinous that the father ended up in prison for six years. Another child, born with fetal alcohol syndrome from her mother's alcoholism, was reunified with her mother--who a short time later killed her daughter by beating her and forcing her to ingest large quantities of rubbing alcohol. If we're going to sanctify the notion of family, we ought to be encouraging safe, stable families--

The courts also found the following parents fit:

Last year, LA Weekly reported on the death of a child named "Lance": He had been happily living with his aunt, who was willing to adopt him. Instead, in the name of "family reunification," L.A.'s Dependency Court returned him to his father, despite a history of heroin addition and abuse in the family. Eleven weeks after his return home, Lance was beaten to death by his father's girl-friend; his body had been used as a virtual punching bag.

The same court had given a pedophile father, who repeatedly raped his retarded daughters, unmonitored reunification visits for 60-day periods. The subsequent abuse was so heinous that the father ended up in prison for six years. Another child, born with fetal alcohol syndrome from her mother's alcoholism, was reunified with her mother--who a short time later killed her daughter by beating her and forcing her to ingest large quantities of rubbing alcohol. If we're going to sanctify the notion of family, we ought to be encouraging safe, stable families--

Mirah Riben said...

And pedophiles have adopted and sexually abused their kids. Google Masha Allen, Matthew Mancusco and William Peckenpaugh.

Those adopt have beaten, starved, caged and MURDERED children entrusted to them. These are not people who had kids by accident, but who went out of their way - and got approved - to parent someone else's child and then tortured and killed them.

More than FIFTEEN just of children adopted from Russia between 1996 and 2009!

Here's another:

And another:

We do not take kids away from everyone who has a police records and it is not your choice, the vaughns or even mine to make.

I have already said, courts err. It happens. But the vaughns have to yield to their decsion.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mirah for standing up for whats right. These parents knew right from the begining that he wanted his son. Keeping him away from him for 3 years doesn't make it right to keep him. The fathers relationship with the mother should have no bearing. We as a society can not just take children from their biological families and place them elsewhere just because some other family wants a child I'll bet if someone took one of their children and kept him for 3 years they wouldn't think this other family should keep the child

Mirah Riben said...

To the person or persons posting in defense of the Vaughns:

If you are not friends or family how do you know things about Benjamin W. that I cannot find in any of the reports of this case?

Please provide a link to verify your allegations.

Mirah Riben said...

See Facebook Page: GIVE GRAYSON BACK

Anonymous said...

From what friends of the REAL BLOOD DADDY said he tried to contact her during pregnancy and was denide contact. even during pregnancy wanted a test. So Anonymous stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Anonymous said...

For starters "denide" is DENIED!! We can first start there! Then lets go to the nearly 6000 people supporting the Vaughns and how PROUD and GRACIOUS they are in this fight! Not one person has spoken on "the blood daddy's" behalf......maybe to say "he would be loved, maybe not rich, but loved".....ANYTHING! But, NO.....just hat wearing, sunglass wearing, head buried, ashamed.....doesn't look like a man that LOVES his child and wants what is BEST for Grayson.....just looks like someone looking for a meal ticket and too much of a coward to face the world and what he is doing! It is just flat out WRONG!!!! This isn't a Christmas gift you can "regift", it is a CHILD and anyone that claims to love Grayson would know the harm would be irreperable if he was taken from the only family he has ever known! For crying out loud, MAN UP and be an "uncle" in his life.....but, then again that would mean he wasn't out for a mealticket.....but rather LOVED this little boy!!! SAD!

BD said...

Good for you.Mirah!

I attended the Ohio Surpreme Court hearing over the summer and watched Lawyer Vorhees talk out of both sides of his mouth. (I was there for a companion case). Vorhees screwed up. He could have brought an original action to ask the OSC to proceed with the adoptiion but he didn't. The Vaughns and their friends should place the blame where is lies: with their high priced adoption aindustry shill. (BTW, should we be surpirsed that the agency is Gentle Care? I once saw a copy of it's price list for babies of color. The darker the baby, the loewr the price.)

The Vaughns are now making asses of themselves with their fax bombs to various judges. First, judges are not legislators and they don't listen to whiney outsiders. The courtroom is not a democracy! And do they think that clogging fax machines wins them any friends?

This case is, imo, uglier than Baby Jessica or Baby Dick (as we used to call him on alt.adoption). The Vaughns have "THE CHURCH" behind them now, yabbering adoption theology and holidng a candlelilght vigil. (Check out their tees!) They're running to the national media.

Grayson needs to be with Ben now. The Vaughns are exploiting this poor child just as the DeBoors exploited "Jessica." Guess what! "Jessica" turned out just fine despite the fact that Jan DeBoors is stil harassing her.

BTW, just what was Ben supposed to do with the "birthmother?" She was married to another man. Move in with them?

I usually feel a modicum of sympathy (or even more) for adopters who go through a mess like this, but the Vaughns created this situation and the blame is on them. All the courts have ruled against the Vaughns. Shame on them!

Mirah Riben said...

First of all I AM SPEAKING OUT LOUD AND CLEAR FOR BENJAMIN RIGHTS and so too have others here. There is a FB page supporting him, and other blogs and articles as per links above in my previous comments and in the blog posts.

As a an author and researcher of adoption issues for more than 30 years, I have been involved with several contested adoptions. CURRENTLY - three ongoing cases in which I have spoken directly with the natural parents, although I have not spoken to Benjamin W.

In the vast majority of these cases one or both sides are under gag orders not to speak about the case.

In this very case at hand the Vaughns have exploited the child they claim to love and care about by giving the press his photos.

So, don't draw any conclusions! Some people respect the law - others violate it...

And BTW, the Vaughns 2 other kids: are the their REAL kids or are those adopted, too by the VULTURES wo were in the delivery room to grab this one up before anyone could change their mind...too bad they didn't count on Benjamin!

GameGirl said...

Send Grayson back....another case of selfish people wanting what's not theirs. I am soooo sick of seeing them on tv crying and whining about taking Grayson away from his only home. I am sorry but these people need to be in jail. They are kidnapping another person's child. This whole case is warped and the people that are supporting the Vaughns are just as warped. I guess I can come into your home take your newborn and claim finder's keepers. If I was the father, I wouldn't want this all over the news either. The only people that go to tv, are the ones in the wrong...trying to drum up public support. Give me a break!!! They are rather pathetic..take your two biological kids and move on. Adoptions fall through all the time..GET OVER IT!!!!

GameGirl said...

And furthermore, there are plenty of SINGLE DADS that do a wonderful job with their children without the help of the mom. Bio mom was grown women with her own mess. Doesn't matter if he wasn't there for her. How could he, with the mess she had going on? GIVE THE MAN HIS SON BACK!!!

Anonymous said...

Yes, once again, you are speaking to his "Rights"......certainly not his character! Hmmm....big surprise!!

Mirah Riben said...

That's right. I deal with FACTS that i can verify not heresy. I do not know the man or anything about him.

However, I challenged those who spoke badly about him to prove it and they haven't!!! They alleged criminal behavior but never sent a link to back it up.

And apparently the courts - ALL of them - knew his background and character, as well as his rights, before EVERY court who heard the case favored him!

Give it up, folks.

And someone please tell me where they got their other kids? Who'd they steal those kids from??

They're crying over how to tell their kids - why didn't they think of that from the start and not let them get bonded with a child who NEVER was theirs! That's THEIR problem. I feel badly for those kids, but they have caused this to drag on.

And what would they tell their other kids when they ask: Did my daddy's want me too? Did you keep us from him???

Did you STEAL us from parents who wanted us???

That is what they are witnessing here. Don't you think it will effect them if they too are adopted??

Rebecca Herman said...

Well, the truth of it makes it sound even worse, because these aren't people who are desperate to be parents but can't have biological children - but those kids are both theirs biologically. They had the first one, then several early miscarriages. They decided they couldn't emotionally handle losing any more pregnancies, so they decided to adopt. Shortly after meeting with Grayson's biological mom they had an accidental pregnancy and that resulted in their daughter who she was 5 or 6 months pregnant with when they took Grayson to their from the hospital. Despite the fact they had an unintended but healthy pregnancy in the meantime (which was what they originally wanted) they went ahead with the adoption because they felt the child was meant to be theirs. Gag.

Anonymous said...

Mirah -

Which facts in the rant above can you verify? You speak of only reporting facts, but if you had done a little homework in court records you would see that in fact the courts don't have record of the father's criminal past because the Lucas County courts have acknowledged in that they misfiled the reports and so are not part of the OH supreme court documents - and his criminal past would have been part of the discussion in the best interest hearing, that is part of standard adoption proceedings.

And a little more homework, their other children are biological - after their first, they thought they couldn't have more.
You begin to lose all credibility over a topic where you could have some merit if you weren't just being inflammatory and really stuck to the facts.

Anonymous said...

The other two children are their biological children, one that is 5 months younger than Grayson and raised as his twin! Clearly YOU need to do your research and learn this case....we ALL have!! Grayson's parents actually have love in their heart and IF and ONLY IF this man has good intentions....they would be completely onboard w/ him in Grayson's life. He is unemployed, has assault and drug related charges on his record....either you don't have children (which I am guessing) OR you have no moral compass if you think anyone would just hand their child over to that person!

Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT BLOG... Mirah, your research and dedication, what can I say? EXCELLENT!!!

Vicki R.

Anonymous said...

The other kids are their biological children. The comments on this site about the vaugn's being kidnappers is beyond disgusting, it's amazing how hateful people can be. This is a precious, loving family who are trying to do what is best for THEIR child. And those of you who say,"just take him set, he will be fine," are unbelievably clueless. He is a 3 year old little boy and and it will undoubtably harm him. Keep him where he belongs, WITH HIS FAMILY, not with his criminally charged father who lives with his mother and abandonded Grayson's mother while pregnant. Affair or not , I don't see how anyone thinks that is okay! Sperm donation doesn't equal parentage!!

Mirah Riben said...

Thank you so much for clarifying that, Rebecca! There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for their behavior!~! Pregnant and taking a child from a mother the minute after she gives birth!! The indecency of it is beyond the pale of human circumstance.

Mirah Riben said...

Thank you so much for clarifying that, Rebecca! There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for their behavior!~! Pregnant and taking a child from a mother the minute after she gives birth!! The indecency of it is beyond the pale of human circumstance.

And those two being just months apart means that - even if the was not a national headline case - they would forever have to explain to everyone over and over again that Grayson is adopted and her daughter is not. MakingGrayson feel like the odd man out in the middle of this family everytime the story is told and would be told. I know a family who adopted a boy and then within a month the agency caled and said they had a girl and so they took her too and the two were both blonde, and so looked a bit alike, though from dufferent families. But everyone always asked if they were twons, and every time the question was asked, they had to reveal that they were adopted. They are in their thirties now. The young man has had a permanant stutter all of his life and the young woman is a drug addict with 3 or 4 kids= who were taken from her. I'm not saying that their having to tell everyone they were adopted was the only cuase. There were other factors that screwed them up, like the adopted father moving in a woman half his wife age and THEN their adoptive mother divorcing him....the alcohol and drugs that were always a part of the adoptive father's life and very visible - and later very available - to the children. Then to top it all off he and his new wife had two kids "of their own" who were treated like a prince and Princess while the two adopted kids were moved out of their rooms into the basement!

My own daughter is a product of an adoptee in a family with "their own" kids. She committed suicide at 27. Again, multiple reasons, but that was a factor, as was being abandoned when she got out of college.

STILL, I am NOT saying it is always a bad idea...but OFTEN it adds to the negative feelings around being adopted and not being related or looking or acting like the rest of the family. There is far too much room for comaprison. Plus nature just doesn't create sibling months apart. It is thus UNNATURAL and that's why it will ALWAYS require an explanation. And in fact some highly ethical adoption agencies would never allow it to happen, IF THEY KNEW! I would bet she kept her pregnancy a secret for fear they would stop the anticipated adoption - again an act of sheer selfishness and an indication that these are people who think rules do not apply to them. Doesn't speak well for them at all.

Again, much thanks, Rebecca. news articles have just so much info and I'm not in Ohio.

Mirah Riben said...

This is a BLOG! I am not a news reporter. I do not live in Ohio nor do I know if the public had access to records that the Supreme Court does not!

As a BLOG - and not a book or newspaper - I report the FACTS as they news reports them. Sorry if I do not meet standards that are impossible and still UNPROVEN and not my job to prove or disprove.

- I have reported THE FACT that the court has ordered this child returned.

- I have reported that this father wanted this child from the day it was born and that the Vaughns knew that and proceeded despite knowing of his efforts to prove paternity.

- The *FACT* is that they intentionally dragged this our for three years hoping he'd run out of money and give up or a court would finally say that Grayson should stay because of the time he's been with them.

- The fact is that THEY are in violation of violating a court order.

- I've reported the fact that they are not desperate interfiles clinging to this child! (not that that woudl make it right, either, but some might feel a bit more sympathy for them).

- I have also shared links to others who support GRAYSON'S RIGHT to be his REAL FATHER!!!

In the end it is about Grayson's rights, not the vaughns and more so even than Benjamin's, though he has the law and blood on his side.

The court obviously did not take his police record into account because it was not germane to his ability to care for his son! It was considered irrelevant. Did not put the child in harm's way. Did not indicate any unfitness to parent. We do not take children from everyone who has violated the law!!!

Anonymous said...

if you were in the businees of stating facts, then you would have said that he did not fight for his child from the minute he was born. He filed something at 17 days of age. In case you werent sure, in Ohio, when you abandon the pregnant mother, whatever the circumstances, you termintate your rights to the child. SOOOOOO that would mean that he has no say anyway. The court then took 15 MONTHS to determine paternity. That doesnt sound like a father who is fighting tooth and nail for his child now, does it?? The criminal charges for the "father" havent played a role in court yet beacause the courts have simply been determining paternity, not what is the in the best interest of the child. If you are only reporting what you think are "facts" in the news, then thats where your problems start. The news is great at twitsting facts, or were you unaware of that too?? Oh, and you saying that the vaughns may have hid their pregnancy in order to be able to still adopt just shows how little you know about adoption. I have plenty of friends who have been in the process of adoption and found out they were pregnant in the meantime. Its pretty common and not something that would stop a proceeding. And lastly, if you are reporting facts, the picture you have of little Grayson on this site says, I want my daddy. Is that a fact? If you are speaking about Jason, him wanting and needing him, then keep it on there, otherwise it really has no business being up.

Anonymous said...

absolutely, considering there has been no best interest hearing. All they have looked at is paternity and the vaughns side of the case has not been heard at all.
as far as the abandonment goes, i say if a man finds out you are pregnant and offers no support for the child in utero, MARRIED OR NOT, then you can say the mother and child were abandoned. Because of that, she (the birth mother) had no legal reason to tell the "father" about the baby. And becuase she was married at the time, he further didnt have any rights to the baby. They didnt need his permission to give the baby up for adoption. The vaughns were hand picked by the birth mother. The photo is of Grayson, I was merely pointing out that it has no place on this site and especially saying what it says. Gross.

really said...

Grayson's biological mother tells ABC News she lost contact with Wyrembek early in her pregnancy, and wasn't required by law to provide his contact information to the adoption agency. Court documents confirm that the biological mother and her husband -- the legal father -- filed the necessary papers to surrender custody of the child within weeks of his birth.

Anonymous said...

The law says you don't need (the birth father's) consent for adoption if he willfully abandoned the birth mother during the pregnancy

Anonymous said...

When Parental Consent is not Needed
Citation: Rev. Code § 3107.07

The court finds that he is not the father of the minor, has willfully abandoned or failed to care for and support the minor, or has willfully abandoned the mother of the minor during her pregnancy

Anonymous said...

Here's the link to GMA article and interview with the foster parents/abductors. The birth mother had apparently told ABC that she lost contact with the birth father early on in the pregnancy and that she was not required by law to tell him about the pregnancy. There's no mention at all of abandonment.

Also, the criminal history that the vaughns and their supporters keep harping about is as a juvenile. Not sure how relevant that is here. No way does that mean that he's not fit to parent his child.

In any event, it is ironic that the vaughns should bring up being on the wrong side of the law, when they have been guilty of violating so many court orders.

On another note, do we have any idea when the Ohio Supreme Court may get back on whether they are going to reconsider the appeal or not?

BD said...

There is no Constitutional issues here. The case is over as far as the Vaughns are concerned. They are dragging out the inevitable.

Anonymous said...

This young 3 year old should be returned to his "real" father PERIOD. Those "people" are nothing to him and he will only vaguely (if at all) remember them when he is older, and he will thank his lucky stars he is with his own family instead of strangers. Valerie

Rebecca Herman said...

Reading the Ohio Supreme Court ruling it actually looks like they adressed the issue of him not supporting the mother/child and concluded his obligation began once he was declared the legal father and anything before that could not be held against him since there was a presumed legal father before that point. As for the husband being the legal father no matter what, that is not correct, the husband is the PRESUMED legal father, which means he remains the legal father if no one comes forward to challenge it. However it can be challenged/changed in court through DNA testing, which is what happened here. The court studied the facts and feel he acted as soon as he learned the child could be his and that is when his obligation began. And from that day forward he was willing to take custody. So sorry, but the Ohio courts, every single one of them, just don't agree with you that he legally abandoned his son.

Rebecca Herman said...

Also with regards to "best interests" and why there was no hearing on that that is something that is taken into account only when:

two legal parents are fighting for custody, the court has to determine what custody split is in the child's best interests

when the state needs to prove a child needs to be taken into state custody for their own safety

Otherwise the presumed best interests of a child are to be raised by biological parent(s). Best interests cannot be used to justify an adoption when a fit biological parent is available to raise the child, even if the potential adopters could provide a nicer home, more money, etc.

Mirah Riben said...

BULLSH*T!!! The courts (plural) have heard numerous appeals from the Vaughns and have ordered Grayson returned!

Do you really believe the court has ordered Grayson be returned without considering his best interest! ? ! ?

And what you think of a man's financial responsibility are of no consequence. He had no idea if it was his child or her husband's until the results of the DNA test.

Maybe he got out when he found out she was married - or were you there in bed with them and know those facts better, too?? maybe you know every lie this adulteress told her lover, huh??

The Vaughns exploited their own kids along with Grayson for their own selfishness...and they BOTH deserve to be with their REAL DADDIES!

Look...I get it. We all get it. The Vaughns have their fans. The press reported 30 of their fans attended the last hearing or mediation.

You can keep posting comments here. It proves nothing and changes nothing.

Most serial killers have "fans" too - including women who want to marry them! It proves nothing and doesn't make them innocent.

GameGirl said...

Again, I state that these people are rather pathetic. The Vaughn and their supporters are tunnel-visioned. They need to go back. As a christian, I am offended that they chose to use on of my favorite bible verses as their mottos on their shirt. They either need to get a new pastor or go back to bible school! Ephesians 1:4 is not about ADOPTION but coming together as one church under Christ. But I guess that what happens when you warp things for your own personal gain. I am so glad that I didn't listen when people like the Vaughns told me I should give my child up for adoption when I was pregnant with her! I decided I WAS THE BEST PARENT for my daughter and 13 years later I don't regret that decision. She is a God-fearing Christian honor student and one of the joys of my life! Her father and I did eventually marry and we are still married to this day but if left up to my former church, my daughter would have been in the hands of people like the Vaughns!!! Again, I say The Vaughns were BEING SELFISH AND ONLY THINKING OF WHAT THEY WANTED. Instead of doing the right thing, they did what any self-absorbed person would do, LIE AND STALL. They claim to be Christians but they forgot part of the ten commandments, THOU SHALL NOT STEAL OR LIE. I pray the court does they right thing and IMMEDIATELY remove the child from that house! I might have had some sympathy if they actually tried working with the father. If the father came back 3 years later, I would be on their side, but just because you BOUGHT err sorry paid an attorney for a baby, doesn't mean it is yours and you get to decide what's best for them. You are no better then a kidnapper.

Mirah Riben said...

BD: The right of a parent to raise his OWN child is constitutionally protected, thus:

"The right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his child is one of the most precious and fundamental in law." Ohio Supreme Court, 2010 in the case of Jason and Christy Vaughn v. Benjamin Wymrembek

Fundamental and constitutionally protected and it made this decision what it is. That and the fact they have a child they have NEVER ADOPTED!! Even though the press calls them adoptive parents, they are not! They are foster parents. Nothing more!!

Imagine every foster parent refusing to give a child back! I was a foster parent. i know it's not always easy to do what is RIGHT.

Mirah Riben said...

Thanks Game Girl!!

Rebecca I am so glad for you and your daughter that you survived unscathed from the coercive adoption adoption industry!

So many people misunderstand and miss-quote the bible. I have a couple of blog posts you can search for or google about the bible and adoption. The bible is very clear on the issue - as in the most straight forward story of adoption: Moses. It is only appropriate for a parent and child to be separated and the child raised by steangers - when it is a matter of life and death! And then, the bible tells us how Moses never forgot his roots but when on to save them! Very strong clear message of blood over strangers!

Not to mention Mary - an unwed single mother - who is not chastised but is honored! It's never suggested that others would be never sited to raise him. And His Father is always honored even though an earthly man adopted him. You'd think anyone who calls themselves Christian would understand these basics. Not to mention Esther and other bible stories...

I mean what would Jesus do - support people taking a child from a loving, caring father? GIVE ME A BREAK! Would Jesus hold a juvenile record against a person? I don;t think so sicne he loved prostitutes and other "unsavory' characters without judgement!

Rebecca Herman said...

I think you have me mixed up with someone else unless there is another Rebecca on here - I don't have any children yet, though I would like to in the next few years:

Anyway in response to all those comments about "But they the only parents he knows! He will be traumatized if he has to leave them!":

I agree it will be hard on the child at first (a difficulty that could have been avoided if they gave him back as a newborn) AND I can sort of understand and agree with that argument if it were, say, a custody case between two legal parents... who split up where the one who hadn't been around much wanted full custody over the primary caregiver. But the Vaughns are neither biological nor legal adoptive parents, legally this is not THEIR child in ANY way. Allowing them to keep a child that was never legally theirs simply because they retained physical custody long enough for the child to bond with them would legitimize kidnapping for the purpose of raising a child. Infertile and can't find a child to adopt, and you will take care of the child and love them? Just snatch a baby and stay hidden long enough that you can claim to be "the only parent the child knows" and "it would be too hard and the child would suffer too much if removed." That is why this argument CANNOT be used to justify someone who is not a legal parent keeping a child. It would allow kidnapping.

Mirah Riben said...

My apologies. I have been BOMBARDED with so many comments. I got you confused, Rebecca, confused with Game Girl. Sorry 'bout that! My head is spinning trying to get all these comments moderated.

BD said...

Mirah--I thought I posted two comments here today (another last night which is here) Maybe I'm mis-remembering. Anyway can you check?

Whatever, Erik Smith wrote on this case a few months ago . You can find it here:

I looked for Ben's supposed criminal cases in Lucas County. One person wrote here that the court had "misplaced" the file. huh? Another says it was juvenile. If the latter is true, then it's sealed. If the former is true, the case would still be on the docket.

There is no record of cour action in Toledo Muni Court. The Lucas County Clerk of Courts has 3 cases on the docekt--all of them involving the Vaughns.

It's amusing to see Quad A attempt a reconsideration. This is about protecting their rock star Mike Vorhees, not about any concern for Grayson.

Mirah Riben said...

BD - THANKS and my apologies. I will look for your comments. As I said,yesterday was crazy! i was out all day and came to more than 100 emails among which were many comments for this particular blog post!

Look folk: Naturally the Vaughns are trying a shard as they can to get a best interest hearing so they can dredge up any negativity on Ben and present "expert" testimony that Grayson is best left with them. It is in THEIR best interest to have such a hearing.

But it does not seem to be the case - just speculating they have agreed to mediation. That, and all their publicity and tears and begging for a congressmen to step in and help them etc shows me they know they have struck out and are DESPERATE and grasping at straws, hoping for a Hail Mary.

I am anxious to read Erick's opinion. I was going to contact him about this. He has been down this road and made a very sensible, noble and Solomonic choice in mediation. I pray that these people can bury the hatchet and come up with an arrangement that truly is in Grayson's best interest which might involve some form of JOINT CUSTODY...truly open and enforced liberal visitation. That would require people who were at each other's throats to chill and put Grayson's needs first and work together. Possible?? We'll see! In the meantime o look forward to reading erick's article, so thanks again BD!

Mirah Riben said...

BD, the case in the link you provided is interesting and relevant to this case (as it involves a married woman and a single father of her child) but it does not appear to be THIS case. ?

I have reached out to Erik and am waiting to hear back for his thoughts on the current situation...

AND...the only comment I received from you yesterday was one about constitutionality of parenting.

BD said...

Thanks for looking, Mirah. I'm just remembering wrong. Like you, I'm deluged with email, but not on this subject, and sometimes I can't keep things straight.

The link is the Vaughn case. The mother and the Vaughns are suing probate judge in Lucas County--who, btw, is a gem.

BD said...

I forgot: re the Constitutionality of parenting, I should have clarified. I meant that the Vaughns have no Constitutional claims in their specific case. Obviously, parenting is a Constitutional issue, but just not in their case.

I don't think any kind of c-parenting, joint custody, etc. is forthcoming for legal and personal reasons. IMO, Ben would best get out of Dodge and get far far away from these rapacious baybee mongers. I wouldn't want them in my life!

GameGirl said...

And Mirah with the Moses story, God saw that Moses, was nursed and raised by his biological mother! Yes, he was "adopted" by Pharoah's daughter but Moses Mother was the one who raised him.

Anonymous said...

I am commenting as an adoptive parent. Sadly for all involved I do not see this ending the way the Vaughns wish it to. I feel badly for them.But knowing early on about the potential for this father to be proven by dna as Grayaon' father.Why not demand as fast a dna test as possible they had to know how this was going to play out with a father wanting his child and his not having given up his rights. They were going to lose. As heartbreaking as It is going to be for them and for their children and Yes for Grayson they need to meet with Ben the father of Grayson and set up a schedule of visits getting more and more time closer together over the days then overnights then with a therapist to assist everyone make the transition for Grayson to begin his life with his father. I can see no reason to not have someone check on how things are going with Ben and his child to ensure a safe and some insight into what may be going on in the mind of a young child put under such stressful and unusual circumstances. Heartbreaking for all.

Mirah Riben said...

GIVE GRAYSON BACK" on Facebook has over 300 friends!!!

If you are not yet a freind - do it today!!

Mirah Riben said...

Lookin' good for a father and son reunion! Hallelujah!

Ohio Supreme Court refuses to reconsider the Vaughn's case and lifted the stay... meaning two-year-old Grayson Vaughn, currently living in Sellersburg, could face the possibility of returning to Ohio. More on WAVE 3 tonight, beginning at 5.

We are all praying that sanity reigns!

Anonymous said...

DNA does not make a good parent. If he wanted the child he should have been involved in Grayson's life from the beginning and he wasn't. Why is it justice to give a criminal a child? Why would you rip a sweet innocent baby away from the only family he has ever known? Sounds to me like adoption rates in Ohio will be going down. As they should. Considering you can't adopt a child there without being reprimanded.

Mirah Riben said...

Grayson was not adopted; the vaughns were not adoptive parents! Kidnapped, abducted, ILLEGALLY held children deserve to be reunited with their family.

Ben did far more than take a DNA test.He fought for THREE YEARS for his son! That DOES make him a Dad! A very loving, caring Dad! A Dad who did what ANY DAD wold do if their son was taken from their without his consent.

Anonymous said...

What about the best interest of the child???
I am an adopted child who lived thru the terror of possibly being taken from my adoptive parents and sister. I was bonded to and loved by the only parents I had ever known and taking me from my beloved family would havd had the effect of being kidnapped. I would have HATED my biological parent and would have spent my life tortured at being separated from a stable loving home and those I loved. SO WHAT ABOUT THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST???????????????/ jn

Mirah Riben said...

Your natural parents may have been unfit. Ben is not.

You were adopted. Grayson was not.

Steph said...

This situation sure looks and smells more like a property dispute than the well being for an innocent human being. And we all know what happens when there is that kind of dispute - financial claims and settlements. Pain and suffering. Books and movies. One of the parties surely will initiate claims for compensation through litigation or publication, which in turn will cast in stone the real underlying motives. Time will tell who is in it for the money and who is in it for the child.

Anonymous said...

I would not to pretend to know the details of this case, only what has been portrayed on tv. It is unbelievable to me that people are so judgemental of these adoptive parents. In my profession, I see infants sent home with their "biological" parents every day and to be perfectly honest it scares me to death as I do it. The horrible family situations of drugs,rehab, jail, abuse, single teenage parents with no support system are a daily occurrence; just because they had sex and gave birth should not give them the right to be responsible for another human life when most are not even responsible for their own. What would Grayson say? Oh, I forgot, nobody cares about him, its about his biological fathers rights. Oh yea, and now hes sueing the Vaughns for $400,000. Guess having his son back isnt enough. He should be greatful his son lived a safe and happy life over the last 3 years like the birth mother wanted. Maybe she knows something about him the rest of us do not.

Mirah Riben said...

The risky behavior of others has absolutely nothing to do with Ben, or me or you or anyone else but the people who behaved that way.

As for Ben being happy - if you are a parent, would you be happy with people who ILLEGALLY kept your child from you for three years?! That's BIZARRE!!

And finally, if you admit to not knowing the details of the case, how do you claim to have knowledge other than what is reported in the press which has reported that:

"Wyrembek filed a lawsuit Friday against the Ohio adoption firm that handled the case, claiming negligence."

So either you have some "inside information" not made public or you are mistaken. The lawsuit is against the agency not the Vaughns.

Anonymous said...

Sooo perfectly said Steph!! Hmmm....has to make ALL of you think!! LOVE IT!!!

Anonymous said...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You need to read into this more before you accuse the family of kidnapping. You have your facts all wrong. And this is absolutley ridiculous, this family raised this boy and they were there the day he was born. His birth father was not. There could have been a reason for why the birth mother had not told the father and the mother had to have had a good reason for giving the child up, it was completly selfless of her and she was only thinking of what would be best for the child. So stop attacking this poor family that is utterly traumatized. They have done nothing wrong, they love Grayson so much and it is not fair that they have raised him and loved him and now they have to give him up baised on the mistake the mother made of not telling the father that she was pregnant. So you and all that commented need to get your facts straight before you criticize this family for loving THEIR child.

Mirah Riben said...

I could not disagree more. It is YOU who needs to get YOUR facts straight. You are totally incorrect to claim: "They have done nothing wrong" and EVERY court who has heard this case agreed!

They were WRONG to keep this child once they knew of the father's interest, concerns, desire, wishes and legal right to his son! PERIOD!! get it and let it go. They LOST! And they have lost at every level this case was heard. They have lost because they are WRONG.

I am not heartless. I actually feel sorry for them. I am sorry they cannot LET IT GO!! Had they let go sooner they would have spared Grayson, Ben, themselves and their other children a LOT of grief. That is all THEIR FAULT and the GUILT of the harm done rests solely on them and no one else!

Get YOIUR facts straight! They violated court order after court order. They held onto a child that was not theirs legally or biologically. That is kidnapping. it is IMMORAL and it is pathetic and sad! They are pathetic and sad people who continue to harm their children who they are causing to live in Grayson's shadow.

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget