Ohio Supreme Court will not reconsider decision in Vaughn adoption case
High court lifts stay on all lower court proceedings
CLARK COUNTY — The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday denied a request to reconsider its ruling that has resulted in a Sellersburg couple being ordered to return a nearly 3-year-old child they have raised since birth to his biological father.
The court further lifted a stay on all lower court proceedings that it granted on Sept. 28, allowing Christy and Jason Vaughn to temporarily keep custody of their son, Grayson.
In September, a juvenile court in Ohio ordered Grayson be returned to his biological father, Benjamin Wyrembek, in northern Ohio after it had determined he was legally the father. The Supreme Court had granted a stay on that order and all other lower court decisions on Sept. 28, but the state’s high court lifted that ban Thursday meaning the order is again in effect.
The Vaughns went through an adoption agency and were matched with Grayson. The mother and his legal father at the time agreed to give Grayson up for adoption as they were going through a divorce.
The Vaughns had Grayson from the day he was born, but within 30 days after a permanent surrender agreement was executed, Wyrembek filed a paternity action claiming he was the father. The adoption had not been finalized and Wyrembek was later determined to be the biological father, setting off nearly three years of legal battles.
An Ohio probate court dismissed the Vaughns’ adoption petition, and in July, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld that ruling in a 4-3 decision.
The Vaughns have argued that the biological father’s consent was not required for adoption since he did not support the [married] mother or child.
Attorneys on both sides of the case did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
The Vaughns had previously defied a court order to return Grayson to Ohio. A hearing was held in Floyd County Circuit Court on Sept. 28 in which Judge J. Terrence Cody could have ordered that ruling enforced. The Vaughns signed a statement at that hearing last month that they would no longer discuss the case in the media.
Friends of the family have indicated that both parties agreed to mediation at the Circuit Court hearing.
Check later at www.newsandtribune.com and in tomorrow’s editions of the Evening News and Tribune for more information.
11 comments:
Good, I hope Grayson is with his real daddy soon. If the change in custody upsets him it is the fault of the Vaughns anyway, though I am sure he will adjust fine eventually and remember none of it, he is young enough that he can forget.
I don't think so. Babies suffer from being taken from their mothers at birth - at some level. An almost 3-year old will be , but the scars of the trauma will be forever imprinted. Yes. The Vaughns are to blame for that, and the court system that allows these cases to be dragged out and do not settle them quicker, AND allowing liberal visitation while they are being settled.
I guess time will tell. "Baby Jessica" (now Anna) does seem to be doing pretty well, hopefully Grayson will do okay. What's sad here is Grayson's mother STILL doesn't want him so he will probably never have a relationship with her ever. I can understand a mother not wanting the child at all in extreme circumstances (rape or other abuse by the father) but I just can't understand completely not wanting your baby in any other situation!! It's so sad....
I don't think he'll be crippled by the trauma and not able to function, even "do well" whatever basis that is judged by...but it also it not nothing.
As for his mother, I think that is a situation that time will tell. I never say never. How she feels now and she feels 5, 10, 20 years from now...who knows...People DO change!
I wonder if she has any other kids?
according to http://cid-a047e9b8b9387a89.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/2010-Ohio-VaughnJunkSuit.pdf she has two other children she was raising as of the time of Grayson's birth
I couldn't see it, Rebecca, but are you talking about Graysons' real mother or mrs. V? Mrs. V has 2 other kids.
His real mother Drucilla Bocvarov. There is a photocopy of the "Permanent Surrender of Child" document in the PDF I linked. In the section for "I am unable to care for said child for the following reasons" she wrote "I am a single parent and due to finances. I am currently parenting two other children."
I agree with you, Mirah, that Grayson will bear scars from all this. But also that children are resilient and with proper nurturing can live with this. After all, I survived being separated from my mother at birth and again from the nuns at St. Anthony's at almost a year; yes, there were effects but they haven't prevented me from being a decent human being (albiet flawed!)
I place the blame for all this squarely on the original court; as soon as they determined Benjamin was the rightful parent and stopped the adoption, they should have required the Vaughns to return Grayson to his legitimate home. By allowing the Vaughns to keep custody during the appeals (which have been denied in every court they have tried) the court became complicit.
What disturbs me the most is the guardian ad litem's silence in all this; GALs are supposed to look out for the interest of the child, but almost never do.
Appropo of nothing, probably, but my cousin went through a similar situation in the 1970s, though he did not pursue the matter in court. It would have done no good back then anyway, and to be honest he had absolutely no way he could take care of a kid, since he couldn't even take care of himself.
He had an affair with a married woman, and she had a baby by him. Her husband agreed to take her back if she put the baby up for adoption, which she enthusiastically agreed to. My cousin and aunt went to the hospital to see the baby (not particularly to see wifey at this point) where they were met by some strong-armed relatives the husband and his father posted outside the wife's room and the nursery. My highly respectable middle class aunt went apoplectic at being treated like a common criminal by the jerky family.
BD - has your cousin ever searched?
according to this http://thinkingoutloudcafe.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/timeline-in-the-vaughn-wyrembek-adoption-custody-case/ there was a GAL involved who felt it was in Grayson's best interests to live with his father. She recommended several months ago that Grayson be transferred to his father's custody through a transition plan... this was back in the summer. And the Vaughns refused her suggested transition plan (which led to the later order to turn the child over within 24 hours, because they wouldn't cooperate with the GAL's suggestions). I think most of the information for the timeline was obtained from publicly available court documents.
Post a Comment