Two and a half years ago, the Division of Children Youth and Families offered a woman we’ll call Michelle a special opportunity.
The reason DCYF was even talking to her was that she was serving a 10-30 year sentence for manslaughter.
Up until 2006, in these kinds of cases, the state would typically termiate Michelle’s parental rights.
But under a new law, DCYF helped Michelle negotiate an adoption that allowed her to maintain contact with her two girls.
But Michelle says she was pushed into surrendering her rights and on top of that; the adoptive parents aren’t living up to their side of the agreement.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
In 2004, before her conviction, Michelle knew she might spend decades locked up.
So she asked DCYF to assume custody of her young daughters.
The two - both under 7 at the time- moved in with a foster family up north.
Even though she was in prison, Michelle got enough contact to feel involved.
28:32...I was seeing them once a month, and speaking with them once a week, and able to send cards and letters all the time. and that was a big thing that kept me going in here.
Staying in touch was really important to Michelle especially because her older girl had a variety of health problems, including autism.
28:32....I am so close to my girls, and I didn’t want to have to say bye to them. I didn’t want to say bye to my girls.
But Michelle had to say goodbye.
She got 10-30 years for manslaughter, after killing a friend in a car accident.
So the state decided the girls had to be put up for adoption.
But DCYF approached Michelle and asked her if she was interested in a new state program.
Instead of terminating her rights as a parent, she could do a mediated adoption and keep some contact with the girls.
She jumped at the chance.
7:37.... Even if I paid for it, I...thought that I was going to be able to keep my phone calls with them. I didn’t care. I wanted to be able to send them their gifts, cards, letters, for every holiday I send my kids something.
On March 3, 2006 Michelle traveled up to the Probate Court in Ossipee for the mediation with the likely adoptive parents.
But when she got there, she says they didn’t want to sit in the same room with her.
She says that set the tone.
24:20....I even commented one time, ‘this is ridiculous, why aren’t we sitting in the same room?’ I was wondering, ‘am I really that bad that they can’t sit in the same room with me?’
Julie Daniels, Michelle’s counselor from Child and Family Services says the morning went downhill from there.
26:02... as time went on and each thing she requested was rejected, or watered down...then she became more upset. And by the time we got to the end and she was given the list of things she was given, she was very disappointed...she was crying, visibly anxious, looking to her lawyer and to me as to ‘what should I do? Is this all I am going to get?’
Daniels says she and others encouraged Michelle to sign the mediated agreement.
But Michelle had deep misgivings.
Over the five months her daughters had lived with the couple; Michelle says she didn’t get any of the visits or phone calls she had been getting when they lived with the first foster family.
And now, after five hours of contentious, painful negotiations, Michelle wondered if she could trust these people to put the girls first.
T.125
6:04.... I think that if we were to work together to do what was best for these girls, and work as a team, than they would have a happier life, I think.
T.125
1:39 I didn’t want htem to feel as though they had to either love me or love them. I wanted them to know they could love both.
But in the end, she told herself, a little bit of something is better than nothing.
9:17... That’s why I did it. I didn’t want to lose contact with them. I didn’t want to have to wonder all the time how are they doing, are they happy, I didn’t want to have to live like that, always wondering.
28:30...at that point...she was upset, she wanted to be alone...
Counselor Julie Daniels.
...she went into a corner...to get some time alone....she said, ‘take me home. I want to go back.’
But Michelle was told she had one more piece of paper to sign.
She had to surrender her rights as a parent.
Michelle says if she didn’t, she was told the mediation would be off the table.
T.126
:08 I says, I can’t do this right now, I says, I can’t. we have to come back and do this. I need time to think. I can’t do this.
Michelle knew losing mediation meant losing any chance at all of staying connected to her girls.
The state had already scheduled a termination of parental rights case against her.
And considering that Michelle is serving a 10-30 year sentence, Michelle would lose the case.
DCYF Director Maggie Bishop says, to the best of her knowledge, no one ever issued any sort of ultimatum.
Bishop says, up until that day, the state had bent over backwards to accommodate Michelle.
She says her staff delayed a termination hearing multiple times.
T.542
1:22 to look back now and say, did we do everything she could, to make sure she had an opportunity, yes. B/c termination of parental rights was already going to happen. And so we stopped it to give her this...extension...to have some kind of contact.
But, as a rule, Bishop says there’s no place for hardball negotiating tactics when it comes to mediated adoptions.
T.542
6:35 what we are sanctioning is that in order for a mediated agreement to work and be successful, truly both parties have to be willing to agree. So the minute a hard tactic like that would kick in it no longer warrants being a mediated agreement.
Head of the Probate Court, Judge David King says no law prohibits birth parents from being asked to sign the mediation and- turn around and surrender their rights in mere minutes.
King 2
:23 it’s no different than any other case that works its way through the court system everyday in every courthouse in the state of New Hampshire.....the foundation of mediation is that it’s a voluntary process....parties can put whatever stipulations on the agreement they see fit, and the other side can agree with them or not.
While cutting deals may not be unusual, the state has taken steps to say a birth parent shouldn’t give up their rights too quickly.
The Family Court has instituted a protocol that gives birth-parents at least seven days to consider the agreement before they must surrender their rights.
Head of the Family Court Judge Ed Kelly says he could see putting that protocol into statute.
9:38 In fact it is already in law that no surrender can be taken until the passage of a minimum of 72 hours after the birth of a child. So obviously the Legislature has already recognized at the very early stages no birth parent should be making that decision very early on.
The court proceedings in this case are sealed because it involves minors.
Michelle’s attorney would no gon on record.
Barring a court order it’s probably impossible to ever know definitively whether a take it or leave it deal was offered to Michelle the day of her mediation.
Michelle signed the surrender.
But a judge conducted a process specifically designed to uncover any feelings of doubt or coercion.
Even if Michelle could prove that she was under duress when she surrendered her rights, judges say she has almost no chance of getting the adoption overturned.
But Michelle has another complaint.
She says the adoptive parents aren’t holding up their side of the agreement.
Here, she does have some recourse.
DCYF’s Maggie Bishop says her office is investigating the matter.
T.541
9:07 clearly the efficacy of these agreements have to be upheld. And with that said we have been working with Michelle, took her information and are looking into her concerns to assure that indeed the agreements are being followed. And if they are not we will assist Michelle and any parent to work through the process to make sure these agreements are enforced.
Bishop says mediated adoptions aren’t worth much if the parties don’t do what they’ve promised to do.
Just as important, Bishop says a birth parent deserves a chance to consider a mediated adoptions without fear of losing the option altogether.
She says she believes in the program, and that it’s helping families.
But she says that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
For NHPR News, I’m DG
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
When someone is incarcerated for the length of time mentioned, their children grow up while they are behind bars. It's cruel not to allow a child to bond with a new family and adapt. They won't do that if they are waiting for their mother to come home. They feel like guests in the home of a babysitter. If this birth mother really cared about her kids, she'd let them go and have the adoptive family simply send her updates and pictures for her peace of mind. The children shouldn't be incarcerated with her. The state could have just terminated her rights. No good deed goes unpunished. Her children need to be children. When she committed a crime, she gave up her rights.
The children will better bond with their adoptive parents if the adoptive parents treat THEM with respect, and that includes respecting the bond that already exists between them and their mother.
That sounds good, but in reality you're asking the adoptive parents to take on the role of parents and support and raise the children, but at the same time be treated as mere babysitters. If the children spend their lives trying to adjust while visiting a birth mother they will barely know (and can't touch) in jail, how does that respect them? It only opens up wounds that are never allowed to heal. They need to be free of worry and be allowed to bond and feel a part of the adoptive family, while being taught that their birth mother loves them and didn't want to leave them, but didn't have a choice. After they have grown and matured and can handle the level of understanding that it will take, and if they want to communicate with their birth mother at that point, they should then be re-connected. They shouldn't be punished for her crime. They will never feel secure and nurtured and accept a new family if they feel they are just "waiting". By the way, why didn't the birth mother's own family step up to the plate and raise them while she is in jail?
Children's love is not limited, but easily and naturally extends to all of the parents in their lives. No one is asking an adoptive parent to "baby sit," but to parent, taking into consideration the very real need children have to embrace all family members, certainly tops among them their first mothers. Do you have any practical experience in this kind of relationship? I was adopted as an infant, and I believe I have some insights to bring to bear.
Yes, actually I do have a tremendous amount of practical experience. I work with birth mothers, adoptive parents, and adoptees every day. I agree that children's love is not limited, however, they don't understand incarceration as young children and, having seen the end results of this, I believe that if someone is going to be incarcerated for a long period of time, they should allow the children to integrate into the family. If they don't believe they "belong" to the family they are living with, it's tantamount to them sitting at the window looking out waiting for mommy to come get them. How sad for a child to live their life that way. It's unfortunate for the birth mother, but she made bad choices and she has to deal with that. Innocent children shouldn't be dragged through the mud with her. They didn't do anything wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't have a connection with her later on when they are older and can begin to understand appropriate information. I'm not saying that they shouldn't know their history. What I am saying is "Let them be children now and feel like they are a part of a family and not outsiders". I am still wondering why the birth mother's family didn't step up and take the children. In my experience (14 years in adoption and 6 more in labor and delivery along with close friends and family who are/were adopted), family will always help with children when something like this happens UNLESS the person who is being incarcerated has burned all of their bridges, which is often the case. This article does not go into enough detail to understand their family dynamics, but if her own family won't help her with her children, what does that say about her family bonds? I have worked with hundreds of birth moms and have the utmost respect for what they go through and I am close with many women who have placed for adoption. I wholeheartedly support open adoption with full disclosure. I just have an issue with people who end up incarcerated, but want all the rights of someone who is not. She's not supporting her kids and she's not able to be a mother. Let them adapt to a new life. They are without their mother. Isn't that enough trauma? Let the wound heal instead of scratching it open every so often and having them grieve again and again.
What of the children's rights? What of their right to know and keep in contact with their First Mother? What about the children's rights to know thier first family???
Lynn: I'm not saying the children shouldn't know their first family. Where are they? If there was family support, the birth mother would not have even been in this position and the children would be with her family. Where is their father? His family? Children all deserve to know where they came from and who bore them. That doesn't mean that they should do the time with her. They may need to grow and blend into a family and, once they are capable of understanding about her incarceration and asking questions, then they could be allowed to communicate and be reintroduced to their birth family. In the meantime, they shouldn't have to grow up visiting their mother in prison. It has been my experience that when people (any people, not just birth parents)have issues with the law and have alienated family (which it sure seems like in this case), there are bigger problems and perhaps the extent of this is not known. However, how many families do you know who wouldn't step up and care for two small children if their mother was gone? Generally, there is a very valid reason for such behavior and my guess is that there is more to this story than a victimized birth mother.
A more appropriate title for this article would be adoptive parents fail to keep agreement with birth mother who is more than frustrated.This jailed mother is grieving the loss of her children by now,and how many state workers care about her loss? How many understand the pain she will suffer? Will anyone acknowledge her grief or will it be disenfranchised? Does New Hampshire have a law enforcing the agreement as other states do? She is not the first mother to
agree to a mediated or open adoption and have the adoptive parents run off. She committed a crime and has to pay for what she did, but will
the adoptive parents have to pay? These are her children we're talking about, not her wallet she lost.
I WORK IN MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION. I AM A BIRTHMOTHER AND AN ADOPTIVE MOTHER. I SEE FIRSTHAND HOW SEPARATION IS VIEWED AS ABANNDONNMENT BY THE ADOPTEE AND SCARS THEM. THIS MOTHER IS TRYING TO FULFILL HER RESPONSIBILITY AND IS BEING HINDERED BY PEOPLE WHO THINK PARENTHOOD IS OWNERSHIP INSTEAD OF STEWARDSHIP. IT WOULD NOT HURT THE GIRLS TO KNOW THE WOMAN WHO BORE THEM STILL CARED FOR THEM. iF THIS WAS A MAN WHO WAS IN PRISON FOR MANSLAUGHTER SOMEONE WOULD GIVE HIM HIS RIGHTS. GIVE HER HER RIGHTS. dON'T LET THESE GIRLS FEEL THROWN AWAY. FELICIA
Wasn't it nice of DCYF to extend Michelle's TPR. How many other people do they do that for that aren't in Prison, or if they are, their Prison sentence is short? How many parent's really get services for re-unification? How many parent's get lied about in court by DCYF? And how many children in Nashua are left in their home with services given?
As for the adoptive parent's going back on their deal, DCYF taught them well.
One more thing. Who in their right mind ask's DCYF to take custody of their children?
No matter how hard DCYF pushes to sign over the right's of your children, you've got to be pretty stupid to do it.If relatives or good friend's were available, she could have signed her children over to them and kept DCYF out of it. You can trust family. You can't trust DCYF.
Michelle's sentence from the judge did not include
no visitation from her children. I wonder if she was informed that New Hampshire had no law enforcing the mediated adoption.Was she told such information regarding open or mediated adoption law is readily available state by state on the internet? I am a reunited birth mother and activist for adoptee and women's rights and would like very much for women to be informed when choosing adoption. It seems common sense they would be. It appears to me the adoptive parents conned Michelle and I wonder how healthy this is for the children.
There is acknowledgement nowadays of adoptees grief and I wonder if the adoptive parents are aware. In today's world we have to rethink adoption a bit and certainly the old ways of saying, YOU WILL FORGET THIS CHILD has to be replaced with something more sensible. I certainly hope the state worker, Ms. Bishop or
someone else can do something to return respect to the agreement