MISGUIDED DECISION MAY LEAD TO LIFETIME STRUGGLES

By Diane M. Grassi

Most Americans will agree that our legal system although flawed is the best there is to offer. And in spite of its flaws it allows for redemption and an opportunity for judges to correct the record for perceived inappropriate decisions. That will hopefully be the case for this past week’s overreaching arm of the law in the case of Evan Scott.

As we once witnessed the 1995 legal battles of Baby Richard, wrenched from his adoptive parents at the age of four to live with his biological parents, and the 1991 first trial of three in the battle for Baby Jessica, not to mention the in vitro fertilization clinic’s mix-up with the 1999 case between Donna Fasano and Deborah Perry-Rogers, once again another victim of the legal system has arisen. Fasano delivered twins of two different races due to an embryo implantation error which wound up in the courts, eventually returning said embryo and now baby to the donating couple. But do the courts apparently still need to be reminded of the 1988 ‘switched at birth’ nightmare of Kimberly Mays, historically the first of its kind, that this is not supposed to be played out time and time again?

Last week the U.S Supreme Court handed down a decision regarding the sentencing guidelines and parameters given judges in the federal court system. Essentially it will now go back to the system utilized prior to 1984 when judges were given more discretion in their mandated sentences. We can only hope that some common sense will prevail in the federal courts.

But in the case of Baby Evan Scott, which is not a federal case, perhaps the letter of the law was maintained but common sense was certainly thrown out with the bath water. As for those professionally trained in the business of preserving the rights and interests of children, they should perhaps tear up their protective services business cards.

In brief, Dawn and Gene Scott met Amanda Johnson (now Amanda Hopkins by marriage) in the final weeks of her pregnancy. There was an agreement in fact that she would give up parental rights of her child upon his birth in May of 2001 at which time the Scotts would formally adopt the baby, Evan Johnson. In the month prior to Johnson’s delivery, she pulled out of the implied agreement.

Amanda Hopkins had not intended to retract her original agreement with the Scotts, but at the eleventh hour did so because the biological father, who failed to appear for any prior hearings to establish his paternity, came out of nowhere and filed for immediate custody. Hopkins then felt she had to obtain full custody herself in order to prevent the sperm donor and felon, Stephen White, from getting custody.

Hopkins was unmarried at the time of the agreement and a victim of criminal assault and domestic violence committed by White. He was subsequently sent to prison for beating Hopkins. She learned about her pregnancy after receiving hospital treatment for her injuries suffered from White. White knew of the pregnancy and had no interest in the child until he heard another family had petitioned for adoption. He was egged on by his father to “stake his claim” during the course of his incarceration.

It was apparent to Hopkins from the beginning that it was in the child’s best interests to give Evan up for adoption, given her financial situation as a single person without a spouse to help her raise the child. And having been told that White’s failures to appear to establish his paternity rights, Hopkins was legally advised that the adoption would go through.

Since this original case was filed, in 2003 Florida Adoption Law in the state of Florida was amended and no longer considers the right to automatically grant paternity to biological fathers regardless of the circumstances. It states that “only when he demonstrates a timely and full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood during and after the child’s birth” is a biological father granted an interest in the child and then acquires constitutional protection. Ironically, the Evan Scott case apparently does not benefit from the new law as the original lawsuit was filed in 2001 and preceded the change.

On January 11, 2005 Evan Scott was torn from the only parents he knew from birth going on four years and was moved to Glenview, IL. Although Hopkins has since married, at the time that she blocked the adoption, Hopkins was unmarried. How much if any influence the fact that she has now married with another very young child was not disclosed. But meanwhile, ex-con Stephen White has now been granted liberal visitation rights with the boy. So instead of Evan living in Florida in a secure and comfortable two-parent home, he will now be arm-strung between three families while the Scotts fully exhaust all appeals to get him back.

The real atrocity here is that Florida Circuit Judge Waddell Wallace while given full jurisdiction to rule on this case, had the power to rule as he saw fit, based upon the facts. But in 2005, apparently progeny still overrides the best the interests of children, and even if the biological father was incarcerated for domestic violence.

We here in the U.S. are preached to by the self-ordained moralists, including our political leaders that a two- parent stable home is preferable to a single parent one. But at the same time we are encouraged not to cast dispersion on those who come from such homes or even from broken homes in an effort to be tolerant. (And this case was based upon Amanda Hopkins status when she was still Amanda Johnson.) However most of us take issue with both proselytizing crowds, especially when we see our courts’ treatment of our children.

Our justice system and bureaucrats have let us down ever and again and as such should be admonished for decisions in relocating children as if they were no better than pieces of a chess set. It will not be enough to merely acquiesce in accepting Baby Evan as another isolated case, as collectively these noted cases create a stronghold on precedent being set, ultimately making it harder in the future in these United States to protect the constitutional rights of our children under the law. Let us not potentially jeopardize the mental health and well-being of the most innocent members of our society and give them the best possible chance for a successful future.