LilMtnCbn
07-11-2004, 05:23 AM
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/9130917.htm
Registry stops fathers from stopping adoption
Only obscure list prevents losing custody of child
By Niki Kelly
The Journal Gazette
INDIANAPOLIS – Maciej Zurawski woke up one morning last August and suddenly
wasn’t the father of his 4-year-old daughter.
That’s because the girl’s mother – who lives in Kosciusko County –
petitioned to have her new husband adopt Jamie Elizabeth.
A judge granted the adoption without so much as an e-mail, phone call or letter
to Zurawski.
And it’s all perfectly legal.
That’s because Zurawski, who never established paternity, had not signed up
for Indiana’s obscure Putative Father Registry.
The registry is a statewide list of unwed men who believe they might be the
fathers of children. Being on the list ensures you receive notice of any
potential adoptions and preserves your right to object to an adoption if
paternity is established.
Failure to register constitutes a man’s “irrevocably implied consent to the
child’s adoption” – even if he never knew the registry existed.
Zurawski challenged the adoption after he realized it had been granted –
saying the girl’s mother, Kelly Stoddard Bumbaugh, committed fraud in her
adoption petition when she said Zurawski’s current address was unknown. She
declined to comment, and her attorney did not return repeated phone calls for
this article.
Kelly Bumbaugh and her new husband, Paul Bumbaugh, did run a public notice in
the newspaper regarding the pending adoption, which wasn’t required by law.
But it ran in Warsaw instead of Indianapolis, where Zurawski lives.
According to court records, Zurawski gave Kelly Bumbaugh his Indianapolis
address in July 2002 while communicating with her via e-mail.
Zurawski also said Kelly Bumbaugh and Jamie Elizabeth – now 5 – visited his
Indianapolis home in August 2002 and he visited his daughter in Kosciusko
County in December 2002, when they cut down and decorated a Christmas tree.
He visited again in February 2003, at which time the parties had a disagreement
over Jamie Elizabeth. Kelly Bumbaugh then married Paul Bumbaugh in March 2003,
with the newlyweds filing their petition for adoption a month later.
When Zurawski next went to the Bumbaugh home in May 2003, Kelly Bumbaugh
refused to let him see Jamie Elizabeth and did not tell him adoption
proceedings were under way.
“The statute is fairly clear that the mother has no obligation to identify,
find or contact that father. If he would have followed the law he would be
protected,” said Steve Kirsh, an Indianapolis family lawyer who helped write
the law creating the registry in 1994.
“Why did he never establish paternity? If he would have done that the
putative father registry would not have applied to him. He would have been a
legal father,” he said. “A lot of guys are happy to be there at the time of
conception but not the rest of the time.”
Fort Wayne adoption lawyer David Wright is even more blunt.
“Here’s the whole idea about the registry – it throws the responsibility
back onto the father. If you want to be a father, you’ve got to go to the
registry. If he sits on his rights he loses his rights,” Wright said.
“That’s their problem. I don’t feel bad for them. They actually have to
stand up and take responsibility.”
Zurawski’s story is becoming more common, but fathers such as him – who
haven’t legally established paternity or registered – aren’t getting much
sympathy from the courts.
“The Indiana Court of Appeals in the last year has really put the screws to
the father,” said Melanie Reichert, an attorney for Zurawski. “Cases have
been coming out in rapid succession saying, ‘You didn’t sign up – tough
luck.’ ”
The court so far has sided against the father based on the plain language of
the law, which requires putative fathers to register up to 30 days after the
birth of the child or until a petition for adoption is filed, whichever is
later.
“When a putative father fails to assert said rights by neglecting to register
with the Putative Father Registry, the state’s obligation to provide a child
with permanent, capable and loving adoptive family becomes paramount,” a 2000
court ruling said.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t concerns about the registry’s
constitutional status.
In Zurawski’s case – decided two weeks ago – the court noted that his
only mistake was failing to register on a list he did not know existed.
“Although the statute may give one pause considering fundamental due process
rights, he has not raised the constitutional argument, and we will not do so”
the court said, choosing to sidestep the broader issue.
State and federal law ensures that citizens cannot be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.
Until either the legislature or the Indiana Supreme Court intervenes, it is
imperative that unwed fathers sign up on the registry either through the state
or local health department.
The registry went into effect in 1994 and had only about 50 names on it within
the first six months.
Mary Hinds, a manager in the Vital Records office of the Indiana State
Department of Health, said the list now contains 7,800 fathers.
The 75 to 100 lawyers who work on adoptions check the registry every week, she
said, and a small number are found on the putative father list. The adoptive
parents pay a $50 fee to run the check and that money is used to support the
registry.
“It’s for their own security to ensure a man isn’t going to come along
and say, ‘That’s my child, and I want them back,’ ” Hinds said.
That is, in fact, the whole concept behind the registry.
Kirsh mentioned an early 1990s custody battle in Michigan involving Baby
Jessica that received national attention. In that case, the mother signed
adoption papers giving up custody of her child. She changed her mind two weeks
later, and the putative father filed a paternity affidavit. Eventually, the
courts took the tearful child away from her new adoptive parents and gave her
to the biological mother and father.
Kirsh said he was approached by then-Rep. John Gregg, D-Sandborn, concerned
about how to avoid similar problems in Indiana.
“If you start with the premise that a man knows of the existence of the law
– which I know is a leap – there is no downside to him. It is a
confidential registration and he has an absolute way to protect himself without
relying on the mother,” Kirsh said.
But Reichert contends that protection is lax.
“The list is designed technically to help two individuals, and it really only
helps one. It’s supposed to provide smoother sailing for adoptions while also
helping unwed fathers to ensure they get notice regarding their children. It
doesn’t really meet that goal,” she said. “They don’t know about it.”
But John Herrin – an Indianapolis adoption lawyer who has won several
appellate opinions on the issue – said ignorance of the law is no excuse.
“If it were, we would be living in anarchy,” he said. “It’s a safety
net. It gives him a chance to stand up and be counted. Don’t come to me
whining later if you don’t.”
Reichert noted if there had been an estrangement in the relationship, the man
might not even know a baby exists and would have no reason to register. Not
only would he then not get notice, but legally could not challenge the adoption
or establish paternity.
“This law leaves fathers out in the cold and they are deprived,” Fort Wayne
family law attorney Josh Tourkow said. “It really sucks, but that’s the way
it is.”
He would prefer a system that would require a woman to name anyone who might be
the father and make reasonable attempts to find him. The current law does not
force the mother to tell the court who and where the father is, Reichert said.
“This has been the loophole we’re trying to deal with,” she said.
It becomes especially egregious in cases like Zurawski’s, where the child is
older and has established some relationship with the father.
Reichert said Zurawski never sought paternity because it was never disputed
that he was the father.
And they were getting along, although he never supported the child financially.
“When he wanted to see the child he could,” she said. “Typically people
only go to court when having a problem.”
Sen. Murray Clark, R-Indianapolis, filed a bill to soften the blow of the
registry in 2000. It passed the Senate but never received a hearing in the
House.
That bill would have required notice to be given to the putative father of any
child who is at least 1 year old if the father had exercised any visitation
with or provided support for the child within a certain period. The notice
would be given regardless of whether the man had registered on the putative
father list.
“We were trying to balance a little bit. When we established the adoption
code we weren’t trying to chop the legs out from the natural fathers,”
Clark said. “By setting up the registry, we were trying to give fathers a way
to protect themselves on the front end. But for the best interests of the
child, there has to be some sort of fish-or-cut-bait moment.
“It’s hard to put a statute together that is perfect.”
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
Registry stops fathers from stopping adoption
Only obscure list prevents losing custody of child
By Niki Kelly
The Journal Gazette
INDIANAPOLIS – Maciej Zurawski woke up one morning last August and suddenly
wasn’t the father of his 4-year-old daughter.
That’s because the girl’s mother – who lives in Kosciusko County –
petitioned to have her new husband adopt Jamie Elizabeth.
A judge granted the adoption without so much as an e-mail, phone call or letter
to Zurawski.
And it’s all perfectly legal.
That’s because Zurawski, who never established paternity, had not signed up
for Indiana’s obscure Putative Father Registry.
The registry is a statewide list of unwed men who believe they might be the
fathers of children. Being on the list ensures you receive notice of any
potential adoptions and preserves your right to object to an adoption if
paternity is established.
Failure to register constitutes a man’s “irrevocably implied consent to the
child’s adoption” – even if he never knew the registry existed.
Zurawski challenged the adoption after he realized it had been granted –
saying the girl’s mother, Kelly Stoddard Bumbaugh, committed fraud in her
adoption petition when she said Zurawski’s current address was unknown. She
declined to comment, and her attorney did not return repeated phone calls for
this article.
Kelly Bumbaugh and her new husband, Paul Bumbaugh, did run a public notice in
the newspaper regarding the pending adoption, which wasn’t required by law.
But it ran in Warsaw instead of Indianapolis, where Zurawski lives.
According to court records, Zurawski gave Kelly Bumbaugh his Indianapolis
address in July 2002 while communicating with her via e-mail.
Zurawski also said Kelly Bumbaugh and Jamie Elizabeth – now 5 – visited his
Indianapolis home in August 2002 and he visited his daughter in Kosciusko
County in December 2002, when they cut down and decorated a Christmas tree.
He visited again in February 2003, at which time the parties had a disagreement
over Jamie Elizabeth. Kelly Bumbaugh then married Paul Bumbaugh in March 2003,
with the newlyweds filing their petition for adoption a month later.
When Zurawski next went to the Bumbaugh home in May 2003, Kelly Bumbaugh
refused to let him see Jamie Elizabeth and did not tell him adoption
proceedings were under way.
“The statute is fairly clear that the mother has no obligation to identify,
find or contact that father. If he would have followed the law he would be
protected,” said Steve Kirsh, an Indianapolis family lawyer who helped write
the law creating the registry in 1994.
“Why did he never establish paternity? If he would have done that the
putative father registry would not have applied to him. He would have been a
legal father,” he said. “A lot of guys are happy to be there at the time of
conception but not the rest of the time.”
Fort Wayne adoption lawyer David Wright is even more blunt.
“Here’s the whole idea about the registry – it throws the responsibility
back onto the father. If you want to be a father, you’ve got to go to the
registry. If he sits on his rights he loses his rights,” Wright said.
“That’s their problem. I don’t feel bad for them. They actually have to
stand up and take responsibility.”
Zurawski’s story is becoming more common, but fathers such as him – who
haven’t legally established paternity or registered – aren’t getting much
sympathy from the courts.
“The Indiana Court of Appeals in the last year has really put the screws to
the father,” said Melanie Reichert, an attorney for Zurawski. “Cases have
been coming out in rapid succession saying, ‘You didn’t sign up – tough
luck.’ ”
The court so far has sided against the father based on the plain language of
the law, which requires putative fathers to register up to 30 days after the
birth of the child or until a petition for adoption is filed, whichever is
later.
“When a putative father fails to assert said rights by neglecting to register
with the Putative Father Registry, the state’s obligation to provide a child
with permanent, capable and loving adoptive family becomes paramount,” a 2000
court ruling said.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t concerns about the registry’s
constitutional status.
In Zurawski’s case – decided two weeks ago – the court noted that his
only mistake was failing to register on a list he did not know existed.
“Although the statute may give one pause considering fundamental due process
rights, he has not raised the constitutional argument, and we will not do so”
the court said, choosing to sidestep the broader issue.
State and federal law ensures that citizens cannot be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.
Until either the legislature or the Indiana Supreme Court intervenes, it is
imperative that unwed fathers sign up on the registry either through the state
or local health department.
The registry went into effect in 1994 and had only about 50 names on it within
the first six months.
Mary Hinds, a manager in the Vital Records office of the Indiana State
Department of Health, said the list now contains 7,800 fathers.
The 75 to 100 lawyers who work on adoptions check the registry every week, she
said, and a small number are found on the putative father list. The adoptive
parents pay a $50 fee to run the check and that money is used to support the
registry.
“It’s for their own security to ensure a man isn’t going to come along
and say, ‘That’s my child, and I want them back,’ ” Hinds said.
That is, in fact, the whole concept behind the registry.
Kirsh mentioned an early 1990s custody battle in Michigan involving Baby
Jessica that received national attention. In that case, the mother signed
adoption papers giving up custody of her child. She changed her mind two weeks
later, and the putative father filed a paternity affidavit. Eventually, the
courts took the tearful child away from her new adoptive parents and gave her
to the biological mother and father.
Kirsh said he was approached by then-Rep. John Gregg, D-Sandborn, concerned
about how to avoid similar problems in Indiana.
“If you start with the premise that a man knows of the existence of the law
– which I know is a leap – there is no downside to him. It is a
confidential registration and he has an absolute way to protect himself without
relying on the mother,” Kirsh said.
But Reichert contends that protection is lax.
“The list is designed technically to help two individuals, and it really only
helps one. It’s supposed to provide smoother sailing for adoptions while also
helping unwed fathers to ensure they get notice regarding their children. It
doesn’t really meet that goal,” she said. “They don’t know about it.”
But John Herrin – an Indianapolis adoption lawyer who has won several
appellate opinions on the issue – said ignorance of the law is no excuse.
“If it were, we would be living in anarchy,” he said. “It’s a safety
net. It gives him a chance to stand up and be counted. Don’t come to me
whining later if you don’t.”
Reichert noted if there had been an estrangement in the relationship, the man
might not even know a baby exists and would have no reason to register. Not
only would he then not get notice, but legally could not challenge the adoption
or establish paternity.
“This law leaves fathers out in the cold and they are deprived,” Fort Wayne
family law attorney Josh Tourkow said. “It really sucks, but that’s the way
it is.”
He would prefer a system that would require a woman to name anyone who might be
the father and make reasonable attempts to find him. The current law does not
force the mother to tell the court who and where the father is, Reichert said.
“This has been the loophole we’re trying to deal with,” she said.
It becomes especially egregious in cases like Zurawski’s, where the child is
older and has established some relationship with the father.
Reichert said Zurawski never sought paternity because it was never disputed
that he was the father.
And they were getting along, although he never supported the child financially.
“When he wanted to see the child he could,” she said. “Typically people
only go to court when having a problem.”
Sen. Murray Clark, R-Indianapolis, filed a bill to soften the blow of the
registry in 2000. It passed the Senate but never received a hearing in the
House.
That bill would have required notice to be given to the putative father of any
child who is at least 1 year old if the father had exercised any visitation
with or provided support for the child within a certain period. The notice
would be given regardless of whether the man had registered on the putative
father list.
“We were trying to balance a little bit. When we established the adoption
code we weren’t trying to chop the legs out from the natural fathers,”
Clark said. “By setting up the registry, we were trying to give fathers a way
to protect themselves on the front end. But for the best interests of the
child, there has to be some sort of fish-or-cut-bait moment.
“It’s hard to put a statute together that is perfect.”
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
