http://www.news4jax.com/news/3756931/detail.html

Duval Judge Hears Bitter Adoptive Custody Case

POSTED: 8:30 pm EDT September 23, 2004

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Duval County judge heard both sides of a bitter custody
battle involving an adopted boy Thursday.

The biological mother of 3-year-old Evan Scott gave her son up for adoption
when he was born, but the child's father said he never agreed to the adoption.

Now, he is seeking custody of Evan, who has been living with his adoptive
parents Dawn and Gene Scott.

"It's not about our rights. It's about child's rights," said Dawn Scott before
the hearing.

Evan has lived with his adoptive parents since he was days old, and they said
they aren't prepared to give him up.

"They made us his parents. And now there trying to take him away," said Gene
Scott.

Evan has been staying with his biological father for a few weeks at a time
because of access granted to him by the courts.

Both sides said they couldn't really comment about the case. The judge did not
reach any final decisions Thursday.


-------------------------
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

>The biological mother of 3-year-old Evan Scott gave her son up for adoptionwhen he was born, but the child's father said he never agreed to theadoption.

Where is the attorney who represented the adoptive parents? He/she has some
explaining to do. I think the laws are clear in all fifty states about the
rights or absence of rights unmarried fathers have and any attorney who
professes to be an adoption attorney can be reasonably expected to understand
them.


P2P

I couple years back, dawn was telling people that she would give Evan
back to his mom, a wonderful young woman, if that were the only way to
protect him from his horrible father.

Now recently, she has turned on his mother because the father won his
court battle to stop the adoption, and started getting 2 weeks out of
four visitation, to prepare him for the transition, and the mom wants
visitation also, so she can try to get custody, now that the adoption
has been denied as high up in the Florida court system as it can go.

The father waited a bit over a month after birth to file his suit,
because he was trying to get DNA testing first, but Dawn would not
allow it. so finally he filed in court for custody without DNA
testing. So Dawn blames him for waiting over a month to file his
court papers to contest the adoption. She knew that he did not
consent. She knew he was fighting it. From the time that little boy
was just a few days old and she has dragged this out for 3 1/2 years
loss after loss after loss, and keeps hanging on to Evan, preventing
him have having the opportunity to adjust to his real family when he
was an infant, then while his was a toddler, and here she is, still
fighting even though there are no appeals left to her. Dreaming to
stuff to start up all over again just to stall having to return him to
his parents who love and want him.

Now granted the mom did appear to support Dawn, but that was only
because it was an open adoption and unless she did exactly as Dawn
told her, she would not have been allowed to see her son. So when All
Dawn's appeals were lost, the mom was finally free to fight for
custody of her son. All she did was ask the court to be allowed to
share in the visitation, and Dawn turned on her instantly because the
moms visitation was cutting into her two weeks out of four during the
transition period.

Dawn use to say the dad was abusive. But now that the mom is fighting
to get custody instead of that "abusive man" she would rather the mom
get no visitation now, and no chance of getting custody rather than
the father. What does that tell you about the abuse story? He was
abusive, and the mom was wonderful. But now, she would rather the dad
got Evan, than the mom, only because it is cutting into her time with
Evan. Now is that LOVE OR WHAT?


"From: Evan's Mommy (EvanScottsMo) Sep-10 9:52 am
To: ALL (1 of 5)

24785.1

Please any carseat tech tell me...
Evan was just taken off by his mother in a borrowed, belt positioning
backless booster seat. Evan is always in his Britax and she knows how
I feel about his safety. What are the rules for weight, age height for
this type of booster seat that I would NEVER even buy for a three year
old, 33 lb child....

The seatbelt was up by his neck BTW... :-( ... and they are in a
convertible.

Any advice or links that would be usable in court??? I am so mad I
could scream."

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040924135732.25434.00001176@mb-m04.aol.com>...The biological mother of 3-year-old Evan Scott gave her son up for adoptionwhen he was born, but the child's father said he never agreed to theadoption. Where is the attorney who represented the adoptive parents? He/she has some explaining to do. I think the laws are clear in all fifty states about the rights or absence of rights unmarried fathers have and any attorney who professes to be an adoption attorney can be reasonably expected to understand them. P2P

They didn't have an attorney because no adoption ever took place. it
never got that far. The father asked for a paternity test within weeks
of the child 's birth and the Scott's refused his attorney's (who was
also the child's grandfather) request to establish his son's
paternity to Evan - even though they had no legal custody of the
child. Their argument for not agreeing to it was that unless it was
court ordered they simply weren't going to allow it.
Enter court case.

The Scott's then based their case on delay, hoping the longer they
held on to Evan the better chance they would have of keeping him. The
Scotts were originally on the About.com forum but soon set up their
own forum to garner support for their plan to build a case against
the father and his family almost from day one. Until recently they
depicted the natural mother
as their best friend. Since she changed her position and decided to
support the father in his custody battle they have now been trying to
denigrate her character as a bad mother - for using the wrong type of
car seat when she came to pick Evan up for a court ordered visitation.
Dawn says she now resents that she sang the mother's praises so
publically as it could be used against them.

The Scott's are now blaming the nparents for not considering the best
interest and putting Evan through this ordeal.

This story has been played out on About.com. AmericanBaby.com and
Trinity for the past 3 years.

>Subject: Re: Duval Judge Hears Bitter Adoptive Custody CaseFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 9/24/2004 5:52 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0409241552.3f293053@posting.google.com>

Nice to see you posting about this, Di. I was going to email it to you, just
in case you weren't reading.

Palms: Where is the attorney who represented the adoptive parents? He/she hassome explaining to do. I think the laws are clear in all fifty states about the rights or absence of rights unmarried fathers have and any attorney who professes to be an adoption attorney can be reasonably expected tounderstand them. P2P

Di:They didn't have an attorney because no adoption ever took place. itnever got that far. The father asked for a paternity test within weeksof the child 's birth and the Scott's refused his attorney's (who wasalso the child's grandfather) request to establish his son'spaternity to Evan - even though they had no legal custody of thechild. Their argument for not agreeing to it was that unless it wascourt ordered they simply weren't going to allow it.Enter court case.The Scott's then based their case on delay, hoping the longer theyheld on to Evan the better chance they would have of keeping him. TheScotts were originally on the About.com forum but soon set up theirown forum to garner support for their plan to build a case againstthe father and his family almost from day one.

This is what I really REALLY took offense to. I didn't really spend a lot of
time on the About.com forums, but I did take note of the idiot (who turned out
to be Evan's wanna-be adoptive mom) who had a collage of pictures on her sig,
including a pic of the poor kid's naked butt. That disgusted me, along with
her screen name "Evanscottsmom" ugh.



Until recently theydepicted the natural motheras their best friend. Since she changed her position and decided tosupport the father in his custody battle they have now been trying todenigrate her character as a bad mother - for using the wrong type ofcar seat when she came to pick Evan up for a court ordered visitation.Dawn says she now resents that she sang the mother's praises sopublically as it could be used against them.The Scott's are now blaming the nparents for not considering the bestinterest and putting Evan through this ordeal.

Um yeah. Posting naked pictures of the kid on the internet was in his best
interest.
This story has been played out on About.com. AmericanBaby.com andTrinity for the past 3 years.

Nice to see you weighing in. Hopefully the judgement will come down in the
next few days.

Do you still read there? Any word from the wanna-be amom?


-------------------------
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

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote

Oh no not another "possession is nine points of the law" kind of
case...I imagine if there was no adoption, their chances are pretty
slim.

Rupa

They didn't have an attorney because no adoption ever took place. it never got that far. The father asked for a paternity test within weeks of the child 's birth and the Scott's refused his attorney's (who was also the child's grandfather) request to establish his son's paternity to Evan - even though they had no legal custody of the child. Their argument for not agreeing to it was that unless it was court ordered they simply weren't going to allow it. Enter court case. The Scott's then based their case on delay, hoping the longer they held on to Evan the better chance they would have of keeping him. The Scotts were originally on the About.com forum but soon set up their own forum to garner support for their plan to build a case against the father and his family almost from day one. Until recently they depicted the natural mother as their best friend. Since she changed her position and decided to support the father in his custody battle they have now been trying to denigrate her character as a bad mother - for using the wrong type of car seat when she came to pick Evan up for a court ordered visitation. Dawn says she now resents that she sang the mother's praises so publically as it could be used against them. The Scott's are now blaming the nparents for not considering the best interest and putting Evan through this ordeal. This story has been played out on About.com. AmericanBaby.com and Trinity for the past 3 years.

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040924093400.24078.00001107@mb-m13.aol.com>... http://www.news4jax.com/news/3756931/detail.html Duval Judge Hears Bitter Adoptive Custody Case POSTED: 8:30 pm EDT September 23, 2004 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Duval County judge heard both sides of a bitter custody battle involving an adopted boy Thursday. The biological mother of 3-year-old Evan Scott gave her son up for adoption when he was born, but the child's father said he never agreed to the adoption. Now, he is seeking custody of Evan, who has been living with his adoptive parents Dawn and Gene Scott. "It's not about our rights. It's about child's rights," said Dawn Scott before the hearing. Evan has lived with his adoptive parents since he was days old, and they said they aren't prepared to give him up. "They made us his parents. And now there trying to take him away," said Gene Scott. Evan has been staying with his biological father for a few weeks at a time because of access granted to him by the courts. Both sides said they couldn't really comment about the case. The judge did not reach any final decisions Thursday.


Everybody looks more or less a **** in this case, IMO. But the Scott's
egregious behavior (stalling, defaming, and all the sickening
publicity stunts they go in for) takes the cake.
Somebody needs to smarten up and think about this kid - *really* think
about his interests, that is - his need for family that isn't tearing
itself apart fighting over him like a piece of red meat.
Yech, puke, gag.

Rh. ------------------------- 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

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040924235330.08741.00000979@mb-m13.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Duval Judge Hears Bitter Adoptive Custody CaseFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 9/24/2004 5:52 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0409241552.3f293053@posting.google.com> Nice to see you posting about this, Di. I was going to email it to you, just in case you weren't reading.

Someone else beat you to it. Palms: Where is the attorney who represented the adoptive parents? He/she has some explaining to do. I think the laws are clear in all fifty states about the rights or absence of rights unmarried fathers have and any attorney who professes to be an adoption attorney can be reasonably expected to understand them. P2P Di:They didn't have an attorney because no adoption ever took place. itnever got that far. The father asked for a paternity test within weeksof the child 's birth and the Scott's refused his attorney's (who wasalso the child's grandfather) request to establish his son'spaternity to Evan - even though they had no legal custody of thechild. Their argument for not agreeing to it was that unless it wascourt ordered they simply weren't going to allow it.Enter court case.The Scott's then based their case on delay, hoping the longer theyheld on to Evan the better chance they would have of keeping him. TheScotts were originally on the About.com forum but soon set up theirown forum to garner support for their plan to build a case againstthe father and his family almost from day one. This is what I really REALLY took offense to. I didn't really spend a lot of time on the About.com forums, but I did take note of the idiot (who turned out to be Evan's wanna-be adoptive mom) who had a collage of pictures on her sig, including a pic of the poor kid's naked butt. That disgusted me, along with her screen name "Evanscottsmom" ugh.
The poor kids photo's are still plastered all over the net. They've
had no consideraion for his privacy at all. It surpises me that she
has been allowed to do that. Until recently theydepicted the natural motheras their best friend. Since she changed her position and decided tosupport the father in his custody battle they have now been trying todenigrate her character as a bad mother - for using the wrong type ofcar seat when she came to pick Evan up for a court ordered visitation.Dawn says she now resents that she sang the mother's praises sopublically as it could be used against them.The Scott's are now blaming the nparents for not considering the bestinterest and putting Evan through this ordeal. Um yeah. Posting naked pictures of the kid on the internet was in his best interest.This story has been played out on About.com. AmericanBaby.com andTrinity for the past 3 years. Nice to see you weighing in. Hopefully the judgement will come down in the next few days. Do you still read there? Any word from the wanna-be amom?
Sometimes, but she rarely posts there nowdays. She posts where people
don't know the full history and lets them believe the father has only
recently surfaced to claim his son. He's certainly been no angel in
the past but it had nothing to do with his child. ------------------------- 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

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0409250051.9b3f1e1@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote Oh no not another "possession is nine points of the law" kind of case...I imagine if there was no adoption, their chances are pretty slim.

Never say never, Rupa. Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Rupa They didn't have an attorney because no adoption ever took place. it never got that far. The father asked for a paternity test within weeks of the child 's birth and the Scott's refused his attorney's (who was also the child's grandfather) request to establish his son's paternity to Evan - even though they had no legal custody of the child. Their argument for not agreeing to it was that unless it was court ordered they simply weren't going to allow it. Enter court case. The Scott's then based their case on delay, hoping the longer they held on to Evan the better chance they would have of keeping him. The Scotts were originally on the About.com forum but soon set up their own forum to garner support for their plan to build a case against the father and his family almost from day one. Until recently they depicted the natural mother as their best friend. Since she changed her position and decided to support the father in his custody battle they have now been trying to denigrate her character as a bad mother - for using the wrong type of car seat when she came to pick Evan up for a court ordered visitation. Dawn says she now resents that she sang the mother's praises so publically as it could be used against them. The Scott's are now blaming the nparents for not considering the best interest and putting Evan through this ordeal. This story has been played out on About.com. AmericanBaby.com and Trinity for the past 3 years.