Wednesday Weirdness-Unknowingly Signing Adoption Papers for Your Lover and His Infertile Wife UPDATED
Welcome to Wednesday Weirdness, a recurring theme where we post something truly weird and wacky in adoption or child welfare.
Watch what documents you sign or don’t have an affair with a married man or how about doing both?
“A Pennsylvania woman is fighting for her child after she says the man she met online had her sign papers that turned over custody of their child to his wife.
Kristy Gaffney met her lover Emmitt Dippold on an online dating site, and the couple eventually developed a close relationship, NBC 10 Philadelphia reports.
When Gaffney became pregnant, Dippold presented her with papers that Gaffney says he explained would give him partial custody of the child.
Dippold had previously revealed that he didn’t have children because his wife had trouble conceiving.
But when Dippold didn’t return with their child one day, Gaffney told NBC 10 that he revealed that the documents were actually adoption papers giving Dippold and his wife — to whom he was still married — custody of the child.
Gaffney went to court to overturn the adoption, and the judge ruled in her favor. However, the couple plans to appeal the decision. ”
The blogger goes on to make some irrational comparisons of this case to Torry Hansen’s case and another case. If you haven’t reached your facepalm quota for today, read those at Kristy Gaffney Fights For Child After ‘Unknowingly’ Signing Adoption Papers With Man She Met Online
[Huffington Post 2/3/12]
Kristy claims that he told her that he was divorced and that his name was Ed DuPont.
“As their relationship continued, Gaffney got pregnant. She says at first Ed demanded she get an abortion and then changed his mind. After the baby was born, Gaffney says Ed asked her to sign some papers that would ensure he could claim his rights as the baby’s father. Gaffney says although she didn’t understand the paperwork, she signed it anyway and the two shared caring for the baby while Ed rehabbed his home so they could all live together as a family.
Woman Fights Man She Met Online for Baby
[NBC 10 2/3/12]
REFORM Puzzle Piece
At least the judge saw this adoption as fraudulent.
Update: “The Pennsylvania woman currently sees her infant daughter every other weekend ” as she waits for her case to move through the court system.
“A judge overturned the adoption, ruling that it was based on fraud, and that Gaffney signed away her rights under duress. The Dippolds’ appeal could take six months to resolve, according to Gaffney’s attorney. The Dippolds could then take the case to the Supreme Court, which could take another year.
During that time, Gaffney’s daughter would remain in the Dippolds’ custody, where she has been for more than a year. Gaffney is appealing to the media to try to help speed up the process.
“When you’re with somebody and you talk to them every single day and you see them a couple times a week at least, you’re discussing the future like we were constantly, you don’t think that someone would do something like this to you,’’ she told Curry.
“The document was signed in its entirety before two notaries who have testified under oath in court that she signed the document,’’ the Dippolds’ attorney, Steven D. Silverman, told NBC News.
“Emmitt Dippold has no interest in disparaging the birth mother. I’m here to make a plea to this woman that it is not in the best interest of her daughter to create a media sensation about this baby.’’
The Dippolds declined to comment to NBC News, saying through their lawyer that they “do not want a very private matter to be played out in the media.’’
Woman in adoption dispute: Couple ‘schemed against me’
[MSNBC 2/21/12 by Scott Stump]
This has happened to birthparents who are given multi-page documents to sign. They sign only the last page and the front pages can be changed to anything the filer wants. It is fraud, but hiring an attorney to petition the court to revisit the issue and terms of the agreement is expensive.
For all those who would shout how "dumb" Ms. Gaffney was, or "why didn't she read what she signed first?", etc., here's a newsflash: this is typical of how most closed adoptions were handled in Pennsylvania up until relatively recently. Get a young, vulnerable mother hot out of the delivery room to sign relinquishment papers while under the influence of mind- or mood-altering drugs (this includes lactation suppressants and common painkillers). Any other so-called "contract" signed under such conditions would be thrown out of the window. But thousands and thousands of adoptions occurred this way right through the 1980's. Dippold's tactics are just the latest nefarious way to acquire a womb-fresh infant, since so few are available now through traditional and legal adoption means. We also have ABC reporting on the influx of Facebook and Craigslist solicitations of young, pregnant women (patently illegal in ALL states) for their infants. When will we ever get that childbirth or *acquiring* a child is not a right, but a privilege? And when will we ever get that adoption is about finding homes for children who desperately need them, not about finding infants for couples who desperately want them? Until we change that mentality (and the sickening glut of celebrity child-plucking, e.g. Angelina, Madonna, Sandra Bullock, Catherine Heigl, et al), we will continue to see plots like this one, hospital newborn-stealing, or crazed women slicing infants out of mother's wombs. I'd still like to see a little more meat on this story from its original source, NBC10 — it seems to be missing some elements. But it does appear by the judge's decision that Ms. Gaffney was vindicated. So far.