Irish Invitational Swim Meet
National Signing Day
Madison vs. Dixie
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > July > 25 > Entry
Editorial: ‘Baby Vanessa’ needs a parent
There isn’t a judge in his or her right mind who is going to give Benjamin Mills Jr. his biological daughter, a 2-year-old named Vanessa who has spent her entire short life with a California woman who’s trying to adopt her.
But the process of formally getting to a decision is making the courts and other authorities appear as if they’ve lost their minds.
Mr. Mills has four other children, none of whom is in his custody, two of whom are being raised by his mother. He served time in prison for domestic violence against his daughter’s birth mother.
Despite this track record, he has filed for custody of Vanessa, thereby throwing a legal wrench in Stacey Doss’ efforts to finalize a private adoption of Vanessa in California, which the birth mother initiated.
Meanwhile, Montgomery County Children Services has been drawn into the legal tug-of-war, and the agency has paid several thousand dollars to fly Mr. Mills to California for supervised visitation of the child.
Mr. Mills has chosen to exercise every right known to man and fathers to prevent his child from going to what, by all appearances, is a good home. And taxpayers are paying the bill. He has Legal Aid lawyers in Ohio and California.
Legal Aid of Western Ohio, which assists low-income individuals with civil legal matters, makes choices every day about what kinds of cases it will and will not take. Just because you ask for help doesn’t mean you get a free lawyer. Judgments are made about the importance of a case, the chance of prevailing and the magnitude of an alleged injustice.
While terminating parental rights is serious business, Mr. Mills and his lawyers have to know that he can only be obstructionist, that he doesn’t have a prayer of gaining custody. And he’s hardly the ideal candidate to make the case that parental rights are sacred.
Also worth considering is that Mr. Mills is pressing his case against adoption in California, not just Ohio.
He can be given his day in court, but he doesn’t have to be assisted in his effort to go to the mat in two places — there and in Montgomery County.
In truth, lawyers on both sides are doing what’s called “forum-shopping.”
Ms. Doss, who has known almost from the beginning that Mr. Mills was opposed to the adoption, wants to be heard in California because her attorneys believe that California’s law is more favorable to her than Ohio’s. They argue that the case should be resolved there because that’s where the adoption papers were filed, adding that Ms. Doss filed them before Mr. Mills went to court in Montgomery County.
Mr. Mills and his lawyer, on the other hand, are here in Ohio, and they want to make this a custody battle rather than an adoption battle. That distinction matters because even if he loses custody — with Ms. Doss possibly getting Vanessa — he’d still be in the picture.
The child couldn’t be put up for adoption without his consent. Or he’d have to have his parental rights terminated, which is a long, torturous process.
Mr. Mills has done all the right things to protect his rights, including adding his name to a registry that requires he be notified if a child he believes he fathered is put up for adoption.
(That registry was created to make it easier to adopt a child when, typically, the father has disappeared. It puts the burden on a biological father to say he has an interest in a child, rather than on the would-be adoptive parents or birth mother to get the man’s permission. The theory is that if a father is so uninterested that he didn’t know he got someone pregnant, or if he has so little contact with the birth mother that he doesn’t even know she’s pregnant, then he forfeits his right to object.)
It’s also not Mr. Mills’ fault that this case has dragged on for so long, with judges punting decisions back and forth between two states.
A custody hearing is set for Thursday, July 29, in Montgomery County Juvenile Court Judge Nick Kuntz’s court. That might not go forward, though, because Judge Kuntz could decide to wait to see if a California court of appeals orders a lower California court judge to proceed with the adoption hearing.
A lot of time, money and emotion are being wasted trying to decide a case that has unusual wrinkles. Let Mr. Mills be heard in California, let him object to the adoption there and let that judge pick.
There’s no splitting the baby.
Permalink | Comments (60) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Social Services
Comments
By Dave
July 25, 2010 12:46 AM | Link to this
Yes I agree. DDN wrote: Legal Aid of Western Ohio, which assists low-income individuals with civil legal matters, makes choices every day about what kinds of cases it will and will not take. Just because you ask for help doesn’t mean you get a free lawyer. Judgments are made about the importance of a case, the chance of prevailing and the magnitude of an alleged injustice. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is so true. It is an example of how out of touch the institutions we pay for are with the community they serve. I mean all of us, the entire community. Legal Aid is doing this instead of other case work helping those where it can improves peoples lives. Not complicate them and destroy them. This is not a class in theory but real life. Some heads should roll at Legal Aid and the funding sources need to rethink the financial support for this nonsense. I will not call the dad a sperm donor, he is not that but his other children are not with him either. You can not avoid that realization. If he wins this will simply be another baby for Grandma to raise. But by the same token spanks should go all around too. They knew from day one that this was a mess. But when it is all said and done the interest of the child should trump everything. Such a mess.
By Susan
July 25, 2010 2:56 AM | Link to this
LAWO is an organization most people would commend for all the good they’ve done for so many DESERVING citizens. In particular, one might commend Atty. Elizabeth Gorman for the time she has dedicated to serving on the Board of Trustees for the Ohio Juvenile Justice Coalition, a coalition who’s mission is ‘Speaking out for Ohio’s youth.’ But tell me.. How does someone so committed to’speaking out for Ohio’s youth’ move on to representing a man in a child custody case who: has multiple convictions for domestic violence for which he has served time in prision,has an open case w/ Children Services for child endangering, fails to meet his parental obligation to pay child support for 4 other children (none of which he has custody),etc? And of note to the taxpayers of Ohio & Montgomery County…This man is being provided legal representation at NO COST to him. Well, we all know that nothing in life is free. Someone is funding LAWO. Hmmm. Might that we be us? And what about LAWO donors? Does anyone really think that they intend for their donations to be used to defend such a person? We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.LAWO has become as criminal as the man they are defending!
By DT
July 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Link to this
I think the thing to remember here is that the birth mother circumvented the father’s rights to this child and put her up for adoption without his knowledge or approval. While I agree that this is not the poster man for parental rights, can we really afford to let parental rights simply be thrown aside because the media and the potential adoptive mother’s attorneys have taken every opportunity to tell us what a bad person he is? And do we really know that the potential adoptive mother is a good person? I haven’t seen where anyone has delved into her background like they have Mr. Mills’. Clearly if LAWO agreed to take this case, they feel it is worth their time, money, and effort to support Mr. Mills’ rights, and those of birth fathers everywhere.
By Amy in OHio
July 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Link to this
DT: yes, I agree parental rights are important…in many cases. But at what point do Vanessa’s right to a normal life without attachment issues TRUMP this man’s right to have his mother raise a child he is unfit to parent? IF we all agree he has parental rights, doesn’t that mean he has an obligation to actually PARENT? Parental rights are EARNED every day. THey are not just awarded without question when the sperm hits the egg. This man does not parent his first four kids - where does that factor into your thinking?
By Max
July 25, 2010 10:56 AM | Link to this
If memory serves me, there is a Federal Statute (Uniform Child Custody Juriosdiction Act) to address most matters regarding the custody, welfare, etc. of children under any state jurisdiction. This case MAY be before the wrong courts.
By Amy in OHio
July 25, 2010 11:14 AM | Link to this
And as for Stacey Doss’s fitness, if all parents had to go through what potential adoptive parents have to go through in order to become parents, there would a heck of lot less parents out there in this country. The screening process is long, grueling, with multiple background checks. Vanessa didn’t end up in Stacey’s hands on a whim. If this was a decision based on a comparison between Stacey Doss and Benjamin Mills, it would be a no-brainer.
By Susan
July 25, 2010 11:28 AM | Link to this
@DT-Before a person(s)is ever even ‘eligible’ to have a child placed in their home through adoption, a very extensive process is followed, as I’m sure you know. This includes an extensive inquiry into a persons individual background,family background, psychological exams, physical exams, home studies, etc… It’s unfortunate that the biological father, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t have to pass all those so called ‘tests’ before being able to call himself a father!! What a wonderful world we might live in if that was indeed the case. Little Vanessa should not be a victim of our system. Let the obvious be the obvious! Where is the common sense? Mr. Mills has proven himself to be a violent criminal capable of doing great harm, physical and emotional. Imagine what he would do to little Vanessa. If the ‘child’s best interest’ is truly the foundation of any decision made, he will never have that opportunity.
By Jebster
July 25, 2010 11:34 AM | Link to this
If Mr Mills is not given custody, then this could very easily set a precedent for future cases like this. Is it really fair to fathers who might take an active interest in their child to be penalized because Mr Mills isn’t the perfect image of a father? I don’t think so. I am sure not too many people who are commenting on the case know him and are getting their information and forming their opinions about him from the media. I agree there were some mistakes made in this case, but we need to keep a father’s rights in mind, irregardless of the type of person Mr Mills appears to be.
By Susan
July 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Link to this
And do tell, Mr. Benjamin Mills… How many tax dollars have you paid just since you began fathering children? Taxpayers never intended for their hard earned tax dollars to help fund the representation of such a detriment to our society. In the name of all the children out there that have become statistics of the system, I pray to God that our juvenile court system and Legal Aid of Western Ohio never come to wear the blood of this innocent child on their hands.
By Jebster
July 25, 2010 11:45 AM | Link to this
I think an important issue here is a father’s rights. If Mr. Mills is denied custody, this could very well set a precedent in future cases such as this. This is not the case to be setting precedents with. What if this happened to a father who wasn’t the type of person Mr Mills appears to be, and because of this case, has his child taken away.Is that fair? No. Most people are basing their judgement on Mr Mills from the media. Maybe he is trying to become a better person. Most of us on here have probably never met him and don’t really know what kind of person he is. Mistakes were made in this case and a father’s rights need to be taken into account here, irregardless of the type of person Mr. Mills appears to be.
By Amy in OHio
July 25, 2010 12:02 PM | Link to this
If the legal precedent set here is kids get to have rights and they are entitled parents of quality, then I’m fine with that precedent. Vanessa has rights too. What do you say to those rights? Are hers any less worthy than Mills’?
By Susan
July 25, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this
@ “BB” - Who gives a rat’s a#@ about your opinion of the birth mother. She is not the issue at hand here. As to your accusations of her being a ‘meth head’: She obviously had enough brain cells to recognize that that child deserves a better life than she could provide. Hats off to her unselfishness, courage, and strength. Imagine the world we live in if there were more people with such characteristics! The only issue at hand should be ‘the best interest of this child’. PERIOD!
By BB
July 25, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this
@Jebster, take it from one who has known this misfit for alot of years, he is not trying to become a better person. Just working the system and showing the birth mother a thing or two. Always up to no good and abusing the system. It is a shame that the system always falls for his crap. He now is running around telling folks there’s going to be a movie about all of this nonsense and he is going to get lots of money. What a joke!
By BB
July 25, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
@Susan, how about she acquire enough brain cells to think, hmm, I need to quit spit’n out unwanted babies! How ‘bout that, “Susan”?????
By And your point would be...
July 25, 2010 12:50 PM | Link to this
I think we can safely remove the question mark there Village Idiot.
By Saul Alinsky
July 25, 2010 12:59 PM | Link to this
“And your point would be…”: Stellar response there braniac! Exactly what I’ve taught!! Do not address the facts, attack the person, deflect the issue, do not address statements made that are able to be verified. I am dismayed that you didn’t insult more effectively. Are you a student of my teachings, or have you lived it your whole life? If the latter is true, we need to talk!
By Mantis
July 25, 2010 1:04 PM | Link to this
BB, I agree that Benjamin Mills Jr. is irresponsible and not fit to be a parent, but what does the fact that his children are mixed race have to do with the price of oil in Saudi Arabia?
By And your point would be...
July 25, 2010 1:10 PM | Link to this
Not sure what a “braniac” is exactly? I just re-read idiot’s comment and I’m sorry, what “facts” were there to argue with exactly? And more to the issue, what did idiot offer on this specific matter?
By It's your money
July 25, 2010 5:17 PM | Link to this
It is your money and they are spending it. Call and tell em how you feel about it. 333 W. First St., Ste. 500A Dayton, OH 45402-3031 (937) 228-8088 (800) 867-9431 FAX: (937) 449-8131 TTY: (888) 554-7415
By More money please
July 25, 2010 5:26 PM | Link to this
Oh more money, did someone say dad wanted to be in the movies…this kid is barter…he should get the kids back that are closest to him. That is the easiest. Give him all of his kids including the ones Grandma has. Also ask daddy to sign a pledge not to profit from this. He won’t do it. Let him show what this is really about.
By Quentin
July 26, 2010 9:04 AM | Link to this
Funny since when women profit I see few complaints and even abusive women get custody all the time with people having little to no issues with it. Yes he may not be great but all we are hearing is from the women who are in the media on it and he is trying to keep it quiet with his daughter out of the media. Claiming he wants to profit and make a movie doesn’t make sense since every picture we see is of the adoptive mother and most are professionally done with reporters there. We already have a system that gives fathers little to no rights and while Mills may not be a poster boy, ruling that he can be removed this easily is a bad precident to set.
By Amy in OHio
July 26, 2010 9:08 AM | Link to this
Quentin, Mills is indeed laying low, but I doubt it has as much to do with Vanessa’s sake as you conjure here. I imagine it has far more to do with the fact that any media outlet worth its salt would ask tough questions he’s not willing to answer. As I said to you before, you have legitimate beefs with the system from what you have said, but don’t take on Benjamin Mills as an ally - he only weakens your argument. You sound like you love and protect your children - don’t compare yourself to him.
By Amy in OHio
July 26, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this
Quentin, Mills is indeed laying low, but I doubt it has as much to do with Vanessa’s sake as you conjure here. I imagine it has far more to do with the fact that any media outlet worth its salt would ask tough questions he’s not willing to answer. As I said to you before, you have legitimate beefs with the system from what you have said, but don’t take on Benjamin Mills as an ally - he only weakens your argument. You sound like you love and protect your children - don’t compare yourself to him.
By Quentin
July 26, 2010 10:13 AM | Link to this
Amy, as I noted, he is not the poster boy for this but also the ruling could set a very bad precident. It could then be readily applied to other cases which are much more worthy. Also I am frinds with someone who went through this. It took him years of fighting, tens of thousands of dollars and precidents in cases like this one were used heavily in the fight against him. He is a VERY good father but the precidents were there to hammer him. No matter what though, pushing this child in front of cameras and reporters is not good for her.
By BM
July 26, 2010 10:22 AM | Link to this
Good fathers everywhere: do NOT hitch your wagon to this loser. Find a truly deserving father and support him in his fight. We believe in good parents everywhere, just not heartless animals like Mills. If you are a GOOD parent, you have no reason to worry about of a law that considers the best of the child! You’ll be fine!
By Quentin
July 26, 2010 10:38 AM | Link to this
BM, under “best interests” claims my children were abused and one repeatedly molested and raped. Again, I am not pushing my case but the fact the laws should be followed and not just ignored based on the whims of officials. Also when we allow this in bad cases like this one, we weaken the ability of GOOD people to have a successful case. I am not advocating for Mills but instead advocating for the LAW to be followed as well as criminals to be prosecuted for breaking it.
By Quentin
July 26, 2010 12:16 PM | Link to this
Interesting the news didn’t note these issues before but now they report the birth mother is seeking a protective order against Mills. They also point out that BOTH have convictions for DV and she has 3 felony convictions for voilating protective orders he had against her. So why hasn’t she been in jail repeatedly for this, in jail for her lies on legal papers for felony perjury and etc? This is the issue I have, the laws are being ignored or enforced based on gender and not the actual laws. This is the same as I saw with CPS, law enforcement, prosecutor’s and judges. The “best interests” seem to be more about gender than the true best interests of our children and allowing bad case law to continue will just make the situation worse for children and good fathers. http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/daytoncourts/entries/2010/07/26/babyvanessabirthmomfiles_f.html
By Amy in OHio
July 26, 2010 12:53 PM | Link to this
Quentin - I don’t think she has been pushed in front of the cameras or reporters. The only instance I’ve The only precedent that needs to be set is a simple one: the courts must act in the best interest of the child. If that is the benchmark, good fathers and mothers will win; bad ones will suffer the consequences.
By Amy in OHio
July 26, 2010 1:17 PM | Link to this
I just can’t worry about case law - perhaps my view is too narrow. But for me the only “big picture” is the quality of life for Vanessa. Experts have and will continue to assert that stripping her from the only home she has ever known will damage her beyond repair. Attachment disorders are serious business and her age is a critical time for just such a thing. Vanessa’s rights trump all - Mills’ rights; Mills’ mother’s rights; legal precedent. All that matters is this child, period. She can’t be made to suffer to preserve the legal integrity of our court system.
By Dan
July 26, 2010 1:29 PM | Link to this
Quoting - “There isn’t a judge in his or her right mind who is going to give Benjamin Mills Jr. his biological daughter” - Really? Good luck with that line when the Judge makes the call that is required BY LAW. Quoting again - “Ms. Doss, who has known almost from the beginning that Mr. Mills was opposed to the adoption” - Basically, this is baby theft by a well funded, media savy, camera friendly, upper middle class gal. The Biological Father must win this…and he’s been swinging the bat for this kid since he became aware of her existance.
By Quentin
July 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Link to this
Amy, if that was really the standard then it might be different but the standard is to use that as an excuse for bias towards mothers generally. That was the exact excuse given by a judge to ignore abuse and keep my children in conditions that contributed to the death of one child after his own investigators expressed concerns. Since the court system has no real integrity, then we must demand they follow the laws. If that had happened from the beginning, we also wouldn’t have had the attachment issues you are worried about.
By Lea
July 26, 2010 2:22 PM | Link to this
If the courts REALLY cared about the best interests of the child, they would open up all the parents’ records and publish them in a side-by-side comparison (for the courts - I don’t care about the media), they could find out which parent would be best. Obviously not bio mom, who does not want the girl. Bio dad? Well gee, he wants to give her to his mother immediately. HELLO?! And adoptive mom - maybe even not her.
By Rob
July 26, 2010 4:56 PM | Link to this
By some of the shaky standards advocated here…would all of us survive the scrutiny of the Courts? After all, the “Best Interests” of the child might be interpreted to mean ALL children should be with wealthy parents. Yup, money gets tight in my house from time to time…should my kids be raised by a “better” family with more potential opportunity? Hogwash…the law is the law. Biology wins. Unless the Father has been found unfit, and he hasn’t, this case is a slam dunk. Of course, the adoptive mom has money and looks good on TV so hold the phone…
By Amy in OHio
July 26, 2010 9:20 PM | Link to this
In another article in the News today, Benjamin Mills is quoted as saying he doesn’t wish to raise Vanessa, he wants to turn that responsibility over to his elderly mother, as he has done twice before. What exactly is he fighting for? If he doesn’t wish to parent? Why is he stripping Vanessa from the only parent she has ever known. All of your trumpeting the letter of the law - there are laws bigger than the State of Ohio’s at play here.
By Susan
July 26, 2010 9:31 PM | Link to this
@Rob-Why are you mentioning money? Aside from the fact that BM is spending taxpayers money to fight for rights to a child that he doesn’t want to raise (not to mention the many times our dollars paid the public defender to represent him),the issue isn’t money.The issue is that this man has proven himself to be a violent criminal capable of doing great harm,both physical and emotional. What part of that talks money? Besides, whatever money the adoptive mother had is gone. Because she is a responsible adult that works to provide for her child, she must be responsible for her legal fees-not the taxpayers. But what I am sure of is that she will continue to do what is necessary to love, nurture and provide for her daughter ‘til the end of time. Hence, this woman is willing to give up everthing she has to protect what’s most important to her…Her daughter. And at the same time, Mr. Mills continues to live life on our dimes. Please don’t make money an issue here. The only money issue here is OUR MONEY!
By zack
July 26, 2010 9:36 PM | Link to this
hey, dan, why doesn’t he “swing the bat” for his other four children? this man does not care about any of his children. this is about revenge. he hates that the biological mother gave away his property. period. would any of you who have children let Mills babysit your child? if you say “yes” you are a liar. with his violent history he should not be allowed within 100 yards of any child.
By Susan
July 26, 2010 9:42 PM | Link to this
We’ve all been around long enough to know that in cases of domestic violence, what matters most to the abuser is his victim. Mr. Mills has lost control of Andrea Conley…That enrages him. And because of that he has set out on a mission to get revenge….at any cost. (Even if that cost is anything but the ‘best interst of a child’.) Not just sad. Pathetic.
By Susan
July 26, 2010 9:56 PM | Link to this
p.s. The only bat Benjamin Mills will swing is at a woman’s head. Pathetic.
By BigDaddy
July 26, 2010 10:01 PM | Link to this
@Dan “Basically, this is baby theft by a well funded, media savy, camera friendly, upper middle class gal. “ Baby theft??? Are you friggin kidding me? She has complied with every law…there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Camera friendly…not relevant! Have you actually looked into this case at all? Doss has gone through foreclosure 2 times…not really upper middle class. You are so quick with your darts, but really you just look ignorant.
By Kimberly
July 27, 2010 12:27 AM | Link to this
While most of these comments are pointing the blame at Conley, Mills, or Doss, shouldn’t we be instead setting aside how it got this far and what needs to be done from here on out. The only thing that matters here is where Vanessa should be raised. For a second, forget the laws and focus on Vanessa. Imagine what her life would be like with Mills and then Doss based on what you know. Who is more likely to be a constant in Vanessa’s life to take her shopping, cook her meals, slip notes of encouragement in her lunchbox, help with her school work, read her bedtime stories, comfort her when life is hard, and cheer her on when she needs it? This is what a parent does. This is what Stacey is doing, this is not what Mills does with any of his children. Although I will give him the benefit of the doubt as it could be too difficult to do from prison.
By Cyndi
July 27, 2010 1:02 AM | Link to this
I can’t say it enough - Vanessa’s rights are what matters. Her birthmom, Andrea, gave Vanessa life and a beautiful gift of motherhood to Stacey. Stacey is fighting with everything in her to keep her daughter. Both women have shown true courage in their journey. Vanessa will be so proud someday when she knows the story of the women who loved her! When I read some of the comments on the blog, I just get sick in my heart. Who could possibly defend a man to become Vanessa’s parent, who was so violent towards the mother of his child that he has served time for it? Who can defend a man who does not act like a father and care for his children, but lets his mom try to fill his shoes? And who can defend a man that is using our Ohio taxpayer money to work the system? Thank you Stacey and Andrea for always putting Vanessa first in your lives!
By save vanessa
July 27, 2010 1:23 AM | Link to this
A women can have an abortion and no questions are asked about how the father feels or if he wants this child, so why can’t an unwed,unstable mother choose to give her child away? She chose life, and a better one than she could give, Give him supervised visitation and be done, Not that he deserves that!!!!!
By save vanessa
July 27, 2010 1:24 AM | Link to this
A women can have an abortion and no questions are asked about how the father feels or if he wants this child, so why can’t an unwed,unstable mother choose to give her child away? She chose life, and a better one than she could give, Give him supervised visitation and be done, Not that he deserves that!!!!!
By Quentin
July 27, 2010 7:36 AM | Link to this
Interesting that the mother who ALSO has a violent past against Mills is call “couragous” for giving his child away and he is supposed to be a controlling mosnter. Have any of you defending her and attacking him thought that maybe SHE is the abuser and gave away his child out of revenge because he actually has dared to get a protective order against her for her abuse that she ignored repeatedly? As I have said before, he isn’t the poster child for fathers but the way she is being portrayed as a victim and poster mother just shows what I have been saying all along. People will call even bad mothers who are violent “victims” yet even a good father will be trashed and continuing legal precidents where you have no rights based on being male will just be used to hammer good fathers. “save vanessa” is a perfect example of this too since under her beliefs, since fathers have no say in abortion, they should have no say after either but want to bet she is all for demanding child support to help raise a child if the father didn’t want them? Fathers have no real rights but we better be responsible or go to jail for being scumbags.
By Pat
July 27, 2010 9:44 AM | Link to this
After reading this morning that the grandparents are wanting to adopt the baby I am at a lost to why?? I know they get money from the State to support these children but what are OLD people doing adopting young children? Is is for the money??? You can be sure it’s not for LOVE…..
By NMP
July 27, 2010 9:58 AM | Link to this
There are always two sides to every story, the facts speak the truth. You have a child whose life is titter tottering on being upset beyond what most people can conceive. The fact is that this baby has been with the only mother she knows, and now just because the “sperm donor” male, who apparently has a checkered past, to say the least, wants this child taken from her mother and to be raised with her biological siblings is absolute madness. Why take an “unblemished” child and put her in a house hold with children who have been the victims of abuse. They themselves have healing to do. And who’s to say that the bio grandmother will protect this child from the abnormalities the other children were victims to. If she raised this man, is there an issue with her? We tend to lose focus on the main issue at hand, what is the absolute best for this child. Regardless of biological ties, because it is has been proven that just because you have biological ties doesn’t mean you are the best person to rear a child.
By Quentin
July 27, 2010 10:02 AM | Link to this
You also get money for adopting so why is everyone talking as that for the motivation only for one side? Just as the adoptive mother did it for love, why would you question the grandparents reasons or the father who at least is trying to be in the life of his daughter? I personally am sick of hearing anytime a father wants his children he is accused of only wanting to to control his ex or for money. It just shows that many in society do NOT care about the child or anything else but only for making excuses to remove all rights of fathers from their children no matter what is best for the child.
By B'wana
July 27, 2010 10:17 AM | Link to this
Who cares? I got hemorrhoids and nobody’s talkin ‘bout that… Sheesh! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
By Amy in OHio
July 27, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this
Quentin - where in the world do you get the notion that people get money for adopting children? That is simply not the case.
By tired
July 27, 2010 1:54 PM | Link to this
Quentin find a hobby and get counseling!
By Horace
July 27, 2010 3:30 PM | Link to this
We aren’t arguing really about a dad are we? This guy is simply a sperm donor and apparently the “mother” was the most recent recipient. Doesn’t appear to be a parental bone between either and grandma, you screwed up the first time with this low life son of yours what makes you think you should be given a do over with the next generation? Leave the child where she has been, in a loving home. Prove to me this jerk donor has paid a penny towards any of his kids and most importantly a dime towards this little girl and I’ll change my mind
By Elaine
July 27, 2010 5:18 PM | Link to this
Why can’t people get married first and then have children. Our society has made it so acceptible to have a child without any forethought to their future.
By Quentin
July 27, 2010 6:04 PM | Link to this
I love all the talk about “sperm donor” but I also know MANY guys called that. They work give everything they can in child support and are ignored if they fall on hard times where they can’t meet the demands that the court refuses to reduce while they try and find a new job. Meanwhile these guys are also denied all access to their children and of course somehow they are “bad” since they are not involved though they try. Heck, look at all those who praised the bio mother for BREAKING THE LAW and call her a “victim” though her past is as bad as the father’s. It is obvious some are trying to find excuses for the whole thing for whatever reasons but if they had followed the law, then it would have been settled YEARS ago. Instead we have judges refusing to act, a bio-mom being given a pass, an adoptive mother that has been forclosed on twice and may not be stable homewise for the child and a father not any better. So instead of looking at ALL those involved we see people just jump and insult the father for even daring to try. Yeah, I have been jailed by these courts for BS and know them well, also that the laws mean nothing to any of them and those who keep thinking strictly based on woman=good/victim ideas show the same problems our courts are infected with. Otherwise, to say he does not have the rights to his child, he is a “sperm donor” only and talking how she could have had an abortion so he should have no rights in adoption is something you should think hard on, since then shouldn’t men not have any RESPONSIBILITY either since many are advocating men have no RIGHTS to be around their children or decide in anything?
By Horace
July 27, 2010 8:24 PM | Link to this
Hey Quentin, we aren’t talking about “Many men” we are talking about this slug who makes babies and then sets about having others raise them all the while apparently knocking the heck out of the mother. How much support has this poster boy for men’s rights given his existing kids? Zip. A real dad wouldn’t be having litters of kids for others to raise. He would be with the ones he has and wouldn’t be spawning more if he couldn’t support them and take care of their needs. I vote this guy get’s fixed so he can’t sew any more of his wild oats. We are all paying for this slug. Let the lady keep the child. Grandma already screwed up once, giving her to that woman would be child abuse.
By Lea
July 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Link to this
Couple of notes. First off, I’d love to see my taxes go to getting Mills fixed so he can’t pull this again. Second, the grandma may have done everything she could - some kids just don’t work the way the ‘parenting manual’ that all of you seem to have access to say they should. Third, I’ve seen too many bio fathers denied rights when they were trying their best - and women who get stomped on by their spouse’s exwife. It works both ways. Money isn’t the answer. Love is. If Mills loved this kid, he would try to provide a stable life rather than having Grandma raise her.
By Kyra Renne
July 29, 2010 11:43 PM | Link to this
Some of you people need wisdom. Try putting yourself in the mans shoes. So what about some tax dollars. It’s ad when you need it. The baby needs to be around her blood. I just ask GOD in the name of Jesus Christ to grant that man his baby girl back. It is his baby no matter what.
By To Kyra Renne
July 30, 2010 8:04 AM | Link to this
Kyra, you want him to get his baby back so his mother can raise her? You want to take her from a loving home and put her into a home where the dad thinks he’s a stud, doesn’t pay for his kids, beats their mother and spends time in jail? Don’t ask God to hurt that child that way. The baby has his DNA but that appears to be the extent of his involvement with her. How could you ask Jesus to hurt that baby that way?
By Kyra's an IDIOT
July 30, 2010 1:17 PM | Link to this
NO WAY I’d put myself in his shoes. No telling what I’d catch. Go back to watching Maury Povich and please don’t comment again. Okay?
By Mary
August 3, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this
I don’t understand how this “mother” can give this particular child up BUT keep the other three. I don’t understand that. I was adopted as a child. So I know a bit about the situation. If this woman who gave birth to the child doesn’t want it she should have turned it over to the father’s mother to raise like she’s raising this woman’s other children. Some people just shouldn’t give birth. Just because this woman in California has a lot of money doesn’t mean she’s going to be a great person. How about how this little girl feels? Don’t you think she’s going to wonder about her other brothers and sisters? How do you think she’s going to feel while she grows up in the lap of luxery while she watches her brothers & sisters suffer? Just keep the kids together. THe woman in California can go to a social service home where ABANDONED infants are awaiting parents already!!! That’s how my parents got me. There was no convincing a birth mother to hand over her baby. That’s just wrong.
By Cut The BS
August 7, 2010 4:28 AM | Link to this
Did Stacey Doss’ team ever LIE about Mills’ ever-growing lost of atrocities against his children, his domestic partners, his community and his raping and pilagging of the Ohio welfare and social services systrms??? No one villified him and made his LOOk like a bad person. He just IS one, he did that all by himself. Nothing he, nor his family or his lawyers can say can change that. The truth is stronger than the image he wants us to believe.