Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / February 2006

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-padoptions23feb23,0,7929043
.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

Palm Beach County man caught in 'Catch-22' as he struggles to claim
child

By John Coté
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted February 23 2006

A Palm Beach County man who says he is trying to claim his child after
a fraudulent adoption was caught in a "Catch-22," a state appeals court
said Wednesday.

The man, identified in court documents only as M.D.M., contends that he
sent money to the mother during her pregnancy, and that she
"fraudulently induced another man" to sign the adoption-consent
paperwork as the child's biological father, records show.

The biological mother consented to the child's adoption at birth and
later died, according to court filings.

M.D.M. couldn't even file a legal motion asking to have his parental
rights reinstated because Palm Beach County court clerks would not
provide him with the case number for the file, citing state
confidentiality laws in adoption cases, the appellate ruling said.

"This case presents a Catch-22," a three-judge panel on the 4th
District Court of Appeal wrote in a unanimous ruling directing the case
number to be released to M.D.M., allowing him to continue pursuing
legal action.

The issue of whether M.D.M. was the biological father or if his
parental rights should be reinstated wasn't before the appeals court,
but the case spotlights the emotional tumult for people navigating a
state adoption system that some contend has a failed mechanism to
police fraud.

"Very often, the birth mother is the only source you have for
identifying who the father is," said Susan Stockham, a Sarasota
adoption attorney and a member of the Florida Adoption Council.

"We have no protection anywhere to protect against a mom who is going
to come in and lie."

When babies are adopted at birth, there is no requirement under state
law that DNA testing be done to verify the father, Stockham said.

The state's Putative Father Registry, which became part of adoption law
in 2003, was designed to allow unmarried biological fathers to stake a
paternity claim. But in most cases, state law doesn't require adoption
entities to notify unwed fathers before an adoption -- even if their
whereabouts are known -- if they haven't signed up with the registry.

Unwed biological fathers, with few exceptions, forfeit their parental
rights if they aren't registered with the state by the time the mother
consents to adoption.

Barbara Busharis, an adjunct professor at Florida State University's
College of Law, had two law students research in 2004 whether the
registration forms and information pamphlets for the Putative Father
Registry were available as required by state law.

"I asked them to find the forms, and I also tried to find them,"
Busharis said. "None of us could."

Under state law, the Department of Health's Office of Vital Statistics
was directed to create the forms in English, Spanish, and Creole and,
"within existing resources," make them available at local offices of
the Department of Health and the Department of Children & Family
Services, those agencies' Web sites and at circuit court clerks'
offices.

"When [the students] called Vital Statistics, the adoption information
registry and the Department of Children & Families, nobody knew what
they were talking about," Busharis said. "At least now if you do a
Google search, you do find the forms online. ... Even then, you need to
know the words `Putative Father Registry.'"

Claims like M.D.M.'s also throw adoptive parents into emotional
uncertainty, and threaten to split apart a family.

"It's very upsetting to somebody who has adopted a child and done
everything right," said Lynn Waxman, a West Palm Beach attorney
representing the adoptive parents in the M.D.M case. "This was what the
registry was designed to alleviate. ... This should never be
happening."

Waxman's clients are identified in court documents only by the initials
A.D. and C.D.

The couple contends that M.D.M. has no right to court documents in the
case, including the petition for adoption and the consent form filed by
the person alleging to be the child's father, because M.D.M. did not
register with the Putative Father Registry.

"He's just somebody who signed a sworn petition saying he is the
father," Waxman said. "A stranger can walk off the street and say,
`Hey, I'm the father. Give me the records.'"

Even if the biological mother, identified as K.G., was involved in
fraud in the adoption, M.D.M. had no legal grounds to reassert parental
rights because he failed to comply with state law by not listing
himself in the Putative Father Registry, Waxman said. He could pursue
civil or criminal fraud penalties, she said.

M.D.M.'s attorney, Matthew Xoinis, could not be reached for comment,
despite calls to his office.

The registry legislation has created two unintended consequences,
Busharis said.

"One is the cutting off of what some people call the faultless father
-- the birth father who was lied to," she said. "The other thing is the
effect on the child. ... Someday somebody's going to have to explain
this to the children, too."