It was shocking to read; and much like I wrote on my own blog, one thought kept popping up that it did NOT have to be this way. I watched their families become close on Adoption Stories... and while I couldn't quite understand why the Moquin's were placing Peri, I still thought that this little girl was going to grow up with a whole lotta love from two sets of parents and grandparents and elder (and eventually) younger sister. As a PAP, I cannot get my head around (what seems like) intentional fraud. They planned this. They planned to get her baby and kick her to the curb. I wonder how the Plantenberg's came up with this devious plot. There had to be a conversation. How were they able to carry it out and still consider themselves good people. How can they look Peri in the eye? But, I guess it's the darker side of human nature that allows them to justify almost anything.
Hi Margie!Do you know the latest on Evelyn? I didn't know about this until your post this evening...and after searching for more updated info (after reading older info) the latest I really could find is still in 2007. Did it just stop, for money reasons? Even their main website is still back in 2007.xo
Hi, Laurel!!I don't - I did the same thing, I googled, and everything goes back to 2007. I'm pretty sure that Stephanie and her family have been unsuccessful in getting Evelyn back, but I do know that the adoption agency in questions was closed down. Small consolation for the family.Thanks for stopping by!Ditto madduchess, just found your blog, glad to meet you.
This story was recently publicized in PEOPLE magazine, where I read about it and subsequently read the birth mother's website and several other blogs. I think it is very important to remember that only one side of this "story" has been released. The adoptive parents declined to comment, likely on the advice of their attorney because of the birth mothers lawsuit.It is obvious that there was a good relationship between the birth parents and the adoptive parents in the beginning based on the episode of Adoption Stories. It seems clear after studying what information is available that at a point in time something must have changed. I will reserve judgment on the adoptive parents until they are able to share their "story".What is very interesting to me is that the birth father is 100% on the side of the adoptive parents. In the PEOPLE magazine article it says he is "staunchly opposed to his ex-wife's efforts". He is quoted as saying that "Peri is with great parents, and taking her away from them would be cruel." I read in another blog that he retains a close and ongoing relationship with the adoptive parents and Peri. That kind of has me scratching my head about the fraud accusation. I am also scratching my head as to why the birth mother would destroy Peri's privacy forever on this matter. That PEOPLE article and the website she created will now follow Peri the rest of her life.I understand also from reading somewhere that this case is coming to a head from a legal standpoint, so perhaps there will be more information about both sides of this dispute forthcoming soon. Until then, I think it is wise to hold off on any final conclusions.
My thoughts on that, Anon:Regarding the father's wishes: Given that they are now divorced, I think it's a given that some of his feelings about hsi ex-wife play into point of view. But if you are correct and he maintains a good relationship with the adoptive parents, then why would they not honor their commitment to Carla and him as they initially said? Remember, it's very unlikely that Carla would be undertaking this effort if they hadn't pulled back on visitations.Because there is no legal requirement for adoptive parents to honor open adoption and visitation commitments, it is sometimes used as a "bait and switch" technique. Promise the mother the world, wait a few months, and then just pull back. She'll have no legal recourse, you'll have the child, and that's that.No, that's not that. It's an appalling transgression.Of course, the one who will suffer the most here is Peri. If she is returned to Carla, she will suffer from the break in her relationship with her adoptive family. If she stays with them and is denied frequent visitation as they promised, she'll suffer from missing a stronger relationship with her mother and siblings. Either way it's sad, and could have been avoided if these APs had simply done as they promised.
I read her blog and can't understand why they let their daughter be adopted. It's totally insane.Open adoptions are not legally binding. They should be.I feel really sorry for them what a terrible story. I think the people who adopted the child are terrible.I also think she was crazy to let her daughter be adopted, they were mature, married with a family already.Why didn't their extended family and friends help them when Peri was born?
Margie, thank you for your thoughts. This is my second attempt at a reply. My first attempt failed for reasons unknown when I pushed the “Publish Your Comment” button. Let me try to recreate my reaction. I think you have really zeroed in on the key issues here. Indeed, why would the adoptive parents not honor their commitment to Carla and Charlie as they initially said? I think that is the right question, but to me it seems impossible to answer fairly with only the birth mothers version of the situation.We know from what is in the PEOPLE magazine article that the adoptive parents have honored their commitment to Charlie, the birth father. Yes, as you say, it is certainly possible that Charlie’s divorce from Carla helps explain his support of the adoptive parents. However, given the “bait and switch” suggestion regarding the intent of the adoptive parents, it is curious that they did not “switch” on their obligation to Charlie after the divorce. If, as is suggested by Carla, the adoptive parents had no intention of honoring their stated interest in an ongoing open adoption relationship, I am forced to wonder why they are doing just that with Charlie.It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that “something changed” at some point in time after the birth of Peri. We know that Charlie and Carla got a divorce. It appears that the adoptive parents decided to reduce their contact with Carla. We know that Carla filed a lawsuit against the adoptive parents. What we don’t know is why the adoptive parents decided to reduce contact.Is it possible that Carla changed after she gave up her second daughter for adoption? Is it possible that Carla did not uphold the agreed upon character of the open relationship with the adoptive parents, and the situation morphed into the wrong direction? Is it possible that has something to do with why Charlie and Carla got divorced? Is it possible that the adoptive parents had every intention of honoring everything they agreed to, until Carla changed so dramatically that a normal relationship was poisoned forever? I certainly don’t know the details, but these are questions that come to my mind.Because of the uncertainty which exists when there is only one side of a story available, I think caution should be considered before coming to the conclusion that this situation could have been avoided if the adoptive parents had “simply done as they promised”. This is, as you state, a sad situation for Peri. I can’t help but think she would be better off had her birth mother not gone to PEOPLE magazine and not put up this website and instead let the legal process play out. That is ultimately where this will be decided, but Peri’s privacy is now permanently violated.
Hi, I just stopped back and saw the additional comments and wanted to clarify a couple of things.1. Susan and Demyn imposed the exact same restrictions on Charlie as on me until more than a year *after* I filed the lawsuit--then (since their initial story in the lawsuit about having given us everything they promised in terms of contact was shown to be false) they slightly expanded his visits with Peri (one sequential day per year, at this point). It's pretty clear it was a strategic attempt to claim that the contact minimizing was based on my actions/statements. The thing is, they have no verified evidence documenting that they limited contact because of anything we did. (There's one handwritten note, but I'm having it date-tested because there's a high likelihood that it was fabricated for the lawsuit.) They maintained completely open contact for Peri's first eight months of life, indicating not a single concern about the level of contact. Then, 9 days after finalizing, they started imposing the limits and said that we just needed to respect their wishes. We tried to reach compromise for two years through the adoption counselor (they claimed that the basis for the limits were concerns about bonding by Susan) and then I discovered substantial evidence that they had planned the whole thing from day one (including manipulating what they said in the nationally-televised show about Peri's adoption). There was never any indication that we *caused* the limits, until well into the lawsuit when their initial story wasn't holding up. And again, they have no actual examples to back up their claim that I caused the change, and their initial statements in the lawsuit made clear that the only thing they were upset about was that we wanted them to live up to the contact they had promised.Charlie's lack of support for the lawsuit is not indicative of his view as to the fraud--I have emails from him saying that he believes they lied to get Peri. He also does not know most of the details of why I felt I had to try to overturn the adoption; he refused to read the information I sent him about the evidence (I think he's in denial about the situation and doesn't want to believe Susan and Demyn are unhealthy). He is also worried about potentially paying more child support if I regain custody, and there are other psychological issues going on in his opposition to the lawsuit.As to going public, the *only* reason I did was because it was literally the only way I could keep going. I firmly believe (for many reasons) that Peri is in a *very* unhealthy environment with Susan and Demyn. I went more than $40,000 into debt during the first two years of the case, and didn't say a word in public (even though I was interviewed for numerous major pieces related to my work on babies in the workplace during that time). I went public only when I had no other option. Susan and Demyn fabricated a story under oath and used a "free speech" statute to cut off evidence-gathering and delay the main case by two years during an appeal (which is where most of the $40,000 went); there's now clear evidence that the story was fabricated, but the appeal nearly broke me financially and left me unable to continue without getting help. I wish there had been another way, but it was that or desert Peri to people I believe are extremely unhealthy, immoral, and unstable (I haven't put all of the details of my fears on the website--there's a lot more that concerns me than just the meticulous fraud, although that's pretty awful by itself).Carla
It is time to bring some resolution to the careless allegations of fraud against the adoptive parents in this matter. From what I have learned, this case went to trial on March 22. I have just learned that the judge ruled yesterday that Carla Moquin had presented NO evidence of fraud, thus concluding the legal process. This nightmare for the adoptive parents is finally over after three years of defending themselves from this unjust accusation and being subjected to invasions of their privacy with websites and People Magazine articles and Dr. Phil television shows all having fallen for the sick and sad story told by Carla. God is good, and I wish all the best for these adoptive parents and THEIR daughter. I pray Carla will finally understand that she has to live with the decision she made to give her child up for adoption, even if she realized she made a mistake after the fact, and I pray she gets the counseling she needs to move on if that understanding remains hard to grasp.
Carla is blogging about the trial (http://bringperihome.blogspot.com/) and doesn't indicate in a post on March 26th that everything is over.I also suggest that readers take a look at Carla's website, which provides considerable more detail.It's telling that you say "I wish all the best for these adoptive parents and THEIR daughter." Clearly you view this child as chattel - a piece of property to be owned by the people you believe are the better ones, as if it was your right to judge.God is indeed good. It's a shame that so many people pervert Him by embracing injustice as you have here.
Margie, you are letting your no doubt kind heart and emotions blind you to the truth in this particular situation.The trial was not over on March 26....it concluded on March 30.I am sure you realize that Carla's website is just HER side of this situation.It appears clear that the adoptive parents had every intention of maintaining a reasonable and friendly open adoption arrangement with Carla and her husband Charlie. In fact, they joined Carla and Charlie on a on national TV show to express just that. They maintain a solid and healthy and mutually agreeable relationship with Charlie to this day. Those are not the actions of people out to deceive, are they? It's just common sense. The facts are that Carla could not live with her decision and quickly began to engage in frequent and consistent destructive behavior which abused the rights of the adoptive parents. As a result, they had no choice but to step away for their own well-being and the well being on their child.The facts are that Carla became obsessed with this situation and seemed to literally lose touch with reality. This resulted in a ridiculous legal action which went on for three years until the court decision on March 30.My guess is that the child will continue to know her birth father and her siblings. It would seem reasonable to conclude that Carla has forfeited any expectation of any future relationship. I mean, how can any responsible parent permit anyone (whether that person is a birthmother or not) that slanders and disrespects a child’s parents near their family?It is certainly a shame that this situation unfolded as it did. I hope Carla gets the help she appears to need, and that she one day can find peace with her decision.
The court was prejudiced. This proves nothing. Clearly the adoptive parents lied.
They joined Carla and Charlie (the cad) on a national tv show prior to the finalization of the adoption. That is a key point. The full extent of their attempt to deceive Carla in order to persuade her to choose them was only revealed at that point. Prior to that, the adoption was fully open as promised. Carla was coerced into this decision by the cad ex husband. It was clear from the AS show and from Carla's subsequent writing that relinquishment was the only way to both keep her family intact and provide for the care of her two children (Alpha and Peri). Of course she had trouble with it! Of course you could see her distress! This was not a free choice! That's why the deception perpetrated by the adoptive parents was especially cruel. That the court was prejudiced against a birth mother was no surprise. That is a reflection of a culture that both encourages women to relinquish to families that have financial advantage...and are seen as more stable, while simultaneously vilifying them. I hope Peri will one day have a chance to know her original mother as the brilliant and brave survivor she is.
Post a Comment