-trans.gif) |
 |
|
|
Midwest Today, October 1993
Judy Wilkins from Cedar Rapids still carries in her purse a photograph of a son whom she relinquished 20 years ago. Although she located him years later, he rebuffed her, and asked that she leave him alone. She attended his graduation from high school anyway, and now says she thinks a-bout him every day.
Laurie Parker, also of Cedar Rapids, who now has three teenagers, gave up her baby boy 20 years ago as well. She subsequently found her firstborn, and unbeknownst to him or his adoptive family, joined the PTA at his school, subscribed to his year-books and even took her children to cheer him at his baseball games. She admits she stalked him, but when he found out who she was, she says "he didn't seem to mind."
None of these three women are well-known, yet as members of a radical, anti-adoption group that held its meetings under the guise of implicit sanction in a reputable hospital, they played a key role in first convincing an unmarried, 28-year-old Cara Clausen of Blairstown, IA., who was suffering from postpartum depression, to go to court to get back the baby she had previously decided to give up. Ultimately, two couples were pitted against each other, two states became embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute, the shortcomings of a legal system were underscored when it failed to protect either birth or adoptive parents, and untold disruption and heartache was caused in the life of an innocent little girl who loved the people who loved her, and could never imagine that the day would come when she would never see them again.
It is a story that, according to United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, "touches the raw nerves of life's relationships." Yet while most of the media concentrated on the legal maneuverings that engaged biological parents Dan and Cara Schmidt of Blairstown, IA. with Jessica's guardians, Jan and Roberta DeBoer of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in a bitter custody battle, the behind-the-scenes influences in this saga were largely overlooked.
Now the little girl has been returned under court order to Iowa, the press attention has subsided - and, save for the inevitable movies and books that will be done on this tragedy by those who want to cash in - the frenzy of public outrage will at least diminish, even though people won't soon forget. And if Jessica - who even had to give up her identity to please the Schmidts (who renamed her "Anna Lee Jacqueline Clausen Schmidt") - suffers any anguish from this move, it's doubtful that any outsiders will ever know. She's not old enough to make her voice heard beyond the confines of the one-bedroom house she shares with her new parents and their new baby, yet she's the one who has the most at stake.
An Unseen Hand
We've all seen the episodes of "Oprah," "Unsolved Mysteries" and other programs, where birth mothers have gone on television and been tearfully reunited with long-lost children whom they gave up years earlier for adoption. Concerned United Birthparents (CUB), based in Des Moines, has helped stage some of these reunions, and in so doing been able to attract about 3,000 members to its rosters.
According to former insiders, CUB is a highly secretive organization that advocates bribing adoption-agency clerks, stealing files and misrepresenting or disguising the facts. Their avowed goal is to reunite children of any age with their birth parents, including the unsealing of records in closed adoptions - past and present.
During the last couple of decades, there has been a decrease in the number of adoptions in this country, and an increase in abortions. CUB takes partial credit for this and, as Janet Fenton, CUB's national president boasts, "enormous numbers of women were affected by these television shows and were discouraged from choosing adoption."
The net result, says Mary Beth Seader, vice-president of the National Council for Adoption, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., is that "Many of the pregnant women that [we] counsel are terrified of choosing adoption, because they've seen or read some CUB propaganda. The members of the anti-adoption groups come from real pain," she reflects, "but it has made them into predators. They have never worked through the normal process of grieving, which moves from anger to acceptance of loss. Their message is that they have suffered the one unrecoverable loss of a lifetime and that the only treatment is to undo all adoptions. The troubling thing is how they pose as support groups, when they are really just the opposite. Their purpose is to fasten onto women who are in the same vulnerable and formative stages they were once in. They suck them into their passionate obsession, so that they, too, will get stuck in pathological grief that lasts a lifetime."
Dr. Beth Clark, a psychologist who at one point in the long legal proceedings had been appointed by a court to evaluate the litigants, described Cara Schmidt as unusually passive (read malleable) for someone so smart. Some even thought she had been brainwashed, such as when in one interview she was quoted as saying she knew her daughter missed her "desperately" - a delusional notion given the fact that Jessica had no memory of her.
Planned Adoption
In 1990, when an unmarried Cara Clausen got pregnant, she was surprised. She had read in Reader's Digest that X-rays could make a woman infertile, and, since she had had X-rays in the eighth grade, she never used birth control. Overcome with shame, she first tried to hide her pregnancy, wearing baggy clothes and lamenting to friends she was gaining weight.
Shortly before the baby's due date, Cara made arrangements for her physician to find a good, adoptive couple for her child.
A baby girl was born on Feb. 8, 1991 at St. Luke's hospital in Cedar Rapids. Cara had identified the father as being boyfriend Scott Seefeldt, and they both signed away parental rights two days later.
Jan and Roberta ("Robby") DeBoer of Ann Arbor had been searching a long time for a child to adopt. A printer by trade, Jan and his 33-year-old homemaker wife had heard through relatives in Cedar Rapids, where private adoption is legal, that a baby might be available. They retained one of Cedar Rapids' finest lawyers, John Monroe, to represent them and on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14th, the DeBoers got the call that the arrangements had been made. Robby and her mother drove hundreds of miles through heavy snow to Iowa to see the child.
On Feb. 25th, a court hearing was held officially terminating parental rights. Under Iowa law, Cara had one final opportunity to back out of the arrangement, but she waived her right to appear.
Two days later, Cara confronted Dan Schmidt, a six-foot, four-inch, 275-pound, 39-year-old trucker, and informed him that the baby she had just borne - and given away - was his. Though stunned by the news, Schmidt left town, called her later to set up a meeting, then stood her up.
By March 1st, the DeBoers had filed the necessary adoption petition and, as Jessica's legal custodians, had received the court's okay to take the infant girl from Iowa to their home in Michigan.
Cara sent a letter to the DeBoers, affirming that she wanted the adoption to go through, then went to a meeting that night, March 4th at St. Luke's hospital, of Concerned United Birthparents, assuming she would get the promised reassurance and support. Instead, an adoptee named Diane began to tell of her quest to find her birth mother. She challenged Cara to not let the same thing happen to her child. Other members of the group applied similar pressure. Judy Wilkins and Carole Anderson were ecstatic about their good fortune in meeting a mother so soon after an adoption had been finalized. Before she scarcely had time to catch her breath, Cara was caught up in CUB's political agenda, and Anderson had gotten a lawyer friend of hers, Jacqueline Miller, (now of Minneapolis) to represent the young woman.
They wasted no time. Just two days later, a motion was filed on Cara's behalf in the Iowa District court that asked that her parental rights be restored on the grounds that she had been fraudulently induced to sign them away, and that the termination order had been predicated on false information about the baby's father - information that she inexplicably had supplied.
Although apparently she had planned for days in advance to give the baby up for adoption, Miss Clausen bemoaned supposedly not having received any counseling from the hospital. Cara contended that the lawyer had come to her hospital room before the end of the statutory 72-hour waiting period and forced her to sign release papers on the spot, but records showed that she had waived her right to the full 72 hours and had, in fact, asked to sign earlier. Cara insisted she had been too benumbed by drugs to be aware of what she was doing, but doctors and nurses who treated her at the time asserted that she fully understood her rights, including her right to change her mind anytime within the following three weeks - something she chose not to do
In an interview with Midwest Today, John Monroe asserted that Cara "was testifying as to things that just weren't so, and trying to lay them all off on me - that I'd slithered into the hospital in the dark of night, coerced her into signing, and that just isn't what happened."
Monroe says he told Cara up front that he was representing the DeBoers and recalls that "there was another attorney that had been there before me, and he told her the same thing, and then she comes out and says she thought I was representing her!
"This thing would have never gotten off the ground if she had told us who the [real] father was and he'd said he didn't want to [put the baby up for adoption," he reflects.
"I had questions in my mind, like anybody would, of why she was doing this, but that was her decision. It wasn't my role to try to talk her out of it.
"I tell you, I went in there with the best of intentions, and when I came out of that hospital I thought I had done one of the [best] things that I had ever done in the practice of law.
"The only reason it went awry is because she had lied to me about who the father was," Monroe insists. "She would have never gotten anything turned around, gotten the termination reversed or anything if we had terminated the right father. Because she had notice of the termination hearing and she didn't resist."
As for Cara's contention that she hadn't gotten counseling, Monroe responds, "That was not true either. She counseled with her doctor (Dr. Wendy Buresh). While she was in the hospital the nurses talked with her and made sure that this is what she wanted to do and the social worker called her and talked to her and made sure this is what she wanted to do. She talked at length with her mother about it before I even went up to the hospital. Her mother was in disagreement, and Cara told her mother that 'this is what I'm going to do.' I mean, how much counselling does she need?"
Laurie Parker, who had befriended Cara, phoned her regularly and spent weekends with her in Blairstown. She preached to Cara how her infant daughter must be feeling. She analyzed the subconscious turmoil she claimed the DeBoers must be experiencing whenever the child showed the characteristics of her birth parents. She asked Cara "What will she do when she's asked to make a family tree in school?" From what one can gather, Parker and other CUB members, lead a relentless assault on the conscience of a bewildered Cara Clausen, including asking her emotionally-charged questions like, "Did the social worker ever tell you what it will feel like never to hear her first footstep?"
All her life, Cara had been a compliant person who had often yielded to others to make decisions for her and in whom she placed her absolute trust. While her siblings had successfully left home, Cara had dropped out of college after a short while because of stress headaches and then moved back in with her parents. She had found her pregnancy so impossible to face she didn't even seek prenatal care.
On March 7, Scott Seefeldt flew into town for Cara's birthday and Dan spied on the two of them from a distance. Later the same night, after telling Scott the baby wasn't his, Cara met Dan at another bar.
Schmidt was pleased that Cara was trying to get their baby back. He had always been fond of Cara and now, with rival Seefeldt out of the picture, Dan thought he finally had a chance with her - especially now that they shared a child together.
On March 12th, Jacqueline Miller filed a motion on Dan's behalf, declaring him to be the blood father of the baby girl and asking the court to vacate the parental-termination order. Dan even attended a couple of CUB meetings with Cara, where members appealed to his masculine ego by telling him, "Your rights have been violated."
On March 21st, a hearing was held in Cedar Rapids. Attorney John Monroe, whom Cara had accused of defrauding her, was there and became a star witness. But, to the disappointment of all parties concerned, the juvenile-court judge threw out the case for lack of jurisdiction.
A Turning Point
Subsequently, Dan and Cara appealed the decision. They asked that a blood test be given to Schmidt to prove his paternity. It was also around this time that something really significant happened, that would forever galvanize the DeBoers into fighting for baby Jessica.
During this controversy, some critics have asked why the Michigan couple, once they knew that the biological mother and father wanted their child back, hadn't spared everyone such anguish and returned her promptly.
The DeBoers say the reason is that the Iowa Department of Human Services and Michigan adoption officials made it clear to them that if they relinquished their guardianship, Jessica would be put in temporary foster care while Cara's case was pending. The DeBoers were horrified by the prospect that the infant they loved and had nurtured would wind up in some stranger's home and possibly get buffeted around in the welfare system for months. It occurred to them that Cara, who had already had a change of mind, might change her mind again.
They also knew that Dan Schmidt, who had a reputation as an embittered loner with a hot temper, not only had legally abandoned a son named Travis, who was by then 14, but had also fathered a daughter out of wedlock, who was 12 - and whom he had refused to even meet. He had failed to pay child support for either of his offspring, and had his wages garnisheed.
It was later revealed that in separate incidents, Daniel had physically assaulted two different men whom his ex-wife was dating, including one time when he broke down the door to her home and snatched their son Travis. Later, when Dan began dating Cara, he also struck Scott Seefeldt, by smashing his fist through the closed window of Seefeldt's pick-up truck.
Schmidt also admitted in an interview that "Sometimes you don't know your strength - what you can do. I might have hit my ex-wife a couple of times when we were married..."
So alarmed were the DeBoers at the possibility of having to turn the toddler over to this man that they even sold furniture to raise money for legal fees and Jan took a second job.
On April 29th, the Iowa District Court granted Dan Schmidt's motion for a blood test. However, a court-ordered laboratory, Genetic Design in North Carolina, supplied an affidavit that warned that "very small babies can be difficult candidates from which to draw blood, due to their tiny veins." The DeBoers petitioned the court to delay the test until Jessica's veins were larger, but despite the risks and discomfort involved in the procedure, the court - in a pattern that was to become familiar - put the wishes of the putative father ahead of any considerations for the child.
Meanwhile, Laurie Parker offered Cara the hope of redemption. "As long as you fight to get your baby back," she promised, you will be able to forgive yourself."
On July 8, 1991, the blood testing was done, and by July 22nd the results were back, confirming Schmidt's paternity.
The DeBoers decided to petition the court to terminate Daniel Schmidt's rights, and try to get a jury trial and a hearing based on Jessi's best interests.
For three months, the DeBoers worked on assembling witnesses for the upcoming hearings in Iowa.
On November 4th, in Linn County District Court, a judge decided he would first address the matter of Dan's paternity and, if it were established, determine if it should be terminated.
Judge Paul K. Kilburg, of the Iowa District Court, announced his decision on Dec. 27th. Disregarding the experts who attempted to put Jessi's welfare at the top of the list, the court decided that the rights of a biological father - even a bad one - were sacrosanct. The judge ruled that although the DeBoers had provided what he said was "exemplary care," they had not proved that Schmidt had abandoned the child. Kilburg thus denied the DeBoers' adoption petition and ordered them to give Jessica to Dan Schmidt. He also ordered child-welfare officials to determine whether or not Dan was a fit parent.
Sought Hillary's Help
The DeBoers decided to appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile started writing letters to child-welfare advocates all over the nation - including Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since under Iowa law all court proceedings involving juveniles are sealed, no one outside of the parties involved even knew what was going on, and the DeBoers wanted to tell the world about Jessica's plight. So Robby began telling her story to the Iowa press.
But it wasn't until February 7, 1992, the day before Jessica's first birthday, that the Iowa Supreme Court even agreed to hear the DeBoers' appeal.
In April, Dan and Cara were wed in Blairstown. More than 300 people were invited to the reception, but only 125 showed up. Townspeople, who had seen the spate of publicity about the case, accused Cara of marrying for convenience and Dan of marrying for the money that this dramatic story might bring. Cara found solace by continuing to attend meetings of Concerned United Birthparents, which used her to inspire others.
Months passed but finally, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against Jan and Roberta, eight to one. The DeBoers appealed.
Within a week, Ann Arbor supporters of the Michigan couple collected 4,000 signatures and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court - which declined to hear the case.
On November 20th, the Iowa Supreme Court denied a motion for a rehearing, thus affirming the District Judge Koenig's decision. It noted that although Daniel Schmidt had a poor record as a parent, and although it was "alluring" to consider Jessica's best interests, his rights took precedence over hers.
he same day, Jackie Miller attempted to get the court to issue an immediate transfer order, but was unsuccessful. So on the advice of Ms. Miller, the Schmidts drove to Ann Arbor and went from one law-enforcement agency to another, looking for someone who would enforce the Iowa court's custody decision. When a female reporter began following the Schmidts, Daniel pinned her against the wall and began shouting at her.
Desperate to stop the tragedy, but facing $12,000 in legal bills, Robby and Jan implored Suellyn Scarnecchia of the Univesity of Michigan Child Advocacy Law Clinic to help. She filed a plea that accused the Schmidts of having come to Michigan to forcibly remove Jessica from the DeBoer home without a proper order, and she asked the Michigan courts to intervene on the child's behalf. Scarnecchia cited the federal Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, which allows one state to alter the custody order of another, providing that the child has lived in the state for six months.
Although the Iowa District Court cited the DeBoers on December 3rd for contempt and ordered them to turn over the baby to the Schmidts immediately, Judge William F. Ager, Jr., of the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Mich. issued a temporary order blocking the transfer.
"A Michigan Resident"
On January 5, 1993, after hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Ager ruled that Jessica DeBoer was, indeed, a resident of Michigan and that, since the Iowa courts had failed to consider her best interests, he would do so.
The Schmidts hired an abrasive, strident CUB anti-adoption sympathizer, Marian Faupel, to represent them in Michigan. She announced that "a blood battle" would be waged, that would pull "down the pants of all the parties."
Meanwhile, Carole Anderson of CUB wrote a piece which appeared in The New York Times on January 14th, in which she alleged that the DeBoers had raised $300,000 to "obtain a child who never needed them and will never be wholly theirs." An examination of the DeBoers' financial records by the New Yorker magazine showed, however, that the DeBoers had actually raised, and spent, $65,000.
This was typical of the misstatements made by CUB, which often cast the matter as a class struggle and one whereby the "demand for poor white women's babies [is made] by the infertile elite."
The reality is that the Schmidts actually have a family income thousands of dollars higher than the DeBoers, and Cara's father owns a fuel-delivery business.
On January 29th, hearings began in Michigan on Jessica's best interests.
Ms. Faupel had unearthed some old police records which showed that, as a young adult Jan had been arrested in Ann Arbor for breaking and entering, and driving under the influence. But it had been many years since those incidents, and by all accounts the 39-year-old, Dutch-born Jan had returned to the ethics of honesty and hard work that had been instilled in him by his European family.
Among the witnesses testifying against Dan Schmidt were the mothers of his two other children, who testified that he had neglected them. Travis - who, fortuitously for Dan, had recently gotten reacquainted with his dad in the months preceding the hearing - appeared unexpectedly to say that Dan had actually treated him better than his adoptive father.
A child psychoanalyst from the University of Michigan, Dr. Jack Novick, testified movingly about the trauma that would be inflicted on the little girl if she were removed from the only home she had ever known. He noted that a two-year-old is involved in the process of discovery and emerging identity, and that her whole world is centered around her mother. Since a child so young does not have memories to fall back on, separation from her primary attachment would be like losing a piece of herself. She would be disoriented, would think it was her fault that she lost her parents, and that her ability to form attachments in the future could be impaired.
Dr. Beth Clark, the court-appointed psychologist, said that neither Cara nor Dan realized the severity of the problems that the child would face if returned to them. She said she suspected the Schmidts would be unlikely to seek professional help, and that Dan not only had a potential for substance abuse, but had a disturbing lack of self-control, an explosive temper, blamed others for his problems, shirked responsibility and tended to confuse his own emotional needs with those of his children.
The hearing was so devastating to the Schmidts that at one point they reportedly thought of packing up and going home. But Laurie Parker, who had left her family behind to accompany the Schmidts, even sleeping in their motel room, dissuaded them from quitting. "You cannot quit," she implored them. "You have seen what giving up has done to me..."
A Courageous Decision
After hearing eight days of testimony, Judge Ager announced his decision. He commented, "In Michigan, not only the rights of parents...are protected, but the rights of the child...are paramount." Among other things, Ager noted that Dan Schmidt had brought Travis "from the state of Iowa without his mother's consent," adding, "she's going to have trouble raising this young lad in the future." Ager recited a litany of guidelines as provided in the Michigan Child Custody Act. He said "love is not enough...guidance is required...and example is required." and found in favor of the DeBoers in every applicable area. He said that if Jessica were "plucked from her parents" she might never recover.
Cara Slipped By
Just as Ager made his ruling, the Iowa Juvenile Court announced a summary judgment, two years after Cara had filed her appeal, restoring her parental rights, saying since Daniel already had his rights, it would be ludicrous not to also restore hers. Thus the court set aside any consideration of whether or not Cara's initial charges of having been defrauded by John Monroe were valid. Monroe was not given a chance to rebut the allegations and thus his reputation was besmirched.
The Schmidts appealed Judge Ager's decision, saying that the DeBoers, having lost in Iowa, should not have been given a second chance in Michigan- ignoring, of course, that they themselves had asked for a second chance. That's what this case was all about.
Ultimately, the Michigan Court of Appeals declared that it must respect the law of Iowa, which declared the DeBoers' adoption petition invalid, and granting the Schmidts legal custody. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to intercede.
Ironically, in a decision rendered on Aug. 2nd, the same day Jessica's transfer occurred, the Iowa Supreme Court, when asked once again to intervene, denied a request for an injunction. Iowa Supreme Court Justice James Carter said the legal theory on which petitioners had based their request to block the child's transfer had already been rejected by the Michigan court which, Carter wrote, "did have jurisdiction to decide that issue, and its judgment precludes relitigation of this matter." It was a bizarre statement, since apparently Iowa recognized and deferred to Michigan's authority to render decisions in the case even though Michigan claimed it lacked just such authority.
In all, 34 judges heard the case in two years in two states and 29 ruled against Jessica.
No Justice for Jessica
Iowa bears most of the blame for this disaster. Old men decided that the indiscriminate scattering of a man's sperm during recreational sex (Dan and Cara were not married, and in fact later broke up), is more important than the welfare and emotional well-being of a precious little girl.
District Judge Paul Koenig in Cedar Rapids is the man who first started this whole ball rolling. He claimed that Iowa law did not permit him to consider the child's best interests. His view also was that if established legal principles did not favor the rights of biological parents - even bad ones - then "the court would be engaged in uncontrolled social engineering."
As T.J. Braunschweig, a lawyer from Algona, Ia. commented, "The repeated assertion that Iowa courts cannot act to protect the best interest of a child is poppycock.
"As an attorney I have been involved in hundreds of cases where the primary if not sole objective of the court proceedings is to protect the child's welfare."
Braunschweig notes that the Iowa Dept. of Human Services regularly holds "Child in Need of Assistance" hearings.
And what's best for a child is routinely considered in custody disputes involving a divorce. Parents who have done their children no harm are commonly asked to surrender their custody.
As far as the Schmidts' fitness to raise the child, that was never really examined. Many wonder how Cara, who falsified legal documents, lied about her child's father and started all the trouble that ruined three lives; and Dan, who abandoned two other children, has a history of violence and admits to spousal abuse, could possibly be seen as mature, fit parents?
Not all judges would have ruled the way Iowa's did. Denver Juvenile Court Judge Dan Wakefield says, for instance, that "In my courtroom, they stay where they are nurtured. You have to consider who the child feels is the psychological parent. If they have a good bond in that home, I'm not about break it."
Michigan Error?
Some legal scholars believe Michigan made a grievous error when it found that "Iowa was unquestionably the home state of the child" and thus it had no jurisdiction. They pointed out that Michigan statute defines "home state" as "the state in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent or a person acting as a parent, for at least six consecutive months..." Since Jessica had only been in Iowa a few days while an infant before being taken to Michigan, under this definition, Michigan was unquestionably her "home state."
Judge Charles Levin, writing in dissent, argued that the statutes are quite clear in granting "continuing jurisdiction" to the home state. He pointed out, sorrowfully, that a majority of his colleagues on the Michigan court, rendered their decision "without any reference to or consideration of statutory definitions."
Judge Levin also noted that at least two other state supreme courts, New Jersey and West Virginia, when presented with virtually identical factual situations, interpreted those statutes in exactly the opposite fashion - thus giving custody to adoptive parents.
Supreme Cowardice
Although Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Harry Blackmun both thought it important for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in this case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, also abandoned Jessica DeBoer. He considered granting a delay in the August transfer of the child, and didn't disagree with the DeBoers' contention that a delay was in the girl's best interests. But he said the legal argument "rests, in part, on the relationship that they have been able to develop with the child after it became clear that they were not entitled to adopt her."
Exactly when did it become clear?
In a world overflowing with "compassion" for every deadbeat, hoodlum or murderer, many wonder where the court's expression of compassion is for an innocent little girl?
Clearly, by their actions they demonstrated that they didn't care about this child's terror or tears or sobs in the night.
The ultimate test of a civilization is how it treats the helpless. Judges reduced the law to its narrowest possible interpretation - to technicalities - without looking at the broader picture.
The courts recognized only the "rights" of the biological father as if his were the only rights that mattered. But as legal scholars and a host of academics from several prestigious universities who filed legal briefs on behalf of the DeBoers pointed out, the courts can and do sever the ties of natural parents when it is in the best interests of a child to do so, such as when there's been abuse. As a plethora of experts were willing to testify, removing a child so young from a secure and loving home to place her with strangers, is in a very real sense mental abuse or, as columnist Eleanor Clift insisted, "cruel and unusual punishment." Only in this case, the courts aren't protecting the toddler from it, they're colluding with those who are inflicting it on her.
The court rulings in this matter have also denigrated parenthood - treating parents as if one set were simply interchangeable with another.
Child psychologists say it's important to remember that Jessica's hour-to-hour, day-to-day experiences with the DeBoers during the crucial period from infancy to two-and-a-half years of age, laid the groundwork for her personality and outlook on life. Who she is has a lot to do with her earliest influences - Jan and Robby. Experts point out that it's vital that children of Jessica's age develop early on the capacity to trust adults so that they may look ahead to a world that seems to them safe and reasonable rather than one which is unpredictable and unstable. Tearing a child so young from the two people she trusts most- before her identity is fully formed, or she has developed coping mechanisms - and forcing her to go and live with strangers who would imprint on her some other set of values, or send her in a different direction, is a misdeed of staggering proportions. Why destroy that tender relationship just to make a point of law? Talk about "social engineering!"
"You can't just say good-bye to somebody with the idea you will never see them again and not anticipate it will be a very difficult, lifelong trauma," says Sally Stinson, president of the Michigan Association of Infant Mental Health.
Often, says Dr. Albert Jay Solnit, a research scientist at the Yale Child Study Center, the best interests of a child are "totally ignored. What [is] worshipped," he says, is "the technicality of law and the mystique of blood ties."
Some are advocating uniform laws that balance the rights of parents with the needs of children to be placed in caring, permanent homes so the bonding process can proceed as soon as possible. The National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws, with representatives from all 50 states, has tried for three years to draft a uniform adoption act, but progress has been impeded by opposition from groups like the Concerned United Birthparents.
One solution that has been proposed is a registry law, such as has been adopted by New York, Utah, Oregon and Arkansas, which puts the burden on the man to know if he's fathered a child. Although a legal father would be notified automatically if his child is put up for adoption, a putative dad would be notified only if he is signed up at the state registry. The result would be that if he's not around and not registered, he has waived his paternal rights.
Adoption is an important option, a family building block for society. In light of this ruling, its future is in jeopardy.
"Scared Silent"
A group of adoptive parents, birth parents, and adoptees formed the Pro-Adoption Coalition of Iowa. Some of its members claim to have been stalked and harassed by CUB. Beverly Howard, its founder, says "CUB's terror tactics have ruined so many people's lives that adoptive families are scared silent. Everyone is afraid that if we speak out our children will be targeted."
Susan Freivalda, executive director of Adoptive Families of America, a support group based in Minneapolis, Minn., says "We're getting calls from parents whose adoptions were in place a long time ago." They say they've always "felt kind of funny" about their paperwork, and now wonder such things as: Was the birth mother lying when she said she couldn't locate the father? Why did she refuse to name him? "This is a frightening issue for adoptive parents," she explains. "How can you be sure you've done everything right?"
As writer Thomas Sowell observed, "Adoption is not a snap decision on either side. Nature alone prevents the mother from putting the child up for adoption until months after conception. She has lots of time to think it over.
"After some point, the biological parents' right to change their minds destroys the child's right to be treated as a human being, rather than as property."
"It will be OK, Mommy [and] Daddy"
The wisdom of Solomon held that the true, biological mother of a disputed child would prefer to give it up rather than have it sliced in half in a custody battle. It hasn't worked out that way this time. The DeBoers acted out of a desire to protect Jessica. Unlike the true mother in Solomon's court, the Schmidts acted out of selfishness and egotism, and were willing to have their child sliced in half.
The DeBoers even offered to bring Jessica to Blairstown, to spare her the long journey with people who are strangers to her. But the Schmidts insisted on picking up their daughter in Ann Arbor - again, putting their own desires ahead of the youngster's best interests.
Two days before the transfer, ever the bully, Dan reportedly left a threatening message on the DeBoers' answering machine: "I'm coming to get you, Robby," he warned.
Attorney Marian Faupel said Dan had just been voicing his frustration.,
The Schmidts may have possession of her bodily, but they don't have Jessi's heart or mind. They can't keep her isolated from the outside world, and others will surely remind her of the love and steadfastness the DeBoers maintained for her; their emotional ties can never be severed.
One wonders how the Schmidts and the people who helped them can get on with their lives, knowing their actions were so widely reviled. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed only 8-percent of the American people agreed with their actions. With passions running so high, it must also occur to Dan and Cara that their every move will be monitored, and they must always be looking over their shoulders, lest they fall victim even months from now, to some vigilante justice, however reprehensible.
In the days before her transfer, Jessica clearly knew what was happening. She told the Schmidts during one visit, "The court is taking me away from Mommy and Daddy, and I'm going to go see baby Chloe in Iowa."
Fortunately, Jessica and the DeBoers share memories that no one can erase. Jessica always woke up with a smile on her face, enjoyed teasing her parents with childish games, loved her swing set and little dog Miles, was affectionate and solicitous of others' feelings and tried to soothe their hurt. "Mama's heart broken? Mama's heart fix?" she'd ask.
In the final days, though her own little heart must have ached, she hugged Jan and Robby, and comforted, "It will be okay Mommy, it will be okay Daddy."
The day they took her away, she sobbed pitifully. And so did those who fervently hope that Jan DeBoer's wish will come true. "Someday when this is done and over with," he told the court, his voice choked with emotion, "I pray that all four of us and this young girl will have a relationship."
When emotions subside, perhaps Dan and Cara Schmidt will see the wisdom of that idea.
| Click Here To Recommend This Site To A Friend |
Back to the top
