Log In | Register
Vanessa was born in Dayton, but given up for adoption one month before birth. Now the child's father has stepped forward, saying he wants her back.
The Battle for Vanessa: should her father -- convicted domestic violence criminal -- get custody?
Seeded on Sat Jul 3, 2010 9:24 AM EDT
Article Source: Dayton News, Ohio Headlines, Weather and Video | WDTN.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (23)
"He thinks that she was stolen from him and thats part of his motivation is that something was taken from him," said Doss, but she was also extremely concerned.
Court records stated that Mills served 18 months in prison for domestic violence against the child's birth mother.
"He drug Vanessa's birth mother around by the hair to the point where police found bloody clumps of her hair around the house. He strangled her until she was unconscious," said Doss.
We're told Vanessa will be placed in foster care in Montgomery County, then she will be handed over to Mill's mother, who is also taking care of two of his other children at this time.
- 6 votes
#1 - Sat Jul 3, 2010 9:26 AM EDTWas he convicted of violence against the child ?
I don't think it matters unless he was. Cases like this happen all of the time , and unless the father's rights are terminated , custody usually happen.
- 2 votes
This little girl is so much better off with her adopted mother. It's outrageous to give her to a man who beat up a woman, and won't even be caring for her, she'll be foisted onto his mother!
How in the hell is THAT better for her?!
- 7 votes
Stacey Doss kidnapped this child by taking her to California knowing that the biological father refused to allow for the child to be adopted. The father visited the child in the hospital right after the child was born and had no idea that the biological mother was trying to illegally offer the child for adoption. Instead of doing the right thing by allowing Ohio sort the mess out, Ms. Doss fled Ohio with the child and for the last 2 years Ohio had to litigate to regain custody of the child (as this case shows - California courts agree with the Ohio courts). Ms. Doss claims that she adopted the child but the adoption was never nor will ever be finalized if the father does not agree to it. She feels vindicated in her crime because she also claims the father has a criminal past.
Ms. Doss has uprooted this child from her biological family for 2 years now and the child may suffer from irreversible harm because of her selfish action.
Just because Ms. Doss has a better economic or social status does not qualify her the right to steal one's child. Just because the child may have a better environment to grow in does not make the actions of Ms. Doss morally correct or legal.
- 3 votes
1.1: Was he convicted of violence against the child ?
He didn't get a chance to interact with the child in any way. She was adopted at birth. He was convicted of violence against the mother while another of their two children was in her arms so he wasn't concerned with the well-being of that child. While that child may not have received direct blows from him, she was emotionally abused by at least that incident and possibly more.
1.3: Stacey Doss kidnapped this child by taking her to California knowing that the biological father refused to allow for the child to be adopted.
Per court records, she did not know that until afterward. The birth mother signed an affidavit that she did not know who the birth father was and said the birth father was not in her life.
The father visited the child in the hospital right after the child was born and had no idea that the biological mother was trying to illegally offer the child for adoption.
There is a difference between visiting the child in the hospital and forcing yourself into the mother's life against her will. One article made it clear he was not wanted at the hospital. Giving birth is difficult enough without having to worry about what the man who tried to murder you was going to do.
she also claims the father has a criminal past.
The father does have a criminal past. He was convicted of domestic violence more than one time with more than one woman. He had two previous DV convictions when he was charged with battering and trying to murder this mother in front of the child they already had together. In fact, that child was in the mothe'rs arms as she was being drug around the house by her hair.
Ms. Doss claims that she adopted the child but the adoption was never nor will ever be finalized if the father does not agree to it.
You may be right. The adoption was not finalized because of the father's court filings. The court may decide his rights were violated because previous court rulings have said the father has to sign the adoption papers too. But should his rights take precedent over the well-being of the child?
This case is a good argument for abortion because giving birth with a violent and abusive man as the father is a sure prescription for him to use the child as a means of forcing himself into the mother's life for the next eighteen years. Since a mother can't adopt the child out without the father's agreement, can't be free of him as long as the child is a minor if she has custody and would be negligent in turning the child over to him to raise, abortion is the only moral choice.
- 5 votes
Was he convicted of violence against the child ? I don't think it matters unless he was
whaaa?? srsly?? you don't give some one a dog to kick around let alone a little kid when they have the record this joker has.. the childs wellbeing should be first not the wants of some selfish socalled parent whose demonstrated they cant be trusted around other human beings.
I get the real scary feeling hes looking for custody to get back at his ex not cuz hes intrested in the kid.
- 5 votes
Doss paid for him to come to California to visit Vanessa. Per Doss, all he was interested in was going to the beach. He wasn't interested in spending time with Vanessa. That's one reason she's determined to fight this so hard.
- 6 votes
Many readers in support of Ms. Doss are way off the mark for this legal case.
This case is really about whether this adoption met all of the criteria with regard to Ohio law. The adoption was never approved because the biological father filed a paternity claim before the adoption was finalized and coincidentally even before Ms. Doss left Ohio with the child.
Montgomery Count Children Services retains custody of the child and had requested that Ms. Doss return the child to Ohio almost 2 years ago. Instead of complying with that request, Ms. Doss tried to block Montgomery County's jurisdiction through the California court system. The ruling this week is the culmination of that case.
You can trash the father for his bad behavior and lament that the child will be worse off but the offender in this is actually Ms. Doss. Her fight has guaranteed that this child will be traumatized as she is assimilated back to her rightful family. She trashed the father for no reason, it has zero bearing in this case. The legal fight has cost her and taxpayers in California and Ohio alot of money and court time. She probably will lose the adoption hearing scheduled after she returns the child (if and when she does).
Can you imagine if someone took your child away? Or a grandchild or niece or sister? As much as you want the best for the child, think of the pain the Mills' family has suffered. I know that I would never give up such a fight: the father's family is the real victim here.
I'm not concerned with the rights of Doss or the father. I'm concerned that the father is violent, has been violent in front of his other children if not violent with them and shows no interest in raising them. Why involve this child in that mess?
It's time we put the rights of the child ahead of the patriarchal idea of the child being viewed as property owned by the father. The law may not reflect that yet, but it should. This man does not deserve to be given custody based on his past performance, which also indicates this child will suffer if returned to him.
If he wasn't violent and trying to use this child as a means of controlling the mother, this would never have occurred in the first place. Both the child and the mother have rights of their own. One of those rights is to be free of his control, violence and abuse.
If we are ever going to stop the cycle of intergenerational violence and abuse, we need to put the child ahead of the parent when it comes to rights. How are we ever going to have a functional society if we keep supporting dysfunctional parenting?
- 3 votes
"should her father -- convicted domestic violence criminal -- get custody"
Absolutely not. He can't even take care of the two he already has. Were these two kids witness to his abuse? I wonder if he abused this child's birth mother while she was pregnant with the child. If so, he doesn't care one bit about this little girl. To take this child out of a stable, safe home, and put her into an environment where that abuse could very well be repeated with the next girlfriend is unimaginable to me. These abusers of women don't change their stripes, just victims
- 8 votes
#2 - Sat Jul 3, 2010 10:21 AM EDTThese abusers of women don't change their stripes, just victims
And the same goes for abusers of children. They do not change. The mentality that a child must be physically tortured to be 'disciplined' never goes away.
- 5 votes
Isabella, I seeded a story about women who have domestic violence charges pending against them and those who have been convicted of domestic violence still retain custody of children and even deny custody to the fathers, no one cried foul then.
but in this case his crime was against the woman not the child, speculating what other crimes if any might happen is just legally moot. You might not like it but legally has rights. A colleague of mine is going through a battle, the guy never was violent towards the ex wife but she is using the child as a weapon to get more money out of him, she already gets $5,000 a month and she wants more.
- 3 votes
"Isabella, I seeded a story about women who have domestic violence charges pending against them and those who have been convicted of domestic violence still retain custody of children and even deny custody to the fathers, no one cried foul then"
If I had seen your seed, I would of cried foul. Having working with abused children, and temporarily foster cared for some of the worst abuse cases imaginable until they can find a home to place them in, there are monsters on both sides of parenthood. Women are just as sadistic when abusing a child. Even if the woman or man doesn't touch the child, but allows the abuse by their partner and doesn't defend the child, they are just as bad as being the one abusing the child. They should lose all parental rights forever.
"A colleague of mine is going through a battle, the guy never was violent towards the ex wife but she is using the child as a weapon to get more money out of him, she already gets $5,000 a month and she wants more"
I see this all the time. They are used as a weapon by parents. I don't care how much you hate your ex, you don't involve the children in your hatred, and you don't use them as pawns because your relationship went down the toilet. So what he or she screwed around on you, or left you for another, or they just don't want to be married to your ass anymore, get over it. Is it any wonder our kids are growing up so screwed up?
- 4 votes
I seen a lot of selfish parents and selfish children in the end.
But the law is the law and while its not all perfectly likable, it nonetheless stands cause the alternative would be a mess.
- 2 votes
2: He can't even take care of the two he already has. Were these two kids witness to his abuse? I wonder if he abused this child's birth mother while she was pregnant with the child.
He has four and does not have custody of any of them. He has two with this birth mother. She has custody of them. He has two others that his mother is raising. At least one of the birth mother's children with him was witness to the abuse because she was holding that child in her arms during the abuse. The article does not mention if the other child was present.
Stats show that 50% of children raised in an abusive home are direct victims of the physical abuse, and 100% of them are emotionally abused even if they are not the direct victim. Watching violence being inflicted on your parent is emotional abuse.
Even if he did not physically abuse the mother during the pregnancy, we know he emotionally abused her because she was trying to keep him away from the hospital and her pregnancy, but he refused to honor her. His unwanted appearance at the hospital was emotional abuse and could have ended up in physical violence. She has every right to be afraid of him and what he will do to her -- and to demand he not be around her at any point for any reason.
- 7 votes
The article says that the father abused the mother so there was a reason why the mother gave it up in the first place. Smart Lady.
One problem,
There is a possibility that there is a suspecious reason why the father wants the girl back. Possibly for bargaining scheme. If he is a crimirnal there will always be a dark side. Simple.
- 5 votes
"a story about women who have domestic violence charges pending against them and those who have been convicted of domestic violence still retain custody of children and even deny custody to the fathers"
League, my apologies. I was in a hurry this morning, I had out of town guests who were starting to wake up, and I misread your post. You were talking about women who abuse their husbands or boyfriends, not their children. Anyone who is violent in the relationship, who abuses their partner, should not have custody of the kids, whether they are the mother or father. They should not have unsupervised visits either, unless they have gone through some kind of counseling for anger management, and there is no longer any evidence of violent, abusive behavior on their part. Kids are too precious to chance to a parent who cannot control their anger, who lash out and become physically violent. It shouldn't matter what sex the parent is. I know the courts favor the mother, and that is just wrong. I know many fathers who are the better parent, and the kids would be much better off with their father.
- 4 votes
No, he should not get custody. I've seen this one time too many. Kids returned to abusive monsters because the courts do NOT focus on the best interest of the child, but keeping the family together (which often results in the death of the child.) The child's rights get thrown under a bus to accomodate abusers rights. The man has a history of violence against women; we're supposed to just assume he's going to treat a small child humanely? Why? He seems to see this kid as a possession only. The woman that raised a man like that should have no access to the child either.
- 5 votes
#3 - Sat Jul 3, 2010 10:25 AM EDTIt's outrageous to give her to a man who beat up a woman, and won't even be caring for her, she'll be foisted onto his mother!
How in the hell is THAT better for her?!
How do you know that ?
90% of your posts are conjecture. Post something factual not based on emotion and perhaps someone other than others who exchange emotion for logic will take you serious. If he served his term and paid his debt , I really don't care what he did in the past , and no one should be forced to pay for something forever.
If his rights weren't terminated , then that's what they are , RIGHTS. But reading your posts , no one is to have rights accept the select.
Without the entire history in front of you, there's no way to know what happened in this relationship , and emotion doesn't cut it.
ONLY those who exchange logic for emotion are affected by the primal scream of feigned indignation. Everyone deserves a second chance , and everyone believes in second chances unless it's someone else's rights involved. They only want their own.
Most judges will state that if he's served his time and hasn't had his rights terminated , that he is the first choice , that is the way it is.
- 2 votes
#4 - Sat Jul 3, 2010 10:37 AM EDTHow do you know that ?
Because he has four children already and is not caring for any of them. Vanessa's birth mother has custody of two, and his mother has custody of the other two. The article states that if Vanessa is returned to Ohio, she will be put into the foster care system and, after the legal rulings are completed, will likely be raised by his mother if the rulings go in his favor.
90% of your posts are conjecture. Post something factual not based on emotion and perhaps someone other than others who exchange emotion for logic will take you serious.
Says the person whose entire post is based on conjecture and emotion.
If he served his term and paid his debt , I really don't care what he did in the past , and no one should be forced to pay for something forever.
He has three different convictions for DV with different women. That makes him a serial abuser. The presence of his child did not stop him from trying to murder the mother while the mother held the child in her arms.
But you are right in that no one should have to pay forever, so why should the children be forced to pay forever for his violent choices? They will. They will be affected each and every day of their lives even if they never see him again.
Everyone deserves a second chance , and everyone believes in second chances unless it's someone else's rights involved.
He's had three convictions. That more chances than he deserves. We all know that for every DV conviction, there are scores more incidents of abuse that don't get reported. He is obviously a serial abuser.
And someone else's rights are involved. The child's. Her rights should be paramount here.
- 7 votes
I hope Ms. Doss gets three things: A damn good lawyer, a judge that's handled a DV case before, and 12 real parents on a jury.
- 4 votes
Interesting... JaiAllen... conjecture? Would you let Michael Vick dog sit for you? If you really cared for a child and wanted them in your life you'd crawl through glass for them... not be more concerned about being a tourist, leave your Ohio court given visitation 90 minutes early!
If you have financial strains try this... stop... having... children! JaiAllen what is your clients motivation?
Alex - you hit the nail on the head! JaiAllen, well you must have bumped your " free legal aide" head!
- 4 votes
#6 - Sat Jul 3, 2010 5:44 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
