Here's an example of what this guy was up against - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-sax/baby-vaughn-court-battle_b_752793.html

Unfortunately for him, his case threatens the adoption bar and so they brought the full force of their national organization against him. They recognized this as a test case that may reform the authority of the current adoption process in situations where the adoption is contested by the father. Apparently rulings in other courts have been moving towards a more balanced interpretation of paternal rights, and they wanted to stop that.

Their preference is that all contests stop with the grant of adoption, regardless of paternal custody claims. They also want the courts to enforce a standard by which paternal claims can only be made if the father has supported the mother throughout her pregnancy. That didn't happen in this case, because the mother was married and living with her husband throughout that time.

You'll notice that the author of that article has deliberately misrepresented the facts of the case to suit their preferred interpretation of the law. To the credit of the huffpo crowd, many of the commenters call her out on her deception.

The Vaughns appear to be some combination of malicious and crazy. They'd known about the paternity claim by the father before taking custody of Grayson and were served with notice that he was petitioning for custody only two weeks after they'd received the child, who at that point was about three weeks old. But they chose to resist it, and have deliberately dragged out the process in an attempt to claim the child on a 'best interest' basis - resulting from the fact that they've had him for three years, solely because they'd gamed the legal process. For instance, they wouldn't allow visitation by the father, and then argued that he wasn't fit because he never visited Grayson.

The Vaughns have two other children, but had apparently encountered a series of miscarriages when attempting to have a third. I wonder what role this may have played, because neither seems cognizant of the ramifications of what they've done. They wanted a baby and that's apparently all that matters.

The feminist-inspired assault on fatherhood continues unabated, it appears. Fathers in the house are the best preventers of maladjusted kids, so we must conclude that feminists hate children, correct? If only fathers weren't MEN, maybe the feminists would leave fathers and their kids alone, and would spend their time destroying other things instead (that IS what they do, after all).

Adoption is a business and as foreign adoptions dry up due to abuses in one coountry after another, we can expect to see more of this kind of thing in this country. Supply and demand.

This was a kidnappping. There is no other name for it. If a father tried to pull this on a mother, there wuld be no outcry simply because it couldn't happen in the first place - children are basically property of their mothers under our laws. But when it's a mother doing it, the sytem can't even recognize the father's claim over his own flesh and blood.

Jim's right. Adoption agencies don't have the best reputation when it comes to their ethics. This is apparently the one that they'd used - http://www.adoptionbygentlecare.org/ , which was found in contempt for refusing to turn over the child back in February.

Also a correction to my earlier post, the Vaughns didn't have two children before adopting, they had only one, and she was pregnant with the second when they'd adopted Grayson.

Here's a timeline of the case if you're interested - http://thinkingoutloudcafe.wordpress.com/ - along with clarifications surrounding the relevant details, and some of the myths that have been promoted. What's apparent is that someone, whether the Vaughns or their attorneys, has made a deliberate effort to promulgate false information regarding the father.

I'd be interested to know what the birth mothers sentiments are as well. She

From the F&F statement:

"Assuming that this happens, we urge Benjamin Wyrembek to offer the Vaughns a liberal visitation schedule under which Grayson can maintain his relationship with them, hopefully throughout his childhood and adult life."

No. Hell no. The Vaughns caused this, they don't deserve a relationship with this boy. He's young enough and competing interests does not help. When the boy is older or an adult they can see each other. The Vaughns didn't let the boy see his real father, they don't deserve any consideration.

The hypocrisy of the state/family courts in action. We have fatherhood.gov or whatever and courts who chase after "deadbeat dads", even duped non biological "fathers" for their money but heaven forfend a father actually assert his rights and step up to the plate to raise his kid. Only on the state's terms is that permissible.

oops, truncated my post..

She (the mother) had consented to the adoption while still married to her husband, who'd falsely claimed to be the child's natural father. But they've since divorced. You have to wonder whether she was coerced into putting the child up for adoption by her husband.

Not to trade in stereotypes, but they both have names out of the old country, suggesting that they're recent immigrants. You have to wonder whether she was fully aware of her rights, and did this consensually.

I'm having a hard time thinking of these "adoptive parents" as "good adoptive parents". The only excuse I can think of for this would be if the father had some serious issues that might make him unfit.

And the attorneys remind me of every lawyers joke I've ever heard of. Remember why scientists are supposed to prefer using lawyers to lab rats?

I would have happily taken two older Russian orphans after my own kids were grown if it was not for the fact that the Russian government is using adoption as a revenue stream. By the time I paid 25k a piece for the kids, in the form of travel expenses, adoption paperwork and fees, there would have been no money or time left to meet their needs. A lose lose proposition.

In connection with this case, Robert Franklin has also pointed out that "putative father's registries" seem to be set up to PREVENT fathers from getting their rights. Do a search on Franklin's name for details - I'm in a rush.

Had a question: Have ANY mainstream newspapers touched this story? (I don't really know if Huffington Post counts.) Or major networks, for that matter? Thanks.

Yes. Look for mentions of Baby Vaughn. The Vaughns have been on GMA and in a bunch of national media, along with the AP, and I'm sure other outlets. The coverage tends to be melodramatic and inaccurate. They're selling the story as one where the father has suddenly shown up after three years wanting the child back. He's tearing a family apart etc.. There hasn't been a lot of serious analysis in the major media, that I've seen.

In that case, I'm surprised Benjamin Wyrembek hasn't tried to beat the Vaughns to the punch where the media are concerned - or is no one willing to interview him on TV?