Archive for the ‘Adoption’ Category
January 9th, 2012 | Posted by Amber Small | Posted in Adoption
Press Contact:
Leah Potter
HARDEN JACKSON LLC
11450 N. Meridian, Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: 317.569.0770
Email: lpotter@hardenjacksonlaw.com
Web site: www.hardenjacksonlaw.com
For Immediate Release
Harden Jackson Law Founding Partner, Michele Jackson Adopts from Africa
CARMEL, IN – January 6, 2012 – For the past twelve years, Michele L. Jackson, founding member of HARDEN JACKSON, LLC, has educated herself on the adoption process and helped many clients fulfill their dream of becoming parents. Recently, her professional expertise helped her realize that dream for herself. Jackson said, “For as long as I can remember I have wanted to adopt. In recent years, this desire tugged at my heart constantly. In my work, I had walked past thousands of orphans in desperate situations and I knew that one day I would personally adopt.” Her dream came true when she and her husband, CFO of WellPoint, Wayne DeVeydt adopted two beautiful baby boys from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Having taught many seminars to adoptive parents and adoption professionals and attorneys, she thought she knew what to expect while adopting. While one personal adoption does not represent the entire spectrum of adoption experiences and outcomes, her empathy with the turmoil her clients have gone through in not having “control” of the process certainly increased. Despite her credentials, expertise and experience; she could not control all entities and aspects of the international adoptions process. Her experience and knowledge about “worst case scenarios” prepared her intellectually for the journey, but the worry, anxiety, excitement and love were profound nonetheless. The problems through which she had guided so many others were now her own. She had seen them, she had solved them, but personally dealing with them was another matter. She had to, as she had advised her clients over the years, simply relax, trust and pray.
Jackson adds, “International adoption has myriad unknowns, risks and delays. There are unsuccessful adoptions, delayed adoptions and difficult adoptions. However, I can say with absolute certainty that it is Worth It!”
Jackson works around the world placing children from many different countries. So, why choose DRCongo? Jackson explains, “I’d always had a personal view of my child as being from Latin America. My mind was changed as I walked through the orphanages in Congo. My heart was changed forever and so was the mental picture of my family.”
“The children of the world, from any country, are beautiful children of God. If you have the love to give to give an orphan, you also give hope within the larger human community. Without question, sharing your love and family with a child in need is worth all the amount of worry, concern and anxiety. I am the lucky one.”
A highly regarded legal authority in international family law and adoption, Michele L. Jackson is a founding member of HARDEN JACKSON, LLC. She represents clients interested in domestic or international adoption, and those who are seeking alternative reproductive options such as gestational surrogacy.
# # # #
Tags: Democratic Republic of Congo adoption, Michele Jackson, Wayne DeVeydt
December 28th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Surrogacy
Often, in our business, we meet with clients that are desperate. Desperate to achieve their goal of having a family. Fortunately, we can often help them with their plight to have a child. However, one of the most common obstacles intended parents face is money. Utilizing ”non-traditional” methods to become a parent can range anywhere from $5,000-$40,000. Whether adopting, undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or obtaining a surrogate, the cost can often prevent parents from realizing their dream.
However, we’ve seen some creative methods for funding a family. Recently, Jessica and Sean Haley decided to use crowdfunding to finance their IVF treatments. What is crowdfunding? Crowdfunding describes the collective cooperation by people who network and pool their money and other resources together, usually via the Internet, to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.
After three years of trying to conceive, the Haleys were told they only had a 1% chance of conceiving naturally. In June, the couple started a “Help the Haleys Have a Baby” campaign on IndieGoGo to raise funds for their fertility treatments. The campaign managed to raise $8,050, far above the $5,000 they were asking for initially. In July, the couple began IVF treatments that led to Jessica being pregnant. The Haleys aren’t the only couples turning to this crowdfunding option. A quick search on the IndieGoGo website lists over 20 couples and singles requesting funds to help them achieve their dream of having a family.
We love to hear of these creative funding ideas. When money is not an issue it removes at least one obstacle from the path for intended parents and our goal is to make that path as smooth as possible.
To learn more about the Haley’s campaign, go to: http://www.indiegogo.com/babyhaley
Tags: crowdfunding
September 12th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law
You may be wondering what the role of a Guardian Ad Litem is in family law cases. Frequently abbreviated “GAL”, the Guardian Ad Litem is a volunteer appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child involved in litigation. The purpose of the GAL is NOT to directly “represent” the child, a distinction which some find confusing, especially as many GALs are attorneys. However, it is not necessary to be an attorney to be a GAL, but Indiana does required that GAL or CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) volunteers complete special training.
Traditionally, GAL/CASA volunteers have been appointed in abuse or neglect cases or when a child becomes subject of proceedings to terminate a parent/child relationship. However, Indiana law allows for appointments of these special volunteers in divorce or paternity cases, which is becoming more frequent, especially when custody is contested or allegations arise regarding the health and safety of the child in the family law proceeding.
The GAL will perform a number of functions in a case to help determine the best interests of a child. The volunteer may conduct home visits and interview the parent(s), stepparents, significant others, or extended family who are involved in the child’s home life. They may also interview any child care providers as well as teachers and may review medical or education records. The GAL is tasked with investigating the child’s situation and ultimately filing a report with the court regarding the GAL’s recommendation about custody of the child. For more information about the role of GAL/CASA volunteers in Indiana, please visit Kids’ Voice of Indiana at the links below.
http://www.kidsvoicein.org/documents/CasaGaL/pdf/8_2008DissolutionGALprac.pdf for more information about the GAL’s role in divorce cases.
http://www.kidsvoicein.org/programs/clci/casa_gal/
September 2nd, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law
Adoptive parents will often say the two hardest things about their adoption were financing it and the “wait time” to be matched or receive a referral. Our friends at MLJ Adoptions (mljadoptions.com) have written excellent articles about how to manage your emotions about the wait time. From the practical standpoint when people are first considering adoption, money seems to be the biggest obstacle. Often, when people start the adoption journey they have little information about realistic costs for adoption. Many prospective parents are surprised to find that they have usually underestimated the costs and have not budgeted sufficiently. We suggest your check out adoption.com for their information on estimating and budgeting your adoption, or call our office or MLJ Adoptions for more information. If you have started the adoption journey and need creative ways to find funds, here are some ideas:
OPTIONS FOR FINANCING YOUR ADOPTION
This information is to give you a sample of options; however, it is not exhaustive. Most agencies or attorneys will not do any fundraising for you. We encourage you to research on your own to find other funding sources or attend a seminar at an agency, such as MLJ Adoptions, where you can learn more detailed information about ways to fund your adoption.
Corporate Matching Gifts
• Check with your employer’s human resources division
• Target, Wendy’s, Chase, Hewitt, Eli Lilly & Co., Proctor & Gamble and Hallmark all have adoption assistance benefit programs
• Call The National Adoption Center at (800) TO-ADOPT for information on corporate employee adoption benefit plans
• Also check www.adopting.org/employer.html, www.adoptionbenefits.com, or www.abanet.org/family/advocate/sp97tax.html
Fundraising
Many churches and civic organizations will support and assist in fundraising efforts for adoptions.
Also, there are other fundraising options such as: www.justlovecoffee.com. Think creatively about hosting garage sales, making and selling adoption-themed jewelry, or organizing a bowling tournaments. Bake sales at your church or other similar events can also be effective.
Military, Nonrecurring Program
Full-time military personnel are eligible for a one-time subsidy of up to $2,000 per child. For more information, visit: http://www.nmfa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reus_adoptionintro
Grants and Loans
There are numerous organizations which offer grants for adoption. A number of lenders and financial institutions also have special adoption programs. A sample of a few follow. As these change fairly often, we suggest you conduct current research on the web to find the most current and active programs.
• The Fatherless Foundation offers grants to offset the costs of adoption. Visit www.thefatherlessfoundation.org or email: thefatherlessfoundation@yahoo.com.
• The National Adoption Foundation offers low interest loans and grants to offset the costs of adoption. www.nafadopt.org.
• Help Us Adopt is a national non-profit financial assistance program providing grants: www.helpusadopt.org
• The ABBA Fund provides interest free adoption loans: www.abbafund.org
• Love Knows No Borders will provide information on financial assistance if you send a SASE (two stamps) to 500 B Monroe Turnpike, P.O. Box 350, Monroe, CT 06468.
• Promise the Children provides grants to adopting families working with approved facilitators: ptcstaff@swbell.net. (international adoptions)
• The Boatner Family Foundation provides grants up to $10,000. Write to: P.O. Box 132272, The Woodlands, Texas 77393-2272.
• A Child Waits: http://www.achildwaits.org/ Adoption loans and grants for international adoption
• Gift of Adoption, www.giftofadoption.org, The Gift of Adoption Fund provides grants for adopting families. Must have a completed home study. Grants range from $1,000 to $7,500 with the average grant award at $3,500.
• Lifesong for Orphans has both grants and loans available: www.lifesongfororphans.org
• Adoption Network Law Center offers credit based loans: (800) 367-2367.
• Fifth Third, First Union, and US Bank also provide for adoption loans. Please contact your local branch.
• Old National Bank Adoption Loan Program offers home equity and personal loans to cover adoption costs. Call Marlene Fritz at the Carmel Banking Center at (317) 573-0310, or visit www.oldnational.com and see your local Old National office.
• America’s Christian Credit Union offers an adoption loan program. Started in January of 2009, it has funded over $3.7 million in loans to help bring families together. Visit their web site at www.americanchristiancu.com or contact Bryan London at 626-208-5410.
• Child Adoption Funds, #225 9393 N. 90th St., Suite #102, Scottsdale, AZ 85252.
• The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption provides numerous resources for adoption assistance. View their website at www.davethomasfoundationforadoption.org.
• Steven Curtis Chapman runs a foundation called Shaohannah’s Hope that provides grants to adopting families. http://www.showhope.org/
• The Fore Adoption Foundation assists families adopting from foster care, sibling groups or special needs children: http://www.foreadoption.com/
• Home For Good Foundation focuses on adoption of older children, sibling groups or children with special needs: http://www.hfgf.org/
Also, second mortgages and home equity lines of credit can be used for adoption expenses and the interest is tax deductible.
Take a loan against your IRA, 401K, or retirement plan. Check with your plan administrator for specifics about borrowing and any restrictions or penalties, but in most cases, you’re paying yourself back, so you benefit a few ways in the long run.
Finally, remember that you may qualify for state and/or federal tax credits. The federal government provides a tax credit of just over $13,000 per child to help with adoption expenses. The details are available online (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc607.html) and forms may be downloaded at www.irs.ustreas.gov . Please note that the expanded adoption tax credit was changed for 2011 and the IRS issued news and instructions for the changes. (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=242932,00.html). We also suggest that you read the helpful hints and explanations provided on the Creating a Family website (www.creatingafamily.org). Check with your tax preparer or advisor to see if you may qualify for the federal credit.
Several states offer tax credits to aid in adoption expenses as well as other grants and subsidy programs. To learn if you qualify, contact your state tax office or visit your state website. Unfortunately, Indiana does not currently offer tax credits. If you are thinking about adopting in the future, consider writing to your state representative and start lobbying for legislation to offer adoption credits.
August 9th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Collaborative Law, Family Law, General Law
View our new ad in the recent issue of Current in Carmel.
Current in Carmel – Harden Jackson Law Ad
May 20th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law
Today, Japan’s cabinet, under Prime Minister Naoto Kan, endorsed a plan to adopt the Hague Treaty regarding international child custody issues. The decision resulted from foreign pressure to revise policies which many critics have said favored Japanese mothers and allowed them to easily take children away from foreign fathers.
The adoption of the treaty will require changes in Japanese law to bring the country in line with the 1980 Hague Convention on international abduction, said Yusuke Asakura, an official at the Cabinet Office.
Japan is the only nation in the industrialized Group of Seven which hasn’t signed the Hague pact. Asakura said the Cabinet’s proposal must be adopted by Parliament for it to take effect, and there is concern there may be some resistance by members.
The United States, Britain, France and other countries have repeatedly urged Japan to join the Hague convention and recognize the international law.
Japanese law allows only one parent to have custody of children in divorce cases – nearly always the mother. The law has prevented many foreign fathers from seeing their children until they are grown. Japanese mothers living abroad have taken advantage of the law by returning to Japan in divorce proceedings – a move that is prohibited in countries which are parties to the Hague Treaty. Activists say Japan’s court system is biased against fathers and foreigners.
The Hague Treaty requires that custody decisions are made by the courts in a child’s original country of residence and ensures protection of both parents’ rights to equal access.
Japan’s failure to join the Hague convention has been an issue in other cases but most recently received significant media attention in 2009 when an American father, Christopher Savoie, was arrested and jailed in Japan after he attempted to retrieve his children from his ex-wife, Noriko Savoie, who had taken the children from Tennessee to her native Japan. Noriko had accused Christopher of abducting the children, despite the fact that he had been granted custody by the U.S. family court handling the parties’ divorce. Under Hague laws, custody decisions belonged in the children’s country of origin, the United States, and Noriko’s unauthorized move of the children to Japan was the actual abduction.
With the media flurry and public backlash, Japanese prosecutors eventually dropped the case against Christopher Savoie.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out on a number of abduction cases involving children born in the US, including the Sean Goldman case in Brazil which ultimately resulted in the successful reunion of Sean with his father, after years of frustrating litigation and denials by the Brazilian government to comply with Hague. The publicity surrounding the Goldman and Savoie cases influenced the U.S. House of Representatives to apply more pressure on Japan by voting overwhelmingly for a nonbinding resolution that “condemns the abduction and retention” of children held in Japan “in violation of their human rights and United States and international law.” In the wake of the devastating earthquakes in Japan, and the nation’s need for international aid and support, it appears that the Japanese government may finally adopt the Hague Treaty.
Tags: abduction, adoption, child custody, family law, international family law, Michele Jackson
April 8th, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law
Tim and Jenny know the blessing of adoption for building their family. Their precious daughter was adopted and now they long for a sibling for her to continue growing their family. This couple are both teachers and enjoy frequent vacations to Disney World. Read more about them in their featured profile in our adoption section.
Other waiting families are included in our Profile section. If you are a birth mother and are interested in placing your child for adoption or want more information about your legal rights and choices, please contact 317-218-6888 to be connected with a caring adoption specialist who is available 24 hours/day.
February 21st, 2011 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law
Indiana’s Supreme Court granted transfer and issued a unanimous order affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision which reversed a stepparent adoption granted by St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth. The action of the Supreme Court in upholding the COA’s ruling from September 16, 2010, now opens the door for the biological mother to request attorney fees as a result of possible frivolous or bad faith acts in the case of The Adoption of N.W., M.W. v. A.W., No. 71S04-1102-AD-87. The fee suggestion by the Supreme Court is a rare move by the justices in a case that clearly disturbed them because of its failure to follow statute and case law.
The case involves a stepparent adoption of a minor child, identified as N.W., who was born in late 2001. N.W. lived with her parents, M.W. and R.W. until they separated in 2005 and subsequently divorced. The parents agreed in their divorce settlement that they would share custody of N.W. with father having physical custody. In 2009, Father married A.W., who filed a petition to adopt N.W., which was granted by the St. Joseph trial judge in 2009, upon a finding that mother M.W.’s consent was not required “because she failed to support the child.” Mother immediately sought to correct error and requested relief, which was again denied by Judge Nemeth. Mother appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the adoption, issuing a strongly-worded opinion that “there is not a single shred of evidence indicating that this adoption could even remotely be considered to be in N.W.’s best interest.”
For many who work in family law, this dispute has a common theme – the coparenting relationship between the child’s parents was relatively stable until Father remarried and stepmother became involved. Shortly thereafter, disputes arose regarding parenting time and child support. As part of the parties’ original divorce settlement, it was agreed that Mother would not be required to pay child support due to her “economic situation”. Mother regularly exercised parenting time with N.W. , even after a change in her work scheduled necessitated a modification to the parenting time schedule. However, shortly after Father met and married A.W. in early 2009, he began demanding child support from Mother and arbitrarily denied her parenting time.
As a result of Father’s denial of parenting time, Mother filed a contempt petition, and Father responded with a filing to modify child support. While these issues were pending in the family law court, Stepmother filed a petition in probate court to adopt N.W. in June 2009. On June 29, 2009, Mother filed an objection to the adoption petition and moved to dismiss it. On October 13, 2009, the family law trial court ruled on the pending modification matters, ordering that Mother’s parenting time continue per the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and finding a significant disparity in the parties’ incomes. Child support calculations showed that with Mother’s income relative to Father’s and with credit for overnight parenting time, her child support obligation was a negative $2.00, therefore, no child support was owed by Mother to Father.
Despite the trial court’s findings, and Mother’s objection to the stepparent adoption petition, the St. Joseph Probate judge approved the adoption in December 2009, finding that Mother failed to support N.W. as its basis for granting the adoption. The Court of Appeals addressed the faultiness of that logic in its ruling reversing the adoption, stating that the definition of support doesn’t consist solely of the child support obligation. Instead, the Appellate Court pointed out that Mother was meeting her duty to support daughter, by providing food, clothing and other necessities during parenting time and that she engaged in multiple mother-daughter outings and activities with daughter and frequently bought gifts. Indeed, in response to Stepmother’s argument that Mother failed to support daughter, the Court of Appeals found just the opposite: “…the totality of the evidence establishes…that Mother provided for N.W. to the best of her ability.”
The COA also tackled the assumption, arguendo, that if Mother had failed to support N.W., the remainder of the evidence did not support granting of the adoption as it was not in N.W.’s best interest. The Court of Appeals cited statute and case law discussing the balance of preserving the relationship between a parent and child and protecting the best interests of the child. In the case of N.W., Mother clearly established that she wanted to remain a “loving presence” in N.W.’s life and that she had exercised all efforts to do so. It also notes N.W.’s own wishes by referencing notes she wrote to Mother. In addressing Stepmother’s involvement, the Court points to Stepmother’s own admission that she doesn’t allege that Mother is unfit or a neglectful parent, but instead pointed out that she herself was “heavily involved in N.W.’s life.” The Court of Appeals commended her on being involved, but found no merit in her argument to support terminating Mother’s rights.
Not only did the Supreme Court grant transfer and adopt the entire opinion of the Court of Appeals, the justices also took the unusual step of determining that more action was required under Indiana Code 34-52-1-1. That statute permits a court in any civil action to award attorney fees to the prevailing party if the court finds that either party: (1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; (2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or (3) litigated the action in bad faith.
In this case, “The record before us suggests one or more of these grounds may exist for an award of attorney fees,” the order says.
Kathryn Dolan, the Supreme Court Public Information Officer, discussed how rare it is for the justices to fully accept a Court of Appeals’ decision, and even more so to suggest a motion on attorney fees as it has done in this case. It is a clear legal message as to the Court’s opinion of the original trial court’s ruling. Indiana trial courts must be diligent in thoroughly assessing the evidence and weighing the preservation of the biological parent’s rights and the child’s best interests before granting a stepparent adoption.
December 27th, 2010 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption, Family Law, General Law, Surrogacy
The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided rendering an opinion in a case establishing paternity and child support obligations for children conceived by artificial insemination. This latest ruling reveals the lack of legislation or case law for judges to use in determining issues related to alternative reproduction. With a growing demand for alternatives to pregnancy including A.I. and surrogacy, the findings in this case will affect how attorneys advise clients contemplating contracts for alternative reproduction matters.
In the instant case, the biological mother was in a long-term same-sex relationship and entered into an agreement with a man (identified as W.M.) to donate his sperm so she could conceive a child. A contract was drawn up as a donor agreement indicating the donor father would not be responsible for the child in any way and would have no parental rights.
Mother subsequently had 2 children conceived with donor father’s sperm. Mother’s relationship with her partner later ended and she sought financial assistance and support. The Fayette County prosecutor’s office filed a petition to establish paternity and Mother asserted that the donor agreement was invalid because it “ran afoul of public policy”. However, the trial court denied to the petition to establish paternity of the children based on the contract terms of the donor agreement. Mother appealed.
In Paternity of M.F., et al.; J.F. v. W.M., No. 21A04-1002-JP-84, Court of Appeals Judges Ezra Friedlander and Michael Barnes affirmed the trial court’s decision in regards to the older child. Because there is very little case law on the issue regarding donor agreements and artificial insemination, the COA relied on Jhordan v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986), which the Indiana Supreme Court cited in Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994). An underlying factor upholding the contract between a donor and recipient is the involvement of a licensed physician in the insemination process. The contract is invalid if the child is conceived through intercourse, regardless of an agreement between the parties.
In this case, the manner of insemination and conception was disputed by the parties. The majority of the judges determined that Mother held the burden to prove the manner of conception. The judges found that Mother failed to prove that the manner in which she was inseminated for the eldest child would void the contract law and render the donor agreement unenforceable.
Judge Terry Crone dissented regarding which party held the burden of proof, arguing that the father must bear the burden as the one trying to avoid his support obligation. Judge Crone did agree with the majority of the judges that the circumstances affecting enforceability of “assisted conception contracts” must be limited “in order to avoid creating a slippery slope whereby parents could evade their support obligations simply by signing an informal agreement hastily scribbled on a sheet of paper.”
The COA’s ruling does indicate an attempt by the court to prevent incomplete, impetuous or informal donor agreements absolving a father of any responsibility. First, a physician must be involved in the process of artificial insemination, and the agreement must show the parties’ careful consideration of the implications of such an agreement, wrote Judge Friedlander. However, the COA declined to specify any minimum requirements for a donor agreement.
As for the ruling regarding the youngest child conceived by the parties, the judges all agreed that the trial court erred in denying the petition to establish paternity. This is significant because the opinion focused on the language in the contract, indicating the agreement contained ambiguous language that did not apply to future children. The COA remanded with instructions to grant Mother’s petition to establish paternity for the younger child. Therefore, while the judges found the donor had no obligation regarding the eldest child due to the contract, they found that the contract did not apply to the youngest child because of the ambiguous language. This ruling is significant in that the donor is ultimately financially responsible for the child and will have an opportunity to establish parental rights through the paternity action if he chooses to exercise them.
