[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference moira::parenting

Title:	Parenting
Notice:	Previous PARENTING version at MOIRA::PARENTING_V3
Moderator:	GEMEVN::FAIMANY

Created:	Thu Apr 09 1992
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1292
Total number of notes:	34837

401.0. "Supreme Court leaves switched baby with adopted parents" by PEACHS::MITCHAM (Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta)) Fri Dec 04 1992 08:07

Article 444 of clari.local.georgia:
Subject: Supreme Court leaves switched baby with adopted parents
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 7:39:35 PST

  WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday refused to let a Georgia
woman keep her 9-year-old son, who was mistakenly switched with another
infant at birth and lived with adopted parents before the mixup was
discovered in 1988.
  The court, without comment, left intact the ruling of a Fulton
County, Ga., Superior Court judge that the boy should live with his
adopted parents in Kentucky.
  But Judge Frank Eldridge said the boy's natural parents, who are now
divorced, will be permitted visitation rights with the child.
  On Oct. 7, 1983, two male children were born at the Griffin-Spalding
County Hospital in Griffin, Ga.
  One was the child of Jodie Denise Pope and her husband.
  The other was to have been put up for adoption.
  Through a hospital error the infants were switched, and the Popes
took home a baby boy they believed to be their own, naming him Cameron
Keith Pope.
  Meanwhile, the Georgia Department of Human Resources allowed Eugene
and Edith Moore to adopt the second child, who they named Melvin Eugene
Moore.
  The mistake was not discovered until 1988, when a blood test during
the Pope's divorce showed that Cameron Keith was not their son.
  Jodie Pope -- who is remarried and whose last name is now Paul -- 
then began proceedings to adopt Cameron Keith, while at the same time
attempting to gain custody of her natural son.
  The Moores fought both actions, losing the first when Paul was
allowed to adopt Cameron upon a ruling of Georgia's highest court, 
and ultimately winning the second.
  However, Melvin has been living with his natural mother for a year.
Jodie Paul was allowed visitation last Thanksgiving and refused to
return the boy, claiming he was subject to child abuse in Kentucky, an
allegation that has not been substantiated in court.
  The Georgia courts had refused to step in pending the high court's
action.
  Monday's action requires Paul to return Melvin to the family in
Kentucky he has known for most of his life.
  The hospital mistake is more confusing in light of another piece of
information: The Moore's -- a mixed race couple -- had specifically 
sought a mixed-race child to raise as their own.
  The Georgia Department of Human Resources arranged such an adoption.
But Melvin, who ended up with the Moores, is white.
  Cameron, who grew up with the Popes (who are both white), was born of
a white mother and black father.
  Robert Benfield, an attorney for Jodie Paul, said the discrepancy was
discovered only at the divorce proceedings, where Paul's first husband
charged his wife with being unfaithful and claimed the boy was not his
son.
  A series of blood tests confirmed the boy was unrelated to either
parent, which led to legal action forcing the hospital and the Georgia
Department of Human Resources to investigate.
 ------
92-582 Jodie Denise Paul vs. Eugene Moore and Edith Moore

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
401.1	confused...	CALS::HEALEY	DTN 297-2426	`Fri Dec 04 1992 11:35`	14
	Anybody know any more details about this story? I find it extremely interesting. I'm confused about something: > Jodie Pope -- who is remarried and whose last name is now Paul -- >then began proceedings to adopt Cameron Keith, while at the same time >attempting to gain custody of her natural son. > The Moores fought both actions, losing the first when Paul was >allowed to adopt Cameron upon a ruling of Georgia's highest court, >and ultimately winning the second. What right did the Moores have to fight Jodie Pope/Paul from adopting Cameron. They weren't Cameron's natural parents.
401.2	my guess....	BOSEPM::DISMUKE	Romans 12:2	`Fri Dec 04 1992 13:00`	6
	BUT they legally adopted him. The intent was that they leave the hospital that week with an adopted newborn. They got one! Unfortunately, the wrong one. -sandy
401.3		MPGS::SHARRINGTON	I've never BEEN so excited!	`Fri Dec 04 1992 14:25`	19
	I think .1 was questioning why the Moore's were fighting Ms. Paul's action to adopt the child she'd been rais- ing, ie, Cameron (not her natural son). Apparently, when she found out that Cameron was not her (biological) son, she de- cided she wanted some formal, legal recognition of their re- lationship, AS WELL AS trying to get custody of Melvin, her biological son who was being raised by the Moore's. Like .1, apparently, I can understand why the Moore's would be reluctant to give Melvin up to his biologic- al mother, but I CAN'T understand why they had any interest whatsoever regarding her adoption of Cameron. That I can see, they had no relationship of ANY sort to that child. --- Shawn
401.4	Guesses	CSC32::DUBOIS	Love	`Fri Dec 04 1992 15:47`	7
	I would guess that they were afraid they would lose both the children. They probably thought there was a good chance that the other woman would be awarded her biological son, and didn't want to be left without any child. They may also have been attempting some leverage on her, so she wouldn't take away the son they had raised. Carol
401.5	sounds like a big law$uit to me	WEORG::ROGOFF	Barry Rogoff, IDC, NUO1-1/G10, 264-2842	`Fri Dec 04 1992 16:36`	3
	I'd love to be the lawyer handling the lawsuit against the hospital. ;-) Barry
401.6		KAHALA::FULTZ	ED FULTZ	`Mon Dec 07 1992 08:05`	14
	A woman has a child. She comes to the father 9 years later and demands child support payments. The court orders a blood test. The man is the father. He is ordered to pay. How is the above any different than this case? The woman was determined to be the mother by blood test. It would seem reasonable, to me, for this to immediately determine that the woman should be granted custody of the child by blood right. I don't understand (and it scares me) how the court determined that the woman was not entitled to the child. After all, she never signed away her parental rights (nor did her husband). How did the court justify it's decision? Ed..
401.7		SSGV01::ANDERSEN	Make a note if it !	`Mon Dec 07 1992 09:26`	5
	> How did the court justify it's decision? Supposedly, its in the best interest of the children involved.
401.8	Today on Today	SPARKL::WARREN		`Mon Dec 07 1992 13:05`	14
	Jodie Paul was on the Today show this morning with her lawyer. According to her lawyer, the Moores did _not_ try to get Cameron (the boy they were meant to adopt and who has been raised by Paul) when the switch was discovered. Paul is the only one who wants him and there is no issue. They _did_ try to keep Melvin but lost to Paul, as the original article says. If I were Paul, I'm sure I would try to get my natural son back. (On the other hand, if were the Moores, I would also try to keep him. What a terrible situation for everyone involved.) However, Paul did not seem the least bit sympathetic to how this would affect the Moores. -Tracy
401.9	Who's on first?	AKOCOA::BOLAND		`Mon Dec 07 1992 13:10`	10
	This is confusing. Paul now has legal custody over Cameron (the child she raised but is not her biological son), and from what .8 said, she also has custody over Melvin. <They _did_ try to keep Melvin but lost to Paul, as the original article says.> So does this mean the Moore's have lost the son they (incorrectly) adopted? I find this so intriguing and it is very curious how the courts react. /rm
401.10		SPARKL::WARREN		`Mon Dec 07 1992 13:18`	8
	Yes, according to Paul, she has both boys now, but the Moores have visiting rights with Melvin. I guess there would be no benefit to taking Cameron from a stable home and giving him to another couple, with whom he has no real connection. -Tracy
401.11		CSC32::DUBOIS	Love	`Mon Dec 07 1992 14:20`	7
	I would be extremely angry if someone tried to take my child from me (biologically related or not). I think each child should be allowed to stay where he was raised, with lots of visitation with the biological parents (for the one child). As far as I am concerned, taking the child away from his parents after 9 years is disruptive for the child. Carol
401.12	What does the boy have to say about all this?	MARX::FLEURY		`Tue Dec 08 1992 07:49`	15
	Yikes, what a mess! I haven't ready anything on this first-hand (just what's been written here). Has Mrs Paul stated why she want's custody of Melvin? Is it just because he is her biological son, or is it because she feels the Moore's were abusive parents? Has anybody heard what the boy's feelings are about all this? My first reaction is that I agree with .11. The Moore's have devoted 9 years of their life to raising "their son", and now this total stranger wants to take him away. If I were Melvin's biological mother, I certainly would want visitation rights and some assurance that he was being well cared for - but I don't think I would be so selfish as to try and take him away from the only parents he has ever known. - Carol
401.13	This is what I saw of Mrs Paul on tv	ALLVAX::CLENDENIN		`Tue Dec 08 1992 16:28`	9
	From what I have seen of all of this and heard the couple that had Melvin did abuse him, and Melvin has told Mrs Paul's lawyer about the abuse and that he did not want to go back to the adoptive parents in Tennessee. He went to visit Mrs Paul last Thanksgiving and told her what was happening to him and she decided she had to protect her son and did not send Melvin back.
401.14	Who has Melvin now?	CARLIN::FLEURY		`Wed Dec 09 1992 08:30`	34
	I'm sooo confused. Where is Melvin now? Where is Melvin supposed to be? The article in .0 says that custody of Melvin was granted to the adoptive parents in Kentucky (the Moores). But most of the replies here - including those referring to a recent TV interview with Mrs Paul, seem to indicate custody of Melvin was granted to Mrs Paul. from .0 > WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday refused to let a Georgia > woman keep her 9-year-old son, who was mistakenly switched with another > infant at birth and lived with adopted parents before the mixup was > discovered in 1988. > The court, without comment, left intact the ruling of a Fulton > County, Ga., Superior Court judge that the boy should live with his > adopted parents in Kentucky. > . > . > . > Monday's action requires Paul to return Melvin to the family in > Kentucky he has known for most of his life. > . > . > . Regarding accusations of abuse - this all sounds very fishy to me. Accusations of abuse are VERY serious business. But we are hearing these accusations third hand (Melvin told Pope's lawyer, who told Pope, who told the media) and were unsubstantiated (according to the article in .0) by the court. I'm not saying the charges of abuse are true or false - but I, personally, am suspicious of BOTH the Moores, and Mrs Pope. All I can say with certainty is I am glad I'm not any of the people involved in this nightmare.
401.15	Last week People Magazine interview	SCAACT::COX	If you have too much to do, get your nap first!	`Mon Dec 21 1992 21:32`	13
	I read in a magazine article last week, that there are 14 sworn affidavits from neighbors, teachers, etc... that Mrs. Moore physically abused Melvin (one report showed Mr. Moore to witness the abuse, but the others showed him not present). There is considerable speculation that Mrs. Moore also emotionally abused him, but more difficult to prove (except for the witnesses of name calling, etc...). The interview Mrs. Paul gave stated that she had not intended to disrupt Melvin's life and keep him, until she was informed of the abuse. FWIW