Now
A Few Clouds
16°
High
35°
Low
31°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Supreme Court sides with would-be adoptive parents

Comments 9 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JOSH FUNK / The Associated Press

Friday, Nov 21, 2008 - 06:15:16 pm CST

OMAHA — A northeast Nebraska couple fighting since last year for the chance to adopt a boy who had already lived with them for three months won the state Supreme Court’s support Friday.

But their legal battle may not be over.

Jason and Angela Vesely of Verdigre had to give up the child in February because a judge ruled they should have told an adoption agency and the boy’s birth family that Angela was pregnant.

Story Photo

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that the boy, who is now 1 year old and living with his biological grandparents, should never have been taken from the Veselys because nothing in the written agreement required the Veselys to tell the Nebraska Children’s Home Society that Angela was pregnant.

But the ruling might be challenged by the adoption agency, and the boy’s biological family may launch their own lawsuit to help them retain custody of the boy.

“I’m sure they’ll do everything they can to maintain custody of the child,’’ said attorney P. Stephen Potter, who represents the biological family.

Megan Lynn Morgan of Sutherland, the boy’s birth mother, had said she wanted her son to be an only child with the adoptive family and that she wanted an open adoption.

The Veselys said they planned to tell Morgan that Angela was pregnant, but were waiting because she had miscarried three children previously.

They applied to adopt in 2005, and Jason Vesely has said his wife was more than four months pregnant when the agency assigned the child to them in late 2007.

The boy lived with the Veselys from the time he was 4 days old until a Knox County District Court judge ordered him removed in February at the age of 3 months.

The agency placed him with the biological mother’s parents in Sutherland in central Nebraska after the February ruling.

The boy has been known by two different names. The Veselys called him Morgan Jason Vesely, but the Morgans called him Brett Jonathan Morgan.

Kelly Tollefsen, one of the Vesely’s lawyers, said the couple welcomed Friday’s ruling.

“The Veselys are obviously excited and want to get Morgan back in their home as soon as possible,’’ Tollefsen said. “They were very happy and elated.’’

It will be at least 10 days before the state Supreme Court issues a mandate ordering the Nebraska Children’s Home Society to place the child with the Veselys.

But the agency could ask the court to review its decision, which would likely delay any action, Tollefsen said.

A spokeswoman for the Nebraska Children’s Home Society said Friday that officials planned to fully evaluate the ruling before deciding how to respond.

Potter, the Morgans attorney, said he still needed to meet with his clients to discuss the ruling.

The Morgans’ options could include trying to invalidate the original relinquishment of the child because the Children’s Home did not honor the birth mother’s wishes.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
DR wrote on November 21, 2008 1:21 pm:
" For the sake of the child I hope the courts are through with this discussion. I think the biological mother and hre parents should step aside. I am certain the new parents will give their son a stable and helpful family. That is not something that has been provided by the biological extended family. Where is the biological father in this discussion? It makes no difference now. "

 adoptive mom wrote on November 21, 2008 7:06 pm:
" Yes!!!!! The disruption of the adoption should never have happened!!! I cannot believe the Children's Home and biological family did this!! You're dealing with a child, not an animal, that cannot be shifted from home to home without trauma. "

 Mom wrote on November 22, 2008 8:03 am:
" You have to remember the biological parents have 6 months to change their minds and they did this in that time frame. If the adoptive parents really want what’s best for the child they should stop this before he gets to old. And who said that the biological parents were unfit lots of good people give up their babies all the time not just those on drug. "

 RT wrote on November 22, 2008 11:41 am:
" I am furious with both the judge who removed the child from the adoptive family's home AND with Nebraska Children's Home for supporting such drastic measures! How on earth does NCH expect more prospective parents to trust them in future situations? And why did the birthfamily not keep this child in the first place if they are a suitable family now? Nebraska, at least in the past, was considered a state that looked favorably on adoption. I wonder if this case will make more people frightened about potential adoptions in the future. Shame on the original judge in this case and on Nebraska Children's Home. I'm glad the NE Supreme Court has ruled in the adoptive family's favor. "

 MLK wrote on November 23, 2008 7:24 am:
" In Nebraska, biological parents do not have 6 months to change their mind. Once the birth mom relinquishes her rights, that's it. She can't go back and change later on. "

 To adoptive mom wrote on November 23, 2008 8:09 am:
" I wouldn't do this to an animal. Once you commit to a pet, you are done in my opinion. I hope you have more feelings than that for your "adopted" children. I am sure you do, but please don't get them a pet with the view that you can just "transfer ownership" without grief by the pet.

If anyone really loved this kid they would leave him where he has been the longest. Removing children is not a benign act. How traumatic to be one year old and going through your "trust vs. mistrust" stage, stranger anxiety, fear of being dropped off at a sitters house and then just dumped off by some stupid court ruling. Ever try explaining things like that to a one year old?

In 15 years - don't expect loyalty from the one you weren't loyal to. What monster could bear the sound of a baby crying for what he thinks are his family because he is a possession? He is one. Do what is best for him!!!

Safe haven now makes perfect sense to me. You can expect a lot from kids, but you can't take away basic needs like security without a problem. "

 Adoptive and foster mom wrote on November 23, 2008 9:01 pm:
" The state and the courts do it all the time. We had a child in our home straight from the hospital for 20 months and they put the child back with meth addicted bio-mother with no job and no place to live. The State and the court system call it reunification and they believe it is the best interest of the child.

We have 2 others that are open adoption and the bio-moms chose us as the adoptive couple before the child was born. We have had great experiences with those situations.

MLK is correct, once the bio parents sign reliquishment it is done. Just as any of us do, they always have the right to pursue something in court. The 6 month period is to make sure that the child and the adoptive parents are bonding and simply a waiting period before you go to court to finalize the adoption.

I think the couple should have disclosed their pregnancy. There are many infertile couples waiting to adopt and I just think the couple should have been open and honest with everyone. We knew someone in a similiar situation. She had miscarried many times and they were on the waiting list to adopt. They got a call and she was only at 9 weeks of her pregnancy but they told the adoption agency and the bio family that she was pregnant. The bio-parents and extended family still wanted them to adopt the baby if they still wanted the child. Of course they did, and that child got a baby brother about 7 months later. "

 Friend wrote on November 25, 2008 6:09 pm:
" I personally know the adoptive family. They are good friends of ours. They are good people that deserve that baby. It was horrible for them to lose him, and now that they have a chance to get him back...well...I hope that the Courts don't yank that hope away from them. When the biological mother gave up her rights, she should have known what that meant. That was her decision to let them adopt her son....and she should trust that they will give Morgan a wonderful life in a stable and safe home!! "

 nonsense wrote on December 2, 2008 1:54 pm:
" I am a birthmother and I think that it was right to take the child out of the home. As birthmothers, we don't just give our children away to random people. We have criteria that we want met with the new families; for instance, I wanted my child's new parents to be married for at least 7 years before I would consider them. If this birthmother requested that her child be placed in a home where it would be the only child, then NCHS the state and EVEN THE ADOPTIVE couple must honor that request. In this case, the adoptive couple did not honor the birthmother's request. Therefore, I think she did the right thing by taking the child away from the couple. If I found out my child's adoptive family had lied to me about something I based my decision off of, I would fight for the same reason. And to MLK...you do get 6 months before everything is finalized in the relinquishment process. "

Ads by Yahoo!