Child of 9/11 victim still waiting adoption

[Kheldarson]

...despite having an aunt ready to adopt her.

Basically, the girl was 2 when her mother, a single parent, was killed in the attacks. The girl's aunt, the mother's sister, came to NYC to raise the girl near her grandparents. In 2004, the aunt tried to apply for adoption, only to be blocked by the girl's father suddenly reappearing.

The girl's father had given up custody and visitation rights in exchange for not paying child support. He popped back into the picture after the girl was given $2 million in compensation.

The aunt is now also being investigated in how she spent the $2 million.

Seems like a major SNAFU all around.

[draco664]

The aunt is now also being investigated in how she spent the $2 million.

Sounds like this was only because of the way she bought the home. Transferring the money to her account and buying the property in both her and her niece's names. It may have been a standard audit in cases of possible fraud.

It doesn't sound like she blew it all and there's nothing left. Sending the niece to private school and buying a nice place to live in sound like reasonable expenses. If there was no money left, my bet would be that dad wouldn't be interested.

[fireheart17]

It doesn't sound like she blew it all and there's nothing left. Sending the niece to private school and buying a nice place to live in sound like reasonable expenses. If there was no money left, my bet would be that dad wouldn't be interested.

Unless the father wanted to send kidlet to a public school to maximise the amount of money HE had...

[Ginger Tea]

IANAL, but if he gave up contact in lieu of payments, those are for the child not the mother, so would he not have to resume payments in order to receive access he claims she was denying him?

As for the money, 2 mil sounds a lot, till you look at the price of houses round my neck of the woods where 300,000 is kinda entry level and New York that wont get you much, so 900,000 on a house fully paid up sounds bout right.

As the house is in both their names, even if he was successful he could not move in and evict the Aunt, nor try and profit from selling the place and have his daughter live wherever he may be.
I think it had to be in joint names as I don't think she could have property in her name till she is 18 and her Aunt could have had sole ownership in her name but chose not to as it is meant to be for her as it is her money.

If he was successful and there was still money in the bank, she would probably be out on her ear at 18 either due to no more money or she having 4 years to get to know her father, might think "hmm I was way better off with my Aunt till the courts said otherwise."

[crashhelmet]

If he signed away his rights, he can't do anything here. I can tell you from personal experience that the forfeiture of custody forfeits all rights. Including the right to see the child. If he ever gets any visitations at all, it's up to the discretion of the State, if the child is still a ward of the State, or the adopting family.

I can understand the delay in the adoption due to the spending of the money. The State needs to verify whether or not the claim of custody and adoption process was due to the money or out of love, but it should've been settled long ago.

[Ginger Tea]

I am puzzled by the delay between taking her in (which was it seems quite quickly) to making the adoption process.
I don't think the pay out was the deciding factor, although it may play a legitimate non money grabbing part.

But also, she probably felt she didn't need to adopt her niece, they were family to begin with, but if she knew about the father and what he would do if she got money from the as yet un awarded cash out, it would be harder for him to take her in if she is adopted, so she might have been forced to apply to keep her from being a cash injection.

The father is painted as a gold digger who chose to give up his rights as a father to save money, had he and the mother arranged visitation and alimony he may have taken her in automatically then been the purse string holder to a small or modest fortune (depends on what $2mil gets you these days) some years later, but he could also left her to the state or the grandparents till the aunt stepped in like she did.

But he legally severed family ties to save a few bucks, she is 14 now and sees her aunt as a mother figure than an aunt and even if he got custody it's only 4 years till she's of age to go her own way and may not even see him as a family member, she might even feel like she was being held against her will, not in the physical sense like the recent abduction case, but 4 years with a stranger whom you have no real connection with, there may be no bonding ever.

edit:
had the funds been set aside in a trust fund that the aunt could not access as legal guardian, then given she gave up her old job and house to move to NY to look after her, she might not have been able to afford to live there as long as she did, I believe she did so to keep her near her grand parents (whom I assume are her's not the fathers parents) she may have had to move back, but what if (again IANAL) there was a clause in her foster parenting that forbid state changing moves?

edit:
also the misleading headline, it's not as if she's in state care, there are numerous children who never get adopted or fostered out, being taken in by family kinda makes adoption moot for 99% of the time, not adopting doesn't show she doesn't care, hell many active parents don't care, so aside from the odd instance of legal shenanigans she is not better or worse off just for having been adopted.

[Gravekeeper]

I can't see how the girl would have ANY inclination towards "Dad" at all. Which I'm sure is how this will end up if she's allowed to speak at the best interest hearing today. All of this shit seems to be due to one dickhead judge who insisted he have visitation rights despite that whole throwing her away thing.

I'm impressed it got this far. Is it that hard to put the girl on the stand and just ASK what she wants?

[Nekojin]

I'm impressed it got this far. Is it that hard to put the girl on the stand and just ASK what she wants?

You have no idea how often custodial parents in contentious divorces "poison the well" and turn the kids against the other parent, or try to. This particular case can be compared to that since it's a dispute between mother figure and father, and there is apparently no love lost between them; the kid's own testimony may not be an accurate barometer of what would be best for the kid.

All of that said, I'm inclined to go with the side that says, "You gave up all rights to the kid when it was going to cost you money to raise her, but now that she's rich(-ish), you want in? Sorry, no." I'd be inclined to let him have visitation rights if he genuinely wanted it, since the kid's situation has indeed changed, but only under the understanding that he would never get custody, and would never lay a finger on so much as a cent of her money.

[Ginger Tea]

For visitation rights to begin, I would expect payments from the father to also begin, sod that he's been declared bankrupt, he legally gave those rights up in 2000 and although the mother is deceased, if it is like the UK, the money is meant to be for the child's well being and not something that would stop just cos the mother died.

Yes there is a lot of potential for well poisoning, but as she is also only 4 years from becoming an adult, who would want to be uprooted to a new legal guardian at 14 if their parental figure is still alive and willing and able to keep on looking after them?

If you used to have a car and sold it to later find the new owner had restored it to it's former glory, you don't get to drive the car just cos you once owned it. (yes I know I've compared a child to a car)
He sold his claim to his daughter so he didn't have to pay her whatever it was a month and it wasn't a case of he had no money to pay with, he seemed to be moderately well off at the time

[Panacea]

I foresee a fight in the future over the house, given that it is in the name of the aunt and the niece, but bought with the niece's money. Aunt is entitled to reasonable expenses, but the money is the girl's. I can understand why the audit was triggered.

That being said, however, it sounds to me like aunt has made a lot of sacrifices and is doing her best to give the girl a good education and upbringing.

[s_stabeler]

Is the niece old enough to own property in her name though? it could be that the aunt is only on the property until the niece can own it outright. Make it a requirement somehow thta the property goes into the niece's sole name when the niece is old enough and leave it alone, I'd say.

[Ginger Tea]

I don't know when she got into money, but I doubt a 4 year old (I think that's how old she was when the pay out was made) is allowed to buy anything other than sweets in their own name, let alone a car or house.

It is in joint ownership as she could not buy it, but if they were renting perhaps she would end up paying the rent herself anyway, least this way she has half ownership (yes she paid 100%) and the aunt might sell for a dollar her half when the time is right, as has happened in many cases of property going to children after a certain age (and the odd tax fiddle, you cant reposes my house, it's not my house it's my sons).

If for example the father did get custody whilst she was still young, he would have to buy out her share if he wanted to sell his daughters home and even though she paid zero herself, she owns 50%, least I assume so IANAL.
Hell he wouldn't even be able to move in and evict the aunt for the same reason.