Legally Kidnapped

Shattering Your Child Welfare Delusions Since 2007

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

A mother has a child adopted right out from under the father

I would like to share it with everyone as I think it is so important for people to know. Anthony Lingle has been fighting for the right to be his daughters full time parent. Anthony's ex had decided when she was pregnant to give the baby up for adoption. Anthony has been fighting ever since to have his daughter with him not strangers. It amazes me that a father is not given the same rights to their child as the mother. Here are the facts as I know them.
Two months before baby Hailey was born, Anthony filed a Petition to Establish Parental Relationship and DNA Test, Sacramento Superior Court No. 09FL07459; October 2009.

Bio mom filed a TRO the next day, (10/09) successfully keeping Anthony “out of the picture” while she arranged an adoption without Anthony’s knowledge or consent. At the 12/10 RO trial, her application failed. Her testimony was found to be not credible. However, the “adoption damage” was already done. The bio mom had arranged a pending adoption.

On January 1, 2010, baby Hailey was born. Bio-mother relinquished her parental rights and turned Hailey over to the prospective adoptive parents at the hospital. According to the Court, the Rosts knew the attempted adoption was against Anthony’s wishes, that he would not consent to adoption, that he wanted to raise his own child, and that they were kidnapping his child behind his back. They nevertheless abducted his child and have held her in their/her possession ever since.

To justify their actions they engaged in a brutal and relentless 2.5-year long legal character assassination against Anthony, leading to Ms. Rost (now divorced) to win at the trial level in May 2011 via an involuntary termination of Anthony’s parental rights. Anthony had court-ordered supervised visitation during the trial for 4 hours per week. Visitation ceased May 2011; any attempts at contact with his daughter were rebuffed.

An outstanding Ms. Rost psychological report exists from April 2010. It was to be submitted to the court before a termination decision was rendered. However, this report remains hidden to this day.

Anthony appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals in June 2011. He won on every level possible on April 24th, 2012. (Case accessible as C068485). The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated his parental rights by issuing a blistering opinion. Baby Hailey, by this determination, is not eligible for adoption. The 3rd District appeared prepared to award custody to Anthony, but could not because it needed a trial judge to assess the current state of affairs.

Six days after the appellate decision of 4/24/12, Ms. Rost filed for legal guardianship of baby Hailey, claiming that since she had been with her since birth, Hailey was better off with her. This is a new Placer case SPR 0006572. Never mind that Rost abducted her in the first place. Rost fails to notify the court of the related failed adoption case, Rost attorney offers “secret testimony”, she fails to attach appellate court decision, fails to notify baby Hailey’s relatives, and assumes that Anthony will be appearing pro per. The bio-mother, Ms. Gallup, nominated Rost as guardian. However, per Probate Code 1500(b)(2), she cannot nominate anyone without Anthony’s approval.

Anthony is served at 11:30am with the Petition for Guardianship on May 9, 2012. Three hours later, a Placer County “Guardianship Court Investigator” working under a cancelled license, Jeanne Ivary, shows up unannounced at Anthony’s presumed residence (prior address) without a Court Order or any prior notification – she wants to “investigate.” She is sent on her way as Anthony does not live there.

Anthony’s atty contacts Ivary with questions on May 18, 2012, Ivary fails to respond. Anthony files his Opposition to Rost’s Guardianship Petition. In it, it shows all the improvements and preparations that he has made in anticipation of receiving Hailey, including working with a reunification expert. Anthony is already working with a transitional/reunification expert in order to protect his child’s best interests.

Guardianship Hearing of June 1, 2012: Rost’s atty lies on the record, claims the appellate court found detriment, admits that the guardianship petition was filed improperly. Anthony asks for sanctions. Judge Curry (Placer County, Dept. 3, Historic Courthouse/Auburn) defers sanctions, continues Petition until after the appellate court remitterer (30) has been properly recorded.

“Investigator” Ivary serves Anthony with a “Investigator’s Report” based on Ms. Rost informing her that there is still an adoption pending. She recommends that Hailey stay with Rost “until the adoption is final”. She never contacted Anthony nor checked the facts of the case (Hailey cannot be adopted), relying solely on the information provided by Ms. Rost and her family, and bio-mother Ms. Gallup.

June 15 - July 7, 2012 - Rost files for sanctions based on Anthony’s websites publicizing the case. Again, misrepresentations abound. Anthony files for sanctions based on Rost’s improper guardianship petition and deliberate misrepresentations to the court. Judge Curry stays these motions.

On June 29, 2012, Anthony files a Habeas Corpus Petition based on the fact that Laurel has no legal or other right to baby Hailey but continues to hold her in her possession. By law, Judge Curry had 60 days to rule on Anthony’s Petition.

July 27, 2012 “after remitterer” Hearing: Judge Curry takes attys into chambers. In court, he states that he wants to treat custody of Hailey “like a divorce” and send Rost and Anthony to Mediation. Curry tries to talk Anthony into agreeing to a Rost guardianship. Anthony and Rost have already been to mediation before; the case was deemed “not suitable for mediation” both at the trial and appellate levels. In exchange to agreeing to mediation, the court orders visitation to commence at 4 hours 2x per week to start. Judge Curry admits on record that he saw nothing wrong with 50/50 custody. Judge Curry stays all motions/Habeas Corpus Petition until after mediation.

July 28, 2012: Visitation with Hailey starts again. It is magical. Hailey recognizes her daddy – the bond was never broken. Rost cannot accept this.

September 1, 2012 (approx.): Anthony asks Rost to increase his visitation time while they wait for their mediation date. She refuses to do so.

September 17, 2012: Mediation. As before, nothing is agreed upon or resolved. Rost refuses to increase visitation beyond current 4 hours 2x per week and demands guardianship; she infers that Anthony is nothing more than a sperm donor, refuses to accept that Anthony and Hailey have a bond. Anthony counters with no legal standing for Rost, 36 days of courtesy visitation per year or as his reunification recommends.

Regarding mediation, since the adoption failed, the bio-mom’s parental rights continue in some fashion. She was not a party to the mediation. Consequently, it is legally impossible to mediate this “as if this were a divorce” as Rost wants.

Also, due to the failed adoption, Rost can never even be a guardian. Probate Code 1516.5, prohibits that by explicitly allowing guardians to adopt. Because Rost cannot adopt Hailey, she cannot be her guardian.

October 10, 2012: Anthony files a “Request for Ruling on Habeas Corpus Petition”. It has now been 103 days, way past the 60 day deadline for a ruling. Cutoff: November 9, 2012.

October 17, 2012: Rost filed an incomplete Opposition to Anthony’s Habeas Corpus Petition (only received 3 of 8 pages/improperly served), a Motion in Limine, and Rost’s Supplemental Declaration. In the Limine Motion, Rost is demanding that the court exclude everything that has happened since the date of Anthony’s (reversed) termination of parental rights, May 2011. The court, according to Rost, is to forget the appellate decision and everything that has happened since that time….just depend on a decision that has been since reversed by the appellate court, the inappropriate Rost guardianship, the positive steps Anthony has taken in preparation to receive his daughter into his home, etc., etc.

In Rost’s Declaration, she continues to vilify Anthony and appears to be trying to cut him out of his child’s life yet again. She is now claiming that he is “bullying” and “threatening” her at the visitation exchanges. At the very least, she wants to make it prohibitively expensive for Anthony to see his own daughter, as she is asking Anthony to pay for “supervised” exchanges. It does not matter that Anthony always has a witness with him to counteract her claims.

October 19, 2012 Hearing: We are supposed to set for trial; Judge Curry’s assurances that Judge Nichols would be hearing the case are now out the window. Exclaims that the legal threshold issues are not appealable. Appoints Minor’s Counsel for Hailey without consultation. Rost and atty. does not show; Anthony objects /asks for sanctions for and to telephonetic appearance, Curry ignores and does it anyway.

November 8, 2012: Hearing on all Motions, Petitions, including the Guardianship.

November 8, 2012: Judge Curry failed to rule on the motions (including the Habeas Corpus) and the Guardianship. He denied the objection re the guardianship petition being res judicata and that bio-mother could not nominate failed adoptive parent for guardianship without Anthony’s consent. Judge refused to address the constitutional issues (1516.5) re CA guardianship – he said he would “hear that argument” at the end of the upcoming contested guardianship trial. He also ruled to allow evidence/testimony from the (reversed) 2010-11 trial to be applied to the upcoming guardianship trial.

The next hearing is December 21, 2012. The judge refused to allow more visitation for Anthony. In the meantime, a failed adoptive parent with no rights to Anthony’s daughter keeps Hailey in her possession.

It is abundantly clear that Judge Curry is going to grant the failed adoptive parent guardianship no matter what. It does not terminate Anthony’s parental rights, but “suspends” them. It is basically the same thing. Anthony has no say as to his own daughter.

The court is not addressing the legal threshold issues, and is distracted by the “best interest” argument – which Anthony has already addressed via his reunification expert. Ms. Rost herself has created the “bonding” and “this is the only family that Hailey has ever known” issues by her actions of abduction, active vilification of Anthony, her continuing misrepresentation of basic facts, and outrageous and expensive legal maneuvering. Anthony, through no fault of his own, is being kept away from his daughter – and his daughter kept from him – for no reason whatsoever. Anthony has satisfied the appellate court’s “update” concerns regarding custody and visitation in full. Now you might be asking yourself how is this possible? Well that is what I and others would like to know. Now imagine being Anthony Lingle, the heartache he has been through and continues to be put through.. Please show your support for Anthony and Hailey and join

Public records on case

This case has made new case law for fathers and mothers it is in the law books they use today the case is Adoption of H.R.
examples of cases used

No comments:

Post a Comment

Guess what

It Could Happen To You