Nancy Farkas how do you know?

Thank the heavens

🙏🏼🙏🏼❤️

I am so pleased and overjoyed to hear this news! In my experience as a legal assistant in family law and in seeing the result of children being reunited with their bio parents, especially those with drug addiction/trouble with the law is that 60% of the time, it's a tragedy. Sadly, the child usually ends up losing. Be happy Braelynn!!

Praise God!

She didn’t love her child enough to stop doing coke and who knows what else for 9 months

zoe reyes yeah it's easy too sit and judge yet if YOU were an addict maybe you could comprehend. I was a heroin/crack addict for over 13 years when I became pregnant with my first at 22 I was living on the street, doing god awful things and I didn't know I was pregnant until almost 5 months!! I didn't gain ANY weight until almost 7.5 months, my period even to this day I get maybe 2/3 a year, and I was always ''dope sick'' so didn't know it was actually morning sickness. When I found out I was pregnant I was almost 5 months too far for an abortion(not that I probably would've but wasn't even an option) and I tried too get into programs,methadone,even tried to get government help just enough too get me off the street and get stable and clean. I did stop using heroin, crack meth but continued to use morphine so I wasn't sick. After she was born she was taken within hours lucky my parents where able too get her. Now I've gone threw the proper channels of actually getting my life back together. I now have an 18 month old daughter who I was clean during her birth, and have my family and my other daughter back in my life, it's been almost 3 years that I've been clean. I'm not proud that my daughter was born addicted to opiates but I'm proud of the person I am today and wouldn't change my past. I wouldn't have met my husband and wouldn't have had my two children without going through my past. Anyway it's easy too judge but try and imagine how that women must feel I'm sure she's not proud but yet she's given her daughter too someone else who can give her a great life that's pretty awesome in my books!

Nikkita Newhook I think you are amazing to at knowledge that you needed help and put your daughter first .

me too. don't give that child back to that man.there's something about him i don't like. i don't think he realy wants that child i think he's just fighting for her because he knows he can. she will be better off with the adoptive parents that she has grown to love. if he wants to see her i am sure that they will let him see her . but i think she should stay where she is.

Christina Qian i did the same thing as an addict with my son

Payton Jones mother want what’s best for their kids. I would do the same

ravencrone56 But she admits who needs to raise this child. Others would say they want the child even when they don’t. She knows what is better for this child and she’s not trying to get her back

She is a true mother

​@@daniellesaranchuk2774If she is such a true mother why did they find drugs in this child's system ?

She actually shows Braelynn love, other than the biological father. You don't rip a little girl out of the only family she has ever known.

No one is perfect, he made mistake he went to prison he was punished by law and did what he had to do . Obviously he was young and stupid now he has family , work and want his daughter.

I agree with you.. it's bigger then the man turning his life around they are all that little girl knows

Shadow Reaper the birth mother isn’t going to raise the child. My adopted son was born to an addict. I know just how challenging and terrifying it can be, but I love him more than any challenge.

Shadow Reaper Then you didn’t understand my statement. Courts do not sever parental rights just because said parent is in jail. There’s more to this story. The court will not even take into account the wishes of the birth mother once she’s given up parental rights. The standard is the best interest of the child. Not the adopted family, not the birth mother, not the birth father. I know this because not only am I an adoptive mom but because I am a child court attorney (for the children). That child is the only one that matters.

@@Kahn101 you’re quite the dramatic one aren’t you? Not interested in convincing you. 😁

This child is not in a wnnderful home, she is in foster care with dysfunctional foster caregivers. Her only loving and wonderful home is with her real father, where she wants to be.

TheYasmineFlower 1. they are not foster parents they adopted her. 2., the father hasn't even come to see her. 3., she calls them her family.

Perhaps because the Dalsings, who are NOT adoptive parents, are also currently fighting two other natural families. That's right, 2 OTHER active cases involving TEMPORARY foster girls in their possession...much like this one.

The adoption was VACATED, Nate. That means "as if it never happened" or "does not apply". It was vacated because it was illegal...the court said that the fosters had no legal right or qualifications to privately adopt (this is a dependency case)...this is called "No Standing".

SARAH HANSON how could someone take a child away from someone who adopts the child

I think your comment is beautiful!!

Yep. That couple might be her Mother and father, but her adoptive parents are her Mum and Dad.

Another comment said that they let her stay with her adoptive parents.

It did.

Vicvic W so true

@Laura South that would be stupid. He’d be a runner.

Exactly!

Maybe he’s trying to give her the best too? What proof do you have to say she won’t be happy with her father?

If you have any knowledge of the prison system you'd know this man didn't have a choice that his daughter wasn't in his life! You can't pay child support or call everyday when you're broke in jail. Those people are wrong for trying to keep her from her biological parents, acting like visitation is enough to mend a hole he will have in his heart forever. It's only been a few years he has plenty of time to change his life for her and those people should leave it to the courts to say where she should be smh.

@@Asp47999 and you think taking her from the only people she’s known as her parents all her life is okay? The mother is still in her life. If he had wanted to have a roll in her life I’m sure he would have gotten one just like her biological mother.

the child ALWAYS reaps the results of the parents poor choices : (

@@MM-km5zf Well, She seems Very Happy with Her Adoptive Parents and Siblings!! 🤗🙏👍😂😏😎👶💜

Exactly And they love her He seem just wanting something to hold onto

Jet Gibson thank God

Victory is sweet

Fuck off

@ᅚᅚ I am so happy for the little girl. Thank goodness everything turned out for the best.

@Mr. Anonymous He is a stranger to that little girl. He made bad choices. Another family stepped up. It is the only family she has known.

This child is not adopted. She is a foster child which means that the Dalsings don't have any rights to keep her in their possession. I'm sorry that they are lying to you.

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake , "rights to keep her in their POSSESSION"?? Seriously? She is a child - a person! Not an object in someone's possession! You care for a child, you don't own them like you would a possession! You talk about this case, which is about s little girl's life, as if you were debating a land ownership case. Are you really concerned with this girl's wishes, psychological well-being and happiness? Or are you arguing purely for the sake of upholding some legal loopholes and rules, even if they might be faulty - which they are, if they're more concerned about protecting the "parents" rights than the child's! I've noticed you've been commenting on all the comments on this video in quite an arrogant manner - correcting people and declaring some truth you perceive as rightous because of some legalities you cite and technicalities you point out - adoptive or foster - whatever the legal name, it doesn't really matter from the perspective of this little girl! For her it's about who has raised her and been there for her so far. Children form very strong emotional attachment to who they see and experience as their early years primary carer. Being taken away from the primary carer (a psychological term rather than a legal one) at a young age is very traumatic for any child and should be avoided at all costs. This should be the priority here - to avoid causing trauma to this girl (psychological trauma affects all aspects of the child's development and can cause lifelong issues) and maintaining her peaceful, happy, secure psychological state, and NOT about which adult legally has what "possession" rights! No one should have any automatic "possession rights" to any other human being. Children are not possessions just because they need someone to look after them. Willing and able, biological or not, carers can be allowed to care for a child, if that is in the best interest of the child's continued wellbeing and happiness. An adult's wants (bio dad "wants his girl with him now") should not trump the child's right to continued wellbeing, just because said adult is biologically related to them.

You might want to consider directing your comments to the parties that have no rights to this child...the Dalsings. Interesting that you should bring up land ownership, as what the Dalsings are doing amounts to a very sick analogy to adverse possession. Also, the Dalsings were very aware of the applicable law from the start, their job duties are those of paid contractual TEMPORARY caregivers. They were NEVER approved for adoption. It is your prerogative to ignore the law that RULES this case, much like the Dalsings have tried to do since they deliberately obstructed familial reunification way back in November 2014. Did you know that dad's bee fighting for his daughter since before she was even born? That's right, the child was supposed to go home to her very own grandma THREE+ YEARS AGO. The only ones that have mutated and manipulated the applicable law (your "loophole") is the DALSINGS. That's precisely why they lost at the appellate level in December 2016. Further, as dad's parental rights are intact, the presumption exists that he IS the child's best interest. The Dalsings tried to challenge this presumption but failed miserably to prevail. Now, since the Dalsings have heaped an incredible amount of detriment upon their TEMPORARY ward's shoulder by not complying w/what they signed up to do (TEMPORARY care/support and encourage reunification w/family), the following is the norm (this is not the first case that involves over-reaching and obsessive TEMPORARY caregivers that refuse to do their job): a sensitive and thoughtful transition plan to dad w/supportive services. After transition, dad can informally continue contact (w/DSS approval) if he thinks that it would be safe and beneficial to his daughter. Tragic that that Dalsings are refusing to participate w/any transition let alone familial contact for over a year now, don't you think? What else would you like to discuss? I humbly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the tactics that unethical/improper wanna-be adopters use in order to take wanted kids from their ready, willing, and able families in order to serve their OWN selfish needs and desires. The Dalsings have made it their life's mission to take other family's kids while they disguise THEIR best interests as those of the child's. What kind of people do that? What kind of people say that they are adoptive parents when they are not? What kind of people have three separate cases going simultaneously where they are trying to take kids that DO NOT need a home or family??

Oh, and BTW, your argument re psychological damage is precisely WHY the Dalsings have deliberately created an artificially-induced time passage of THREE+ YEARS. You can lay that directly at the Dalsing's feet. Remember, the child was supposed to go home to her very own grandma (and would have known her dad via gma way back then) when she was a little over one year old. Further, the mandate of dependency law is family before fosters whenever possible, and the Dalsings always knew that the DSS placement plan was grandma, not them. They always knew that DSS didn't approve them for adoption. What they did was try to circumvent the applicable law (dependency) by filing for an improper family law adoption when they were told that their TEMPORARY ward was going home. This took THREE+ YEARS to resolve in dad's favor at the appellate level. So what else have you got? Anything?

The child was born in S. Carolina. The grandmother is a resident of VA. That means that the child must enter the S. Carolina foster care system. It also means that there's tons of time-sensitive interstate (S. Carolina/Virginia) documentation and paperwork that has to be generated and addressed before grandma could bring the child home to VA. This took until NOVEMBER 2014, when the child was a little over a year old. It's in the appellate court rehearing decision if you are interested (SCDSS v. Myers 2017). BTW, the grandma met her granddaughter at the hospital shortly after birth and before the Dalsings were involved. Previous to that, dad arranged for and biomom lived with the grandmother in VA and remained drug-free. Two weeks before giving birth, biomom ran off to S. Carolina, fell into drugs again, and the rest is history.

No because she is a addicted

And the fact that the dad said he was his as if she is a possession and not a child.

Children deserve the right to be parented by biological family via maternal or paternal side before ever being sold out to non family!! Children fair way better with family than strangers and yes I was adopted.

DezaRay24 Thank you! I can tell you have knowledge of the foster system and how damaging it truly is for kids not to have their bio parents. All we have in life is our heritage, and imagine that little girl growing up thinking mommy and daddy couldn't clean their life up and take her. At least he is trying.

@@Kahn101 The father wouldn't have been able to afford those medical bills anyway. Those foster parent are her parents they took care of her her 'bio' father literally did nothing so he deserves nothing. that little girl doesn't deserve to be taken away from a family that loves her and put with an unknown(to her) man. that would be traumatizing to say the least.

I have no respect for that selfish woman for refusing her child to be with her Dad who clearly has turned his life around. I have even less sympathy for that horrible selfish couple! I say this as a daughter and granddaughter of Army Veterans!

It wasn't selfish of the mother if she was on drugs and the man was in jail at the time the child was adopted and I'm not mad with the couple they did was best for the little girl is not their fault

@@EmilyGloeggler7984 her dad in prison?? Lol yup that's a way better situation 🙄

The birth mother is a true mother

Sara Filipa ya

She is not adopted and was never adopted. She is a foster child and the Department of Social Services of the state of South Carolina has pursued placing her with her paternal family ever since she was taken into care. She will not be happy once she finds out that the people who pretend to be her parents have not only lied to her all of her life but have also fought her father and tried to deny her a childhood with him - and, in fact, have robbed her of three years of her childhood that she was supposed to spend with her paternal family already. The Dalsings are not adoptive parents. They can't even respect the rules put in place for foster caregivers to respect confidentiality - indeed, they can't even respect LAWS about confidentiality. They have not acted in her best interest even once during any of this. She must be removed from them as soon as possible to save her from further abuse of this kind.

TheYasmineFlower it literally says in the video they adopted her.

Inaccurate, Nate. Child not adopted, vacated on appeal. "Adoption" was illegal. casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

The Dalsings knew dad was incarcerated. He was released apparently in Nov 2016. They did the sneaky back alley door entry. Dad deserves his child if he is stable. The Dalsing's did this child a great injustice. Their hearts are heavy now, I can't feel for them. I understand that the Dalsings are fighting 3 other families over similar situations, hell foster parenting could bring in a nice piece of extra cha-ching as you reach your golden years. The law is clear in this case.

TheLicktysplitz I respect nice..but I believe they did this..to keep the biological female parent on their side!

It takes a whole lot to forcibly remove parental custody, the system works hard to foster with intents to return the child to her parents. Giving up parental rights is-- and should continue to be-- a permanent decision.

Magakiatoukid1412 the court system really doesnt care one way or the other it is easy to take the rights of a parent if they want to. My wife has watched it done to people when she worked in the court house and came home crying because of the unfairness to some of these parents.

I’m sorry but most likely his parents and hers don’t wanna have to raise their kid and honestly they have raised their kids already that girl will have a better life with them

Also they sometimes skip the family when parents are addicts or in jail because the court doesn’t want them around them

I also admire that she continues to visit the little girl. I think that can be a hard thing too in many ways.

@@1985bjaycat I agree with you.

Ok the biological mother had a baby that she gave up for adoption because mother was on drugs. WHAT IF SHE GETS PREGNANT AGAIN WHILE ON DRUGS.

@@islandgirl9479 People deserve second chances and I truly believe this woman is looking out for her daughter's best interest. She's showing her daughter she still loves her by visiting her and you can clearly see her daughter isn't scared of her... instead she looks into her eyes with a big smile. A child's body language is so powerful and so strong.

Dulcelina Cabral But even if she did.....what are you gonna do about it? Can’t stop people from having kids, thats their problem.

Laws need to be changed to what is in the best interest of the child and not reunification of the biological family.

Except the Dalsings are NOT adoptive parents. They are paid contractual TEMPORARY caregivers also known as fosters. Their services have not been needed since NOVEMBER 2014, when the child was supposed to go home to her very own grandma. Also, they never got foster care's permission to adopt this child. That's because the foster care case plan was always familial unification, NOT adoption to the Dalsings.

Then how do they have the child if you're basically saying the adoption isn't legit?

You can easily confirm that there is no adoption simply by googling the 3/1/17 appellate rehearing decision at "SCDSS v. Meyers". The foster care placement plan is put on hold when litigation commences and until all litigation ceases. That's precisely why the Dalsings keep wallpapering the courts endlessly and for years on end. This is what they do...litigate litigate and then litigate some more...even when they lose. They have another foster girl, a about a year older than Braelynn. That child was supposed to go home when she was 18 months old. She is now about 5 1/2 years old and the Dalsings are STILL denying her ready, willing, and able family their much-wanted child while they flood the court with their endless litigation.

That's wild. I am unsure how the fostering process works, I was adopted when I was a few days old through a closed adoption. However it turns out I wish the best for that little girl.

Thank you for sharing a little of your adoption story. Adoption can wonderful when it's ethical and done for the right reasons. Unfortunately, there's folks like the Dalsings that don't fit in this category, and they give the fabulous fosters and adopters out there a really (and so undeserved) bad name. Adoption is for children that need a home; it's not for adults that need children.

I'm sorry, but the video is not truthful. It's the Dalsings that don't have any rights to dad's daughter, and dad's parental rights are intact. The child is not adopted, dad's been fighting for her since before she was born, she was supposed to go home to her grandma when she was a little over a year old (NOVEMBER 2014) and the Dalsings never got the required permission from foster care to adopt Braelynn. When they were told that their TEMPORARY ward was going home, they obstructed this from happening by filing improper and time-consuming adoption paperwork that took THREE YEARS to resolve in dad's favor. Basically, the Dalsings tried to play and game the system in order to adopt a child that they are not qualified to adopt...nor is the child even available for adoption. They have, unfortunately, also done this to other little girls that are in their TEMPORARY care. It's so bad the the SC Supreme Court is recommending that the law be changed so that the Dalsings will stop stealing other ready, willing, and able family's wanted children. Currently, there's four little girls in their home - and they are fighting three God-given families for their children...while time that the Dalsings steal from natural families continues to pass.

Also, in cases like this involving obsessive, opportunistic, and over-reaching fosters like the Dalsings, a sensitive and thoughtful transition plan with supportive services is the norm. After transition to dad, he can informally continue contact (with foster care's permission) with the Dalsings if he thinks that it would be safe and beneficial to his daughter. Unfortunately, the Dalsings have been refusing to comply with any transition let alone familial contact (this time) for over a year. I hope that they come to their senses soon and realize that Braelynn is NOT their daughter and cooperate...or else the court will be forced to remove the child without a transition. Keep your fingers crossed that this does not happen.

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake and where's your proof of this? For all i know you're making random claims. The child clearly seems happy. Even calling them Mom and Dad.

Of course. You are under no obligation to believe me. Here's what the Dalsings DO NOT want you to see; the 3/1/17 appellate rehearing decision.: law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017/5472.html. If you need help w/the legalese, I'll do my best to assist you in translating it. Also, a foster's job includes preparing for and supporting familial unification. It's such a shame that the Dalsings have done precisely the opposite, as you have pointed out.

Almost forgot; google and refer to the Daling v. Boulware dissent (another foster case that the Dalsings are litigating) for the SCSC opinion re the Dalsing's actions. Thank goodness, the Dalsings cannot use that legal basis ("standing") in the instant case, as they did not appeal their "no standing" status within the 30 days allowed per law. Therefore, it is the ruling law of the case and is permanent.

It's actually the other way around after transition. Dad can informally allow contact (and if DSS agrees) if he deems it safe and beneficial to his daughter.

Lorraine, this mother gave her daughter to a couple who can, at the very least, gave Braelynn a stable home life. The adoptive parents aren't the bad ones here. It's the father and his shyster of a lawyer who haven't made the first move. If daddy really wanted to have contact with his daughter then why isn't he fighting for her and making the first move? You would think that any father who has custodial rights to his child would make the first move and come and see his daughter with the parents that mom chose for her.

Visit her? She’s adopted she is now her adopted parents own, she is their daughter, she already has someone she calls daddy

He is a piece of shit for taking her away from the only family she knows to live with a fucking loser.

Zala Marolt :L

She is not adopted, they are foster caregivers. The love of foster caregivers does not entitle them to keep foster children who are scheduled to return to their own families - true love does not expect a reward.

She was legally adopted. And, even though the adoption was overturned, I would argue they still made the decision to become her parents as they were acting in her best interest.

The adoption wasn't legal and it wasn't overturned. It was illegal because the fosters had NO STANDING to file the adoption petition. That means it never should have been approved in the first place. And it was voided - which means, legally, it never happened. As far as best interest, would you be surprised to learn that DSS had planned to move the child to her grandmother in 3014, when she was barely one. But the fosters decided to try and steal another family's loved and wanted child. That is NOT ACTING IN HER BEST INTEREST. That is trying to steal someone else's child.

Diane Reardon I do feel for her birth father. He has every intention from the beginning to keep her daughter and this is a very 1 sided video. I'm sure if there's another video of showing from the birth dad side of story and perspective, yes this child will look like a stolen child from the foster family. I don't come from a functional family but I would never want to separated from my birth parents. That blood bond and ties that can never and should never be broken

so does her biological father but that doesn't give them any more rights than him to be her parents

Exactly And real family is those who care of her well being and are present He was not nor his family

Clearly you two love that child so much you made the hardest most painful decision you could make...on behalf of that baby. Nothing but respect and admiration from me.

​@@callielu7485maybe but the baby will grow up and want to meet them probably and will ask them why they abandonned her/him too Its also selfish to abandon your child, it is terrible Unless you are very poor or addict ... but US is not considered as poor country People adopted are suffering from abandonment all their lives even if they have good loving parents

@@GD-xc4wg its either adopted or a life alone. adoption is always good.

@@sma1616 no not always There are many stories where adopted parents are abusive. Or give back the child. If nature made someone have a child those ppl are the one responsible for the baby. Its easy way out to send your kids away

You have my utmost respect

The biological mother had no right to give the child up for adoption without the consent of the legal father and the consent of the legal custodian, which is the Department of Social Services of the state of South Carolina. The father most certainly can provide for his daughter. Just because he can't buy her a castle does not mean that he can't provide for her. He is her father and he loves her and he has been fighting for her ever since she was born. To keep her away from him for any longer is child abuse.

TheYasmineFlower As an adopted child myself I would never want to be ripped away from my birth parents. My mother gave me up and I have no idea who he even is. If he were to suddenly come back and want me I would fight to stay with my adoptive parents. That mother made the right choice, for the father to be that selfish when she is thriving, happy and healthy is angering.

Since there is no adoption in this case your comments do not apply. Nor do the TPRed bio-mom's.

Altheria Price which person?

I think that Altheria is maybe referring to me. Sadly, she does not have a grasp of the applicable laws relating to this case, nor does she wish to avail herself of the appellate rehearing decision of 3/1/2017 by googling "SCDSS v. Myers 2017". She's obviously left with no other alternative but to indiscriminately lash out. Tragic.

That's what I was thinking.

Unless he has changed his attitude and made steps to support the fact that she is with her family already, I actually don't think it's a good idea for bio dad to visit until she is old enough to understand. Just one visit where bio dad undermines the authority can undo a lot of progress the child

@@sherylsmallwood-valdivia5375 I watch adoptive parents on insta and it's a open adoption. They have adopted the kids since newborns however they do let the parents see the kids as in the bio kid and the adoptive parents and their other kids. The kids are only 3. I just think the when the girl is older a lot of the kids feel abandoned. And/or resent the adoptive parents for separating her and her bio dad when he was trying to stay connected.

@@Kahn101 I think you misunderstood her comment. I understood her to mean that IF he still has a lot of anger and resentment he might intentionally or otherwise try to put an emotional wedge between the child and her adoptive parents. It has nothing to do with his being a man - just his possible attitude toward not gaming custody of his child. This is something that both men AND women have been known to do. Just look at all the separated parents trying to share custody of their kids who play the "I'm the good parent and they are the bad parent" games with their kids. Where they either outright feed them lies about how the other parent doesn't love you as much , is a bad person - or at least keep harping about the other parent's flaws in front of the children. In this case the bio-mom has no resentment towards the adoptive parents and is not trying to pay such mind games with the child but is only there as another supportive person in the child's life. If the bio-father is also willing to do this then great. If he lets his anger and pride override in the situation, then his involvement might not be best for the child.

The adoptive parents give the mom visitation. I'm inclined to say they would give the dad visitation too. That's why it's especially selfish to rip this girl away from the only home she's ever known

Both families are real The solution is to keep the adoption open so she can know her bio parents. Taking them from the adoptive parents will traumatize the child and cause serious emotional damage. A cut off from bio parents will also damage the child. An open adoption is the answer. Mr Myers in his lawsuit is not acting in the best interest of the child.

So true

​@MrRoberthafetz its not with parents like him Not good for the baby at all She already saw her bio mother These people dont need to be tourmented by him Prison was his choice Let this baby alone

The biological mother made no tough choice, she simply dumped her child so she could go continue being a drug addict who loses children to the system and doesn't care to raise them. There are no adoptive parents. The Dalsings are foster caregivers, and the child's need for their services has come to an end three years ago, which they were always informed of. It is not on the father to stop his fight for his child now just because the long court procedures and the Dalsings' illegal actions has artificially created bonding time for them with his daughter - she is his child, he is her only legal parent, and DSS has always pursued placing her with her paternal family and now with him. It is clear how much this father loves his daughter. It is just disturbing that people can't see that because they have fallen for the lies of the Dalsings.

TheYasmineFlower I mean it's sad that you can't see the love that the adoptive PARENTS have for the child. The father loves her, there is no doubt about that. I believe he should be involved in her life, just like the birth mother is. However, as both biological parents have histories of instability, it is my opinion that the best option is for the child to stay with her adoptive parents. She's formed an attachment to them, and if that attachment is ripped away it could have profound psychological effects on her. Biology means little when we're talking about a child's best interests.

TheYasmineFlower And who spit in your cereal this morning? Yeesh, always assuming the worst of people is not an attractive trait.

They ARE NOT ADOPTIVE PARENTS. There was no adoption as it was illegal, therefore voided. And this "mother" didn't have a choice, as she never had custody. These people have stolen two years this precious child will never get back.

Emily the adoption was illegal and therefor it was annulled they had no standing to adopt her that decision was only legally available to dcs the mother's rights had been terminated

Jessica Vernon So men are just insignificant sperm donors? I can't stand this argument because u can't have it both ways Women complain when men don't financially support their children and be a father and then in these situations or medical situations women like to say Oh it's all up to the mother If women truly feel this then they should abolish child support and after the birth men should not be expected to do anything And that is just absurdity!!!!! You shouldn't be able to adopt a child out unless u have both parents in front of a judge and they both sign papers I don't know who should have this little girl as obviously I don't know all the facts behind the scenes and so I can't make an opinion but I get really irritated when ppl just say Open and shut- the mom the mom the mom But it's these moms who are first to go file for alimony child support and welfare when in return go after the father for support

This is a foster case (dependency) case. The bio-mom, therefore, could not make a "choice" like in a private (non-DSS) adoption. Here's what the fosters don't want you to see: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

www.savebraelynn.com/uploads/4/4/7/3/44730333/judge_connits.pdf This is the court document posted on the save Braelynn webpage

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake seems like a lot of these parental right termination cases with DSS are not done to the letter of the law DSS often cuts fathers grandparents and other family members out the equation without proper legal weeding

Jessica Vernon Agreed...amd he has NEVER seen her in person before so that alone seems scary. I couldn't imagine being 6 which I have very clear memories of and my parents divorcing. So if at that time was taken away and put with a man I have never met before would really mess someone up.

the mother already has. she knows her daughter is in the best place for her

@@jiogcyihsugyiocjfdoivhphvw6821 Why didn't the birth father sign the relinquishment papers? I have adopted. In my state, you can't adopt a child without the birthfather's consent and signature regardless of what the birthmother requests. However, I believe in this circumstance the custo dy will be awarded to the adoptive parents. Strange that the biological family didn't seem to bother once the baby was born. Usually CPS's goal is reunification, but his whole family may be unfit.

No, the Dalsings are TEMPORARY caregivers. This is what they signed up to do. They have failed in their job duties.

The adoptive parents won the custody battle on May 9th, 2018.

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake they were in the process of adoption. Also they won. Maybe you shouldnt try to rip a childs life from her

you are just telling everyone these lies aren't you?

Kura Pika good

Since the foster Dalsings do not have any rights to keep their TEMPORARY ward in their possession, that would be a legal impossibility....unless, of course, you are advocating for "kidnapping-lite"? Simply google "SCDSS v. Myers 2017" for 3/1/17 appellate rehearing decision and the actual case facts. Best of luck.

It's a good thing. He's right and he's helping ignorant people who think they know what's happening and condemning a man who illegally had his child stolen from him.

I feel sorry for the biological father, but the Dalsings are the ones who have taken care of her since she was a baby and the people who she calls her parents- to take her away from them would be cruel, legalities aside. It’s also cruel to her bio Dad who wants a place in her life, but as long as he’s still allowed a place in her life than the better option would be to keep her where she is. She already knows who is who- the Dalsings are her parents, and she’s never known anything else. It’s a really sad case on both sides.

No, he didn't! He was never involved in Braelin's life up until this point because he was stripped of his rights to his daughter and then that shyster of a lawyer meddled in the adoption process. He doesn't deserve to have her. No way a convicted felon should ever have custody of a child that has never met him before.

The adoptive parents just won the custody battle on May 9th, 2018.

Depends what he was in prison for

He knew as it stated he didnt reach out much or pay child support. Going off that hed be a terrible dad

Even if he didn’t know. Let’s be real here, he would never be able to give a pinch of the love and support her adoptive parents do. So, even if he didn’t know, he’d be selfish to take her from everything she knows and loves. I still wouldn’t side with him. This is strictly about the child, not the fathers *feelings*

The best interest of the child is to finally be brought home to her real family, and not remain with foster caregivers who have no rights to her, whose child she is not and who have constantly worked to deny her father and her real family a relationship. This child is a foster child and in the eyes of the law she was never adopted, as the adoption was illegal and therefore rightfully vacated by the court (meaning "as if it never occurred", kinda like a judicial reset button). To keep denying her her real family and her real identity is child abuse.

Can you just fucking shut up. What the fuck is a "real" family to you?

1375mundo Maybe you should learn basic English and sign up for anger management.

Goose Drawz every word they used was English

True....I make more money than you so let me have your children.

A legal adoption would stay on place. This was not a legal adoption, which is why it was voided - as if it never happened. It has nothing to do with differing ideas. It has to do with the law. The law says foster parents have NO STANDING to adopt foster kids. Those decisions are made by DSS. And the decision DAS made, from the beginning, was to send this child to her family in Virginia. That should have happened in 2014, if not for the obstructionist actions of the fosters.

Kathy Murphy wait what world do you live in? Foster parents adopt children ALL THE TIME. This was a legal adoption. His parental rights had been terminated and the mother gave her parental rights over tocthis family. It's absolutely 100% legal to do. Can't believe that you think a 3 year deserves to be forced away from the only people she knows who love her and forced to live with strangers with a criminal history just because she has his DNA. Absolutely disgusting. And when this child turns up back in foster care you'll be the first to kick and scream that CPS didn't do what they were supposed to do. Pathetic lmao

Hannah Snitkin - except that you are wrong on most of what you said. First, this was not a legal adoption. That is why the "adoption" was voided. So legally, the adoption never happened. It was illegal because the foster caregivers did not have the permission of the child's legal guardian, DSS, to adopt the child. And that would be, because, the DSS plan was ALWAYS to have the child go to her Grandmother. This would have happened when the child was barely one, but the fosters started their legal nonsense. Second, the mother did not give up her rights to the fosters. She did not possess any rights to custody she could give to the fosters. She lost that right when the child was born with cocaine in her system and the mother couldn't stay clean. And now, the mother possesses no rights to the child, so her opinion regarding placement is no more relevant than your opinion or mine. Third, having a criminal past does not mean you lose your rights. This child has the right to be raised by her own family and the family has the right to raise their own child. And what is truly disgusting is that, when the fosters were informed that the child would be transitioning to her grandmother in 2014, instead of helping with the transition, the fosters decided they "deserved" another family's loved and wanted child, and have been fight for the last three years to deprive this child of her family and this family of their child.

her Grandmother in Virginia didn't pass the DSS to take care of this baby. All this man and his Mother see's is a free meal ticket.

The appellate decision (and applicable law) disagrees with you, but I think you actually know that by now. Also, I almost misread your comment as I thought that you were referring to the money the Dalsings received for their foster care contractural services, the extra money when they got their temporary ward deemed "special needs" (the ortho helmet), the adoption tax credits, and the state and federal funds that they could tap into for "adopting" a "special needs" child.

How do you know the adoptive parents have a stable home..... I don't understand how it's ok for someone to watch their daughter being raised by someone else and no say so

@@nicoleanderson8920 because they obviously couldn't do it, born to druggie parents. I doubt they cared if a drug addict watched their baby because most don't. they don't care about the kid, just their next high.

Meg LM thank you for letting us know I was looking for what happened in the comments

He'll yeah I think the kid should pick not the court if I were in this place I would tell my bio dad to go away and I would never see him again I can kind of relate to this I'm not adopted but right now I'm 12 and I would say two years ago my dad left and just to say my mom and dad never got married and they for the most part did not live together and at least once and a blue moon I see him but doesn't try and contact me and that makes me sad but if there is something going on I respect that even if I'm 12 I can understand older people because I think and many other people I. My life think I'm responsible and metur So I think the nonbiological family should win and since there is no update about this I really hope the rightful family should get her I think this is all stupid really just let the kid deside and if he or she can't wait

So, because the real dad chose to act right by turning himself in the authorities, he doesn't deserve to EVER be with his child again. Well, that equally cruel.

@@datgidigirls6208 ​ @DatGidiGirl S he violated probation and was also in jail for that, so no, he didn't just hand himself in and go to jail politely. He had a chance to be with her and he chose crimes and jail. He also was given the opportunity to get to know her like the bio mother has, yet he went through lawyers. He made his choices and I wouldn't let him near her or he would do something else to win. That's how those types are.

It's not just the fact she has had the child for 3 years it's the fact that they have had her, her entire life.

Lynne Ayling her real family are not adoptive ones also there is a lot of news that adoptees kill the kids. Also the real family has never hurt her.

Being sent to jail when your having a baby hurts the baby, using drugs while pregnant hurts her. Her biological family wasn't there for her.

Lynne Ayling He was not sent to jail, he took himself to jail is a difference. Sounds like he had a reason to do it. He obviously wanted to have his daughter so as a responsible human being he did the right thing in going to jail. you make it sound likenit was a mistake to go and leave his child with a drug addict. which in that case leaving baby with a drug addict was bad but.. at least he was not a drug addict. He is in the same situation that my step-nefiew is in... my sisters stepson. his mother was a drug addict and my sisters boyfriend was not. it was only a one bight stand and.. mom had isaiah and she disapeared. the dad and uncle raised the kid. the uncle was the one who named the baby. my sister met her bf when isaiah was 3and she has been his mama... but now that the dad is in jail. the mama is fighting to keep him away from her so the ubcle has him. so really i kbkw this that the father should have his daughterlike my sisters bf raised his son. btw my brights dont work so i cant see

I have two friends whose dad was sent to prison, they go through everyday feeling like they weren't good enough! A child needs someone who is there not someone who is in jail, she doesn't even know this man! He never came to visit her even after getting out! He doesn't know her favorite color! Does that sound like a father to you? My enemies at least know my favorite color!

+The Sies The cocaine was in her system by the actions of the mother, who is the only parent that Braelynn was removed from. Her father has done nothing to ever hurt her and has only pursued permanency for his daughter with her own family, as all good parents do.

The mother was wrong for giving her up without the father's consent. He should get a chance to raise his daughter if he is fit.

the fact he didn't even visit her speaks volumes to me...I suspect it was his parents that were pushing this.....

he can still destroy her innocence without having her full time. my brother didn’t meet our dad for 6 years and my dad ruined it within a month bc he pretty much ghosted us

I have no sympathy for the father. Where was he when his child was born with COCAINE in her system. Where were his parents when the child was put up for adoption. The court ruled in favour of the adoptive family. That is the price you pay for being a deadbeat

@@curlyyasmin181 very true

@@curlyyasmin181 I totally agree. His fight just seems to be about his ego not what is in the best interest of the child.

I don’t feel sorry for the biological parents, where were they? The father in jail and the mother on drugs, they are very selfish. Thank God for her loving adoptive parents! Now she has a chance at a decent life!

Then you may want to not listen to these stories, as they are lies - the real father of this little girl appealed the illegal adoption (obtained without the consent of him and DSS) within the allotted time frame, and the Dalsings always knew that. On top of that - your nephew was a private adoption, right? This is not that scenario. Braelynn is a foster child, as such she was always supposed to go home to her own family, and DSS has ALWAYS informed the Dalsings, who are Braelynn's foster caregivers, of the fact that they were going to place Braelynn with her paternal family. The Dalsings have always known that their illegal adoption of Braelynn was not going to stand on appeal. So now they pretend that the real father just now changed his mind so they can collect more sympathies for their unwillingness to follow the law. And thereby, the Dalsings are making people with adoptive families afraid for their families, because they are misrepresenting the truth to pretend that any biological parent can just come back after years and change their mind and take their child back. Your nephew won't be taken away if none of his biological parents appealed the adoption within 30 days. Don't allow the Dalsings to make you feel afraid for your family for no reason.

cases.justia.com/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-2016.pdf?ts=1488389164

It will be devastating for d adoptive parents to surrender their cute little girl to that criminal father.

TOO BAD HE WAS IN PRISON, GREAT ROLL MODEL

@@TheYasmineFlower but it did lol supreme court rules so

Him wanting to be a father to his child is unfit? Lol

I disagree the state is supposed to put the child back with it’s real parents just cause the they have money are them better then the biological father bullshit!! Stop stealing children if you want a child go get pregnant and carry it yourself the biological mother probably has a hatred for the biological father and that is her revenge and they have money they could be paying her to have the child stay I feel no pity from these assholes the biological father never abused that child stop stealing children give them back !!

@@treehugger4203 he has had nothing to do with her for all her life and now he wants full custody. Yeah, nah

@@janebaker4912 that is so stupid to say he was in prison give the birth father a chance can't just take somebody else's kid because you think they're having a better life you don't know that my friend was adoptive and her her adopted mother molested her I would never give my child to anybody that's think they're all perfect when they're not you just don't know the real world

@@cynthg9547 he hasn’t even met his kid. He didn’t even try

He is her real and legal father and he longs for nothing more than to finally have his little girl home safe and sound. She will go home to him, and it will be the best thing to ever happen to her - to finally leave foster care and go home to her own family. There's foster children that would give a limb to have that.

Tator, there is no adoption, it was vacated at the appellate level 12/16. That means "as if it never occurred" or "does not apply". Here is what the fosters do not want you to see: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

Fatima, you are free to skip over my comments if you are inclined to do so. That is your choice.

Why not? What the fuck do people have against fathers?

I would like to see the folks here that think that it's okay for the foster Dalsings to keep on going on with their little-girl snatching ways (they are currently doing basically the same thing to three families simultaneously) give a really good answer to that. I suspect that all that will be heard will be *crickets*...unless, of course, they are on-board with kidnapping-lite.

I am so sorry that you have been deliberately misinformed. Here are the ACCURATE case facts from the appellate decision.: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake thank you for the information

The father has all rights to his own sperm. The decision to give her away should have been both his and the women's. The court wasn't in the bedroom and don't need to make decisions like this.

Lisa L I’m so sorry

I am so sorry...

Poor child!!! Oh no .crooked system.

That’s bullshit. He should have gotten the chance to prove he is a fit parent. They terminated his parental rights with out his consent all because he was in prison for a crime that was non violent. Mean while their are parents who still have parental rights who are in prison for violent crimes. I know a lot of people won’t agree with me, but as someone who was in the system, I know that when the state says they reached out to all family members to see if anyone wanted her that usually isn’t true. And even when it is true a lot of times they make it nearly impossible for family members to take guardianship over the child especially on the fathers side. States would much rather have a child adopted by strangers than by family. He should’ve been given the chance to raise her and to prove that he is a fit parent. I hope he has the courage to appeal that ruling and take it to the higher courts. Things need to be changed when it comes to custody of children and to caring for them. States want money and that’s all that matters.

@@nickieh2735 under the UNCRC.... a child's best interest determined by the supreme court trumps parental rights at this point. referencing to this case in particular, the child in this video already having had 3 years spent with her adoptive family; it would've been too traumatic in other words not in " the child's best interest" to have her completely change and adapt to a new environment with her biological father.Therefore although it is saddening to see that her bio-father did not get a fighting chance, by law, under the convention the court will always rule in favour of the child's best interest...because minors like this 3 yr old..doesnt have a voice yet.

@@nickieh2735 when I took the bar exam, I ignored family law. They said the answer is always "in the best interest of the child." There was an entire essay about it...it was easy. It's about the child. I do hope they allow him to be in her life, I really do. Oh wait....ya ... in New York you can marry your first cousin. I remember that....

MilesLover03 people think blood makes you a parent or family. They are so wrong.

I was adopted and my biological father said if he were to go back and change the past he wouldn't because my parents(foster parents) were the best people in the world that I could go to. He knew that I would grow up in the best possible home. Me and one of my brothers were adopted into their home and my youngest brother lived with us in till he was 2 and now lives with my biological father. He said if anything were to happen to him he would want my youngest brother to live with us.

she deserves to know the father as well

Exactly. Very selfless lady. Just wants what's best for the child.

Dad has already passed all the bells and whistles necessary to raise his own child per law. She was supposed to go home to her very own grandma when she was a little over a year old, in November 2014, and she would have known her dad via grandma way back then. As a matter of fact, the Dalsings admitted over a year ago that DSS wants to unify the child w/her family. In other words, the applicable law disagrees w/you. The child is NOT adopted. Does it bother you that the Dalsings are lying through their teeth at all?

He is just commenting on every comment 😂

The adoptive family is very nice and I trust them I also like that the bio mom is on the adoptive family's side and not the bio dad I don't like him ether

Altair wow you're so fucking rude. This "father" has never seen this little girl why does he want to be in her life so bad? HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT CHILD! Man logic is fucking stupid. Her biological mother knows what's best for that little girl and that they can provide for her when the biological parents can't. Taking her away from her adoptive parents could cause psychological problems

Altair little note for future arguments jackass. Don’t insult the person you are trying to convince to your side. Now we all are just dismissing you.

No, this is a foster care case (dependency law). Thr child was removed from the biomom straight off and DSS took custody. She has been TPRed, which means that her input/opinion holds no weight at all. It is the same story with her other 5-6 children - all lost to the system. She was not even in the legal position to relinquish as in a private adoption. I'm very sorry that this video is so misleading, and it's a shame that the foster Dalings and the biomom must go to such lengths to deceive you. Here is the 3/1/2017 appellate rehearing decision, please note that it is very different from what the fosters (NOT adoptive parents) are trying to represent as fact.: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

Feminist bitch

Exactly.

He might try to take her

Praise Jesus!

It's certainly a shame that the fosters have actively denied the child contact with her father via circumventing the DSS placement plan with paternal grandmother for the last THREE YEARS.

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake trollllllll

They specifically said in the video, which I am questioning that you watched, that they had granted the birth parent's permission to see her, which the birth mother had taken them up on while the father hadn't. The biological mother herself said that she is better off with the adoptive family because they can provide her a better life, I quote, "Than me and his family combined." The father had chosen to be inactive in Braelynn's life, and is a complete stranger to her. She should stay with the people who have been with her all along.

It shouldn't, as she wants to go home to her father, like all children want to be with their parents.

TheYasmineFlower Please explain how you know this little girl wants to be taken from her family to a man she doesn't know??

TheYasmineFlower Sorry but who do you think you are to say what she wants. She has parents. The ones who raised her are her parents. Why would she want to go to a man she doesn't know who wasn't around when she was born. A child wants love. That is what she is getting already and she has a stable home and two people who love her and she thinks of them as her family. You have commented multiple times the same crap. Her biological father is a stranger. She wouldn't pick some guy she doesn't know.

+mijudahbo o No parental rights come first. Things were clearly done illegally in this case America should be ashamed, return this child to her biological father.

But how do you know she'll be safe? key word SAFETY! Last time I checked, people in prison come out worse then when they went in.

Tell us all what you think that dad is doing to his daughter???

He’s selfish and not thinking of what the child needs

Sabrina Cohen I agree. He's being so selfish

The Dalsings are not adoptive parents, they are TEMPORARY caregivers also known as fosters. They have no rights to keep dad's daughter. I also wish that the Dalsings put their own selfish wants and needs aside and stop blocking the child's family from contact. The child was supposed to go home THREE+ YEARS AGO. That's when the Dalsings embarked on their ill-fated quest of trying to take this child from her ready, willing, and able God-given family.

Get your head out of your ass Lorraine. As I said previously biology doesn't make you a parent. It doesn't matter who makes the "donation" what matters is that this child is happy where she is. Legally she can't make those types of decisions for herself so mom made the decision for her. Mom should be the only one who speaks for the child.

Actually, and per law, biology establishes the presumption that dad IS the child's best interest. It can be challenged, and the Dalsings tried to do so and failed miserably in the process. They could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that dad should be TPRed. As before, the Dalsings have no rights to keep dad's daughter; the should have thought of what they are doing to their TEMPORARY ward before embarking on their ill-fated path of mutating and abusing the applicable law. What you are suggesting has been knocked down by the courts for decades. No re the biomom. This is not a private (family law) adoption. This is a foster are case (different laws apply). The biomom was and is not in the legal position to relinquish in a family law adoption when it's a foster care case (mom does not hold custody). Additionally, the biomom has lost her parental rights. That means that she is a legal stranger to the child and her wishes are not considered.

That dad isn't capable of taking care of her.

DSS (foster care/dependency law) disagrees with you.

Mae_Does_Gymnastics they probably live in an expensive area

because life isn’t a lifetime movie

Mae_Does_Gymnastics totally agree with you!

Mae_Does_Gymnastics Because that would only make too much sense and be too reasonable and logical..... LoL (I'm seconding your comment, btw) *or thirding your comment!*.

Chloe Glynn Probably, because my Aunt lives in Rock Hill, South Carolina....I visited once when I was 8 years old to her and my uncle's condo.... Vaulted ceilings.... Bear skin rugs, etc..... I can't recall if that whole area was like that, but I know the area that my Aunt lives (my uncle's passed away RIP Daniel Dugan) was a pretty expensive looking area to live.

so happy she stayed with the Dalsings

The Dalsings are not the child's adoptive parents. I'm so sorry that they are lying to you. They have no rights to keep their TEMPORARY ward in their possession, including custodial or parental rights: NONE. The biomom has no say as she has been TPRed; she is a legal stranger to the child. The child was DSS-approved to go to her very own grandma (and she would of had contact w/her dad) THREE YEARS AGO. This is when the Dalsings filed their obstructive and improper private adoption litigation when the case is ruled by dependency law. DSS never approved the Dalsings for adoption, either. In cases such as this, a sensitive and thoughtful transition plan w/supportive services is the norm. Then, after transition, dad can continue informal contact (w/DSS approval) w/the Dalsings if he thinks that it is safe and beneficial to his daughter. Unfortunately, the Dalsings themselves have refused to comply w/any transition whatsoever. I hope that they can put their own wants and needs long enough to cooperate and abide by what they signed up to do, specifically, provide TEMPORARY care. Google "SCDSS v. Myers 2017" for the accurate info. Also, it is the Dalsings that obstructed familial reunification by filing for an improper private adoption - not the dad. It has taken THREE YEARS to resolve in dad's favor.

Almost forgot re the biomom: The biomom was not in the legal position to make any choice as this is a foster case (dependency law) case. That means that she did not hold custodial rights, DSS (foster care) does. She has also been TPRed. That means that she is a legal stranger to the child and her wants/wishes are not taken into consideration. It would have been great had the Dalsings not deliberately obstructed the paternal family THREE YEARS AGO, as that was when the child was DSS-approved to go to her very own grandma, and the child would have known her dad via her. The only reason that the term, "only family she's ever known" is being bandied about is because the Dalsings have blocked DSS-familial reunification for THREE YEARS via their improper and time-consuming litigation. This is akin to adverse possession, and one does not get rewarded of such awful and harmful behavior.

that's quite insightful I bet you're right, it rings true. I was wondering why he hadn't even visited her one time if he was so desperate to rip her away from her new fam - that totally makes sense

Where was he when the mother was pregnant? Where was he when she was born? CPS always looks for next of kin and other family members to take the child before they put them up for adoptions. He obviously never gave a shit. He just wants the power

zoe reyes thats not true. My sisters friend was living with her mother when she got sick. They through her in foster care even though her father was in the picture. He has to fight for his own child. I'm not judging without details

She is not and was never adopted. She is a foster child and DSS has always pursued a family placement for her with her paternal family. He is not simply her biological father, he is her father. The only legal parent she has, in fact, as her mother's rights have been terminated. The foster caregivers who pretend to be adoptive parents have broken law after law in their pursuit of keeping this child against the will of her father and her legal custodian. Such behaviour should not be rewarded - people who can't even obey the adoption laws shall never be allowed to adopt. It is the bare minimum one should be able to do. And I am sure you will agree that obeying the laws is necessary and that we should not simply give children away to strangers against the wishes of their parents. Adoption is done when all parties whose consent is required give it, and this was not the case here.

TheYasmineFlower they said she's adopted

And that's shame that the fosters must lie. The "adoption" was vacated at the appellate level 12/16, this means as if it never occurred or "does not apply", based on the fosters having no legal right AKA "Standing" to adopt in the first place.

I am too. I know my birth mother (meet her at 19). I love her but if anyone tried to ripe me away from my mom and dad I would loose it

same here and I agree

Hannah Banana thank goodness!!!

THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE❤️❤️❤️

Thank god!

@hill monica her "father" doesn't want her. He wants to get her for his mother (who wants her). His mother was rejected as a carer for her when she was a baby - because she has a fraud conviction, debts, and lied about her financial status. He never wanted her.

@hill monicasince he was in jail what should have happened to the girl while he was in jail. The birth mother even wants the adoptive parents to raise her child.

The fosters failed to overcome the legal presumption that dad IS the child's best interest via their inability to forcibly TPR him. Simply, no TPR = no best interest shift. Here's a snippet from the appellate decision: "The family court may terminate parental rights only when a statutory ground for TPR exists and TPR is in the child's best interest. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2016). Under our statutory framework, for the family court to order TPR, it must find a statutory ground for TPR; it is not enough to find only that TPR is in the child's best interest...Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has strongly indicated any attempt by a state to terminate parental rights based solely upon a showing of the child's best interest would be a Constitutional violation. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978)." The appellate decision in its entirety: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2

Stop spamming Lorraine, you're drunk.

Random Person Actually, it doesn't seem like anyone has ever asked the child what she wants. They're all making assumptions that the child will be best off in XX's hands than the other. Will she? We don't know. No one asked. And before someone tells me that she's just 3 years old, even 3 year olds have the ability to say who the love, and who they want to be with.

IF THAT WERE MY CHILD, THOSE SICK LIBERALS WOULD NOT BE LONG FOR THIS WORLD. .. BLOOD BEFORE EVERYTHING.

Sean Flipflop you are obviously a moron. Blood doesn't mean shit in this world. If he wants to be a father, he would move to where she is and help raise her with the adoptive family. He is acting like a kid who wants his toy back. Step up be a man and move.

Yes! So many irresponsible bio parents only show interest when the kid has grown a little and they don't have to put in so much effort, they only want to leech off of someone else's. It's disgusting, so glad this little girl stayed with her family.

Carla-Verla McDow-Naugler , Sweetie as you know, it takes more than birthing a baby to be called " Mommy" Praying you are enjoying the good memories and loving her ♡

That's so fucked up. My heart breaks for all these babies. I hope the courts do the right thing and Grant your brother and his wife custody. They are in my prayers

This is messed up , it makes it seem that your brother was just a babysitter instead of a parent, ur brother has every right to adopt him and I hope your brother gets that.

I hope the outcome of this case helps your brother.

Your brother shouldn’t foster with the hopes of adopting then. Because the main objective of a foster parent is ALWAYS to keep the child safe while preparing for reunification with their parents.

This sounds very selfish, mostly thinking of their own emotions & desires and not the little boy who will wonder about his natural siblings and feel like the only one left behind, he's not going to stay little an not understand forever, he won't even remember the foster home if he goes where he belongs at this age so there won't be long term trauma for the tot. A lot of parents have children that they adore & raise, "put in all the hard work" for longer then 3 years even, and those children get ripped away from "all they know" even from loving parents who are distraught & devastated over the unjust loss of THEIR "REAL" NATURAL CHILD(REN) whom they bonded with from the womb, breastfed, some parents were robbed of that even, how is that any worse then taking them from a substitute family, I mean foster?. If you believe that child "protective" services are, just, honest, cares about "the best interest" of the children and have to present proof of abuse, neglect or danger to remove & adopt out your children then you must be blind & stupid, because they only need lies & hearsay and the foolish judge just does what they want. They have poor judgment, ridiculous opinions, discriminate against the poor, and have an overzealous need & obsession to feel like they are such a great person that they convince themselves that they are saving the most precious innocent vulnerable little people, they mostly ruin lives really.

I'm sorry that you have been deliberately misinformed by the foster Dalsings. There is no adoption as it was VACATED (as if it never happened) because it was illegal. Dad has been fighting for his daughter since before she was born. Paternal grandmother was the DSS placement plan from the beginning, only to be blocked by the obstructive fosters via their private adoption litigation THREE YEARS ago. Here are the ACTUAL case facts, straight from the 3/1/2017 rehearing appellate decision: casetext.com/case/sc-dept-of-soc-servs-v-smith-2. It's appalling what the fosters have put this child and her family through.

Your low opinion of fathers is quite common, but also quite disturbing. Did you ever meet your own father?

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake TROLL

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake regardless of how this toddler ended up with these people this is her life as she knows it the only way she has ever known it, if her biological father really loved her he would take into account the huge amount of emotional trauma that will be inflicted on this child if removed and resettled with someone who is a complete stranger to her putting her mental stability and emotional welfare first even above his own is the mark of a great parent children.

Goondock Saints Quite common, perhaps because the situation is quite common.. unfit, drug addicted parents having children. I don't see what there is to argue about. If the parents can't stay clean, they forfeit their right to have their children in their lives. Simply because they are unable to. Sad I know, but it's reality.

Nice

That’s bullshit. He should have gotten the chance to prove he is a fit parent. They terminated his parental rights with out his consent all because he was in prison for a crime that was non violent. Mean while their are parents who still have parental rights who are in prison for violent crimes. I know a lot of people won’t agree with me, but as someone who was in the system, I know that when the state says they reached out to all family members to see if anyone wanted her that usually isn’t true. And even when it is true a lot of times they make it nearly impossible for family members to take guardianship over the child especially on the fathers side. States would much rather have a child adopted by strangers than by family.

@@nickieh2735 he proved he wasn't a fit parent. He still doesn't have a job. He only wanted her for his mother to raise like she wanted.

If he wanted to be in the little girls life where was she when she was first born? In jail? Great excuse. Shes better with her adopted family, she seems to have amazing parents, and siblings. The biological mom has done an amazing thing for her daughter. She is one brave ass women.

@@charizardx8157 she is a coward is what she is. She is a deadbeat mom and a POS!!!

Um, he was in jail and showed no interest in her until he got out. Yes, they should "research" whether it's better for the child to be with a loving, stable family or a selfish jailbird.

Leto Lethe you are so fucking dumb

He had his parental rights signed away.

They actually did know about him he was trying to stay in her life and reaching out to them. His mom wanted to take her in.

Update: The courts ruled in the Dalsings favor and the adoption stands! 💖

Update: The Dalsings took this case to the State Supreme Court last year: And Won! The adoption is officially official and she gets to stay with her family! Thank goodness! 💖

ARINZECHUKWU OBI it does make sense he wants to have her, but unfortunately biological parents are not always the best caregivers for their children, he was in jail when she was born and the mother use cocaine while pregnant. The mother made the right decision cause she knew what was best for her daughter and it was a loving home where all her needs would be met. Not to mention her adopted parents are all she knows. If she were to be ripped away from them suddenly it would be very hard to adjust, and she would be taken away from her family. It isn't always blood, and they ARE her family it wouldn't be fair for her to be taken away from them to other state.

She would adjust? Says who? You? You don't know that. She's old enough to understand what is going in. She may adjust. But she may not.

so agree with you @Sara Katherine!

MilesLover03 if only everyone thought like you I completely agree that she should stay with the adoptive parents

Well still her father wanted her back, he was heartbroken and full of anguish to be with his daughter, but I see where your coming from.

Red Rockin some people will curse at me for saying that but you were so calm thank you now I know that some people in comments can be nice. Also I do think that he made a mistake and it wasn't too bad but like someone else in the comments said 'he should be able to visit her' and I think I agree on that a lot. Once again to you thanks for being so calm when others can be so rude and disrespectful

No, there can be no formal visitation as the Dalsings would need a right to custody for that. After transition to dad, and w/DSS permission, dad can informally continue contact w/the fosters if he thinks that it would be safe and beneficial to his daughter.

MilesLover03 I agree.

Dad never gave his child up for adoption to the Dalsings. He's been fighting for her since before she was even born. His parental rights are intact, which makes any adoption impossible. The Dalsings are not adoptive parents, they are TEMPORARY caregivers also known as fosters. That means that they have no rights to keep her in their possession - only the dad does. Actually, the Dalsings have made a career out of taking other family's wanted children away from them to meet their own selfish desires. Matter of fact, you can google both this case and ANOTHER case where they are doing virtually the same thing - stealing children from their ready, willing, and able families. Hardly lovely people that have lied to you as well as the public by presenting themselves as "adoptive parents". This case: "SCDSS v. Myers 2017" and "Dalsing v. Boulware" for the other case.

Amy Murphy adopted parents

Lorraine Schaffer-Haake he was in jail. He lost his parental rights. Judge ruled it. Listen to the damn video.

Amy Murphy the dad didn’t give her up. The mom did.

And she is NOW adopted and she is where she belongs, with her mama and daddy!!!

Kiara Lanphear exactly if he loved her that much he wouldn’t have committed the crimes that got him locked up in the first place

The adoptive parents won the custody battle on May 9th, 2018.

Kura Pika that’s a relief

Kiara that's a slippery slope there, if a court were to decide that non-biological parents are better for a child based on financial stability. If we go down that road, eventually what will stop more affluent people from being able to take away poor people's children for no other reason than that they have more money? For that matter, will the government then be able to take children away from poor parents and put them in group homes or government-run "childcare centers" because they think they have the moral obligation to save these children from their poverty-stricken parents? Every man and woman who serves in the military, the army, the navy, etc. would lose their children because they are paid diddly shit for protecting our country, is that, like VA services, how we will yet again "repay" our servicemen and women? I agree, the father is thinking more of what he wants than the child, anyone who has had and loved a little one knows how cruel and painful it would be to tear this little girl away from the only family she's ever known, but at the same time, keeping her with a non-biological family HAS to be about more than finances, or God help us all...

Kiara Lanphear he didn’t sign over his rights the mom did. The mom shouldn’t get the kid again. The dad didn’t get a chance with the kid and tried to get her as soon as he was released. He should be given a chance if he isn’t fit she can go back.