Charlie Crist gave a kid up for adoption when he was 32 and successful?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Sounds like a sleazy RePUKE family values move.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/25/Tampabay/A_girl_wonders__Is_Cr.shtml

The Tuckers adopted a seven-pound, 8 1/2-ounce girl who was born on June 23, 1989. That's the same day Rebecca O'Dell Townsend then named Wharrie gave birth to a girl, whom she said was fathered by Crist after a one-time sexual encounter in the fall of 1988.

When Townsend, who was going through a bitter divorce at the time, accused Crist of being the father, he steadfastly denied it. Yet he signed legal papers waiving parental rights, which helped pave the way for Townsend to place the child for adoption.

[mondo joe]

1. To be fair, he denied any paternity at the time.

From the story:

"Parenthood by myself is not possible as I never consummated the act necessary for parenthood," Crist stated in an affidavit signed in May 1989. The next month, Crist, then 32, signed paperwork consenting to the girl's adoption and stating, "I deny paternity of this child and claim no parental rights in relation to the child."

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. Denied paternity AND signed away parental rights and said he didn't have sex. huh?

Typical REPUKE

[mondo joe]

4. He didn't sign away parental rights. He denied that he HAD any.

He'd have to acknowledge paternity to sign away parental rights.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Also signed adoption authorization

[mondo joe]

6. If the mother claims he is the father and is surrendering the child, he has only

a few choices.

* He can sign nothing and jeopardize the adoption.

* He can claim the child.

* He can claim paternity and then surrender the child.

* He can deny paternity and surrender any claim.

I don't know if the child is his or not - but taking the last option certainly doesn't mean she is.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. He can sue for slander if she's lying and there was no sex or get DNA test and claim kid

Why didn't he do that

[mondo joe]

8. I don't know why he didn't, other than that it's a costly and lengthy legal

exercise, rather than simply denying paternity or parental rights, which quickly and freely ends the matter and lets adoption proceed unimpeded.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. why would he consent to adoption not knowing if another man was the father?

and not knowing if the man wanted custody or was informed about the kid?

[mondo joe]

10. He denied he had any claim to parental

rights.

That's all.

He was cited as the father so he is, IMO, obliged to confirm or deny it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. he also consented to adoption. If he had no standing to do that,

why would he? Why would he sign anything at all if he KNEW he wasn't the father? Makes no sense.

[mondo joe]

13. Again, because he's the man the mother claimed was the father.

Or did you think those administering the surrender didn't think of that?

[TorchTheWitch]

33. DNA paternity testing wasn't around then

DNA paternity testing wasn't even discovered until 1984... when Crist would have been about 28 years old. At the age of 32, a scant 4 years later, where in the world would he have gotten a paternity test, and would he have even known about it? As far as I remember, there was no way to purchase a private DNA paternity test then as the only labs were just getting started and only did DNA testing for court cases.

I think a lot of people forget how young the DNA testing field is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. I know two fellows

who got their DNA tested back in the 80's to establish paternity. The test was available back then.

[malaise]

36. Bingo n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

2. the way I read it

the child's mother gave the kid up for adoption. Crist denies being the father.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

14. So? She can claim all she wants. If it was a lie he has no obligation to sign anything

none at all.

[mondo joe]

16. Well there is the problem of her surrendering the child and claiming he's the father,

which jeopardizes an adoption if he doesn't chime in.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

17. So why didn't he demand DNA test? Simple enough. I think we can guess why.

He didn't want to know and he knew it was a possibility, that woudl explain it.

[mondo joe]

18. Like i said above - legal battle vs sign off. What's faster, easier and less

costly?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. Mother OR adoptive parents woudl not object to DNA test they would LOVE it

But he didn't demand one, instead he CONSENTED to adoption.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. maybe HE objected to a DNA test

If a woman you did not have sex with claimed you had fathered her child (presuming you're a male), would you want to go through a paternity test? Who pays for it?

Do you want to go to the lab, get your blood drawn, do the paperwork?

Or do you just say "sorry lady, can't be mine" and walk away?

This is just a cheap smear job based on rumor and speculation.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

24. If I was accused and did not have sex I wouldn't sign SHIT and would

let them take a swab out of my mouth to prove it to get me off the hook. Unless there was a reason I didn't want a DNA test taken, namely that I knew it could be mine. If I didn't want it and didn't want anyone to know it was mine I would do EXACTLY what Crist did.

[mondo joe]

26. You might consider getting legal counsel before making any decision.

Crist apparently did.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

27. My legal counsel would tell me to get a DNA test if I never had sex

and close the case then and there. If tehre was a chance I was the father but I didn't want to know or anyone to know my legal counsel would advise NOT getting a DNA test and signing away all rights.

[mondo joe]

28. That's your speculation. You can't know what counsel would say in a particular

situation, and it's rather silly to pretend you can.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. Nonsense. DNA ENDS the speculation and would be the thing to do but only IF

you knew you weren't the father. There is NO WAY any lawyer would advise anything else IF that was the case because it ENDS it. ENDS any future claim. ENDS any speculation.

However, if there is a chance the kid is yours it also risks getting you on the hook for child support, scandal, etc. So if there was a chance you would be told NOT to take a DNA test and do..........what Crist did.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. So Crist shouldn't or couldn't afford a DNA test

but he could afford legal counsel to avoid taking a test?

If you know didn't have sex with someone, wouldn't the test be easier? I don't think they're that expensive, at least not back in the 80's. I know two fellows who did it to find out which one was the father, in a case where it was uncertain.

[Epiphany4z]

32. you don't have to draw blood

they swab the inside of the the father and child's cheek. The welfare system, and child support requires them here all the time...paper work takes less than 2 min.

[Epiphany4z]

31. there is no legal battle

if the dna test comes back ..not his...and the test is easy..a cheek swab from father and child it comes back pretty fast too...we had to have one done on my nephew when I got custody of him...

[DianeG5385]

12. You know the sliming bothers me whether it happens to Dems or Pubs

Especially when the guy is a new governor. I have seen a subtle change in tone to the positive now that Dems are in charge in congress and I hope it extends to eliminate this kind of scorched earth politics that this story continues. I hope we have learned something over the last 14 years, that we damage ourselves and our country severely when we play into the Pubs strategy and think of politics as a game with teams, Dem and Pub, let's stop this now. I don't know much about this guy, yes, he's a Pub but Jeez! Let's not do what Bush and his ilk have done. Let's be above this junk.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

15. I don't agree we should be above sliming rePUKEs if they are hypocrites

and if Crist didn't even find out if a kid was his when he could have raised it AND ran on family values and banning abortion, that is a hypocrite.

[mondo joe]

20. I'm alll for exposing hypocrisy - if you can demonstrate it.

He said it was impossible for him to be the father, so he wouldn't need to "find out" if it was his child.

If he can be shown to be lying, you've got a case for hypocrisy.

But that has not been shown.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. If he didn't "consummate" as he said then why sign consent form and not

Why not get his mouth swabbed and end it?

[mondo joe]

23. Why should he? Perhaps you've never dealt with a crazy person before.

In my experience the best thing to do is bring it to a close as simply as possible, which he seemed to do.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. He didn't bring it to a close. He could have with a DNA test. Still could.

Would be in his interest to PROVE it but my guess is he won't and it ain't because of some privacy principle.

[NorthernSpy]

30. 'cause nothing says "family values" like palming your kids off on strangers...

:eyes:




(I certainly don't judge teens and poor young women who are badgered into giving away their children, tho. They're at a huge disadvantage in the process, and the result is that they end up with emotional wounds that never truly heal.)