Newsflash! Don't sell your babies! Duh

Merry - posted on 10/11/2011 ( 7 moms have responded )

9,274

169

263

NEW CASTLE, Del. – A mother of three is accused of trying to sell her newborn son for $15,000 so she could go to Disney World, police said.


AP
Police say they confirmed last week that Bridget Wismer, 33, and John Gavaghan, 54, had agreed on the sale and purchase of her newborn baby.
Enlarge
AP
Police say they confirmed last week that Bridget Wismer, 33, and John Gavaghan, 54, had agreed on the sale and purchase of her newborn baby.
Ads by Google
Moving? Let Comcast Help
A Painless Way To Set Up Your
Services with Comcast Movers Edge
www.Comcast.com
Bright Horizons
Our award-winning programs help
children grow & thrive. Come see.
www.BrightHorizons.com
concealed firearm classes
locally, 4 hrs, NOT hunters safety
30+ state valid carry, see Wi. info
carrysafetraining.com
Bridget M. Wismer, 33, and John F. Gavaghan, 54, of Philadelphia, who allegedly tried to buy the baby, were charged early Saturday with felony dealing in children, said New Castle County police Cpl. John Weglarz.
The investigation began Sept. 4, when police got a call from Wismer's grandmother saying her granddaughter was trying to "sell her newborn son to a homosexual couple for $15,000 because she did not want the child," according to court papers.
When officers checked with a state Division of Family Services caseworker, they were told the agency had begun investigating Wismer on Aug. 31 when she gave birth to a son at Christiana Hospital. The division also had been told that Wismer planned to sell the baby, police said.
The baby's birth certificate lists Gavaghan as the biological father.
"He is not the biological father," Weglarz said. "They didn't even have a relationship. They met through mutual friends."
Detectives interviewed Wismer's mother and other family members, and they all denied that she planned to sell the infant. They alleged the grandmother was "confused when she made the initial allegation," according to court records.
Investigators were unable to substantiate the information until Thursday, when they received a call from a state police detective, Weglarz said.
The detective said Gavaghan — a horse owner — had been captured on video surveillance Sept. 3 at a Delaware casino completing paperwork given by a woman and giving an unrelated woman cash and a money order, police said in court records.
The surveillance video also captured the writing on one of several handwritten documents dated prior to Aug. 31 that contained information about "payments and balance due 'for a child to be born on Sept. 8,'" police said in court records.
Assisted by Philadelphia police, county detectives searched Gavaghan's apartment and found the baby and evidence linking Gavaghan to the crime.
"They found the baby and turned him over to Social Services in Philadelphia," Weglarz said. "He was later turned over to Family Services in Delaware and is now in foster care."
During an interview with police Friday, Gavaghan acknowledged entering into an agreement with Wismer and that he wasn't the baby's biological father, although he signed the birth certificate as such.
Wismer told police she had received money from Gavaghan in exchange for her son.
Gloria Hockman, director of communications for the National Adoption Center, said the sale "certainly is an unwholesome and inappropriate way to deal with a baby you don't want to raise," she said.
She also said it is not uncommon.
"Lots of people are waiting in line for babies," she said. "This is not the first time that I've heard about someone paying for a baby. If her motive is to make $15,000, that's going to be an issue. But if she thought that the man would make a good father, she could have taken him to an agency or to an attorney who could have arranged a home study."
Wismer was released after posting $750 secured bail on the charges and $1,500 secured bail and $75 cash bail on an outstanding warrant.
Gavaghan was released on $7,000 unsecured bail and ordered to have no contact with the baby.

7 Comments

View replies by

Merry - posted on 10/11/2011

9,274

169

263

I guess it's because there's no regulating the 'buyer' to ensure he or she isn't purchasing said child to offer as a sacrifice to their god or use it for slave labor or as spare parts for a sick child.

Now adoption cases can't obviously weed out every nutter but I do think their screening process helps keep the creeps out.

Rosie - posted on 10/11/2011

8,657

30

321

idk, i guess to me i dont' see this as much different than legal adoption...someone pays for a child then. sure her reasoning is ridiculous, but i'm sure it's not the only reason, otherwise she wouldn't be giving up a child. meh, i think it's sensationalized, and while illegal...not much different than the legal way if you ask me.

Merry - posted on 10/11/2011

9,274

169

263

But this pair never even tried to go legally! In WI it's really easy for a mom to adopt her child out to a specific person. It's quite cheap for the adopter too!

Brittany - posted on 10/11/2011

531

9

14

Rules for adoption are different from state to state. I did find this:

§ 903. Persons eligible to petition to adopt.

An unmarried person or a husband and wife jointly, who are not legally separated or who are not living apart from each other, or a divorced or legally separated person, being a resident of the State at the time of filing the petition or with whom a child has been placed for adoption under § 904 of this title, and being over 21 years of age, may petition the Family Court for an order authorizing the petitioner or petitioners to adopt a child not his, hers or theirs. Nothing herein shall in any way affect the right of any person to adopt a person who has reached age 18 as provided in subchapter II of this chapter.

It does not say homosexuals can not adopt but it does say a single, non-married or divorced, and married male and female.

I do know some agencies just want to give people a hard time sometimes.

Brittany - posted on 10/11/2011

531

9

14

bahahahahahahhaha! I am not laughing at the seriousness of the situation but, at the stupidity of these two.

The couple would, hopefully, have taken care of the child and probably had been denied adoption because, they are gay and the incubator want to go to Disney! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a bunch of idiots!

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms