Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Community Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2012, 12:52 PM   #256
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Since they are all about helping themselves,I don't see them doing anything that won't personally benefit them.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:41 PM   #257
Teresa Pitman
DIS Veteran
 
Teresa Pitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,947

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
http://www.startribune.com/featuredC...=y&c=n&refer=y

They are going to the Us supreme court and the above article is so wrong in all the other cases of children being returned they did fine. They find one that didn't and the implication that if this repulsive couple don't get what they want that Veronica will end up being a no hoper satanic following mess. They have gone from being fanatical to plain evil. If this was allowed it would lead to horribl baby stealing. After all if you can say that it's in the best interest of a child to stay with people who have had them for a year or two why bother adopting just grab a baby keep it for 2years and it's yours.
It is not true that in "all the other cases of children being returned they did fine." I have worked in child protection and seen that there are many that did not go well. In one case, the mother refused to give the father's name at the time of the adoption. He found out and applied to have the child when he was six months old, and won, despite some negative things in his background. Within three months, the baby was found with cigarette burns on his arms and legs, weighing less than he had at the time his father got him back. He was placed back with the adoptive family and is now doing well.

I know nothing at all about this case, but the best interests of the child should always be taken into consideration.

TP
Teresa Pitman is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 09-05-2012, 05:54 PM   #258
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,045

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teresa Pitman View Post
It is not true that in "all the other cases of children being returned they did fine." I have worked in child protection and seen that there are many that did not go well. In one case, the mother refused to give the father's name at the time of the adoption. He found out and applied to have the child when he was six months old, and won, despite some negative things in his background. Within three months, the baby was found with cigarette burns on his arms and legs, weighing less than he had at the time his father got him back. He was placed back with the adoptive family and is now doing well.

I know nothing at all about this case, but the best interests of the child should always be taken into consideration.

TP
From what I saw from the supreme court ruling and others I found a few things. That they knew the child's father was native american. They refused gifts sent by him and his family for her and in an attempt to run "best interest of the child" refused to let him see her. They let her mother see her but not the father. And this best interest of the child can not be the only deciding factor or it will lead to child stealing after all why adopt when you can grab a baby keep them for a couple of years and then say its in the best interest of the child. For example remember the woman who burned down a house and took the baby, she was found at age six, do you think she should have stayed with the woman who stole her?
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:28 PM   #259
leight
Making out in the halls in high school was a necessity
 
leight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,239

I appreciate the lively exchange of thoughts/opinions.

I am probably a broken record, but for the best interest of the child, for the emotional wellbeing of both sets of parents, it would be best if there were National Regulation of adoption.

one timeframe for a mom to sign relinquishment paperwork and a specific timeframe for her to change her mind.

Requirements for notifying the father. If not sure,then there should be a default that indicates that after the child is legally adopted (not placed) that a father can only recieve visitation rights, unless clear indication of fraud on part of agency, mom or adoptive parents is shown. (Legal ramification of lying about the father should be clearly outlined to mom before relinquishment) As an adoptee, I think it would still be destructive for a dad to file for custody after I've been adopted and attaching to my adoptive family. But if he really was not informed, he should not be denied the ability to know, love and share family with his child.

Specific language and counseling requirements for birth families to explain ALL options prior to an adoption plan.

Legally enforceable agreements for open adoption. Many, many open adoptions close at the chosing of the adoptive parents. There are also many birthparents who also close contact. Frankly, I think it should be enforceable on the adoptive parent side but birth parents should have the choice. Sometimes, they just can't deal with seeing their children in the other family- but I think they owe their child some contact thru the agency.

This is such an emotionally charged topic... and I am by no means offering the only solution. But whatever the law- it should be national so that there can be clearly defined decisions for the birthparents when they make the hardest choice of their lives.And agencies shouldn't be netting so much profit from placing babies. We're the only country that allows this...
__________________
Leigh

dhmedd13dd 112.59
leight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:54 PM   #260
Teresa Pitman
DIS Veteran
 
Teresa Pitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,947

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
From what I saw from the supreme court ruling and others I found a few things. That they knew the child's father was native american. They refused gifts sent by him and his family for her and in an attempt to run "best interest of the child" refused to let him see her. They let her mother see her but not the father. And this best interest of the child can not be the only deciding factor or it will lead to child stealing after all why adopt when you can grab a baby keep them for a couple of years and then say its in the best interest of the child. For example remember the woman who burned down a house and took the baby, she was found at age six, do you think she should have stayed with the woman who stole her?
What I said is that it needs to be taken into consideration. A woman who is the kind of person who would burn down a house to kidnap a baby is highly unlikely to be a good parent. Neither is someone who would steal a child. Those behaviours would mean, in my opinion, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to stay with them.

That's very different than caring parents who adopted a child in good faith, legally, and then had a previously-uninvolved father attempt to take the child. I think in these situations the best interests of the child should be carefully considered. Both sides will have arguments to make, and I think the child should have a lawyer too to express the child's interests.

TP
Teresa Pitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:06 PM   #261
sunshinehighway
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teresa Pitman View Post
What I said is that it needs to be taken into consideration. A woman who is the kind of person who would burn down a house to kidnap a baby is highly unlikely to be a good parent. Neither is someone who would steal a child. Those behaviours would mean, in my opinion, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to stay with them.

That's very different than caring parents who adopted a child in good faith, legally, and then had a previously-uninvolved father attempt to take the child. I think in these situations the best interests of the child should be carefully considered. Both sides will have arguments to make, and I think the child should have a lawyer too to express the child's interests.

TP
The court ruling seems to disagree with you about the father and the way the adoption was handled. The ruling seems to say there was deceit which kept the father from being involved.
sunshinehighway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:16 PM   #262
Teresa Pitman
DIS Veteran
 
Teresa Pitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,947

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

I wasn't talking about that case specifically. I was talking about cases in general, where a child is placed with an adoptive family and then a parent later comes forward. The point I am trying to make is that a blanket rule ("the child should always be given to the parent" OR "the child should always stay with the adoptive parents") is not the right way to go. The best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, and those are complex.

TP
Teresa Pitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 08:11 PM   #263
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,045

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teresa Pitman View Post
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

I wasn't talking about that case specifically. I was talking about cases in general, where a child is placed with an adoptive family and then a parent later comes forward. The point I am trying to make is that a blanket rule ("the child should always be given to the parent" OR "the child should always stay with the adoptive parents") is not the right way to go. The best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, and those are complex.

TP
How about the Emma Wyatt case which is also going to SCOTUS. The adoptive parents knew the father wanted her and that he had applied and got custody of the child yet they still took mother and father to Utah hid them til it was too late for the father and adopted.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 09:40 PM   #264
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by leight View Post
I appreciate the lively exchange of thoughts/opinions.

I am probably a broken record, but for the best interest of the child, for the emotional wellbeing of both sets of parents, it would be best if there were National Regulation of adoption.

one timeframe for a mom to sign relinquishment paperwork and a specific timeframe for her to change her mind.

Requirements for notifying the father. If not sure,then there should be a default that indicates that after the child is legally adopted (not placed) that a father can only recieve visitation rights, unless clear indication of fraud on part of agency, mom or adoptive parents is shown. (Legal ramification of lying about the father should be clearly outlined to mom before relinquishment) As an adoptee, I think it would still be destructive for a dad to file for custody after I've been adopted and attaching to my adoptive family. But if he really was not informed, he should not be denied the ability to know, love and share family with his child.

Specific language and counseling requirements for birth families to explain ALL options prior to an adoption plan.

Legally enforceable agreements for open adoption. Many, many open adoptions close at the chosing of the adoptive parents. There are also many birthparents who also close contact. Frankly, I think it should be enforceable on the adoptive parent side but birth parents should have the choice. Sometimes, they just can't deal with seeing their children in the other family- but I think they owe their child some contact thru the agency.

This is such an emotionally charged topic... and I am by no means offering the only solution. But whatever the law- it should be national so that there can be clearly defined decisions for the birthparents when they make the hardest choice of their lives.And agencies shouldn't be netting so much profit from placing babies. We're the only country that allows this...
Yes, because it's the parents' right to determine who interacts with, visits with, etc., their child!

I can't imagine trying to legally mandate open adoptions have to remain some way over the wishes of the parents.

Why not just call them babysitters at that point? I can't imagine who would ever get involved with an adoption again. It's not shared custody - it's adoption.
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 05:56 AM   #265
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
Yes, because it's the parents' right to determine who interacts with, visits with, etc., their child!

I can't imagine trying to legally mandate open adoptions have to remain some way over the wishes of the parents.

Why not just call them babysitters at that point? I can't imagine who would ever get involved with an adoption again. It's not shared custody - it's adoption.
My husband grew up in an open adoption and I can guarantee you his parents never felt like babysitters. That comment struck me as pretty insulting to those who choose to have an open relationship with their child's birth family. I'm sure you were just trying to be rhetorical, but NO his parents were NOT babysitters, they were his parents.

Someone else gave birth to that child and like it or not, that child shares genes with his/her birth parents. Also, that child has a birth family who may want to know that the child they loved enough to give the right family is doing well.

It's just. . .well, I'll say it, it sounds pretty selfish. An adopted child has traits, diseases, a personality, and physical looks that are not those of his/her adoptive family.

I'm adopted myself, and when I'm with my birth family I'm finally with people who "get" me, who look like me, who share medical problems and have similar challenges. That does not make MY parents babysitters either! The people who raise you, love you, cherish you are your parents, come hell or high water. The person who loved you enough to give you to your parents is your birth parent, and it's an entirely different relationship.

And really, honestly, with the rarity of "prime" babies (i.e. White) do you think parents would turn down open adoption over no adoption? And how many young women if they knew for certain sure that they would have a role in their child's life would choose adoption instead of their other alternatives?
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 06:07 AM   #266
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote View Post
My husband grew up in an open adoption and I can guarantee you his parents never felt like babysitters. That comment struck me as pretty insulting to those who choose to have an open relationship with their child's birth family. I'm sure you were just trying to be rhetorical, but NO his parents were NOT babysitters, they were his parents.

Someone else gave birth to that child and like it or not, that child shares genes with his/her birth parents. Also, that child has a birth family who may want to know that the child they loved enough to give the right family is doing well.

It's just. . .well, I'll say it, it sounds pretty selfish. An adopted child has traits, diseases, a personality, and physical looks that are not those of his/her adoptive family.

I'm adopted myself, and when I'm with my birth family I'm finally with people who "get" me, who look like me, who share medical problems and have similar challenges. That does not make MY parents babysitters either! The people who raise you, love you, cherish you are your parents, come hell or high water. The person who loved you enough to give you to your parents is your birth parent, and it's an entirely different relationship.

And really, honestly, with the rarity of "prime" babies (i.e. White) do you think parents would turn down open adoption over no adoption? And how many young women if they knew for certain sure that they would have a role in their child's life would choose adoption instead of their other alternatives?
If they want to have contact, fine. The poster was talking about making it somehow illegal for parents to 'close' open adoptions, which is giving parental power to people who are not the parents while removing it from those who are.

What if the biological people start getting overly involved? What if they start saying they're the REAL parents and telling the kid their parent are wrong; telling them they don't have to listen, that they can come live with the biological people, badmouth the actual parents - what if they just want to keep visiting and the kid isn't interested and doesn't want to see them, but they have the right to force visits? It's not their kid, period, the end. If the kid cares, they can contact. If not, tough.

That puts the actual parents in the role of sitters, imo, and not only is it offensive, it's legally untenable.
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 06:20 AM   #267
snarlingcoyote
I know people who live in really carpy school districts
 
snarlingcoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,641

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
If they want to have contact, fine. The poster was talking about making it somehow illegal for parents to 'close' open adoptions, which is giving parental power to people who are not the parents while removing it from those who are.

What if the biological people start getting overly involved? What if they start saying they're the REAL parents and telling the kid their parent are wrong; telling them they don't have to listen, that they can come live with the biological people, badmouth the actual parents - what if they just want to keep visiting and the kid isn't interested and doesn't want to see them, but they have the right to force visits? It's not their kid, period, the end. If the kid cares, they can contact. If not, tough.

That puts the actual parents in the role of sitters, imo, and not only is it offensive, it's legally untenable.

Your examples are, well. . .ahem. It sounds like you're thinking that birth moms are all crazy people. I mean really, you want the genese of a crazy person?

At any rate, most open adoptions these days are very clear on the responsibilities and rights of both the birth parents and the adoptive parents in regards to visitation and contact. One of my nieces (adopted in as much of an open relationship as her parents could allow - one parents was a convicted felon who wasn't. . .well, a nice person.) gave her youngest up for adoption right after her husband died. The adopting parents would've given her as much access to the baby as she'd liked, but she did go completely off the deep end for a matter of a year or two, so the adopting parents hauled back and went to the exact limitations of the adoption paperwork, which was a once year visit and photographs.

You're trying to fear monger, and it doesn't really work, because the limitations are usually spelled out in open adoption paperwork, and yes, even when the birth mom is, for various reasons, going a bit crazy, the open adoptions still work as advertised.

Unless, of course, the adoptive parents were lying when they got into it, knowing that the paperwork isn't enforceable. (Which happens pretty often, I'm told.)
__________________
Our family:
DH Me
Our menagerie:
snarlingcoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2012, 12:43 AM   #268
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,045

Quote:
Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote View Post
It's not only possible, it's likely. The Supreme court's function is not to allow people to endlessly squabble because they didn't like a lower court ruling. The court has rule numerous times that the IWCA is a valid law and I don't think that's something that will change. As the state's verdict was based on this properly applied law, I think it's highly doubtful the Supreme Court would hear the case.

If they refuse to hear the case, there's no other recourse, generally. They can fight to get the ICWA act repealed for other people's future adoptions, but I really don't see that one happening either. The tribes would ALL be up in arms. That act stopped American Indian kids from being forcibly and deliberately removed from their families and their heritage.
How long will it take before a decision is made on whether the case will be heard or not? Is it a quick process or will it take months to decide if it will be heard or not? If it did get a hearing would that be this year or next because if it is heard next year it will be one year since she moved to her father.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2012, 01:49 AM   #269
cornflake
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaSB12 View Post
How long will it take before a decision is made on whether the case will be heard or not? Is it a quick process or will it take months to decide if it will be heard or not? If it did get a hearing would that be this year or next because if it is heard next year it will be one year since she moved to her father.
Court isn't even in session until October, they haven't apparently prepared an appeal, but even if they submit one, it can lay there, it can be rejected, whatever - at the very least, it'd be well into next year.
cornflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2012, 03:37 AM   #270
PaulaSB12
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kettering, UK
Posts: 6,045

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
Court isn't even in session until October, they haven't apparently prepared an appeal, but even if they submit one, it can lay there, it can be rejected, whatever - at the very least, it'd be well into next year.
So its possible this could hang on until 2014, surely if it does that the father can claim that being with her for the same time as the paps makes it possible for him to use the same arguments as they did. Mind you the fact that they want this go hang over the head of a child even longer is disturbing, why don't they let it go now as painful as it is and try for gestational surrogacy.
PaulaSB12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: