Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I believe this has been discussed in PARENTING.  It certainly made the papers.

    The issue is when an adopting family makes the monumental decision to
    give their "heart, body and soul" to the committment of becoming a
    childs parents, why can a judge rip this child away from these people.
    Especially after the bonding process is far advanced as in this case.
    The child was given up within 24 hours of birth and the adoptive
    parents" made the parental committment the young woman was unable to
    make. What reasoning allows a "justice system" (for lack of a more
    accurate designation) to play with peoples live like this?
    				dan d
    

    Because the rights of the biological parent(s) come before all else. 
    It's kind of like the abused child that is returned to his/her abusive 
    home over and over.  Maintaining the "integrity" of the family is put
    above all else, even the childs safety and well-being.
    
    So much for family values, huh?
    
    Karen

 How can anyone claim this is in the best interests of the child?

    Who know Mark?  CPS and state/government attitudes really need an
    overhaul.  When I read about cases like this or children who have died
    because of keeping the family together is the most important, that it
    is ahead of the child's well-being I get sick.  What needs to happen
    here is for the people to lobby for the *children* and evaluating what
    is best for them.  Until that time, things like this will continue to
    happen.
    
    Karen

    Try lobbying for children and you'll get your head ripped off by the
    "family values" crowd for interfering in the rights of parents.
    
    Kit

    re karen
    
    Most of the laws in reguard to custody *already* state that custody
    is to be determined by "the best interest of the child". 
    Unfortunately, there are a *lot* of judges out there who think that
    "best interest of the child" lies with the biological mother no
    matter what.
    
    fred();

    re .7
    
    >Try lobbying for children and you'll get your head ripped off by the
    >"family values" crowd for interfering in the rights of parents.
    
    In think that "best interest of the child" in this case is totally
    different than allowing the children to sue their parents because
    the child doesn't like how the parent is treating him.
    
    fred();

Re: .9

Fred, I presume you're referring to the Republican party's distortion of
what Hillary Clinton wrote in her paper in a law journal?  Nobody I know of
has suggested such a thing.

				Steve

    re .10
    
    No. I'm refering to .7's distortion that the two issues are in
    any way related.
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    .7 is right.  I don't see it as a distortion at all.  I also agree with
    you.  There was a case here in Washington, Eli Creekmore, a little
    3-year-old boy that was returned repeatedly to his father.  CPS kept
    ignoring the grandmother's pleas to have the child removed from the
    father and that she be given permanent custody.  The state refused,
    deeming it was in the best interests of the child that he stay with his
    father while the father got help.  Eli Creekmore died at the hands of
    his father.  His father is now serving 60 something years for this. 
    But the state still hasn't changed it's policy.
    
    As far as the basenote goes,  I'm personally in disagreement with it. 
    The child in question has formed a bond with the adoptive mother that
    has now been shattered.  The child now probably has feelings of
    abandonment that will stay with him/her for the rest of his/her life. 
    I don't agree that birth mothers should be able to get custody back
    after the final adoption has gone through.  It's too traumatic for the
    child to be bounced around like this.  I feel empathy for the birth
    mother, but what she did was wrong, for both the child and the adoptive
    parents.
    
    Karen

    I agree with you Karen. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't play
    ping-pong with a childs emotional life.
    My gut tells me that the judge somehow caved in to the birthmothers
    emotional pleas disregarding the adoptive parents feelings. This is a
    perfect example of the inadequacey of the present judicial system to
    handle family law. The system is based on the premise of blame and 
    fault, injury and award without any sensitivity to the "human element"
    that exists for all parties.  

    Does anyone ask the KIDS who they want to live with?  Is that taken
    into consideration when our wise courts decide what is 'in the best
    interests of the child'.
    
    Jeff

    Might be a little difficult to get a responsive answer from a one-year
    old.  :^)
    
    When kids are older, the court is supposed to take into account the
    kids stated wishes.  But the extent to which that happens depend
    largely on the judge.  
    
    Incidentally, I should think that clearing up the law as regards
    the finality of legal adoption is absolutely essential, if only to
    buttress up the family structure.
    
    Mike                   

    re: fred();
    
    It's not always easy to decide what is "in the best interests of the
    child", nor is the decision always correct. Clearly, in the case in the
    base note, the rights of the biological mother allowed injury to the
    child. As much as that is true, it is the subtext that the biological
    mother was a single mother that makes the overruling of her "rights"
    more palatable to conservatives who would normally not agree with
    interference in the workings of biologically related families.
    
    Likewise, it is that reluctance to interfere in the biological family
    that allows conservatives to fight against the rights of children to
    escape from situations that are filled with abuse and neglect. The
    silly "kids-will-sue-parents-over-allowances" argument, and the
    dishonest attack on Hillary Clinton's legal paper are simply symtoms of
    overkill that conservatives engage in when they fear that a
    straightforward disucssion of how best to act "in the best interests of
    the child" would not lead to support for their position.
    
    Kit

    
    re .16
    
    Now why is is that I suspect that you don't have any teen-agers.
    Living with you that is.
    
    fred();

    Obviously to ask the kid who he/she prefers to live with could only
    happen if the child was old enough to talk.  And, obviously the
    'capacity' of the child to make a reasonable decision would have to
    be considered too.  It wouldn't be too hard to tell if the kid said
    "Dad" because Dad takes the kid to movies and Mom doesn't or some
    such other frivolous reason.  The emotional attachment which an
    observer could see would be considered, patterns of behavior, etc.
    etc. would (should!) be taken into consideration.
    
    I get infuriated when I see the child given over to the mother when
    the qualifications of the mother and father (other than their gender)
    are roughly equal after the kid has expressed a clear preference for
    living with the father.
    
    No, this has never happened to me personally... I am not seperated or
    divorced.
    
    Jeff

    You won't see any improvement in this area until kids get to vote in
    elections. Any group of people in the past that were denied the right
    to vote had their interests overruled in favour of those who have that
    right, even onto death.
    
    Our own system here in Ireland is full of cases where under 18's, ie.
    non-voters are denied basic human rights of shelter and welfare support
    outside of their parental home, which in many cases is a dangerous
    place for them. The result is a large under-age homeless problem in the
    large cities of Ireland.
     

    
>    Our own system here in Ireland is full of cases where under 18's, ie.
>    non-voters are denied basic human rights of shelter and welfare support
>    outside of their parental home, which in many cases is a dangerous
>    place for them. The result is a large under-age homeless problem in the
>    large cities of Ireland.

and in all our cities of any size in the USA as well....I know I ran away
from home 3 times before I was 18 - and, although the evidence of abuse
was there, I was returned to my father's home - to a nightmare 6-months
of beatings almost everyday...but, I was the virtual property of my
"family" and he could throw whatever he chose at me until I was 18.
Now, 25+ years later, at least we have some protection for children...
but not nearly enough...

    
    
    I would think that the "family values crowd" would be on the side of
    the adoptive parents since "they" feel that a mother AND a father are
    a necessary piece of a true "family". 
    
    I, being one of those who believes that there is alot to be said for
    the "traditional" family, disagree with the child being taken away
    from the family that he/she had bonded with, and being given back to
    a mother who has not been a part of one of the most important times in
    the childs life. 
    
    cat

if we get lucky, we will get rid of the idea that people have a "right" to
children just because of a biological link.  Children are NOT posessions,
but people.  Once born, it should be society's primary objective to protect
and nuture the child, NOT to protect the parent's interests - in the
event that the parent's interests and objectives do not harm the child,
then the child should remain with the parents...however, should a parent
make a decision which can harm the child, I believe the child should be
removed from that parental custody immediately...and, yes, I am radical
enough to include those parents who decide their children do not need
medical care because of religeous beliefs.  Once a child is old enough
to make an informed decision, he/she can refuse medical care...until
then, I believe we, as a society, must act to protect the child, regardless
of the parents' beliefs.

Now, I will retreat to my bunker so you can lob some bombs in my
direction....and I know you will....

    I think part of the problem with the idea of protecting the
    child's interests is that it is ihnerent in most legislatures
    that the child's best interests lie with the biological parents
    first and foremost.  Most family courts are very reluctant to
    sever parental rights.  While I feel that judges have good 
    intentions, the DSS do not have the proper resources to give
    adequate representation of what the deal is in most cases.  Until
    the courts can be presuaded that the child's best interests are
    not synonomous with keeping the bio. family together, these issues
    will continue to be a nightmare.
    
    Christine

    I too feel that the child should go with the 'parent' that's best for
    the child.  However I don't really know the case that was originally
    mentioned and I haven't read any response that asks about this fact.
    My intial question would be " Was the birth mother fully aware of
    what she was doing". I do know of several cases....enough for it not to
    be an exception....where the birthmother was improperly
    advised/influenced to give up her baby. Usually this occurred because
    of either her age(teenage) or religion(shame/guilt). In this type of
    case I would want the baby returned to the birthmother. 
    
    .....having had a child and felt not only the emotional attachment but
    the physical attachment it seems to me that it must be an absolute
    wrenching experience for the mother. Having been adopted....been raised
    in a 'good' family....I still want to know who my birthmother was. Is
    this emotional or is it a lingering 'physical' attachment (or both)
    One of my best friends is a woman who gave her child up for adoption at
    birth. She was 15/16. She was steongly advised to give the child up..
    she didn't want to...but because she was a minor her parents signed the
    papers. She said to this day she remembers the child's birthday every
    year. 
    
    It is such a highly charged emotional issue. There are no clear answers
    and I don't think we can really decide what is in the best interests of
    the child.....who can predict the future? (I'm NOT refering to cases of
    abuse/neglect...that's pretty clear cut and a whole other issue)
    
    (I also wonder who my father was and A) did he know about me and B)
    could/did he help my mother? Questions that may never be answered)
    
    Paula