Georgia judge halts lesbian adoption (but wait, there's more!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mirdath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mirdath

Guest
Article.
Hadaway first began trying to adopt Emma Rose last spring at the request of the young girl’s biological mother, Deborah Schultz, who is also a lesbian. According to court documents and an interview with Hadaway, Schultz informed Hadaway that she had fallen on tough times and asked Hadaway to take custody of her six-year-old daughter.
Click to expand...
“We were pretty open about it and the lady who did the home evaluation was fine with it,” said Hadaway, who noted that the home evaluation found her suitable to adopt Emma Rose.
Click to expand...
Parrott conceded that Georgia law has no requirements relating to the sexual orientation of adoptive parents, but accused Hadaway of attempting to “subterfuge and sham” the court by applying as a single adoptive parent when she “seeks to accomplish an adoption by a de facto homosexual couple," according to a copy of the ruling provided to Southern Voice by Hadaway.
Click to expand...
So, to recap: the kid’s mother wants this person to take care of her, the adoption agency gives her passing marks – and oh, she’s a lesbian in a committed, stable relationship. A more stable environment, apparently, than that the child is coming from. However, since that relationship is not legally recognized, she’s filing for adoption as a single parent; no problem, people can do that even if they have roommates or significant others so long as it’s disclosed (as it was here).

And this judge thinks it’d be better for the child to shuffle her around foster homes than to leave her in an environment all the principals agree on and the adoption agencies approve?

This is possibly the clearest case of an activist judge that I have ever seen. Mindboggling.
 
Yet I tend to doubt you’d have any qualms with an activist judge trying to force the legaliziation of homosexual “marriage.” So the point is really, “the only activist judges that are good are the ones that share my ideology.” How utterly pointless.
 
Yet if the adoption has been arranged and agreed upon by all parties what right does the justice system have to step in and override personal arrangements?
 
That’s his job. If he felt this was not in the best interests of the kid, then he acted okay. I mean, really. Claiming he is an activist is just a way to make his actions seem unethical. What if they were open pedophiles? Would you feel differently? Just because the majority(or so it seems) approves of this sin, giving it a free pass over others, does not mean that everyone has to follow suit. Good for him for protecting this child from such sin. And, to argue that a gay home is stable and loving, therefore better than another foster home…well, would you feel the same if you inserted stealer, robber, pedophile, liar, adulterer, in place of gay? Seems to me that you are biased in favor of the sin of homosexuality.
 
goofyjim said:
Yet if the adoption has been arranged and agreed upon by all parties what right does the justice system have to step in and override personal arrangements?
Click to expand...
I’ve adopted two children. Surprise, Surprise, parenthood, it turns out is a legal matter. The judge does have a right. Can’t charge a parent with abandonment if you don’t have a legal defintion of parenthood. In case of a legal dispute over who are the parents, the legal system can’t protect the child unless it has a legal definition of parenthood.

All these things are necessary, and can only be served if the state takes in interest in determining legal parenthood. What if the biological mother disputes the ‘adoption’. If it was not legalized, who could tell who the ‘parents’ really are.

That the reason the justice system is (and should be) involved.

In a perfect world, who needs a justice system. Unfortunately the world is imperfect.

Dan
 
CCM08 said:
Yet I tend to doubt you’d have any qualms with an activist judge trying to force the legaliziation of homosexual “marriage.” So the point is really, “the only activist judges that are good are the ones that share my ideology.” How utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
I would prefer the legislative branch take care of that; it’s not the courts’ job.
40.png
AP4Him:
That’s his job. If he felt this was not in the best interests of the kid, then he acted okay. I mean, really. Claiming he is an activist is just a way to make his actions seem unethical. What if they were open pedophiles? Would you feel differently?
Click to expand...
Were they open pedophiles, do you think the adoption agency would have approved for an instant?
 
First of all, I really believe this is a sham… the lesbian couple or adoptive parent is trying to make a statement not care for a child. The reason I think this is because there are other ways to give guardianship of your child to someone else whether temporary or permanent. About 15 yrs ago I took a young girl into my home. He father didn’t want to take care of her. I asked him to sign guardianship over to me so I could get medical insurance for her, go to school conferences, do all the “mom” things so to speak. So if this woman’s sole concern is the child… there are much easier ways and much better if you ask me. What if the natural mom gets it together and wants the child back? With adoption you can’t do this but with guardianship it is very easy.
 
I notice something quite sad in this thread. One or two posts again make some equivalency between homosexual and pedophile. Let’s keep the two separate. It’s as bad as assuming the mentally ill are violent by nature. They are not.
 
goofyjim said:
Yet if the adoption has been arranged and agreed upon by all parties what right does the justice system have to step in and override personal arrangements?
Click to expand...
So if parents agree to “adopt” their child out to pedophiles the courts shouldn’t be able to step in? The court’s interest is supposedly the best interest of the child, it is certainly within reason that living with lesbians doesn’t serve that interest.
 
CCM08 said:
So if parents agree to “adopt” their child out to pedophiles the courts shouldn’t be able to step in?
Click to expand...
That’s where the adoption agency comes in and says ‘you don’t get passing marks to adopt’; and then the DCF or whatever analogue Georgia has takes the child in. No need for the courts.
The court’s interest is supposedly the best interest of the child, it is certainly within reason that living with lesbians doesn’t serve that interest.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t; and anyway, in this case it’s quite clear that the court’s interest instead lay in promoting its personal distaste for homosexuality, which is not the issue at hand.
 
This is a lengthy response from the Family Research Council, but worth the read…
frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

This judge may have not been off the mark according to well documented research.
 
CCM08 said:
So if parents agree to “adopt” their child out to pedophiles the courts shouldn’t be able to step in? The court’s interest is supposedly the best interest of the child, it is certainly within reason that living with lesbians doesn’t serve that interest.
Click to expand...
Did you read my post previous to this one, #8? Stop equating homosexual with pedophile. That is not what this case is about. Obviously, there would be a problem with adopting to pedophiles. More people agree with that but not everyone agrees that it is wrong to adopt to homosexual parents. The courts should stay clear of that.
 
What bothers me about the courts stepping in here is htat the same could happen with me. My brother named me the godfather of his oldest son. While I have no knowledge of what his plans are should he and his wife meet catastrophe, he may very well want to place him in my custody. Would the courts then step in and say that because I have ssa that cannot be done? I think an arrangement such as that should be left to the individuals.
 
I do baptism prep and frequently parents and godparents need to be reminded that being a godparent does not mean you automatically are guardian for your godchild in the event of something happening to the parents. Godparents roles are to represent the church during a baptism to ensure that their godchild is raised Catholic…

So in order for your brother to name you as a guardian to your nephew/niece/godchild, he and his wife need to formally name you as a guardian in a legal document, such as a will.

Otherwise, courts may decide and it may not be the choice that a parent may make.
 
stbruno said:
I do baptism prep and frequently parents and godparents need to be reminded that being a godparent does not mean you automatically are guardian for your godchild in the event of something happening to the parents. Godparents roles are to represent the church during a baptism to ensure that their godchild is raised Catholic…

So in order for your brother to name you as a guardian to your nephew/niece/godchild, he and his wife need to formally name you as a guardian in a legal document, such as a will.

Otherwise, courts may decide and it may not be the choice that a parent may make.
Click to expand...
But that’s exactly my point. If it is expressed in a legal document, what right do the courts have to overturn that?
 
In this case, the mother is still alive. There was no will. And there is no blood relation.
 
goofyjim said:
But that’s exactly my point. If it is expressed in a legal document, what right do the courts have to overturn that?
Click to expand...
The mistake here is to assume that a parent has the absolute right to determine custody of their children after the die. They don’t. A child is not property and you can’t just leave it to someone the way you can your cat or a toaster. At most, a parent can express their wish that a particular person or couple be given custody after their death. Ultimately, the courts would decide with the basis for the decision being the best interest of the child, not the parents wishes, although that is an important factor.

That being said, I think a court would be very reluctant to disregard the wishes of a deceased parents, absent a strong reasons to do so, because presumably the parents are going to be the best judge of what’s best for the child. Of course, that assumes there was no reason to doubt the parent’s judgment to begin with.
 
It’s still a sad fact that everytime the subject of homosexuality is brought up someone throws in the old pedophilia argument. This is a scare tactic used to make people believe that those who experience same gender attraction have a higher preponderance to be pedophiles. They don’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top