Utah judge removes child from lesbian foster parents

[gracepoole]

Hoagland and Peirce told CBS affiliate KUTV that they are distraught after the ruling that calls for the baby girl they have been raising for three months to be taken away within a week.

They said Judge Johansen cited research that children do better when they are raised by heterosexual couples. Hoagland believes the judge actually imposed his religious beliefs.

“We are shattered,” she told the station. “It hurts me really badly because I haven’t done anything wrong.”

The women, who are legally married, were approved after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews with the DCFS. They hope to adopt the baby and have the support of the child’s biological mother.

Judge Johansen is precluded by judicial rules from discussing pending cases, Utah courts spokeswoman Nancy Volmer said.

Sumner said she can’t speak to specifics of the case but confirmed that the couple’s account of the ruling is accurate – the judge’s decision was based on the couple being lesbians. The agency isn’t aware of any other issues with their performance as foster parents.

cbsnews.com/news/utah-judge-removes-child-from-lesbian-foster-parents/

 

[lax16]

cbsnews.com/news/utah-judge-removes-child-from-lesbian-foster-parents/

I don’t know if people are aware that Utah has a very high gay population. I guess this was eventually going to happen.

I agree with the judge. I don’t know if he is acting upon his religious convictions but I would say it is common sense that children should be raised by a mom and a dad.

Obviously there are very loving, caring couples that are gay. But, never in the history of mankind have they raised children. This is a touchy subject for sure.

 

[Ph0enix]

I feel bad for the couple who grew close to the kid and were forced to give them up. what ever happened to freedom of religion where no one can force it on people?

 

[Usige]

I feel bad for the couple who grew close to the kid and were forced to give them up. what ever happened to freedom of religion where no one can force it on people?

It seems he was referring to sociological studies not religious arguments. Now you can argue that his religious beliefs predisposed him to accept those studies, but nothing I read said “the Bible said this is wrong”.

Freedom of Religion also does not (and never has) meant that public officials cannot make decisions that are informed by their religious beliefs. They simply cannot force people to worship in specific ways, nor can they unduly restrict others from the practice of their religion. It does not ban religious thought from the public square. Removing a child is not forcing religious practice on the women, nor can they claim that adoption is a part of their religious practice. So given that, freedom of religion is a red herring in this case.

 

[lax16]

*Judge Scott Johansen’s order Tuesday raised concerns at the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, agency spokeswoman Ashley Sumner said.

Its attorneys plan to review the decision and determine what options they have to possibly challenge the order.*

Do attorneys for the Utah Division of Child and Family Services usually get involved in cases where a couple is deemed unsuitable - or is this only because they are a gay couple?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

“It hurts me really badly because I haven’t done anything wrong.”

cbsnews.com/news/utah-judge-removes-child-from-lesbian-foster-parents/

Well, other than pretend to be married to another woman and adopt a child, you mean. I think everyone here can agree to that.

Still, I am sympathetic only in that they shouldn’t have been allowed to adopt the girl to begin with. It ends up just being a tease for the women, and while I oppose homosexual adoption, there is no need to get hteir hopes up only have them dashed. I have seen that happen too often in regular adoptions where the birth mother changes her mind months later, and it is crushing for those involved.

 

[St_Francis]

*Judge Scott Johansen’s order Tuesday raised concerns at the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, agency spokeswoman Ashley Sumner said.

Its attorneys plan to review the decision and determine what options they have to possibly challenge the order.*

Do attorneys for the Utah Division of Child and Family Services usually get involved in cases where a couple is deemed unsuitable - or is this only because they are a gay couple?

Possibly because the judge overruled the DCFS criteria.

 

[lax16]

Possibly because the judge overruled the DCFS criteria.

What criteria was overruled?

hspolicy.utah.gov/files/dcfs/DCFS%20Practice%20Guidelines/400-%20Adoption.pdf

 

[Inisfallen]

The story seems to be lacking a piece (at least one piece) of crucial information – who brought this case to court?

A judge can’t just decide to intervene in a situation – he or she has to have a case before the court.

My guess would be that the judge did this at the point where the court was asked to finalize the adoption, but I’m not sure – can’t tell from the story. It could have been that some third party petitioned the court somehow. Don’t know. But I think it’s an important detail.

 

[St_Francis]

What criteria was overruled?

hspolicy.utah.gov/files/dcfs/DCFS%20Practice%20Guidelines/400-%20Adoption.pdf

Wow, I don’t have time to search through the 57-page document which refers to other documents, so I am just assuming that the DCFS criteria do not include that the adopting couple must be of opposite sexes nor that being a homosexual couple disqualifies, since the couple was approved.

Since the judge ruled on the basis that the child would be better off in with heterosexual couple, it seems that what I said is the case and the reason for the involvement of the DCFS lawyers.

I did say possibly; it was not offered as a fact that I need to cite Utah law for.

 

[marymary1975]

At a personal level, I agree with the judge. But from the legal perspective, unless there is some evidence of neglect or abuse, this judge`s decision will.be struck down on appeal. There is a lot of case law through the entire US staying that homosexuality is not a reason to.remove a child from.a household. The only way would be is that there are no decisions on that District which I doubt, but again if it goes up then upper Court most likely will align with the majority of case law. So I don’t think this decision will last too long.

 

[Usige]

The story seems to be lacking a piece (at least one piece) of crucial information – who brought this case to court?

A judge can’t just decide to intervene in a situation – he or she has to have a case before the court.

My guess would be that the judge did this at the point where the court was asked to finalize the adoption, but I’m not sure – can’t tell from the story. It could have been that some third party petitioned the court somehow. Don’t know. But I think it’s an important detail.

Since they are foster parents they had not adopted the baby yet, so it could have been the adoption hearing.

It’s important to remember that foster parents aren’t guaranteed that they will be able to adopt any children they foster. In the past it was fairly common for couples to foster children until they were adopted by other families. These women seem to think that since they fostered the baby that they have a right to adopter her, but every foster parent should accept from the begining that any child may be removed or adopted by others at any time.

 

[Inisfallen]

Since they are foster parents they had not adopted the baby yet, so it could have been the adoption hearing.

It’s important to remember that foster parents aren’t guaranteed that they will be able to adopt any children they foster. In the past it was fairly common for couples to foster children until they were adopted by other families. These women seem to think that since they fostered the baby that they have a right to adopter her, but every foster parent should accept from the begining that any child may be removed or adopted by others at any time.

I know the drill, believe me. My wife and I have been very involved in our city’s foster parent program. Never to the point of adopting a child, but providing care until a child’s parents have gotten their act together enough to have their children returned to them, or providing respite care.

I don’t know what these women think – I can’t read their minds – but it seems that they did have an expectation (one shared by the Utah DCFS) that they would be adopting this child, until the judge decided to put a stop to it. That leads me to believe that the child’s biological parents’ rights had already been terminated, and that there was no obstacle to the adoption, other than this judge’s objection to letting a same-sex couple adopt the child.

 

[Ph0enix]

Since they are foster parents they had not adopted the baby yet, so it could have been the adoption hearing.

It’s important to remember that foster parents aren’t guaranteed that they will be able to adopt any children they foster. In the past it was fairly common for couples to foster children until they were adopted by other families. These women seem to think that since they fostered the baby that they have a right to adopter her, but every foster parent should accept from the begining that any child may be removed or adopted by others at any time.

But the fact that they removed the kid due to the fact the foster parents were gay is a bit sketchy imho

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

But the fact that they removed the kid due to the fact the foster parents were gay is a bit sketchy imho

Why is it sketchy, when the Pope and God both agree the child didn’t belong there?

 

[Ph0enix]

Why is it sketchy, when the Pope and God both agree the child didn’t belong there?

I mean from a political perspective

if the freedom of religion protect people from being imposed then why do they get to take a kid from gay parents?

 

[Inisfallen]

Why is it sketchy, when the Pope and God both agree the child didn’t belong there?

Well, here’s my take on why it’s sketchy –

In my city (New York), there are an enormous number of children in the foster care system. A staggering number of them age out of the system without being adopted, or returned to their biological parents. And a huge number (a majority, last time I read up on it) of those who age out end up homeless or in prison.

Seems to me that a life being raised by a same-sex couple who will love and care for that child is far better than a life in group homes, and being tossed out on the street when the kid turns eighteen.

But that’s just me.

 

[Usige]

I know the drill, believe me. My wife and I have been very involved in our city’s foster parent program. Never to the point of adopting a child, but providing care until a child’s parents have gotten their act together enough to have their children returned to them, or providing respite care.

I don’t know what these women think – I can’t read their minds – but it seems that they did have an expectation (one shared by the Utah DCFS) that they would be adopting this child, until the judge decided to put a stop to it. That leads me to believe that the child’s biological parents’ rights had already been terminated, and that there was no obstacle to the adoption, other than this judge’s objection to letting a same-sex couple adopt the child.

Sorry, I was posting that for others that don’t understand that fostering does not give automatic rights of adoption. We have friends that fostered 4 children and adopted 3. When it came up for adoption on the 4th, the request was denied and their foster license terminated as the judge said their marital relationship had deteriorated to the point that he felt it was unwise to place more children with them. That is the reason that each adoption requires a specific hearing and Children’s Services can only recommend, but not ratify an adoption.

 

[lax16]

Wow, I don’t have time to search through the 57-page document which refers to other documents, so I am just assuming that the DCFS criteria do not include that the adopting couple must be of opposite sexes nor that being a homosexual couple disqualifies, since the couple was approved.

Since the judge ruled on the basis that the child would be better off in with heterosexual couple, it seems that what I said is the case and the reason for the involvement of the DCFS lawyers.

I did say possibly; it was not offered as a fact that I need to cite Utah law for.

Oops! I thought I only linked the page that outlined the criteria necessary for people seeking to adopt.

I’ll see if I can - it is very succint. Not that it says couples adopting must be of the opposite sex.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Well, here’s my take on why it’s sketchy –

In my city (New York), there are an enormous number of children in the foster care system. A staggering number of them age out of the system without being adopted, or returned to their biological parents. And a huge number (a majority, last time I read up on it) of those who age out end up homeless or in prison.

Seems to me that a life being raised by a same-sex couple who will love and care for that child is far better than a life in group homes, and being tossed out on the street when the kid turns eighteen.

But that’s just me.

Yes, that’s just you, and clearly not the Church.

The answer is to find solutions to the problem you describe (which is real), not turn to child abuse as a means to get kids off the street.

We could seel them off as sex slaves too in order to keep them from the streets, but is that a a viable solution? The Pope himself called this a form of child abuse, so why seek it as an answer to our problems?