The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:40 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Diamondeye wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
No, but we're talking about cases where the removal has already been done,


In dispute


The facts are quite clear that the child was with the adoptive parents for almost 2 years. There was definitely a removal of sorts, then an un-removal. It is most clearly not in dispute that a removal of a sort occurred.


The kid was ruled to have been removed improperly by a previous court, and has spent 2 years with each household. In one view, that's a wash, in another view, a previous court ruling must be overturned to remove the child from the parent again, setting the bar even higher.

Quote:
Quote:
This is pretty much the point of the case. Yes, this appears to be resolved now, but these issues are the crux of the dispute.

And no, I don't think this case was handled lightly. 4 years and the supreme court... no. However, I was speaking in more general terms. The burden for removing a child from his or her parents should be very high (don't you agree?). In this case, as you say, there are errors and issues on both sides. The child has been with the father for the last 2 years. A previous ruling sided with him. It seems... this should be borderline insurmountable for the adoptive parents, who should have a higher bar to clear.


Why? Why are adoptive parents less important than natural ones? Adoptive parents already have a high burden to prove fitness to adopt when there is no contest whatsoever by the natural parents. That's just silly.


So once they pass the fitness test they should have equal claim to any child they want? Of course not. They have to have permission to take the child FROM THE PARENTS. This is basic #1 requirement. They don't just go around shopping for a child and claim one. So if the entire premise of the child being eligible for adoption is in question, it seems pretty clear that the burden falls on the adoptive parents.

For example, in order to go home with my child from the hospital, I pretty much only had to pay my bills, and demonstrate everyone was healthy. If someone else wanted to go home with my child, they would have a much higher hurdle to cross. Why? Because the default is that the child stay with his/her parent.

Now, with that general premise in mind, you have 2 individuals fighting over this child. Parent, non-parent. If all things were equal -----> PARENT.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
The kid was ruled to have been removed improperly by a previous court, and has spent 2 years with each household. In one view, that's a wash, in another view, a previous court ruling must be overturned to remove the child from the parent again, setting the bar even higher.


So?

Quote:
So once they pass the fitness test they should have equal claim to any child they want? Of course not. They have to have permission to take the child FROM THE PARENTS. This is basic #1 requirement. They don't just go around shopping for a child and claim one. So if the entire premise of the child being eligible for adoption is in question, it seems pretty clear that the burden falls on the adoptive parents.


Clearly not. No one said any such thing.

Quote:
For example, in order to go home with my child from the hospital, I pretty much only had to pay my bills, and demonstrate everyone was healthy. If someone else wanted to go home with my child, they would have a much higher hurdle to cross. Why? Because the default is that the child stay with his/her parent.


Simply removing a child from a hospital would be kidnapping without a pre-arranged adoption.

Quote:
Now, with that general premise in mind, you have 2 individuals fighting over this child. Parent, non-parent. If all things were equal -----> PARENT.


All things are not, however, equal. When exactly would the condition of "All things are equal" be fulfilled, and what has that to do with this case? They clearly aren't. "All things being equal" is not useful for this sort of issue; that condition is something that could never be determined.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
No kidding. The point being that the default ruling is for the parents (all things being equal) and the non biological parents have the higher hurdle. It seems you now agree.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:42 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
No kidding. The point being that the default ruling is for the parents (all things being equal) and the non biological parents have the higher hurdle. It seems you now agree.


Maybe I agree, maybe I don't. There is no such thing as a "default ruling" (unless you are referring to summary judgement), and I don't know what conditions constitute "all things being equal". For an adoption to happen at all, the parents have to have agreed to give the child up, or they have to have been found unfit and the child taken. I don't see why in either case they should get a "default" veto over adoptive parents in either case. I think you have something else in mind when you say "all things being equal", but what that is I can't imagine.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Diamondeye wrote:
Maybe I agree, maybe I don't.


I'm sure you don't. And if you did, you'd find something to argue about anyway.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Maybe I agree, maybe I don't.


I'm sure you don't. And if you did, you'd find something to argue about anyway.


Yup, way to snip that line out and respond to nothing at all to do with the topic. You must really want that argument badly. I haven't necessarily disagreed with anything you said, but somehow I'm the problem because of an argument I haven't started.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 198 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group