The Glade 4.0

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 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.

So?



Clearly not. No one said any such thing.



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



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."

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."

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."