General Discussion

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

30. I'm reacting to what I've read in the media and I'll concede the media could have it wrong.

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:19 PM

Jun 2013

It surely wouldn't be the first time, if that's the case here.

It's hard for me to believe the SCOTUS would issue a ruling where the actual facts of the case are still in dispute. If I'm wrong about the facts, I likely would change my opinion based on different facts. I don't have the time or the resources to investigate and retry the case online, so I think we're about done with this one.

In general, I believe that both parents should have to agree on whether a child gets adopted. I also believe that once that decision is made, it should be irrevocable and unappealable. It gets really complicated, though, if they don't agree. I think that many times, the father / husband gets screwed in matters of family and divorce law, so I usually find myself on the guy's side.

BTW, welcome to DU.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case [View all] East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 OP

Tough call, but I think the SCOTUS got it right. badtoworse Jun 2013 #1

+ 1 virgogal Jun 2013 #2

Nope ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #3

Read the story - that's not what happened badtoworse Jun 2013 #4

Reposting my answer to another thread - the mother concealed the adoption from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #5

How far is the child removed from the tribe with 3/256th heritage? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #7

I think it's ridiculous that 1% of her ancestry is enough to make her bound by Cherokee law. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #9

From the USA Today article badtoworse Jun 2013 #18

Sure, here you go ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #20

There seems to be a disagreement about the facts of the case badtoworse Jun 2013 #21

Exactly what adoption is that? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #22

Doesn't change my opinion badtoworse Jun 2013 #23

They shouldn't have hidden it from him ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #24

Here's my bottom line badtoworse Jun 2013 #25

Except your facts are wrong. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #26

I'm reacting to what I've read in the media and I'll concede the media could have it wrong. badtoworse Jun 2013 #30

3/256? That's about 1.18%. How does that even count as anything? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #6

It still qualifies the child ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #8

Well, she's 99% other, which should qualify her for protection under regular US adoption laws. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #10

No, but I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #11

So would you deny citizenship to a child born abroad to a US parent? ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #12

I agree with giving US citizenship to a child based either on the citizenship of the parents. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #13

Which is why the law was enacted ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #14

The tribe almost certainly couldn't give a shit what happens to the child. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #15

The tribe cares more about her than these white people (the adoptive couple) do ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #16

What a pile of horseshit. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #17

I agree your post is a pile ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #19

I'm trying to understand something about this Orrex Jun 2013 #27

Tribal citizenship ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #28

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful answer Orrex Jun 2013 #31

except, what rights would the US actually have when American parents live out of country permanently rebecca_herman Jun 2013 #42

The US is a Contracting State under the Hague Convention ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #43

I read it, but I'm not seeing where it applies to the situation I described? rebecca_herman Jul 2013 #44

Sec. 26(2) & (3) state: ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #45

that's so ridiculous that my jaw dropped. and offensive. cali Jun 2013 #29

You just lost the debate with that racist statement. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #33

I didn't see anyone object to this statement ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #34

Because two wrongs always make a right. East Coast Pirate Jun 2013 #36

No, I did not ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #37

I am not taking sides on this but I think that a little history regarding the reasons behind this jwirr Jun 2013 #32

Well put. ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #35

My sil has family that were treated similairly. The history is there for anyone to see. Do you know jwirr Jun 2013 #40

I don't know ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #41

This is a horrific case. Xithras Jun 2013 #38

Exactly right, plus he was at a distinct disadvantage ExCop-LawStudent Jun 2013 #39