Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 19)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As I understand the basis on your position fundementally its rooted in your belief that we should give overwhelming preference to marriages, that father's should get thier rights by being married and that any other situation is lesser and sort of they get what they deserve. That's probably a little harsher than what you mean, but that's kind of how it nutshells out to me."

No no no! Not an overwhelming preference, but simply a rebuttable presumption. Please consider my clarification. I mean that marriage gives the father a rebuttable presumption of actual parenthood, and that anyone not married requires facts in addition to genetics to establish any reasonable claim on the child. I think that given the right set of facts, a nonmarried man might establish a set of facts at least as strong as that of a married man, but the nonmarried man has no presumptions in his favor. It's all about the facts.

" I think the state shouldn't be terminating the rights of either biological parent without due cause"

I agree, but I don't think the state should be ESTABLISHING the rights of a noncustodial bioparent without cause. If an egg donating woman claims custody over the birth mother, I would ask that she show facts that she wasn't a mere egg donor rather than someone with an agreement establishing motherhood. Same with a sperm donor.

"How is that a better result, than an unmarried father who's girlfriend leaves him 2 days before the birth and adopts the child out before he has a chance to take action?"

It's not "better," it simply requires as a procedural matter that the nonmarried dude make a showing of the facts you describe, while in the former case it's the married father that has the rebuttable presumption in his favor. Discoutable with facts as all rebuttable presumptions are.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Yes, I only really brought it up to address Pyrtolin's nonsense about the natural state, which he then tries to extrapolate into legal adoptions without adjustmet.

No, you injected the "legal" into it after the fact. I brought up the natural state as a step on the way to examining the difference between what a natural right is and what a legal entitlement is.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where? When? What mythincal pre-law society worked this way? And really significantly why should anyone care?
It matters because a natural right derives directly from an unforced natural freedom. If doing something would have required using force on another person, then it cannot be classified as a natural right and is instead a legal entitlement.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These are all things that people have without forcing others to provide them for it. Taking custody of a child from someone unwilling to grant is is not something you can have without applying force, thus it is impossible for it to be a natural right, but rather it is a legal entitlement to apply that force as needed to achieve that which you consider yourself entitled to.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I mean that marriage gives the father a rebuttable presumption of actual parenthood, and that anyone not married requires facts in addition to genetics to establish any reasonable claim on the child. I think that given the right set of facts, a nonmarried man might establish a set of facts at least as strong as that of a married man, but the nonmarried man has no presumptions in his favor. It's all about the facts.

Pete, I tend to be swayed by a simple fact, the state's involvement should be minimized in parent-child relationships.

I've repeatedly stated that I'm in favor of establishing rights ahead of time, even in writing, and linking obligations and rights. If a biological father steps up and is willing to provide for the child, I don't see any reason to exclude him with the force of the state absent a showing of unfitness. Their should always be a presumption that being willing to accept the obligations is enough to establish. After that it really has to be the burden of the state to show unfitness.
quote:
I agree, but I don't think the state should be ESTABLISHING the rights of a noncustodial bioparent without cause.
See I think this as a default rule is inherently unfair and subject to abuse. What stops a state from being arbitrary? Like I said, being willing to provide support ought to be sufficient to meet this threshhold. And in any event, Utah's policy is inadequate to even meet this measure when it deliberately forecloses a reasonable time frame for a father to try and make this showing. I don't see any rationale reason to support such a rapid foreclosure where there may not even be notice.
quote:
If an egg donating woman claims custody over the birth mother, I would ask that she show facts that she wasn't a mere egg donor rather than someone with an agreement establishing motherhood. Same with a sperm donor.
Contract. Grown ups engaging in donation situations should be able to provide for these rights ahead of time, and any prudent person was. Even after the fact if everyone agrees shouldn't be difficult. Problems only arise when these are informally arranged and people disagree after the fact. It's my view that sperm/egg donation contracts should be specifically enforceable in all states, and should be able to provide for termiantion of obligations and rights of the donor (notwithstanding the contrary views of certain courts).

Of course, I also think that they should be able to terminate the rights of a non-biologically related surrogate as well. In fact that's the cleanest case where the birth mother should have no rights over the infant post birth notwithstanding the commitment she's already made. Pre-birth I wouldn't accept any constraints on her right to control her own body, including both the right to abort and the right to refuse to abort. That latter has caused some serious legal issues where the child developed abnormalities in utero.
quote:
It's not "better," it simply requires as a procedural matter that the nonmarried dude make a showing of the facts you describe, while in the former case it's the married father that has the rebuttable presumption in his favor. Discoutable with facts as all rebuttable presumptions are.
I disagree on the level of the presumptions. But I really disagree on not providing for an adequate resolution in court. And I really disagree on given the decision of the mother to terminate rights precedence over the decision of the father to raise the child. I really don't see why it's too much to ask that you show a father that is willing to accept the obligations that go with that right is unfit before terminating them.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:

Yes, I only really brought it up to address Pyrtolin's nonsense about the natural state, which he then tries to extrapolate into legal adoptions without adjustmet.

No, you injected the "legal" into it after the fact. I brought up the natural state as a step on the way to examining the difference between what a natural right is and what a legal entitlement is.
Maybe you should check the thread title. Not sure what you've been arguing but the question from page one is about the law, "legal" is not something I brought into it.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It matters because a natural right derives directly from an unforced natural freedom.

No it doesn't matter. The source of natural rights is always debatable, I'm not inclined to limit it to your own selfserving definition, particularly not when its over and under-inclusive.
quote:
If doing something would have required using force on another person, then it cannot be classified as a natural right and is instead a legal entitlement.
Self defense is a natural right not a legal entitlement. Survival is a natural right that may also involve force lethal or non-lethal. Again self-serving definition isn't persuasive or controlling.
quote:
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These are all things that people have without forcing others to provide them for it.
Sometimes, it seems odd to claim that things that so many people have died for are free from the need to use force.
quote:
Taking custody of a child from someone unwilling to grant is is not something you can have without applying force,
I agree, which is why I do not condone as you do the state using force to take custody from the child's father, who is not willing to grant it.
quote:
thus it is impossible for it to be a natural right,
Which is neither relevant (as you have backwards what happened), nor true as lack of force is not required for it to be a natural right.
quote:
but rather it is a legal entitlement to apply that force as needed to achieve that which you consider yourself entitled to.
Well it is true that the holders' of rights have a legal entitlement to call on the power of the state to enforce those rights. That's in large part exactly why we form state's in the first place, to protect the exercise of rights. Which still helps your case not at all, since you still can't provide a rational basis for terminating the father's rights.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Seriati:

Originally posted by Pyr
quote:
If doing something would have required using force on another person, then it cannot be classified as a natural right and is instead a legal entitlement.
Self defense is a natural right not a legal entitlement. Survival is a natural right that may also involve force lethal or non-lethal. Again self-serving definition isn't persuasive or controlling.


If was clear that Pyr meant 'would have required initiating force on another person' as opposed to 'required using force'. That covers things like self defense.

quote:
I agree, which is why I do not condone as you do the state using force to take custody from the child's father, who is not willing to grant it.
The discussion has always been about the case where

1) The mother has custody
2) The father has never had custody
3) The mother transfers custody to a third party.

Custody has a pretty well defined meaning - 'biologically related to' is not a part of that meaning.

You might think he should have a 'claim to custody' but that is something entirely separate from custody itself.

[ February 24, 2014, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I mean that marriage gives the father a rebuttable presumption of actual parenthood, and that anyone not married requires facts in addition to genetics to establish any reasonable claim on the child. I think that given the right set of facts, a nonmarried man might establish a set of facts at least as strong as that of a married man, but the nonmarried man has no presumptions in his favor. It's all about the facts.

Pete, I tend to be swayed by a simple fact, the state's involvement should be minimized in parent-child relationships.

I've repeatedly stated that I'm in favor of establishing rights ahead of time, even in writing, and linking obligations and rights. If a biological father steps up and is willing to provide for the child, I don't see any reason to exclude him with the force of the state absent a showing of unfitness.

I agree, if he did that ahead of time, i.e. if the mother were aware prior to sporking him that was his intent.


quote:
Their should always be a presumption that being willing to accept the obligations is enough to establish.
Enough to establish what? Investment in the child's well-being and shared custody? Hell no. And if you think the topic is something else, then you aren't addressing either Pyr or myself. You might be arguing with LR, who speaks of it in terms of a presumption of unfitness. And I'm not certain LR's wrong there, but my own argument focuses on an univested sperm donor not being a parent in any sense that the law should recognize for purposes of establishing parenthood and custody over the rights of another.


quote:
I agree, but I don't think the state should be ESTABLISHING the rights of a noncustodial bioparent without cause.

-------
See I think this as a default rule is inherently unfair and subject to abuse.

Unfair how? Violating rights of life, liberty, or property?


quote:
What stops a state from being arbitrary? Like I said, being willing to provide support ought to be sufficient to meet this threshhold.
Like I said, your argument fails because you fail to identify WHICH threshold. The threshold for competence, sure, but that mere competence doesn't grant you rights to any particular child, and my contention and Pyr's, is that genetics don't do that on their own.


quote:
And in any event, Utah's policy is inadequate to even meet this measure
What measure? Genetic rights? Hasn't been shown that they exist.


quote:
when it deliberately forecloses a reasonable time frame for a father to try and make this showing.
What showing?


quote:
I don't see any rationale reason to support such a rapid foreclosure where there may not even be notice.
The rationale is to attract women and adoptive parents to the table.


quote:
If an egg donating woman claims custody over the birth mother, I would ask that she show facts that she wasn't a mere egg donor rather than someone with an agreement establishing motherhood. Same with a sperm donor.
-------
Contract.

Contract my ass. We disallow enforcing a contract for prostitution (even in Nevada where prostitution is legal); we disallow most requirements of specific performance for tasks MUCH less personal and slave-like as carrying a child to term. Enforcement of the contract you describe rapes every bit of contract caselaw against enforcement of unconcionable contracts. You can sell your sperm or your egg, but the idea of selling a child that's nurtured 9 months in your body is a new perversion in American caselaw, a perversion that flouts decades of post-13th amendment contract law. A crime against humanity.


quote:
Grown ups engaging in donation situations should be able to provide for these rights ahead of time, and any prudent person was.
That's a bit cold blooded, Mr Calhoun, IF you refer to contracting away the surrogate's rights. [Big Grin]

quote:
It's my view that sperm/egg donation contracts should be specifically enforceable in all states, and should be able to provide for termiantion of obligations and rights of the donor (notwithstanding the contrary views of certain courts).
Sperm and egg donation I agree, except for the all states matter; that's a federalism issue and I don't see a problem with diverse laws since the surrogate has power to move to any state that best enforces her rights against donors.


quote:
Of course, I also think that they should be able to terminate the rights of a non-biologically related surrogate as well.
Abhorrent. You're talking about contracting a baby out of the arms of the only mother it's ever known.


[snip more argument that fails to distinguish the fitness issue from the issue of rights to a specific child]

[ February 24, 2014, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If was clear that Pyr meant 'would have required initiating force on another person' as opposed to 'required using force'. That covers things like self defense.

Not with logical consistency it doesn't. Certainly it wouldn't cover competing survival situations.

In any event, it hardly matters since it's still an artificial construction that narrows the source of natural law rights to one specific grounds solely to help him win an argument.
quote:
quote:
I agree, which is why I do not condone as you do the state using force to take custody from the child's father, who is not willing to grant it.
The discussion has always been about the case where

1) The mother has custody
2) The father has never had custody
3) The mother transfers custody to a third party.

And like I explained to Pyrtolin, what you just described is the law of custody as applied to property, not people. The word is the same, but the terms and rules are not. In an actual parental context both parents have custodial rights as soon as the child is borne, in a property context its possession that is relevant.

In a property context a person can transfer title to an object, most without any active state involvement, though the passive power of the state is behind and endorsing all such transactions and stands ready to enforce them. In a parental context NO ONE but the state can transfer or terminate those rights, and they require that it be done overtly with their active involvement.

In fact, it may short hand, but it's legal nonsense to say that the mother transfers custody to a third party. And since its nonsense as written it leads you guys to make poor arguments on top of it.

Simply put, what we actually have is a biological child of two parents, one of whom made a unilateral decision to put the child up for adoption. Not a custody problem at all. The standards that states apply are not possession and transfer standards, simply put they are the best interests of the child and a strong presumption that the best interests of a child lie with its biological parents.
quote:
Custody has a pretty well defined meaning - 'biologically related to' is not a part of that meaning.
I've just walked you through a little bit of how wrong you are on custody. So while I agree it has a well defined meaning, I pretty don't agree that you're using the correct definition.
quote:
You might think he should have a 'claim to custody' but that is something entirely separate from custody itself.
It's not really about what I think, the law of all 50 states provide him with rights. So no matter how logical to sound to you, you may want to go back and figure out where you making the error in analysis.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And like I explained to Pyrtolin, what you just described is the law of custody as applied to property, not people. The word is the same, but the terms and rules are not. In an actual parental context both parents have custodial rights as soon as the child is borne, in a property context its possession that is relevant.
Well no, Seriati. The law is what the law is in that particular jurisdiction. What Pyr was speaking of wasn't custody *rights* (which vary by jurisdiction), but actual physical custody. When Pyr speaks of custody rights he's used the term "claim to custody."

Yes, in legalese the term custody is interchangeable with the right to custody, but what Pyr is talking about is actual custody, which is a matter of significance under the law of all states. My ex and I have shared legal custody of our children, and shared physical custody rights, but at this moment, none of our children is in our actual physical custody; they are in school.

In most jurisdictions, continued rights to physical and even legal custody are affected by the history of presence and actual physical custody. If one parent has had sole (actual) physical custody for an extended period of time, and the other parent has not visited or exercised custodial rights, then that other parent's rights may be restricted or terminated.

So when looking at whether a woman has a right to adopt out her kids, against the putative right of a genetic father, I think it's quite appropriate and relevant for the state to ask, as Utah does, for facts establishing the father's relationship beyond the mere genetic.

Whether that was his intent or not, Seneca seems to have conceded exactly that when he justifies his arguments with facts that describe the father as concerned and involved prior to birth. Mere genetics should NOT be enough to override the birth mother's designation of adoptive parents.

[ February 25, 2014, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
I've repeatedly stated that I'm in favor of establishing rights ahead of time, even in writing, and linking obligations and rights. If a biological father steps up and is willing to provide for the child, I don't see any reason to exclude him with the force of the state absent a showing of unfitness.
I agree, if he did that ahead of time, i.e. if the mother were aware prior to sporking him that was his intent.
As much as it might make sense, pre-sex contracting is not going to be acceptable. That said, I see no reason to limit the opportunity to pre-intercourse times. Particularly not when a fetus has limited legal rights in our society. How can it be too late, for a fetus that the mother can still choose to terminate?
quote:
quote:
Their should always be a presumption that being willing to accept the obligations is enough to establish.
Enough to establish what? Investment in the child's well-being and shared custody? Hell no.
You seem fixated on an investment standard. It doesn't have to establish that they meet your idealized standard of what a father must be. It's enough to establish that they are stepping to the plate on the legal obligations of parenting (which is pretty much the legitimate bounds of the state's interest). As such it's enough to establish a rebuttable presumption in their favor.

Honestly, if they stepped forward to the extent you've stated the presumption shouldn't be rebuttable any more, at least not on grounds of fitness as a parent.

You know as well as I do, that if we accepted the standard you ask for, the state would have no burden to meet to strip a father of his rights, and it would be a guilty till proven innocent situation (with the acceptable burden of proof being close to unmeetable against an actively hostile mother).
quote:
And if you think the topic is something else, then you aren't addressing either Pyr or myself.
I think the topic is about whether a law is grossly unfair, it is. Pyr is arguing about social engineering a better solution. You and I at least seem to be arguing about what the correct standards shoudl be. Though I admit, I think it's unlikely we're going to find common ground, and given the irrevocable harms to the father this rule would entail I think it's grossly unfair to hold to the position you have.

I mean honestly, you almost have to presume that the state will fail to be willing to deny the father due process.
quote:
You might be arguing with LR, who speaks of it in terms of a presumption of unfitness. And I'm not certain LR's wrong there, but my own argument focuses on an univested sperm donor not being a parent in any sense that the law should recognize for purposes of establishing parenthood and custody over the rights of another.
As far as the current law, you might as well argue that water isn't wet. Biology has a standing, I'm sure you're aware of that. I don't see any rationale that explains why its a good thing to give to the state the power to terminate biological relationships without due process or cause. That's evocative of the worst types of futures imaginable.

Really its not a great step from requiring a bio-dad meet an absurd level of proof to requiring any bio-parents do so.
quote:
quote:
I agree, but I don't think the state should be ESTABLISHING the rights of a noncustodial bioparent without cause.

-------
See I think this as a default rule is inherently unfair and subject to abuse.

Unfair how? Violating rights of life, liberty, or property?
As a gross accretion of power to the state that it's not assigned. Show me where our limited governments were granted the power to sever a parent-child relationship? The authority they are granted is derivative of the child's rights as a citizen, and the state's specific rationale is that it's acting in the best interests of the child.

Even if you want to make the argument that the best interests is not with the bio-dad, that's not something that you can do without requiring the state to prove it.
quote:
quote:
What stops a state from being arbitrary? Like I said, being willing to provide support ought to be sufficient to meet this threshhold.
Like I said, your argument fails because you fail to identify WHICH threshold. The threshold for competence, sure, but that mere competence doesn't grant you rights to any particular child, and my contention and Pyr's, is that genetics don't do that on their own.
The threshhold that puts the burden on the state to show unfitness. Thought that was actually clear though. It's not enough to show adoptive parents would be better, it's not enough to show a mother doesn't like a father, you have to show the father is unfit, or else you've accretted to the state an authority it was never granted to sever a parent-child bond without cause.
quote:
quote:
And in any event, Utah's policy is inadequate to even meet this measure
What measure? Genetic rights? Hasn't been shown that they exist.
Due process. Utah's laws provide for a perfunctory process, which means even they acknowledge there is a right of some sort to be heard. You might have a stronger case for your point of view if they didn't even pay lip service, but with them doing so it completely undermines your position.
quote:
quote:
when it deliberately forecloses a reasonable time frame for a father to try and make this showing.
What showing?
Willingness to accept the obligations of being a father.
quote:
quote:
I don't see any rationale reason to support such a rapid foreclosure where there may not even be notice.
The rationale is to attract women and adoptive parents to the table.
Which itself serves no compelling state purpose. And convenience is poor cause for violating another parties rights.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If an egg donating woman claims custody over the birth mother, I would ask that she show facts that she wasn't a mere egg donor rather than someone with an agreement establishing motherhood. Same with a sperm donor.
Contract.
Contract my ass.
I misread you on this one. I do think its rationale for people to eliminate egg donor's rights pre-emptively, but I would expect courts to come out on the side of the birth parents who were intending to raise the child and foreclose the donor's rights in these circumstances.

What I was actually responding to was the inverse relationship, where the people who want the child are the ones who can't carry to term. And those cases should allow for contracting solutions. If that doesn't clarify it for you Pete let me know, I concur that allowing a knowing egg donor or sperm donor rights would not be the correct result, I dispute the idea however that willing participants in intercourse are equivalent of egg and sperm donors.
quote:
quote:
Grown ups engaging in donation situations should be able to provide for these rights ahead of time, and any prudent person was.
That's a bit cold blooded, Mr Calhoun, IF you refer to contracting away the surrogate's rights. [Big Grin]
I think you might react differently on this in light of the clarification above. But to be clear. I think that sperm donor's and egg donor's rights should be fully terminable by contract ahead of time. I think that surrogate mother's rights where they are not biologically related to the fetus should be terminable completely ahead of time, though any provisions that even purport to impact the woman's rights to control her own body including denying abortion or requiring abortion should be void as a matter of public policy. And a surrogate's rights, where she is donating her own egg would not be fully terminable until after birth.
quote:
quote:
It's my view that sperm/egg donation contracts should be specifically enforceable in all states, and should be able to provide for termiantion of obligations and rights of the donor (notwithstanding the contrary views of certain courts).
Sperm and egg donation I agree, except for the all states matter; that's a federalism issue and I don't see a problem with diverse laws since the surrogate has power to move to any state that best enforces her rights against donors.
Which is grossly unfair. I think choice of law provisions in these contracts should be specifically enforceable, eliminating any incentive to move after the fact or forum shop. You can not have legitimate contracting where the rules of the game can be changed after signing, nor can you have a legitimate meeting of the minds in such a context.
quote:
quote:
Of course, I also think that they should be able to terminate the rights of a non-biologically related surrogate as well.
Abhorrent. You're talking about contracting a baby out of the arms of the only mother it's ever known.
Who could also cause that same fetus's termination almost immediately just before. Non-biological surrogates should as a default have no rights superior to the biological parents. This is an inherent good.
quote:
[snip more argument that fails to distinguish the fitness issue from the issue of rights to a specific child]
Lol, keep on whistling in the dark.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QB]
quote:
And like I explained to Pyrtolin, what you just described is the law of custody as applied to property, not people. The word is the same, but the terms and rules are not. In an actual parental context both parents have custodial rights as soon as the child is borne, in a property context its possession that is relevant.
Well no, Seriati. The law is what the law is in that particular jurisdiction. What Pyr was speaking of wasn't custody *rights* (which vary by jurisdiction), but actual physical custody. My ex and I have shared legal custody of our children, and shared physical custody rights, but at this moment, none of our children is in our actual physical custody; they are in school.
Not clear to me why you would say No Seri, then go on to re-emphasize there's a difference. My point is that Pyrtolin's arguments talk about physical custody and then pretend that parental custody is the same thing treatable in the same manner. Honestly, you could read Pyr's arguments to mean that the birthing nurse could sign the baby over to the adoptive parents while she's holding it.
quote:
In most jurisdictions, continued rights to physical and even legal custody are affected by the history of presence and actual physical custody. If one parent has had sole (actual) physical custody for an extended period of time, and the other parent has not visited or exercised custodial rights, then that other parent's rights may be restricted or terminated.
Which acknowledges they have rights, and acknowledges that they can be terminated for cause. I should point out though, that more than one parent has presumed that the other's continued absence would be controlling to the detriment of themselves and their child. Parents need to be responsible about making sure the protect their child's future, including where appropriate by seeking to terminate or limit the other parent's rights in court.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" How can it be too late, for a fetus that the mother can still choose to terminate? "

Because our society has taken great care to set things up so that folks with moral objection to abortion aren't coerced into participating in abortion. A woman with moral objection to abortion should be able to know prior to unprotected coitus that her hookup intends to use her like a baby farm.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You might be arguing with LR, who speaks of it in terms of a presumption of unfitness. And I'm not certain LR's wrong there, but my own argument focuses on an univested sperm donor not being a parent in any sense that the law should recognize for purposes of establishing parenthood and custody over the rights of another.----
-----------
As far as the current law, you might as well argue that water isn't wet. Biology has a standing, I'm sure you're aware of that.

And some states, but not others, distinguish the standing of mere GENETICS, as opposed to the biology involved in the gestation and birthing process. Even if you don't. I understand that legal arguments in court may make it convenient for one side to blur the lines and distinctions around the dispositive issues, but this is a discussion; let us be clear.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Honestly, you could read Pyr's arguments to mean that the birthing nurse could sign the baby over to the adoptive parents while she's holding it."

I was wondering why you said as soon as the child was "borne" rather than "born." was that a typo or are you envisioning rights that only kick in when the child is physically lifted? [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not clear to me why you would say No Seri, then go on to re-emphasize there's a difference. My point is that Pyrtolin's arguments talk about physical custody and then pretend that parental custody is the same thing treatable in the same manner. Honestly, you could read Pyr's arguments to mean that the birthing nurse could sign the baby over to the adoptive parents while she's holding it.
Technically she could, if there were not legal injunctions against doing so. Byu the time you got to the point in human development where birthing attendants that weren't already the child's de facto family/tribe were involved, there were already explicit agreements to the effect that that would not happen (or it was understood in the given culture that the woman in question that was giving birth did not actually have any entitlement to be the parent of the child)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's an english to legalese problem here.

When Seriati says custody he means rights to custody.

When Pyr says custody he means actual physical custody.

Just wanted to help you two understand one reason you're talking past each other.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I've telling Pyr that for pages at this point.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It matters because a natural right derives directly from an unforced natural freedom.

No it doesn't matter. The source of natural rights is always debatable, I'm not inclined to limit it to your own selfserving definition, particularly not when its over and under-inclusive.

Well we don't have much else to go with, since I've put forth a simple, consistent definition, that any given claim can be checked against, whereas you seem to use it to mean anything you feel like trying to assert is a right without needing to provide any justification for considering it to be one.

quote:
quote:
If doing something would have required using force on another person, then it cannot be classified as a natural right and is instead a legal entitlement.
Self defense is a natural right not a legal entitlement.

Self defense is also resisting the application of force by others, not the direct application of force. The degree to which we legally entitle people to apply force pre-emptively, on the other hand, as opposed to maintaining a least harm principle, is rather explicitly an entitlement that comes with various sets of legal parameters for when and how it can be applied based on which legal jurisdiction you happen to be in.

quote:
Survival is a natural right that may also involve force lethal or non-lethal.
In the absence of another human applying force to you, survival does not entail applying force to other humans,. And life is a right, survival is very actively not guaranteed or directly protected. Our public support system would have to be much more robust to even begin to pretend that we had a guarantee of survival to whatever extent it was humanly possible. The state cannot take life away from you without due process. It has no equivalent obligation to ensure that you survive, which would take positive action on its part whenever your life was in danger.

quote:
quote:
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These are all things that people have without forcing others to provide them for it.
Sometimes, it seems odd to claim that things that so many people have died for are free from the need to use force.
You confuse actions taken to protect natural access with the ability to access them in the absence of external force. People have died to defend the existence of a state that promises that it will not violate those basic freedoms, not in fighting some mystical force that prevents them for enjoying them in the absence of external force.

quote:
quote:
Taking custody of a child from someone unwilling to grant is is not something you can have without applying force,
I agree, which is why I do not condone as you do the state using force to take custody from the child's father, who is not willing to grant it.

That's a scenario which is not being discussed. In the headline ceremony the state took no custody at all- it was transferred directly to the adoptive parents and was never granted to the sire in the first place. In many, if most jurisdictions the sire has the legal entitlement to make a claim for custody, but it's outright false to say that he somehow has it until it has explicitly be granted to him. The sire has the legal power to take custody under certain conditions, but that does not mean that he has custody before he actively exercises that power.

quote:
quote:
but rather it is a legal entitlement to apply that force as needed to achieve that which you consider yourself entitled to.
Well it is true that the holders' of rights have a legal entitlement to call on the power of the state to enforce those rights. That's in large part exactly why we form state's in the first place, to protect the exercise of rights.

There are two kinds of rights- freedoms that the state guarantees not to take away (negative/natural rights) and entitlements to power or resources granted by the state (positive rights) allowing a person to take custody of a child from someone else is a grant of power- a positive right/entitlement, there is no natural, unforced freedom involved that the state is simply restricting itself from taking away

quote:
Which still helps your case not at all, since you still can't provide a rational basis for terminating the father's rights.

You have not provided a rational basis for providing such an entitlement aside from a cry of "tradition". How can you claim that something that is so completely unnatural- something that is explicitly a product of cultural values with no demonstrable rational basis- is a natural right? By nature, men don't even know taht there is a biological connection between themselves and their children, and rather bond as parents to those taht they are in proximity to as they are being raised. Any sense of biological entitlement can only come in the wake of discovering and understanding biological reproductive processes and in combination with a cultural assertion that it is important to give priority to direct biological inheritance.

What, specifically is it about genetic inheritance that makes you assert that there is something inherent in it to give it a greater claim than any other random person that wanders in and claims they would make a good parent? (Especially since it's something that has been impossible to actually verify outside of social contracts designed to create at least the illusion of exclusive breeding rights such that we can at least pretend that it is verified, and all our law very explicitly prioritized those contracts far above actual genetics, to the point where a non-genetic person legally identified as the father has to actively sign paperwork to even acknowledge a different biological sire exists)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
There's an english to legalese problem here.

When Seriati says custody he means rights to custody.

When Pyr says custody he means actual physical custody.

Indeed- that's why I've been trying very hard to remind him that I mean "actual physical custody" by using that explicit phrase every time he tries to blur the discussion away toward a strawman.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on a biological father's rights.

However, getting this back on topic to something I think we might be able to agree on.
Does everyone agree that it is unreasonable for Utah to refuse to overturn adoptions that are proven to be based on fraud or deceit? In this way children could be kidnapped and placed for adoption and the parents have no recourse...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An update on one of these cases, it looks promising. But this illustrates very clearly why the Utah law is pure evil. It supports fraud and deceit.
quote:

Army veteran Chris Carlton says even though he still does not know the whereabouts of his 4-year-old daughter, Tuesday was a good day.

"I'm very ecstatic," he told Fox News. "This is the happiest I've been in four years. It feels like it is justice slowly being served."

In an opinion handed down Tuesday by the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, the justices reversed part of a lower court's decision, giving Carlton more legal options in pursuing custody of his biological daughter who was put up for adoption without his knowledge.

In 2010 Carlton's pregnant girlfriend, Shalanda Brown, left Pennsylvania where they both lived, to secretly give birth to their child in Utah. According to court documents, she returned home, no longer pregnant, telling Carlton their baby was a boy and had died. Devastated, Carlton sued to find his son's burial site.

In court, Brown broke down and admitted their child was not only a girl, but very much alive. She had relinquished her parental rights and given the child up for adoption through the Adoption Center of Choice (ACC) in American Fork, Utah. She told ACC the father was abusive and refused to name him, so he didn't get notice. Carlton denies ever abusing Brown.

He has spent the last four years in court trying to get back the child, still trying to stop the adoption.

Carlton is currently a plaintiff in two separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Utah's Adoption Act. Specifically, at issue is the lack of protection it gives to unwed birth fathers who live both in and out of the state.

Most of the controversial provisions were passed in 1998 and signed by then Governor Mike Leavitt, including one granting mothers fraud immunity. The statute reads in part, "A fraudulent representation ... is not a basis for dismissal of a petition for adoption, vacation of an adoption decree, or an automatic grant of custody to the offended party. Custody determinations shall be based on the best interest of the child ..."

Essentially, if a birth mother lies about the reasons she is giving up a child for adoption and without the birth father's knowledge, that fraud is not legal basis to overturn the adoption. Carlton's attorney, Wes Hutchins says, "So we've created an environment in Utah, that incentivizes fraud to take place in the context of adoption."

Tuesday's ruling in Carlton's case may move things one step closer to making things right for an untold number of birth fathers across the country. Their unborn children have vanished as the birth mothers fled to Utah to take advantage of its forgiving adoption laws and give their babies away.

Part of the lower court's ruling against Carlton found that he did not have a claim as a parent under Utah's adoption laws. Utah's Supreme Court found that decision "erroneous."

Now it goes back to the district court to sort out the case. Carlton's suit claims his constitutional rights were violated by not only the birth mother and the Adoption Center of Choice, but also the adoptive family with whom his daughter lives.

Carlton is also party to a federal suit filed against the state by 12 fathers claiming Utah's adoption laws have violated their civil rights.

One of the agencies mentioned in the filing is the Adoption Center of Choice, which handled the adoption of Carlton's child. The ACC had its license revoked by the state on February 21.

The Division of Child and Family Services within the Utah Department Human Services now has legal custody of 13 children still in the process of being placed through ACC, though that number could grow.

According to the DHS, "The children are all over the place," and in homes around the country, while their cases are being settled through the state. A spokesperson says the "adoptions should not be disrupted, unless the child's safety is at risk."

While Carlton is comforted by his legal victory, it does not mean he will ever get his daughter back.

"This is one of the first hurdles that we have to overcome," said Carlton from his home in Williamsport, Penn. "Albeit, if I never do get my child, I am not going to stop the fight until people who are not affected by this law are outraged just as much as people who are."

As you can see from the bolded portions, this clearly illustrates the problem. A law that codifies fraud as a legitimate tactic to steal children is dangerous, evil and unconstitutional.

This law would essentially allow a woman to travel to Utah, birth the child, lie to put the kid up for adoption, and then the adoption can never be reversed.

Think about that for a second.

[ February 25, 2014, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't see any evidence for that article that fraud was ever proven there, if anything there's a bit of evidence that he's absolutely willing to legally bully her to get what he wants.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NB - I was reminded of this thread as I was perusing the employee benefits for the partner's new job (w00t). In the benefits documentation they take the trouble of defining fatherhood for their own purposes:

quote:
Father – a male who is legally responsible for child rearing as a parent.
They also define

quote:
Mother - a female who is legally responsible for child rearing as a parent.

Birth mother – a female who gives birth to a child.


Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on a biological father's rights.

However, getting this back on topic to something I think we might be able to agree on.
Does everyone agree that it is unreasonable for Utah to refuse to overturn adoptions that are proven to be based on fraud or deceit? In this way children could be kidnapped and placed for adoption and the parents have no recourse...

As we discussed earlier, according to the statutes you cited here as well, Washington also refuses to overturn adoptions proven to be based on fraud and/or deceit. You acknowledged this, but said that Utah's statute of limitations was shorter than Washington's, which it is.

In the case I personally witnessed (a district level case so there is no appellate record of it; please don't ask yet another time for it) the police, social worker, etc. actually collaborated in the fraud, taking the kids based on criminal charges which were never filed. It's been over a year and the parents will never get their kids back, even if they prove fraud. Hell, they'd be glad just to have visitation rights with their kids. When I visted the kids, they kept asking why isn't daddy and mom visiting or calling us, poor kids weren't even told that their parents were prevented by the court from calling and had the impression they were just too busy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on a biological father's rights.

However, getting this back on topic to something I think we might be able to agree on.
Does everyone agree that it is unreasonable for Utah to refuse to overturn adoptions that are proven to be based on fraud or deceit? In this way children could be kidnapped and placed for adoption and the parents have no recourse...

As we discussed earlier, according to the statutes you cited here as well, Washington also refuses to overturn adoptions proven to be based on fraud and/or deceit. You acknowledged this, but said that Utah's statute of limitations was shorter than Washington's, which it is.

In the case I personally witnessed (a district level case so there is no appellate record of it; please don't ask yet another time for it) the police, social worker, etc. actually collaborated in the fraud, taking the kids based on criminal charges which were never filed. It's been over a year and the parents will never get their kids back, even if they prove fraud. Hell, they'd be glad just to have visitation rights with their kids. When I visted the kids, they kept asking why isn't daddy and mom visiting or calling us, poor kids weren't even told that their parents were prevented by the court from calling and had the impression they were just too busy.

Fine, I won't ask for it. But I will ask for record of a different one. If my state is institutionalizing fraud so blatantly as you claim it is, then it must have happened more than once. Provide proof or stop making that claim. I am getting tired of it.

As to this case, the mother LIED to Utah stating that the father was abusive when there was no proof of it. She also lied to the father in an attempt to stall him so he could not seek legal remedy in time. That is fraud.

Washington allows adoptions to be overturned if they are based on fraud and deceit. Utah does not. Simply stating that this is not the case does not refute all the links and citations that prove you wrong.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to this case, the mother LIED to Utah stating that the father was abusive when there was no proof of it.
What evidence do you have that she was lying to the state?

(The second was certainly a lie, but it was done in a completely private context, not a commercial one. There is no law against people lying to each other outside of a legal or commercial framework.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What evidence do you have that she was lying to the state?
It was slander/libel. She accused someone of a crime with the intent to use the state to deprive them of their rights when they had been committed of no crime.

quote:
(The second was certainly a lie, but it was done in a completely private context, not a commercial one. There is no law against people lying to each other outside of a legal or commercial framework.)
It was a lie to stall for time in order to deprive him of his rights.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
She accused someone of a crime with the intent to use the state to deprive them of their rights when they had been committed of no crime.
Who did she accuse? She didn't give a name at all.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The father of the child in order to avoid naming him.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on a biological father's rights.

However, getting this back on topic to something I think we might be able to agree on.
Does everyone agree that it is unreasonable for Utah to refuse to overturn adoptions that are proven to be based on fraud or deceit? In this way children could be kidnapped and placed for adoption and the parents have no recourse...

As we discussed earlier, according to the statutes you cited here as well, Washington also refuses to overturn adoptions proven to be based on fraud and/or deceit. You acknowledged this, but said that Utah's statute of limitations was shorter than Washington's, which it is.

In the case I personally witnessed (a district level case so there is no appellate record of it; please don't ask yet another time for it) the police, social worker, etc. actually collaborated in the fraud, taking the kids based on criminal charges which were never filed. It's been over a year and the parents will never get their kids back, even if they prove fraud. Hell, they'd be glad just to have visitation rights with their kids. When I visted the kids, they kept asking why isn't daddy and mom visiting or calling us, poor kids weren't even told that their parents were prevented by the court from calling and had the impression they were just too busy.

Fine, I won't ask for it. But I will ask for record of a different one. If my state is institutionalizing fraud so blatantly as you claim it is, then it must have happened more than once. Provide proof or stop making that claim. I am getting tired of it
No. I won't stop making the claim. I was there. I saw it. One of my sons underwent extensive therapy for the trauma of the cops barging on on the day of the funeral (the coroner said it was crib death) and taking the girls away. For years he had nightmares that the cops were going to come in our house and take him away.

I told you I was willing to give you the name and dates so you can look it up through the washington police system. So far I haven't seen an email from you. If you have any interest in this other than covering your state's sins, my offer remains open.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How can you slander someone if you go out of your way to avoid accusing them of anything? She didn't name him, or give any indication of his identity, even implicitly, so there functionally cannot have been any slander.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
How can you slander someone if you go out of your way to avoid accusing them of anything? She didn't name him, or give any indication of his identity, even implicitly, so there functionally cannot have been any slander.

He was harmed by her falsely stating he was abusive in order to avoid naming him and thus depriving him of his rights.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
How can you slander someone if you go out of your way to avoid accusing them of anything? She didn't name him, or give any indication of his identity, even implicitly, so there functionally cannot have been any slander.

He was harmed by her falsely stating he was abusive in order to avoid naming him and thus depriving him of his rights.
That's not slander. Slander involves a false injurious statement without privilege that damages someone's reputation.

Do you have evidence that she wasn't referring to someone else, and that there wasn't another putative father?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one is disputing that he was the father, including her...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No one is disputing that he was the father, including her...

That's after the fact. The statement itself was made in a context where there was a clear expectation that his identity would not be know and the comment it self would be protected by medical privacy rules.

Additionally, there has yet to be any proof offered that it was actually false which would be another prerequisite to actually calling it slander.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No one is disputing that he was the father, including her...

That's after the fact. The statement itself was made in a context where there was a clear expectation that his identity would not be know and the comment it self would be protected by medical privacy rules.

Additionally, there has yet to be any proof offered that it was actually false which would be another prerequisite to actually calling it slander.

Since when is accusing someone of a crime in order to deprive them of their rights protected medical information?

Since when do people need to prove they are innocent? You have to prove someone is guilty first...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Pete and Pyr, are you two really ok with this?

quote:
The statute reads in part, "A fraudulent representation ... is not a basis for dismissal of a petition for adoption, vacation of an adoption decree,

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No one is disputing that he was the father, including her...

Well there's been a medical test of that now. Back when she said the father was an abuser, there's no evidence she was sure who the father was, ergo no reasonable certainty that she lied. The person who she believed to be the father at the time of birth may very well have been an abuser.

FRAUD is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb). Deception requires knowing falsehood, which you have not shown. You also haven't shown any unfair or unlawful gain.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So Pete and Pyr, are you two really ok with this?

quote:
The statute reads in part, "A fraudulent representation ... is not a basis for dismissal of a petition for adoption, vacation of an adoption decree,

For the third time, I'm simply pointing out that the only difference between Utah and Washington on this point is the time that one has to undo an adoption based on fraud.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1