"Sal, as far as I'm aware, until the final papers are signed, a prospective birth mother in most open adoptions has every right to discontinue her interest in a particular agency." Agency? Or family? Which did the young mother decide against? You appear to know more about this than you let on; please, enlighten us. "You seem to be suggesting that this baby's birth family has done something illegal or attempted to do something illegal." This is entirely possible, based on what I've read on this thread, and based on the original thread on TB2000. "If this is what you're saying, then what law do you suggest that they have broken, exactly?" Don't know the laws of the state the mother is in; I can say that a hustled-up adoption (as in: "we need to get the child into a good home NOW") brings Family and Child Services down like hawks in my state, if they get wind of it. My state takes a very dim view of people who perform speedy open adoptions and don't bother to advise the state of what's going on. "If they broke a contract with the agency, then the agency would be taking action against them. There's no mention of any such problem in the update someone provided earlier on this thread." Given that no one from the agency is posting here, I wouldn't expect to *see* such a post here, would you? "This family didn't "circumvent" the process, as you say." Based on what's been said on this thread, including your posts, I think they may very well have circumvented the process. If you know more, I'm certainly willing to hear about it. "The process allowed for them to have approval of the adoptive family. The prospective adoptive family did not meet the standards of the birth family. The expectant birth mother pulled out of the deal exactly according to the provisions of her arrangement with the agency as far as I can tell." Did the mother make that decision, or did her family make that decision for her? Perhaps someone here can get the young mother to come forward and remove questions from our mind. My legal objection is not that the arrangement was cancelled, but rather what apparently happened *after* the arrangement was cancelled. Once again, you sound as if you are very close to this series of events. If so, then I'd greatly appreciate some further information from you. "You seem to think that adoptions may only happen with the use of some government-approved agent when you say "You perform adoptions within channels or you do not perform them at all." Oh, really?? Perhaps you've never heard of private adoption." I know very well what private adoption is. Perhaps you are unaware that the state has a role, even in private adoptions. You do not mean to suggest that people can pass babies around, totally out of the sight of child welfare agencies, do you? I do not "think" that adoptions happen only with government approval. I "know" that it is illegal for adoptions to happen without government *knowledge.* There are "channels" to use, regardless of the type of adoption being sought. "You keep referring to an illegal adoption. What illegal adoption are you talking about? What is it about the possible future adoption that seemed to you would be illegal?" Halting a legal adoption proceeding, based on the flimsy reasons you have brought forth, then moving forward with some sort of pseudo- foster custody, in the belief that "a legal adoption could be done after the rollover." That's illegal, Dancr. You do not perform any sort of custody transfer -- certainly not "adoption" of a child -- without the knowledge of the state. Do you not understand that? Any adoption must be done legally, regardless of the family's Y2K beliefs. Tell me, did the mother's family anticipate serious problems at the rollover? If so, then that might be evidence that they did not believe that a legal adoption WOULD be possible, and were, therefore, circumventing legal procedure. In fact, depending on the laws of the mother's home state, that could constitute prima facie evidence. "You say that whether or not the prospective adoptive family had prepared does not enter into what you call "the legal argument." To what "legal argument" do you refer?" Whether the reasons involved in circumventing the legal adoption process were legal or not. We have already established that the actions involved in such circumvention were possibly illegal. If the mother got cold feet, that's one thing. If she believed (or her family pressured her to believe) that a legal adoption was not possible before (or especially after) the rollover, that's something else entirely. The prospective adoptive family might, under state law, have cause for legal action, though I doubt they'd proceed. "You confuse "not having needed extra-ordinary preparations for the rollover" with "having been prepared for the potential of needing such preparations." You seem to think that matters at all in the legal picture of things. It does not. In any event, the prospective adoptive parents *were* "prepared" for the rollover, regardless of your specious "potential" argument. "Apparently, the birth family would not have been considering giving the baby up for adoption in the first place except for the fact that they considered themselves inadequate to the financial burden of additional preparations for the baby. The fact is that the prospective adoptive family understood the birth mother's concern about the potential for disruptions, and lied to her about having already prepared for the baby." What did they *say* to the mother/mother's family? You give the distinct impression of knowing far more about this (or being much closer to the matter) than you let on. Further, I personally think all this talk about "the family was in a big hurry to get the child adopted" is rather foolish. Didn't the family *know* that the young lady was pregnant? Seems to me that would have been a signal to get moving with an adoption before the child was born, if adoption was indeed their intent. "Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant." Not in a court's view. I'd have no problem arguing the point and making it stick before a judge in my state; perhaps just as easy in the mother's state, too, depending on the laws there. "It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours." I didn't say it was my decision to make. However, courts can and *do* make these sorts of choices. Bear that in mind, won't you? "You say that prospective adoptive families need not prove that they adhere to some unusual beliefs of a birth family. As a matter of fact, though, in an open adoption, they may need to." So tell me, Dancr -- did the mother's family tell the state that they planned to transfer custody to Mr. Olson before or after the fact? Or did they bother to clue the state in at all? "The way it works is, if I want, I can specify that I want my child to go to nudist atheist vegetarians on a secluded self-sufficient farm, who are committed to not vaccinating for childhood illnesses, already homeschooling other children, and agree to allow me quarterly visitations. Good luck meeting my criteria. But if you don't meet them, you can't call some adoption police and whine that my criteria are unreasonable. You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about." You are correct to a point. However, if agencies can't place a child according to a family's wishes, they'll look for any qualified family that can provide care and support for the child. And if you're that picky, then obviously you're not in a hurry, as the mother's family claimed. Awfully hard to be choosy *and* in a hurry, don't you think? -- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 10, 2000. From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California Have you tried a decaffeinated coffee? -- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000 LINK TO DENNIS J. VICTIM's FAVORITE THREAD
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002vIu []

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), April 10, 2000

Answers

I see we have to re-post Cut and Pastes with HTML now:

"Sal, as far as I'm aware, until the final papers are signed, a prospective birth mother in most open adoptions has every right to discontinue her interest in a particular agency." Agency? Or family? Which did the young mother decide against? You appear to know more about this than you let on; please, enlighten us.

"You seem to be suggesting that this baby's birth family has done something illegal or attempted to do something illegal." This is entirely possible, based on what I've read on this thread, and based on the original thread on TB2000.

"If this is what you're saying, then what law do you suggest that they have broken, exactly?" Don't know the laws of the state the mother is in; I can say that a hustled-up adoption (as in: "we need to get the child into a good home NOW") brings Family and Child Services down like hawks in my state, if they get wind of it. My state takes a very dim view of people who perform speedy open adoptions and don't bother to advise the state of what's going on. "If they broke a contract with the agency, then the agency would be taking action against them. There's no mention of any such problem in the update someone provided earlier on this thread." Given that no one from the agency is posting here, I wouldn't expect to *see* such a post here, would you? "This family didn't "circumvent" the process, as you say." Based on what's been said on this thread, including your posts, I think they may very well have circumvented the process. If you know more, I'm certainly willing to hear about it.

"The process allowed for them to have approval of the adoptive family. The prospective adoptive family did not meet the standards of the birth family. The expectant birth mother pulled out of the deal exactly according to the provisions of her arrangement with the agency as far as I can tell."

Did the mother make that decision, or did her family make that decision for her? Perhaps someone here can get the young mother to come forward and remove questions from our mind. My legal objection is not that the arrangement was cancelled, but rather what apparently happened *after* the arrangement was cancelled. Once again, you sound as if you are very close to this series of events. If so, then I'd greatly appreciate some further information from you.

"You seem to think that adoptions may only happen with the use of some government-approved agent when you say "You perform adoptions within channels or you do not perform them at all." Oh, really?? Perhaps you've never heard of private adoption."

I know very well what private adoption is. Perhaps you are unaware that the state has a role, even in private adoptions. You do not mean to suggest that people can pass babies around, totally out of the sight of child welfare agencies, do you?

I do not "think" that adoptions happen only with government approval. I "know" that it is illegal for adoptions to happen without government *knowledge.* There are "channels" to use, regardless of the type of adoption being sought.

"You keep referring to an illegal adoption. What illegal adoption are you talking about? What is it about the possible future adoption that seemed to you would be illegal?"

Halting a legal adoption proceeding, based on the flimsy reasons you have brought forth, then moving forward with some sort of pseudo- foster custody, in the belief that "a legal adoption could be done after the rollover." That's illegal, Dancr. You do not perform any sort of custody transfer -- certainly not "adoption" of a child -- without the knowledge of the state. Do you not understand that?

Any adoption must be done legally, regardless of the family's Y2K beliefs. Tell me, did the mother's family anticipate serious problems at the rollover? If so, then that might be evidence that they did not believe that a legal adoption WOULD be possible, and were, therefore, circumventing legal procedure. In fact, depending on the laws of the mother's home state, that could constitute prima facie evidence.

"You say that whether or not the prospective adoptive family had prepared does not enter into what you call "the legal argument." To what "legal argument" do you refer?"

Whether the reasons involved in circumventing the legal adoption process were legal or not. We have already established that the actions involved in such circumvention were possibly illegal. If the mother got cold feet, that's one thing. If she believed (or her family pressured her to believe) that a legal adoption was not possible before (or especially after) the rollover, that's something else entirely. The prospective adoptive family might, under state law, have cause for legal action, though I doubt they'd proceed.

"You confuse "not having needed extra-ordinary preparations for the rollover" with "having been prepared for the potential of needing such preparations."

You seem to think that matters at all in the legal picture of things. It does not. In any event, the prospective adoptive parents *were* "prepared" for the rollover, regardless of your specious "potential" argument.

"Apparently, the birth family would not have been considering giving the baby up for adoption in the first place except for the fact that they considered themselves inadequate to the financial burden of additional preparations for the baby. The fact is that the prospective adoptive family understood the birth mother's concern about the potential for disruptions, and lied to her about having already prepared for the baby."

What did they *say* to the mother/mother's family? You give the distinct impression of knowing far more about this (or being much closer to the matter) than you let on. Further, I personally think all this talk about "the family was in a big hurry to get the child adopted" is rather foolish. Didn't the family *know* that the young lady was pregnant? Seems to me that would have been a signal to get moving with an adoption before the child was born, if adoption was indeed their intent.

"Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant." Not in a court's view. I'd have no problem arguing the point and making it stick before a judge in my state; perhaps just as easy in the mother's state, too, depending on the laws there.

"It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours."

I didn't say it was my decision to make. However, courts can and *do* make these sorts of choices. Bear that in mind, won't you?

"You say that prospective adoptive families need not prove that they adhere to some unusual beliefs of a birth family. As a matter of fact, though, in an open adoption, they may need to."

So tell me, Dancr -- did the mother's family tell the state that they planned to transfer custody to Mr. Olson before or after the fact? Or did they bother to clue the state in at all?

"The way it works is, if I want, I can specify that I want my child to go to nudist atheist vegetarians on a secluded self-sufficient farm, who are committed to not vaccinating for childhood illnesses, already homeschooling other children, and agree to allow me quarterly visitations. Good luck meeting my criteria. But if you don't meet them, you can't call some adoption police and whine that my criteria are unreasonable. You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about."

You are correct to a point. However, if agencies can't place a child according to a family's wishes, they'll look for any qualified family that can provide care and support for the child. And if you're that picky, then obviously you're not in a hurry, as the mother's family claimed. Awfully hard to be choosy *and* in a hurry, don't you think?

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 10, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California Have you tried a decaffeinated coffee?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000

LINK TO DENNIS J. VICTIM's FAVORITE THREAD

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002vIu

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), April 10, 2000.

A series of civil posts, maybe, but the only "sensible" conclusion made from these is that there is not enough verifibale information in any previous posts to conclude anything. So unless there are alterior motives involved, i.e. "Get Dennis," this is a dead issue.

-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 10, 2000.