Posted on 05/22/2006 10:06:40 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON
For the second time, the Supreme Court on Monday shied away from getting involved in a child custody fight between a San Diego woman and her former lesbian partner.
The birth mother, known as Sharon S., is trying to prevent her former partner from adopting one of the two children the women were raising together.
Sharon S. and her partner Annette F. separated after an incident of domestic violence that Sharon blames on Annette.
The California Supreme Court rejected the attempt by Sharon to prevent the adoption, which she consented to by signing an adoption petition in August 1999. The following July with the lengthy adoption process still pending, Annette struck Sharon in the face, injuring her, it was asserted in the case. This prompted Sharon to request dismissal of the adoption petition.
The U.S. Supreme Court had declined the case in March 2004 without comment. Sharon argued that her constitutional rights would be violated if an unrelated person were allowed to adopt her child over her objections.
In a response to Sharon's latest petition for U.S. Supreme Court review, lawyers for Annette said that Sharon's main argument is identical to the one made in her last petition.
"In California, adoptions are founded on the consent of birth parents. ... Sharon consented," Annette's lawyers stated.
The case is Sharon S. v. Annette F., 05-1313.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
""In California, adoptions are founded on the consent of birth parents. ... Sharon consented," Annette's lawyers stated."
It appears that consent has been withdrawn.
Precisely. And with good cause. But if the law is unclear about consent being withdrawn, I suppose the SCOTUS had no authority to set it straight.
The Roberts court is sitting tight until fall. Then come the big decisions.
If it were a man that hit his "straight partner" this would have been finished long ago. Only on the Left Coast.
For some reason, I find this really kind of revolting. Does anyone care about the children? Or are they too busy with their lover's spat to do anything more than use them as pawns?
These people are too immature themselves to be raising children, IMHO.
If they were straight would their full names be used in reporting on the case before the Court?
"If they were straight would their full names be used in reporting on the case before the Court?"
Probably not, unless they were already famous. This is done to preserve the anonymity of the child(ren).
so now it goes back and is litigated based on the consent.
This is another reason to not allow mere sex partner adoptions.
ALL: remember this adoption standing is just based on the recreational sex between these two women. period.
More on the homosexual adoption issue RE: the Supreme Court did not get involved in a case...
I wonder if Divorced fathers would get this much support? Especially with an allegation of abuse.
Though she signed the form in 1999, I'd like to know when she changed her mind due to the alleged abuse. That would make a difference to me. If it hadn't been finalized, then I say she should be able to withdrawal consent.
You realize, of course, that infertile heterosexual couples can only engage in "recreational sex" as well, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.