Skip to comments.
US married father's horror after wife places his child with an adopted family without telling him
Daily Mail [UK] ^
| 3 December 2012
| Nina Golgowski
Posted on 12/04/2012 12:24:52 PM PST by Slings and Arrows
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
Words fail me.
To: Slings and Arrows
Family courts in this country are just completely out of control.
2
posted on
12/04/2012 12:26:58 PM PST
by
FreedomPoster
(Islam delenda est)
To: FreedomPoster
Does he have to pay them Child Support?
3
posted on
12/04/2012 12:31:45 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: Slings and Arrows
Hmm, I know for a fact that in Texas both the biological mother, the biological father, the legally married husband, and the legally married wife all need to legally sign away their rights to the child. The mother can’t do it on her own.
4
posted on
12/04/2012 12:33:16 PM PST
by
bgill
(We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
To: FreedomPoster
21 months the baby has bonded with the new parents. He needs to move on, it really is sad, but the damage of taking a little one away from the bonded parents is very devastating... The child´s rights at this time are greater than the sire´s right.
To: Slings and Arrows
6
posted on
12/04/2012 12:35:57 PM PST
by
MAexile
(Bats left, votes right)
To: FreedomPoster
There is something seriously wrong with a system which doesn't question the ability of one spouse to sign away a piece of community property without written consent of the other. Had the husband done this with, say, the family car, there would be hell to pay.
This is the purpose of redefining marriage to include queers: so children become nothing more than chattel to satisfy the "needs" of adults.
7
posted on
12/04/2012 12:35:57 PM PST
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: Slings and Arrows
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
To: bgill
Article goes into more detail.
9
posted on
12/04/2012 12:36:07 PM PST
by
Slings and Arrows
(You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
To: Slings and Arrows
Achane!? Bland!? Married!?
NOT making much sense here. I thought when people got married the husbands name was now the wifes as well.
Curious.
10
posted on
12/04/2012 12:36:22 PM PST
by
rockinqsranch
(Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
To: Slings and Arrows
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
To: Slings and Arrows
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
To: Slings and Arrows
In another article, I read that, yesterday, a judge ordered that the child be returned to her father.
To: Slings and Arrows
These Frei people do not look very good, if this article is at all accurate.
To: Slings and Arrows
Pardon the multiple postings.
To: Slings and Arrows
Doesn’t it seem like the U.K. press is breaking a lot of interesting stories the U.S. press is not? It was true during the campaign as well.
16
posted on
12/04/2012 12:39:59 PM PST
by
Perkalong
(GOP 2012 = Whigs 1856)
To: bgill
Hmm, I know for a fact that in Texas both the biological mother, the biological father, the legally married husband, and the legally married wife all need to legally sign away their rights to the child. The mother cant do it on her own.
I believe that Texas allows use of a web-based putative father registry (which NO ONE ever checks) with a defined time limit, after which no response is taken as consent. That would only be pertinent if there were no husband involved. There must have been some lying gong on somewhere.
17
posted on
12/04/2012 12:40:17 PM PST
by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: Slings and Arrows
His newborn baby, whom he had wanted to name Teleah ...If the poor little girl was given a sensible name by the adoptive parents, can she keep it?
18
posted on
12/04/2012 12:40:28 PM PST
by
Tax-chick
(Dan, is that your eyeball on the floor?)
To: rovenstinez
So a couple who defrauded the father and contumaciously ignored the court’s order has thereby bestowed new rights upon the child? Hardly.
To: Perkalong
Why the hell doesn’t our media pick these stories up? Something is rotten here, and it ain’t even partisan.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson