As far as I know regarding Florida law, a parent can never disown an adopted child of inheritance, while a blood child can be!??!
Well yeah pretty much. A bood child is basically disowned by his own parents at the time of his adoption when they sign the papers to give him/her over to someone else.
As far as I know when a child is adopted, the birth (blood) parents relinquish all rights, inheritances, and otherwise and then sign everything (rights, privileges, etc. etc.) over to the adoptive parents. The birth (blood) bc's are amended and the originals locked away and sealed with any other petinent biological parentage information. That child becomes a child of the adoptive parents and attains to all the adoptive parents inheritances, etc. This may not seem fair to the child but it is what it is.
Now normally citizenship isn't an issue when adoptees are adopted by parents of the same nationality and citizenship of the biological parents. But in recent years with increasing adoptions of infants from foreign countries, and foreigners adopting the children of American citizens we're starting to see a new wrench thrown in regarding citizenship that the courts have really not yet addressed IMO.
Were an adopted child to run for POTUS, he couldn't get his original sealed bc even with an executive order. He's the one person who can never access those files! Until or unless the laws are changed. IMO this may well be the case with Obama, his Hawaiian bc (IF truly born there) would have been sealed when his adoption by Soetoro took place and then was amended. The one thing I do know is that the COLB he posted is fake. So 1) he wasn't born in hawaii, or 2) he can't access the original and can't use the amended one. Its also my opinion that an adopted child should never be eligible for POTUS due to the strict 'natural born' requirement. Until laws are changed the true 'natural born' status of any adoptee is unknown because those records were sealed at the time of the adoption. But that's just me, the courts really have not addressed this.
I have dealt with a lot of adoptive women who tried to get in the D.A.R. with all the ties to their adoptive parents only to get turned down due to lack of 'blood' ties which is what is required. The birth certificates they initially attempted to use for admittance into the organization records the names of their adoptive parents, not the biological ones. But it usually will also record the adoption somewhere, and also note the date when the bc was amended, etc. which is how we in the D.A.R. would be able to recognize a non-blood tie. This has led to battles to unseal the adoptive records and find out what the applicant's lineage is biologically, most of which always fail, again until the laws are changed. Unfair to the adoptive child? You betcha, but it still is what it is until laws are changed.
Now think about this scenario: Suppose Bin Laden were to somehow with our idiot government loons in charge able to adopt the child of 2 American citizens born on American soil. Now we would say biologically that child is certainly a natural born American citizen and entitled to all the privileges thereof correct? But now think about this: This child as an infant has been removed from America, taken to whereever Bin Laden's cave is and raised there for 20 years. Indoctrinated into all the horrific tenants of radical Islam and hatred of America, etc. etc. He knows nothing of his biological parents, and nothing but hatred for the land of his birth is all he knows. He returns to the USA as a young adult, given a college education etc. etc. fulfills the residency requirements, etc. etc. Now would you really want him to be eligible for POTUS???
Adoptions have thrown in another whole new can of worms regarding elibility that the courts really do need to address.