Replies

"Against the wishes of the natural parent?" Being a biological parent does not automatically bestow the superior qualifications for parenting. If I am not mistaken there was a battery of pschological testing, witnesses, etc., which went into the selection of which parent would provide the healthier life for the kids. It boils down to excluding BOTH parents because of their sexual choices or selecting the one which would provide more consistant love and caring. I honestly don't know where you are coming from. The sexual orientation of either parent is certainly not traditional. One is no worse nor better than the other if we stand them both up against the heterosexual ideal. Both fail miserably in that comparison. Should we place the kids with heeterosexual strangers? Or do we place them with the more stable, less hysterical adult who 'played' the part of parent for their entire life? It IS a tough case. A super tough job for the judge.

It's not hard to see where I'm coming from unless you're determined not to look. You said "There are certainly plenty of cases of people who are not biological parents adopting children" and I pointed out that that is only done when the natural parents are dead, have voluntarily surrendered their parental rights, or have had those rights terminated. There is no other basis for simply GIVING one person's children away forever to someone who isn't related to them.

That isn't the case here. How did the judge justify allowing those children to be adopted against the mother's wishes? Did he terminate her parental rights or not?

Those children were not "adopted" during the marriage. The judge allowed the "father" woman to "adopt" them this February, five years after the marriage broke up. I can only assume this was over the objections of the natural mother. Who the hell is the judge to do this?

And you never answered my question about what made the natural mother a less fit parent. You watched the trial, surely you can tell me something as simple as what made her less fit? All you've mentioned is "hysterical and unstable", and boy, I would be too if I had to deal with this judge's warped viewpoint during a custody battle. Sorry, you'll have to give me a better reason than that, and better than "it's for the children", too.

Are you really so willing to submit to rule-by-judge?