Replies

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?

" How did the judge justify allowing those children to be adopted against the mother's wishes? Did he terminate her parental rights or not? "

I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that he did not terminate her rights, allowed the father legal 'fathership' and custody, with visitation rights to the mother. I am only guessing. As both individuals had been parenting these kids for their entire life, I think the judge wanted to provide continuity for the kids. He side stepped the sexual orientation of either parent as to pertinance and set up the situation so that the 'father' could be the custodial parent. I assume he did this based on the results of the evaluations and testing, etc. of both Linda and Michael AND the kids. In this case, I think the judge focused on the welfare of the kids and that to me is the most important issue.

Michael seemed rooted in supportive extended family (siblings, parents), had a history of stable employment, was respected and liked by his community and work environmnet....was never shrill or tawdry in his presentation. The kids seemed to care for him a great deal...in spite of Michael's identity situation, he seemed the more 'grounded' in traditional values..but then that is my personal opinion, and of course it may be faulty. Toss out the sexual orientation complication, evaluate what you could observe and know from the trial....and that is what I came up with.