Replies

" 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.

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.

So it's okay with you if the judge just "assigns" 'fathership' to someone over the wishes of the mother, who's done nothing to have her parental rights terminated. You can't tell me by what RIGHT he does this, can you? But as long as he thinks it's "fair" it's okay with you.

As both individuals had been parenting these kids for their entire life, I think the judge wanted to provide continuity for the kids

Weren't they with the mother for five years after the father left? If the judge was worried about continuity, he would have left them with her. And where does he get off "assigning" custody of a teenager away from his natural mother and onto a person who isn't even remotely related biologically? He is basically saying "I have decided YOU are this boy's father (even though you're a woman), you can adopt him whether the mother wishes it or not, and by the way, you get custody of him too." The parental rights of convicted murderers get more respect.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question. What made the mother less fit? A shrill voice on television?

What makes you assume the judge was thinking of the children rather than a ground-breaking legal precedent?