[Harmless Teddy Bear]

“Why would Facebook be any less reliable than other forms of electronic communication?” wrote Justice James Winchester in a dissenting opinion joined by two other justices. “Does the Court require a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses? Face-to-face discussions can be denied; letters can remain unopened; and faxes can be lost.”

Sorry, I usually agree with you but in this case I agree with the dissenting judges. He was informed.

And what is he planing on doing now?

Take the child and raise her?

She is two and has been in a settled home since birth.

I would be against taking the child away from her parents at this point.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Facebook has never yet been a means of legal notice, because there isn’t any permanent record, and odds are he was blocking the harridan. Getting a reply back from him on Facebook would be the only way to demonstrate constructive notice actually happened. No reply, no proof.

Damages can still be assessed even if the child is left in its current situation (and no caviling about its, please).

If law is to underline moral duty and not just to be Calvinball to be played at people’s pleasure, then it should be respected.

[TexasGator]

“He was informed.”

How do you know? Did you talk to him?

[Drew68]

She is two and has been in a settled home since birth.

I would be against taking the child away from her parents at this point.

I agree. I'm not sure what this guy is trying to accomplish here. Better at this point to leave the girl with the parents who adopted her. And I don't believe for a second he didn't read his Facebook message.