I'm not yelling at you, just trying to make my point with a certain degree of rigor. Anyway that post was directed at tallhappy (who was yelling, more or less) not you. I still don't see how being somewhat irresponsible in their early 20s permanently qualifies Gardner and Russini as "nuts and flakes." It's important not to confuse the legal issue of whether the adoption question was correctly decided with the issue of whether they did wrong in defying the adoption decision. We agree on the latter, but you seem to have misgivings on the former. You have yet to present evidence that this was an emotional, "liberal" decision on the part of the judges rather than a clear-cut case of who had the law on their side. Given that it went through two courts, that is what I'm going to believe until I see solid evidence otherwise. You seem to be presuming that there was an ironclad agreement and Gardner and Russini weaseled their way out of it somehow. In reality adoptions go through several stages and there are safeguards in the law to protect the rights of fathers and of vulnerable women. Pressure tactics do happen - why do you think the birthparents rights movement is so militant? You cannot dismiss this point as "emotional blahblahblah" unless you have the court documents at hand and can show me where emotions trumped law. And I just totally fail to see how having a child out of wedlock, which millions of people do every day, makes them so much worse than the couple who conspired to transport a child across state lines, commit identity fraud, and lie to him about his origins for 20 years. Kidnapping is a legal technical term and what they did fits the bill.
I'm not yelling at you, just trying to make my point with a certain degree of rigor.Hey, I like that! I'm going to borrow it next time I get into a shouting match with someone.
I still don't see how being somewhat irresponsible in their early 20s permanently qualifies Gardner and Russini as "nuts and flakes."
I dunno, ask the government how they can go after John Walker Lindh. He fits your description.
It's important not to confuse the legal issue of whether the adoption question was correctly decided with the issue of whether they did wrong in defying the adoption decision.
COMPLETELY AGREE. Much as I might hate it on moral grounds, legally, as I said, I don't see how the Smileys' guilt can be any clearer. In fact, if they were acquitted based on the fact that "all's well that ends well," I'd be even more incensed.
But I have to shake my head at the *stoopid* legal system (this IS the state of NY, after all) that allows a broadcast-sperm donor like this Russini guy to put the brakes on an adoption.
I do NOT agree that "biology is all," and to me the antiquated legal thinking that allows incidents like this has NEVER caught up to the reality of a morally-bankrupt society like ours has become.