Should Parents Make Up For Adoption?

Mr. Simpson, a minor resident of California, is seeking to inherit from the estate of Mrs. Sweeney, decedent and resident of California at time of death, under the doctrine of equitable adoption. Mrs. Sweeney is the widow of Sam Sweeney (hereinafter called “Mr. Sweeney”), and the mother of Hannah Sweeney (hereinafter referred to as “Hannah”), the biological daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney (hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Sweeney’s”). Simpson interview, pg 3. In 2008, the Sweeney’s obtained formal custody of Mr. Simpson from the San Diego, Superior Court in California. Id. at 7. Mr. Simpson was eight at the time of obtaining custody. Id. at 4. The custody agreement awarded sole custody of Mr. Simpson to the Sweeney’s. During the time Mr. Sweeney was alive, Mrs. Sweeney attempted to talk Mr. Sweeney into formal adoption of Mr. Sweeney numerous time to no avail. Id. at 4. Mr. Sweeney did not believe in formal adoption of children, but nevertheless he continued to care for Mr. Simpson as he was his own child. Id. Mrs. Sweeney also spoke with an attorney about adoption while Mr. Sweeney was still alive. Id. at 5. During this time the Sweeney’s fed, clothed, and provided a home for Mr. Simpson without the financial support of others. Id. at 6. Mr. Simpson also went on vacations and took part in events, such as family pictures, that would form a familial relationship, and Mrs. Sweeney wore a “mothers ring” with Hannah’s and Mr.

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a

Should adopting a child be free? As a first response, many people would answer “Yes, adoption should be free,” arguing that there should not be a price tag on children, or that adoption is unreasonably expensive. Others may argue that “No, it should not be free,” because it may unknowingly put the adoptees at risk for danger, while the children are easily accessible. Adoptions were created to give children, whose biological parents could not care for them, a new and affectionate home, and for couples who wanted children, but could not have them biologically because of health reasons. Today, many people adopt children to add on to their family. With adoption being free, many “unfit” people would qualify to be

In this paragraph I’m going to explain what the Judicial Branch thinks about a mother aborting her child that hasn’t been born yet. The court has ruled that a woman can terminate her pregnancy whenever she feels like it’s necessary. Some may disagree with many of the women today that choose to abort a child, but when it comes to what the mother wants, the mother has the main decision over keeping her child or not. In the late 1900’s the Supreme Court

Similar cases occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s which ultimately resulted in the ICWA Act. In a similar situation a young man and woman had the same problem and the pregnant mother in question pursued the father to relinquish his rights (which he did) and the mother was cared for by the adoptive parents during her pregnancy (starting by the 4th month) until childbirth when the baby was legally adopted by the adoptive parents. Similar to this case which occurred in 2011 the young man in question did not agree that his daughter would be given up for adoption but only claimed that he had agreed to give up parental rights but the relationship of blood could not be terminated nor denied. In many of these cases from the era prior to ICWA the baby was taken from the adoptive parents and returned to her “rightful home since the relationship of parent could not be

The central issue upon which the Supreme Court based their decision was in regard to the best interests of the child. They looked closely at the nature v. nurture argument, ruling that her psychological parents, the Racine’s, were capable of providing a healthier environment than her biological mother, Mrs. Woods. When looking at this case from a solely legal perspective, it is clear that the Court made the correct choice, considering Mrs. Woods’ ongoing battle with substance abuse coupled with her abusive relationship. However, this case, as with many could not be looked at simply from a legal perspective. Complex cultural aspects are embedded within the case that had to be considered in order to properly gauge the decisions and the effects of that decision. In the past, children were automatically placed with their biological parents or relatives, which, was viewed as standard procedure within the legal framework. Societal norms have progressed in such a way that allow for a more activist

A decision announced in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court is still debated today. That decision is known as Roe vs Wade. The Court decided that a pregnant woman can have an abortion (during and up to the first trimester of the pregnancy) without any laws made by the state in which she resides. The woman, Norma McCovey became pregnant while living in Texas. Ms. McCovey had other children she was raising as a single mother. She could not legally have an abortion in Texas and got a lawyer to sure the state under the name of Jane Roe. This landmark case, Roe vs Wade, became the law of the land two years after her case was filed. The child she carried was put up for adoption. The Court, in a length ruling, said, in affect that the law concerning abortion was unconstitutional and void.

The other thing that is right in some ways is when the court gave the little girl back to the real parents, but it is also wrong because the little girl did not want to go back to her parents because she was with the foster parents since she was an infant. So it is going to be hard on the little girl to get to know her real parents when she was with the foster parents for 9 years.

In this one case alone we can track this incidence from the mother all the way to the role society played. First, the patient had three children from three different fathers, all of whom did not provide any support for her. The first father could have been written off as bad judgment, but to attempt to write off three would be an injustice to her. It is evident due to some emotional attachment to the idea of not wanting to be alone she was able to rationalize her decisions based on that concept. Because of self deception she refused to even entertain the thought of whether these man had any qualities that would make good fathers. Had she not refrained from making judgement on these man father the first father she would have been able to recognize the signs that this man might not make a good father in a nutshell she would have been able to learn from her prior mistakes. However, father she decides to better herself and her children we see society impede this improvement. After she is hospitalized, Social Services sent the two year old to live with his father whose daily routine consisted of a life of "drinking, whoring and fighting." Enlight of all the evidence pointing to a bad home situation Social Services stated "it was wrong to pass judgement on a man like this." The contradiction however is shown after the father and his girlfriend kill the two year old and as a result

April 12th of 1993, Sabrina and Bill Kavanaugh would soon adopt a newborn baby girl , Lauren, from Barbara Calhoun. Eight months into the adoption process, Barbara called the Kavanaughs, concerning Lauren. She wanted her back. Of course, Sabrina had every right to question why her birth mother wanted her back, but Calhoun was only agitated from the amount of money that was already spent on Lauren. The Kavanaughs’ lawyer unintentionally failed to file paperwork to contradict Barbara’s parental rights during the adoption process. The adoptive parents had no choice but to return Lauren back to her mother. (“Lauren Kavanaugh ‘Girl in the Closet’ Tortured and Raped”) Sabrina confessed that she knew Barbara was going to abuse her, but there was no way to prevent it. Through Lauren Kavanaugh’s six year battle of abuse, her case was one of the worst to come out alive.

The “Baby vs. Mom” case was about Angela Carter, who suffered a bad childhood. When she was 13 years old, she was diagnosed with bone cancer. From cancer, she went through multiple surgeries and received a bunch of different treatments. When she was 27 years old, she was pregnant while in a 3 year remission period for the bone cancer. When she went to a routine check up, the physician discovered a tumor in her lungs and was admitted to George Washington Hospital. Even against Angela and her family’s, and the physician’s opposition, the hospital decided to try to save the child. During the court case against the hospital, the physician stated that “despite the feet that the fetus was only twenty-six weeks old, there was a fifty to sixty

There is a lot of information available about adoption. It’s not difficult to find information on how to help an adopted child assimilate into a new home, how to manage interstate adoption, who to talk to regarding private adoption, how to manage post-adoption stress, etc. There are never ending articles filled with advice for new adoptive parents advising them what to expect and what to expect, helping them prepare, offering checklists of what to do and what not to do, and more. What isn’t as readily available is information for birth mothers.

Statistics show that the vast majority of independent adoptions in California are completed without a hitch; less that 2 percent are even contested. But when an adoption is contested, the anguish felt by both the adoptive and birth parents is unimaginable. Linda Ribordy, a family specialist who represented a birth mother in a legal case says that “if a birth mother changes her mind, it’s automatic that they get the baby back.” But the adopting parents feel furiously and emotionally different. “We have no legal status, no legal rights, none,” says Inger Bischofberger. “But he calls me Mama. The only thing that keeps me going is that I can’t turn my back on him, I can’t just walk away from him because all the grownups in his life have messed up.”

There are a lot of factors that must be included when assessing the lives of single parent vs two parents and trying to determine which is ‘better’ in the single parent vs two parent family dilemma. Granted the children involved are happy with the arrangement after their trial period, it's hard to raise any objections Against either. Most kids for whom parental rights have been terminated spend too long in the system as there is a severe shortage of prospective adoptive parents willing to consider adoption from foster care. To deprive a child of the chance of a "normal" life completely on the grounds of whether it's a single person or a couple applying to have the chance to adopt seems inhumane because who is to say what their situation will be however many years down the line? Yes, two parents would be ideal, but the ideal isn't always an option. Should single parents be allowed to adopt? Personally, I feel that they shouldn’t, in this paper I will explain as to why I think so.

no rights for as long as she lives with her father she cannot do as