It is typical and completely normal for adoption cases to be moved to the state in which the prospective adoptive parents reside in order to streamline the process. It is done with the permission of the agency in the original state, so it is legal. In my case, for example, I was a ward of the state of Georgia, but my guardianship and my adoption case were moved to the state of Utah prior to the adoption being completed.

I looked up the SC opinion in trying to find what the father actually signed and this is what it states: " Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq. On that date outside of a mall near his base, a process server presented Father with legal papers entitled "Acceptance of Service and Answer of Defendant," which stated he was not contesting the adoption of Baby Girl and that he waived the thirty day waiting period and notice of the hearing. Father testified he believed he was relinquishing his rights to Mother and did not realize he consented to Baby Girl's adoption by another family until after he signed the papers. Upon realizing that Mother had relinquished her rights to Appellants, Father testified, "I then tried to grab the paper up. [The process server] told me that I could not grab that [sic] because . . . I would be going to jail if I was to do any harm to the paper." " What I gather from this is that the bio father was given a paper to sign about his child, didn't bother to read it because he didn't really care, and didn't even know what he was signing until after it was done. Again, how is this different than signing any other legal document?

Ah, I see where you are saying this. So basically it doesn't matter if he actually was a parent or not because he didn't exercise that right.

From what I read, the authorities in Oklahoma allowed the child to be taken to South Carolina, which is when legal jurisdiction changed.

This summary here answers all of those questions: Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Alito noted that three provisions of the ICWA were relevant to the case, § 1912(f), § 1912(d), and § 1915(a).He also noted that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption.[69] Alito stated that the heightened standard required under § 1912(f) does not apply when the parent in question never had custody of the child, focusing on the phrase "continued custody" in the statute. Alito continued that § 1912(d) does not require remedial efforts be made when the parent did not have custody. Since Brown never had either physical or legal custody, no remedial efforts were required. Finally, § 1915(a) does not prevent a non-Indian couple from adopting when no preferred individuals or entities have formally sought to adopt the child.

Okay, I had to look up more details. One of the questions was "whether ICWA defines “parent†in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent." Justice Alito also noted "that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption." So there's no question IN THE LAW that Brown wasn't legally a parent because he didn't do what he should have done under the law to gain status as a parent. So it doesn't really matter if he didn't sign away parental rights because legally he never had them in the first place. Are people arguing here that every biological parent should automatically have legal parental rights in perpetuity simply by the presence of their genetic material being present, without making any attempt to be a parent, and at any time they can retake custody of their child on that basis? Even a sperm or egg donor?

Also, an adoption agency as an entity is separate from the adoptive parents. This would be like saying if a real estate agent broke the law all of the house sales they participated in should be cancelled. But if the sellers of a house signed papers and got paid, then the sale would be legal regardless of whether the agent took money they shouldn't have. In other words, it's not the adoptive parents' fault if their agency breaks the law, especially in a case where parental rights are voluntarily terminated. "Adoption agency breaking the law" is a separate legal issue from "adoptive parents adopt child who has had both parents terminate parental rights."

That's what is confusing to me. People keep saying it wasn't done legally. But the Supreme Court apparently says it was. And they don't have to worry about losing their job, or who is voting for who, or whether they'll get paid if they vote one way or another. They just take a case and compare it to the law. And they said it was legal and the adoptive parents have custody, legally. So what wasn't legal? Because as far as I can tell, the bio father voluntarily terminated his parental rights, and signed a document that said so. The Supreme Court apparently agrees. It doesn't matter legally if he read it or not, just as it doesn't matter if we don't read our insurance documents. We're bound by what the things we sign actually say, not what we want them to say.

The legal implication that would come from leaving this poor girl with the biological father is that there would be precedent in the law to say that "possession is nine tenths of the law" in the cases of children. It would be saying that fully binding legal forms don't matter, just who is actually in possession of a child in that moment. It would call into question the legality of any adoption already on the books. In my case, for instance, my biological father voluntarily terminated his parental rights and I spent years in foster care and was later adopted. A precedent like this one would have meant my father could have come along years later and taken me back. It defies all sense to take away the permanency of adoption. It is intended to be permanent for a reason.

She said quietly, not fast. Presumably, she would know that because she heard no siren and saw no reflecting lights. I know that makes it harder for you to think she's a bad parent, but there it is.

It doesn't matter if the caller didn't know she was only gone a couple of minutes. It is a waste of time to call the police for something other than a crime or accident IN PROGRESS or having occurred, or in a situation where it is LIKELY that a crime or accident would occur. There was no crime committed since it isn't illegal to leave a child alone, nor alone in vehicle, in her jurisdiction, no crime or accident was in progress, and the chance of an accident or crime being committed on those children wasn't likely either. It is simple self-righteousness and paranoia that led to a call like that. And that's not what police are for.

That was not a child dying in a car in the evening, that was a child being struck by a car while crossing a busy road. What was the point of posting that?

Absolutely don't give them money. If you get a chance to talk to him alone, it might be worth pointing out to him that his birth mother is using him to blackmail you. Make sure you tell CPS (your local one and the one where your son is) about this conversation if you haven't already. Do not answer the phone in future when she calls, and if she is put on the line simply say "I will only speak to you with a CPS rep present or listening in" and hang up. I'm so sorry you're going through this. :grouphug:

Some of the people posting in this thread really scare me. So much paranoia and so much self-righteous judgment going on. I'm a paranoid mom, but I'm only paranoid for myself and my child. Other people have the right to worry about different things than I do. Other people have the right to be more permissive than I am. This doesn't make them stupid or irresponsible or bad parents. This is just like all the stupid mommy wars arguments or dumb political arguments. There are some people in the world who believe that if other people think differently than them, they think there is something wrong with them. And I feel really sorry for those people, and I avoid people like that in real life, because just reading it here makes me cringe. SKL, I agree with you. The whole thing is ridiculous. A waste of your time, a waste of a cop's time, and a step in the erosion of parental authority and responsibility.

I really, really want to see the news articles or police reports about 7 year old children dying in cars at 8:30pm.

After I pull the skillet out and put it on the stove or wherever, I always put an oven mitt over the handle, handle inside mitt. I almost grabbed the skillet once, just barely touched it with my thumb and I've been putting that mitt over the handle ever since.

So did YOU yourself actually help unload the truck? Because it doesn't sound like it from what you said. What you did was complain that other people didn't move your stuff, saw that someone else needed help but decided it was too hard for you, and then tried to get other people to help instead so you wouldn't feel guilty.

:grouphug: I'm so sorry. When I had my ectopic, my emotions and my health bounced all over the place over it. :sad: I hated the every-other-day HCG tests. I know that they said a woman who has one ectopic is more at risk of having another. That's why we decided to stop after one child.

If I need something good to read, I browse at the bookstore and write down titles to buy online at home. If I have something to read, I go to Panera or Starbucks and get coffee and a treat and read. Or, if there's a movie I want to see that my husband isn't interested in, I'll go to the movie by myself.

Ultimately I think you have to decide whether strict obedience to rules or willing helpfulness are more important traits to encourage in your child. If strict obedience is your goal, then you will have to accept that will squash some of the other desires in your child. Just as public schools often squash creativity in order to get every child to do the same thing at the same time, strict obedience at home could squash that excited helpfulness. And if you encourage the helpfulness, you will clearly be saying that some "rules" aren't as important as other rules. It's simply a choice you have to make as a parent on what is more important to you.

After the "What's your problem?" line I would explain to my child that I ask them things as a way to train them how to be polite, but that requests from me are not optional. And I probably would have taken the paints away for the night. But then, disrespect is really a line in the sand for me.

Since someone above mentioned adult paperbacks being shelved this way as well, I thought I'd point out you often see this type of organization in areas the library views as browsing collections. Children's picture books and adult paperback fiction are often primarily checked out by browsers. There may be some people (like people have mentioned here) who go into the library with a specific list of children's picture books in mind, but those people are by FAR the minority. I imagine if you looked at the children's non-fiction that it would be in Dewey decimal order, because those books are used more purposefully, in general.

The first thing I thought is "why is there a silencer on a gun during target practice?"

The library I used to work for, which is one of the largest library systems in the country, is organized this way as well. Children's collections are the ones that are most moved around in the library. They get handled more frequently and by more people, including small children, who wouldn't pay attention to full last names anyway, and they are checked out more frequently than any other category of books. The sheer amount of manpower that would be required in order to keep a bunch of children's books in full name alphabetical order on the shelves would be crazy. And in a small library, where there are even less staff members, that time is exponentially more valuable.

My husband and I just had a contract accepted on the house we're going to buy, so I've recently been through the buying process. The most important things for me are that the home is clean and free of clutter. If it's dirty, I'm simply turned off. We have walked in doors and immediately walked out because of cleanliness. I include cigarette smoke smell in this. If I can smell that, it's not for me. Clutter is bad because it makes it hard to see the bones of the house, or to see how many outlets there are or things like that. I also notice how much light there is. If you have heavy curtains, pull them back and let the light in. Weird paint colors don't bother me because that is easy to change, but wallpaper does because it involves work if I don't like it. I don't like scented things like candles or wall pluggers because I always wonder what they're trying to cover up. Sometimes I'm not sure what sells houses. I've been to a lot of houses lately and some that I hate sell faster than ones that I've loved. Different people have different needs.