Thursday, June 02, 2005

Why people go overseas to adopt

An Oregon judge took a baby away from adoptive parents and gave it to an 18-year-old boy because the baby's mother didn't inform him that an adoption was being planned.

The sperm donor didn't want anything to do with the girl after their night of passion and wouldn't return her phone calls when she tried to tell him she was pregnant. He didn't believe it was his child, and he called the girl a gold digger. But his mother wanted the baby. "He" challenged the adoption, and Judge Paula Kurshner ruled in "his" favor.

This news story says, "Under Oregon's 1975 adoption law, an unmarried man has a claim on a child if he establishes paternity or contributes or tries to contribute child support. But the law does not require an independent agency to notify a birth father of a pending adoption even if the agency knows his identity."

I suppose the judge felt that she was constrained to follow the law, but why is it that judges become strict constructionists only when it creates the greatest injustice? (Note to self: write a letter to legislators to fix the stupid law. They can create a state fossil, but on important things, the laws allow idiocies like this happen.)

Judge Kurshner extended to the adoptive parents "the sympathy of the court." If I were losing my baby, I'd have preferred that the judge ditch the mask and spit in my face.

One reason we went halfway around the planet to adopt our girls.

UPDATE: A version of this post is at Blogger News Network.

No comments: