http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv
e_parents/

Ruling backs adoptive parents
By Associated Press, 4/14/2004

DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted son back to
the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what is best for
the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled.


A Missouri judge had ordered the child returned because the birth mother
changed her mind. The child, now a year old, has lived with the Colorado couple
since shortly after he was born.

The court said Monday in a 6-to-1 decision that Colorado judges can hear
custody disputes when judges in other states do not take into consideration the
''best interests" of the child.

''The Supreme Court said that the child has rights here, and the child's best
interests should be considered before the birth mom would get a child back
under these circumstances," said Tom Beltz, the lawyer for the adoptive
parents.

Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, said the ruling sets a bad precedent:
''It encourages and rewards somebody to come here and drag this out by fighting
from day one."

The names of the participants in the case are shielded in the court
proceedings. The adoptive mother spoke to The Denver Post on the condition she
and the baby be identified only by first their names, Val and Alex.

After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approval from a
Missouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home. Three
weeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption.

Alex was 6 months old before the Missouri judge ordered him returned. When a
Colorado district judge in Jefferson County said he had no jurisdiction to
intervene, Val and her husband appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The case
now returns to Jefferson County District Court.



-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040414183327.22183.00000402@mb-m06.aol.com>... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv e_parents/ Ruling backs adoptive parents By Associated Press, 4/14/2004 DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted son back to the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what is best for the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled. A Missouri judge had ordered the child returned because the birth mother changed her mind. The child, now a year old, has lived with the Colorado couple since shortly after he was born. The court said Monday in a 6-to-1 decision that Colorado judges can hear custody disputes when judges in other states do not take into consideration the ''best interests" of the child. ''The Supreme Court said that the child has rights here, and the child's best interests should be considered before the birth mom would get a child back under these circumstances," said Tom Beltz, the lawyer for the adoptive parents. Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, said the ruling sets a bad precedent: ''It encourages and rewards somebody to come here and drag this out by fighting from day one." The names of the participants in the case are shielded in the court proceedings. The adoptive mother spoke to The Denver Post on the condition she and the baby be identified only by first their names, Val and Alex. After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approval from a Missouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home. Three weeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption. Alex was 6 months old before the Missouri judge ordered him returned. When a Colorado district judge in Jefferson County said he had no jurisdiction to intervene, Val and her husband appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The case now returns to Jefferson County District Court.

So much for legally enforcable revocation periods. No surprises there of course.


Di ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

>Subject: Re: Ruling backs adoptive parentsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/15/04 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404150250.4b4518a3@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040414183327.22183.00000402@mb-m06.aol.com>... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv e_parents/ Ruling backs adoptive parents By Associated Press, 4/14/2004 DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted son backto the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what is bestfor the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled. A Missouri judge had ordered the child returned because the birth mother changed her mind. The child, now a year old, has lived with the Coloradocouple since shortly after he was born. The court said Monday in a 6-to-1 decision that Colorado judges can hear custody disputes when judges in other states do not take into considerationthe ''best interests" of the child. ''The Supreme Court said that the child has rights here, and the child'sbest interests should be considered before the birth mom would get a child back under these circumstances," said Tom Beltz, the lawyer for the adoptive parents. Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, said the ruling sets a badprecedent: ''It encourages and rewards somebody to come here and drag this out byfighting from day one." The names of the participants in the case are shielded in the court proceedings. The adoptive mother spoke to The Denver Post on the conditionshe and the baby be identified only by first their names, Val and Alex. After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approvalfrom a Missouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home. Three weeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption. Alex was 6 months old before the Missouri judge ordered him returned. Whena Colorado district judge in Jefferson County said he had no jurisdiction to intervene, Val and her husband appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. Thecase now returns to Jefferson County District Court.So much for legally enforcable revocation periods. No surprises there ofcourse.Di

Finally, something we both can agree upon.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040415102304.18814.00000272@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Ruling backs adoptive parentsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/15/04 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404150250.4b4518a3@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040414183327.22183.00000402@mb-m06.aol.com>... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv e_parents/ Ruling backs adoptive parents By Associated Press, 4/14/2004 DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted son back to the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what is best for the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled. A Missouri judge had ordered the child returned because the birth mother changed her mind. The child, now a year old, has lived with the Colorado couple since shortly after he was born. The court said Monday in a 6-to-1 decision that Colorado judges can hear custody disputes when judges in other states do not take into consideration the ''best interests" of the child. ''The Supreme Court said that the child has rights here, and the child's best interests should be considered before the birth mom would get a child back under these circumstances," said Tom Beltz, the lawyer for the adoptive parents. Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, said the ruling sets a bad precedent: ''It encourages and rewards somebody to come here and drag this out by fighting from day one." The names of the participants in the case are shielded in the court proceedings. The adoptive mother spoke to The Denver Post on the condition she and the baby be identified only by first their names, Val and Alex. After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approval from a Missouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home. Three weeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption. Alex was 6 months old before the Missouri judge ordered him returned. When a Colorado district judge in Jefferson County said he had no jurisdiction to intervene, Val and her husband appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The case now returns to Jefferson County District Court.So much for legally enforcable revocation periods. No surprises there ofcourse.Di Finally, something we both can agree upon.

Yep, indeed.
It's not a bad thing (now and again) to get beyond the narcissism of
minor differences.


Rh. Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Ruling backs adoptive parentsFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 4/15/04 12:20 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0404151120.7caed55a@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040415102304.18814.00000272@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Ruling backs adoptive parentsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/15/04 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404150250.4b4518a3@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040414183327.22183.00000402@mb-m06.aol.com>...>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv> e_parents/>> Ruling backs adoptive parents> By Associated Press, 4/14/2004>> DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted sonback to> the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what isbest for> the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled.>>> A Missouri judge had ordered the child returned because the birth mother> changed her mind. The child, now a year old, has lived with the Colorado couple> since shortly after he was born.>> The court said Monday in a 6-to-1 decision that Colorado judges can hear> custody disputes when judges in other states do not take intoconsideration the> ''best interests" of the child.>> ''The Supreme Court said that the child has rights here, and the child's best> interests should be considered before the birth mom would get a childback> under these circumstances," said Tom Beltz, the lawyer for the adoptive> parents.>> Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, said the ruling sets a bad precedent:> ''It encourages and rewards somebody to come here and drag this out by fighting> from day one.">> The names of the participants in the case are shielded in the court> proceedings. The adoptive mother spoke to The Denver Post on thecondition she> and the baby be identified only by first their names, Val and Alex.>> After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approval from a> Missouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home.Three> weeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption.>> Alex was 6 months old before the Missouri judge ordered him returned.When a> Colorado district judge in Jefferson County said he had no jurisdictionto> intervene, Val and her husband appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.The case> now returns to Jefferson County District Court.>>So much for legally enforcable revocation periods. No surprises there ofcourse.Di Finally, something we both can agree upon.Yep, indeed.It's not a bad thing (now and again) to get beyond the narcissism ofminor differences.Rh.

LOL, keyword, 'minor'.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <20040414183327.22183.00000402@mb-m06.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/ruling_backs_adoptiv e_parents/ Ruling backs adoptive parents By Associated Press, 4/14/2004 DENVER -- A Colorado couple cannot be forced to give their adopted son back to the birth mother in another state without a court hearing on what is best for the child, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled.


Very interesting. This may force the USSC to look at the issue of
inter-state custody fights, etc., since this ruling is contrary to some
of the other ones out there. If the birthmother appeals, the USSC just
might hear it.




steve

>After Alex was born in April 2003, the Colorado couple received approval fromaMissouri judge for preliminary placement and took him to their home. Threeweeks later, the birth mother revoked her consent to the adoption.>>

If this mother was within the legally allowed revocation time in the state in
which she relinquished, I find it appalling that the people who took the child
of out state could not be forced to return the child. Missouri needs to change
its law so that it is in line with those of other states that now do not allow
adoptive couples to take infants out of state *until the birthparents' legal
revocation time has expired*.

This is the meat of another excellent debate.


P2P

>>So much for legally enforcable revocation periods. No surprises there ofcourse.DiFinally, something we both can agree upon.


ITA. I wonder how Colorado could refuse to honor the Missouri judge's order for
return of the child.


P2P