>I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal. Ithink it is in some states.Marley


An attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple, period.
There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legal
representation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts by
the attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desire legal
representation, need to hire a lawyer.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040518173613.19729.00001690@mb-m10.aol.com...I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal.
Ithink it is in some states.Marley An attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple,
period. There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legal representation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts
by the attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desire
legal representation, need to hire a lawyer. P2P

Yeaha, but you've got aparents and agencies who do just that. My gawd! At
Gladney everybody used the Gladney lawyer. There wasn't any choic in the
matter. I would hope that's changed since the relinquishment papers I have
were in force.

Marley

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040518173613.19729.00001690@mb-m10.aol.com...I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal.
Ithink it is in some states.Marley An attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple,
period. There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legal representation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts
by the attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desire
legal representation, need to hire a lawyer. P2P

Yeaha, but you've got aparents and agencies who do just that. My gawd! At
Gladney everybody used the Gladney lawyer. There wasn't any choic in the
matter. I would hope that's changed since the relinquishment papers I have
were in force.

Marley

Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?
From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
Date: 5/18/04 2:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20040518173613.19729.00001690@mb-m10.aol.com>
I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal. Ithink it is in some states.Marley


An attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple, period.
There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legal
representation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts by
the attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desire legal
representation, need to hire a lawyer. >

If they could do that, they'd probably be able to keep their kids. Just a
thought.


Kathy

Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?
From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
Date: 5/18/04 2:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20040518173613.19729.00001690@mb-m10.aol.com>
I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal. Ithink it is in some states.Marley


An attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple, period.
There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legal
representation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts by
the attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desire legal
representation, need to hire a lawyer. >

If they could do that, they'd probably be able to keep their kids. Just a
thought.


Kathy

>>I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal. Ithink it is in some states.MarleyAn attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple,period.There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legalrepresentation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts bythe attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desirelegalrepresentation, need to hire a lawyer.P2P

I doubt one can make a blanket statement about who the lawyer actually
represents, since dual-representation is not absolutely prohibited in all
states, if it is in any. Full disclosure of potential conflicts is required,
at a minimum.

Once a lawyer gives legal advice, knowing it will be relied upon and whether
paid for it or not, he may have created an attorney-client relationship. If he
or she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains the
contents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>>I totally agree with this, Jackie. Dual representation should be illegal. Ithink it is in some states.MarleyAn attorney hired by an adoptive couple represents the adoptive couple,period.There is no "dual representation". Birth families often have no legalrepresentation at all. That does not make them "represented" in the courts bythe attorney for the adoptive parents. Birth families, should they desirelegalrepresentation, need to hire a lawyer.P2P

I doubt one can make a blanket statement about who the lawyer actually
represents, since dual-representation is not absolutely prohibited in all
states, if it is in any. Full disclosure of potential conflicts is required,
at a minimum.

Once a lawyer gives legal advice, knowing it will be relied upon and whether
paid for it or not, he may have created an attorney-client relationship. If he
or she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains the
contents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains thecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.


In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side could
not stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right?
Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,
isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retaining party?
My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by* birthparents
or specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents pay
for an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)
consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree?


P2P

>If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains thecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.


In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side could
not stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right?
Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,
isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retaining party?
My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by* birthparents
or specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents pay
for an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)
consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree?


P2P

>>If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explainsthecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side couldnot stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right?

Yes, if the attorney had made the disclosures required in that jurisdiction and
both sides had knowingly waived any conflict. Once a dispute arose, he could
no longer represent either party.
Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retainingparty?

Again, that depends on whether the parites have agreed to joint representation
after proper disclosures and after waiving any conflicts.
My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by*birthparentsor specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents payfor an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree?

I think that any birth parent who would agree to be represented by the adoptive
parents attorney or took the advice of the adoptive parents attorney should be
disqualified from relinquishing, for lack of capacity. Put another way, of
course both sides should have their own representation.

The reality is that a woman relinquishing due to financial concerns (among
others) is not likely to spend money on an attorney. Nor (as we've seen) are
the parents of a relinquishing minor always willing to spend the money to help
her make an informed decision.

My state requires that a relinquishing minor be provided with a lawyer of her
own, although I don't remember offhand who pays for the lawyer. It may be the
adoptive parents, which raises red flags for many. It doesn't bother me,
because paying the bill doesn't mean they get to pick the laawyer or that the
lawyer will look out for anyone's interests but the client's, in this case the
PBM.

J.
P2P




Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>>If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explainsthecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side couldnot stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right?

Yes, if the attorney had made the disclosures required in that jurisdiction and
both sides had knowingly waived any conflict. Once a dispute arose, he could
no longer represent either party.
Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retainingparty?

Again, that depends on whether the parites have agreed to joint representation
after proper disclosures and after waiving any conflicts.
My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by*birthparentsor specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents payfor an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree?

I think that any birth parent who would agree to be represented by the adoptive
parents attorney or took the advice of the adoptive parents attorney should be
disqualified from relinquishing, for lack of capacity. Put another way, of
course both sides should have their own representation.

The reality is that a woman relinquishing due to financial concerns (among
others) is not likely to spend money on an attorney. Nor (as we've seen) are
the parents of a relinquishing minor always willing to spend the money to help
her make an informed decision.

My state requires that a relinquishing minor be provided with a lawyer of her
own, although I don't remember offhand who pays for the lawyer. It may be the
adoptive parents, which raises red flags for many. It doesn't bother me,
because paying the bill doesn't mean they get to pick the laawyer or that the
lawyer will look out for anyone's interests but the client's, in this case the
PBM.

J.
P2P




Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20040519000034.29140.00001670@mb-m13.aol.com>...If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains thecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side couldnot stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right? Yes, if the attorney had made the disclosures required in that jurisdiction and both sides had knowingly waived any conflict. Once a dispute arose, he could no longer represent either party.Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retainingparty? Again, that depends on whether the parites have agreed to joint representation after proper disclosures and after waiving any conflicts. My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by*birthparentsor specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents payfor an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree? I think that any birth parent who would agree to be represented by the adoptive parents attorney or took the advice of the adoptive parents attorney should be disqualified from relinquishing, for lack of capacity. Put another way, of course both sides should have their own representation. The reality is that a woman relinquishing due to financial concerns (among others) is not likely to spend money on an attorney. Nor (as we've seen) are the parents of a relinquishing minor always willing to spend the money to help her make an informed decision. My state requires that a relinquishing minor be provided with a lawyer of her own, although I don't remember offhand who pays for the lawyer. It may be the adoptive parents, which raises red flags for many. It doesn't bother me, because paying the bill doesn't mean they get to pick the laawyer or that the lawyer will look out for anyone's interests but the client's, in this case the PBM.


Thanks for this input, J.
Makes sense.




Rh. J.P2P Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20040519000034.29140.00001670@mb-m13.aol.com>...If heor she advises a prospective birth mother of her legal rights or explains thecontents of the documents she signs, such a relationship can be created.J.In any transaction, an attorney who has been paid/retained by one side couldnot stand in court and claim to represent the other side as well, right? Yes, if the attorney had made the disclosures required in that jurisdiction and both sides had knowingly waived any conflict. Once a dispute arose, he could no longer represent either party.Regardless of the contact the attorney might have had with the other side,isn't the attorney paid to protect the interests of the paying/retainingparty? Again, that depends on whether the parites have agreed to joint representation after proper disclosures and after waiving any conflicts. My major point is that unless an attorney has been retained *by*birthparentsor specifically *for* birthparents (some states require adoptive parents payfor an attorney for a minor birthmother), birthparents cannot (should not)consider an adoption attorney their own. Do you disagree? I think that any birth parent who would agree to be represented by the adoptive parents attorney or took the advice of the adoptive parents attorney should be disqualified from relinquishing, for lack of capacity. Put another way, of course both sides should have their own representation. The reality is that a woman relinquishing due to financial concerns (among others) is not likely to spend money on an attorney. Nor (as we've seen) are the parents of a relinquishing minor always willing to spend the money to help her make an informed decision. My state requires that a relinquishing minor be provided with a lawyer of her own, although I don't remember offhand who pays for the lawyer. It may be the adoptive parents, which raises red flags for many. It doesn't bother me, because paying the bill doesn't mean they get to pick the laawyer or that the lawyer will look out for anyone's interests but the client's, in this case the PBM.


Thanks for this input, J.
Makes sense.




Rh. J.P2P Reply to jmhjmd at aol.