LilMtnCbn
08-31-2004, 07:43 AM
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&c
id=1093835909461
Court justifies favoring adopters over birth parents
By DAN IZENBERG
The Supreme Court has published its reasons for rejecting two appeals by the
natural parents of a baby who was put up for adoption and for agreeing to grant
limited legal status to the designated adoptive parents in the current legal
procedures to determine who will be the legal parents.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak wrote that the court's ruling constituted
an exception to the rule that the parents seeking to adopt the baby have no
legal status in the first procedure in the adoption process.
Barak said that in the case at hand, the attorney-general's representative had
failed to represent the broad interests of the baby after the natural mother
asked the court for permission to change her mind about putting her baby up for
adoption, and the natural father declared that he wanted to raise the baby.
The baby was born on May 12, 2003. Eight days later, the mother signed a form
agreeing to give the baby away. She also refused to name the father. On May 22,
the baby was given to parents who wanted to adopt him. On June 1, the Tel Aviv
District Family Court declared that the baby could be adopted as far as the
natural father was concerned.
On October 9, 2003, the natural mother asked the family court to allow her to
retract her agreement to give away her child.
Furthermore, the father, who had come forward in the meantime, asked the court
to cancel its declaration that the baby could be adopted as far as he was
concerned.
The court agreed to his request on March 16. On April 25, the father asked that
the baby be handed over to him.
At this point, the parents who wanted to adopt the baby asked the court to
grant it official standing so that it could contest the natural parents'
requests. The court rejected the request of the designated adoptive parents.
On June 7, 2004, the family court decided to hand the baby over to his father.
During the hearing leading to the decision, an expert appointed by the court,
the attorney-general's representative and a social worker all agreed that the
baby should be given to the father.
Two days later, the designated adoptive parents appealed against the lower
court ruling to the Tel Aviv District Court. They asked the court for legal
standing in the case.
A panel of three district court judges decided to grant limited legal standing
to the designated adoptive parents. The natural parents appealed the district
court ruling to the Supreme Court.
Barak ruled that the state's representatives failed to fulfill their
responsibility to the baby in the hearings in the Tel Aviv District Family
Court.
They failed to tell the court about the effect on the baby during the months it
had spent with the adoptive family, or to provide details about the designated
adoptive family itself.
Therefore, even though the parents seeking to adopt the baby should not have
standing in the case at this point, Barak ruled that, as an exception, because
of the failure of the state's representatives to fulfill their duty, he would
accept the district court's ruling.
The Supreme Court ordered the district court to rule on who would raise the
baby.
-------------------------
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
id=1093835909461
Court justifies favoring adopters over birth parents
By DAN IZENBERG
The Supreme Court has published its reasons for rejecting two appeals by the
natural parents of a baby who was put up for adoption and for agreeing to grant
limited legal status to the designated adoptive parents in the current legal
procedures to determine who will be the legal parents.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak wrote that the court's ruling constituted
an exception to the rule that the parents seeking to adopt the baby have no
legal status in the first procedure in the adoption process.
Barak said that in the case at hand, the attorney-general's representative had
failed to represent the broad interests of the baby after the natural mother
asked the court for permission to change her mind about putting her baby up for
adoption, and the natural father declared that he wanted to raise the baby.
The baby was born on May 12, 2003. Eight days later, the mother signed a form
agreeing to give the baby away. She also refused to name the father. On May 22,
the baby was given to parents who wanted to adopt him. On June 1, the Tel Aviv
District Family Court declared that the baby could be adopted as far as the
natural father was concerned.
On October 9, 2003, the natural mother asked the family court to allow her to
retract her agreement to give away her child.
Furthermore, the father, who had come forward in the meantime, asked the court
to cancel its declaration that the baby could be adopted as far as he was
concerned.
The court agreed to his request on March 16. On April 25, the father asked that
the baby be handed over to him.
At this point, the parents who wanted to adopt the baby asked the court to
grant it official standing so that it could contest the natural parents'
requests. The court rejected the request of the designated adoptive parents.
On June 7, 2004, the family court decided to hand the baby over to his father.
During the hearing leading to the decision, an expert appointed by the court,
the attorney-general's representative and a social worker all agreed that the
baby should be given to the father.
Two days later, the designated adoptive parents appealed against the lower
court ruling to the Tel Aviv District Court. They asked the court for legal
standing in the case.
A panel of three district court judges decided to grant limited legal standing
to the designated adoptive parents. The natural parents appealed the district
court ruling to the Supreme Court.
Barak ruled that the state's representatives failed to fulfill their
responsibility to the baby in the hearings in the Tel Aviv District Family
Court.
They failed to tell the court about the effect on the baby during the months it
had spent with the adoptive family, or to provide details about the designated
adoptive family itself.
Therefore, even though the parents seeking to adopt the baby should not have
standing in the case at this point, Barak ruled that, as an exception, because
of the failure of the state's representatives to fulfill their duty, he would
accept the district court's ruling.
The Supreme Court ordered the district court to rule on who would raise the
baby.
-------------------------
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
