Re: Non-Relative Paternal Adoption
Ctesibius;633736]I read through that thread before posting mine. It seemed his situation was a little different as he sounded like he was trying to involuntarily terminate rights (atleast that's how the thread started), I wasn't. Attorney's are a little like mechanics. With a 2nd opinion it's possible to get a different answer. One attorney told me it wasn't possible, so I came here looking to for some 2nd opinions. It is clear that it's not going to happen unless both parents give up their rights, which I don't foresee happening.
maybe because you don't seem to be getting the message even though you claim to.
I've stated several times I understand this now, so I'm not sure why people keep repeating it.
You deny claiming to be salvation yet again, unless this child comes to live with me, she is condemned to an eternal Hell on Earth.
I don't want to make it sound like I am a saint nor can I see the future, but they literally
live in the ghetto at poverty level on state assistance in an environment that is not very nurturing. It is not a far stretch to imagine the child living the life she's been raised in. I'm not saying I'm a guaranteed path to salvation, but it stands to reason the child would atleast have a better chance at a brighter future if the circumstances would allow our continued legal involvement. Sadly, they don't.
Seriously, it is not you who gets to decide who the child's parents are. There are a lot of children that live in poverty. Do you plan on taking on all of them as your own? I bet not. For some reason you have singled this child out to want to make your own.
and you have conveniently stepped right into that role without the control of child protective services doing what they do; protect children in situations like you are describing.
Don't make it sound like we've weaseled our way into this child's life in some evil plan to force her parents out. If either of her parents were actually parents
, we wouldn't be in this situation. If her parents had any interest in being a part of the child's life, they would and could be. They've taken themselves out of that role.
I didn't say that but YOU are the one putting yourself in the role of father. Who put you in charge?
Having no father present in the child's life is better than having a non-biological father in the child's life.
I'll give you a list of a thousand other kids that were born to horrible parents. I would expect you will be willing to adopt all of them.
It's my fault she was born to two terrible parents? I would beg to differ.
and you have a problem with that? That is where she should be if her parents are absent and there is no actual family to step in. You have somehow decided you know better than those that are trained to deal with kids like this that you are the salvation.
The alternative to this situation would be foster care. That's no joke either, both of her parents were incarcerated at the same time and none of the biological extended family is involved by their own choice. She WOULD
have went to foster care.
You really don't understand anything about the foster care system. You are intentionally making is sound as bad as you can to make it appear your way is the only way. Sorry but you are wrong.
According to your argument it's a much better option and would be much less stressful to her psyche to be in a foster home with perfect strangers and no one who loves her than surround by those who she's been able to bond with but are not biologically related.
but you aren't the father. You have put yourself in that position without legal authority.
So far we've established no father is better than having a father, and foster care is better than being with those who they love and have bonded with. I guess I never realized the courts were so cold towards children.
Oh, so the courts placed the child with you? If not, you missed a big step that the courts wouldn't. In that aspect, yes, you are leaving the courts out. The only time you want them is when they will bestow upon you what you want and apparently no other time.
I never said that the mothers consent was all that was required. I understand that the courts would be in control. Someone had mentioned "forcing" the mother to parent with a "legal stranger". I was responding that the mother would likely consent so there would be no "forcing" involved. I'm not leaving the courts out, the problem seems to be the fact you are either not comprehending everything or reading something into my comments other what was intended.\
I'm not taking anything out of context. You simply are not understanding the situation other than your narrow vision allows you.
You are taking that out of context, yet again we return to the issue of reading comprehension.
cash buddy. Now you want the state to support the child. Get out the wallet. You can do it anytime. You do not have to use Medicaid.
Done, done, done. Haven't taken her to the dentist or doctor yet, simply because we didn't have the Medicaid card so we had to meet the guardian at RediMed.
or is there a problem with you paying for a kid you have already claimed to be your own?
I don't want to raise the child. You go ahead and put the money in there yourself.
I don't have a million. If you send me the money, I'll gladly throw it in the fund along with the money I have set aside.
the point is; you can spend all the money you want on the child. You do not have to be the legal father. It can remain as it is. Apparently you do have a problem with this for some reason though.
Needed to feed your ego and make yourself feel better than someone on the internet? I see no other reason for the sarcasm. Up until this point I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread. Glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds.
what? because I won't tell you what you want to hear? Again, you don't have to be a legal parent or guardian to financially assist this child. You want to help the kid, then do so. If you want to buy the kid, then you have problems. It sounds like the latter to me.
Why the sarcasm again? I haven't been disrespectful to anyone in this thread up until this post. Again, glad to see this type of idiocy is the type of quality member this site breeds. Guess I should have known better than the follow the results on google sorted by who has the best SEO rather than the quality of members. It's the same in just about every genre of forums. The sites near the top in google also have the lowest quality
of membership. You are proof of that fact.
I am not an attorney and any advice is not to be construed as legal advice. You might even want to ignore my advice. Actually, there are plenty of real attorneys that you might want to ignore as well.