snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12 November 2015, 04:29 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,608
Icon97 Utah judge orders baby taken away from married lesbian foster parents

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ents?CMP=fb_us

Quote:
Utah state child welfare officials on Wednesday were wrangling with a ruling by a juvenile court judge who ordered a baby to be taken from lesbian foster parents and instead placed with a heterosexual couple, saying it was for the child’s wellbeing.

Judge Scott Johansen’s order on Tuesday raised concerns at the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, said agency spokeswoman Ashley Sumner.

Its attorneys plan to review the decision and determine what options they have to challenge the order.

The ruling came during a routine hearing for April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce. They are part of a group of same-sex married couples who were allowed to become foster parents in Utah after a US supreme court ruling made gay marriage legal across the country, Sumner said.
Civil rights are never "won." It is a constantly battle not just to attain them, but to keep them. The people you took them from will never forgive you for it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12 November 2015, 04:37 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,647
Default

I doubt you meant it like this, but "took them from" is part of the ridiculous notion that giving people equal rights somehow means that the privileged people are losing their rights. I would say, "The people who always had those rights...".
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12 November 2015, 04:50 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,608
Icon13

Well, I see it as taking something - it involves taking away one groups power to oppress another.

That's why we still see things like this - they know they lost the ability to tell these women they aren't allowed to be a married couple, so they've tried to spitefully reassert themselves by taking their child.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12 November 2015, 05:44 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,788
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebochan View Post
Well, I see it as taking something - it involves taking away one groups power to oppress another.
Just to clarify... not looking to argue because I'm thinking similarly.

You see power and rights as interchangeable?

That is how you are explaining it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12 November 2015, 06:03 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
Just to clarify... not looking to argue because I'm thinking similarly.

You see power and rights as interchangeable?

That is how you are explaining it.
I think Rebochan means the power to "grant" rights.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12 November 2015, 06:11 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,608
Icon02

I believe that rights are inherent. However, if one group has more power than another, it's harder for the group with less power to maintain the rights they're supposed to have in the first place. Power is a finite concept though, and for one group to gain power means another loses it.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm a big honking cynic these days.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12 November 2015, 06:38 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebochan View Post
Power is a finite concept though, and for one group to gain power means another loses it.
True in some cases, but not in all.

If more people gain the power to read and write, the ones who could originally read and write don't become less able to do so. Their power is in fact arguably also expanded, because now there will be more things written which they can read, and more potential readers for what they write.

If people gain the power to wear what they choose, including clothes previously limited to another gender, this increases everyone's clothing options.

-- It's possible this is a matter of how each of us is defining the word "power". I would say that there is power to, and power over. Power over is indeed generally a win/lose concept: if x can tell y what to do, then if y gains the power to refuse, x's power over y is indeed diminished; and it's not possible to give y the power to order x around without taking away x's power to so order y (at least, not in the same area). But power to isn't always a win/lose -- only when it's the power to do something that actively interferes with other's lives, or the power to refuse someone else's control. Sometimes power to is a win/win.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12 November 2015, 06:53 PM
TallGeekyGirl's Avatar
TallGeekyGirl TallGeekyGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,900
Default

I get what she's saying. The power that's being taken away is their ability to suppress and oppress. They don't really *lose* anything when others gain hard-fought rights, but they perceive a loss because minorities who once "knew their place" are no longer so easy to keep down.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12 November 2015, 07:29 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,613
Glasses

Rebochan emphasized the negative in this, but I see hope in that it's the state that's going to challenge the ruling.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12 November 2015, 07:33 PM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

Although i do not agree with the ruling i think the issue here is that no one has the "right" to be a foster parent whether or not they are gay or straight or black or white or purple or an all knowing all powerful being.

My family underwent 90 hours of in class instruction, countless hours of personal review and training not to mention the interview and meddling in your personal life and past before we could become foster parents and doing the annual reviews where someone can arbitrarily decide that now you are not qualified is really scary and part of those arbitrary items are social, religious and community support based decisions.

If the court feel it is unsafe for a child to be with a family due to a particular issue - that child should go to a different family. its all about the child's well being -- not the foster parent.

We have a few gay friends who are foster and/or adoptive parents and the kids are well taken care of and loved and doing fine -- but we also live in a progressive community where homophobia is not apparent which could make a world of difference.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12 November 2015, 07:41 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,077
Default

NDL, is there any evidence that this child was actually in danger?

The article doesn't give that as the judge's reasoning. It does contain the line

Quote:
They said Johansen cited research that children did better when raised by heterosexual couples
which if accurate strongly implies that it wasn't his reasoning at all.

-- plus which, they're trying to adopt the child, not only to foster. In their case, the right to adopt comes pretty close to the right to have children at all.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12 November 2015, 07:47 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
Although i do not agree with the ruling i think the issue here is that no one has the "right" to be a foster parent whether or not they are gay or straight or black or white or purple or an all knowing all powerful being.
No one in the OP or in this thread is positing such a right. The OP parents have qualifed to be foster parents, and been approved to adopt the child who has been taken from them. They have been (temporarily, I hope) deprived of the right to be treated like any other qualified foster parents in that situation, without regard to their sexual orientation.

That is the issue here.

ETA: Correction: they had not been approved to adopt. However:

Quote:
The women, who are legally married, were approved after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews with the DCFS. They hope to adopt the baby and have the support of the child's biological mother.
The ruling came during "a routine hearing."

Link

Last edited by Lainie; 12 November 2015 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12 November 2015, 08:00 PM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

i missed the part in the article where the judge cited that it was due to HIS religious beliefs -- which is wrong -- shouldn't happen -- but throughout the entire process we were told that children could be removed from us at any time if it was believed the child would do better elsewhere.

If that is the only reason then it should be overturned -- i thought it was due to community angst against the LGBT community in Utah.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12 November 2015, 08:02 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
i missed the part in the article where the judge cited that it was due to HIS religious beliefs -- which is wrong -- shouldn't happen -- but throughout the entire process we were told that children could be removed from us at any time if it was believed the child would do better elsewhere.
The judge didn't say it was due to his religious beliefs. He claimed to have read research, which he did not cite, that showed kids did better with hetero parents.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12 November 2015, 08:09 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,608
Reading

Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGeekyGirl View Post
I get what she's saying. The power that's being taken away is their ability to suppress and oppress. They don't really *lose* anything when others gain hard-fought rights, but they perceive a loss because minorities who once "knew their place" are no longer so easy to keep down.
Yea, that's it. I just can't seem to state my own beliefs with that level of clarity.

The topic of being able to read and write came up, and I'd note that it does tie into that same idea of the power to oppress being taken away. During the same times that slavery was legal, it was also illegal in slave states for blacks to learn to read or write and also illegal to teach them. While technically a slave being able to read doesn't take your ability to read from you, it DOES remove a tool you had to coerce that person to listen to your authority (obviously assuming you were a slavemaster and not an abolitionist!) Thus, you didn't lose your right to read but that slave has taken your power over them away from you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
Rebochan emphasized the negative in this, but I see hope in that it's the state that's going to challenge the ruling.
I did say I was a cynic But you are right, the state fighting the decision is good news. I really should learn to look for silver linings more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
If that is the only reason then it should be overturned -- i thought it was due to community angst against the LGBT community in Utah.
It's probably that too unfortunately
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12 November 2015, 08:40 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

To add some additional context to this - Utah has a history of some seriously messed up laws regarding adoption and custody. It often amounted to little more than legalized kidnapping.

They have made some changes, but there is still an attitude that people have some sort of celestial order to get kids and raise them in Christian households.

link

link

They may still be making changes, but there are a whole lot of judges in Utah who will push the limits to the Nth degree to keep kids out of non-traditional or non-religious households.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12 November 2015, 10:43 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,168
Default

Despite the contradictions in their own lives, I think the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it right: We're endowed with certain unalienable rights and they are taken away. The rights of women and minorities weren't just "never there". The societies they lived in took them. Much of that happened before they were born or even conceived - perhaps in some cases before recorded history - but their rights were taken nevertheless.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12 November 2015, 10:52 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,913
Default

I very much agree.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12 November 2015, 11:16 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
He claimed to have read research, which he did not cite, that showed kids did better with hetero parents.
I can imagine what sort of site he's looking at where he just happened to come across that "research". The actual consensus of research studying this is that it probably makes no difference. More studies have shown a slight advantage to lesbian adoptive parents than a disadvantage, but it's not conclusive. Leave it to religious conservatives to cherry pick the one outlier with a tiny sample size and a possible political agenda.

All the other factors that go into evaluating a foster household make an actual, tangible difference. If you arbitrarily rule out a large class of otherwise well qualified adoptive families, then it means that some kids will go to objectively worse foster families, and others may spend more time being raised in institutions.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12 November 2015, 11:18 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,639
Default

Agreed on all counts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge sentences East Texas man to get married or face jail time TallGeekyGirl Moot Court 14 16 August 2015 01:15 AM
Meet world's first married lesbian THREESOME . . . and they're expecting a baby A Turtle Named Mack Social Studies 4 27 April 2014 02:35 PM
Judge rules that man who provided sperm to lesbian couple owes child support snopes Moot Court 13 24 January 2014 12:38 AM
Judge orders gay man be listed as married on his death certificate snopes Moot Court 9 04 September 2013 02:57 PM
Judge rules a lesbian couple can't cohabitate because of prior divorce terms A Turtle Named Mack Social Studies 75 27 May 2013 11:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.