rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
A Nevada couple has been told that they can’t adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits.
http://gunsnfreedom.com/nv-couple-heartbroken-over-adoption-denial-for-ccw/4697
A Nevada couple has been told that they can’t adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits.
(Full disclosure: I spent about 14 years employed in the system putting kids into and taking them out of foster care as well as arranging for them to be adopted. I was always transparent about showing where the loopholes were and how to get through them. I gave personal but not professional support to those trying to have the regulations changed. But possibly the last thing you want top do to a kid is have their adoption pulled back because of fraud if not criminal activity on the part of those trying to adopt them.)
stay safe.
SNIP Adopting older kids is commendable but there is no "right" to do so. Nor is there a "right" to have kids under the jurisdiction of both the executive and judicial branches of the government in your house without allowing those branches to set terms and conditions that can easily pass strict scrutiny.
How can there be no right to adopt?
-snip-
SNIP I fear if the truth were made clear it would mostly center on the people making the rules justifying their jobs and the goal of ever increasing budgets.
Skid, I don't claim to be an expert on the issue of foster homes. Far from it.
I do think the bill's intent is good.
And at least one member of this forum has stated the issue is close to him.
Even though you're about 3000 miles away (and maybe/maybe not familiar with Nevada law on this subject), perhaps you could contact the bill's sponsor and proffer your experience/knowledge.
Not commenting on all aspects of Skidmark's post; just the premises quoted above.
How can there be no right to adopt? ..../QUOTE]
I'm going to stop right there.
Kids eligible to be adopted by and large are wards of the state (stepparent adoptions being the big exception). The State has staked out - and had accepted and agreed with - some pretty cogent reasons for imposing regulations designed (at least in their view) to protect the physical well-being and legal rights of kids the courts have entrusted (not in the legal custody sense of that word) into the care of social services.
There is no right to adopt. There is also no right to be adopted, as not all of the parties entering into the process are lawfully adults who can consent to the process/procedure/outcome. The short explanation is about 300 pages of poicy and procedure manual with references to case citations going back to Common law. The detailed explanation is two Masters-level courses in public welfare. I'll be glad to lead classes on either option for expenses and a $100 honorarium - but I get to call folks in the class nasty names and make them stand in the corner when they (in my sole and indisputable opinion) deserve it.
stay safe.
Again, I do NOT claim to be an expert on this issue.... the issue identified there - "A Nevada couple has been told that they can’t adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits" and the fear-mongering hyperbole that is being foist on the public.
SNIP There is no right to adopt. There is also no right to be adopted, as not all of the parties entering into the process are lawfully adults who can consent to the process/procedure/outcome.
This is more for other readers than Skid.
Saying so doesn't make it true even if one says it twice in successive posts. Notice he does not address my rationale. Rather he makes another unsupported declaration: "...cogent reasons...", And, resorts to an appeal to authority (himself).
Oh, well. Apparently he does not have an actual argument or refutation. So, be it. You all are supposed to take his word for it because he says so.
At least I laid out some arguments so readers could evaluate for themselves. Time to move on, I suppose.
... (Did you read the denial letter?)
....