Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Introduction

This was the case filed by Joseph B in the court of Appeals to veto the adoption of his daughter Annette. Annette B. is a girl who was born in August 1991. She was born to Marissa R. and Joseph B. who were not married. She lived with her mother until 1996 in Central Islip. During this time, her father alleged he visited her every weekend. In 1996, Annette and her mother moved from Central Islip. On the other hand, her father Joseph was arrested for a drug offense and was in prison until 2001 when this case was heard. During the trial, Joseph admitted that he did not have any contact with Annette. However, he claimed he had made three attempts to find her but he did not provide any proof of his attempts. His claim was uncorroborated by any person or document. Thus, there was no evidence to support his case for not abandoning Annette. He tried to defend himself by saying that the Department of Social Services (DSS) did not inform him of the whereabouts of his time during his incarceration. In August 2001, the DSS gave Joseph a notice about Annette when the DSS file a petition to terminate Joseph’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment.

The court of appeal upheld the Family Courts’ decision to terminate Joseph’s parental rights because there was enough evidence to prove that he had abandoned Annette and his uncorroborated testimony about his attempt to contact her. This paper will endeavor to look at the outcome of the case supposing that Annette was not in foster care, but was in a group home or that Annette’s foster parents were not seeking to adopt her. In addition, this discussion will find out whether the contemporary state of the child should be taken into account when the legal framework is apparent and compelling proof of neglect by their natural parent.

Foster care

Annette was placed in foster care because her birth mother terminated her parental rights. On the other hand, her unwed father abandoned her when he was arrested for a drug offense and put into incarceration. Foster families care for children under their care (Foster Care, 2009, Placing Children in Foster Care, para.1). Annette had been in foster care for more than two years and the father had not attempted reunification with his daughter (Katz, p.147). In case of adoption, the court would give the first priority to the foster family if they wished to adopt a child under their care. If Annette were not in foster care perhaps, the court would have put Joseph’s claim that he had attempted to contact his daughter three times into consideration and reversed the Family Court’s ruling. This is because a parent may not have money to support a child but “won’t be considered to have abandoned your child as long you visit regularly” or contact a child (Warner, Ihara &Hertz, 2008, p. 122). This is because the law recognizes unmarried biological fathers (Oliphant & Steegh, 2007, p. 328; Lerman & Ooms, 1994, p.142; Brandes & Weidman, 1996, p. 1; U.S. Supreme Court, 2009, p.1; Narayan & Bartkowiak, 1999, p. 40). On the other hand, the court had to consider if Joseph was a fit parent which he was not meaning the results would have been the same even if Annette was not in foster care. Joseph’s opposition to the free adoption of his daughter cannot succeed because his parental rights were terminated legally (Cornick, 1995, p. 317).

There is no point to mull over the preferring position of the child because the evidence of the child abandonment is evident. Joseph abandoned his child and he has had no contact with Annette since she was four years. Therefore, he gave up his parental rights through neglect. The law calls such practice abandonment. He has no grounds to stop Annette from being put up for adoption because he does not have a relationship with her. Thus, the court does not have a reason to look into the current situation of the child concerning abandonment. It is clear that Annette has no natural parent who is responsible for her. Joseph’s failure to contact Annette even after finding out she was in foster care is sufficient evidence that he did not make adequate attempts to contact her. The court will be acting right because it can adopt “a clear and convincing proof standard for parental status termination cases” (Marby & Kelly, 2006, p. 88). Joseph has not been supporting his child and thus he cannot claim he will start doing so now because he even failed to make an effort to contact her in foster care. He failed to protect his right to veto adoption by taking the necessary measure such as keeping contact or supporting Annette (Smith, 2004, p.1).

Conclusion

The court gave a fair ruling that Joseph abandoned his child. He is an irresponsible parent who wants to stop his daughter from being adopted. Adoption would be a better option for his child so that she can get permanency in her life if she is lucky to get an adoptive family. Annette will be better without her father who not only failed to support her but contact her.

Reference List

Brandes, R.J. & Weidman, L.C. (1996). The Rights of Unwed Fathers. Web.

Cornick, S.M. (1995). A practical guide to family law. New York: engage Learning. ISBN0314044515.

Feld, B (2003) Juvenile Justice Administration in a Nutshell, 2d Edition. St. Paul: Thomson West. (ISBN: 978-0-314-18138-1).

Foster Care and Adoption for Waiting Children. Web.

Katz, N.S. (2003). Family law in America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0199264341.

Lerman, I.R. & Ooms, T. (1994). Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN1566393183, 9781566393188.

Marby, R.C. & Kelly, L. (2006). Adoption law: theory, policy and practice. :New Jersey: Wm. S. Hein Publishing. ISBN0837734487, 9780837734484.

Narayan, U. & Bartkowiak, J.J. (1999). Having and raising children: unconventional families, hard choices, and the social good. Penn State Press. ISBN0271018879, 9780271018874.

Oliphant, R, & Ver Steegh, N (2007). Family Law, 2d Edition. New York: Aspen. (ISBN: 978-0-7355-6289-9.

Smith, E.L. (2004). Unwed Fathers: Preventing Your Infant Child from Being Adopted without Your Consent. Web.

(2009). Web.

Warner, R., Ihara, L.T. & Hertz, F. (2008). Living Together: A Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples. 14th ed. California: Nolo. SBN1413307558, 9781413307559.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, September 9). Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette. https://ivypanda.com/essays/adoption-veto-the-case-of-annette/

Work Cited

"Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette." IvyPanda, 9 Sept. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/adoption-veto-the-case-of-annette/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette'. 9 September.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette." September 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/adoption-veto-the-case-of-annette/.

1. IvyPanda. "Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette." September 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/adoption-veto-the-case-of-annette/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Adoption Veto: The Case of Annette." September 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/adoption-veto-the-case-of-annette/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
Privacy Settings

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

  • Basic site functions
  • Ensuring secure, safe transactions
  • Secure account login
  • Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
  • Remembering privacy and security settings
  • Analyzing site traffic and usage
  • Personalized search, content, and recommendations
  • Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Required Cookies & Technologies
Always active

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Site Customization

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

  • Remembering general and regional preferences
  • Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy.

Personalized Advertising

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy.

1 / 1