|
Adoption Cases
- In re Adoption of Johnson, 612 N.E.2d 569 (1993) Consent to adoption may not be withdrawn prior to the entry of the decree of adoption unless the court finds, the person seeking the withdrawal is acting in the best interest of the child to be adopted and the court orders the withdrawal.
- In re Baby Boy W., 1999 OK 74 (1999) Held that a biological father has a due process right to notice of the fact that the biological mother is pregnant and has given birth to his child. His parental rights cannot be terminated unless either the child's biological mother or the adoption agency has taken steps with due diligence to notify the natural father of the child's existence.
- In re M., 317 N.J. Super. 531 (1999) This was a case brought for vacation of a final judgement of adoption by a child who had reached the age of majority, so that she and her adoptive father could marry and legitimate a child that they had together. Court found that vacating the judgement would be in the best interest of the new born child.
- S.S.M. v. Department of Health & Soc. Servs.,Div. of Family & Youth..., 3 P.3d 342 (2000) Found that preference for placement of child with blood relative was inapplicable to situations where child had been placed for adoptive purposes.
- State in the Interest of A.R., 765 So. 2d 395 (2000) Court found that siblings had not right to sue for a visitation requirement to be imposed through the agency of the adoptive mother's subsidy contract. Held that the adoptive mother of one sibling had the right to decide whether visitation between them would continue.
|
 | |
| |
|
Foster Care Cases
- In Smith v. Organization of Foster Families For Equality & Reform, the United States Supreme Court held that a foster parent's constitutional rights to a child do not rise to the level of a biological parent.
- DeWater v. State, 130 Wn.2d 128 (1996) Held that a foster parent is not an "employee" of the State for purposes of the law against discrimination, RCW 49.60; therefore, the State is not vicariously liable for the foster parent's alleged acts of harassment.
- Claudio v. Dowling, 89 N.Y.2d 567 (1997) Held that foster parents have standing to request a fair hearing from the State when the City denies or fails to act on a foster parent's request for foster care maintenance payments at a particular rate and the children cared for no longer reside with the foster parents at the time the request for a fair hearing is made.
- In re G.C., 558 Pa. 116 (1999) Court held thata due to the uniquely limited and subordinate, state-created, agency-maintained, foster parent/child relationship, that foster parents lack standing to seek or contest custody of their foster children. The court however recognized a distinction between its decision to deny foster parents the right to contest custody placement in court and the right granted pursuant to Pa. Code ??00.73 that allows foster parents to administratively appeal a decision to relocate a child.
|
|
|
|
|
