Lesbian Couple Fights to Keep Baby (WV)

[MountainLaurel]

They've been fostering her since birth, and the court thinks this poor baby would be better off going to a new home?!

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of a same-sex couple in Fayette County fighting a judge's order that the baby girl they've been raising since birth should be removed from their home and placed in one with a married man and woman.

Kathyrn Kutil and Cheryl Hess argue that Fayette Circuit Judge Paul Blake exceeded his authority and violated their constitutional rights by ordering that the 11-month-old be immediately transitioned into a "traditional" home.

They say the judge has effectively excluded them as potential adoptive parents of the child simply because of their sexual orientation.

The couple also contend that the state Department of Health and Human Resources - while initially supporting their adoption of the infant - changed course in a later hearing and advocated that the child be removed because there was one too many children already living in the couple's Oak Hill home.

http://dailymail.com/News/statenews/200812110243

[gollygee]

1. That poor baby

This kind of thing is really really hard on babies. :( How awful. :(

It says there are too many children there already, but I read the article and didn't actually see how many children are living there, why they decided to take away that particular child, or anything much else. Maybe I skipped stuff? Really it sounded like they just said that to try to make their case sound more legitimate and like it's not JUST because they're a lesbian couple.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. One other child, a twelve year old girl

The couple are registered foster parents; they adopted the 12 year old after being her foster parents for two years. But keep in mind that, for the Talibangelicals, the two girls are two children too many for a "deviant" household.

[gollygee]

7. Two children are too many for a household?

Wow. There are going to be a lot of kids taken away from their parents if that's the case. I'm due with our #2.

Such bullshit reasoning.

I can't imagine how anyone can try to rationalize taking a baby away from her parents when the parents have done nothing wrong and the baby will be traumatized. This child isn't verbal and there is no way to explain to her what is happening. She will just feel profound grief. It's so evil.

Pro-family my ass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. No, six others

On the second page of the article:

During that hearing, the DHHR argued that Kutil and Hess had seven children living in the house, one over the limit, and that the agency had found a potential adoptive "traditional" home for the baby girl - in contrast to their previous support that the couple be considered for adoption. The couple maintained that DHHR had agreed to give them a waiver to allow them to exceed the number of children in their home.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Didn't see the link to a second page, thanks. n/t

[MountainLaurel]

14. Interesting, the double standard

How many other times do you see a TV special in praise of a couple that takes in multiple foster children or adopts that many children or more? I can remember a book from the 70s about a family that adopted more than 10 special needs kids after having a few biological children already. These people are treated as saints. Meanwhile, these two women are punished for it. (Not to mention the obvious matter that if the county had enough nice, hetero couples willing to be foster parents, these two probably wouldn't have that many children placed with them.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. It's a rule that some other states have too

eg Illinois: http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/docs/pi0204.htm

It makes sense to me - foster children are more likely than average to need time with the adults, and so a limit on how many they foster at a time seems a good idea. It's not a double standard if a TV special says something is good, and a state doesn't - only if the state enforces it in some cases, but not others. TV specials don't get to tell us how to live.

However, the couple say they got a waiver (which presumably means someone took a look at the situation, and decided that was in the best interests of the child), which should have settled the matter, I'd say.

[gollygee]

15. Someone should notify the Duggars

if six is the limit.

[mondo joe]

2. The religious extremists pretend to be about the welfare of children and families,

but in reality are happy to sacrifice both in pursuit of their true goals.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. It is a good thing that gay civil rights are irrelevant and can be put off indefinitely

Otherwise, I might have to care about the child and the emotional attachments between her and her mothers.

[mondo joe]

12. Well, it's not as if supporting civil rights is necessary to be a liberal.

:puke:

[LostinVA]

4. How can it be two years if the child is only 11-months old?

[MountainLaurel]

5. Oops

I swear I thought it read 19 months. :banghead: Will go fix.

[LostinVA]

10. Not snarking -- I was just confused!!!!

[MountainLaurel]

11. That's what I get for posting in the a.m.

Before I've caffeinated and my eyes are focused. :hi:

[Arkansas Granny]

13. Stories like this just make me so mad. If you have a loving parent, or two loving parents,

caring for and raising a child, does the child care about the gender of the parents or how society categorizes their living arrangements? Of course not!!! The child only knows the love and protection of people who love him/her. To suddenly uproot this baby from the home and loving people who have been caring for her since birth just because someone doesn't "approve" of one aspect of their personal life is cruel to the baby and to the people who love her. And these would be the same people who have the audacity to claim that they have "family values".

[bluedawg12]

16. The only compelling interest is the welfare of the child not the judges' political bent.

If the women provided a good and stable and nurturing home, then the judge can take his bigoted, knee jerk, rw ideology and shove it.