Then, we can wait for the Appeals Court to settle the matter of the contempt.

That’s why what she did was improper. I researched the enacting legislation that created this section of code. The enitre point of this was to PREVENT jurisdictional contention. Hadaway intentional subverted the intent of the legislature to CREATE jurisdictional contention.

If she would have appealed the decision, like reasonable people would have done, I would have hoped the appellate court would have given her custody, perhaps suggesting that she move to an area more friendly to her circumstance for the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

But no. She dicided to pick a fight with a judge, that I have heard is a pretty by the book guy. She painted it as a man out to get gays for no other reason than blood boiling rage, because she didn’t get her way.

Is this indicative of someone who is of good ethical and moral character? Is someone who chose to subject her potential daughter to a public circus, instead of quietly following prescribe legal remedies a good candidate for being a mother?

She and her supportes have done nothing but disparage the court, the foster family and everyone else who stands in their way. This does not earn sympathy in my book, but makes me think the people standing against her were right in their judgement.

The judge, on the other hand, has not said a word about this in the press, has not disparaged her, and has acted properly as an officer of the court. You may not agree with his reasoning for not giving custody to Hadaway. But it was within his power.

White couples are often times blocked from adopting black children because there is a concern for the preservation of the culture of the child, among other reasons. Adoption is about what is best for the CHILD, not what is “fair” for the prospective mother.

Why do you think she should not have to file an appeal like everyone else in her position would have to? I know, I know, it is because you cannot look past the fact that she is gay, and no matter what she does to break the rule of law, it is always the result of the hatred of someone else.

Finally, aren’t judges supposed to be the ones who determine what is in the best interest of a child? If what Judge Parrott did was so egregious, then wouldn’t she be assured to get the child back on appeal?

This woman is no hero, she is someone who uses a child for publicity and sympathy, when avenues that were more proper and less pubic were available. If a straight man had done this, you would be all up in arms and shouting for his lynching.

And, I never called you a lesbian, I called you a leftie. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck….etc.

Hadaway is a manipulator, and the only reason you support her is because in your mind is because you want to believe in any dispute the gay person is always right.

If the roles were reversed, and Hadaway was a straight father who was ordered to give the girl back to a a lesbian foster mother, and performed the same sort of sham, you would be on the other side, and say he should be found in contempt.

It is typical of lefties.

Has anyone seen the article on the front page of the Macon Telegraph today? Any thoughts?

Do you actually believe there was any attempt to transfer custody of this child?

It looks like the judge made the mistake of believing Ms. Hadaway and her Lawyer had any
desire to follow the law.

In the end, it is the law abiding people that pay the price for actions of people like this Hadaway, as judges have to assume that everyone is going to have some kind of “angle” to avoid the law.

I only pointed it out that she was not a doctor because the article said that they brought in a “doctor”, which suggests a profession and not just an honorary title. Not to say that you would even want a medical doctor in that situation, but if they made such a mistake in one area, it’s not far fetched that it could permeate the article in others.

Anyway, I think our discussion is moot at this point. It is in the hands of the appellate court, where it should be, so my side won. I do not know who should have the kid, but I am not going to support or oppose someone’s ability to adopt solely on the grounds that she is gay or straight.

I only spoke up to defend the original judge, because I do not like witch burnings and rushes to judgment of easy to target villains., and parts of the women’s and Sovo’s claims are to the point of being caricatures of a cartoon villain.

And, you have documented evidence of this, or just a pile of non sequiters to babble outloud about?