However, if the state legislature gave him discretion to act in the way he did, then he is doing his job, whether any of us like it or not.

If one doesn’t like it, convince the voters of Wilkinson county to bounce him. Also, file an appeal and have his judgement overturned by the appeals court of the state, the state supreme court, the federal distric court, federal circuit court, federal supreme court, or since Hillary would be in office about 7 years by this point, the United Nations.

People on the left and right roll their eyes at the rule of law when it stands in their way, but it is the only thing that protects our freedoms. Once respect of that is finally killed off to the glee of the extremists, we are all in for it.

But do you deny that the judge in the original case overrode the rule of law and ruled according to his personal views? Isn’t that what you people call legislating from the bench? Isn’t that a no-no with your side?

Nothing that the would be adoptive mother says in the press will undercut the original ruling that was wrong.

Gotta keep them kids away from the HO-MO-SEXUALS at all costs, right?

How do you know the child is regressing at an alarming rate? The so called doctor (PhD Socialworker) testified to that fact 2 days after she left the custody of the plantiff. More hyperbole. Perhaps the would be mother did not teach the child what she claims, or pehaps the child had a bad day. It is hardly reasonable to take that as fact.

You guys have just found someone to hate, someone who is easy to attack to make yourselves feel good, someone who isn’t present to defend him or herself.

Bowersville is right. And if the appellate court finds the original judge acting in an irresponsible way, THEN burn him at the stake. They will have something you don’t, the vested power to decide the law in this case.

The fact that the mother has turned this into a press driven witch hunt goes to the assumed original judge’s point that she may be unfit. The child is the loser through all of this, and it is not just the courts that are inflciting the harm.

How is his subverting the law in favor of his own views the moral high ground here? Go ahead and try to explain this one. I’m dying to hear this explanation.

Don’t assume that people base their opinions on how law should be followed on their religion or personal beliefs.

There are countless situations where people who care about the standard of the rule of law will opposing things that are to their own personal benefit or tastes because the think that it violates this principle. Look at the Terry Shiavo case, where a number of conservatives cringed at the Federal Government stepping in on a state matter, even though they had a strong desire for the outcome to be one that extended her life.

When you ignore parts of law when it is to your benefit, you have no moral ground to oppose the same situation when it is to your detriment. When we start adjudicating cases by first deciding the outcome we wish to see, the law is meaningless. We are on a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to complete tyranny, where the people with power will be the ones who get these accommodations.

Of course, for too many liberals, and single issue activists, it is only the case by case outcome that matters, not the long term institutional damage.

100% agreement from me.

That pretty much is my beef. I will accept your view of the situation. My only hope is that the child does get as normal of a life as someone can in her circumstance.

I also hope that the mother does not continue to use her as a tool for publicity/sympathy and tells the Southern Voice to get lost. Adoptions are confidential for a reason.

I think you are missing the fundamental point that there were two difference cases with two different classes of law involved.

One was a custody matter. One was an adoption.

You and I both know she only moved to Bibb County to get away from Judge Parrott. But she did not do anything illegal.

Yeah, she played the system, which seems to be your beef with this, but she was still playing by the rules.

At the time she filed for custody in Bibb County, the county in which the legal custodian resided per § 19-9-23, there were no pending matters related to the custody of Emma Rose.

Would people then be so willing accept these machinations? We cannot change the law based on our feelings toward the parties involved.

She propbably should have gotten the adoption in the first place, but that is for the appeals court to decide, not Justice, I mean Judge Self.

On November 20, 2006, an adoption proceeding was held.

On January 8, 2007, the adoption was denied and the child was ordered returned to the natural mother.

On January 12, 2007, the natural mother refused to take back Emma and again assigned custody to Hadaway

Between January 12 and 18, 2007, Hadaway moved to Bibb County.

On January 19, 2007, Hadaway filed for custody in Bibb County.

On February 20, 2007, the Wilkinson County Superior Court ordered DFACS to take the child.

On February 22, 2007, the child was placed in a foster home.

On March 30, 2007, the Bibb County Superior Court rendered its custody decision.

Between January 8 and January 19, 2007, there were no pending court matters. The matter was closed on January 8, 2007, in Wilkinson County and the Bibb County Superior Court took up the matter on the 19th.

Only after the proceedings began in Bibb County did the Wilkinson County Court intervene to assign custody specifically to a foster family in Wilkinson County.

There was a court order from the Wilkinson judge giving custody to the county mentioned in Judge Self’s own order.

In this case, there was a legally valid document assigning custody of the abandoned child to Ms. Hadaway and a statement under oath that Ms. Hadaway had moved to Bibb County with the intent to live there as her residence. There was no evidence submitted for the court to consider to contradict either.

Our legal system broke down a long long time ago.

Erick, read code section 19-9-23. It doesn’t seem to indicate that jurisdiction would follow the plantiff, it looks like it stays with the child.

So, in your analysis, 8 people in a family prevents neglect and children should not be dependent on mothers and fathers to raise them.

So welfare mothers should have 6 or more children and kids can raise kids.

And, which side are you on?

Steve, I didn’t mean Erick. I meant the plantiff. I have read her quotes in various articles and in Judge Tripps order, it quotes her position that the child is suffering neglect due to the fact the family has 5 kids.

There were 6 kids in my family, and I find there to be a lot less neglect in a large one than a small one, as the child is not reliant on a single individual to provide care, supervision and attention.

The matter in Wilkinson County was an adoption case. The matter in Bibb County was a custody case. She was within her legal right to proceed as she did.