DOCSLIB.ORG

Building 21St Century Families: an Update on Trends and Law in Adoption and Assisted Reproduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building 21St Century Families: an Update on Trends and Law in Adoption and Assisted Reproduction BUILDING 21ST CENTURY FAMILIES: AN UPDATE ON TRENDS AND LAW IN ADOPTION AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION CLE Credit: 1.0 Sponsors: KBA Family Law Section and LGBT Law Section Wednesday, June 12, 2019 2:25 - 3:25 p.m. Jones Galt House Hotel Louisville, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgement pf the induvial legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research the original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Building 21st Century Families: An Update on Trends and Law in Adoption and Assisted Reproduction ............................................................................... 1 THE PRESENTERS Debra Guston Guston & Guston, L.L.P. 55 Harristown Road, Suite 106 Glen Rock New Jersey 07452 (201) 447-6660 www.gustonlaw.com [email protected] DEB GUSTON is a partner in the law firm of Guston & Guston, L.L.P., Glen Rock, NJ where her practice focuses on family formation through adoption and assisted reproduction and family protection through estate planning; estate litigation and administration and guardianships for seniors and special needs children. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Rutgers School of Law where she teaches Family Law. Ms. Guston is a Past President of the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys. She graduated cum laude from Mount Holyoke College, holds a M.A. from Emerson College and received her J.D. from Cardozo School of Law. She was appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to the Family Practice Committee, which evaluates rule changes and other issues for referral to the high court. Ms. Guston is an author of the New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act that was signed into law in May 2018 making gestational surrogacy arrangements enforceable in New Jersey. She is a leading voice for the expansion of insurance coverage for fertility procedures and frequently testifies before the New Jersey Legislature on these issues. For the past several years, she has been the organizer and moderator of an annual continuing legal education program sponsored by NJ-ICLE on adoption and assisted reproduction topics designed to educate attorneys on new law and practice and ethics issues in these practice areas. She also frequently provides LGBTQ Cultural Competency programs for professionals, civic groups and municipalities. Ms. Guston is a member of the Legal Professional Group of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. She is a CCAI Angel in Adoption recipient (2017), an honor bestowed by members of Congress and also an Angel Award recipient from CASA of Bergen County. Ms. Guston has been awarded the Distinguished Service Award by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education for her years of service and has been honored by the New Jersey State Bar Association for her work on legislative issues on behalf of the Bar and its legislative agenda and by her alma mater, Cardozo School of Law with its E. Nathaniel Gates Award for her years of contribution to LGBT Family Law. She has been voted by her peers as a Super Lawyer (2012 – 2019) and one of the TOP 50 Women Lawyers in New Jersey for 2016-19. Ms. Guston has been honored by the National LGBT Bar Association with its Leading Practitioner Award, which recognizes lawyers in solo and small legal practices for their impact in LGBT legal issues. i Courtney Townes Good Mosley & Townes PLLC 130 St Matthews Ave Ste 200 Louisville, Kentucky 40207 [email protected] COURTNEY TOWNES GOOD devotes her Kentucky law practice exclusively to matters involving adoption and assisted reproduction. She began her legal career in 1996 as a clerk for the late Boyce F. Martin, Jr. as he began his term as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms. Good followed her clerkship by joining the law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs where she worked as an associate. A member of the Kentucky Bar Association and the Louisville Bar Association, Ms. Good is a graduate of Davidson College (1993) and Washington & Lee School of Law (1996). At Washington & Lee University, Ms. Good served on the Moot Court Board, the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse, and the Alderson Legal Assistance Program. She is the proud parent of three children. W. Waverly Townes Mosley & Townes PLLC 130 St Matthews Ave Ste 200 Louisville, Kentucky 40207 [email protected] WAVE TOWNES has been in the private practice of law for over 45 years. Prior to that he graduated from Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Kentucky School of Law and then was a law clerk for what was then Kentucky’s Supreme Court. Subsequently he was the head of the Civil Division as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky. Initially Mr. Townes had a general practice, but his practice has evolved primarily into a more specialized field of adoptions and assisted reproduction law. He has practiced before the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; the United States District Courts for both the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky as well as many Circuit Courts throughout Kentucky. He has had an AV rating for more than 30 years with Martindale-Hubbell for legal ability and ethical standards as judged by his peers. Mr. Townes is a member of the Kentucky Bar Association, the Louisville Bar Association and is a fellow of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, and a fellow of the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys. ii BUILDING 21st CENTURY FAMILIES: AN UPDATE ON TRENDS AND LAW IN ADOPTION AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION Mosley & Townes, PLLC I. ADOPTION LAW A. New Rules Regarding Adoption Placement Prospective revisions: • Simplify the function of a Voluntary and Informed Consent (reduce the window to revoke that document to hours vs. days). • Narrow the objection window for a biological father from months to weeks (a father could soon lose his ability to assert his parental rights once 22 days have passed since the child’s birth). • Create a user-friendly way for men to take responsibility for their offspring. 1. KRS 199.500 Consent to adoption. Effective beginning June 27, 2019. (1) An adoption shall not be granted without the voluntary and informed consent, as defined in KRS 199.011, of the living parent or parents of a child born in lawful wedlock or the mother of the child born out of wedlock, or the father of the child born out of wedlock if paternity is established in a legal action or if an affidavit is filed stating that the affiant is the father of the child, except that the consent of the living parent or parents shall not be required if: (a) The parent or parents have been adjudged mentally disabled and the judgment shall have been in effect for not less than one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition for adoption; (b) The parental rights of the parents have been terminated under KRS Chapter 625; (c) The living parents are divorced and the parental rights of one (1) parent have been terminated under KRS Chapter 625 and consent has been given by the parent having custody and control of the child; or (d) The biological parent has not established parental rights as required by KRS 625.065. 1 (2) A minor parent who is a party defendant may consent to an adoption but a guardian ad litem for the parent shall be appointed. (3) In the case of a child twelve (12) years of age or older, the consent of the child shall be given in court. The court in its discretion may waive this requirement. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, an adoption may be granted without the consent of the biological living parents of a child if it is pleaded and proved as a part of the adoption proceedings that any of the provisions of KRS 625.090 exist with respect to the child. *(5) An adoption shall not be granted or a consent for adoption be held valid if the consent for adoption is given prior to seventy-two (72) hours after the birth of the child. A voluntary and informed consent may be taken at seventy- two (72) hours after the birth of the child and shall become final and irrevocable seventy-two (72) hours after it is signed. *Currently awaiting changes in AOC-292 and other related statutes to reflect uniform application of the new seventy-two (72) hour window. Until June 27, 2019, the window is twenty (20) days. Kentucky law limits the circumstances in which a man is deemed to have parental rights. It is incumbent upon every sexually active man to be aware of his partners’ pregnancies. The state now provides a method for men to be alerted to potential paternity, provided that a man duly registers for this notification before his potential offspring reaches a certain age. Pursuant to KRS 625.065, absentee fathers who have not so registered may lose standing to participate in any termination or adoption proceeding regarding their offspring.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN ACT Relating to Child Welfare and Declaring an Emergency. 1 Be It
    UNOFFICIAL COPY 19 RS HB 158/EN 1 AN ACT relating to child welfare and declaring an emergency. 2 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: 3 SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 199 IS CREATED TO 4 READ AS FOLLOWS: 5 (1) The cabinet shall require a staff member of a child-caring facility to submit to 6 background checks in accordance with 42 U.S.C. sec. 671(a)(20)(D) and the 7 implementing federal rules, including national and state fingerprint-supported 8 criminal background checks by the Department of Kentucky State Police and the 9 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 10 (2) The child-caring facility staff member shall provide the member's fingerprints to 11 the Department of Kentucky State Police for submission to the Federal Bureau of 12 Investigation after a state criminal background check is conducted. 13 (3) The results of the national and state criminal background checks shall be sent to 14 the cabinet. 15 (4) The cabinet may register a child-caring facility staff member in the rap back 16 system. 17 (5) The request for background checks shall be in a manner approved by the Justice 18 and Public Safety Cabinet, and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services may 19 charge a fee to be paid by a child-caring facility not to exceed the actual cost of 20 processing the request. 21 (6) The cabinet shall promulgate administrative regulations in accordance with KRS 22 Chapter 13A to implement this section. 23 Section 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limited Rights of Putative Fathers Under NC Gen. Stat. § 48-3-601
    Campbell Law Review Volume 23 Article 5 Issue 2 Spring 2001 April 2001 Closing the Window of Opportunity: The Limited Rights of Putative Fathers under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-3-601 and In re Byrd Lauren Vaughan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren Vaughan, Closing the Window of Opportunity: The Limited Rights of Putative Fathers under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-3-601 and In re Byrd, 23 Campbell L. Rev. 305 (2001). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Vaughan: Closing the Window of Opportunity: The Limited Rights of Putative NOTE Closing the Window of Opportunity: The Limited Rights of Puta- tive Fathers Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-3-601 and In re Byrd I. INTRODUCTION In September 1997, eighteen-year-old Shelly O'Donnell informed seventeen-year-old Michael Gilmartin that she was pregnant, and that based on her estimated due date, she believed that he was the father of her unborn child.' During the next two months, Shelly went to see Michael often, discussed her pregnancy with him, and showed him ultrasound images of her baby.2 During that time, Michael and his mother offered Shelly the opportunity to alleviate some of her expenses by allowing her to live rent-free in Michael's mother's home during her pregnancy.3 Shelly, however, declined the offer.4 Soon after that, in November 1997, Michael left moved away and began working two full-time jobs in order to save money for the baby.5 Later that month, Shelly contacted Michael and told him that she had received a revised estimated delivery date for the baby that indi- cated that he might not be the father of her child.6 Not long after learning this information, Shelly decided to give up her child for adop- tion and began working through an adoption network.
    [Show full text]
  • Parentage, Establishing the Putative Father Registry
    Session of 2014 HOUSE BILL No. 2718 By Committee on Children and Seniors 2-14 1 AN ACT concerning parentage; establishing a putative father registry. 2 3 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: 4 Section 1. Sections 1 through 12, and amendments thereto, shall be 5 known and may be cited as the putative father registry act. 6 Sec. 2. (a) A person who engages in sexual relations with a member 7 of the opposite sex is presumed to know that a pregnancy may result. 8 (b) In addition to any other notice to which the putative father is 9 entitled, a putative father is entitled to notice of termination of parental 10 rights proceedings for the purposes of adoption if the putative father has 11 complied with the requirements of the putative father registry. 12 (c) An individual who is not married to the mother but who is 13 presumed to be a father under the putative father registry act and registers 14 in accordance with section 3, and amendments thereto, is entitled to 15 receive notice of a termination of parental rights proceeding. 16 Sec. 3. (a) In addition to any other notice to which the putative father 17 is entitled, a putative father is entitled to notice of any proceedings to 18 terminate parental rights involving a child whom the putative father may 19 have fathered if the putative father timely files the following information 20 with the department for children and families in conjunction with the state 21 registrar of vital statistics: 22 (1) The putative father's: 23 (A) Full name; 24 (B) address at which the putative
    [Show full text]
  • The Failure to Notify Putative Fathers of Adoption Proceedings: Balancing the Adoption Equation
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1-1-1993 The Failure to Notify Putative Fathers of Adoption Proceedings: Balancing the Adoption Equation Alexandra Dapolito Dunn Pace Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Dunn, Alexandra Dapolito, "The Failure to Notify Putative Fathers of Adoption Proceedings: Balancing the Adoption Equation" (1993). Pace Law Faculty Publications. 498. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/498 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY PUTATIVE FATHERS OF ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS: BALANCING THE ADOPTION EQUATION There are over 100,000 adoptions each year in the United States.! Adop­ tion involves the relinquishment of legal rights to a child by the natural par­ ents and a subsequent creation of those rights in the adoptive parents. 2 Due to the permanent results of adoption proceedings, it is essential to balance carefully the competing rights and interests of the biological parents, the adoptive parents, and the children. 3 Putative fathers pose a great challenge 1. According to a survey by the National Committee For Adoption, Washington, D.C., there were 104,088 domestic adoptions in 1986. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION, 1989 ADOPTION FACTBOOK 60 (1989). Of these, 52,931 were related adoptions (adoptions by people related to the child), and 51,157 were unrelated adoptions (adoptions by people not related to the child).
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Birth Father Registry Request to Search Form the Virginia Birth Father Registry Does Not Establish Paternity
    Virginia Birth Father Registry Request to Search Form The Virginia Birth Father Registry does not establish paternity. The registration may be used to help establish paternity. Code of Virginia § 63.2-1250 requires the child-placing agency or adoptive parent(s) to give notice of a proceeding for adoption or termination of paternal rights regarding a child to a registrant who has timely registered. Instructions: Review each section on pages 1 & 2 and complete all items by printing or typing the information. If an item is not known, enter “unknown.” If the item does not apply, enter “N/A” (not applicable). Mail the notarized, signed form to the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Birth Father Registry, 801 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. If you have questions, contact the Virginia Birth Father Registry at 1-877-433-2339 or [email protected]. Name of Person Requesting Search Agency Name/Law Firm Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: Select status to search the Registry. Information in the Virginia Birth Father Registry is confidential and may be released upon request to: ☐ Mother of the child ☐ Attorney representing a party in an adoption, custody, or paternity proceeding ☐ A party to an adoption, custody, or paternity proceeding ☐ Attorney representing a party in a termination of parental rights proceeding ☐ A party to a termination of parental rights proceeding ☐ Child Placing Agency/Local Department of Social Services Purpose of search request: ☐ For placement ☐ For adoption ☐ Court or person designated by the court ☐ Other State Putative (Birth) Father Registry ☐ Support Enforcement ☐ Child’s guardian ad litem I certify that I am authorized as selected from the list above as a person or representative of an agency to request a search of the Virginia Birth Father Registry.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Guardian Ad Litem Dependency Practice Manual
    FLORIDA GUARDIAN AD LITEM DEPENDENCY PRACTICE MANUAL Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program April 2016 he Florida Guardian ad Litem Program is dedicated to ensuring all of Florida’s dependent children receive effective best interest representation. It is hoped that The 2016 Guardian ad Litem T Dependency Practice Manual will be a valuable tool for attorneys and other child welfare professionals interested in legal advocacy and a deeper understanding of the legal issues facing Florida’s most vulnerable children. The 2016 Guardian ad Litem Dependency Practice Manual includes case law, practice tips, checklists and other practice aids. The citations in the manual have been abbreviated. A citation to § 39.01, Fla. Stat. (2015) appears as § 39.01; Fla. R. Juv. P. 9.800 appears as Rule 9.800; The Department of Children and Families appears as the department; and Child’s Best Interest Attorney appears as program attorney. This publication could not be produced without the contributions from Guardian ad Litem Program authors Chris Andriacchi, Gillian Batay, Wendie Cooper, Vanessa Cordero, Elizabeth Damski, Camille Frazer, Donald Frenette, Meliza Frias, Alicia Guerra, Rashel N. Johnson, Jennifer Layton, Christine Meyer, Dennis Moore, Thomasina Moore, Mary K. McAnally, Kelly Swartz, Kanisha Taylor, Jorge Tormes, Patrick Vincent, Patty Walker, Caitlin Wilcox, Mary K. Wimsett and Jessica Yates. Thank you to Debra Ervin, Elizabeth Overton, and Kelly Razzano for their indispensable editorial assistance. The Guardian ad Litem Program also thanks authors from outside the Guardian ad Litem Program including Matthew Dietz, Deborah Schroth, Jodi Siegel, Karen Oehme, and Sonia Crockett. These child welfare professionals went above and beyond to contribute to the Practice Manual – THANK YOU.
    [Show full text]
  • Putative Fathers and Parental Interests: a Search for Protection
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 65 Issue 4 Article 4 Fall 1990 Putative Fathers and Parental Interests: A Search for Protection Stacy Lynn Hill Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Stacy Lynn (1990) "Putative Fathers and Parental Interests: A Search for Protection," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 65 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol65/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Putative Fathers and Parental Interests: A Search for Protection STACY LYNN HILL* The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood.' INTRODUCTION For the first time in five years, the United States Supreme Court, in the 1988 term, heard a case which challenged the constitutionality of the statutory treatment of putative fathers2 and the grounds upon which their parental rights may be terminated.3 In McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services,4 Edward McNamara challenged a California statute which permitted a trial court to terminate his parental rights despite the court's findings that he would be a fit parent, and that he had manifested 6 significant interest in obtaining custody upon learning of his child's birth.
    [Show full text]
  • THE JOURNAL of OTTOMAN .STUDIES Xx
    OSMANLI ARAŞTIRMALARI xx Neşir Heyeti - Editorial Board Halil İNALerK-Nejat GÖYÜNÇ Heath W. LOWRY- İsmail ER ÜNSAL Klaus KREISER- A. Atilla ŞENTÜRK THE JOURNAL OF OTTOMAN .STUDIES xx İstanbul - 2000 Sahibi : ENDERUN KİTABEVİ adına İsmail ÖZDOGAN Tel: + 90 212 528 63 18 Fax :++- 90 212 528 63 17 Yazı İ ş l eri Sorumlusu : Nejat GÖYÜNÇ Tel : + 90 216 333 91 16 Basıldı ğ ı Yer : KİTAP MATBAACILIK San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti . Tel: + 90 212 567 48 84 Cilt: FATiH MÜCELLiT Matbaacılık ve Ambalaj San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Tel : + 90 501 28 23 - 61 2 86 71 Yaz ı şma Adresi: ENDERUN Kİ TABEVİ, BüyUk Reşitpaşa Cad. Yümni İş Merkezi 22/46 Rt!yaz ıı - istanbul THE LİFE OF KÖPRÜLÜZADE FAZIL MUSTAFA PASHA AND HIS REFORMS (1637-1691) Fehmi YILMAZ His life before his vizierate The Köprülüs are known as an eminent vizier family in the Ottoman state due to their reforming initiatives especially when the state encountered serious internal and external problems in the second half of the seventeenth century. The name of Köprülü comes from the town of Köprü Iocated near Amasya. Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, who gave his name to the family, was brought to İstanbul from Albania as a devshirme recruit when he was a child, and he was trained in the Acemi Oglanlar Odjagı of the pala:ce. He spent a significant period of his youthin the palace. He was appointed as hassa cook in the Matbah-ı Amire in 1623. He also joined the retinue of Boshnak Hüsrev Pas ha who was employed in the same period·in the Has-Oda and who would later become a grand vizier.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Planning and Budget 2006 Fiscal Impact Statement
    Department of Planning and Budget 2006 Fiscal Impact Statement 1. Bill Number SB 534 House of Origin Introduced Substitute Engrossed Second House In Committee Su bstitute Enrolled 2. Patron O'Brien , Jay 3. Committee Passed Both Houses 4. Title Adoption laws; creation of putative father registry 5. Summary/Purpose: Makes significant changes to existing laws and policies governing adoption. Th is bill allows birth parents to make recommendations in agency placement adoptions. It also adds Article 4.1, which relates to close relative adoptions and Article 7, which establishes a putative father registry, to the Code of Virginia. It further estab lishes when paternity is presumed. This legislation includes components of House Bills 727, 728, and 729, as amended. This bill includes the following adoption policy changes: • deletes the requirement that an agency outside the Commonwealth comply with Virginia laws governing the execution of entrustment agreements; • specifies that a birth father not married to the mother of the child may execute an entrustment agreement prior to the birth of the child; • reduces the length of time birth parents have to re voke the entrustment agreement; • allows consent to adoption by birth parents in fewer days; • reduces the timeframe during which a birth parent may revoke their consent to adoption; • reduces the length of time the petitioner must have known the person to be adopted when the person to be adopted is over the age of 18; and • removes the requirement that when the person to be adopted is over the age of 18, the petitioner as well as the person to be adopted must have been Virginia residents for at least two years prior to the filing of the adoption petition .
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottoman Age of Exploration
    the ottoman age of exploration the Ottomanof explorationAge Giancarlo Casale 1 2010 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dares Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offi ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Th ailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Casale, Giancarlo. Th e Ottoman age of exploration / Giancarlo Casale. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-537782-8 1. Turkey—History—16th century. 2. Indian Ocean Region—Discovery and exploration—Turkish. 3. Turkey—Commerce—History—16th century. 4. Navigation—Turkey—History—16th century. I. Title. DR507.C37 2010 910.9182'409031—dc22 2009019822 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper for my several
    [Show full text]
  • ADOPTION 701 Scope and Purpose 702 Legal Base 703 Termination Of
    TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR SECTION 7 - ADOPTION 701 Scope and Purpose 702 Legal Base 703 Termination of Parental Rights 703.1 Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights 703.11 Taking Consents 703.111 When Consents Are Required 703.112 When Consents Are Not Required 703.12 How To Take Consents 703.13 Special Circumstances Regarding Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights 703.131 Unknown or Absent Parent 703.132 Refusal or Failure of Putative Father to Give Consent 703.1321 Notices to the Named/Unnamed Putative Father 703.1322 Service of Notice to the Named/Unnamed Father 703.1323 Implied Consent of Putative Father 703.133 The Contesting of an Adoption 703.14 How to Petition for Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights 703.2 Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights 703.21 When to Petition 703.22 How to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights 703.221 Right to Notice and the Opportunity to be Heard 703.222 Conviction of Parent as Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights 703.223 Evidence and Documentation 703.224 Locating the Parents 703.3 Effective Date of Termination Order and Subsequent Periodic Case Reviews 703.4 Reestablishing Parental Rights 704 Custody of the Pre-adoptive Child 704.1 Taking Wardship 704.2 Using Foster Care Pending an Adoptive Placement 705 Prior Written Approval for Placement 706 Types of Adoptive Placements 706.1 Relative and Stepparent Adoptions 706.2 Foster Parent Adoptions 706.21 Changes in Dynamics When Foster Parent(s) Adopts 706.22 Guidelines for Foster Parent Adoption 706.23 Exploring Adoption Subsidy
    [Show full text]
  • Note Amending State Putative Father Registries: Affording More Rights And
    NOTE AMENDING STATE PUTATIVE FATHER REGISTRIES: AFFORDING MORE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS TO AMERICA’S UNWED FATHERS I. INTRODUCTION In 1994, a three-year-old boy was ripped out of the hands of the only parents he ever knew.1 Baby Richard was born to two European immigrants.2 Richard’s mother, Daniella, told the biological father, Otakar, that the baby had died.3 However, the baby was very much alive; Daniella lied to Otakar so she could put the baby up for adoption.4 Otakar was devastated; he was eagerly anticipating the arrival of his first child.5 However, he had suspicions that the child had not died, so he called Daniella, her family, the hospital, and whomever else he thought would be able to help him find information about his baby.6 Ultimately, Otakar learned the truth—his baby was living with an adoptive family, the Does.7 After years of custody litigation, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled in favor of Otakar.8 While it may have felt like a victory, not many people were celebrating.9 The Does lost their son, whom they 1. In re Doe, 638 N.E.2d 181, 182-83 (Ill. 1994). 2. In re Doe, 627 N.E.2d 648, 649 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). Richard is a fictitious name used to protect the child’s identity. Id. at 649 n.1. 3. Id. at 649. 4. Id. at 649-50. Otakar traveled to Czechoslovakia for thirteen days because his grandmother was ill. Id. at 649. While there, Otakar’s aunt called Daniella and told her that Otakar rekindled his relationship with a former girlfriend and that they got married.
    [Show full text]