Here is why there is a fight for LGBT rights, here’s why gay marriage went all the way to the Supreme Court, this is the kind of headline, case they were hoping against hope to no longer see, striving to put a final stop to. Because, a judge’s issue with these already approved, licensed foster parents isn’t their lifestyle in terms of recklessness, flightiness, unconventional behavior that could turn dangerous, unfettered guns in the home, a decided lack of morality facilitating a criminal record, leading to the logical conclusion a child reared by them would be in constant conflict with society’s most basic tenets. A drug or alcohol problem within the last decade, isn’t a suicide attempt by either party within the last five, isn’t any evidence they neglected the child in their care, abused money given to them by the state for the purpose of caring for the child, there is/was a history of prior abuse, neglect with their 2 biological older children. His problem solely lies with their sexual orientation, the fact 2 women, not a man and a woman, will be raising this child; helpful to know, in addition to his judgeship, he is also a bishop in the Mormon Church. However the law, both state and federal, is on the side of the couple, who used the national legalization of gay marriage not only to wed, but then to become registered, licensed foster parents. Utah state law reads any married couple can become foster parents no stipulations said couple must be heterosexual, no caveat excluding any member of the LGBT community, homosexual or transgender. Hardly shocking a judge making a controversial decision; still, some of the most shocking cases involved over-seas courts in differing justice systems. In American courts controversial decisions of recent years overwhelmingly involve either rape cases where light sentences where given to convicted perpetrators, extraordinarily heavy sentences were given to teens engaged in sex with each other while underage. An underage lied about their age to have sex, routinely with an older guy; teens who purportedly flirted with teachers, according to judicial comments, rapes that could not have happened due to tight clothing, namely skinny jeans. Or new psychology led to the acquittal, lesser sentence for someone normally given several years to life in prison; think the Ethan Couch “afluenza” defense, where he was sent to a posh rehab center instead of jail after killing 4 people in a drunk driving accident based on a psychologist’s testimony Couch was raised in such an affluent, wealthy environment he didn’t, couldn’t know right from wrong. Cases inevitably having to be resentenced before different judges; doubling the egregiousness regarding the lesbian foster couple, sheer volume of family court cases, neglect, abuse, abandonment situations coming across his bench. Also our judge’s ruling further burdened a taxed-out foster care system scrambling to find her a new placement adding pressure granting only 7 days for said change to take place. Why, research he claims concludes children don’t do was well in homosexual homes as they do in heterosexual ones; keeping in mind the child in question is all of one year old arguably more harmed, damaged by constant shifting from home to home, unable to form the lasting attachments child development specialists say children fundamentally need during such critical formative years, developmental milestones. Absence of which child experts know can cause looming problems down the line, attachment disorders to name one. Family court too no stranger to controversial, even bizarre, rulings garnering a reputation for terrifying errors, misconduct, corruption leaving people the impression they remove the children who don’t need to be removed and do not remove the ones who desperately need to be separated for abusive, neglectful parents, unsafe homes. A perception not helped by the middle of last month airing on Dr. Phil’s talk show telling the story of adopted twins and other siblings starved, beaten by a sadistic father and stepmother. When the children were finally removed from their father’s judge ordered placement the abuse case made local, if not national headlines in 2011. Chief targets of that abuse now 18 and speaking out. Judge presiding over the lesbian couple who originally demanded her removal ultimately reversing course saying the couple can keep the child for now; next court hearing given to news outlets by the couple’s attorney as December 4.
Usually we see this when gay foster parents want to adopt the child they have been caring for long term and while many states are so desperate for solid, acceptable homes to place children into will let them foster yet not adopt. Until the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same sex marriage this July, bolstering the argument, in certain areas, of the religious right, evangelicals, people who believe homosexuality goes against nature, religion aside, or especially believe homosexuality is profoundly harmful to children, was the fact gay/lesbian couples were not married, could not marry in many cases, opening up several legal quagmires as to what would happen to the child if anything lethal, incapacitating befell the couple. Further, because there is no marriage between aforementioned couples, binding legal document or social contract, what is to stop one or both parties from too easily dissolving the relationship leaving an already vulnerable child minus a parent? After all these are homosexual persons whose proclivities defy god and nature, who are “known” to have multiple sexual partners, never settling down with anyone, driven solely be their strange, perverse sexual appetites, and who would want to bring a child into that, or such was the thinking, arguments presented to courts awarding grandparents, anyone custody of the child, but the gay couple wishing to adopt. That implied harm to children world news watchers will remember is what mobilized protests in France, later turning violent, brought religious and atheist persons together, even some homosexual individuals against legalization there, due to legalization opening the door for gay French citizens to legally adopt children. Here Scott Johansen didn’t even let it get that far; in what appears to have been a standard, perfunctory court hearing either to check the progress of the child, to determine, finalize a longer term custody situation for her, gaging shocked reactions of all participants involved including DFS personnel and legal analysts now scrutinizing his decision, Johansen dropped his bombshell ordering she be placed in a heterosexual home. Why, research he refused to site stating children did worse in homosexual homes; when the couple asked for the source of the judge’s information, he bluntly told them to do their own research or find it for themselves. If you are going to remove a child from a functional household where all their immediate physical, emotional and medical needs are being met, common sense says you site the research; if it has a right-leaning slant own it. You are in Utah; it’s not like similar things aren’t a regularity there. Citing the primary source for your decision simultaneously allows interested parties, i.e. the couple, the DFS worker to bring forth counter-research, to make their case for a child they obviously want, a placement they obviously support rooted in how well the child is thriving. Otherwise your decision looks pretty much like what it’s being interpreted as, a bigoted, bias against homosexuals, preconceived notions about that group of people actually not supported by sound research or behavior patterns looking at how many same sex couples have applied for marriage licenses since the Supreme Court’s positive decision, based on the stories making national news relevant to local opposition in granting said licenses unveiling partners who’ve been in relationships 10-15 or more years. Regardless of why exactly they were there, what is clear according to those present encompassing a DFS worker plainly on the side of the couple is, he asked no questions pertaining to the care given to the child, he referenced no deficiencies laid out in documents put before the court meant to effect his determinations regarding the couples behavior either towards the child, their respective older children or as citizens within the community. There was no evidence detailing problems medically, physically, emotionally with the child, while in their care, that were not previously present from her removal situation, or that regressed rather than improved as a result of their interactions with her; in fact all reports seem to say the child is a thriving, happy one year old toddler. He gave no indications prior to this, if he had ever had them appear before him at all on the matter, he was leaning in his stated direction based on things within statements, lacking from reports concerning this child. Considering his basis for the ruling, he asked no questions of the DFS worker or couple about the home environment, how they planned to, down the line, introduce positive male role models into her life, he didn’t attempt to dispel his own ignorance, ascertain how this same sex relationship worked in raising, caring for the child, how long their 2 biological children had been aware of their mothers’ sexuality, their reaction, what they saw in how the couple cared for their newest sibling, for the sake of his own peace of mind. Instead he essentially said your gay, the child is being removed because your being gay is bad for her.
Worse he ignored crucial factors directly relevant to what this is supposed to be all about, the best interest of the child, the purpose and mandate of the juvenile court and proceedings over which he held jurisdiction that day. Paramount, these people want to adopt the girl in question, not just provide her with a temporary home; she is one year old currently and has a significant opportunity to be part of a family for most of her life, well beyond her developmental years, childhood, adolescence, reaching the age of the majority, not just be given a place to live, slogging through a life in ever-changing limbo like so many children consigned to foster care, state custody. Judge Johansen had the opportunity, still has the opportunity to allow baby girl X, name unknown and odds are it will stay that way taking into account privacy law and the close guarding of juvenile records, to avoid the problems too often plaguing foster children bounced from home to home, who lack a sense of belonging and stability, multitudes still suffering aftereffects from whatever abuse and neglect caused them to be pulled from their biological parents. Increased chances of drug use, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, drinking, poor grades, dropping out of high school, never attending higher education and perpetually stuck in minimum wage, medial level work are but a few things statistically occurring with routinely shifted foster children and probably listed in the research he refused to disclose somehow attached to same-sex households also raising children. Speaking of the biological parents, he subsequently ignored pleas from the child’s birth mother to place her daughter with the couple; a biological mother who understands, for whatever reason, she can’t keep the child, chose to have it rather than an abortion and, by her plea, indicates she has been active in the process of choosing an adoptive family for her offspring. More and more common with the prevalence of open adoptions and unique adoption scenarios, adoptive parents ready and willing to let birth mothers be a part of their children’s lives, watch them grow up. Biological parents, whose preference in adoption settings has for decades carried weight in final placements, no examples brought rendering her observations, desires moot or without merit, so why disrupt a young child’s life so dramatically if her placement status in the home is legally standing at temporary? To that end, he had/has the chance to prevent one more child from aging out of the system, being unceremoniously dumped out of whatever foster or group home they’re living in on their 18th birthday; a phenomenon happening with alarming frequency due to children placed into the system young who garner more and more behavioral, discipline problems, juvenile records and psychological issues as they grow older forcing their placement in a group home. Or a lack of availability of foster homes, wish by fostering or adoptive couples to take in older children precluding a permanent foster placement necessitating virtually being warehoused in a group home setting. Where, they are everything from bullied, physically or sexually abused by fellow residents, chance learning criminality having given up on a real home, a real family, acquiring new and different criminality as a way to act out, to cope, even to survive the utter crapshoot comprising their life. It is widely known among children’s advocates, placement workers and adoptive circles those seeking adoption strongly prefer babies passing older children by wanting to forgo detailed behavior problems, psychological problems attributed to their previous circumstances. Also almost bewitched by cute little babies and the idea of watching the child grow from their current infant, toddler stage throughout all their life, things you don’t get taking in and older child. Knowing all of these things both positive and negative, which he would have to, being tapped to be a juvenile court judge, listening to, reading the case in front of you, why would you, barring a major deficiency with the foster parents who want her to be their daughter, who want to make it legal as soon as the proceedings can be completed, take her away? Except if your ruling, your legal judgment was based on something outside legal parameters, in his case staunchly held religious beliefs and ties to the Mormon Church; Utah made up of a heavily Mormon population. Utah incidentally being the same state where a school received national attention for secretively editing yearbook photos absent student, parent knowledge or permission for so called modesty, bare shoulders, visible bra straps with sleeveless tank tops warn at the height of summer, an affirmation tattoo and it being a horrible hack job on top of it. Potentially complicating baby girl X’s life exponentially, to say nothing of turning off good, caring foster parents so desperately needed to the possibility of fostering ever again, his ruling is a stark symbol he will protest, contest the adoption lobbied for by the couple at a future date, if the case is left in his courtroom, on equally erroneous grounds.
Confronting considerations that need to be made when assessing a same sex home for a child, what are the odds the negatives attached to same sex households adopting children, well, soundly, non- biasedly researched or not, stem primarily from society’s reaction to their parents? Vitriol, hate, name calling, harassment, and too many times violence, aimed at those people seen by society as other, instead of wanting the same things we all want. Love, acceptance, having the same dreams and goals throughout our lives career, romance a husband, a wife, children. Noting not all heterosexual people want all those things and they are less likely to be viewed as abnormal for remaining single the whole of their lives, devoting themselves to career over ever having children; vice versa people who forgo career to raise a family, women who divide their lives to do both, taking time off from work to nurture a child, usually to preschool or kindergarten age, then going back to work. The sheer number of people applying for same sex marriage licenses and the number of years they have been together beforehand ought to, once and for all, dispel the stereotype gay people, lesbian people are any different from us in their seeking a permanent relationship. Nor is the long held myth true, being raised in a gay home will turn, or cause the child/children they raise to be gay; higher rates of self-identification as homosexual, some portion of the LGBT community is most probably a byproduct of knowing their parents will accept them, they won’t face backlash from those they love the most, a greater understanding of what being gay, lesbian or bisexual is, means. Of course a child is going to instinctively react badly to constant vitriol, hate, name calling, harassment and violence aimed at those people they identify as their parents, but isn’t that when we should look at ourselves and not punish LGBT persons for trying to be like everyone else, for desiring to have children, a man and a woman can biologically create independent of if they want it, can, will take care of it? Statistically how is it any more of a gamble than the multitudes of issues that can and do befall heterosexual couples who also are married, who also become parents, the number of unmarried committed couples raising children, the number of heterosexual persons who get someone pregnant, become pregnant and the two people attempt to come together for the child? Heterosexual couples that may struggle with alcohol addiction, drugs, mental illness, thoughts of suicide, may subject children to scenes of domestic violence if the children themselves don’t suffer abuse. Scenario’s like will that, being placed in a homosexual household, trigger memories of past abuse, should they be placed in a lesbian home rather than a gay home due to abuse perpetrated on them by men, or the reverse if severely abused by women, will it add turmoil because the child is unsure about living in a same sex home, largely don’t apply to a child so young. Questions about negatives derived from seeing how the same sex parties, her hopefully future parents, are treated by their neighborhood, larger community, potential teasing at school have yet to arise, but it is both wrong to assume, they, probable lifelong recipients effected by such teasing, can’t deftly handle it when, if it does occur, or putting baby girl X in a heterosexual home would eliminate all opportunities for teasing on behalf of peers, teachers, other parents. Children are often dealt moderate levels of hassle, low level teasing by peers especially for something their parent, parents do independent their sexual orientation lifestyle choice, whether it’s the music blaring out of the car when the child is dropped off, the un-hip, un-cool clothes the parent is wearing or seen as overly strict rules/punishments doled out at home. Today fellow parents don’t hesitate to make a scene with you in front of your child, loudly lecture you on any aspect of parenting they feel you are currently being deficient in handling correctly, equally loudly voice judgments and opinions on something you allow your child to do they would never dream of at the same age, the “lax” punishment you gave to your child over wrongdoing X they feel should be dealt with more harshly to avoid creating a delinquent. Teachers too becoming more vocal in chiming in about things transcending the classroom, on school grounds behavior good or bad sometimes taking it out on a child when they don’t like the parent; all independent of parents obvious sexual orientation, gender status. Translation, your child throughout their life will have infinite possibilities of being embarrassed, humiliated by other adults regarding parent decisions; now there are those who would next say, so why pile up more instances for said degradation onto children already having been through harrowing events? But again isn’t that a black mark against society not LGBT persons of all flavors who want to adopt; I myself spoke elaborating on France’s upheaval, a gay home may be absolutely warranted because the child was kicked out of his biological home for being some fashion of LGBT, wondered at the backlash by youth when they discovered the only thing keeping them from a home and parents, people to call some variation on mom and dad is the reality they were gay/lesbian. Shouldn’t those older children, what this girl will eventually become if her placement doesn’t continue, if her adoption isn’t finalized, have the ability, the right to choose, to say whether or not they care about their potential parents’ sexual orientation? And there is no glaring indication that was the part of the research compelling judge Johansen to make the initial ruling he did, nor any reported violence enacted against the couple to prompt concern about the safety of their home tangibly connected to their lifestyle. Had there been, surely they would have requested to move with the child, would have been eligible to move within the county if not the entire state, sans effecting their foster status or ability to care for baby girl X prior to finalizing her adoption.
Heterosexual homes likewise are not a panacea to preventing child abuse, negative environments for children, representing the highest moral standard, best conditions for a favorable outcome i.e. a well-rounded, above all, productive citizen we readily hasten to conclude they are even in a foster situation, despite screenings and background checks, home visits and extensive questions answered satisfactorily. Think about it what type of homes have we predominately been pulling children from over the years; how many testimonials do we have from children who grew up in heterosexual homes only to be sexually abused by mother or father, were drastically effected by their parents’ constant fighting, refusal to divorce, one parent who buries themselves in work to avoid the destructive home situation facilitating abuse, neglect by the other, tag teams of “parents” equally responsible for abusing their child. The Dr. Phil example referenced merely the latest in a long string of abuse cases discovered in what should have been ideal homes, nostalgia evoking nuclear families. Take the Jacksons on the outside a typical middle class, African American couple willing to foster then adopt children, how 4 boys ended up in their care and were eventually adopted by them; what their school, their church, the world didn’t know is, that while the treatment of the children being fostered was normal, once they were adopted the children were systematically starved. Couple telling their church the children suffered from a mysterious wasting disease until the oldest brother broke out of their basement captivity depriving them of schooling too, and was picked up by police. Laws changed in their state after their ordeal was revealed mandating home visits to ascertain welfare of foster children include every child in the home owing to details unearthing they hid already adopted children from workers eyes to continue the abuse. Subconsciously understood unfortunately, foster care too often means plucking a child from one form of abuse only to plant them squarely in the middle of another, a child who goes from physical abuse, beatings to sexual assault, rape by a foster father, group home manger. A child taken from documented sexual abuse to be beaten or denied food in their foster home; children rightful extracted due to neglect suffering from mental, emotional, psychological abuse thanks to the people volunteering to provide them a proper home. Widely known facts many agreeing to foster children, providing varying types of placement do so for the state dollars they receive designed to facilitate their care from food, clothes, routine medical care to specialized services for medical conditions, various therapies and psychological services to overcome their traumatic beginnings, traumatic experiences. Children quickly turning into dollar sign cash cows for people who want something for nothing, see themselves as running a clever scam or whatever irrational rational they use; the system so desperate, so overwhelmed it takes far too long to notice, to weed out the bad ones motivated by something other than helping the less fortunate, helping the most vulnerable. Dave Pelzer famed author of the inspiring yet horrific biography A Child Called It told of imagination defying abuse at the hands of his mother in what other’s thought was the typical 1960’s married family. His brother Richard in his own book, providing insight into why it went so wrong, when their mother, always the socialite, realized it was no logger about parties rather diapers and baby bottles. Heterosexual as a sexual orientation, sexual preference doesn’t rule out non-standard, non-nuclear family structures apparent in the Dr. Phil story where there was a divorce and remarriage or a relationship resulting in a child and a later marriage by at least one parent. Adrian Peterson who had joint, shared custody of his children accused of essentially giving his 4 year old a flogging constituting child abuse to which he pled no contest as part of a plea deal mandating thousands in court costs, 80 hours community service and already entered into counseling as opposed to jail time. Neither is modeled heterosexuality in the home a guarantee to producing heterosexual, gender conforming children; well-known transgender Jazz has 2 heterosexual parents both present and in the home. Dyson Kilodavis who likes wearing and designing dresses at age 5 has both parents in a normal nuclear family home and older gender conforming brother, yet coined the term princess boy prompting his mother to draft a children’s book My Princess Boy explaining who Dyson was to the world and to his peers. And no, the explanation for the gay man’s young song featured at the top of the above video cluster’s identifying response to the book isn’t ‘he’s being raised by 2 fairies or the derogatory lesbian term 2 dikes;’ he exclaimed in the middle of the story daddies that’s me because they presented him with something accessible that perfectly, simply described how he felt. Added component, greater understanding of self, recognizing there is nothing wrong or bad about you because of your differing tastes in ‘gender acceptable behavior,’ 2 parents who better understand who their son is and helping him fully come into his own as a person. What we almost never hear juxtaposing the increased number of gay foster situations, gay adoptions is headline making abuse cases where those involved were homosexuals, same sex relationship paired persons caught perpetrating all manors of abuse onto children placed in their care; surely if it were so bound to happen opponents would be searching high and low for instances, not hesitating to wave them in our faces, the big red flag they always were. In their place, an unnecessary preemptive strike based solely on what might happen, and not what might happen in terms of playing on train tracks, running with scissors, not wearing a motorcycle helmet, forgetting to fasten your seatbelt, but rather on par with what might happen if I were truck by lightening or other freak accident phenomenon.
Beckie Pierce and April Hoagland’s case is the next logical step post legalization of gay marriage, the next logical progression in equality rights for all, the ability to create a family beyond biology. Rights we readily grant people who can’t have children, going so far as to allow a surrogate to carry the child of a couple unable to carry it on their own, minus the intense moral objections even in the early days of the practice. Single persons in pockets of the country who are wishing to adopt a child, sometimes from a struggling developing country, who are financially, emotionally stable but haven’t found Mr. right, desire to be a parent more than they desire a romantic relationship face less and less opposition from the traditional definers of what constitutes a family. Rights we willingly and expediently extend to couples, individuals coconscious enough to question the wisdom of adding to the planet’s population seen as already overcrowded, couples, individuals aware enough to comprehend the plight of children spanning all ages not lucky enough to have permanent stable, homes and decide to do something about that. Under those parameters what does a person’s sexual orientation have to do with it; for those truly concerned about what children will pick up in a homosexual home regarding sex, “perverse” sex acts, sexual attitudes outside the mainstream, news bulletin conservatives, gay marriage haters and the world is going to hell in a hand basket worriers, those attitudes were always there. Whether it was the cheating spouses, rare teen pregnancy, unwed mother of the 1950’s, the free love movement of the 1960’s, the married swingers clubs of the 1970’s or the more obvious LGBT persons emerging from the shadows in the 1980’s to present day. It can’t be anymore “traumatizing,” “scarring” than us accidentally walking in on our parents naked in the bathroom, in their bed trying to have sex with 2, 3, 4 kids in the house, those supposed to be informative, just confusing and terrifying, sex education videos trafficked through public schools. Long before conservatives were scandalized by demonstrations of condom use, the mechanics of anal sex and listing holding hands next to oral sex on a middle school chart listing all the ways 2 people who like each other romantically might show their feelings ‘forced down their throats’ by “demonic” liberals determined to give kids full age appropriate information about their own bodies and sex. It can’t be any worse than what teens get up to themselves, the mythologies they create lacking good, comprehensive sex education, often times even with it; the myth oral sex isn’t technically sex, isn’t as bad, dangerous because it won’t get you pregnant being just one. Further the people screaming the loudest either have no idea what it’s like growing up in a gay home because they weren’t even raised in one or, the youngest generation now old enough to have an adult perspective on the so called consequences are blaming the wrong culprit for their poor family dynamic, drama and tumultuous upbringing. Think Progress does an excellent job of breaking down 4 audacious cases predicted to eventually go before the Supreme Court as evidence why same sex marriage, fostering and adoption should be forbidden using a most compelling argument, they lived it. One Progress found using numerous pen names to spew particularly vicious anti-transgender rhetoric, having nothing to do with her experience with a lesbian mother and totally irrelevant if the trans-person is on hormone treatments making their body and their brain mimic the gender they feel they are. Another openly identifies as an evangelical Christian long at odds with the LGBT community and runs a blog called AskTheBigot, really; roughly identical caliber to the one who has shopped her story to prominent anti-gay hate group leaders, who are either paying big bucks or stroking her pathological need for attention. Finally, a bisexual man who has ‘denounced his same sex attractions’ regularly compares same sex adoption to slave ownership and cultural genocide indicating extreme zealotry. “In fact, all four indicate that their negative ideas about homosexuality presuppose their experience having a gay parent, and in some cases, the very reason they felt traumatized by having a gay parent was the idea that they would have to accept it.” Think Progress unlike the Christian outlet who ran their as a how accepting gay marriage hurts us, a clarion call to continue the fight against it, outlined too who it villainized beyond members of the LGBT community; our story shopper known for saying children do best raised by their biological mother and father emphasis on biological denigrating all forms of adoption and foster care the pivotal role they play in helping children faced with less than ideal circumstances. Our multi penname activist, who can’t even seem to own her statements under her own name, says people who can’t have their own children (and are seeking to foster or adopt) are engaging in human trafficking, regularly refers to volunteer surrogates as ‘breading stock.’ The lone male here in addition to slavery comparisons on the part of the parents calls the children of said adoption chattel; Think Progress eager to point out, “Nevertheless, opponents of marriage equality are not actively trying to ban divorce, adoption, or foster care, nor are they trying to force widows and widowers to remarry. They are only targeting same-sex marriage.” But the clincher defining these children as something else we’ve seen too much of, these children weren’t fostered or adopted into a gay home as infants or coming from an abusive situation into a stable same sex home; they were subsequently raised through the rest of their youth, adolescence in a same sex home only after a split of their biological parents, divorce and one entering into a same sex relationship. Showing he was denied a father figure, positive male role model leading him to a life of prostitution and a self-described compulsion to have sex with older males through that, not exclusively a same sex household. Problems solved when we stop forcing people into one of two things, a box labeled ‘normal’ where you conform to all your genders behavioral expectations, society’s sexual orientation expectations or the marriage box still perpetuating marriage as a defining part of being a compete person male or female, variations by culture demanding you get married, have children whether that’s a life goal of yours or not whether you would be a good parent or not. If these people had been allowed the freedom to accept who they were, explore their sexuality their kids wouldn’t exist as the bitter persons before you and the children they fostered or adopted would have grown up sans the trauma known to come from divorce, at least in the contest it came about here, something to think about. Progress able to site several groups promoting happy children of LGBT adults fully raised in their households and thriving to contrast a hand full of bitter adults. Returning to Pierce and Hoagland, yes the judge reversed his decision, which in and of itself says something; why reverse your decision so quickly if it was a sound one to begin with? Yes he decided against breaking up a family for now, attorneys initially fearing all he had done was amend the 7 day timeline to change the child’s placement; thing is, that’s the way it always should have been, what should have happened in the first place. There shouldn’t have been all this hullabaloo over an available family to foster, planning to adopt a child.