Given the serious nature of the issues addressed, the executive producers of Family Law make every effort to insure that the show is as authentic as possible. Among the large team of professionals working to accomplish this goal are the show’s legal consultants.
These attorneys and researchers are involved with each facet of the production. They work closely with the producers and writers, finding true stories, reviewing new story ideas and shaping legal strategies. They study each script to see that the dialog and courtroom procedures are accurate. Every legal proposition is thoroughly researched so that all sides of the often-controversial issues the show tackles are explored and the current state of the ever-changing law is accurately portrayed.
Our consultants are also involved with the “look” of Family Law. They work with the directors, production designers, set decorators, props and wardrobe departments so that everything seen in the courtrooms or the offices of Holt & Associates is realistic. This attention to detail helps add the edge of realism to characters and stories which critics and audiences have praised.
This episode deals with the issue of emancipation of minors. Under the California Family Code, a minor can become emancipated from their parents when it can be demonstrated to the courts satisfaction that continuing to live either with the child's parents or in a state-sponsored facility would be adverse to the minor's best interests. It must additionally be shown that the minor will be adequately housed and fed and that a plan for the child's continued education has been developed. Once the court has granted emancipation, the emancipated minor can enter into binding contracts and has the same status under the laws as any other adult. If the court deems it appropriate, it can order the minor to provide periodic progress reports until the legal age of emancipation, which is 18.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the legal maneuvers available to a condemend prisoner during the final days leading up to execution. Every state, including California, has statutory procedures under which a condemned prisoner may petition for clemency. The clemency process is different from appellate proceedings, in that clemency is strictly a plea to the state's governor for mercy. No legal arguments can be entertained. Further, it is nearly impossible to challenge the guidelines set down by the governor as the governor has extremely broad discretion regarding the granting of clemency, beginning with the threshold decision to allow a clemency hearing to take place.
However, courts have held that once the governor agrees to hold a clemency hearing, certain Constitutional rights must be afforded to the defendant, such as the right to counsel and the right to call witnesses. Less clear is whether the condemned has a right to personally address the Clemency Board. This is what is fought for in this episode.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
In the episode the Planning Board of Beverly Hills (a fictitious entity) attempted to prevent a drug treatment facility from being established in the neighborhood simply because the patients had substance abuse problems and ere therefore deemed "undesirable". The Holt attorneys use the anti- discrimination prohibitions of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to fight against the Planning Board. It is well settled law that the ADA extends to persons with alcohol and drug related disabilities.
The seminal case on this issue is to Support Ministries for Persons with the AIDS, Inc. vs. Village of Waterford, NY. There, the court held that zoning officials who denied permits for a hospice for AIDS patients did so due to political pressures from those with prejudice against people with the alcohol and drug related disabilities and therefore violated the American Disabilities Act.
Courts have followed this decision and extended the ruling to hold that local government decisions made in the context of strong, discriminatory opposition becomes tainted with discriminatory intent, even if the decision makers personally have no strong views on the matter. The Holt attorneys are able to demonstrate that, based on statements made by neighbors and by the Board members; there was an atmosphere of generalized fear and negative stereotypes about people in recovery. While the city may consider legitimate safety concerns in its zoning decisions, it may not base its decisions on perceived harm based upon negative stereotypes. The rehabilitation facility should be permitted because it otherwise fit within the guidelines of the zoning code.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the unique position American Indian tribes hold in the American legal system. In effect Indian reservation are almost like separate sovereign nations within the Unites States in that the tribe's laws control members when they are on the reservation. The States have no power to limit sovereign powers. Thus even though a reservation is locates within the boundaries of a state, and the state has some responsibilities to the members of the tribe, the tribal laws govern the members of the tribe.
Nevertheless, the tribes do not have all powers normally intrinsic to a sovereign nation; for example, the may not deal directly with foreign countries. They are also subject to the authority of the U.S. federal government. The tribes do have the authority to handle crimes committed on the reservation; however, in California many tribes have signed treaties with the state agreeing to submit to the authority of state criminal courts. Most tribes have not submitted to state authority with regard to civil issues, such as child custody. In fact child custody cases are handled by the tribes with special care.
Historically, large numbers of Indian children were separated from their families and tribes and were placed in non-Indian homes through state adoption and foster care. This practice caused serious problems for the children, their birth parents, and their tribes. Therefore, congress enacted the Indian Civil Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which gives tribal courts (as opposed to "regular" civil courts) the power to rule on custody proceedings involving and Indian child "who resides or is domiciled within" a tribes reservation.
Given such a history, it is not surprising that the tribes are very protective of their children. They view a child leaving the reservation as a further erosion of the culture. Therefore, Indian courts acknowledge that they will do everything within their authority to keep Native American children on their reservation and subject to the protective are of their jurisdiction.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
Since January 1, 2001 hospitals throughout California are required to accept physical custody of newborn infants up to 72 hours old who are voluntarily surrendered by a parent or other person with legal custody.
The new law, known as the "Save a Baby" law, was designed to enable parents to leave unwanted newborns in a safe rather than dangerous or life threatening environment. This statute also provides the parents with confidentiality and promises no criminal prosecution if a newborn is surrendered unharmed. Before this new law was enacted, parents, generally teenaged mothers, who abandoned a baby, would likely be charged under California Code Section 273 (a), which is "willful harm or injury to a child". This is a felony charge punishable by 2-6 years in prison.
Hospitals must provide a medical screening examination and any necessary medical care to the newborn. Upon notification, the child protective services or county welfare agency will immediately assume legal custody of the baby and begin working to find and adoptive home for the newborn.
As far as determining custody between a mother who abandoned her infant and a father who sexually assaulted the child's mother, the law is unsettled. As strange as it seems, in the past, family law courts adjudicating child custody or visitation arrangements did not focus on spousal abuse as a factor in making a ruling. In fact the courts typically ignored charges of spousal abuse, saying if the father had never abused the children his relationship with their mother was not important.
More recently, courts have heeded experts' warnings that spousal abuse is detrimental to children. In the same spirit, the California legislature also amended Civil Code section 4608 to require courts to consider "any history of abuse by one parent… against the other parent" in making custody decisions. In addition, Family Code section 3011 lists specific factors, "among others", that the trial court must consider in determining the "best interest" of the child in a proceeding to determine custody and visitation; "the health, safety, and welfare of the child and any history of abuse by one parent against the child or against the other parent".
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the complexities involved in determining child custody in same-sex couples when those couples break up. The state of California does not recognize same-sex marriages, while under Section 297 of the California Family Code, a gay couple can become “domestic partners,” which gives them many of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Section 299 of the same code provides that a domestic partnership is terminated if one of the partners marries.
Once a domestic partnership is terminated, whether by marriage of one of the parties or otherwise, it must be determined which partner will have custody of the children. If there is a dispute, the same test applied as if it were a conventional marriage, namely, how would the best interest of the children be served? The factors to be considered in answering this question are set forth in Section 3011 of the Family Code. Among the factors the courts looks to are the health, safety and welfare of the child; any history of abuse by either parent; or whether either person seeking custody is in a committed relationship.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
Coming soon...
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the issue of interfaith marriages and what role courts can play in determining which parent’s religion a child will be raised in if the parents get divorced. This is an issue that is currently being played out on the front pages of newspapers in recent high-profile separations. The problem facing lawyers and judges in these types of cases is the Freedom of Religion Clause contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that there shall be a separation of Church and State.
Courts are therefore reluctant to make rulings that appear to state a preference of one religion over another. U.S. case law has held that there are rare circumstances under which a court can involve itself in matters pertaining to a child’s religious upbringing where it can be shown that not doing so would subject the child to potential harm. Religions that advocate denying medical treatment or keeping children out of school have been examined in such a context.
The argument made in this episode, which has been attempted in actual cases, is that where two parents attempt to foist their religious beliefs upon a child while undermining the religion of the other parent, those circumstances are sufficient to satisfy the “potential harm” requirement necessitating the intervention of the court.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
Forfeiture is the term referring to the governments seizing of property because such property has been allegedly purchased with the proceeds of an alleged crime, typically money laundering or drug dealing.
Most people have read that forfeiture is designed to confiscate the luxurious possessions of drug "kingpins": yachts, luxury automobiles, planes, and homes obtained through the proceeds of drug deals. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency's database, 83 percent of the property seized from June 1989 to December 1990 was valued at less than $50,000. Moreover, the government needs very little evidence to justify confiscating property. The word of a paid informant, who may have personal reasons for wanting property seized (like being entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds as a reward/incentive for the "tip"), is enough. In fact, there are numerous cases on the books where property was seized on suspicion of some kind of drug activity or money laundering which was later proven to be false. Yet, the victims either had to fight in court to get their property back (which can take years), or worse, were unable to recover it at all despite their proven innocence.
Forfeiture charges are brought at the same time as the underlying criminal charges, resulting in one consolidated case against the defendant. Technically, forfeiture is an in rem ("against the thing") procedure against "guilty" property rather than against the owner. As crazy as it seems, the property is arrested. This results in cases such as U.S. v. one 1970 Pontiac GTO, which was cited in the episode. Most of the protections afforded by the Constitution to individuals don't apply in civil forfeiture cases. When the government shows probable cause to initiate proceedings, the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is reversed. As we see from the fight waged in this episode by the attorneys at Holt and Associates, this reversal makes forfeiture an especially difficult situation to battle.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week's episode deals with the federal drug laws, specifically how the DEA and other similar agencies rely on the testimony of convicted drug dealers who are willing to cooperate with the law enforcement in exchange for a plea bargain. The testimony of these informants, or "snitches," if believed, is legally sufficient by itself to secure a conviction at trial against an individual whose name they give to the government.
Several problems result from this policy: first, these "snitches," some of whom are of dubious credibility to begin with, are operating under the enormous duress of having to give someone else up in order to save themselves. Further, rather than having someone lower down the ladder within a drug operation turn in a drug kingpin, frequently it works the other way, often leaving these lower-level defendants with no names to provide.
The incentive to cooperate with the government is enhanced by the strict Federal sentencing guidelines for narcotics offenses. United States Code Title 18, Section 841, sets forth mandatory minimum sentences. This means that the sentence is dependant upon the quantity or weight of the narcotics involved and an individual cannot enter into a plea bargain in order to avoid these mandatory sentences except through cooperation with law enforcement as an informant. These "minimums" can range from 5 years to life.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week's episode, "The Quality of Mercy," deals with the issue of mercy killing or euthanasia. Technological advances in medicine have made it possible to prolong the life of patients with no hope of recovery. The term "negative euthanasia" denotes the practice of withholding extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life. In contrast, the term "positive euthanasia" has come to refer to actions that actively cause death. It is positive euthanasia that is dealt with here.
Much debate has arisen in the United States among physicians, religious leaders, lawyers, and the general public over the question of what constitutes actively causing death and what constitutes merely allowing death to occur naturally. The Supreme Court's decision in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Heath set a precedent for allowing the removal of life-support equipment from terminal cases.
Popular movements have supported the legalization of the living will, a statement written by a mentally alert patient that can be used to express a wish to forgo artificial means to sustain life during terminal illness. In 1977; California became the first state to pass a law permitting this practice, known as the "death-with-dignity" statue. But positive euthanasia, actually hastening a person's life, even someone who is suffering greatly, is still illegal in the United States. In 1997 the Supreme Court upheld laws banning assisted suicide.
Perhaps the most famous cases of positive euthanasia involve Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, who gained notoriety by assisting a number of people to commit suicide and became the object of a state law forbidding such activity. Kevorkian, who had been tried and acquitted repeatedly in the assisted deaths of seriously ill people, was convicted of murder in Michigan in 1999 for an assisted suicide shown on national television. Since his conviction, Death with Dignity Societies have pressed for statutes which would permit voluntary assisted suicide for the terminally ill. These groups point out that the word euthanasia comes from the Greek expression for "good death."
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the circumstances under which hospitals and/or courts become authorized to act in contravention of parents' wishes as they relate to health and medical decisions of children. California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 empowers courts and hospitals to make medical decisions, including ordering treatment, when the parents are not acting in the best interest of their children. In "Separation," the children are conjoined twins and the issue is whether to surgically separate them or allow them to stay together. Both possible courses of action involve great risk and carry profound moral and ethical questions with them.
The episode also addresses the question of what should be done when parents cannot agree on a medical course of action. The prevailing law, as set forth in the case of In re Baby K., is that the course of action which "favors life" is the one that should be followed.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
In "Film At Eleven," at a public demonstration that deteriorates into a riot, Lynn Holt is groped by a gang of men, who tear off her clothing. A news crew films the attack and runs it, unedited. The episode explores the legal tension between two competing rights, the right to privacy and freedom of the press, both of which are fundamental to our society.
The right to privacy is based on the premise that certain information about a person is so personal or offensive, and of so little legitimate public interest and concern, that the law recognizes the individual's right not to have such information made public. Known as "Public Disclosure of Private Facts," this tort is designed to protect individuals from the embarrassment that would result from public disclosure of intimate photographs or facts.
The media has effectively used the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press, to protect its right to report any incident it reasonably considers "news." News outlets have been vigilant in guarding this freedom, believing that once the right is successfully challenged and limited, a slippery slope leading to control of the press will be the result. As Lynn discovers, courts are inclined to be very wary of limiting the rights of the press in any way.
The public on the whole supports the idea that legal remedies are available for invasions of personal privacy; but, on reflection, they are equally supportive of and recognize the need for free press. When these two rights are at odds, courts (and juries) are required to make difficult judgments as to the individual's rights to keep certain facts private versus the legitimacy of the public's interest in such information.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the rights of an unborn fetus weighed against those of the fetus’ mother. In particular, it raises the question of whether a pregnant woman can be held criminally liable for death or injuries to her unborn child caused by the drug or alcohol abuse during pregnancy.
In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s reproductive rights were among the privacy rights contemplated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No successful homicide prosecutions have been brought in California where a woman brings about the death of her unborn child. Prosecutors have been hampered by certain language in the California murder statue, Section 187 of the Penal Code, which exempts prosecution where the act leading to death was “solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.” Prosecutors continue to attempt to bring these types of cases, looking to different statues - and a different Supreme Court - to hold women accountable for injuring their fetuses through drug and alcohol abuse.
The episode also looks at the issue of whether a pregnant woman can raise her addiction as a defense, arguing that if she is powerless before drugs or alcohol, she cannot be deemed to have had the necessary intent to commit a crime. For example, because the criminal definition of murder requires evidence and proof of “malice aforethought,” the defendant’s addiction can be raised in an attempt to reduce the charges, in this case from murder to manslaughter.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the legal complexities involved in determining the best interests of children who live in an abusive household. Increasingly, courts and social service agencies are looking at the long-term development of children who grew up witnessing domestic violence. Many studies have shown that these children repeat the violence: boys become abusers; girls become involved with them.
As a matter of public policy, courts want to encourage women to report incidents of spousal abuse. And "battered women's syndrome" is now recognized by courts as a real pathology. So, when a woman is brave enough to leave an abusive spouse, it seems especially hypocritical and cruel to "reward" her by taking away her children.
Typically, social workers do not see the need for such a drastic response to a report of spousal abuse. However, if the social worker feels there is a reasonable threat of repeated violent incidents, it is within her discretion to remove the children from the household. In such cases, the children are generally placed with relatives or, if that is not possible, with a foster family. When the court is satisfied that the abuser is truly out of the home or that continuing violence is no longer likely, the children are returned to the family, usually with a court order for family counseling. Spousal abuse victimizes the entire family, including those who never suffer actual physical blows.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week's episode deals with the prosecution of an individual accused of committing crimes against humanity in Chile during the regime of General Augusto Pinochet. The basis for this prosecution is the UN Treaty Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which as of February 2000, 118 nations had adopted. The Treaty provides that member nations will prosecute or extradite a person alleged to have committed torture, genocide or war crimes.
Normally, jurisdiction over a crime depends on a link, usually territorial, between the prosecuting state and the crime itself. But the Treaty essentially creates the concept of universal jurisdiction as the principle that every state has an interest in bringing to justice perpetrators of particular crimes of international concern, no matter where the crime was committed, and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or their victims. Member nations refuse to serve as a safe haven for those responsible for crimes against humanity.
In most countries, only a public prosecutor can initiate a criminal investigation and the prosecutor has ample discretion in determining whether to prosecute. Victims must therefore convince the prosecutor to bring a case. This can be frustrating, for many local officials do not have the time, resources or inclination to prosecute crimes committed far away from home, often years ago. To date, the United States has never prosecuted anyone under the Treaty, which was signed in 1984.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the complicated issue of pleading insanity in criminal cases. The current social and political climates disfavor allowing criminal defendants to plead Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Before a defendant is allowed to enter a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, the law imposes the requirement that the defendant be determined to be competent to stand trial. Section 1368 of the California Penal Code states that a person in California cannot be criminally tried if "…as a result of a mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner." The relevant time period to be analyzed for the purpose of determining competence is the time of trial.
Once it is determined that an individual is competent to stand trial, the relevant time period for determining insanity becomes the time of the offense. While the burden of proof is normally on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, insanity is considered an "affirmative defense," which means that the burden of proof shifts to the defense. The mere fact that a defendant may have been suffering from some mental illness or acting under a delusion doesn't rise to the level required by the California statute to prove insanity. Section 25 of the California Penal Code states that insanity is proven when, "…the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the act."
The episode also examines the legal concept of "imperfect self-defense." If a defendant can convince a jury that he was operating under the sincere but unreasonable belief that he was defending himself or someone else, that evidence can be used to show that the defendant lacked the necessary "malice" needed to prove murder. While imperfect self-defense does not entitle a defendant to an acquittal, it can serve to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The consequences of reducing a first degree murder conviction to that of manslaughter are significant, as non-capital first degree murder in California carries with it a sentence of 25 years to live, while voluntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 11 years.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week's episode deals with the foster care, which by definition and design, is a temporary service for children who cannot safely live with their families. The reasons kids enter the foster care system vary widely. Some are the victims of physical or sexual abuse; others are neglected by parents who are may be substance abusers; still others have been orphaned.
Most state and county child welfare agencies are strongly committed to reuniting children with their families as quickly as possible. This often necessitates providing the family with counseling and other support. When reunification is not possible, caseworkers must establish a permanency plan for the child by placing him/her with relatives or by terminating parental rights and pursuing adoption. The counts oversee these cases to ensue that the rights of the parents and the best interests of the child and properly considered.
As is frequently the case in our society, the number of people needing help has grown more quickly than the system's ability to absorb them. Between 1986 and 1996, the number of children in foster care jumped 90%, while the number of foster families fell by 3%. The phenomenal rise in the number of children in foster care has often resulted in staff workers being assigned many more cases than they are effectively trained and equipped to handle. This problem is compounded by the fact that children entering foster care frequently have developmental, medical and emotional problems, not to mention the trauma inherent in leaving their family.
Child welfare agencies across the country have been struggling to improve the way they provide for the children in their care. These changes have sometimes been initiated from within the agencies themselves, but more often they have been ordered by state legislatures or by the courts. Reform efforts have included mandatory training for case workers, instituting a certification process for foster parents and computerizing records to make monitoring more efficient.
The federal government has also become involved in foster care reform through legislation like the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Federal Adoption 2002 Act. These initiatives challenge states to achieve swift permanent outcomes for children in placement and to double the number of adoptions in this country over the next five years.
Every child has a right to safety and an enduring sense of permanence and belonging. Through responsible reform, the systemic changes necessary may be accomplished so that stories like Raphael's in this week's episode become a matter of history not current events.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This episode deals with the issue of whether it is always in the best interest of the child to be with its biological parents as opposed to other parties. Section 3040 of the California Family Code sets forth an order of preference in awarding custody of a child and places granting joint custody to both parents at the top of that list. However in cases where a judge is not satisfied that keeping a child with either of their parents is in the child's best interest, the court can grant custody to "any other person or persons deemed by the court to be suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child."
The episode also examines the psychological toll that contentious, acrimonious divorces and custody battles often take on the children caught in the middle and how emotional and psychological abuse can be every bit as damaging to a child as physical abuse. In determining whether child abuse has occurred, the family courts in California have adopted the definition of abuse as set forth by California Penal Code Sections 11165.6 and 273a, which include both emotional neglect and "mental suffering" as constituting child abuse.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
At the heart of this episode is the six-month waiting period California imposes upon couples seeking to divorce. Under Family Law Code Section 2339, you must normally wait six months from the date you file for divorce (and serve your spouse with notice that you have filed) before a final divorce decree is issued by the court. This "cooling off" period is designed to encourage couples to work out their differences and reconcile.
This week's show also demonstrates that California, like most states, provides for "no fault" divorce; that is, the petitioner does not have to cite any particular grounds to end the marriage, but can merely claim irreconcilable differences. Traditionally, a spouse had to give a reason - such as adultery or physical abuse. No fault-based divorce grew out of the dismay many felt with the airing of the couple's private life in a judicial proceeding.
The advantages of a no fault system are obvious. The major argument against it focuses on the notion that the decision to terminate a marriage should not be allowed to rest with the party who is in the "wrong," and should not be allowed to be made against the will of the "innocent" party. Critics of no fault also argue that it makes divorce too easy and fosters the instability of the institution of marriage. It is this last criticism that gave rise to the six-month waiting period.
Another issue raised this week is the importance of attorney-client privilege, which provides that all communication between a lawyer and client is confidential. This protection is designed to promote full and frank conversation between the client and counsel to insure that the party receives the best defense possible. This doctrine is regarded as so central to the judicial system that courts are barred by the Sixth Amendment from compelling an attorney to testify against a client. However, a client may expressly release the attorney from the obligation to maintain confidentiality; as seen in this episode, the consequences of such a choice can be considerable.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week's episode deals with the issues of sexual abuse by a parent as well as the often complex and morally ambiguous area of attorney client privilege.
Both the California Penal and Family Codes provide protection for children who are sexually abused by an adult, including that child's parent. If a parent is determined to have been abusing a child, a family judge can severely limit that parent's contact with the child, and can refer the matter to Dependency Court where parental rights can be terminated.
The issue that haunts Lynn in this program is what can an attorney do when her client admits to criminal -- not to mention harmful -- behavior. Most communications between an attorney and client are "privileged" meaning they cannot be used against the person in court.
There are limitations on this privilege. A lawyer cannot divulge any admission of past criminal behavior by a client. However, if a person makes a statement that leads his lawyer to reasonably believe that the client is likely to commit future criminal acts which may result in death or bodily harm, the statement is not privileged. In such circumstances, although the attorney is not prohibited by attorney-client privilege from divulging such statements, the attorney has no afirmative duty to warn the potential victim.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
This week’s episode dealt with emotional and legal implications of international adoption.
With the reduction in babies available for adoption in the U.S., more and more Americans have adopted children from other countries. Not surprisingly international adoptions have become a lucrative business. Nearly all countries specifically prohibit – and many criminalize – the payment of consideration in connection with adoption (except for “reasonable” medical and administrative expenses). Nevertheless, the combination of childless parents desperate to adopt and birth parents who are often destitute and unable to provide for a baby crates the potential for fraudulent adoptions.
To prevent such black market activity, most countries and all states (in the U.S., adoptions are governed by state law) have safeguards in place to protect both the birth and the adoptive parents. For example, prior to any adoption proceeding, all countries require a child to be legally recognized as an orphan or released by the living parent(s) to an appropriate authority. Most states permit consent to an adoption to be withdrawn by the birth parent(s) up to the time of the final adoption decree; however, the courtes are entitled to review cases where the original consent was obtained by fraud or duress.
For a full synopsis of this episode, click here.
