|Action||Adopt new standards for licensed private child-placing agencies.|
|Comment Period||Ends 4/1/2011|
JUSTICE- to render what is due
If the government, through some sort of agency, has an interest in regulating the placement of children, it's interest must be first and foremost pursuing the interest of the children in the context of the common good. Any political agenda that seeks to further itself at the expense of innocent children is inherently suspect. The interest of children, as study after study shows, is to be raised in a home of love by a family headed by a mother and father joined in marriage. Whether someone opposes that traditional idea is quite irrelevant. What is best for the children is paramount. No family is perfect and failings occur in all. But if the goal is to give a child what is best, then denying him or her or them purposefully a mother or father, is to propose the child be shackled with a deprivation unnecessarily. (The stories on this disaster are coming out as well) To require that agencies place children "entrusted" to them in a situation where they cannot have the possibility of a mother or a father makes a mockery of adoption. Would you give up a child if you knew they could/would/should place the child in a disordered home? Again, if the government, through any agency, seeks to "regulate" adoption, then it has a duty to give the agencies the best chance to place the child(ren) well and not to subvert the needs of children to political correctness. I have seen the gay guy (is he the Daddy? taking care of "his" new baby girl. That little girl deserves the chance of a Mom and a home with one. The state should not deny this little girl such a home or any child. It is a matter of justice.