#can never decide if i want to become a psychologist or go into constitutional law but i guess i'll find out through college

[elytrafemme]

i wonder if it’s strange, but something i find so fascinating to study is corruption in authority & moral conundrums in law. like i was talking to my brother and father about this but the reason that i want to go into law is because i’m fascinated with the concept and eternal question of what prompts you to defend a guilty person (especially tied with the question of does defending a guilty person defend more people than just that person?) and like. i really love studying corrupt governments not because it depresses me but because i find hope in figuring out where the root of that corruption is and how we as people can work to lessen it. 

i guess it’s less strange when i write it out but i dunno. these things don’t depress me or fill me with existential fear. i find them really exciting actually.

[outweek30]

Is adoption an alternative for lesbians and gays seeking legally-sanctioned relationships?

When John and Craig met in an Upper East Side bar in September, 1980, it could have been another classical Manhattan tale of two tricks passing in the night. The pair had little in common. Craig Burns was blond, boyish, 23. He was between jobs, visiting friends in New York. John Eberhardt, 58, was a Fire Island pioneer, having hammered together scores of beach houses in Cherry Grove during the 1940s before constructing his own wedding cake of a mansion, The Belvedere.

Nonetheless, John and Craig did what mismatched people often do. They fell in love. The next week John invited Craig out to the island and, as Craig recalls, "I kinda never left." This past spring, months shy of their ninth anniversary, the couple went one step further to acknowledge their relationship; Craig Burns became Craig Eberhardt. In a judge's chambers in West Palm Beach, John legally adopted his lover. Craig became his son.

* * * *

Adoption is yet another alternative for gays and lesbians who seek legal recognition of their relationships. Many do it to ensure financial protection for lovers in the event of their death; others see it as the only same-sex union likely to be sanctioned by the law in this era.

But adoption is not a foolproof shelter against the bigotry of our legal system. In the early 1980s in New York State, gay adoptions caused a stir in the legal system, challenging the definition of adoption and provoking progressive decisions in two important cases: Adult Anonymous I and II.

In the latter, handled by Lambda Legal Defense Fund's William J. Thom and heard in 1982, a 32-year-old male petitioned to adopt a 43-year-old. Partial motivation was financial; the building where the pair lived was going co-op and the landlord was evicting those not on the lease. Initially dismissed by Family Court, City of New York, the petitioners appealed the case to the State Supreme Court Appellate Division. The decision was reversed and petition granted, since the Family Court decision was based on its narrow interpretation of the nature of family, not the adoption statute itself, which expresses no limitations. "The 'nuclear family' arrangement is no longer the only model of family life in America," the decision challenged.

In addition, constitutional law was cited, where homosexual relations in private are protected in New York under the right to privacy. Through some circuitous logic, it was proposed that a petition for a father-son adoption by two homosexual men raised the spectre of technical incest. However, it was ruled that "incest in general involves blood relatives." More facetious was the subsequent observation: "And, of course, the taboo against incest, grounded in eugenics, has little application in a relationship which can hardly result in offspring."

However, these legal strides were to be reversed two years later. The New York State Court of Appeals, filtering decisions through a screen of homophobia, effectively put a halt to overtly homosexual same-sex adoptions by lovers. In the Matter of the Adoption of Robert Paul P. in 1984, a 57-year-old man was denied his petition to adopt his 50-year-old lover, although they had lived together continuously for 25 years.

Michael Lavery, a New York City lawyer and co-founder of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, handled the case. Lavery, a consistent fighter for gay and lesbian rights, has argued cases for Dignity, the gay Catholic group, and Integrity, the Episcopal sect. He acknowledges the misstep made by the two lovers: they did not attempt to hide the sexual nature of their relationship. The legal gay-bashing continued; the court questioned the validity of adoption as a way to halt an eviction. "It is nothing more than a cynical distortion of the function of adoption."

Most damning of all is this paragraph: "Adoption was never intended as a haven where parties might shelter emotional relationships for which no statutory provision has been made. If the homosexual relationship is to receive legal sanction as a family unit, such recognition must come from the legislature, and not the courts through the guise of adoption."

* * * *

John and Craig were inseparable during the first three months together. In December, the pair were visiting John's cousin, who is also gay, in California. Walking through the celebrated Forest Lawn Cemetery one sunny afternoon, observing the gaudy sculpture and meticulous landscaping, John and Craig came upon a small stone bench. Carved into the decoration was an Irish quotation about true love lasting forever. The lovers impulsively joined hands and recited the quote. "From then on, we decided we were a married couple," Craig said.

But both knew that a two-minute wedding in a cemetery held no legal weight. And as the years passed, and John and Craig grew closer, they began thinking about events that could separate them. The question of a legal relationship became more insistent this past year. A friend of the couple, a septuagenarian psychologist from Manhattan had successfully adopted his 54-year-old lover in order to pass on his magnificent Riverside Drive apartment after he passed on. At the age of 65, John was still hardy and working on constant improvements to The Belvedere. But the issue of a successor loomed, he recalled. Who would look after his 26-room palace?

"For one thing, passing on this empire" — Eberhardt assumes a mock hauteur to his voice — "it takes the right kind of person. I don't know who could do it, except for someone who is talented and capable. My older brother or sister just couldn't manage this, what with the milieu of the town, this gay world." Craig was the only choice.

Craig's concerns about a legal relationship with John were just as keen. "In the case of catastrophic illness, I would be John's next of kin and would have the say about his care and well-being, as opposed to a family throwing me out on the street and putting him in a nursing home." In addition, the pair learned that real estate passed on from father to son is taxed differently than it would be for a commercial transaction. John and Craig were amassing a list of basic rights afforded heterosexuals and denied homosexuals. After several talks with their attorney, who is gay, the two agreed to file papers for adoption.

John recalls the day he and Craig went to the courthouse for their petition, accompanied by their attorney. Amongst rows of mothers and fathers with their small children, John and Craig sat: a smiling gray-haired man of 67, with twinkling mischievous eyes, and a solid, big-limbed blond hunk of 32. Once inside the judge's chambers, Craig recalls, "I told the judge our relationship is like father and son." The matter of ownership of The Belvedere was sidestepped. "They seem to frown on people [petitioning adoption] for financial reasons. They prefer to have people doing it for emotional reasons." The issue of homosexuality was not broached.

Craig required written consent from his parents to agree to the adoption. "They knew that it was, in no way, a slighting of them. I still consider them my parents and our relationship is just as good as it's ever been. This was just a way for John and I becoming legally married like my sister and her husband." In deference to his folks, Craig Richard Burns legally changed his name to Craig Burns Eberhardt. The Burns knew of their son's homosexuality; he had come out to them at age 18 as a prelude to the announcement that he had fallen in love with a man and was moving in with him. The relationship lasted three months.

The final legal step in adoption is the destruction of Craig's original birth certificate, which resides in Chicago. Another one will be issued naming John as his legal parent. Ultimately, there will be no legal record of Craig ever being related to the Burns family.

* * * *

In the case of Robert Paul P., the court avails itself of the same self-reflexive homophobia that was employed in the Hardwick sodomy decision back in 1986. Observing that legislation did not include homosexuals in adoption laws any time since the laws were enacted in 1873, the court questions why the status quo should be upset. Another absurd leap of logic observes that since New York sodomy laws were overturned just in 1980, it seems unlikely that the same legislature would want homosexual relationships themselves acknowledged through adoption. Another decision went so far as to term the notion of sexual intimacy between adopter and adoptee as "utterly repugnant."

In most cases, the court expresses itself carefully in gay or lesbian issues. "Court people are sophisticated enough not to be overt," Lavery said. "The less overt are the ones most difficult to pin down and accuse of anti-gay decisions. No one will say, ‘We're not going to allow this adoption because they're a couple of fags.’”

But read between the lines. The court criticized the men for looking to adoption as a way to legally share a lease and prevent an impending eviction. The legal jargon was merely a smokescreen; once again the court was enacting laws that refused to acknowledge a same-sex relationship. In fact, Lavery points out, "the concept of adopting children is a product of the post-Victorian times." Beginning during the ancient Roman era, adoption was a legal tool for economic, political and social objectives, especially when a wealthy man did not have a natural heir.

But the issue of gay adoption prompts mixed reactions. Paula Ettelbrick, Lambda's legal director since 1985, considers it a flawed strategy, and a compromise to receiving basic gay and lesbian rights. "The effort of our community should be to obtain recognition for our relationships as they are, not subverting nor distorting them into parent-child relationships."

Lavery also has a diplomatic party line. Quietly, he suggests that same-sex couples who maintained the parent-child charade have had their petitions for adoption granted. "One should not assume that after the 1986 Court of Appeals decision, there have been no gay adoptions." After all, he points out, when there is no hitch to the proceedings, the request for adoption is kept confidential. There is no record of successful homosexual adoptions. It is only when the initial petition is denied and the decision appealed that the case finds its way into public record.

Lavery recalls one case where a successful professor in his mid-40s asked to adopt a man in his mid-20s after they had lived together five years. The older man presented himself as advisor and mentor; a role model that the younger man lacked as a child. When challenged as to whether their relationship was actually of a sexual nature, the younger man grimaced and told the court, "No way!" The petition was approved.

He offers an unsettling clarification: "If you were rich and powerful, [lover adoptions] probably could be done," but not for the average guy on he street. Lavery alludes to an internationally- known operatic composer who adopted his young lover, as well as a successful entrepreneur from Chicago who followed suit.

The recent State Court of Appeals case involving Miguel Braschi was a landmark case insofar as acknowledging gay and lesbian relationships. Braschi was awarded his deceased lover's lease after their 10-year union, but this decision will have no impact on the adoption issue, Lavery offered. The courts pulled their punch, he added, in extending the ruling to rent-controlled apartments, not rent-stabilized buildings. Gays and lesbians will still find the need to petition for adoption to maintain cohabitation or property ownership.

The gay psychologist who adopted his younger lover agrees on that count. The man, who requested anonymity, suggested that a real estate pressure group influenced the legislature in the Braschi case. "They've stopped people from using adoption as a way around the problem of losing your apartment if your name is not in the lease. Adoption should be a freedom."

When his lover of 25 years died, the man was left alone in the six-room penthouse apartment on Riverside Drive. Eventually he met his second lover, who moved in six months later. A rash of abusive letters from the man's landlord began to come, insisting that the lover move out since he was not on the lease. "They persecuted us for three years. That was the trick in those days," he said. "They thought the only way to get me out of the apartment was to separate me from my lover. We said 'fuck you' and went through the channels of adoption."

Officially, Lavery will not handle an adoption case where the same-sex petitioners are involved in a sexual relationship. The case is doomed, he insists. NMostcases I handle are done pro bono. It's not worth the time and effort if the case is denied without any advancement." The strategy of gay adoption "is not a winnable battle at this time," he added "A gay sexual relationship will not meet the legal definition of adoption."

"It's necessary to convince heterosexual judges, as well as other gays, that two gay men can have a relationship that is not necessarily sexual." The unspoken message here is: keep a lid on intimacy in court and the petition will sail through. Acknowledge your lover relationship and prepare for rejection. What advice does Lavery give his clients in this situation?

"There's a thin line between deception and downplaying," Lavery says. "If [the partners] can't be frank when the question comes up, it could be disastrous."

Ettelbrick points out alternatives to adoption, adding, "There are ways that we can take care of our vulnerabilities under the law." These include wills, power of attorney designation and conservatorships.

Lavery is guarded in his appraisal of the future of gay legal rights and the recognition of homosexual unions. “We have some ways to go; we are still too conveniently overlooked, unless somebody is waving a sign in your face, saying, ‘What about us?’”

* * * *

John and Craig are sitting in the breakfast nook off the kitchen of The Belvedere, taking a breather from last-minute renovations. By November 1, they will close up the castle and head to Florida to run another guest house called Villa Fontana. Craig ponders the longevity of their relationship, and feels it stems, in part, from a respect for fidelity during sexually liberated days. "We've always been just a monogamous couple," he explained, "and I think that's why it's worked for us this long. We made a commitment to each other, and this year we reinforced the commitment to each other."

— Jay Blotcher, OutWeek Magazine No. 18, October 22, 1989, p. 36.

[getmohsinpy-blog]

Life of a Muslim

Whenever there is a terrorist attack I am terrified too. But unlike everyone else, I have an extra burden to be worried about - what if the shooter turns out to be a Muslim. And it's not just me but every Muslim goes through the same sort of emotions.

And to be honest, Muslims have become accustomed to this pattern - whenever there’s an attack with a Muslim perpetrator, then the Media Channels first start with Why, Who and How; but soon they so tend to always switch their agenda to a debate on whether or not Islam justifies violence while ringing the bells about the extent of homegrown radicalism. At the same time, leaders bugling the policies restricting the civil liberties of Muslim immigrants and citizens. And not to forget the Muslims guests that they bring in so wonderfully always add to the beauty of their show.

So many times have I witnessed the way media representations of Muslims push the anti-Muslim hatred and policies throughout the world. Why? Because that's exactly what we all want to hear too. To add on only a few of us personally know Muslims and the media's painting of them as terrorists are so impressive, leading us all to believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

Now this drives me crazy:

Even when there are no terrorist attacks, Muslims still get a bad knock.

Analyses of Muslim representations in news, tv, movies, etc show that Muslims in media are overwhelmingly represented as violent, terrorists, barbaric and intolerant. And yes, these brilliants will never use the words like So-Called-Muslims or Radicals or the Perverts or simply Terrorists but instead they won't even hesitate to say "You Muslims" like each one of us was right there firing those bullets. Come on dude most of us are afraid to even return a slap if you slap us. We are just as Humans as you are.

At the same time, when Muslims go out rallying or raise their voice against terrorism then there are almost no positive portrayals of Muslims in the media. Who cares?

These guys are hypocrites; their religion teaches them to kill.

 Mam/Sir, do you even bother to look at me or my friends or people near me? We have no desires of ruling the world. Hello? Can you hear me?

According to psychologists, when direct contact is limited or nonexistent,  studies have shown that media representations of any group have a greater influence on our attitudes towards them. Ask those who are friends with Muslim, those who eat, drink, party with them or even have sex with them. We are not devils or a Sex-Maniac for God's sake as what they call us. Even we last more or less the same as a normal being do.

Oh yes, the rotten eggs:

We also have these hate mongers and publicity greedy freaks who keep picking these out-of-context verses from Quran and display them on their walls like it's some Da-Vinci's code that they have decrypted. Bro Quran has always been clear and open to the world. Everyone knows what you are showing because it (especially those particular verses) are being displayed for years now. But does anyone even care to find the verses surrounding it? What chapter is it from? When was it revealed? Why? Etc? 

"Kill kuffar wherever you find them" 

This is like the most famous verse that I people question me with. But when I explain the 'When, Why and How' attached to it, they agree to everything and at the end, they replace the simple word GoodBye with 

"I know, but you may be an exception but most of the Muslims are extremists, they want Sharia, Islam is a cult, Goodbye". 

Come on bro I know more Muslims than you do, don't I?

I will soon write another article explaining the context linked to these famous verses of hatred. 

And yes also the Sharia, that's like a special weapon someone gets while playing the video game. All I would say is that we Muslims are commanded to follow the land of laws that we live in. 

There are already so many situations where Constitution supersedes the Sharia Law. And we have already agreed in peace. Alchohol, Homosexuality, Gambling, Polygamy, who cares I am happy with one wife, bro. If someone is not; talk to him. Don't target each and every Muslim for someone else's deed. And if someone really wants to demand something then let the Court or the Government decide whether or not to allow it. Stop fighting on roads or on Twitter. 

And hell yeah, Twitter is such a good platform of amusement especially for the ones with Eggs on their avatar.

On a positive note:

Direct contact with Muslims – can truly produce the opposite effect. And clear the misunderstandings of most of us.

Imagine people who are exposed to news clips portraying Muslims volunteering at a food shelter during the holiday season or maybe a charity event or doctors saving lives, programmers writing codes, freaks partying the hell out all night, people getting bullied by their bosses when at work, guys getting dumped by girls, girls getting dumped by guys, people getting married, girls going to work, people spending days and night on Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, I mean all the normal things in the world. We do it too.

If we truly can get rid of our pre-conceived notion and start interacting with normals Muslims we would sure be less likely to have an anti-Muslim attitude that most of us have now.

That's the power of face-to-face contact, along with more balanced media coverage.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that media should not report attacks by Muslims. Instead, all I wish is for the Media to highlight a fair representation of the Muslims and that of Perverts of Islam. After all, there’s plenty of positive news involving Muslims to report on.

But such stories, unfortunately, don’t get nearly the same amount of coverage as a terrorist attack. Until it does,

..I don't know, I will just hope for the best.

[magdaleneswift-blog]

THE PA BISHOPS EXPLAIN LAW TO THEIR CONGREGATIONS

PA State Attorney General’s Office Child Protection Department Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

RE: PA BISHOPS BLATANTLY LIE TO PROTECT PEDOPHILES AND THEIR POCKETBOOKS - PA Bill 1947

Dear Sir or Madam:

The bishops in PA, from what I can tell, led by Chaput (Slap you) of Philadephia, are falsely claiming that PA Bill 1947 bill unfairly targets non-profits.  They say that the bill excludes those in the public sector.  The bill says the exact opposite.  It specifically waives sovereign immunity so those in the public sector can be sued.  They forced all the parishes in the state to publish their lies in their bulletins, thereby deliberately shredding any credibility the local parishes may have left. I talked to my local legislator.  Luckily, most parishioners completely ignored the notice.

From what I have seen, Cardinal Dolan is also joyfully jumping at the chance to further trash Church credibility with the upcoming NY State version.

An old saying is, ���If you throw a stick into a pack of dogs, the one who is hit, yelps.”  Please track down who is behind this campaign.  If they are putting so much effort into protecting pedophiles, you are likely to find the highest concentration of predators under their protection. Chaput recently published a mostly gibberish column on the need for Catholics to become politically active.  I agree, but most of my activism is against what is preached on the altar.

Ever since the previous entity in possession of the vatican proudly proclaimed the church’s preference for pedophiles seven years ago, I have been actively protesting.  Benne Dick’s statement comparing women who want to be priests with pedophiles highlighted the vatican’s policy and practice. Promote the pedophile – Excommunicate the woman. They just hired a new one this May.

I do not want creatures who prefer pedophiles to women on the same planet as my children. The vatican has continued to promote their rape culture as theology since then.  I am furious that these proud pagan pedophiles continue to claim they are associated with the Catholic Church.  You go after them on the legal front and I will go after them on the theological.  I have already written the papal nuncio.

The Washington Post recently had an excellent editorial on the need for men to fight the rape culture in order to eliminate it.  Too many men prefer the power trip.  The vatican enshrines it as holy.

(Note that the ‘bishop’s campaign against the bill came out AFTER Francis’s tour of Philadelphia.  I have heard they disagree on issues.  So is Francis in favor or against this practice?) How long do the Cardinals and Bishops think they can flat out lie to us before they lose all credibility? William Donohue’s Catholic League’s website had a big tirade saying the only purpose of the bill was to “stick it to Catholics”  Legal opinion expressed by a sociologist.  .  My local pastor endorsed his site as a great source of Catholic Truth and handed out one of his articles that essentially said that women who dress provocatively deserve to be raped. I have been telling these ‘pro-Catholic’ protestors that their actions are shredding the credibility of the Church.  The Catholic League shut down for awhile afterwards.  I don’t know if it was my e-mail to them or the hierarchy shut them down I have heard that the legislator who sponsored the bill was a victim of pedophilia and was literally crying for justice. .  My main objection is the bill is a very inefficient means of distributing funds to ‘solve’ the problem.  Lawsuits mainly benefit lawyers and their few chosen clients.  The majority are left to suffer & the law changes nothing. The law would strip the organizations of the funds they need to function.  It would also hamper their ability to rectify the problem.  Most of them were only guilty of blind trust in their staff. Unfortunately, the bill would more likely punish the innocent rather than the guilty.  They are all dead or retired, leaving the charitable non-profits and government schools having to cut services to enrich the lawyers of the victims.  It would be more practical to sue for the release of the records so that active pedophiles could be tracked down and stopped. The below is a cogent argument for a new policy that would avoid frivolous lawsuits about clerical pedophilia, but bring justice to victims. http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/extending-statute-limitations The law SPECIFICALLY covers children abused by ANY person.  In that aspect, public school victims have the same rights as all others.  However, when it comes to SUING an institution (a legal recourse after the fact), the law has also to address existing statutes on sovereign immunity; a protection not afforded private institutions.  It does not do that retroactively because such would be clearly unconstitutional FOR GOVERNMENT.  There is now an argument that it is unconstitutional FOR PRIVATE AGENCIES as well. Now ‘Cardinal’ Dolan is jumping for joy at the opportunity to further trash the Church’s reputation with the similar NY bill.  He is already hard at work trying to pre-settle to limit costs. Then all the lying depraved thugs decided to endorse the lying depraved thug for President because it says it is “Pro Life.“  I’m sure the same way it “Digs Coal.”  Coal is dirty, expensive, and inconvenient compared to natural gas.  Who in their right mind is going to buy coal?  Even if they did, the coal industry is like nearly every other industry in the world – automated.  My brother – in –law looked it up.  90% of the active coal companies hire about 5 people because of people doubling up on job descriptions and automation.  So to double production, they would hire 5 more?  The NYT had the article on the bagel basket makers.  They used to hire hundreds; all missing fingers.  They hire a fraction of what they used to and production jumped via automation.  It is the same worldwide. The Boston Post editorial about the Republican “nanny state”.  The Republican Party endorses small government while demanding totalitarian powers. Trump advocates using Second amendment rights to eliminate First Amendment Rights.  The First Amendment “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Trump wants to bring back the Inquisition for screening refugees and immigrants. Who you can marry Which bathroom you can use Artificial price control on consumer goods and wages (Communism) Reversing the technological advances that resulted in cheap natural gas and expensive coal Medical Marijuana – (All Republicans have medical degrees) political prisoners  (Stalinist) Breaking up the banks = communism. Funerals for miscarriages Width of hallways in reproduction clinics So Trump, using Adolf Hitler’s Slogan – “Make America (Germany) Great Again advocates destroying everything that makes America Great. As President, he would be required to swear to uphold the Constitution while campaigning to destroy it. I am fed up.  You stay with Benne Dick’s elect of the church, the pedophiles, the penis worshippers, and the sub standard Latin scholars and I will acknowledge I am part of the walled out where it is safe.  I have never seen an organization work so hard to achieve the theological, religious and moral credibility of child pornographers.  That will give me at least 6 hours more a week in which to write these letters and to pray for the conversion of the vatican from paganism to Christianity.  I feel like the little boy crying out that the Emperor has no clothes! I will, however; continue writing to everyone I can think of to protest this policy of pedophilia until I see some believable evidence that the Vatican looks at Christ and sees something other than a penis and looks at our children and sees something other than prey. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence that the current pope has implemented policies for papal senility.  In all my life, I have never seen a more dangerous mental handicap than the male ego. Put Another Log on the Fire Tompall Glaser

Put another log on the fire Cook me up some bacon and some beans And go out to the car and change the tire Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe And then go fetch my slippers And boil me up another pot of tea Then put another log on the fire, babe And come and tell me why you're leaving me Now don't I let you wash the car on Sunday? Don't I warn you when you're gettin fat? Ain't I gonna take you fishin' with me someday? Well, a man can't love a woman more than that Ain't I always nice to your kid sister? Don't I take her driving every night? So, sit here at my feet 'cause I like you when you're sweet And you know it ain't feminine to fight So, put…

SD FARMER EXPLAINS FAMILY LAW TO ME

I can also tell you about legal opinion expressed by a SD farmer that is giving me an ulcer.  My two adult autistic spectrum children stayed with my brother for over a year while my daughter attended college.  My son couldn’t drive and needed to be chauffeured back and forth into town for work 4 days a week for about 4 hours of work a day.  When my brother tried to teach him to drive, he took the door off the truck backing it into a yard pole.  After over a year of trying, my brother realized that Nick was not capable of obtaining a driver’s license.  It is incredibly easy to learn to drive in SD.  The roads are dead flat, straight, and have almost no vehicles on them. He had better luck teaching my daughter.  She got her driver’s license. He took her halfway across the state to be evaluated by a psychologist so she could get counseling services which she blew off. She took advantage of my brother’s hospitality and chauffeur service, then cut contact when she got to college. All in all, he did wonders for them.  My son had never held a job before and my daughter had refused to learn to drive until being out there forced her to. The college counselors told my brother that they couldn’t talk to him unless he was a legal guardian, which is bogus.  Students only need to sign a release form to allow counselors to talk to family members.  I wouldn’t want to keep track of 700 release forms either. My son got homesick and decided to come home after the second winter. My brother told me, that neither of my children were allowed back on his farm unless I IMMEDIATELY got guardianship on both of them; like guardianship is something you pick for your children like a pair of underwear at K-Mart.  Guardianship is NOT easy.  An adult child has to be essentially passed out on the street to get it.  This here is American where you have the God given right to starve to death on the street if you want. The courts are legally obligated to take the least restrictive action.  Guardianship is the nuclear bomb of the options. It involves 2 lawyers: 1 to prove the child is competent and one to prove they aren’t.  It cannot be done across state lines and it is expensive, potentially taking resources away from the adult child. It does NOT happen IMMEDIATELY.  It can take several months. I tried to explain this to my brother.  He said he was tired of trying to talk sense into me. Guardianship is not a magic spell. If not done correctly, it can make the situation WORSE. It can cut the child off from social services.  If you do not have physical control on the adult child, they can destroy people or property in protest of the guardianship and drive you into bankruptcy. It took months before I could get a lawyer to call me back.  The one who did is legally obligated under his contract to reply within 24 hours even to say he cannot help. In the support groups, I am usually the one explaining to the lawyers and other parents how the system works. The transitional counselor (new to the job) said I knew more than she did and was the most organized parent she had seen. So in effect, my brother told my children to leave and not come back. I am sorry that they were not enough help to him for him to want to have them around.  I can well understand he is fed up and I am grateful for what he did for my children, but don’t say it is MY fault for not doing the legally impossible IMMEDIATELY.