@boomerang,
That's true - I have to distinguish between your and CJane's arguments.
I'm not clear that all this would somehow benefit children (see other arguers' posts) but will admit some maybes.
I'd still rather see testing for cause. The child's mother in my family should have been interviewed more than she was, but - there was a beginning bias towards the woman at the original hearing re the dad and possible child abuse, that they were probably defensive of if any of them noticed. I was there, until I was sent out, and saw the bias. The judge, the attorney for the mother, the attorney for the child, were women. The attorney for the father was a divorce attorney out of his element, a guy recommended to the husband. The bias toward the mother was creepy. (I was sent out since I might have been called to testify.) Would that I had been.
Water under bridge now. I did talk with the head psychiatrist, who thanked me, said he now understood, no wonder the child didn't recognize a penis.
He died shortly thereafter. But nothing was changed, dad paid for three years or so of therapy for all individually.
The mother, though, remembered me as the only person going over to her in the vast courtrooms lobby and saying hello. I got calls from her for years until she died, many of them incoherent, but not always all of it. She admitted setting her accusation up and being sorry. A long sentence on one phone call.
the child told me later she remembered when the woman at the bus stop said strange stuff to her - brought up by her, not me, and her description fit. I know I was the last person to talk with the mother besides anyone in the emergency room, as she called me from there.
Well, that's just one scenario that I know of.
I figure this kind of complication is multiple. The kind of scenario that would keep children from getting help frightens me.
I'm irritated to hear that adopters are special in understanding why florida's take should win or not.
