Statute of Limitations and Civil Judgments

[fairisfair]

No, the bioparents were NEVER part of this story. He was adopted at birth.

Oh, you are right, my bad, I read it as the adoptive (sorry) parents were receiving child support up til he was three. Okay, go ahead let her have it!!!

 

[nextwife]

It's one of my "hot buttons".

LIke when you see a news story and they refer to some politician or celeb this way: "So and So AND THEIR ADOPTED SON.....(who is thirty and was "adopted" thirty years ago)", when the adoptive status has NO bearing on the story! What difference does HOW they became their child have on a story, for example, about John Edwards being at some event? Why not just say "John Edwards and his younger son?" rather than, say, "John Edwards and his ADOPTED son...."

In five or ten years, should the press still refer to Angelina's kids as their "adopted children" or "the biological child of Angelina and Brad" when the adoption or birth was long ago over with? ALL Their kids are their kids, both the bio and the adopted.

 

[harjo2]

It's one of my "hot buttons".

LIke when you see a news story and they refer to some politician or celeb this way: "So and So AND THEIR ADOPTED SON.....(who is thirty and was "adopted" thirty years ago)", when the adoptive status has NO bearing on the story! What difference does HOW they became their child have on a story, for example, about John Edwards being at some event? Why not just say "John Edwards and his younger son?" rather than, say, "John Edwards and his ADOPTED son...."

In five or ten years, should the press still refer to Angelina's kids as their "adopted children" or "the biological child of Angelina and Brad" when the adoption or birth was long ago over with? ALL Their kids are their kids, both the bio and the adopted.

No worries...overt rudeness is one of my "hot buttons."