should fparents have their own attorney and SW during the adoption process?
often, cheap drugs we hear about attorneys and SWs being “shared” by both paps and pfmoms/pfparents during the adoption process. even with the best intentions (having the paps leave the room while the attorney meets with pfmoms/pfparents, et al) , it seems odd that two sides would be equally represented by the same entity. especially when in no other legal proceeding is this the norm (e.g. divorce, child custody, civil, criminal, et al). i just wonder if people believe that pfmoms/ pfparents are “truly” being represented when the attorneys and SWs are usually hired by paps, work for the adoption agency; or are “adoption attorneys.”
thoughts?
code:
paps= potential adoptive parents
pfparents= potential first parents
pfmoms=potential first moms
SW=social worker
r…i think the difference between a non-contested divorce and an adoption is that both parties are totally on board there are no children involved, and very little property and assets. with adoption, there are just too many variables to share legal representation, IMO.
*that first edit was so poorly worded, i was inclinded to repost it…i will not try to answer a call and type at the same time 
**
r…i think the difference between a non-contested divorce and an adoption is that with a non-contested divorce, both parties are totally on board, there are usually no children involved, and there is very little property and assets to be divided. with adoption, there are just too many variables to share legal representation, IMO.
To me in any legal proceedings you are better off to have your own representation. In my opinion there is a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents both sides of a legal issue.
I definitely think that all parties involved should have their own attorneys looking out for their own interests. Perhaps some pfparents do not seek out their own legal counsel because they can’t afford it, but they should be steered in the direction of the low-cost legal clinics by their social workers, or have an attorney appointed for them by the court system.
Yes, under any other circumstances, if it was ever discovered in court that an attorney had at anytime even TALKED to the other party involved, and went on to represent the opposing party, he could face serious ramifications. How and why this is overlooked is beyond me.
I think that the attoreny can be shared but not the SW. The lawyers just deal with the paperwork where th SW should have their clients intrest in mind.
On aside in divorces that are mutual (yes they do happen) often couples share an attoreny to save money and help hammer out the details of the custody agreement
ETA
I only know about the SW side since i am one (not is adoption but know people who are) With that said i don’t see a reason for two attoreney. They are making sure everything is legal and the paperwork turned in. I know SW advise and i see it as a conflict of intrest when they are advising both parities. I know in CPS in my state the family has a worker who is trying to find homes for kids/ you and the child has a different worker who is working on reunification. Email me so that i can understand the lawyers role better and the need for sperparte ones. Anyone can do this i am really intersted to know
YES!
I think that everyone should have their own representation. When I placed my son, we all had separate attorneys and social workers.
Both birth parents NEED attorneys…it would of saved both of them a whole lotta grief 17 years ago….if only he knew…
From what I understand, where I am, the natural mother had to have her own attorney. The natural father also had his own attorney.
In DDs case her natural mother had her own attorney. It was of course to protect her so that she completely understood what was taking place. She did find her own attorney and he apprised her of her rights. And we had our own attorney and DD had a guardian-at-litem that ONLY thought of her best interest regardless of what the adults wanted.
I am surprised that adoptive parents would be foolish enough to consider using the same attorney.
In the event the adoption was contested any decision could easily be overturned on appeal on the grounds of “conflict of interest”.
This was explained to ALL of us when DDs mom decided on adoption.
The only thing that would make sense is (A) natural mom has NO CLUE she is entitled to her own attorney. And (B) She could not afford one and does not realize legal aide may be an option.
Yes they should. They shouldn’t “share” anyone in the position to turn things to make it work out even better for their paying client the pap’s.
All sides should have their own attorney and SW so that there will be no conflict of interests.