Jersey man seeks to seal adoption rec...

Jersey man seeks to seal adoption records

There are 23 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Apr 2, 2007, titled Jersey man seeks to seal adoption records. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

The attorney for a 60-year-old New Jersey man who adopted twin girls from Indiana has sought to formally seal a court case challenging that adoption.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
richard

AOL

#2 Apr 2, 2007
Home studies made by who ? The person that says they are underpaid and did not do the stusies. YEP never heard od that one before.
NO WAY

United States

#3 Apr 2, 2007
From what I am told "Litz" the attorney has a flowery background also. Jon maybe you should inquire about the attorney representing this client. I heard he has adopted children and he descirminates within his own home. His adopted children go to one school and his "blood" childrent went to private schools. Now how is that for a daddy of adopted children?? Then you could understand why Litz is representing a non fit parent...any single 60 year old man should not be adopting baby girls - I don't care how good of a parent he is. That cannot be a healthy home for these infants. That does nto take a brain surgeon to figure out.
Huh

Carmel, IN

#4 Apr 2, 2007
He's a teacher and a magician? He told other parents in the NICU he was an attorney. Maybe he's a little confused about who he really is.
LitzSays

United States

#5 Apr 2, 2007
from http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/...
"For anyone interested in knowing the true story about surrogacy and the specific case referenced in this article, feel free to contact me. Or, you can accept as true the words of a reporter who has violated the law by publishing material that, under Indiana law, was confidential, and who is fed information by people who are so completely against surrogacy that they feel the need to craft a law that harms the infertile community in ways that they cannot imagine. Remember, this is the same bill that one of Indiana’s senators tried to amend that would have said the following:“A court may not grant an adoption if the petitioner is a homosexual.” Think about the racist author of that bill, then think about a reporter who delights in perpetuating publicity about 2 little girls who have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone. They are loved, they are cared for, and we should all be so lucky to be raised with that kind of stability in our lives. THAT is the side of the story that this particular reporter, and the bill that would penalize someone just because they can’t have a child, chooses to ignore."
Grandma

Bridgeport, WV

#6 Apr 2, 2007
Why in the world would a 60 year old man want to adopt 2 infant girls? He will be 78 when they graduate from high school! I get wore out with 2 grandchildren who are under 5 yrs of age and I'm 50!
WhatsRealConcern

United States

#7 Apr 2, 2007
What are the concerns? That Melligner is a pedophile (implied)? That the state failed to handle the adoption properly? That the hospital has some accountability?

If Mellinger is the concern then since he is a public school teacher, getting information regarding his characeter should be easy. It should also be easy to get input from co-workers and friends.

If the hospital is the concern, say so.

If the state of Indiana is the concern, say so.

If the lawyer Litz is the concern, say so.

Make it clear WHY the Star wants the records unsealed. What are the concerns?

Since: Feb 07

On your PC screen

#8 Apr 2, 2007
I found this whole case astonishing. Not one person would know or have a comment had the bird not been taken into the hospital. (Which I did and still do find a wee bit odd and unbalanced), however, I'm sure more than a couple of home studies have been done just based on the fact this case is so public.
No remorse

Indianapolis, IN

#9 Apr 2, 2007
I hope these two innocent children arent being used for his dirty old perverted deeds. What man at 60 shows up at the hospital with a bird, a questionable profession, and the intention to drive not one but two premature newborns over 12 hours home. And why the HELL does so much legal action need to be taken to protect them from this nut! WTF is really going on???
No remorse

Indianapolis, IN

#10 Apr 2, 2007
I hope we dont see these girls on Oprah or some show in 20 years talking about how there were molested by this idiot
NO WAY

United States

#11 Apr 2, 2007
Is this a LITZ fan or the true LITZ posting on here bring the "race" card into play. If so Litz should I allow the public to know the children you adopted were african american and they are the ones you didn't put in the public school? So if you are going to play the "race" card becareful. Once you sling mud you might get some on you.
NO WAY

United States

#12 Apr 2, 2007
TYPO
The adopted AFRICAN AMERICAN children were NOT put into PRIVATE SCHOOLS as his biological children were!! Sorry - sometimes my emotions get the best of me.
Frank

Indianapolis, IN

#13 Apr 2, 2007
A home study was done by a reputable agency that had done work for the state in the past. What gets left out is that the state will benefit financially if it can take these children and adopt them out. The Star is acting as the public affairs wing of the system.
Huh

Cincinnati, OH

#14 Apr 2, 2007
LitzSays wrote:
from http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/...
"For anyone interested in knowing the true story about surrogacy and the specific case referenced in this article, feel free to contact me. Or, you can accept as true the words of a reporter who has violated the law by publishing material that, under Indiana law, was confidential, and who is fed information by people who are so completely against surrogacy that they feel the need to craft a law that harms the infertile community in ways that they cannot imagine. Remember, this is the same bill that one of Indiana’s senators tried to amend that would have said the following:“A court may not grant an adoption if the petitioner is a homosexual.” Think about the racist author of that bill, then think about a reporter who delights in perpetuating publicity about 2 little girls who have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone. They are loved, they are cared for, and we should all be so lucky to be raised with that kind of stability in our lives. THAT is the side of the story that this particular reporter, and the bill that would penalize someone just because they can’t have a child, chooses to ignore."
1. I seem to remember that this man's sperm was mixed with the sperm of an unknown donor and that DNA tests later proved that the adoptive father was not the biological father. Therefore, there is no surrogacy issue here and the man had no more right to adopt the children than any other single man of his age would have had. I don't believe that babies are often legally adoopted by 60 year old single men.

2. A person who is against allowing homosexuals to adopt children, as the author of the bill you mention must be, may be a bigot but he is not necessarily a racist. Unless, of course, he specified that homosexuals of a particular race not be allowed to adopt. Did he?
resident

Indianapolis, IN

#15 Apr 2, 2007
LitzSays wrote:
from http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/...
"For anyone interested in knowing the true story about surrogacy and the specific case referenced in this article, feel free to contact me. Or, you can accept as true the words of a reporter who has violated the law by publishing material that, under Indiana law, was confidential, and who is fed information by people who are so completely against surrogacy that they feel the need to craft a law that harms the infertile community in ways that they cannot imagine. Remember, this is the same bill that one of Indiana’s senators tried to amend that would have said the following:“A court may not grant an adoption if the petitioner is a homosexual.” Think about the racist author of that bill, then think about a reporter who delights in perpetuating publicity about 2 little girls who have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone. They are loved, they are cared for, and we should all be so lucky to be raised with that kind of stability in our lives. THAT is the side of the story that this particular reporter, and the bill that would penalize someone just because they can’t have a child, chooses to ignore."
I think your trying to hide something, like maybe setting up adoptions that may not be in the best interest of a child. Lets see, your company set up the adoption in indiana, and your the lawyer representing the adoptor. Sounds fishy to me, sounds like a good money maker for you. You did'nt expect red flags to go up did you, now your doing everything in your power to hide something. What is it that your trying to hide? If what your doing is lagite than you should not have any problems with what is going on, I personally think you have something to hide. I would like to see the living conditions that these girls are in, I also think that they should be examined by a Doctor to give everyone a warm and fuzzy. You have no idea what this person is doing with these children, OR DO YOU. You probably don't care, you got your money and will probably get more being the lawyer, thats what I read in your post, no more no less.
JUSTICE

Poland, IN

#16 Apr 2, 2007
Well this is Indiana you know, which means someone made a lot of money on this
Sincerely

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Apr 2, 2007
TheMommy wrote:
I found this whole case astonishing. Not one person would know or have a comment had the bird not been taken into the hospital.(Which I did and still do find a wee bit odd and unbalanced), however, I'm sure more than a couple of home studies have been done just based on the fact this case is so public.
You're right, Mommy, a man who carries a crapping bird into a hospital nursery does tend to draw the attention of others, and rightfully so. However, the fact that he is a 60 year-old single man from New Jersey, trying to adopt surrogate twin newborn girls in Indiana trumps that for me. This just shouldn't be legal--plain and simple.
just me

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Apr 2, 2007
First of all this guy had enough on his plate when he visited the girls in the NICU without adding the complication of a pet bird to the mix. The kids were obviously not paramount on his mind. And if they WERE paramount on his mind and he brought the bird along to entertain the girls, he should have known that two premature infants would not be interested in a bird. This weirdo didn't break any laws, but he doesn't sound like a suitable parent, either.
MotherRNWifeofMD

Indianapolis, IN

#19 Apr 2, 2007
LitzSays wrote:
from http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/...
"For anyone interested in knowing the true story about surrogacy and the specific case referenced in this article, feel free to contact me. Or, you can accept as true the words of a reporter who has violated the law by publishing material that, under Indiana law, was confidential, and who is fed information by people who are so completely against surrogacy that they feel the need to craft a law that harms the infertile community in ways that they cannot imagine. Remember, this is the same bill that one of Indiana’s senators tried to amend that would have said the following:“A court may not grant an adoption if the petitioner is a homosexual.” Think about the racist author of that bill, then think about a reporter who delights in perpetuating publicity about 2 little girls who have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone. They are loved, they are cared for, and we should all be so lucky to be raised with that kind of stability in our lives. THAT is the side of the story that this particular reporter, and the bill that would penalize someone just because they can’t have a child, chooses to ignore."
Methinks thou does protesteth too much, Mr. Litz. Statistics say this man will not live to see these children reach the age of 18. There's a reason why women cannot procreate (without manmade intervention) at the age of 60. Why, then, should a man of the same age be able to do so? This should be illegal.
Parent

Delaware, OH

#20 Apr 2, 2007
Who was the Judge? It was Judge Hughes who said Carmel was too poor to annex Home Place. Is there a pattern in the judges judgement.
really

Bartlett, IL

#21 Apr 2, 2007
No remorse wrote:
I hope we dont see these girls on Oprah or some show in 20 years talking about how there were molested by this idiot
Please Oprah will be 71?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monrovia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Morgan county crooked officers Mar 9 Tiredofthiscorrup... 1
Sherry Barnes Feb '17 Ron 4
Mooresville Traffic Tickets Jan '17 Resident 1
Dustin Vanhook (Jul '15) Dec '16 Anyone call tell 3
Renee Catherine McDonald Oct '16 Buck Nasty 1
Vapor Headz of Camby has a new owner Oct '16 Kim 1
Beware of men who work for sherrils drywall (Jul '16) Jul '16 Absolute truth 1

Monrovia Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monrovia Mortgages