Steve,
I suppose you may not be familiar with legal systems and the detailed nuances that sometimes can be involved. Sometimes terminology makes all the difference in the world to the legal entities even if the practical outworkings arrive at the same destination. And in some cases and situations the legal entities and people involved both desire the same outcome but because of the numerous hurdles in place in between steps must be taken to arrive at the final goal. It is the nature of the beast when dealing with laws and regulations that even sometimes conflict with one another.
For example, the couple I spoke of, if you even read the full post where I shared the story of the grandparents, adopted their great great grandchildren with the purpose of adding another family as legal guardians over the children due to their age.
The family that they loved and trusted with their grandchildren had a criminal record and thus could not pass the standards of adoption. Yet the grandparents knew the couple, their conversion to Christ, and the godly character that had developed in them over the past 12 or so years since their conversion and discipleship. In some ways the young couple had become a model that the older grandparents truly adored.
Thus, when the great great grandkids were placed in state custody these older grandparents who were up in age approached the situation legally and ethically with a lawyer who walked them through the process. They could adopt and then place along with them a legal guardian or guardians over the children. But if the younger couple wanted the children through straight adoption the agency regulations did not allow it.
But the agency regulations did indeed allow primary custodiansthe right to add other legal guardians by their own will and consent once they adopted. In other words, once adopted the regulations allowed for that set of new parents to add legal guardians as they saw fit. But the agency regulations did not allow a couple to adopt for primary custody who had a criminal record.
Thus, in my brainstorming session, one which as it looks has brought out some of your presuppositions more than any brainstorming, I was curious about two things: (1) If this set of grandparents could do something like that legally could it be done by others who do something similar, and (2) could it be done by monogamous couples who stand in the gap so to speak for polygynous couples?
Was there a way where monogamous couples could ethically and legally adopt and then give or add legal guardianship to another family if they so desire? In such case if it were possible the additiona legal guardianship is about the same as someone spiritually adopting another person. I probably should have placed this story in the original post but I was typing and watching a game at the same time and thus kept it shorter.
Anyway, back to the point herein. At least for those of us who work in and around legal circles we recognize that if someone does not ask there is not always the requirement (biblically, ethically, or legally) to disclose everything. Even sometimes when we are asked we do not even have to answer. Prime example: the 5th Amendement in criminal trials. A person can truly be innocent and still choose not to talk and in doing so he is not attempting to deceive. Nondiscloure can and often is very different than deception.
Even more specific, in this case the grandparents were not asked about this by the agency before hand and by legal precedent there was no reasonable expectation that the agency needed to know their plans, as both the lawyer and judge both confirmed when certain matters were brought up in family court by a distant drug-headed cousin who through petition asked for the court to require the grandparents to explain if they were going to let this other family with a criminal record see or supervise the children. In her eyes (the cousin) if she could not file to obtain custody of the children because of her criminal record then the great great grandparents should not be able to obtain primary custody if they did not promise to keep the children from this other couple who also had a past criminal record.
The judge, as well as the highest legal opinion of the state from the AG's office, believed that by law so long as the adoptive parents were sound enough to pass the agency regulations, and if they were of sound mind, and were economically stable that they could choose once they adopted the children who they deemed to be safe people to let their children be supervised by. In his words: "The court has no right to require nor even ask these potential adoptive parents anything further than what is speficically required in agency regulation and by state law. Anything further is out of the bounds of legal precedent and is judicial activism by setting up a higher or more intrusive law than what is on the legal books." The cousin's petition was therefore denied.
So yes, there are times when both ethically, legally, and in biblical wisdom if you are not asked something you have no obligation to tell what you believe or plan to do. There is nothing dishonest or deceptive about nondisclosure of some facts that are not essential to the established laws and regulations at face value.
But, again if I had of spelled all of that out it would have made things clearer as to what I meant by adoption and legal guardianship and my goal of brainstorming if there is a way something like that could be done that uses the courts systems, laws, regulations, and missional purposes of Christ's love all collectively for the goal of removing kids from state custody and placing them in loving homes. Some monogamous families could adopt but they do not desire the extra labor. But if there were situations where the monogamous couple could legally adopt and then give guardianship to another family, like these grandparents did, then I think it is worth consideration. It could, of course, hinge upon a lot of factors such as from state to state variations in laws.
Interestingly, though, these grandparents had the right heart and motive in it too. When asked as to why they did not want to keep the kids they replied: "Oh we really just want to be grandparents. We'll bring them over for ice cream and candy and spoil them with things like that then send them home when we are tired of their hyper-activity. Besides we're not young enough to get out and play ball and run and do all that kid stuff anymore. But we can use the system for a rightoues end goal, one that will bless both our hearts in seeing those kids have a good place to call home and this lovely couple who has not been able to adopt or have kids."
Such an unselfish act on their part yet so wise and honorable at the same time. In that scenario everyone came out ahead and Christ was honored even if everyone had to examine the matter from a multifaceted approach. And most of all, the children got to be raised in a loving home because love motivated the adults involved to do all they could to be creative for their own good. Creativity is also not always deception either!
But too, of course, it is generally a common courtesy to give someone the benefit of doubt in love too before thinking they are intending to purposefully deceive (1 Cor. 13:7). Even our court systems start from that same base and if they being secular have that high of a standard how much more so should the people of God when interacting with one another?
