|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
ms. smith, an adoptive mother, recently read an article [#permalink]
 07 Jan 2004, 07:24
Question Stats:
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
ms. smith, an adoptive mother, recently read an article about a birth father who is suing the adoptive parents for custody of his child, who had been offered up for adoption without the birth father's permission. ms. smith adopted her child several years later through the same agency, but she should not be worried that her child's birth father will sue her for custody.
which of the following, if true, would lend the most support to the conclusion above?
1. the birth mother of ms. smith's child never informed the birth father that she was pregnant, so the birth father does not know of the child's existence.
2. in the last twenty years in the state in which ms. smith lives, adoptive parents have won 90 percent of the cases in which birth parents have sued for custody of an adoptive child.
3. the adoption in the article was completed two months before a policy was instituted by the agency requiring the signature of both parents on the paperwork releasing the child for adoption.
4. the birth father in the case described in the article was over the age of 18 at the time the adoption was completed.
5. ms. smith adopted one child through the agency mentioned in the article and another child through a lawyer specializing in adoptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 274
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
3.
1 - father does not know today, but could come to know in future.
2 - she cud be among the unlucky 10%, anyway out of scope
4 - out of scope
5 - how does it matter, out of scope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 327
Location: MI
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Gotta be 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
only after reading the replies, I think it is 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 560
Location: Aus
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
The answer should be C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
dj wrote: only after reading the replies, I think it is 3
so only after reading the replies, huh? 
answer is indead (c), although i have chosen (a). we can not assume anything, right? we are given a fact: father does not know anything about child. if not (a), then it means we are digging deeper than we have to. okey, let's dig deeper in case of (c). there are a lot of high-qualified lawyers out there, who can prove you that father is the victim of this policy and now he has all rights to get his child back, since he is the born father of his son and he really loves him bla bla bla...
okey, here is the explanation:
you are looking for the best reason why ms. s. should not be worried, and (c) provides it. the new policy that the adoption agency has put into place requires that all adoptions be approved by the birth father, so he has signed away his right to sue for custody. if (a) and (b) are true, then the father could still sue if he wanted. (d) and (e) are irrelevant, because age was never mentioned as an issue, and neither was the number of children that ms. s. has adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
