u/Arktikos02

TLDR:**Gabryele Watson has been sentenced to prison for scamming thousands of hopeful couples looking to adopt children. Over seven years, Gabryele Watson ran the same scam against thousands of couples looking to adopt, prosecutors alleged in court documents ahead of Watson’s guilty plea. She never asked for money, the documents said, but spent hours of every day stealing the identities of pregnant teens she found online and calling her victims pretending to be the teenager, their boyfriend or other family members in what prosecutors called a “sophisticated operation of heartbreak and terror.” Now 30, Watson was sentenced Friday to 20 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to charges of stalking, identity theft and threats of kidnapping and murder. Three years before her arrest, Watson was publicly confronted about her scam on Dr. Phil. On the show, Watson’s father said that she has suffered from “severe mental problems” since her mother died in 2012. Her relentless campaign to harass prospective adopters, he said, began after she was told that she could not have children. Watson assured her father that she would stop in her Dr. Phil episode, but prosecutors say she continued the scam up to the day of her arrest. The FBI is still seeking victims of Watson’s scam.**

-----

No, not victims. The FBI should be looking for these people to arrest them for wanting to do human trafficking. It doesn't matter if it didn't happen. If you meet up with a minor in an attempt to solicit adult acts with them and you did not do anything with them or see them undressed or anything, society treats you as if you did because you attempted to even if you didn't. If that person happened to have been a police officer instead society would still see a justified to arrest you because you attempted to.

But when it comes to this which is human trafficking by the way, these people are treated as the victims? No. These people should be arrested too. Now I'm not saying that the stocking and the threat of violence and murder is okay and I don't agree with the identity theft but if someone does a sting operation and gets people I don't care if people get heartbroken and in fact you should be arrested. Facebook is not the place to go adopt. You don't like it? Too bad. We already have a legalized human trafficking system already.

Wanting to obtain a child over the internet is not okay. And in fact when it comes to legal adoption agencies (which I'm not saying that the legal ones are ethical) there should be strict regulations when it comes to advertising for them too which I think is its own topic, but when it comes to normal people like you and me, absolutely not. I don't even care if a person is trying to argue that they are only trying to meet up with a person and they're still going to use a lawyer or whatever. No, you should not be advertising on social media. You can't even sell your organs on social media even in terms of organ donation to save a Life. There are strict rules when it comes to this kind of stuff to prevent these kinds of things. While it is true that you can match up with people using social media rather than the traditional waiting list method, sometimes you can still be prevented from donating simply because the agency or hospital or whatever thinks that there was unethical behavior or coercion that happened. They have to be careful.

I actually think that you should both be able to show your credit score to show that you aren't financially irresponsible (since credit scores in the US and apparently in some other countries are a thing) and also I think that there should be a rejection record as well similar to an eviction record that people have. Rejection records are not the same as when a biological parent decides to adopt. The reason why is because it could incentivize people to try to prevent that from happening which is not the goal. That would not go on the record. We're talking about things like failing home inspections, and stuff like that. I also think that there should be a way for adoption agencies to issue both statewide and Nationwide bans (this is for the US) in extreme circumstances.

View Poll

And I mean a lot. Let's say it's in the United States but it could be any country. And you have a lot of money, a it's based off of the total amount of money in the country but let's say if we're using the United States let's say that someone had 1 trillion dollars and then they just burned it, besides the fact that that is illegal, what would happen to the US economy? And would the US just print more money to make up for it? What if the person did it in secret like in the forest?

TLDR: A draft Family Law Act would require adoptive families to inform children of their adoption and would grant children the right to obtain information about their biological parents without the latter's consent. Under the current system, children only learn they were adopted if their adoptive parents decide to tell them, but the amendment aims to strengthen children's rights based on the principle that a child's interest in knowing their origins outweighs a biological parent's wish to remain anonymous. The draft does not specify the age at which children must be told they were adopted. Adults who suspect they may have been adopted would also be able to verify this through the Social Insurance Board. The amendment would also introduce changes to divorce proceedings, requiring spouses to do everything possible to dissolve a marriage by agreement, and legal costs would be borne by the party who obstructed out-of-court divorce. Child support calculations could be automated. The Ministry of Justice is now seeking feedback, and the law would enter into force at the beginning of next year.

So the reason why I ask is because while I think that talking about legislation that would work in our favor or things like that are great and there definitely are pieces of legislation that have already been proposed so there are things like The giving of citizenship for people who were over the age of 18 when the child citizenship act of the 2000s was created, what are some things that you would like to see that would have some form of punishment for violating and what would those things be and what would the punishments be?

Because of the only types of legislations that are enacted are ones that the government themselves are expected to do and not ones that average citizens are expected to follow then it doesn't really feel like a full set of reforms. They're just basically ways of telling the government that you need to do different things.

For example, we know through family courts such as how visitation are enforced, child support is enforced, etc that we know that the courts do have the power to enforce their own civil declarations or at the very least they have a lot of tools to do so, so my question is what kinds of things would you like to see and what kinds of ways of enforcement would you like to see?

Because yes, for example having open adoptions being enforceable would be great but my question is, what should be the punishment for active attempts against that? Not a one-time violation or a few times but we're talking active.

So I just want to tell you and I do want to point out that I am not an immigration lawyer so this is just what I found out. If you think that this may be you please consult an actual lawyer. It should be noted that if you obtain citizenship through derivement or acquisition through your parents because they were US citizens and then you became a US citizen because of that and then they had their citizenship stripped you would have your citizenship stripped as well. This is only if it is the case of fraud or misrepresentation, this does not apply if your parents decide to revoke their citizenship voluntarily, or because of a post-naturalization punishment as a crime of any kind.

If your parents have their citizenship removed because they misrepresented themselves then that means that they were not supposed to be citizens when you became a citizen. This only applies if both of your parents who adopted you both lose their citizenship due to misrepresentation.

Again I am not a lawyer so please do your own due diligence when it comes to this information and if you think that this may be you such as your parents both being naturalized citizens, please seek an actual legal professional before coming to any conclusions about your own situation.

So let's talk a little bit about anti-discrimination laws. Anti-discrimination laws are mainly for the purposes of people who are either customers, volunteers, or workers. This is to prevent people who have more power, such as employers and businesses, from being able to discriminate based on protected classes. A person needs to eat, go to the barber, and be able to access the same things everyone else does. Therefore, it makes sense that they should be able to access those things in the same way everyone else can.This is because they are accessing a product. But here's the thing, by suggesting that there should be anti-discrimination laws when it comes to doctors it suggests that they are either a customer or some form of Labor producer. But why don't the adoptees have anti-discrimination laws protecting them? Because we are the product and you can discriminate between products. We don't have that same right because we are neither the labor producer nor are we the labor consumer. We are the product.

I personally do not believe that adoption should be subject to discrimination laws in the same way. Now I do think that there should be more transparency and justification for the discrimination as it should be based on the well-being of the child. For example if the only reason that you are giving kids to Christians is to indoctrinate them or make them Christian that is not okay. You shouldn't be adopting kids into particular families to make them a certain thing. That's not what this is about.

I personally do not believe that adoption should be subject to discrimination laws in the same way. Now I do think that there should be more transparency and justification for the discrimination as it should be based on the well-being of the child. For example if the only reason that you are giving kids to Christians is to indoctrinate them or make them Christian that is not okay. You shouldn't be adopting kids into particular families to make them a certain thing. That's not what this is about.

With anti-discrimination laws existing for adoption it gives people the impression that they have the right to the product and they don't. I do think that there should be some form of anti-discrimination protection but I think that there should be special laws that exist differently. It should be similar to things like organ donation where there's a lot more discrimination based on what is best. However, that discrimination should be based on what is best for the situation. For example there are people who are denied certain organs based on things like disabilities that have nothing to do with the care of their organs. Some of these laws are just sort of leftovers at different times that have not been updated. This is wrong and just for the reinforces prejudices. However if someone for example has an eating disorder they may be denied an organ despite the fact that an eating disorder is counted as a disability but it's not considered disability discrimination because there is real justification for that discrimination.

And now that I think about it this basically means that organs have more rights or regulations than adoptees somehow.

It's weird how we have our birth certificates messed with but we are still treated like an immigrant. So what is it? Do you get to mess with our birth certificate or not? Is it a birth certificate or is it something else? Is it a parent certificate? I guess if they wanted to they could have a system where where you would have to be adopted before a certain age, and then it would have to be approved so that that way it's it's you know valid and you would have to do a second adoption in that country and yada yada or whatever. But I think that adoptees if you go through a particular process you should be treated as a natural-born citizen. I get to be treated as if I was born from my adoptive mom in every way except in certain circumstances like being able to be eligible for running for president? Not that I would want to run for president of this BS country anyway. But I should still be legally eligible to. I was adopted around the age of 1 years old and I probably came to the US at around 1-2. I hate that they will go through the effort to change our birth certificates and hide our original ones as if those don't matter but then they will treat us as if we are adopted in ways that shouldn't matter such as citizenship by descent or being seen as a natural born citizen. No, you don't get to mess with our birth certificates and then pick and choose what that means.

As a side note I have no problem with adoptive parents being on birth certificates as an addition but they have to be an add-on and they cannot replace anything.

1. All of your original legal documents are destroyed and the new country issues you new documents and a new name which you do not get to choose.

2. All of your current legal relationships must be forfeited meaning that if you have any children they are no longer legally yours, same goes for husbands, aunts and uncles, etc.

3. You are also forbidden from speaking to the people who relationships you just forfeited.

4. You must give up your former citizenships and you immediately gained the citizenship of the country of your choice.

5. You become 2x as likely to attempt suícide

View Poll

Examples include, a person adopting a specific gender and having a strong preference, a person using IVF to select for a specific gender, continually trying for a baby and having multiple children until they get a specific gender, etc.

And yes I know about the richest man in the world and what he does, I'm not trying to bring him up in this conversation. This isn't about that.

View Poll