Author Question: Adopted Children. Gail MacCallum was the daughter of Anita Seymour. (After the death of Gail's ... (Read 91 times)

tsand2 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Adopted Children. Gail MacCallum was the daughter of Anita Seymour. (After the death of Gail's father, Anita had married Richard Seymour, who adopted Gail the next year, when she was seven years old.) The same year, Janet Seymour was born to Richard and Anita. Almost forty years later, when Richard's brother Philip died, both Gail and Janet sought to share in the estate. A Vermont state court concluded that Gail could not share in the estate because a state statute prohibited inheritance between the person adopted . . . and collateral kin of the person or persons making the adoption. Gail appealed, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. Will the court agree? Discuss fully.

Question 2

Which of the following actions are employers least likely to be able to take when it comes to drug testing?
a. screen job applicants for drug use before they are hired
b. routinely test employees on an annual basis as part of a physical examination
c. allow supervisors to order employees to be tested for drugs whenever a supervisor thinks it is a good idea d. have an employee tested after a safety-related accident
e. all of the other choices are fine legally

Expo · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Adopted children
The trial court ruled in Janet's favor, and Gail appealed. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed. The state's highest court concluded that the statute is not reasonably related to a valid public purpose, at least with respect to persons who are adopted during their minority, and declared the statute to be unconstitutional. Janet argued that (1) in adopting the statute the state Leg-islature could presume that the intent of collateral relatives was that their property would pass only within the bloodline; and (2) the adoption of plaintiff represented a contract between her and her adoptive father that did not affect the interests and expectations of others. To the first argument, the court responded that such a presumption was discriminatory against adopted persons. To the second argument, the court pointed out that whether or not an adoptee has some contractual' relationship with her adoptive relatives is completely irrelevant. This argu-ment ignore the fact that a child's birth always imposes a potential heir on the relatives of his biological parents, yet no one would suggest that the child should not inherit from his blood relatives because they had not consented to his conception.

Answer to Question 2

c