SUPREME COURT
For now I am going to address basically the same as the COA page. The AG started right off the bat being deceptive with what they supplied by looking HERE.
"The record reflects the following actions by Bethany Christian Services other than those taken in regard to the Appellants, which occurred prior to the March 5, 2007 order."
If you look at the actions that were taken in our adoption assessment HERE you will notice the first 9 actions the AG used are actions that were taken in our assessment. Now lets take another look at the actions that were taken in the foster adoption assessment HERE. You will notice there was not 1 contact with fosters boyfriend prior to the court hearing that took place on February 7, 2007. You will also notice the only contacts that were made with the foster other than telephone calls before the court hearing of February 7, 2007 was on August 8, 2006.
Lets take a look at the adoption progress report that was done on December 19, 2006, HERE. If you notice it says the foster is considering the adoption... Yet the AG uses this statement "Conversation with interested adopter who is also the foster mother." in 6 actions beginning November 29, 2006 and ending December 11, 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - considering
To think carefully about. To look at thoughtfully.
American Heritage Dictionary - interested
Involvement with or participation in something
On the action of December 29, 2006 Conversation with Adoption Applicant who is also the foster mother. I believe before someone can be classified as a applicant an application needs to be signed? Yet there are no references of any papers signed until January 31, 2007.
On the action of January 31, 2007 Muskegon County Sheriff local check of Adoption Applicant and her fiance Submitted. This is another of the AG's deceptions. If you read the courts findings on page 4, the 5th bullet HERE, you will be aware the foster isn't even engaged. This was revealed in the hearing on August 3, 2007 when the foster testified.
The AG doesn't seem to be able to prove there has been progress for the adoption in regards to the foster prior to the February 7, 2007 hearing other than using misleading information. I ask, how much is to much?