We had a case on the news of some lawyers who had a killer dog they got from a man in prison, who was in for staging dog fights .
The puzzling thing is they adopted the con and he’s in his thirties.
Why on earth would this be legal? I thought children were automatically “liberated” when they “reached their majority”.
So shouldn’t adoption after that point be moot?
Gay people have used adoption as a way of preserving their rights. For instance let’s say your S.O. was in the hospital and they will only let “family members” in. Your lover isn’t a wife or husband so your S.O. could be dying and you wouldn’t be able to see him.
But if one of you adopted the other, you would be a son or father (daughter or mother) so you could see them.
It would also work for inheritance(SP?). At one time way back I believed they used to allow a person to differentiate between an illegitimate child and a legitimate one in a will.
This would also make an illegitimate child legitimate. Though that stigman isn’t much today.
For the lawyers in question, it was probably for some monetary maneuvering.
I’m guessing, but if the “son” has money he can “shift” it tax free to his “parents”. They don’t pay income taxes on it, and he no longer has to protect the assets from civil suits arising from his crimes.
It also lets him transfer a considerable amount of property, trucks and land, etc. without transfer taxes.
I suspect that if the illegal gains were stashed within transferred property it would be hard for the feds to attach it for unpaid taxes or compensation payments or illegal-gains seisures, and the “parents” could “discover” it in the future and pay no income tax then either, even if it was over the usual maximums.