Looking at critically there exists similarities and differences between the case of Annette B and Dred Scott. This is based on the facts of the case and the ruling delivered by the different courts. The aspects of similarities bring out the relationship that exists between the two cases. The matter of Annette B. and Dred Scott v. Sanford are related in the way the lower courts handle the issues in both cases. In the matter of Annette B, Joseph is in court because he has been alleged to have abandoned Annette his daughter and therefore denied her rights to enjoy parental care. This can be looked in terms of the rights of the child to have been the court of violation of the family law. In the other case Scott is in court accusing his owner for violating his rights in accordance to the family law. I think in both cases the rights of the complainants were violated only that it is their differing status of citizenship and non-citizenship that brings out the difference in their determination. Therefore in the two cases the complainants are in court because they feel that their rights according to the family law were violated by the defendants. In both cases the determination of the case is not based so much on the evidence provided by both parties involved but rather according to the family law. In the Annette B case, the complainant’s rights were violated because of abandonment according to the court’s.On the other hand Scotts rights though were violated by his owner he was not entitled to those rights because of lack of citizenship. In the first case Joseph is found guilty for violating the complainants rights under the family law while in the Scotts case the owner of Scott is not found guilty because the complainant is not a citizen therefore lack of jurisdiction in the case though the rights of Scott were violated and there is evidence to sustain the claims. These are the issues which bring out the relationship between the two cases.
Supposing that Annette was not in foster care but rather in a group home I do not think if the results of the case would have been different and Joseph would have still been found guilty of abandoning his child. This is because despite the current situation of the child it emerged based on the evidence that the right of the child was violated. The demonstration alone of abandonment by Joseph in the past can be taken to mean that he is capable of doing an even worse abandonment and this would endanger the child more. The current situation of the charge though matters but it is not very significant in the determination of the case. This is simply because based on the legal standard Joseph is the natural parent to Annette and the fact that evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he indeed abandoned his child makes him guilty by the court of appeal. However the current state of the child to some extend can be said to have contributed further in providing proof that indeed Annette had been abandoned by her natural father because they were not together and the father had no idea of where her daughter was.
References
Sanford N. Katz, Famly Law In America, Oxford University Press Inc, New York 2003
(2008). Matter of Annette B. Web.