In the ruling, the [New York] judge said the biology of the child was irrelevant and that [the adoptive mother] Scollar was 'indeed the more responsible parent looking out for the child’s best interests, not her own interests'.Forget the importance of having a relationship with your natural mother and father. Scheduling. That's important.
She added that [the biological mother] Altman, a former producer for Martha Stewart’s TV show, 'behaved more as a friend or older sister than a responsible parent.'
She noted that Scollar had the child on a schedule, always brought her to school on time and to therapy appointments.
Altman, on the other hand was a 'freer spirit' and a 'more laid-back parent' who would 'miss therapy appointments or be late to school or camp bus because she overslept or felt that play dates were more important than therapy or that play dates should end late in the evening so that the child and she were too tired to commit to a schedule.'
October 1, 2012
When sperm-donor dad wants into the child's life and the biological mother sides with him.
And her lesbian partner, who had been able to adopt the child — because the father had signed away his legal rights — doesn't want him in. The 2 women became estranged over this dispute, and the biological parents tried to run off to California with the child. Who ends up with the child? The adoptive mother. Do you see why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
249 comments:
1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»Scheduling. That's important.
It sounds a lot more like the judge thought parenting is important.
So if this was a Lifetime movie, who would play who?
or should I say....when this becomes a Lifetime movie.....
Depends on who sells the movie rights first. If the egg mom, who has the TV producer advantage, gets in, then it will be a tragedy.
If the non-egg mom, who probably has more business smarts, gets it, then it will be a story of heartlifting joy.
The sperm donor will be scum in both.
The title of this should be:
The State Knows Best.
It's chapter 2 of my book, The Leftist's Work is Never Done.
Chapter 3 is You Reap What you Sow: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Great. The kid's already in therapy after having a "ball" and a "blast" at a physical examination for sexual abuse.
I guess that's okay even in California as long as the therapist ("the rapist") doesn't say anything to the little girl about being attracted to men instead of women.
Relationships of the future: I fell in love with the father of my child after I gave birth to his offspring, but before we had ever met.
It's like a sick riddle.
Of the three, the Adoptive Mom is the one who didn't try kidnap the child, and who didn't breach his agreement to give up any say in the child's rearing.
So who kept to schedules, took the child to school, etc. would seem to be secondary to the issue. Easy call.
Again with therapy! I wonder, if you are a child, are therapy really objective better for you than playing in the park?
The legal parent who did not try to kidnap or interefere with visitation is the parent who gets custody. I don't see any issues here. If the genders or biologies were different, we wouldn't even flinch.
Imagine: Single woman gets pregnant. Baby's father abandons her. She marries a new man shortly after the baby is born. Stand up guy adopts the baby. Later, the bio dad returns, cleans up his act, woos the woman away from her husband, they try to take the now older, grown child away from the only father she's ever known, the father who is legally her dad and guardian. The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind. Simple.
I wonder, if you are a child, are therapy really objective better for you than playing in the park?
I'd say the park is better, but you can't factor capital movement into GDP if kids are playing in the park.
You can if Ms. Smith goes to college to study therapy, becomes a therapist, and then charges a per hour fee to provide therapy. She can even do it at the park.
My kids thrived when on a schedule, especially the younger one. Throw something unexpected at him and he's all verklempt.
Certainly the person who puts the kid's needs first should be awarded custody. That's what's required of parents for the first decade. Afterwards, not so much.
This doesn't seem surprising.
If you're a biological parent and give your child up for adoption, you don't retain a right to kidnap said child from the adoptive parent later on if you change your mind.
In this case I guess The Kids Are [Not] All Right.
Agree with Mark and sarcasticarrie, in this case seems to me law is acting as law must here. Hypothetically substitute an adoptive dad instead of a adoptive lesbian mom, that's the test.
"I wonder, if you are a child, are therapy really objective better for you than playing in the park?"
-- It matters, I'd say. A lot of people are skeptical of therapy, but I have seen it have actual tangible benefits for people.
Either way, not having read the link, the phrase "tried to run off," when associated with a child, is enough reason not to let people trying to run off with them have the kid.
The bio parents lose because their plan to take the child to California was obviously not in the best interest of the child. They might have succeeded if they had picked a state with a future.
Dysfunctional families, no longer just a heterosexual thing.
The parent who is more responsible, is the parent that deserves custody. Responsiblity is far more than simply adhering to a schedule, I bet the Judge based his decision on more than that, that we aren't privy to.
Some men and some women are not much more than sperm or egg donors. I'm not saying this is the case here, but the child's needs trump both Moms and Dad's issues.
"...then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind. Simple." -- Carrie"
Your analogy of a responsible father sounds good in theory, but it fails badly in reality.
The NYS Courts give custody to the mother 99.9% of the time unless the mother is a total nutjob.
This was codified in NYS with the "Men are Shit" law of 1973 or thereabouts.
If you are six years old, and already have therapy appointments, someone is doing something wrong, whether the appointments are kept or not.
"The parent who is more responsible, is the parent that deserves custody."
Deserving's got nothing to do with it, Inga.
Sounds like a plot from a Lifetime movie:
"I was a closet heterosexual"
"My baby turned me straight"
"I left my woman - for a MAN!"
Seriously, we need about 40 years of hard core Conservative Presidents and Governors to get nuts like this off the bench.
Nomennovum said...
The title of this should be:
The State Knows Best.
How 'bout, "It Takes A Village"?
How so, Nomennovum?
Biology means nothing in the end. Your parents are those who raised you, not the ones who squeezed you out. At least the law still gets this. It would be a travesty if biological parents were able to get rights back that they have freely given up. That does not lead to a stable home.
Revenant,
If you're a biological parent and give your child up for adoption, you don't retain a right to kidnap said child from the adoptive parent later on if you change your mind.
But that isn't the situation here, as I understand it. There is a biological mother, a biological father, and an adoptive mother. It's the biological mother who took her daughter to CA. She didn't cede parental rights when her partner adopted the child, though the biological father presumably did.
How so, Nomennovum?"
Didn't i just point out the "Men are Shit" law? Where are you from, Inga? 1954?
A biological parent who later "regrets" his or her decision to give up a child, in most cases is not think of the child when they try to reclaim those rights. They are thinking about themselves. There are always exceptions, but in 99% of the cases the adoptive parents adopted the child for a reason - they wanted to be parents. Unlike the person who gave up the child.
She noted that Scollar had the child on a schedule, always brought her to school on time and to therapy appointments.
No doubt therapy will be a big part of this poor kid's future.
Nomennovum, any parent is shit if they neglect their child. More men are getting custody of their children nowadays than in the past. You sound bitter.
To say that the law acted correctly (as it must given the law), and that bio parents are reaping the consequences of their own actions and choices, is not to say that adoptive mom was right to do as she did-- refuse to give sperm-donor dad any role in the kids' life.
Who's to say. It's a tricky situation. It might have been good for the kids to have a male "parental" (or at least "uncle") figure in their lives. But I can understand the actual (adoptive) parent feeling threatened by the bio dad's involvement, and the possibility of the kids' confusion over who really is the "parent."
It's funny that in this case life is following movie. (Though "The Kids Are All Right" had a different ending, in that case too bio dad is shut out in the end).
Michelle D.T. and nomennovum make a compelling point about the bio mom. Again, you have to test the case by substituting parents of different genders and sexual orientations in place of the principals here, and see how that strikes you. Differently? The same? Why?
(Would the court have ruled as it did with respect to bio mom if the adoptive parent wasn't a "mom"-- i.e. wasn't a woman? Would bio mom have had more of a claim, before many a judge, if the adoptive parent was a man?)
Why? Because adoptive mother is a lawyer?
She didn't cede parental rights when her partner adopted the child, though the biological father presumably did.
But you can say she forfeited those rights, at least of custody, by attempting to kidnap the children. A father who did the same thing would certainly lose those rights, no?
"Why California’s Three-Parent Law Was Inevitable"
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6197
She noted that Scollar had the child on a schedule, always brought her to school on time and to therapy appointments.
ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah - she's gonna need it!
Man, society has just completely gone off the deep end,and what they'll do to children in the process is simply criminal.
I say slap that kid in Jesus Camp and get the problem solved once and for all,....
For the record - and speaking as a foster child:
I have never heard of a kid, who went with the bios, later looking desperately for their former adoptive parents.
Anyone who says blood, etc., doesn't matter should walk in the shoes of a kid with no history.
That's also, still, one effect of slavery most don't want to to deal with, btw,...
The judge wussed out, as usual, by making a "controversial" non-controversial ruling. The judge avoided addressing the actual merits of the dispute between the parties, e.g., should the biological dad have access, by deleting the biological parents altogether. The easy way out.
You sound bitter.
Love this rejoinder from Inga. The other favorite snipe at men is "You're an angry old white man."
So, Inga, you're bitter about your daughter.
Does that completely negate your political point of view?
Are you just an angry old white woman?
Altman has a lot of gall thinking that being the "actual" parent would give her preference.
When the "child" hits 15 or 16 someone is gonna have some splainin to do.
"Forget the importance of having a relationship with your natural mother and father. Scheduling. That's important."
Did you even read the article, Professor Althouse? I can't believe you could read that article and really believe the case was about scheduling. More likely it was about kidnapping the kid and falsely accusing the ex of alcoholism and abuse. Behavior like that would lose most any child custody case.
"No doubt therapy will be a big part of this poor kid's future."
Surprisingly, this post of Ann's reminds me about the post about gay marriage.
First, the state fucks up heterosexual marriage by making it so damn easy -- finacially and otherwise -- for a marriage to be dissolved. Next thiong you know, dumb gays are dumb enough to want to marry -- just like the straights.
Second, the state, as part of it's marriage fucking-up process, fucks up child custody issues which result from heterosexual marriage. Third, the state allows unmarried people to adopt children. So gays begin to indulge in child-rearing.
Needless to say, divorce is terrible for the mental health of the children. So the children of gays, already confused and suffering from the unusual sexual relationship of their parents, are further damaged by the breakup of gay marriages (or whatever their state's in-all-but-name-only arrangement is called).
Yeah. It's all for the children. That's what the judges tell all the fathers who are in the process of being divorce raped. Funny thing is, they never ask the kids whether all that misery was beneficial to them.
"You sound bitter."
You sound naive.
I'm way too confused. Who's who again?
Love this rejoinder from Inga. The other favorite snipe at men is "You're an angry old white man."
Don't forget the ever-popular "small penis" jibes.
I can see the kidnapping charge in the instance of two biological parents where one attempts to keep the child from the other. But in this case the adoptive parent was only given this title "parent" by agreement of the actual biological mother. All contracts are subject to revocation under circumstances. It would seem that the biologic mother simply decided to terminate both both her relationship with the adoptive parent, and the relationship of the child with the adoptive parent, which was established only on the existing lesbian relationship. Which it appears has now ended.
This is the disastrous outcomes of the willful selfishness of people who aren't meant to have children and yet the child is the tool for their insidious proclivities and no one wins when the child should be.
Skipper said...
I'm way too confused. Who's who again?
Third base.
I don't recall ever calling anyone here an angry old white man with a small penis.
Somewhat indirectly, this is what many, if not most, of the anti-gay marriage people are talking about. That a child is best if bred and raised by his mother and father. Or a loving traditional in-tact adapted mother and father.
Broken homes, single parents, and now homosexual parents, do not lead to the best upbringing.
I don't recall ever calling anyone here an angry old white man with a small penis.
That's a pretty good try, Inga.
But, I've been assured by many ladies that I'm well endowed.
Would you like a pic? I'm proud of my equipment. I've got some nice B&W artistic type stills.
Did you ever manage to get your ass kissed? You worked so hard on that one last week.
You need to have a couple of drinks and go to the local orgy.
ST, ???? Whoa.
If you like, Inga, I'll take you to Le Trapeze here in NYC.
Pretty wild place.
I can tell you need it.
I played at Bethel yesterday, Inga, site of the original '69 Woodstock Festival.
I'm figuring that, now that I'm a rock and roll idol, it's time for a little wild groupie action.
I can't believe everyone here is overlooking the obvious. The birth mom's brain became contaminated with her son's (and through him the birth dad's) DNA. This changed her from a normal healthy lesbian to a freakish heterosexual, presumptively unsuitable to rear children.
I don't recall ever calling anyone here an angry old white man with a small penis.
Key word: here.
Forget the importance of having a relationship with your natural mother and father. Scheduling. That's important.
Yes. It is called stability and good parenting.
It takes more than just biology to be a parent.
No thanks, I'm well taken care of in that department here in Wisconsin. I'm sure your penis is fine, no need to prove anything, unless it's to yourself.
Now get back on subject.
The penis is ultimately the subject of all conversations.
I'm sure your penis is fine, no need to prove anything, unless it's to yourself.
I ain't into "proving" things with my dick, Inga.
My dick has better things to do.
Imagine: Single woman gets pregnant. Baby's father abandons her. She marries a new man shortly after the baby is born. Stand up guy adopts the baby. Later, the bio dad returns, cleans up his act, woos the woman away from her husband, they try to take the now older, grown child away from the only father she's ever known, the father who is legally her dad and guardian. The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind.
Problem: in many of these cases, the adoptive parents get hosed. Anyone remember the Baby Jessica case from the '90's?
Nomennovum: I love the avatar!
I Callahan,
Aye. That's a divorce lawyer comin' over the transom!
yashu:
[me:] She didn't cede parental rights when her partner adopted the child, though the biological father presumably did.
[you:] But you can say she forfeited those rights, at least of custody, by attempting to kidnap the children.
Child, yashu. As in singular. Just one.
A father who did the same thing would certainly lose those rights, no?
A father who moved to another state with his daughter and without his daughter's stepmother? Probably. A mother who moved to another state with her daughter and without her daughter's stepfather? I doubt it.
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
the lesson here ladies is don't give up that tilted family court playing field you enjoy due to your gender by sharing it with another woman.
I never did trust that David Crosby.
Shouting Thomas said...
I don't recall ever calling anyone here an angry old white man with a small penis.
That's a pretty good try, Inga.
But, I've been assured by many ladies that I'm well endowed.
Would you like a pic? I'm proud of my equipment. I've got some nice B&W artistic type stills.
Did you ever manage to get your ass kissed? You worked so hard on that one last week.
You need to have a couple of drinks and go to the local orgy.
TMI man. What the shit?
This is a straight up equity question. I practice primarily domestic relations law in Mississippi, and am not licensed in NY, but family law courts are generally courts of equity. Coupling principles of equity with the so-called polestar consideration (the best interests of the child), this case is a slam dunk and the judge did the right thing.
This all makes sense to me... the best interest of the child is the standard.
The biological father cannot be the legal parent, and the mother of the child, if she is not the best interest of the child, can be pushed aside for an adoptive parent or family member who is.
Here's link to Fla. Sup. Ct. docket. Read some of the documents -- can make your head explode.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/12/12-261/index.html
Child custody contest between lesbian partners "divorcing" -- child conceived in vitro with one partner egg, emplanted into second partner for gestation and delivery. Thus one is biological (DNA) mother , the other is the birth mother. Issue -- who should get custody?
" The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind. Simple. "
I guess you missed that case a few years ago where the mother died and her husband, who was the only father the child had ever known and who lived in rural Montana, was raising the child. The bio dad showed up, claimed he hadn't known about the baby and got custody. The child was transferred to Illinois to the dad he had never seen and didn't know.
Simple.
Thus one is biological (DNA) mother , the other is the birth mother. Issue -- who should get custody?
According to Althouse, whoever schedules things best.
The child was transferred to Illinois to the dad he had never seen and didn't know. Simple.
Yup. The same as in the Baby Jessica case. The bio father said he didn't know about the child. Ended up getting custody anyway.
Explain to me how this was in the best interest of the child.
"
10/1/12 1:28 PM
Blogger Inga said...
Nomennovum, any parent is shit if they neglect their child. More men are getting custody of their children nowadays than in the past. You sound bitter."
The men who are getting custody are usually getting it when the child support runs out at 18. My ex was crazy when we divorced. I was worried that she would kill my daughter and herself. The court psychologist decided it would be too traumatic for my ex if we took the child from her. No mention of the child who was six at the time.
Fortunately, she survived and my ex stopped drinking and taking prescription drugs. My daughter doesn't like to talk about those years until she was 18 and could live with me. She and her mother are on good terms again but it's one of those "She's just mom" situations. I'm glad it worked out, no thanks to the psychologist.
If you are six years old, and already have therapy appointments, someone is doing something wrong, whether the appointments are kept or not.
I was thinking the same thing.
is not to say that adoptive mom was right to do as she did-- refuse to give sperm-donor dad any role in the kids' life.
How could the mom even do that, if the other mom let the dad see the kid? If you have two parent disagreeing on something like that, can't one just let him see the kid? I mean, it would be bad for the relationship between the couple, but probably good for the kid (unless the dad was pretty awful).
Taking the kid and running away is generally going to make you lose a custody battle, all things being equal.
Re Fla. Sup Ct. Case -- oral arguments are tomorrow (approx 9:30 a.m. CDT) and can be watched live --
http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/
" .. the so-called polestar consideration (the best interests of the child)."
Which is defined as "not being with the father when at all possible."
If the the courts and the law truly had the "best interests of the children" at heart, separating father, mother and children would be a very very difficult matter -- one done only in the most egregious cases. Instead the law and the courts make the destruction of the family ever easier.
Does anyone here have any idea what a "vow" means, what it entails, what it's purpose is?
The worst words a child can hear: "Your mother and I are getting a divorce."
The old excuse, "it's better for the kids than living in a miserable marriage" has been shown to be the self-serving lie that it is.
Because traditional families are no different than non-traditional families, see.
Alex Ignatiev, do you see a trend toward more fathers getting custody of children in the courts now as compared to 30 years ago? I don't know your age, but perhaps you know the statistics.
Inga, you have quite a will to believe. So believe what you want and stop making other people do a Google search on your behalf.
I much prefer the English pronunciation of "schedule"... like Picard said it.
But since there are no English parents in this crowded theater... I say turn the child over to the winner of an objective assessment of the better looking parent.
Its in the best interest of the child.
Nomennovum, he practices domestic relations law, it would be interesting hearing HIS perspective. Get it?
If the facts are as they are presented here then, it sounds like the right decision, BUT:
If you truly believed that the adoptive mother was much worse for your child, and it was your child, then would you still avoid taking any risky tactics to win? Wouldn't you do almost anything to get your child in that case? If you did, wouldn't you lose this case the same way they did. Wouldn't deep love and desperate concern for your child's safety and future look a lot like being unfit, and maybe a little crazy?
I just hope they didn't simply pick the more likable character, because that's not what's important here.
The Crack Emcee said...
I say slap that kid in Jesus Camp ...
I FIFY but...
OMG...don't say shit like that without warning, gives my diaphragm cramps from laughing.
Now on the other remark...
Anyone who says blood, etc., doesn't matter should walk in the shoes of a kid with no history...[snip]...That's also, still, one effect of slavery most don't want to to deal with, btw,...
That is definitely worth discussion, both aspects, but it isn't going to happen here, not sure why I think that...at least I don't think it will. It is a very serious matter and one, as you say, most folks avoid on all sides....but points to how much of our history has evolved. You and I have exchanged thoughts on family bonds and associations before, and the subject you broach here is part of that discussion.
I mean why is a perfectly legitimate standard for picking a partner... completely discarded when it comes to choosing the best parent for the child... doesn't the child deserve to be happy?
"I say turn the child over to the winner of an objective assessment of the better looking parent."
It's better than what currently exists, but here's a radical idea:
Give kids a veto power over divorce. If they're too young to speak, custody goes to the father unless there is compelling evidence he is unfit.
That'll stop "run-away dads" that people like to pretend represent 95% of all divorces. It will also stop the needless depletion of wealth via alimony disguised as child-support payments ...
Oh, wait. The latter reason means divorce status quo. Never mind.
"Nomennovum, he practices domestic relations law, it would be interesting hearing HIS perspective. Get it?"
Oh, gee, Inga. Thanks. I knew he was a matrimonial lawyer, but I had forgotten how smart you are: You know that all domestic relations lawyers have these nation-wide child custody statistics in their heads and at the ready.
And, if you remember, you didn't ask for his "perspective." You asked for the child custody statistics.
You asked for the child custody statistics.
Child custody statistics were probably more informative in the pre-child labor law days.
Wow, Nomenovum, you are bitter, my first impression was correct. I don't know what happened to you in your own situation, but your lamentation about child support is telling.
As far as the question I asked of Alex Ignatiev, the question was directed to him, not you. I assumed he would give his own perspective, that wasn't an unreasonable assumption.
Two observations, more on style than substance.
1. Not knowing what these women looked like prior to reading the article and avoiding the picture labels, I looked at the women's faces and tried to decide--just on appearance, which was Brook Altman and which was Allison Scollar. Guessing that Ms. Scollar was the nicer lady, I picked the face of the nicer-looking woman. I chose correctly. I know 50/50 chance.
2. Another thing I wonder about, or like, depending on the reason: Altman was on the left side in each of the three pictures that contained both women. So I wonder if they always pose that way, or did the thoughtful editors at The Daily Mail just help their readers keep track by using consistant pictures?
Thats right dbp..
Objectivity and reason has been taking it on the chin here these past few days.
I say make it simple.
Look to Salomon and his baby parting ways... didn't split the baby and he got results.
And that was before facebook.
Inga,
Re bitterness: You know nothing about me. And whether I suffered through what millions have suffered through is of no relevance to anything I've said. So screw you.
The rest of your comment is just more evidence that you are dishonest in your argumentation.
I am done with you, except for occassional ridicule.
Presumably the key legal event here was the adoption, and without that custody would have gone to the biological mother. The potential of losing your child is something to consider as the biological parent before allowing a nonbiological parent to adopt.
The potential of losing your child is something to consider as the biological parent before allowing a nonbiological parent to adopt.
sounds like a job for regulation including a cooling off period, waiting period, and a recission period with multiple signed full disclosures, and unlimited liability for attorneys that don't disclose properly.
..biological mothers should be required to take regular trips to local CDC.
I'm just saying.
Nomenovum, it's not that I don't have sympathy for men who deserve custody, but you have taken this custody issue for men to an extreme, give custody to the father if the children veto the divorce? Then you go on to complain about child support, you revealed plenty right there.
Life is too short, and life goes on after personal devastation, this I know.
Time for ridicule:
Igna you have a habit of opining on matters about which you have no clue. Your last comment is reflective of this.
Sperm-donor dad.. reminds me of the difference in Spanish and English.
In Spanish "free love" is translated as "Amor libre"... dissociated from the financial connotations of "free".
Much better I think.
Novenovum, time for me to tell you, you are an angry man with a .... no never mind, that would be too mean.
More ridicule.
Igna, your reading comprehension skills are almost as poor as your writing skills.
Nomennovum said...
More ridicule.
Igna, your reading comprehension skills are almost as poor as your writing skills.
Irony!
More ridicule.
Igna, being an old nurse (retired?) does not make you a psychologist.
Inga makes another Internet friend.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!
Novenovum,
No wonder.
Always count a a bald farmer to come to the rescue of an unfair maiden and misuse the word "irony."
Adoption always "terminates" the parental rights of the consenting natuar parent(s).
So the law means that or it does not!
Inga-
My practice is about 70/30 fathers/mothers. At least in Mississippi, in my district (one of the better ones, by all accounts) men and women begin on an even basis. However, once an initial custody determination is made, it is a very high burden of proof to adjust it. So I caution my male clients to make sure that if they agree to give the mother primary custody, they understand that they are stacking the deck against themselves in the future.
The rules of practice in this field are clear: advantage goes to the first filer. And there's a distinct advantage to contesting custody early, if the parent has real concerns about the moral fitness or parental fitness of the other parent.
No I don't see why. Acrimony occurs in all relationships. That doesn't male one a bad parent.
If the welfare of the child was due only to $$$ the richer person would always get custody and get an au pair. Biological attachment is an important thing if it is there.
Extremely selfish of the wiser lesbian to just not let go.
If you observe kids over time they do have genetic traits of their parents. Their parents unless they are reprobates are the best people to lead them.
There are probably millions of grandparents in the country who can't get this type of custody even though they are better parents.
I'd say another fluffy judge.
The adoptive mother was the only party that didn't break the law. That's the reason she should have been awarded sole custody, even if it wasn't the judge's reason.
The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least. Don't know why that didn't seem to be mentioned here, but adoptive parents in many sates have identical rights to biological parents who have not lost their parental rights (voluntarily or otherwise) an are parents de jure. An agreement for one de jure parent and a non-parent third party to deprive the other de jure parent of contact with the child by removing him to a place unknown to the other de jure parent would seem to qualify as kidnapping. See Texas Penal Code Chapter 20, Section 20.02 (b) which states in pertinent part "[i]t is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.
Clearly the biological mother does not qualify for the affirmative defense under the statute. So she's a kidnapper and belongs in jail. Adoptive parent gets the kid; the other parent is unfit as a felon. End of story.
That's my exam answer and I'm sticking to it.
Thanks for the answer, Alex, glad you gave your perspective, especially seeing who 70% of your clientele are.
Still, the child could always grow up to resent the organizational skills of the adoptive mom and run away back to her natural parents.
Crazier things have happened.
Inga said...
Wow, Nomenovum, you are bitter, my first impression was correct. I don't know what happened to you in your own situation, but your lamentation about child support is telling.
As far as the question I asked of Alex Ignatiev, the question was directed to him, not you. I assumed he would give his own perspective, that wasn't an unreasonable assumption.
You're impressions are never right you insipid fool? What the fuck do you think you're doing? Trying to psychoanalyze people you don't know and never met. It's like you pull these assessments out of a crackerjack box.
Inga: Oh your just bitter.
Inga: Oh now I know your bitter because my first impression to call you out as bitter is correct because i say it is. See, I knew that too.
Maybe shouting thomas should show you his incredibly huge dick just to shut you up. Slack jawed and all that.
"The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least."
That may be the law, but just look at what that says, and you can see that it should not be routine or taken lightly. I could easily see the child as an adult feeling robbed by the court's decision, and thinking: what gives you the right to take my biological parents away from me? I can never get back my childhood being raised by them. I doubt such resentment is likely in reverse. People generally accept the fate of their biological heritage, which is one reason it should get some respect.
Nomennovum said...
Always count a a bald farmer to come to the rescue of an unfair maiden and misuse the word "irony."
You have to forgive Inga her proclivities to find white knights on this forum. Balding, 1970 farmer fuck faces notwithstanding. Virgins need love too and the hope that they have internet defended a lady on a thread of a blog of a law professor no less, in an unrequited fashion is a small charity indeed.
And for those without Google skills and knowing some readers' low reading comprehension skills and high will to believe, read this:
http://tinyurl.com/8n4zgww
In 1990, the wife was awarded custody 72% of the time, the husband 9% of the time, and joint custody was awarded 16% of the time in divorces.
bagoh20 said...
"The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least."
That may be the law, but just look at what that says, and you can see that it should not be routine or taken lightly. I could easily see the child as an adult feeling robbed by the court's decision, and thinking: what gives you the right to take my biological parents away from me? I can never get back my childhood being raised by them. I doubt such resentment is likely in reverse. People generally accept the fate of their biological heritage, which is one reason it should get some respect.
Maybe if homosexuals weren't allowed to have children in this manner, then this wouldn't be an issue.
What? Is it abusive angry man with small penises day, here on Althouse today?
I have never heard as much whining by men as I have here in the Althouse commentariat. It's getting pathetic. Whenever Althouse posts a comment about women, out they come, the crybabies. "Women get all the jobs, women always get the children, women trick men into marrying them, women want to stay home so they don't have to go to work, women care only about their careers and not the children", etc, etc, women are the devil.
Pitiful.
'It’s a step closer to the gay community being acknowledged as parents. The law needs to catch up to diverse families — and it has.'
I find that irrelevant and mildly offensive. I sure hope the judge didn't put those words in her mouth.
I note that the parent relieved of custody is an Emmy-winning producer. What are the odds (given the stakes and acrimony) that we'll be seeing this on HBO somewhere one day?
Inga said...
What? Is it abusive angry man with small penises day, here on Althouse today?
♫ Inga moods swing like a pendulum do,
boobies on bicycles two by two,
Downton Abbey, the power of Big Fen,
The rosie red cheeks of the little red hen. ♫
@Whomever said: The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least.
I'm not so sure of the circumstance and whether it rose to the definition of kidnapping--are you?
Inga at 4:59PM
More ridicule:
No one can possibly be as idiotic and mendacious as you and live.
Therefore, you are a moby.
"... women are the devil"
The rest is hyperbole, but that part is true.
And you don't understand - it was cold. There was shrinkage.
PJ @ 1:09pm -- LOL!
That's actually pretty funny Chickelit. See? Chickie channels his anger into song, now that's well adjusted.
Somehow it always ends up being about Inga.
Funny how that happens.
"Chickie channels his anger ..."
Well, good golly, Chickelt. You've received the coveted Seal of Approval(TM) from the wondrous polymath, Inga, RN(ret.).
My condolences.
@Baron: Just lie back and think of Ingaland...
It happens because I get attacked, I defend myself and it's a snowball, duh. Early on I asked Shouting Thomas to stay on topic after he went off on some crazy rant. Men here do not like women who speak their minds, they go into attack mode and then complain when they get back as good as they gave, oh poor poor men.
Nomennovum said...
Always count a a bald farmer to come to the rescue of an unfair maiden and misuse the word "irony."
I thought "dum-dum" was a little harsh.
Alley, why did you change your name?
Keep giving 'em hell!
Get off of Inga and back on subject.
Farmer, it's a long story, but a commenter here published my full real name, so since the cat was out of the bag, decided to keep my real first name. Thanks for your support.
Methadras said...
Nomennovum said...
You have to forgive Inga her proclivities to find white knights on this forum. Balding, 1970 farmer fuck faces notwithstanding. Virgins need love too and the hope that they have internet defended a lady on a thread of a blog of a law professor no less, in an unrequited fashion is a small charity indeed.
Hey.
@Baron: They make pills for both conditions:
Viagra for some, Zyklon-B for others.
Bitter living through chemistry.
You fellas can make fun of my bald head all you like, but you might try to remember that I am just as God made me.
Baron, you insult Althouse daily, you come here to drop turds, never engage in discussion, what a man you are!
Inga said...
Farmer, it's a long story, but a commenter here published my full real name, so since the cat was out of the bag, decided to keep my real first name. Thanks for your support.
Oh, what a lovely name! Sorry some psycho did that but I can't say I didn't see it coming. The Internet makes cuckoos cuckooier.
Did you see where that guy called me a fuck face?
I'm going to guess he's in the 4.5 range at best.
@Inga: The Baron sounds entitled...give him a break.
My God, he called me a virgin too. How dare he.
I'm going to go dig up his real name, and post it right here for all to see!
@Inga, And not to get mean, but plenty of turd flingers show here daily from your side of the aisle, too.
@ Richard Fagin Clearly the biological mother does not qualify for the affirmative defense under the statute.
Could you explain that in lay terms. I know this is a law blog (part of why I like it) but I need an explanation here of "the affirmative defense." The biological mother was the other parent.
Do parents lose complete custody of their children for stupidity?
What about partial custody / supervised visits, etc?
The biological dad? Well. Duh. You give your sperm away (sell?), you sign your rights and responsibilities away.... What did you expect?
Be a great uncle and tell the kid when she's older -- at least that way you would have had a relationship.
(I feel for the guys who get dinged by floozies when they are not in fact the biological father and end up paying for a child who is not theirs.)
The gynecological exam should not have been that traumatic if it was handled correctly (what did the adoptive mother say or do?) but surely it was not a "blast."
The [false] accusation was horrific though. So there's that.
But the kid is 6 years old and in therapy coming from a well educated, upper middle class / elite household of what was supposed to be (or was seen as) an enlightened pair.
Now *that* is very sad.
But me thinks there is more, a lot more, to the story.
campy,
"Don't forget the ever-popular 'small penis' jibes. "
Those mostly come in the firearm-related threads.
MDT,
"A father who moved to another state with his daughter and without his daughter's stepmother? Probably. A mother who moved to another state with her daughter and without her daughter's stepfather? [emphasis added]"
Did you miss the word "adopted" in the story?
Get off Inga and back on the subject....or maybe not...maybe that is what gets Inga off...attention....insipid is as insipid does.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!
Well, better to have a small penis than to be dickless, poor Baron Zemo.
(I feel for the guys who get dinged by floozies when they are not in fact the biological father and end up paying for a child who is not theirs.)
Thanks man. That's me. A U.S. taxpayer.
"I'm going to go dig up his real name, and post it right here for all to see!" - The Farmer
Heh. Ironic. No wait ... Farmers do dig.
As any internet discussion thread with Inga grows longer, the odds of her discussing her underwear approach 1.
Well, better to have a small penis than to be dickless, poor Baron Zemo.
My vagina is big! It's the dicks that got small.
As any internet discussion thread with Inga grows longer, the odds of her discussing her underwear approach 1
As any internet discussion thread with Inga grows longer than two comments, the odds of her discussing herself approach 1.
Pitiful, simply pitiful.
Didn't get enough of hammering at Althouse for two days straight? If conservative men have turned into this ugly angry representation of a man, that seems to reside here on Althouse, then it's more than pitiful.
Inga said...
Farmer, it's a long story, but a commenter here published my full real name, so since the cat was out of the bag, decided to keep my real first name. Thanks for your support.
Even for you, I have to say that this is not a cool thing to do. I didn't understand the reason for the name change, but at least this answers it.
Anyway. Back to Ann's post:
I think you've got to be a real jerk off to donate sperm anyway.
Baron Zemo said...
Somehow it always ends up being about Inga.
Rancid stupidity must be confronted at all times and beaten back. Unfortunately in her case, even the stupid join in. She just isn't a very bright person in certain respects.
The Farmer said...
You fellas can make fun of my bald head all you like, but you might try to remember that I am just as God made me.
Ugly and stupid? Noted.
I can't believe everyone here is overlooking the obvious. The birth mom's brain became contaminated with her son's (and through him the birth dad's) DNA. This changed her from a normal healthy lesbian to a freakish heterosexual, presumptively unsuitable to rear children.
This wins the thread, I mean it's obvious!
Inga said...
Men here do not like stupid women, like me, who speak their minds, they go into attack mode and then complain when they get back as good as they gave, oh poor poor men.
Fixed for truthiness. You see folks, this is the nonsensical tactic that this kind of moron employes. She's just a victim. She can't help it that she speaks her mind and men on here don't like it and that she defends her self against their poor wittle attacks. Those meany head men persons. Just so mean and so poor at being men because they are meanie heads and stuff.
Inga, you prove that your perpetual victimhood on this forum will never die with comments like yours. And you have the nerve to complain "I have never heard as much whining by men as I have here in the Althouse commentariat."
LOL. Really? A little pot kettle black much. Get over yourself. You are just a foil.
I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here, pathetic.
The biologic mother is the less attentive, less serious parent. More carefree attitude about raising children. Misses things. Careless, actually. Alcohol.
So what.
There are a lot of people successfully raising their own children that are worse parents than other childless people who want one, spent time with one and could do a better job, like nannies. In fact, there are a lot of flat irresponsible people raising kids all over the place.
My brother told me about one he met when he was placing puppies. A kid called so he didn't trust the situation and oddly went to check it out. The kid said, "oh, it's fine." So my brother went over to their house and the dad was watching TV and couldn't be bothered with a thing like a dog, or even a conversation about a dog, couldn't even look up, the kid wants a dog, eh, what kid? sure, yeah, a dog, sure, whatever.
The Farmer said...
Inga said...
Farmer, it's a long story, but a commenter here published my full real name, so since the cat was out of the bag, decided to keep my real first name. Thanks for your support.
Oh, what a lovely name! Sorry some psycho did that but I can't say I didn't see it coming. The Internet makes cuckoos cuckooier.
Did you see where that guy called me a fuck face?
I'm going to guess he's in the 4.5 range at best.
Hey bald boy, I wasn't the guy who outed her you fucking douche. Even at 4.5, the back of your throat stops dead at 3.5. Ask me how I know that.
Inga said...
Well, better to have a small penis than to be dickless, poor Baron Zemo.
Why, do you screw yours on?
Inga said...
I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here, pathetic.
Bigger ciccones than Madonna even!
Inga said...
I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here, pathetic.
Do you bolt those on too?
I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here
skipped the underwear and went straight to the contents.
Inga said...
I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here, pathetic.
Prolapsed ovaries!
Inga said, I have bigger balls than the majority of the macho men here, pathetic.
http://cheezburger.com/4035390464
Stop being so damn funny Chickie:)
Ah well BACK TO THE TOPIC, unless there are some stragglers who want to get their hits it yet. Do not let it be said that it was I who derailed this thread.
Methadras said...
Hey bald boy, I wasn't the guy who outed her you fucking douche. Even at 4.5, the back of your throat stops dead at 3.5. Ask me how I know that.
I was just kidding around - I don't really want to talk about your penis.
Geez another Allie/Inga it's all about me thread.
Back to the topic at hand.
Biology does not make you a parent. This is evidenced every day by crack whores, people with psychological issues, narcissistic personalities, abusive, drunken personalities. It is often best for the child to be raised by non biological caregivers or other family members than the direct biological DNA donors in many situations.
Leaving out the Lesbianism, which is not necessarily a prohibition to being a parental type of person, the bio mom and sperm donor sound like selfish and narcissistic personalities who really don't care that much about the child but more about gaining and keeping power.
The big clue in that is the mother forced her child to be inspected for vaginal child abuse at the age of 6. THIS is a very traumatic thing for a small child and to purposely put your child through this ordeal so you can 'get even' or 'get back' at another adult is horrific.
"Stop being so damn funny Chickie:)?" -- Inga
Now we know three things:
1. Inga's balls hang beneath her chin;
2. They're Chickelit's;
3. Chikcelit is pretty impressively endowed and wins another Seal of Approval(TM) from Inga, polymath, RN (ret.) (slut?). This one for ... er, ah ... testicular magnitude.
Also, "fucking douche" was pretty unnecessary. "Darned jerk" would have worked just fine, Mr. Pottymouth.
Nomennovum said...
"Stop being so damn funny Chickie:)?" -- Inga
Now we know three things:
1. Inga's balls hang beneath her chin;
2. They're Chickelit's;
3. Chikcelit is pretty impressively endowed and wins another Seal of Approval(TM) from Inga, polymath, RN (ret.) (slut?). This one for ... er, ah ... testicular magnitude.
4. Once upon a time, someone hurt you badly.
Oh, jeez another psychologist! And this one, a farmer.
Hey, now that's ironic!!!
Nomennovum said...
Oh, jeez another psychologist! And this one, a farmer.
You must be very tired of them by now.
DBQ just posted a very insightful comment, not one response to her. Pitiful.
Farmer, your number 4. Is probably very accurate.
As I said before life goes on after personal devastation, unless you want to stay angry forever.
You must be very tired of them by now.
Just the slutty polymath nurse (ret.) and ironic farmer ones.
Careful, farmer. Your parroting of Inga is taking your white-knighting a step too far. You risk much.
Wow, those kind of threats sound VERY familiar. That's what the commenter said to me almost word for word before publishing my real name. Very strange.
This place is toxic.
Althouse blog sense the virus that is Allie and creates antibodies to expel it. Pure biology in action.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Geez another Allie/Inga it's all about me thread.
Back to the topic at hand.
Biology does not make you a parent. This is evidenced every day by crack whores, people with psychological issues, narcissistic personalities, abusive, drunken personalities. It is often best for the child to be raised by non biological caregivers or other family members than the direct biological DNA donors in many situations.
Leaving out the Lesbianism, which is not necessarily a prohibition to being a parental type of person, the bio mom and sperm donor sound like selfish and narcissistic personalities who really don't care that much about the child but more about gaining and keeping power.
The big clue in that is the mother forced her child to be inspected for vaginal child abuse at the age of 6. THIS is a very traumatic thing for a small child and to purposely put your child through this ordeal so you can 'get even' or 'get back' at another adult is horrific
And you end up with someone like Urkel. I don't think we need to guess what his family life was like now do we. And this is what the outcome we have. This is nothing new, just the fact that it's a much more highlighted problem than it ever was before. Most of the time people kept their dirty laundry to themselves. Now with the ever increasing imaginings of what a family can constitute, we will have to endure stories like these from now on until this ship rights itself. If it doesn't, then the outcome will not be good in the long run.
Inga said...
This place is toxic.
No, no, I think it's just you.
It has been 25 years since I was awarded sole custody of my son in what proved a bitter divorce. At the time, my lawyer told me at the outset that there were three family court judges in our district, and every one of them felt that children belonged with the mother and ruled accordingly. If we were able to substantiate her perfidy and wickedness, we might have 50-50 chances. As a consequence, we played a long and patient game, and after a year of rope-a-dope, where her terms created new worlds at every sitting, we finalized the deal. No child support for me, of course, but plenty of father-funded visitation for her. Later, the ex, hard up for money in what would become a long series of failed lesbian relations, offered to sell me her visitation rights for cash. This was evil.
I would say that for all the pissing, whining, and moaning of every stripe of group with real or perceived grievances in this country, none in the past thirty years can match the record of state-sanctioned discrimination that exists against would-be custodial fathers. Bitter? Yes, Inga, deeply.
The Farmer said...
Also, "fucking douche" was pretty unnecessary. "Darned jerk" would have worked just fine, Mr. Pottymouth.
Don't you have to go milk Garage's mom or something, you human gnat? Begone, you blundering gap-toothed comb-overed oaf.
Meth, you do MORE than you fair share. The vitriol the sheer spittle flying vitriol is really quite disgusting. I will give you this, you understand that publishing another commenter's real name is wrong.
Oso Negro, I do understand the anguish a father must feel when he should be the custodial parent and loses his case. I'm glad you won your case. I even understand being bitter, what I don't understand is taking it out on anonymous commenters in a comments section on a blog.
Oso Negro said...
It has been 25 years since I was awarded sole custody of my son in what proved a bitter divorce. At the time, my lawyer told me at the outset that there were three family court judges in our district, and every one of them felt that children belonged with the mother and ruled accordingly. If we were able to substantiate her perfidy and wickedness, we might have 50-50 chances. As a consequence, we played a long and patient game, and after a year of rope-a-dope, where her terms created new worlds at every sitting, we finalized the deal. No child support for me, of course, but plenty of father-funded visitation for her. Later, the ex, hard up for money in what would become a long series of failed lesbian relations, offered to sell me her visitation rights for cash. This was evil.
I would say that for all the pissing, whining, and moaning of every stripe of group with real or perceived grievances in this country, none in the past thirty years can match the record of state-sanctioned discrimination that exists against would-be custodial fathers. Bitter? Yes, Inga, deeply.
I know many men like you that have gone through this type of ordeal. A good friend of mine right now is dealing with this sort of situation and I know his wife (or thought I knew her) has gone off the deep end. His children are suffering because of her ability to craft an alternate reality in which new grievances arise from every situation where she feels that responsibility as an adult shouldn't be a part of her attribute as a parent. Then he has to go to mediation and depositions while his daughter runs amok every time she is with her and he has to deal with the fall out when he takes possession of her, only to see her run away and act out like her mother does while he tries to keep it all together only to tell me that his soon to be ex-wife comes up with a new grievance and why she needs more money and child support even though he is fighting for full custody, so that his lawyer can tell him he has a snowballs chance in hell to get that and she can milk the system for all it's worth. He's playing the long game too and amassing incriminating evidence against her so he can present it when it gets to court.
All so people like Inga can call men bitter because they want to fight to keep their families as intact as possible. Instead she is nothing more than a piling on of the institutionalized misandry that this country as attached itself too and courts as well. You can hear the misandry in her speech. Inga is a misandrist among other things, but this is consistent with the type of ideology she clings too.
I Nomennovum said...
Careful, farmer. Your parroting of Inga is taking your white-knighting a step too far. You risk much.
10/1/12 6:33 PM
Inga said...
Wow, those kind of threats sound VERY familiar. That's what the commenter said to me almost word for word before publishing my real name. Very strange.
Really? Psycho said "you risk much"?
And then he put your real name on the Internet?
I think I may have gotten in way over my head.
I never asked for this!
Inga, you've been through this house of horrors. Help me prepare for the worst.
Farmer, my daughter is a lawyer. I threatened to sue the pants off of him and I would've.
Methadras said...
The Farmer said...
Don't you have to go milk Garage's mom or something, you human gnat? Begone, you blundering gap-toothed comb-overed oaf.
Hey, back off, buddy - my world is about to come crashing down.
And I just ran out of milk. The day I'm having.
Don't worry Farmer, he won't do it.
...what I don't understand is taking it out on anonymous commenters in a comments section on a blog.
Inga: why did you include that phrase in your comment to Oso? It sounds like you are condemning him for the actions of others.
Inga said...
Farmer, my daughter is a lawyer. I threatened to sue the pants off of him and I would've.
1. For what?
2. That doesn't help me.
I should probably just go away and never post here again to ensure that Nomennomen doesn't destroy me.
Is it too late, Nomennomen or have you already let slip the dogs of war?
Inga said...
Meth, you do MORE than you fair share. The vitriol the sheer spittle flying vitriol is really quite disgusting. I will give you this, you understand that publishing another commenter's real name is wrong.
Oh look, a moral equivalence argument. My vitriol towards you is directed and specific. Frankly, my vitriol towards leftards like you is directed and specific. I don't like you and what you represent ideologically. Your tracts of commentary here convict you of that charge all by themselves. You and I can have our differences and I attack you and your vile ideology. Yeah, vitriol is all well and good. If you can't take it, then this place isn't for you. Your little funny characterizations of me notwithstanding, I can see how you think getting your ass handed to you on everything you say can cause you to make the charge of this place being toxic. It's got to be tough to be a constant loser like you in all things commentary here at Althouse. I see you try, but you have no game. You think you are being effective. Instead you just come off as a whining victim.
Be that as it may, however, I do understand the nature of the kooks that run amok on the internet, but I would never abide by someone going to the lengths of outing anyone for the sheer sake of some twisted sense of revenge. It's not good and it's too bad that it happened to you. I don't care who you are in real life. I only care at destroying the entirety of the miserable ideology you defend here. Everything else is off limits to me.
No Chickelit, that was not my intent at all.
Like I have time to milk some guy's mom. I'm under siege for God's sake. Think, people!
Post a Comment