Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 21)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" It may suck that the adoptive family considered the child theirs and maybe visa-versa as well, however, that must bow to the legal claim of the original father"

Why must it? Property theory? Kid ain't property, and if she were, she ain't biodad's property. I see no reason why parenthood rights initiated in good faith and based on months or years of active care and custody must bow to rights based on an historical exchange of.fluids.

Your statement about mom's rights being super ceded is non responsive to what I actually said.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree, I responded to your statement about the mother's rights. It seems silly to even consider her rights when she is trying her best to terminate them! You may say that she has the right to choose how she terminates her rights but it seems silly to deny she is trying to achieve a state of existence where she no longer has responsibility for her child.

quote:
Why must it?
Because biological parents, unless legally unfit, have a right to their offspring. To deny this basic concept of existence is extremely dangerous and will lead to all kinds of evil social experiments that can be used to justify taking children away not only from fathers, but from mothers too. Haven't you seen the way the "equality" concept is being thrown around in the SSM rulings? The same thing could happen here. If you do not think fathers should inherently have a right to their genetic offspring , then be careful what you wish for, because the same judges applying the 14th to SSM will rule that mothers should be subject to that as well. Is this what you want?

Also, i have yet to hear your response to my point about the harm to our legal system as a whole. Do you not think it is dangerous to allow a statute that enshrines fraud and deceit as a legal method to interacting with the state? Do you see how this could spread and destroy civic order in other areas?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
Because biological parents, unless legally unfit, have a right to their offspring.
It makes complete sense for the 'birth mother' who carried the fetus for 9 months till it developed into a child to have legal rights due to her 9 month investment.

It makes quite a bit of sense for the husband - who supported her and her developing fetus throughout that 9 month period and thus also has already invested substantial care to also have a claim.

It doesn't make much sense to me for someone whos investment is a few micrograms of protein that their body was going to shed regardless of whether they had sex or not to have a claim.

[ February 27, 2014, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

quote:
Because biological parents, unless legally unfit, have a right to their offspring.
It makes complete sense for the 'birth mother' who carried the fetus for 9 months till it developed into a child to have legal rights due to her 9 month investment.

It makes quite a bit of sense for the husband - who supported her and her developing fetus throughout that 9 month period and thus also has already invested substantial care to also have a claim.

It doesn't make much sense to me for someone whos investment is a few micrograms of protein that their body was going to shed regardless of whether they had sex or not to have a claim.

The time periods you are dealing with are arbitrary. I can see a nightmare of threshold standards now. What about many times having sex? What about premy babies? What about the potential for miscarriages and how that reflects on a mother's responsibilities as inherent in conjunction with any assumed right she has to a child?

We are not talking about a bio-father trying to steal a child away from a bio-mother. We are talking about a bio-mother trying to rid herself of custody of her child and spitefully trying to keep the bio-father from getting the child even though she doesn't want it herself. If there is a legal reason why the bio-father is not suitable as a parent, then that should be proven in court, NEVER assumed, because that would be a perversion of our legal system (guilty until proven innocent).

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

I was using 9 months since it is the typical duration of gestation, since I was avoiding technical language. Feel free to substitute 'for the duration of gestation'.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
We are not talking about a bio-father trying to steal a child away from a bio-mother. We are talking about a bio-mother trying to rid herself of custody of her child and spitefully trying to keep the bio-father from getting the child even though she doesn't want it herself.
You keep making these assertions, that probably aren't true in all but a tiny minority of cases.

1) The women who opts for placement is generally not doing so to 'be rid' of the child. Generally it is because she thinks her chosen adoptees will be able to provide superior care to what she herself can provide.

2) The motivation is almost certainly not 'spite' - again she probably has legitimate reasons to believe that the biodad will not be nearly as suitable for raising her child as her chosen adoptees.

3) Most women who give up their children for adoption want them quite badly and it breaks their heart to let them go. They are sacraficing their own desire to raise the child, for the good of the child.

You seem to think that women who give children up for adoption are generally selfish bitches who are being lazy. The reality is that it is usually women who are choosing to make the best decision for their child in quite the opposite of a selfish decision.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1) The women who opts for placement is generally not doing so to 'be rid' of the child. Generally it is because she thinks her chosen adoptees will be able to provide superior care to what she herself can provide.
Her reasons seem moot if she cannot prove that the bio-dad is an unsuitable parent. Just because SHE thinks so does not deprive him of rights to his children. See recent rulings on SSM and gender/sexuality equality. No doubt this will be a similar ruling in federal court.

quote:
2) The motivation is almost certainly not 'spite' - again she probably has legitimate reasons to believe that the biodad will not be nearly as suitable for raising her child as her chosen adoptees.
Then she needs to provide evidence in court that the father is legally unfit to be a parent because, as I mentioned above, the same legal logic as being applied in SSM rulings will that fathers should have equal rights to their children regardless of their failure to gestate the child.

quote:
3) Most women who give up their children for adoption want them quite badly and it breaks their heart to let them go. They are sacraficing their own desire to raise the child, for the good of the child.
Says you speaking ex-cathedra? No study? Hilarious.

quote:
You seem to think that women who give children up for adoption are generally selfish bitches who are being lazy.
Please show where I said this or anything like this or retract this statement. It is offensive.

quote:
The reality is that it is usually women who are choosing to make the best decision for their child in quite the opposite of a selfish decision.
Please provide proof of this statement.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

I was using 9 months since it is the typical duration of gestation, since I was avoiding technical language. Feel free to substitute 'for the duration of gestation'.

If women are supposed to get automatic rights and privileges over the child's father for gestation, then shouldn't legal responsibilities and possible sanctions come along with that as well? For instance, if merely carrying the baby entitles a mother to control a father's parental rights and deny them if she wishes, then shouldn't she be legally culpable if she miscarries or the baby is born and it can be proven to be related to unhealthy behavior she engaged in while pregnant?

See where this is going? Do you really want this?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
i have yet to hear your response to my point about the harm to our legal system as a whole. Do you not think it is dangerous to allow a statute that enshrines fraud and deceit as a legal method to interacting with the state?

It certainly would be dangerous if that's what it did. I don't think the statute does that.

Do you understand what fraud actually means? How is fraud distinct from mere deception?

Can you show me a utah case where the adoption itself was based on fraud?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
suppose for a minute the man tells a woman that he's the Prince of England. That she marries him based on that false representation. They have children. She finds out that he's not a Prince. Their whole marriage is based on a lie! Can she annul their marriage and terminate his parental rights? After all, he only became a father based on his lie to her.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

I was using 9 months since it is the typical duration of gestation, since I was avoiding technical language. Feel free to substitute 'for the duration of gestation'.

If women are supposed to get automatic rights and privileges over the child's father for gestation, then shouldn't legal responsibilities and possible sanctions come along with that as well? For instance, if merely carrying the baby entitles a mother to control a father's parental rights and deny them if she wishes, then shouldn't she be legally culpable if she miscarries or the baby is born and it can be proven to be related to unhealthy behavior she engaged in while pregnant?

See where this is going? Do you really want this?

Life is not a d20 game, Seneca. Not everything is balanced. This isn't a man vs woman thing. It's about facts. The woman has custody for 9 months. That establishes an actual factual bond between child and mother. Laws adapt to facts. Laws don't exist to rewrite the facts.

Now if a gestating mother has taken heroin or has drunk heavily during pregnancy, that is treated as evidence of unfitness. So there is some accountability.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Life is not a d20 game, Seneca. Not everything is balanced. This isn't a man vs woman thing. It's about facts.
Tell that to the courts ruling 14th violations in SSM bans and striking them down nearly every week now. This is almost the same thing, more gender blurring in the courts.

quote:
The woman has custody for 9 months. That establishes an actual factual bond between child and mother. Laws adapt to facts. Laws don't exist to rewrite the facts.
Custody of what? Under abortion law a fetus is not considered a person, right? The fetus magically transforms into a person upon birth, right?

quote:
Now if a gestating mother has taken heroin or has drunk heavily during pregnancy, that is treated as evidence of unfitness. So there is some accountability.
I wasn't asking about accountability, I was asking about criminal sanction for negligence.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
suppose for a minute the man tells a woman that he's the Prince of England. That she marries him based on that false representation. They have children. She finds out that he's not a Prince. Their whole marriage is based on a lie! Can she annul their marriage and terminate his parental rights? After all, he only became a father based on his lie to her.
Didn't something like this happen (with gender swap) when a man found out that the woman he had married had had extensive cosmetic surgery done? And he was upset because the kids were ugly and he didn't understand how that could be when he had selected a wife based on her good looks.
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Life is not a d20 game, Seneca. Not everything is balanced. This isn't a man vs woman thing. It's about facts.
Tell that to the courts ruling 14th violations in SSM bans and striking them down nearly every week now. This is almost the same thing, more gender blurring in the courts


Well there you are right. This is the main reason I fought the Goodridge atrocity; it leads to exactly the sort of bad fuzzy thinking displayed on this thread. And I do think that your philosophy is the eave of the future, pro genetics, anti birth mother. But we aren't there yet. Give us another 35 years before we get that stupid.

[ February 28, 2014, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
suppose for a minute the man tells a woman that he's the Prince of England. That she marries him based on that false representation. They have children. She finds out that he's not a Prince. Their whole marriage is based on a lie! Can she annul their marriage and terminate his parental rights? After all, he only became a father based on his lie to her.
Didn't something like this happen (with gender swap) when a man found out that the woman he had married had had extensive cosmetic surgery done? And he was upset because the kids were ugly and he didn't understand how that could be when he had selected a wife based on her good looks.
That happened in the people's Republic of China, and the court there allowed the jackass to sue, iirc. Here I think case would have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Don't know how the system works in the PrC, or how fraud is defined there. Perhaps if fraud is interpreted as loosely as Seneca uses it, he can find a judge to nullify his marriage and say he doesn't have to pay child support BC of "fraud"

[ February 28, 2014, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The woman has custody for 9 months. That establishes an actual factual bond between child and mother. Laws adapt to facts. Laws don't exist to rewrite the facts.
Custody of what? Under abortion law a fetus is not considered a person, right? The fetus magically transforms into a person upon birth, right

Yes. That's the law. Bippedy boppedy boo, fetus to child. And yet it's recognized that the child was the fetus. A family court considers that a drug using mom has abused her child when it was a fetus, and will use that fact to act against mom's rights upon birth. And if dad knocked mom down the stairs when she was pregnant, family court considers him to have abused the child and limits his rights to the child accordingly.

Doesn't matter what you are asking about if it's off the thread topic. I'm telling you how the law actually works at the present time to answer your thread-relevant legal argument. I refuse to chase you down the rabbit hole of criminal charges.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well there you are right. This is the main reason I fought the Goodridge atrocity; it leads to exactly the sort of bad fuzzy thinking displayed on this thread. And I do think that your philosophy is the eave of the future, pro genetics, anti birth mother. But we aren't there yet. Give us another 35 years before we get that stupid.
Given that these cases are in the pipe right now, I don't think it will be 35 years. It may be 2-3 years.

quote:
Perhaps if fraud is interpreted as loosely as Seneca uses it,
How loosely am I using it? When I say fraud I am referring to someone lying to the state for purposes of getting the state to do something based on that lie. Is this really far from the technical legal definition of it?

quote:
Yes. That's the law. Bippedy boppedy boo, fetus to child. And yet it's recognized that the child was the fetus. A family court considers that a drug using mom has abused her child when it was a fetus, and will use that fact to act against mom's rights upon birth. And if dad knocked mom down the stairs when she was pregnant, family court considers him to have abused the child and limits his rights to the child accordingly.

Doesn't matter what you are asking about if it's off the thread topic. I'm telling you how the law actually works at the present time to answer your thread-relevant legal argument. I refuse to chase you down the rabbit hole of criminal charges.

Seems there is an absurd disconnect here in the law. Using drugs/alcohol is less harmful to a fetus than an abortion, yet a mother is not charged with abuse if she aborts.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Seems there is an absurd disconnect here in the law. Using drugs/alcohol is less harmful to a fetus than an abortion, yet a mother is not charged with abuse if she aborts."

Whether it's absurd or not, as the law sees it, there's no abuse of a person until it becomes a person.

Look at it this way. If a Chinese man rapes a Chinese woman in China, US law won't prosecute him since the crime occurred out of US jurisdiction. However, if they both come into the US, and bump into each other, she can probably get a restraining order against him, because there's a history of abuse, so he poses an ongoing threat against her.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another example of this foolishly described fetal "personhood" doctrine at work is that a someone who intentionally harms a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry is charged with murder in some jurisdictions. In some placed, even performing an abortion on another person without proper licensing is murder.

That's why I havecrepsatedly arguef abortion rights should be based on a jurisdictional theory rather than person hood.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An update

quote:
It has taken years to get to this point. Robert Manzanares just spent the weekend with his biological daughter, Kaia, who was secretly placed for adoption in Utah, without his consent. The same day Kaia was handed off to him for their visit, he filed Notice of Appeal as part of his six-year legal quest to get custody of her.

Manzanares, who has been fighting in Utah and Colorado courts for his daughter Kaia, is the first man to have some success against Utah's fraud immunity statute, which says even if it is proven someone lied during an adoption, it cannot be overturned.

The Utah Supreme Court found fraud so extreme in his case, the adoption was dismissed. Manzanares says justices "...really threw the book at the family, the attorneys and the mother and said we can no longer accept this fraud in Utah which is written into their adoption code."

Kaia's birth mother left Colorado while pregnant, with the claim she was going to visit a sick relative. She gave birth in Utah in 2008 without Manzanares' knowledge.

Manzanares says Kaia's mother simultaneously worked the court systems of both states. "It was not known to us, but 15 minutes prior to the 9 o'clock court hearing in Colorado, she had signed away her rights. My daughter had been born three days earlier, prematurely, and she was signing away her rights to my daughter." He later learned the truth when a coworker alerted him Kaia's birth mom had returned to work, no longer pregnant.

Manzanares' legal saga did not end at the Utah Supreme Court. He was then sent back to Colorado to resolve custody. There, he had filed a paternity petition before the birth. The judge in Denver awarded joint custody, but decided the adoptive parents are "psychological parents" because their home is the only home Kaia has known.

Her adoptive parents knew otherwise from the very beginning, says Manzanares, "This family knew I existed... They knew about my paternity action. All the attorneys that have represented them have known about me wanting to fight and be a part of my daughter's life, so they've known from Day One that I was going to fight for my daughter and wanted to be a part of her life."

Manzanares has undergone reunification therapy with Kaia, but she remains in Utah with her adoptive parents while his appeal for full custody plays out. He considers the decision of psychological parents to be "a very dangerous term" and he is appealing because of the precedent it could set.

"I want her [Kaia] to come live with me and be raised by her real parent."
- Robert Manzanares
When asked, he estimates he has spent $500,000 on attorneys' fees and travel costs. Now he is facing another court process, which could take months or years.

"I want her [Kaia] to come live with me and be raised by her real parent. And I do have heart for the adopted family. I do want them to play a role in her life." Kaia's biological mother had a different view, Manzanares says. "She actually had told me on a couple of occasions this was only a business to her and that we weren't parents of this child and that the only way she could get back into her church was to get this child to a two-parent home."

Fox News recently traveled to an adoption conference organized by the Utah Adoption Council, which has members who have had an active role molding the state's adoption laws over the years. When asked about the controversy surrounding adoptions, conference speaker Tamra Hyde expressed support for keeping the state Adoption Act intact, "...it's a good law and this law has served thousands of families, birth parents and children and it hasn't gone well for a minutia of people, for a small amount of people."

Hyde, a birth mother who did not place her child in secret, also stated, "... it's hard for me to fault a woman for lying for the best interest of her child... I can't in all confidence say I wouldn't ever lie if I thought it was the best thing for my child."

Jessalynn Bills Speight, who presented a session on "Stereotypes and the Media" at the conference, thinks birth mothers should have more say in the process. She does not see a huge problem with the law and it is okay for the state to be birth mother friendly. "They're not the ones walking around with a Scarlet Letter. They get to go still hang out with their buddies, while we're throwing up over a toilet."

Adam Pertman is author of "Adoption Nation" and president of The Donaldson Adoption Institute. He says Utah has become a haven and "... people should be learning that Utah's laws relating to adoption could probably use some fixing." He adds a lot of people think a good adoption is a fast adoption, but a good adoption actually means everyone is treated ethically, with everybody's rights taken into consideration.

Former Gov. Mike Leavitt, a Republican, signed the original legislation with the fraud clause 19 years ago. In a statement to Fox News, he says in part, "As with most laws, all of the ways in which it has played out may not have been anticipated at the time. If the legislature concludes the application of law has become imbalanced among the complex interests these matters must consider, they should take action."

Lawmakers did introduce some proposals with mixed success in the most recent legislative session. A guideline for birth moms to live in the state for 90 days was signed into law, while other efforts stalled.

Wes Hutchins, president of the Utah Council for Ethical Adoption Practices (UCEAP), predicts problems will continue until fraud immunity is taken off the books, "...that just creates an environment that incentivises people to... be less than truthful and less than ethical, in not only their decision to place for adoption, but those working with them...".


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Utah's fraud immunity statute, which says even if it is proven someone lied during an adoption, it cannot be overturned."

once again, just pointing out that the same law as described above applies in Washington state, and that the only difference between the Utah and Washington statutes re "fraud immunity" is the amount of time in which proof fraud can be used to overturn adoption.

bla bla bla

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
once again, just pointing out that the same law as described above applies in Washington state, and that the only difference between the Utah and Washington statutes re "fraud immunity" is the amount of time in which proof fraud can be used to overturn adoption.
If by amount of time you mean effectively zero (Utah) and a year plus (Washington) which in practice is nearly unlimited through judicial interpretation of the statute and due to the 2b and 4h exceptions to the law, then you'd be right.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.33.160

[ April 15, 2014, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If by zero you mean 2 weeks?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given that there is no notification required in UT, coupled with how long it takes to find a lawyer and get on his schedule, 2 weeks is effectively zero. Where in WA with the notification requirement and 2b and 4h exemptions, it is essentially infinite there.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, for about half a million a person can eventually convince courts to let him kidnap a child from its long established legal parents, despite having no legitimate claim to custody, never mind any kind of established, ongoing relationship with the child.

For a fraction of what he invested in this kidnapping scheme, Manzanares could easily adopted a child that was actually in need of a parent instead of focusing all of his time and energy in trying to break up another family because he apparently cared more about chattel rights than about forming a real family bond with a child; his behavior here makes it pretty clear why Kaia's birth mother felt the need to shield her from someone with such an abusive attitude.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, for about half a million a person can eventually convince courts to let him kidnap a child from its long established legal parents, despite having no legitimate claim to custody, never mind any kind of established, ongoing relationship with the child.
Good thing the courts don't hold to this absurd viewpoint.

I take it you'd be OK with my diving through your trashcan after it's been picked up and driven down the street by the dump truck, pulling out some discarded genetic material and then cloning you and doing whatever I want (within the law) with the clone right? How about just getting some of your reproductive cells and making a zygote and then implanting it and claiming it as my child? How would you feel about that?
Now, consider, that is just using material you intentionally discarded. How do you know that these fathers did not intend to be in their child's life?
Now, lets forget all that for a second. Why can't all this be done above ground and in the light of day with full transparency? Why are you defending a legal system that allows fraud to be used to hide the child from them? If the father didn't care about the child, then why is he spending all this time, money and undergoing anguish to get his natural born child?

quote:
For a fraction of what he invested in this kidnapping scheme, Manzanares could easily adopted a child that was actually in need of a parent instead of focusing all of his time and energy in trying to break up another family
Your error is in assuming that blood relations don't matter which they do not only to many people, but also the law. Would you care to justify how paternity tests can be used to coerce men into paying child support for children that aren't even the product of rape?
Your other error is assuming that he is breaking up their family. In reality, they were complicit in fraud that broke up HIS family FIRST, and apparently THEY KNEW ABOUT IT.

quote:
because he apparently cared more about chattel rights than about forming a real family bond with a child;
Wow... just... wow. Do you have any natural born children of your own?

quote:
his behavior here makes it pretty clear why Kaia's birth mother felt the need to shield her from someone with such an abusive attitude.
His lawful behavior and devotion to his child makes it clear to you why his mother needed to abscond, lie and violate the law? Are you serious? My God...

[ April 16, 2014, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Given that there is no notification required in UT, coupled with how long it takes to find a lawyer and get on his schedule, 2 weeks is effectively zero. Where in WA with the notification requirement and 2b and 4h exemptions, it is essentially infinite there.

For someone falsely accused of murder, and that charge used as a basis to terminate parental rights and tongive a washington couple adopt your kids, and then you are never indicted, a year is basically zero. I saw that happen in Tacoma Washington and I have offered to give you the information via email so you can look the case up through police channels.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I take it you'd be OK with my diving through your trashcan after it's been picked up and driven down the street by the dump truck, pulling out some discarded genetic material and then cloning you and doing whatever I want (within the law) with the clone right? How about just getting some of your reproductive cells and making a zygote and then implanting it and claiming it as my child? How would you feel about that?


I'd think you were going through an absurdly inordinate amount of effort to get my genes in particular. Other than that, maybe a bit flattered that you'd put that kind of effort to try and get some combination of features I have to make it worth that effort?

Do you agree with JoshuaD, perhaps, that there is something magical or supernatural about DNA that makes it more than an incidental biological factor? Short that, parenthood is defined by an emotional and social relationship. there's nothing inherent to DNA that confers either of those unless you're ascribing it magical powers.
quote:
How do you know that these fathers did not intend to be in their child's life?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Intending to be a given child's parent isn't justification for kidnapping the child.

quote:
Now, lets forget all that for a second. Why can't all this be done above ground and in the light of day with full transparency? Why are you defending a legal system that allows fraud to be used to hide the child from them?
Because, as this guy makes clear, there is a strong need for protection from privileged and abusive behavior like what he's exhibiting. There's no fraud involved, just basic protection from people trying to assert a legal entitlement to kidnap a child that has not been entrusted to their care.

quote:
If the father didn't care about the child, then why is he spending all this time, money and undergoing anguish to get his natural born child?
If he cared about the child, why would he be seeking to disrupt the most important emotuial and social bond in the child's life to satisfy his selfish desire to possess that particular child? Spending all of that money and trying to break up the current family shows no evidence of care for the child's best interests- in fact, short of proving some sore of danger or incompetence, it shows and active disregard for the best interests of the child in order to satisfy his personal desires.

quote:
Your error is in assuming that blood relations don't matter which they do not only to many people, but also the law.
On what rational basis do they matter such that the law should prioritize them over real relationships? Again, are you asserting that there is a magical factor that we should be constructing our law to reflect? Because there is not psychological or real physical factor that has a relevant effect here.

quote:
Would you care to justify how paternity tests can be used to coerce men into paying child support for children that aren't even the product of rape?
It's an absurd, antiquated system whose only real effect is to force women to be financially dependent and tied to someone regardless of their desire for or safety in an ongoing relationship with the man in question, rather than simply providing them with sufficient income such that they can freely choose for themselves which relationships to continue and which to avoid.

quote:
Your other error is assuming that he is breaking up their family. In reality, they were complicit in fraud that broke up HIS family FIRST, and apparently THEY KNEW ABOUT IT.
WHat family? He never had a family- by what's cited here, he wasn't even married, which is the most basic social expression of intent and commitment to form a family. You can't break up a relationship that never existed in the first place.

quote:
Wow... just... wow. Do you have any natural born children of your own?
Yes. And my relationships with my biological child and with my child that I no biological connection to are both based on the fact that I am the person that raised them from birth; genetics does not modify either relationship, and if the man how sired my non-biological son tried to come and claim custody, which he even might have more grounds to do than this guy, since my wife wanted to respect his genetic lineage by listing him on the birth certificate, then I would hope that the courts put real relationships over a nonsense claim his biology would justify disrupting an established family bond.

quote:
His lawful behavior and devotion to his child makes it clear to you why his mother needed to abscond, lie and violate the law? Are you serious? My God... [/QB]
What devotion? He's trying to rip a 6 year old away from it's legal parents, without any regard for the child's needs and established relationships. He's shown nothing but disregard for the girls rights, never mind the freedom of the woman that gave birth to the child to make her own decisions in this process, claiming that his desire to possess the girl should matter more than what's actually socially and psychologically best for her or showing basic human respect for the woman that bore the child.

TRying to pass that kind of dehumanization off as devotion is completely absurd.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Given that there is no notification required in UT, coupled with how long it takes to find a lawyer and get on his schedule, 2 weeks is effectively zero. Where in WA with the notification requirement and 2b and 4h exemptions, it is essentially infinite there.

For someone falsely accused of murder, and that charge used as a basis to terminate parental rights and tongive a washington couple adopt your kids, and then you are never indicted, a year is basically zero. I saw that happen in Tacoma Washington and I have offered to give you the information via email so you can look the case up through police channels.
Even if you are right, is the case published or unpublished? Is it precedent setting or not? Bad lawyer involved? Seems like it if they couldn't use the 2b and 4h exemptions in the statute.

I am not going to personally use my former "police connections" to look up your friends' obscure case. Either his case is published and precedent setting, or it followed some published precedent. Barring that, I'd rather rely on the published RCW and relevant controlling caselaw than hearsay.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you agree with JoshuaD, perhaps, that there is something magical or supernatural about DNA that makes it more than an incidental biological factor? Short that, parenthood is defined by an emotional and social relationship. there's nothing inherent to DNA that confers either of those unless you're ascribing it magical powers.
Please explain why the legal system requires men proven to have fathered a child via a paternity test to pay child support? If DNA doesn't matter, then why that?
Why do many states and many courts value DNA relationships for all kinds of family law? Can you explain that?

quote:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Intending to be a given child's parent isn't justification for kidnapping the child.
I think you are confused. The kidnapping didn't start with the biological father, it happened when the mother absconded and ADMITTEDLY COMMITTED FRAUD TO ILLEGALLY TERMINATE THE FATHER'S RIGHTS WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, as most state courts and all federal courts have found and will continue to find.

quote:
Because, as this guy makes clear, there is a strong need for protection from privileged and abusive behavior like what he's exhibiting. There's no fraud involved, just basic protection from people trying to assert a legal entitlement to kidnap a child that has not been entrusted to their care.
Show the father's illegal actions. If you cannot, and you also cannot show a court's determination to terminate his parental rights, then you must admit that the mother cannot act as judge, jury and make that determination for herself, according to law. The father's actions have been law abiding, and the mother violated the law. Yet you say that his LAWFUL actions necessitated illegal fraud on the part of the mother? The court found she participated in fraud...

quote:
If he cared about the child, why would he be seeking to disrupt the most important emotuial and social bond in the child's life to satisfy his selfish desire to possess that particular child? Spending all of that money and trying to break up the current family shows no evidence of care for the child's best interests- in fact, short of proving some sore of danger or incompetence, it shows and active disregard for the best interests of the child in order to satisfy his personal desires.
If what you said were really true and blood relationships didn't matter, then our family law system would not be organized the way it is. You seem to be in a small crowd of people who believe blood relationships do not matter. This guy clearly believes, as does our legal system, that his relationship with his child is more important than the relationship of the child to some random group that procured his child through fraud and real kidnapping.

quote:
On what rational basis do they matter such that the law should prioritize them over real relationships? Again, are you asserting that there is a magical factor that we should be constructing our law to reflect? Because there is not psychological or real physical factor that has a relevant effect here.
Rational basis? How about living with your biological family, as long as they aren't abusive providing tons of advantages, such as genetic and medical histories if problems come up, and other things that only happen when you are in touch with blood relatives.
But forget that, why does the law prioritize blood relationships the way it currently does? You need to answer this question.

quote:
It's an absurd, antiquated system whose only real effect is to force women to be financially dependent and tied to someone regardless of their desire for or safety in an ongoing relationship with the man in question, rather than simply providing them with sufficient income such that they can freely choose for themselves which relationships to continue and which to avoid.
Good to know you're out there calling for the repeal of these laws. How many letters to legislators on this score have you written? [Razz]
Can you please explain why the current law is the way it is?


quote:
WHat family? He never had a family- by what's cited here, he wasn't even married, which is the most basic social expression of intent and commitment to form a family. You can't break up a relationship that never existed in the first place.
So you contend that families can never exist without marriage? What are single mothers with their children? What are single fathers who adopt? Your position here seems untenable.

quote:
Yes. And my relationships with my biological child and with my child that I no biological connection to are both based on the fact that I am the person that raised them from birth; genetics does not modify either relationship, and if the man how sired my non-biological son tried to come and claim custody, which he even might have more grounds to do than this guy, since my wife wanted to respect his genetic lineage by listing him on the birth certificate, then I would hope that the courts put real relationships over a nonsense claim his biology would justify disrupting an established family bond.
Why did you even bother having biological children at all when there are more children that did not get adopted that you did not adopt because you chose to have biological kids instead? That would seem to be illogical given that you place absolutely no intrinsic value on children sharing your genetics. Count your biological children that you'd supported and then realize that that same number of orphans were deprived of a home because you did not adopt them. What's your answer to that?

quote:
What devotion? He's trying to rip a 6 year old away from it's legal parents, without any regard for the child's needs and established relationships. He's shown nothing but disregard for the girls rights, never mind the freedom of the woman that gave birth to the child to make her own decisions in this process, claiming that his desire to possess the girl should matter more than what's actually socially and psychologically best for her or showing basic human respect for the woman that bore the child.
The law seems to disagree with you. Also, why respect the woman's parental rights if the woman gave them up? That seems absurd. If you give something up you don't get to retain shadow control over it forever after.

quote:
TRying to pass that kind of dehumanization off as devotion is completely absurd.
The courts and millions of parents would seemingly disagree with you here as well.

[ April 16, 2014, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still with Seneca, here.

The fault is not with the father. It is with the mother, the law, the courts, and the adoptive parents. It is their fault that it took six years for justice to prevail. By the way, if we're going to use the word kidnapping extralegally now, then I am much more inclined to view what happened when the child was born as such then I am with her father finally gaining custody.

Genetics matter, Pyrtolin. If they didn't, male lions wouldn't kill the cubs when they take over a pride, and human beings wouldn't be jealous when they found their partner fooling around with other people. I can only be glad that your view is in the extreme minority, and hope that someday the SC stomps down on the more odious aspects of this law.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You and Seneca are still talking about the baby as some piece of chattel that needs to be allocated on principles of fairness.

The mother legislators and courts acted in what they believed to be the beat interests of the child.

Best thing for child now is to stay with the only parents baby's ever known.

Daddy's arguing for fairness for daddy, but what's fair for the baby?

Since neither of you believe that a child needs a mom and a dad, you're being consistent. But please don't argue against a position that no one took.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Given that there is no notification required in UT, coupled with how long it takes to find a lawyer and get on his schedule, 2 weeks is effectively zero. Where in WA with the notification requirement and 2b and 4h exemptions, it is essentially infinite there.

For someone falsely accused of murder, and that charge used as a basis to terminate parental rights and tongive a washington couple adopt your kids, and then you are never indicted, a year is basically zero. I saw that happen in Tacoma Washington and I have offered to give you the information via email so you can look the case up through police channels.
Even if you are right, is the case published or unpublished? Is it precedent setting or not? Bad lawyer involved? Seems like it if they couldn't use the 2b and 4h exemptions in the statute.

I am not going to personally use my former "police connections" to look up your friends' obscure case. Either his case is published and precedent setting, or it followed some published precedent. Barring that, I'd rather rely on the published RCW and relevant controlling caselaw than hearsay.

Dont ask stupid questions I have already answered. For he fifth time, all Washington family court decisions are unpublished. Get off my leg. I shouldn't have to tell you that six bloody times. Make a song, put a sticky on your forehead, write it on your keyboard, but stop asking that stupid question. The case was unpublished. If you don't want to look it up using your own channels, that is your choice. Get off my leg about it. I can't force your state courts to publish their crappy cases, but I was there and I saw it. You don't have to take my word, but it's rude and stupid to keep yammering"is it published" when I already told you six times that no, it wasn't.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You and Seneca are still talking about the baby as some piece of chattel that needs to be allocated on principles of fairness.
No, we are treating the child as a minor whose interests are assumed to be under the care and supervision of their parents, both of them, by legal default.

quote:
The mother legislators and courts acted in what they believed to be the beat interests of the child.
No, the mother committed a CRIME and participated in FRAUD. The statute that allowed the fraud is ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will be struck down by the federal courts if the state doesn't get its act together.

quote:
Best thing for child now is to stay with the only parents baby's ever known.
So if a nutty nurse steals a baby from the maternity ward and years later the mother tracks it down, you'd say the same thing? Really?

quote:
Daddy's arguing for fairness for daddy, but what's fair for the baby?
The law assumes that by default, mommy and daddy are the guardians and make that decision for the baby. Since mommy voluntarily gave up her rights to determine that, all that's left is the daddy unless the courts say otherwise.

quote:
Since neither of you believe that a child needs a mom and a dad, you're being consistent. But please don't argue against a position that no one took.
Please show me where I stated that or retract that foul accusation. I strongly believe a child needs both a mother and a father, but sometimes those needs aren't met either because mothers and fathers die, or one or both of them refuses to accept and perform that role.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Given that there is no notification required in UT, coupled with how long it takes to find a lawyer and get on his schedule, 2 weeks is effectively zero. Where in WA with the notification requirement and 2b and 4h exemptions, it is essentially infinite there.

For someone falsely accused of murder, and that charge used as a basis to terminate parental rights and tongive a washington couple adopt your kids, and then you are never indicted, a year is basically zero. I saw that happen in Tacoma Washington and I have offered to give you the information via email so you can look the case up through police channels.
Even if you are right, is the case published or unpublished? Is it precedent setting or not? Bad lawyer involved? Seems like it if they couldn't use the 2b and 4h exemptions in the statute.

I am not going to personally use my former "police connections" to look up your friends' obscure case. Either his case is published and precedent setting, or it followed some published precedent. Barring that, I'd rather rely on the published RCW and relevant controlling caselaw than hearsay.

Dont ask stupid questions I have already answered. For he fifth time, all Washington family court decisions are unpublished. Get off my leg. I shouldn't have to tell you that six bloody times. Make a song, put a sticky on your forehead, write it on your keyboard, but stop asking that stupid question. The case was unpublished. If you don't want to look it up using your own channels, that is your choice. Get off my leg about it. I can't force your state courts to publish their crappy cases, but I was there and I saw it. You don't have to take my word, but it's rude and stupid to keep yammering"is it published" when I already told you six times that no, it wasn't.
Your rude comments and vulgarity aside, I find it hard to believe no family law case has ever been appealed and argued before the WA Supreme Court.
I am not a lawyer so I don't know how that works, maybe before they become appellate litigation they are not published.

Regardless of that, without you posting a definitive source to substantiate your claim, it is hard to take your word that a common sense reading of the statute I provided is not what the statute actually says.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I find it hard to believe no family law case has ever been appealed and argued before the WA Supreme Court"

Good thing i did not say that, Mr gotcha. I did not say no Way family LAW case has been published. I said no Wa family COURT case has been published.

Your asking whether it had been published after I had answered you six times, and asked you to desist, was rude. It verges on harassment. You have the means to look it up. I don't. So do stop whining about it. Bug me again about it and I will print on ornery the names of the WA detective and prosecutor that lied in court, and the social worker that took $15000 for giving my nieces to another family. And it will be clear from context that your colleagues: names were published in response to your obnoxious questioning on this public forum.

[ April 17, 2014, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My colleagues? How do you know I worked with any of them? I could care less if you spout off names of people involved, I doubt I worked with any of them and I know from the details I've read so far it wasn't one I ever worked on.

But then, this is more hearsay on an internet forum. If you have a source that says that the RCW is not applied as it is actually written as I posted with the 2b and 4h exemptions please post it, otherwise, a reasonable person reading the statute must agree that it is different from Utah's statute.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Genetics matter, Pyrtolin. If they didn't, male lions wouldn't kill the cubs when they take over a pride, and human beings wouldn't be jealous when they found their partner fooling around with other people.
That just says that we are biologically programmed to protect our own genetic heritage. I don't see anything here that addresses the social value of that biological programming.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That just says that we are biologically programmed to protect our own genetic heritage. I don't see anything here that addresses the social value of that biological programming.
How about laws and caselaw that allows biological fathers to sue for custody, as in this case, and laws that allow mothers to sue bio-dads for child support?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Please explain why the legal system requires men proven to have fathered a child via a paternity test to pay child support? If DNA doesn't matter, then why that?
Why do many states and many courts value DNA relationships for all kinds of family law? Can you explain that?


Because they were writing both with the attitude that it wasn't proper for women to work to earn income instead of focusing on domestic chores and as a punitive measure for either or both the woman and the man in question, relative to their individual desire to continue a relationship for not towing the line on the social convention that they should marry before having sex.

And you forget that the law prioritizes marital relationships of blood relationships. If the woman was married to another man at the time, you have to build and explicit case that it was physically impossible for the husband to have sired the child to even get to the point where a blood test becomes relevant.

quote:
I think you are confused. The kidnapping didn't start with the biological father, it happened when the mother absconded and ADMITTEDLY COMMITTED FRAUD TO ILLEGALLY TERMINATE THE FATHER'S RIGHTS WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, as most state courts and all federal courts have found and will continue to find.
What fraud? She acted completely within her legal rights. Unless you're claiming that a pregnant woman is not free to travel without male authorization? She was not married and thus had no obligation to report anyone as the father of the child on the birth certificate, which is the document used to allocate default guardianship. She did something you disagree with, sure, but it's not fraud unless she actually committed something that can actually be defined as fraud instead of simply operating withing the freedom and protections that the law allows.

quote:
Show the father's illegal actions. If you cannot, and you also cannot show a court's determination to terminate his parental rights,
He was never granted parental rights, there's nothing to terminate. The only name that went on the birth certificate was her name, which means that only she was accorded legal parental rights. He's had to go to court to try and override that state and have parental rights granted to him.

quote:
and the mother violated the law.
Please cite the law she violated. You keep asserting this, but yet everything she did was explicitly in accordance to the law. Your initial complaint was that they law made this behavior legal and now you're trying to assert that it's illegal rather than that you think it should be illegal; you can't have it both ways here.

quote:
If what you said were really true and blood relationships didn't matter, then our family law system would not be organized the way it is.
Because family law was dictated by our DNA, rather than being created and maintained for generations by a segment of society that shaped it to be a tool to help maintain it's privileged status in light of the law?

quote:
You seem to be in a small crowd of people who believe blood relationships do not matter. This guy clearly believes, as does our legal system, that his relationship with his child is more important than the relationship of the child to some random group that procured his child through fraud and real kidnapping.

What, specifically makes biological similarity more relevant to a child's development than a long term social bond? Please to cite any specific evidence you have that a partial DNA match will automatically inspire familial recognition and obviate and override the benefits of years of social bonding.

quote:
quote:
On what rational basis do they matter such that the law should prioritize them over real relationships? Again, are you asserting that there is a magical factor that we should be constructing our law to reflect? Because there is not psychological or real physical factor that has a relevant effect here.
Rational basis? How about living with your biological family, as long as they aren't abusive providing tons of advantages, such as genetic and medical histories if problems come up,
So your list benefits right now amount to one slight improvement in access to paperwork. That information is useful, to be sure, and a bit harder to dig up in such cases should it become relevant, but I don't see how that one little piece holds a candle to even a few months of social bonding, never mind several critical formative years of it.

quote:
and other things that only happen when you are in touch with blood relatives.
What other things? I'm not going to let you handwave that away so easily. Be specific about these magical features that only get evoked if a person is in close contact with other people that share certain portions of their genetic blueprint. What parts of person's genotype have a special lock on them that only gets opened up to allow it into their phenotype if they're in continuous contact with a blood relative?

quote:
But forget that, why does the law prioritize blood relationships the way it currently does? You need to answer this question.
Because it was written by people who benefitted from it doing so- it's only in about the past century that the best interests of the child rather than those of the men establishing the laws has been taken into account, never mind given priority, which is precisely why there has been a shift toward laws that treat the woman and child as individuals and away from those that treat them as chattel of a given man who can assert a claim to them.

quote:
Can you please explain why the current law is the way it is?
Because that's the way the people who wrote it believed that they were entitled to have it work. Law reflects the society that creates it; it's not a source of biological evidence.

quote:
So you contend that families can never exist without marriage?
No- I assert that marriage is the social and legal institution that we use to show commitment to form a family between two adults (and, to head off pedantic tunnel vision, birth records or adoption between adults and children) and use as the platform form legal assumptions of familial and parental rights. People are certainly free to from personal familial connections as they see fit, but, especially as respect for common law marriage is on the wane, those informal bonds don't have any legal force. BEing married to a woman who has a child entitles you to have your name put on the birth certificate even if the child isn't genetically related to you (and, in fact, you need to explicitly sign papers to allow any other name to be listed, as I needed to do for one of my sons). On the other hand, if you're not married, then the woman is under no legal obligation to list you or otherwise acknowledge you in relation to the child.
quote:
[b]Why did you even bother having biological children at all
Because my wife desperately wanted to have a child and that's the easier route, certainly the one with the smallest initial down payment. Your entire line of though here is logically backwards anyway- whatever desire I may have to sire a child has no bearing on my legal entitlement to any given child that I may have sired. You're one of the last people here that I'd expect to be stepping up to bat for a position that wanting something should create a legal entitlement to take it.

quote:
quote:
What devotion? He's trying to rip a 6 year old away from it's legal parents, without any regard for the child's needs and established relationships. He's shown nothing but disregard for the girls rights, never mind the freedom of the woman that gave birth to the child to make her own decisions in this process, claiming that his desire to possess the girl should matter more than what's actually socially and psychologically best for her or showing basic human respect for the woman that bore the child.
The law seems to disagree with you.
No, hte law would seem to agree with me, which is why it's taken him 6 years of court battles to try to get it adjusted by judicial fiat to assert a parental right on his behalf.
quote:
Also, why respect the woman's parental rights if the woman gave them up? That seems absurd. If you give something up you don't get to retain shadow control over it forever after.
Sure, but that only means that she can't take the child back from the family that adopted it from her. She transferred guardianship directly to the child's family; and no point did she give it up until it was already established that someone else had it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1