Non-Biological Lesbian mom gains custody of 7 yr old

Alright, a touchy subject.

As a gay man who has had children through surrogates and adoption I know exactly what these types of cases entail.

Now by proxy judges and the courts usually ALWAYS side with the mother, usually the biological one. Unless there are circumstances which show that the biological parents aren't able to take care of the child.

This is the case.

Furthermore, the other parent was blocking the child from seeing her other mother, which is destructive to that child's development in every sense of the word.

You want to confuse a child? How this for confused? Get raised by two women from birth and then at 6 or 7 get torn away from one of those caring adults.

And as the above poster stated, it takes A LOT more than just giving birth to be a parent, my own experiences with my parents have proved that, and I am sure a lot of people would agree.

Let's be realistic as well, we don't know all the facts here. It's not like it was televised and has had interviews, this is just a story in the news.

Whoever was the better parent is who go the child in this case. The judge made the right decision. The biological mom couln't even keep herself out of trouble during the proceedings, how stable can she be?

~Keeper

reply to post by niteboy82

No you don't. If you lose the right to care for your child because you have shown that you can't handle the care yourself, what right do you think you have to make any decisions? If you've failed at parenting, then you are the last person that should be making that child's decisions.

To be honest I can't quite see where this mum has shown herself to be a bad parent, she may have made a bad decision but that doesn't necessarily mean she's a bad parent.

A social worker once said to me " I have lifelong heroin addicts on my books that are perfectly good parents" now that I would dispute.

To my mind if you want to find out who has the best interest of the child at heart then remove any influence of money while these proceedings take place.

And by the way, let's not forget parenting is an acquired skill and there's many of good parents children in prison.

But i could be wrong ---

reply to post by moocowman


I agree with you on this.

Parenting is an acquired skill, but as we've seen in custody battles for decades they usually favor the biological parent.

There is obviously information that we are not privy to, which led the judge to think that the other parent was better suited.

~Keeper

I guess i've said my piece in this thread, if I stayed I would just be rehashing the same argument over and over again.

I guess some people just think that kids should be taken away from there loving parents just because of who they are attracted to, some people will want to live in that old society we used to have. I for one am glad that things are changing for the better. In 20 years the majority of society will look back at sentiments expressed by some of ATS and alot of American's on these issues and be disgusted.

There's no denying that younger generations of Americans are tolerant and open to same-sex marriage and same-sex couples having kids, it happens and has been happening for over 20 years everywhere, the tide is starting to turn so you guys better get used to it, or like I said, move to China.

Peace!

Society tore down all of the fences that were in place to regulate the nuclear family and now they are just piling up the broken pieces and burning them.

You wanted your progressive world? You got it.

The state will be raising your kids next and you won't have a leg to stand on.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

There is obviously information that we are not privy to, which led the judge to think that the other parent was better suited.

Agreed although sometimes judges just do things.
I once was, let's see how to put it discouraged from taking up too much of the courts time as the judge was playing golf that afternoon he admitted in jest.

I firmly believe that there should be an assumption of equal shared parenting (unless under certain circumstance) for all children and that the onus is put on both parents to rise to their responsibilities as a carer not a financial provider.

Too often we see endless misery for all concerned in the courts with one parent trying to deny access and such only to dump the kids on the nearest baby sitter at the earliest opportunity.

Oops I'm going off on one now, my wounds are still very raw lol

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Dude tell me to mind my own if you wish, and I don't want to sort of be a jinx or anything but, do you have some sort of arrangement for the kids if you (and I don't like to ask really) kind of divorced ?

reply to post by moocowman


I agree with you.

I like to call in Equal Opportunity Parenting lol.

Kinda like affirmative action, but for men, since they've been discriminated against the legal system ever since the inception of family law.

And yes Judges just do things sometimes, I have a good friend who is a Judge and he's told me that he sometimes just weighs the pros and cons after 5 minute conversations with both lawyers so he can make tee-off time at 4.

So I know what your talking about lol.

~Keeper

reply to post by moocowman


Yes actually we drew up legal papers when we first decided to have children that in the invent our marriage fell apart (which there is no worry of that at the moment) that we would share custody between our four children.

We knew from the beginning, that any dispute between us to should never effect our children's environment or their emotional upbringing in any way.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Uniceft17
I can see that this is going to be a very touchy subject.

First off, the two were 'technically' married when she was artificially inseminated so obviously they had to come to some kind of agreement that it was there child 'together'.

Don't jump to conclusions when you don't have the facts. From what I've read through the articles listed, she's been there through the birth, helped raised the little girl, feed her, clothe her etc. In a technical sense she is just as much as a mother as the biological mother, just being blood doesn't make you a mom, acting like one does to.

On the other hand I don't agree with full custody be given to one parent over the other for reasons that aren't addressed in the article, but at the same time the biological mother should have been going to court and arguing her case in stead of being contempt.

I'm gay, and if my husband decided to find a surrogate to have a baby with and I was there to help raise him/her, clothe, feed, house, etc. for so long I would consider the kid just as much mine as he/she was his. Though I don't know how that would work in my state seeing as how same-sex marriage is illegal here, we just had a ceremony and consider each other husbands, but still, there is much more at play here that people need to take a look at.

I'm not taking sides in this case, I'll wait till all the facts come out.

What does Isabella have to say about this? If she loves both her moms she should have them both. IMO.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by Uniceft17]

This isnt abuot the rights of the other person, I do understand the argument used by the non-biological parent for visitation rights. BUT, the child, who at 7 is not going to be honored or even heard (in Canada by 12, the child's right to be where he/she wishes to be in such a case would be brought into the case), is being DESTROYED for a politicial agenda, or out of a Judge's personal emotions of the moment. Unless a parent is a abusive to the extreme, (and in many borderline cases they merely require one of 3 things: !) hlep and counciling, 2)more money and a safer neighborhood, or 3) assistance with the childrearing due to health problems themseves, which in a sane world would be there for everyone as parenting is alpha job number one and all other things would serve this primary job.

The child requires the primary caregiver, the one he/she bonded to as an infant, her parent, and in this case I take it this is the biological one, to be with him/her and it would be like dying, to have this done to them.

I would kidnap the child and move out of state, out of country. I would also ensure that there would be a way to end that judges job, and be in his face, foever, because I don't like the legal system, I don't respect judges, there are no absolutes over our heads and we are not slaves to their systems, but..........judges who do this, should be forced to work as dishwashers in a fast food restaurant for 5 years.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by moocowman

 

Yes actually we drew up legal papers when we first decided to have children that in the invent our marriage fell apart (which there is no worry of that at the moment) that we would share custody between our four children.

We knew from the beginning, that any dispute between us to should never effect our children's environment or their emotional upbringing in any way.

~Keeper

In light of my previous inability to consider anything further than my dick in relation to marriage and children, it was most humbling to read what you've had to say.

What is deeply saddening is that, many of those who set themselves upon moral pedestals and condemn your choice of lifestyle, would appear even less responsible than myself.

reply to post by Unity_99

The child requires the primary caregiver, the one he/she bonded to as an infant, her parent

Why on earth does a child need a "primary caregiver " a child will accept care from whoever is caring, If 2 parents are caring equally then both are primary caregivers the child will bond with both.

reply to post by moocowman


We have had our share of disgreements regarding my choice of lifestyle over the months moocowman but I am glad to see that my perspective has perhaps changed your view on some of those things and you've since become a member whose opinion I respect.

And yes there are those who look down upon me and my husband, along with our children who have NEVER been as happy or succesfull as we are.

So really the joke is on them .

~Keeper

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Unity_99

 

The child requires the primary caregiver, the one he/she bonded to as an infant, her parent

Why on earth does a child need a "primary caregiver " a child will accept care from whoever is caring, If 2 parents are caring equally then both are primary caregivers the child will bond with both.

Do take some basic psychology courses. Children bond to their primary caretakers, this is their human psychology. Those whose mothers are forced into labor (becasue this usually mom by the way) need to be with their parent, not strangers either. In the first few years of life, removal from primary caregiver causes 80% chance of psychopathy/delinquency to develop in child accordign to all the test ever done, repeated to infinity and beyond, refined to perfection. There is no child that does not require their parent, who they love, with the exception of one that is extremely abusive.

Educate yourself. That comment is ridiculous. Even in a two parent biological home, there is still one, and its usually mother, that the child bonds too, usually within the first few weeks of life. The bond between mother and child is primary.

All this stuff people talk about to politically correct is such a misfire of basic human nature its unbelievable.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by Unity_99]

The fact that a child shares some of its genes with a person, does not make that person a suitable parent for that child. There is nothing that guarantees that the biological parents are any better than anyone else. Quite often, the biological parent is unsuitable to raise the child.

If this other partner didn't take the child, it appears that the biological mother would *still* be kept from the child. Without this other partner, the child would be placed into the State child care system, which would mean the kid would likely be abused, neglected, and ultimately suffer.

Giving custody to a loving person who has already formed a bond with the child, and who has shown herself to be caring and willing to take the child is fine with me. Too many people think that blood makes good parents, but it doesn't.

We're talking about one little family here, two parents and one child.
The parents were together in a loving relationship when they conceived this child.
The parents split up, the child stayed with the birth mother.
The other parent wanted visitation rights, but the birth mother would not allow them.
After the mother repeatedly refused to obey the court order and allow the other parent visitation rights the judge got fed up and gave the other parent visitation rights.

Isn't that what the court should do?
How many guys in this thread think the parent who gave birth to the child should be free to completely deny the other parent the right to ever see their child again?

The situation has falsely been presented as a dispute between the birth mother and "the lesbian woman." However both the women are the child's mother, and both the women are lesbians.

So it comes down to the same old situation that has broken many a man's heart over the years, the birth mother denying the other parent contact with their child. It is terribly wrong whenever this happens, (unless there is some serious problem with the other parent's parenting.)

So what we are left with is an OP venting his hatred of lesbians on the parent who has finally been awarded custody, while staying blissfully ignorant of the fact that the other woman is a lesbian too.


There's a principle at stake here. And if guys want to support the principle that the mother should be able to deny the father all right to ever see his child, so be it.