Lesbian Custody Battle!!

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Gays couples should have the same right to misery as the rest of us....

You hav either deliberately or accidently missed the fact that the non-biological partner is an adoptive parent of the child. She then has the full legal rights of any other parent regardless of her sexual orientation.

The biological mother could have drug problems, mental health issues.. we don't know. But a judge obviously decided one parent would provide a healthier home than the actual mother. I'm sure the judge took that into consideration.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Father is a gay man; how does that fact impact your opinion?

Altman and Scollar disagreed over the level of involvement that the girl's father -- a gay man who was friends with the couple -- should have in her life, and "it seemed the biological parents were united in trying to alienate" Scollar, the judge wrote in awarding custody to Scollar.

reply to post by Drezden


Judge thought the adoptive parent was more stable and provided a better enviornment.

he judge said that Scollar provided the girl, who turns 6 on Tuesday, with a more stable environment and a strict routine, while Altman is "the freer spirit" who often canceled the girl's therapy appointments to take her to play dates.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Oh come on. Non story.
This is not a problem with gay marriage, it's just something that happens. Children are placed with non family over their bio parents all the time. The couple agreed that it was their child and they equally were raising it. This is why we have judges and court.

Honeycomb this just shows your prejudice honestly. You are spiteful, prejudiced, and obviously dislike gay people.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I agree, the legal issues of adoptive parent's right vs biological parent's right was settled long ago. It appears that the OP either did not research the case or simply wanted to bash alternative lifestyles.

reply to post by Hushabye


Well it's one persons child the other persons ex lovers child kinda messed up

reply to post by tothetenthpower

That's because the family court system is very entrenched in making sure mothers are the preffered party

That is why I am wondering what circumstances would have led the judge to award custody to the non-biological woman. The irony of it in regards to feminist issues is glaring. As far as the biological mother not being stable enough, I would think it would have to be something more than just cancelling appointments. That stuff can happen to anyone. It should be something deeper like alcoholism or something which would genuinely endanger the child to take her away from the biological mom.

Also, why would the judge not grant joint legal and physical custody? They do it all the time with hetero divorces.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

No you just sound like a communist or a fascist.

I am not going to dignify you with any other response.

You have no right to anything or anybody other than yours and your property. Thanks for playing.

Absolutely, very Statist and authoritarian, the rights of the State over rights of the parents.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Although we hope you are being truthful, just know that 95% of the people who DO

Interesting statistic. where'd ya get it?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

Yes they can be. Nice how you put all biological parents on a pedastal. But if all parents knew best or had the best interests of their child, we wouldn't need social services.

Social Services and CPS have become tools of the Supreme State in wresting control of the children from their parents. It is one of the major goals of communism and Marxism to destroy the bourgeois family unit and replace it with the State. This is also behind Hillary Clinton's strategy of giving control of children to the UN through the treaty of the Rights of the Child. It Takes a Village and all that, and is but communism.

The state doesn't care about your right as a citizen

Yes, I couldn't have put it better myself. But here, someone else did.

Most Department of Social Services (DSS) agents actually believe that children should belong to the state, and that parents are evil. Their motto could be:
MEN ARE ABUSERS.
WOMEN ARE VICTIMS.
CHILDREN ARE OURS.

This changes only if the woman will not become a victim for them, or if the man feminizes himself properly. If you play the victim (even a male victim), and you "need" them, they will work with you. If you keep your dignity and independence (even if you are a woman), then you must be crushed. Victims thrive in their perverse world. Independent people who do not need them have their children taken away.
Many DSS agents do not have children of their own, and do not understand that families go through some bad patches once in a while, and just have to be given some room to work it out. The DSS agent, upon hearing from one of their police-state snitches, will swoop in like a vulture, and steal your children. No mercy. No explanations.

They will, without a pang of conscience, traumatize your children by prying their little fingers off your legs, as they wail and cry, and sticking them in their car, maybe never to be seen by you again. Or rip your children, screaming and panicked, from your arms, while sneering about what an abuser you are.

Most DSS agents are either classic Fascists or Marxists, which means they believe children belong to the state. You get to spawn, feed and clothe them, but then the state must educate them, train them to be wards of the state, and take them if you mess up. They believe the state is god, and support its domination in all spheres of life. They believe that rights derive from government authority, not from God, and so they resent all authority which does not acknowledge that. If you are religious, they will likely show a terrible bias against you because of it. They hate family autonomy, parental authority, home schoolers, and church authority.

www.lovethetruth.com...

Of course that is just that bloggers opinion likely based on what he/she has experienced and/or seen personally. Senator Barack Obama revealed that he has a similar opinon to that of the Marxists described by this blogger when he was interviewed on the Saddleback forum and made comments about parents abusing their children. Strangely, he does not view sexualizing children in kindergarten with sex-ed as abuse.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

A child is not a thing. Not someone's possession that they have rights to

Parents are the natural gaurdians of their biological children. So many people seem so willing to turn over this natural thing to the powers of the State. It is a very sad day indeed.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


No one is talking about your fictitional child being adopted by a gay man upon your death, they are talking about a judge awarding a non-biological parent custody of a biological mom's child. But I would want to know what other conditions and circumstances were going on, and for me it would need to be something more than just canceling appointments. Either that or the judge is an *^^

reply to post by thehoneycomb


what an odd way to view things...
Your a christian fundamentalist arent you?

Yea??

Who gives a crap?

Where's all the alien, ghost, area 51, secret society, nwo threads gone?

Bah humbug.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb

Personally if you are gay I have no problem with that, but no this is not about sexuality. This is about the state trampling on more and more of your god given rights as stated in the constitution.

That's absolute rubbish and you know it.

I saw this thread yesterday, I read your OP, and it was CLEARLY a right-wing Christian attack on gay people. It still is. You didn't get the same right-wing response you were expecting, and now you're trying to defend your obviously homophobic opinions by making this about the Constitution instead.

How is this against anyone's "God given rights" under the constitution anyway? Not that I have any thoughts on either of the parents in this case, but do you believe that the state should not be meddling in cases of child abuse? Should parents be allowed to abuse their kids without any consequences or action taken, because to act is against your interpretation of what the state is for? That doesn't sound to me like the thought process of a real Christian.

If this is really about what now claim it is about (rather than what you clearly intended in the OP) then why didn't you pick any one of the many millions of cases of heterosexual parents in a custody battle? Why have you titled the thread "Lesbian Custody Battle!!"?

IMO (and this is just my opinion, but I think many others here agree with me) you are a radical Christian homophobe looking for an opportunity to attack gay people, just like many millions of other radical Christian homophobes do the same day in and day out.

I would suggest you head on back over to the Phelps' Family compound and get back to making your signs and protesting Military funerals - most on ATS don't want your kind of bigotry here.

Originally posted by Drezden
The biological mother could have drug problems, mental health issues.. we don't know. But a judge obviously decided one parent would provide a healthier home than the actual mother. I'm sure the judge took that into consideration.

I absolutely agree. And the same system would be applied to any case of adoption or giving responsibility of a child to an adult.

I don't see why this is any different to standard adoption in the case of a child with no parents. Children are taken into the care of the state every day, and the first people the state consults are the family. If one of my nephews or nieces were taken into care, I would be approached to become their legal guardian. If I were not able to do that, then the search would widen to find someone else suitable for the role.

What about cases where a father who is NOT the biological father is given custody of the children when something happens to their biological mother?

I fail to see why this is any different. If a parent is deemed not capable of caring for their child, another parent is sought. In this case, the child had an adequate parent - and adoptive parent - already in their life.

The radical Christians here are focusing solely on the fact that this is a lesbian couple. That's their only problem with this. No other argument stands up to criticism and they know it.

Is this hard to comprehend? It has nothing to do with the parent's sexual orientation, and everything to do with who is better fit to parent the child. I'm sorry, but if you're a garbage parent you don't deserve a child. God didn't give you any rights because it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

SO you think that divorce among same sex couples is somehow different than with straight couples?

You're kidding right? Do you honestly think that kids are more negatively effected by their gay parents being divorced than straight ones?

A broken home is a broken home my friend.

Sorry, but your attempt at smearing the gay community for something that occurs, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal or not, is pretty poor.

This isn't a 'gay rights issue', this is a family custody issue and a family court issue. The fact that they are gay has nothing to do with it.

At all.

~Tenth

I'm loving this, I just want to know, So is the Biological lesbian mother going to have to pay child support and all the other costs that a male would in her position to the other Fe-male??