It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Morgenstern89
"This is the problem with civil rights activists, once they get their way, they tread all over the rights and liberties of others. "
I like how the OP sees someone else finally gaining their civil rights as them "getting their way", and that that somehow means their own rights are in jeopardy.
gave this judge the authority to steal away your own child from you, because it wasn't god and I can only wonder where the father was and how he must feel about all of this.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So this is a very liberal interpretation of a controversial court matter, the first in History in which a married lesbian couple went into a custody battle over the custody of the biological child of one parent in the state of NY. Even though one was the biological parent, custody was granted to the non-biological parent because the judge thought that she was a better parent? My question is, who gave this judge the authority to steal away your own child from you, because it wasn't god and I can only wonder where the father was and how he must feel about all of this.
This is the clear and present danger of legal gay marriage. Agree with it or not, it is the children who will ultimately suffer.
Gays have always had the right to marry
just not man marrying another man or women and women. Marriage is a union between man and women
and this is exactly why, not to mention anatomy and basic principles of birthing a child.
The gay marriage agenda
is an full fledged assault on families and children
as if the family didn't already face enough personal threats from the state.
Who ultimately suffers, the parent but more importantly the child who is still developing and can develop serious psychological problems,
possible mental and physical abuse that will follow them for the rest of their lives.
This is the problem with civil rights activists, once they get their way, they tread all over the rights and liberties of others.
Don't tread on me!
Manhattan Judge Gloria Sosa-Lintner said, “Although . . . Altman is the biological parent, this does not give her an automatic priority over the adoptive parent. This is analogous to a father getting custody of his own child, where only the best interests of the child are paramount.”
Scollar, the judge ruled, “is indeed the more responsible parent looking out for the child’s best interests, not her own interests” — while the 47-year-old Altman “behaved more as a friend or older sister than a responsible parent.”
By 2010, the troubled couple had agreed to split up — and scheduled a therapy session to discuss how to handle the break. But when Scollar got to the therapist’s office, she received a text message from Altman — informing her she was about to fly to her native California with their daughter, and without saying she planned on returning with the girl to New York
But before Altman and her daughter even landed in California, Scollar was able, with the help of her lawyer, Chinitz, to get a New York judge to grant her temporary custody of the child and an order that the child be returned home immediately.
That’s when things really got ugly. “I had serious accusations hurled against me” by Altman . . “that I was an alcoholic. That I was a child abuser,” recalled Scollar, who called all those claims false. The claims led to an Administration for Children’s Services investigation and a gynecological examination of the girl, with Altman’s consent, despite Altman’s later testimony that she “herself did not believe the child had been sexually abused,” the judge noted. “The evidence shows that the child was traumatized by the ACS experience and yet Respondent-Altman said she believed the child had a ‘ball or ‘blast’ at the examination,” the judge wrote.
The judge also wrote that Altman “has continued to profess facts that have not been proven or are outright lies . . . came across as self-centered and egotistical” and gave testimony and evidence that “were not consistent and at times contradictory.” Scollar’s testimony, in contrast, was “consistent, credible and persuasive,” the judge said.
The judge also noted that Scollar “has the child on a schedule, allows the child to develop her own independent identity, provides her with education opportunities and extracurricular activities in which she can have peer relationships, consistently takes her to therapy unless there is a valid reason, and properly supervises the child.”
“On the other hand, . . .Altman, who is a film producer, is the freer spirit, more outwardly creative and more laid-back parent,” the judge noted. “During the course of this trial, the testimony has shown that she would miss therapy appointments or be late to school or camp bus because she overslept or felt that play dates were more important than therapy or that play dates should end late in the evening so that the child and she were too tired to commit to a schedule.”
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Pixiefyre
You think its OK to take away a biolgoical parent if someone else is in a more creative career. If someone has kids up past your curfew, sleeps in occasionally and is late.? I'm sorry that would take, huge welts on the kid!
People's schedules are none of your business.
You think you can take away people's biological children for minor things?
That is psychotic.
edit on 6-10-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
An adoptive parent is no less a parent than a biological parent. Anyone who is fertile is able to produce a baby, but not everyone who is able to create a baby is able, equipped or prepared to raise a baby. A junkie on the streets pimping themselves out to feed their habit can become pregnant and produce a baby, but unless they are willing to go through what it takes to clean up and completely change their life they will never be fit to be a proper parent and provide the love, attention, nourishment, home and encouraging environment that will allow the child to blossom and grow.
Originally posted by Unity_99 You think its OK to take away a biolgoical parent if someone else is in a more creative career. If someone has kids up past your curfew, sleeps in occasionally and is late.? I'm sorry that would take, huge welts on the kid!
People's schedules are none of your business.
The evidence shows that the child was traumatized by the ACS experience and yet Respondent-Altman said she believed the child had a ‘ball or ‘blast’ at the examination,” the judge wrote.
Originally posted by Unity_99 That is psychotic. .