Lesbian Custody Battle!!

"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.

'MERICA.

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.

'MERICA.

Yep, what they are basically saying is that they have a right to be "superior" to others, and they think that bringing others up to the same level of rights and freedoms removes their imaginary right to enslave and victimize others.
These people think it's a breach of their rights when others are given equality, because it tells them that their bigotry is not acceptable.

Aw, poor right-wing Christians! It must be such a horrid life for you all as more and more people are deemed to be equal to you and no longer open to attack and victimization as you would wish! You have my sympathies - not.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

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.

Completely 100% agree with you. We are not surrogate wombs for others.

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.

Did you ever consider that the child would see both of them as biological parents? Since she has been raised from birth by them. Or are you being silly and suggesting the child MUST love one more than the other because she is of the same blood?

This is the clear and present danger of legal gay marriage. Agree with it or not, it is the children who will ultimately suffer.

Because straight people have marriage down to a T. Like brittney spears. Like that kardashian woman. Like your average couple who are getting divorced after 15 years of marriage. Frigging gays, how dare they not respect marriage!

Gays have always had the right to marry

Well i can assure you not here in the UK - being homosexual got decriminalized in the early 50's i think?

just not man marrying another man or women and women. Marriage is a union between man and women

The idea of marriage has existed many thousands of years, believe it or not, christians didnt invent it, therefore no religious group has the right to attach terms and conditions onto the ceremony. If i wanted to get married under a certain god then i'd have to respect that organisations requirements, however, getting married in the eyes of the law is nothing to do with religion and therefore it should be perfectly legal for two people of the same gender to enjoy the same benefits (and negatives) that marriage offers because christianity isnt law.

and this is exactly why, not to mention anatomy and basic principles of birthing a child.

Im sure a lesbian wouldnt have much of a problem finding a donor, which puts a big hole in your "YOU NEED A MAN OR ELSE" assumption.

The gay marriage agenda

You mean the Equal rights agenda - Just making sure were talking about the same thing.

is an full fledged assault on families and children

Nope, its an assault on the denial of rights to homosexual people. Nothing to do with families or children.

as if the family didn't already face enough personal threats from the state.

Next conspiracy lets assume for fun that the people that run the state are all gay!

Who ultimately suffers, the parent but more importantly the child who is still developing and can develop serious psychological problems,

Hahahaha, Evidence?

possible mental and physical abuse that will follow them for the rest of their lives.

Evidence?

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!

Just refer you right back to my "straight people respecting marriage"



Now sir/madam, if you would kindly get off your high horse and stop using one example of a couple who have fallen out of love with eachother as a reason why no one should have equal rights to marriage. Thank you.

should just give the kid to the state. that will be awesome for them. everyone that I know that was bought up by the state has turned out great. (that was sarcasm)

I did a lot of searching and reading to gather as much information as I could regarding this case and after all I have read I so far I would agree with the Judges decision regarding this child's custody.

One of the first questions the OP asked was where was the biological father and how did he feel about this. Following are some facts regarding this relationship along with some information regarding custody and parental rights.

The biological father was in effect and by law simply a sperm donor. Robert Frame originally was close friends with Allison Scollar and after the couple (Allison Scollar and Brook Altman) had lived together for 4 years Mr Frame agreed to donating his sperm so that the couple could conceive after which he renounced his parental rights in favor of Allison Scollar legally adopting the child. .

In Renouncing his parental rights Mr. Frame legally gave up any rights he might have had to the child and washed his hands of any responsibility he had to the child and he did so of his own free will.

Allison Scollar by legally adopting the child accepted all aspects and responsibilities involved in raising the child, and became legally recognized as one of the child's parents and legal guardians.

This is not an unusual situation in regards to children of divorced parents, it is not uncommon for one of the parents to later re-marry and desiring to provide the child with a more stable living environment request the other parent to allow the new spouse to adopt the child which entails the other parent relinquishing their parental rights.

While oft times the mother is granted primary or sole custody of the children in a divorce depending upon the reason for the divorce, the demeanor of the father and his relationship with the children, if it can be proven to the court that granting primary or sole custody to the mother would negatively impact the child's current and future well being, the court can grant primary or sole custody to the father, and even rule in the case of shared custody that visits from the non-custodial parent (the one the child visits instead of lives with) be strictly supervised by a court appointed entity.

Now that I have hopefully cleared up some of the in's and out's of custody fights and/or rulings following is the most in depth information I have been able to find regarding this specific case.

Judge rejects birth mother & gives custody to partner

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.

(I have a little more from the article to follow)

reply to post by Pixiefyre


In addition to the information contained in my previous post the article went on to state the following:

Judge rejects birth mother & gives custody to partner

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.”

If this case were about a biological mother and an adoptive father in the same set of circumstances there would be no question if the Judges decision were to award custody to the adoptive father. If the child is only 6 years old and is being raised in an environment such as that described above, imagine what the future holds for this child as they grow older, start thinking for themselves and eventually go through the inevitable rebellious stage during their teens

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.

My niece gave birth to a beautiful girl, but had trouble co-coordinating her partying (drugs and alcohol both) and her haphazard stripping for money with taking care of this beautiful girl and would often dump her at my youngest sisters house for weeks even months at a time without a word. My youngest sister (not the nieces mother) wanted to adopt her, but at the time she was fighting terminal cancer and knew she wouldn't be able to be there for her much longer. After she passed away to ensure this child was not passed from stranger to stranger after all she had already gone through my Mother petitioned the court to adopt her, after 2 hearings to determine my nieces rights as her biological mother that my niece never even showed up for the court granted full custody to my mother. Despite the fact that my mother was the child's great-grandmother, she has been in every way a mother to this child, she has excelled in academics, won countless medals in gymnastics, a sport she truly loves, she is well adjusted, respectful, kind and considerate. She has met her biological mother, but biology does not magically impart all the things that truly make a mother A MOTHER upon conception or pregnancy. Her biological mother couldn't even remember to call her on her birthday, but my mother, her great-grandmother and mother celebrated her birthday with the typical flair of cake, ice cream, candles, gifts and friends.

My great-niece is also my sister by law and unconventional as it might be I wouldn't have wished any other life on her and I am so incredibly proud of my mother.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


Amazing work on the reasearch

You appear to have an amazing mother, a very heartwarming and inspirational story. Thank you for sharing it with us!

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.

.

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)

Biology doesn't matter. The other parent was the adoptive parent, had raised her since birth and WAS her parent. Giving birth doesn't automatically make you a mother, fertilizing an egg doesn't automatically make you a father. All those people did is reproduce, there's a lot more to being a parent than just making the baby, you have to raise it.
The parent that got custody was the parent who could best provide for the child. Don't like it? Too bad.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Unity_99


As I stated in my previous post

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.

Now to address your comments

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.

First of all, when one adopts a child they are legally and willingly accepting all parental rights and responsibilities that are involved in raising that child, such as providing a stable nurturing environment for them to grow, ensuring that the child receives the education he or she deserves to help them grow to be the best person they can be, doing their best to keep them healthy and providing medical care when needed, Kissing boo boo's, tucking them in at night etc, etc. The only difference between an adoptive parent and a biological parent is the adoptive parent willingly chooses to take on these responsibilities and this role in the child's life despite the fact that they could easily have chosen to walk away free as a bird from any and all legal responsibilities for the child right up until they have taken the steps to adopt the child, The biological parent on the other hand if female does grow the baby for 9 months enduring the changes to her body and lifestyle that go hand in hand with pregnancy, (if male the role is a bit simpler once they have fertilized an egg within a female their primary role is supporting and caring for the mother to be). It has been known to happen that the biological parents find themselves not so sure they really want a child at this time in their lives or are not really ready to take on the responsibilities of raising a child. Sure the biological parents physically created the life, but it is only after that life has been born and brought out into the world that one begins molding and changing their lives to embrace and include this new life as part of their own that being a parent (and parenting) begins.

That said an adoptive parent is in no way less of a parent than a biological parent, the bonding, love, devotion, and dedication are no less valuable than that of a biological parent and by law an adoptive parent stands on equal footing with the biological parent. The biological parent in this situation knowing full well that allowing her partner to adopt the child she bore would grant her partner parental rights no less than had she born the child herself, did willingly, intently and legally allow her partner to adopt the child.

You might think that the biological mother keeping the child up so late that the child was too tired to go to school, the biological mother sleeping late herself causing the child to be late for school, or the mother missing therapy appointments for the child either due to neglect or due to her deciding that play dates were more important than therapy are minor issues that no one has a right to "stick their nose into". But regularly missing school so early in life setting her up to fail from the very beginning in her education will also harm her as she watch's her peers advance and leave her behind. Teaching her child so early in life that missing school (and in the future) work to go out and play, or being late to school (and work in the future) because you partied all night and were too tired to get there on time are not values that will serve her well in life, more likely they will destine her to failure. Missing therapy appointments out of neglect or due to deciding play dates are more important could be very damaging for the child, most young children are not in therapy for some light hearted frivolous reason rather it's more likely that the child has some serious physical or emotional issue that is of such a serious nature that therapy was deemed an important factor in providing her the best opportunity to live a normal happy life. These are not minor issues, one can spend great quality time with their children without failing in responsibilities such as these.

(More to come)

reply to post by Pixiefyre


Very well said

The adoptive mother is just as much the mother as the biological one is. Apparently, more so since she got custody.

There are times when the state must step in when it's in the best interest of the child whether it be abuse, molestation or child endangerment. The judge saw fit to give custody to the adoptive mother and had good reasons for it.
There have been many times that I've had to contact state agencies on behalf of children to ensure their safety and I don't regret doing it a single time. As adults, we are to protect and ensure the safety of the children around us.

reply to post by Unity_99


Having above addressed the issues that you considered minor things. I would like to emphasize that those issues that you considered minor issues were not the only issues that were raised regarding this situation.

I would like to reiterate that an adoptive parent's place in their child's life is of no lesser value than the biological parent's. In the eyes of the law they are equally the child's parents and are considered until proven otherwise to be equally worthy as parents of the child should the parents divorce and custody matters were to arise. Giving physical birth to a child does not magically and automatically ensure that that same person will be filled to the depths of their sole, so far above and beyond the ability of any other human on earth to even comprehend, with love, for the child they brought into the world. Nor is an adoptive parent somehow less capable of experiencing the depths of love for their adopted child that a biological parent might feel.

Now aside from the "minor things" you took issue with, once the couple decided to split up they scheduled a therapy session to discuss how to handle the breakup, which considering a child was involved would have been a positive action that could have lessened the impact on the child, except that when Scollar arrived for the therapy session she received a call from Altman stating she was taking the child clear across the country from New York to California with no mention of a return trip.

In a traditional marriage, even if the parent in Scollars shoes were an adoptive parent of the child being taken across the country, the act of the biological parent "or the one in Altman's shoes" would be sufficient to label her a kidnapper in the eyes of the law as no custody ruling had been reached at this point, so her sudden flight to California would serve to deprive the child's other parent of contact with their child. (The majority of kidnappings are of this nature, a couple divorces and one parent decides to take the child/children and run)

Even worse than that though, Altman (the biological mother) accused Scollar of being a drunk and a child abuser, her claims led Child Services to investigate her claims, an investigation which included performing a gynecological examination of the 6 year old girl with Altman's (the biological mother's) consent despite her later testimony that she “herself did not believe the child had been sexually abused,”

And as quoted in my previous post

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.

In my opinion, I don't care if Altman is her biological mother, I wouldn't even care at this point if she went through 72 hours of hard labor only to end up having to undergo a c-section in the process of becoming the child's biological mother. That does not in any way justify her viciously making false allegations that were so serious that they led to Child Services investigating and with HER consent putting a 6 year old child through a gynecological examination, despite later testifying that she did not believe the child was sexually abused. And if that all weren't horrible enough Altman (the biological mother) went on to state that she believed her child a a ball or blast (meaning a great partying type time) at the examination.

To use your own words

Originally posted by Unity_99 That is psychotic. .

Biology does not make a parent, it's what comes after the biology that creates the parent. Many children have been harmed or abandoned by their biological parents, and many have been healed by parents who saw them, loved them and adopted them.

My parents divorced when I was 4 months old. My mother afterwards ended up dating a man who loved me as his own, they married when I was 3 and when I was 5 he gave up the car of his dreams a blue Cadillac Convertible that he worked so hard and saved for....to adopt me. He and mom gave me two younger sisters, but you know what, even though he now was the biological father of 2 beautiful girls that came from him...I remained his baby, his little doll, his pride and joy,.....all of my life and the rest of his.