Lesbian Custody Battle!!

reply to post by thehoneycomb

reply to post by thehoneycomb


What if you adopted a child? Would you not fight for custody of that child if you divorced and felt that your spouse was not fit to be the custodial parent or would you simply give up because you're not the biological parent?

Fathers and mothers adopt the kids of their spouse all the time in heterosexual marriages.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


Nice straw man argument, but you fail. You are stating that a complete stranger is more competent than a childs own parents regarding a childs best interest...fail.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


Again if you put them up for adoption, that is officially surrendering your rights as stated earlier.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Let me correct myself. Yes has been around longer than the constitution, the word I missed was in "accordance" to. Its based on the same principals.

Again, times have changed, so should our documents and our thinking.

Ok so your gay and you have legally adopted. I have no problem with that, as long as the biological parents were ok with putting their kids up for adoption. That is legally surrendering your right as a parent as opposed to the state deciding for you.

I don't know. I adopted orphans. I really don't care what happened to the kids parents. I am their parent. I am the one who is raising and providing for them. I would expect anybody else who was raising adopted children to feel the same.

Sure there are special circumstances, but I would venture a guess that if BOTH parents loose their rights as parents then there was suitable evidence to prove they were unfit to raise children. IF there wasn't, again, exceptional circumstances, then that sucks.

But I bet you the instances of unjust removal from both biological parents is pretty uncommon by comparison.

So you seem to think that the state is incapable of making a good decision in family court? I would mostly agree with you, but the truth is in most cases what's best for the child is what gets done. Again, you can point out a thousand cases where the child wasn't treated properly or the parents werent, but I can also show you a thousand where it did.

Sorry, but gay marriage doesn't change ANYTHING about family court. Since the court doesn't really care what your sexual orientation is in a custody battle, they care about your financial and emotional ability to support a child.

~Tenth

reply to post by yeahright


What I am saying, is that the court, will not even listen to your story until you are thousands of dollars and several months or years into the process. Until then 9 times out of 10 they will default to the mother until final judgement is made, if ever. Which usually doesn't happen because it is exhausting and financially it will wipe you out.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

reply to post by yeahright


I agree, but the fate of a child should not be decided like that. There are many unfit parents in the world. However, many are just written off as unfit, when they are totally capable and loving parents who only seek the best interest of their children.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Do you not understand what a guardian ad litem does in a custody battle? Not a strawman argument. They know a hell of a lot more about the situation than a judge would and certainly more than 12 strangers.

And if you have evidence that the father did not consensually give his rights up for the other woman to legally adopt the child, please show it. Otherwise, the father's rights in this case are completely irrelevant.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Orphans, thats nice of you to take on that responsibility. I commend you for that.

Sorry, but gay marriage doesn't change ANYTHING about family court. Since the court doesn't really care what your sexual orientation is in a custody battle, they care about your financial and emotional ability to support a child.

Sorry but no. They have no interest in any of that. What they do is they make one parent a financial obligee to the other parent. Emotionally unfit can not be proved without a solid investigation and proof. The only reason they take a look at your finances is to decide how much support you are going to give through their state program that tacks on interest and garnishes wages and creates more problems for both parties.

In fact custody court wont even look at your finances, child support enforcement does.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


Not in all cases are such a person appointed.

I have no background on whatever previous custody battle did or did not happen. Just thought it was an intersting story and something we will see alot more of in the future.

news.indonewyork.com...

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I'm sorry it's like that where you are. I'm in Canada and family court is far different. Although they do tend to side with mothers far more than fathers, even when the mother is unfit.

And it is something they should look at in the courts, not by child support services.

In any case, I still don't understand why that whole situation is made worse by the sexual orientation of the partie's involved.

~Tenth

If this were a man and a woman, they'd give the child to the mother even if the mother was a bad mom. Society says that moms make better parents than men, that's why.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Sexual orientation is used to fuel the political agenda and madness.

I don't know if you crossed past a couple threads about suicide rates in US now bigger then car accidents...but...Canada is not immune from this either. A while ago I read a study on suicide rates in Canada were directly related to child custody battles in which many if not most of the suicides that were up upon males were at least had in common males losing their children in courts to mothers who were biased and favored the mothers. Same thing actually happened before that in Russia believe it or not and the birth rate there is now in the negative.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I agree with that, however sexual orientation is NOT a factor in custody battles. Prove to me it is.

It simply isn't, other that people's personal opinions regarding homosexuals, their rights to marry and adopt children.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No but when gay marriage becomes legal, it opens the door to all of that.

Anyways, I dont know your political association. However Im going to link you to the platform of the socialist party use, pay attention to the language regarding minority groups, women and LGBTQ. Pay attention to who gets no mention in their platform. Straight white males, straight males or just males in general.

socialistparty-usa.net...

Give it a good read please and let me know if you agree there is an agenda or not. Thanks

Socialist Strategy
Socialist Feminism and Women's Liberation
Socialist feminism confronts the common root of sexism, racism and classism: the determination of a life of oppression or privilege based on accidents of birth or circumstances. Socialist feminism is an inclusive way of creating social change. We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.

We work against the exploitation and oppression of women who live with lower wages, inferior working conditions and subordination in the home, in society and in politics. Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation.

We stand for the right of women to choose to have a safe and legal abortion, at no cost, regardless of age, race, or circumstance.
Women’s independent organizations and caucuses are essential to full liberation, both before and after the transformation to socialism. Women will define their own liberation.

Liberation of Oppressed People
Bigotry and discrimination help the ruling class divide, exploit, and abuse workers here and in the Third World. The Socialist Party works to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. We recognize the right of self-defense in the face of attacks; we also support non-violent direct action in combating oppression. We fully support strong and expanded affirmative action programs to help combat the entrenched inertia of a racist and sexist system which profits from discrimination and social division.

People of color, lesbians and gays, and other oppressed groups need independent organization to fight oppression. Racism will not be eliminated merely by eliminating capitalism.

Keep in mind that this has been edited a lot also. I use it often but I think they changed it up because its easy to expose them. I do have an earlier thread on this subject with the unedited portions in tact.

ETA: threads
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Heres the unedited stuff
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the thread title sounds like a new TV reality show concept.

in any custody case, one can only hope that the prime cause for concern is the future, and welfare of, the child.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Thats always the language they will use. But thats not the case hardly ever, its about politics. Not about you or your child for that matter. Its about leading you into bondage and captivity and being totally dependent on your government even to the point of death.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

No but when gay marriage becomes legal, it opens the door to all of that.

But you fail to say how it would effect family courts and what kinds of situations would arise specifically because of sexual orientation.

As for the rest of it, I'm a Libertarian, so no political affiliation in that sense. I don't support this nonsense platform you linked from a political party that has 0 support in the current system and has really no chance of ever coming to power.

I'm not surprised that white males aren't mentioned cause the reality is that white male privilege is alive and well, even though most young people ignore it completely and the top echelon of pyramid it's still a man's world.

That's another thread entirely though.

I'm just again, confused about what you are saying because you aren't addressing the questions being asked. You've just made a declarative statement without providing any substance.

~Tenth