Sunday, August 07, 2005

Excellent Ruling to End Double Standard in Treatment of Prodigal Fathers

"Court makes it easier to end parental rights for some fathers


Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. - The Wisconsin Supreme Court made it easier Friday to terminate the parental rights of fathers who fail to live up to their responsibilities for children born out of wedlock.

The court further defined who is a parent under state law by finding a man who is the biological father of a child born out of wedlock qualifies even if a court has not ruled he is the parent.

Courts can legally designate a man as a child's father, often for child support.

In its ruling Friday, the court upheld a Milwaukee County Circuit Court's termination of the parental rights of a man identified in court records as only James P. for his daughter.

James P. had a relationship with the girl's mother, who had told James P. the girl's father also could be another man she had been seeing. Still, James P. was at the hospital when the girl was born, his insurance paid for her birth and he listed her on his medical insurance policy as his daughter.

He later did not see her for extended periods of time, and county officials sought to end his parental rights for abandonment after they had taken the girl away from her mother.

James P. argued the abandonment statutes do not apply to an "alleged father" of a child. But the circuit court disagreed. He was later determined by a court to be the girl's father.

Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said the ruling only applies to situations in which a man believed to be a child's father helped raise the child but then later disappeared from the child's life. He said it gives county officials another avenue to terminate parental rights.

"The bottom line is we're not going to wait for a court to designate someone as the father," Binger said. "We're going to hold you responsible for all conduct even though the court hasn't said you're the father."

Excellent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Excellent. It will finally put a stop to this nonsense being pulled by men lately where they decide NOT to sign their child's birth certificates for YEARS and thus perserve their option to turn up anytime, anytime to proclaim their legal 'rights' to disrupt a child's life.

Just as mothers have a time period where if they abandon their children their rights are terminated, so too men should be held to the same standard. Six months to a year is the typical period allotted to mothers and the same period of time, and NO MORE, should be allotted to fathers before termination begins. AND of course, this should include those savvy fathers trying to work the system by delaying establishing paternity to the most optimum moment in time for THEMSELVES.

The bottom line is that the ONLY time that a prodigal father should be allowed to begin paternity proceedings in court PAST THAT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR TIME PERIOD is if 1) both parents agree; and 2) father can prove that child was hidden from him and he had no knowledge of the birth.

Other then those two scenarios above, no exceptions should be made. So men like John Aylsworth, for instance, who was at the hospital to see his daughters after birth, yet chose to request a DNA test and get paternity established THREE YEARS after the fact should no longer have the option to do this.

Men should NOT be given the right to wait for years and then decide they want to play Dad of the Year and toss everyone else's life into turmoil. Sorry this is unfair to mothers, as well as children. I have personally known mothers who have had their child's fathers disappear for years without signing the child's birth certificate. These men frequently have started other relationships, maybe even gotten married or fathered other children THEN suddenly decide to coming roaring back into a mother and child's life (whom they previously abandoned) and start with a clean slate because they never bothered declaring paternity earlier.

Furthermore, courts are allowing them full custody trials as soon as paternity is finally established with no thought whatsoever of the trauma mothers and children are put through by allowing a virtual stranger to invade their lives. Not to mention that this is a violation of state laws which have already stated that a substantial change in circumstance in the CUSTODIAL parent's household is supposed to be the ONLY situation that launches a custody trial. Not some Daddycomelately having a guilty conscious because he carelessly abandoned a child some years earlier.

If these men want to soothe their guilty conscious, let them negotiate with the child's mother.

Instead, Judges allowing these men to work the system, are permitting them to go over the child's mother head to court and then force her into having to accept the decison of some gender-neutralized, child-free, feminist Judge (whose best friend is probably her cat). This is pretty much the scenario we saw play out in the Bridget Marks situation in New York with all the horror that involved for her, her twins and the millions of other mothers in the same situation. Suddenly these mothers had to worry that some prodigal father was going to show up on their doorstep one day and be permitted a full custody trial; even though mother had been raising their child for years alone due to abandonment by said prodigal.

It's outrageous.

So let's end this double standard in all 50 states right now just as Wisconsin has done.

Fathers should lose the right to establish paternity after six months to a year UNLESS both parents agree or father can prove he had NO KNOWLEDGE of birth. They should be treated just as mothers would be treated if they abandoned their children and no more of this double standard.


Anonymous said...

Speaking as a man, I would not even consider oppressing a woman with marriage nor children. Marriage and children are part of the oppressive institution of the patriarchy.

Instead, I respect the independence of women. If that means just sex, well OK whatever the feminists want.

As their feminist spokespersons have stated, the last thing a woman needs is a husband or children. I have no problem with this.

So tell me NYMOM, are the feminists who speak for you selfish as well?

NYMOM said...

You know you are fixiated on attaching the selfish label to feminists and it's too simplistic to explain feminists by just calling them selfish.

The reasons feminists have discouraged women to NOT marry is because they are trying to remove the power this institution has over women. Can't you even see that?

You, yourself have noted how every women you're started a sexual relationship with has started hinting at marriage about 3 or 4 months into the relatioship. I mean doesn't this tell you SOMETHING?

Women want to be married. I read somewhere that little girls start planning their wedding (in their head) when they are about 7 years old. I've noticed myself that my 10 year old granddaughter has an extraordinary interest in bridal magazines and can spend hours looking through them at dresses, cakes, floral arrangements. rings, etc. Holy moly it's frightening.

It's what that whole Bridzilla thing is about. Marriage is FAR more important to women, then to men. Who in my opinion could CARE LESS if they ever married.

Additionally it's the same thing with children for feminists. Maybe more so since I do happen to believe women have a maternal instinct that will push them to wish to have children. It's not like marriage which is an institution fashioned by human beings, nothing to do with instincts. Feminist wish to break that link between mother and children. To discourage the whole mother/child bond.

Feminists are actually very strong supporters of gender neutral custody and other ways to try to treat mothers and fathers alike vis-a-vis children. Some of the most horrific custody rulings against mothers and for fathers have actually come from feminists. Even that OJ Simpson getting custody was engineered by a gender neutralized feminist.

They are the allies of MRAs in this area.

YOU, on the other hand, like many men just have decided to NOT get married due to other reasons. You are NOT trying to change anyone's mind about anything or change society. Actually feminism has BENEFITTED you by pushing women into handling sex just like men. No commitment, just a momentary hookup just the way men like it. So it has allowed men to NEVER get married and still enjoy sex with assorted women or just one with no commitment.

Thus your reasons for pushing the 'feminist' agenda are purely selfish. You support it because it favors the male way of life and is a benefit to you. Feminist push this because they actually believe they are changing society for the better by forcing women to change.

They might be misguided but they are doing what they do for a reason. You, on the other hand, and many men like you are just selfish to the bone. You do what you do for your own benefit. If feminist's agenda works to your advantage, you're right on board. If it doesn't you are bashing them right along with other MRAs.

So in essence you are working both sides of the issue.

So to answer your question. No. Feminism isn't selfish, it more complicated then that.

You on the other hand are very simple, as well as selfish.


Anonymous said...

"Women want to be married."

Um, not all of us--not me. I stopped buying into the blissful matrimony myth when I was about 13, after my older sister-in-law gave me the "straight-talk" about marriage and the expectations that wives and mothers face after the honeymoon. And there were other reasons why, and I'll get into that later.

A wife and a mother can't "nag" her husband and children because then she'll be an evil "shrew." But she will be blamed if there is something "wrong" with her husband and children. And wives and mothers can never "do right" anyway--they always screw up this way or that way, because they don't do this or that, to outsider critics. You know, it's the "Mommy Myth," that you'll immediately know how to do everthing perfectly as a mother the second you give birth. Then there's the obvious--it's the wife's sole responsibility to make the marriage "work" and to build and sustain the little marital paradise.

And let's not forget the Catch 22 for mothers in our society. If a mother chooses to stay at home with her children, some people will criticize her for being "lazy" and "mooching" off of her husband for money and shelter. But if a mother chooses to work and leave her children with a daycare provider, she is scorned for "neglecting her children" and "being selfish so she can be a career-girl."

Historically if you look at marriage, it was an institution made for and by men for property reasons. Especially since it was the one "true" way for them to know if a woman was carrying their genetic material when they were pregnant. Supposedly, anyway.

My decision to never marry nor have children can be attributed to watching both of my sisters-in-law deal with their marriages, my mother during the divorce, talking to some of my married and divorced female teachers/professors about marriage, observing how our culture/society treats married women and mothers, the arduous physical/psychological ordeal of pregnancy and motherhood themselves, and then later on feminist influences. That and I'm just not the kind of person who gushes over kids, babies, Bridal magazines, marriage, pregnant women in the grocery store, motherhood, 'getting that ring,' or baby-showers.....those things just aren't my scene. And I can't stand weddings or the Bridal obsessive cult that's pushed on young women and especially girls--yeesh. Damn ceremony lasts only a few hours and you only wear the dress once, yet it costs thousands of dollars?! Puh-leeze. I'll spend those thousands on Law School instead.

As for men uninterested in being fathers or financial/emotional supporters of children they helped procreate by nulling their parental rights almost immediately--sounds fine with me. Hopefully this could lead to the end of a number of nasty child-support/custody disputes, that mainly do disrupt children's lives, and not in a positive light either. If some guys don't want any to do with these kids then fine, let them null their rights as parents. Women will just have to be more careful as to who they have children with, possibly use birth control more often to avoid these situations, and/or become financially secure enough to financially care for their child(ren) by themselves (which a lot of women are doing today and good for them).

Also NYMOM, I'm not quibbling or anything about this or bashing you, but since you're not a feminist then why did you put up your blog as a link on Feminist Majority's linking page? I'm just curious....

NYMOM said...

"My decision to never marry nor have children can be attributed to watching both of my sisters-in-law deal with their marriages, my mother during the divorce, talking to some of my married and divorced female teachers/professors about marriage, observing how our culture/society treats married women and mothers, the arduous physical/psychological ordeal of pregnancy and motherhood themselves, and then later on feminist influences. That and I'm just not the kind of person who gushes over kids, babies..."

You are FAR too young to make a decision like that. FAR too young...

I mean for now it's okay, you have plenty of time to change as you experience more of life.

For now, I would just keep an open mind about it if I were you.

"Also NYMOM, I'm not quibbling or anything about this or bashing you, but since you're not a feminist then why did you put up your blog as a link on Feminist Majority's linking page? I'm just curious..."

I NEVER gave anyone permission to put a link on their site to my blog except you and Trish Wilson(and she never did it). Masculiste posted a link to my blog on his site too and I NEVER gave him permission either.

The reason I didn't is that I don't want whoever posts the link to get a lot of harrassing posts like I have here. I've had to lock most of my posts to get rid of them.

However, I'm finding out that 'permission' doesn't mean much these days, as people post whatever they want anyway about you on their blog and you can't stop it.

I mean Trish Wilson informed us on her blog that she was listed in some index as hosting a PORN site.

She found it funny but I told her she needed to get that crap fixed. I mean who knows where they record that???

Actually Google just informed me that they can't do ANYTHING about 'content' on someone's blog. Can you believe it??? So people can say ANYTHING about you or even semimpose your head on someone's else body in a pix and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Unless you want to get your own attorney and sue them for defamation or something.

It's just a free for all in cyberspace, nothing but a free for all. It's all so new they don't have regulations in place yet, so it's like the wild west for now.

So no...I never gave that group Feministe Majority permission to put a link on their site to my blog.

But what do I do about it????

That's the question????

Without making more enemies on the internet. I mean I've already been banned or asked to leave a half dozen blogs or websites. So I'm wondering if I need to make any more enemies by contacting this group now?

Let me think about it for a while.

Thanks for telling me.