Saturday, December 31, 2005

Online Child Support Petition

The online Child Support Petition almost has the 100 signatures we were looking for.

We currently have 84 signatures.

The link for signing is at:

Thanking everyone in advance who signs.

Here is the petition below. Please use the link above to sign. There is a comments section with your signature, but please keep your comments brief and polite.

To: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York

An act to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in relation to child support payments in New York State.

This bill would change the manner we currently award child support and make it fairer to children where one parent has a much higher income then the other. Instead of using custody as the criteria for a child support award; we would now (in certain cases) use disparities in income between households as Pennsylvania has since the Colonna vs. Colonna ruling last May.

Paragraph (g) of subdivision 1-b of section 240 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 41 of the laws of 1992, and paragraph (g) of subdivision 1 of section 413 of the family court act as amended by chapter 41 of the laws of 1992, are both amended to remove the requirement that any court order of child support be in the amount of at least $25 month and replace it with a Judge may use his discretion in these sorts of income disparity cases to make a child support award to a lower income non-custodial parent.

Situations have arisen in court whereby a custodial parent`s income greatly exceeded the non-custodial parent`s income, and yet courts are mandated to award at least $25 a month in child support from the non-custodial parent. This change in the law would allow a judge to evaluate the particular circumstances of each case when awarding child support and if significant disparities in income are apparent, the higher income parent (even if custodial) would be required to pay child support to the lower income parent (even if non-custodial) so that the households would have parity in living situations facilitating the best interest of the children involved.

This would nullify the situations, as they exist now, where very low income parents (such as formerly unemployed stay-at-home mothers who NEVER worked) are currently forced to pay child support to custodial parents (who could very well be millionaires even) just because the higher income parent was designated custodial by our courts.

It sets up scenarios now where many lower income formerly stay-at-home mothers have been imputed income and forced into destitution trying to pay child support to a higher income custodial parent. Frequently the lower-income parent winds up unable to even visit their children due to warrants being issued for their arrest for not being able to pay imputed child support. Actually the situation with Colonna vs. Colonna ended exactly with this scenario as Mary Colonna, the non-custodial mother in this case, has lost her home due to back taxes owed which she was unable to pay and I believe missed her summer visitation with her children last year due to this.

Additionally it can also have the unintended effect of having children living dual lives; as when they are with the higher income custodial parent they are living at a middle-income standard of living whereas on their visits with the non-custodial parent, they could be consigned to living in a trailor eating nothing but hot dogs on every visit.


The Undersigned


You can also Email the Honorable Senator Hillary Clinton to ask her to support this bill on your own.

Advertising Moms Web Ring/Join List /Previous /Next /Random/ Previous 5 /Next 5/ Skip Previous /Skip Next

Friday, December 30, 2005

Good Discussion Regarding Gender Neutrality but Avoidance of the Far Larger Issue

I posted some excerpts from this interview with Kate O'Beirne on her new book, "Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining our Schools, Families, Military and Sports.

She had some very good answers in here to some critical issues such as one that has always puzzled me particularly, which is why these gender neutralized feminist Judges hate women who are mothers so much. Especially stay-at-home mothers, who have been losing their kids in great numbers due to gender neutral custody rulings in our courtrooms.

Unfortunately Kate O'Beirne (like many feminists actually) appears to have missed the more important point regarding this whole attempt to gender neutralize our society. Which is how can we admit that there are essential differences between men and women that will impact every facet of their lives including the military issue and NOT admit the same thing regarding the care, custody and control of our children? Which is a far larger issue for women since most of us (at least we used to anyway, until men starting pulling this custody war crap) will become mothers. Far fewer women enter the military. So if we are going to discuss gender neutral issues that impact people in our society, we need to start looking at the ones that impact far more of us and is NOT the military one.

Thus, using gender neutrality as a yardstick to cause women to lose their children is as wrong as it is to force women into front line military duty.

Same thing.

Our society cannot and should not continue the current trend of allowing millions of fit loving mothers to loss custody of their children for no good reason. Gender neutrality not being a sufficient one. I'm sorry but the best person to raise a child has already been decided (other then the rare cases where a mother is guilty of abuse or neglect) and that choice, burden, glory (whatever you wish to think of it as) rightfully belongs to a child's MOTHER. This issue was settled eons ago by God, evolution, nature, (whatever, take your pick) and the person chosen for the task of bearing, caring and raising the young of every species including our own is WOMAN as MOTHER...

Sorry for the ones who don't like this fact.

Any complaints take it up with God, Evolution, nature...whatever...

The state, unless PROVEN abuse or neglect is involved, should have NO right to force a mother into a courtroom to go through a whole dog and pony show having to prove she's the person who will always act in the best interest of her children.

That should be assumed to be the case unless someone has proof otherwise. Of course, the burden of proof (as it always was in the past) should be on the person who wishes custody to be transferred to them to prove a mother unfit. That is the standard we need to return to with a 'fit' mother automatically having custody.

As it always was in human history, not just here btw, but everywhere.


Since there is NO other society, NONE, including western society until recently, that believes men and women are equally invested in children (especially infants) and that fathers should have custody over a mother's objection. These are lies put out by mens and fathers rights groups and gender neutralized feminists trying to claim that women only recently were allowed custody of our children. The point of these lies is an attempt to imply women NEVER raised our own children, like this is a gift we received from men or feminists just recently in our history.

Actually the real truth is that historically most children were never in any custody. Divorce was rare and for the most part if abandonment or divorce did happen in the past, children were left in the defacto custody of their own mothers. Those few children in court-ordered custody or conservatorship were children who had estates or wealth of some kind which needed to be administered. Not your ordinary kid. As it appears that when kids are worth no money, the only person traditionally interested in them was their own mothers.

What has changed for western children is that today every child is worth something in either child support, tax benefits/credits, citizenship, or a whole assortment of public benefits. So now children are a prize to be won. I understand men are even beginning to fight now to get the WIC program name changed. So that a program orginally begun to benefit pre and post-partum women, infants and children (who are the ONLY ones who actually go through any trauma in a pregnancy/birth/nursing situation and needing extra nutrition due to this) now men want to begin getting food through WIC too...Although what men do during pregnancy, labor and delivery, or nursing an infant after the fact to actually justify getting extra food is beyond me. Anyway these benefits I've highlighted above and more flowing to someone for having the care, custody and control of a child are a recent historic development and explains the whole 'custody wars' phenomenon we are currently facing.

Remember this, women are not going to be willing to invest themselves in having any kids if they have to spent the next 18 years afterwards looking over the shoulder afraid they are going to be dragged into a custody hearing. Or have to face down some crazed gender neutralized feminist or fathers' rights supporter as a Judge.

So yes, Kate O'Beirne is correct, there are essential differences between men and women; however, we need to address ALL of them honestly. Not just cherry pick the ones that we wish to discuss, while ignoring the ones we don't.

"December 29, 2005, 8:19 a.m.
Women Who Make the World Worse
Kate O’Beirne calls feminists on their bad ideas.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

"They talk "freedom of choice," but feminists are too contemptuous of dissenting women to allow them to choose freely how to live their lives without ridicule and disdain," Kate O'Beirne writes in her new book, Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. And she would know. Having taken on some feminist stalwarts on Capitol Hill and the likes of Crossfire, Kate puts a final (or so we can hope) nail in feminism's coffin in her new book, calling their bad ideas out with facts and figures and good sense.

NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez recently talked to NR Washington Editor Kate O'Beirne about Women Who Make the World Worse.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Kate, knowing you and your reputation, I was not surprised to read that you were a traitor to your sex even in law school. Does wanting to see other women fail just come naturally to you?

Kate O'Beirne: Having been raised with three sisters and educated by women in a girls-only high school and all-female college, it was jarring to find myself labeled as a traitor to my sex. Some of my best friends were women! But I never believed that men and women were interchangeable, that marriage was a patriarchal plot, or that women's equality rested on abortion rights. So wanting to see feminists fail came naturally to me.

Lopez: You mentioned the influence of the women in your background. But does being the mother of boys make you especially sensitive to women who make male lives worse?

O'Beirne: The men in our lives can shape our views on the most destructive ideology afoot. I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement. We live with the destructive feminist agenda because the fathers or husbands of so many of them, including Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Jane Fonda, never failed to fail them. The views of these angry, abandoned women inform the modern women's movement.

Lopez: You write that "A battle was won when the ETA was defeated, but feminists went on to win the war." How did they win — it lost, for Pete's sake — and if they won why don't they act like winners?

O'Beirne: What feminists couldn't impose by constitutional amendment (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly) they have imposed through the schools, college faculties, and the culture, by judicial fiat and advocacy dressed up as legislation. Don't be fooled by their militant insistence that women's equality has been thwarted. These women are chronically dissatisfied and qualified for only one job: professional feminist. They are generously paid, largely by taxpayers, but also by corporations anxious to look good on "women's issues." The fact that American women are the most privileged women in the history of mankind (woops!) must be vehemently denied.

Because their goal of a sex-blind society is frustrated by biology (see my last chapter — "Mother Nature Is a Bitch"), feminists' schemes are increasingly coercive. In that sense, they are losers.

Lopez: Abortion gets the rap as the topic you can't bring up in polite company, but daycare is pretty incendiary too. Talk about day care's healthy and developmental drawbacks and you're mommy warring. But our reticence to talk about it is a problem, isn't it?

O'Beirne: Any discussion of day care's drawbacks invites the wrath of the child-care industry and their friends in the media. Proponents of the male model of career success for women and substitute care for young children — typically working mothers themselves — use subterfuge and censorship to thwart the free choices women make. As you'll learn in Chapter 2, "Day Care Good; Mother Bad," the propagandists don't just insist that day care benefits children, they see stay-at-home mothers as a timid and fearful lot whose full-time attention damages their children.

Lopez: Why do you raise questions about women in the military while we're at war? Don't we need every man or woman we can get in our overstretched military?

O'Beirne: In the lull of peacetime, regulations that kept women in uniform at a safe distance from combat were lifted. We are now paying the price and being made to think that our national defense rests on the ability to deploy teenage girls and single mothers. What a disgrace. In the name of a phony equality, the military shouldn't ask women to serve where they don't have an equal chance to survive. Experience with integrating the service academies and the great majority of military specialties has shown that women can't and don't meet the male physical standards. The institutionally self-confident Marine Corps hasn't integrated its basic training and has little trouble recruiting the kind of good men who recognize that women should be protected from physical threats.

Lopez: Has Hillary Clinton's work making the world worse only begun? Would a President Rodham Clinton unleash a destructive feminist nightmare on the world much worse than anything Geena Davis could ever portray?

O'Beirne: Oh boy. Hillary Clinton is a committed feminist. She's a true believer in the grievance agenda and promotes the myth of stunted progress for women's equality. She would reliably be one of the women who make the world worse by endorsing all of feminism's pet causes — strict sex quotas for college sports, "girl power" in our schools, the "epidemic" of domestic violence, abortion on demand (despite her phony rhetoric), universal, federally funded day care, enforced "equal pay for equal work" and women in combat. I have to lie down now."

Again as I said earlier Kate O'Beirne and many others like her wish to pick and chose the things they like out of the whole gender neutral feminist-idea package. Sadly they remind me of many American Catholics. They want to just pick and chose what they like about religion (the elaborate masses making holidays meaningful, the church weddings and other ceremonies that bestow a deeper meaning on these personal-family events) meanwhile totally ignoring the rest they don't like (such as no pre-marital sex, no divorce or birth control, etc.,) yet think they are following church teachings and are a serious Catholic.

It's inconsistent and most of all, as Dr. Spock would say, it's illogical.

Thus, it's the same thing with gender neutrality. You cannot claim there are essential differences in humanity due to gender and then pick and chose the ones you like and say well in this area we'll all be the same, but in this we'll be different.


Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Feminists' Continue their Relentless March into Gender Neutrality


NEWS: A look at what's in the final bill.

By Ann Friedman

December 19, 2005

The Violence Against Women Act gained final approval from Congress on Saturday, just before the holiday recess. Final negotiations between the House and Senate versions of the bill centered on language and funding for crucial programs such as rape prevention and education, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and training for health care providers.

Women's rights advocates, who had worried that important provisions would be lost at the last minute, are celebrating the bill's passage as a major success.

"There was a sustained level of drama, trying to figure out if those desperately-needed programs were going to make it in," says Lisalyn R. Jacobs of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. "I guess Santa decided he was going to be beneficent."

The legislation also contains a section "clarifying" that VAWA-funded programs are gender-neutral. Men’s rights groups, which have long pushed for VAWA to be made “male-inclusive,” are hailing the language as a victory. But domestic violence groups say VAWA has never denied services to men.

"From our perspective, VAWA was never discriminatory. So we don’t necessarily understand why there was such an organized movement toward incorporating that language," says Cheryl O'Donnell of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. "Of course we want to ensure that services are available to all victims of violence.

At the same time, the reason it’s called the Violence Against Women Act is that it's recognizing that women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence."

Well yes, Virginia we know that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, just like we know that women are overwhelmingly the parent who invests the most blood, sweat and tears into children.


Yet, pushing gender neutrality into the language of custody law and burying our heads in the sand on that issue has enabled millions of men to wrestle custody of children from normal, fit, loving mothers. While condemning children to years of being used to either enable men to avoid paying child support or to torture their mothers using the court system as a club against them.

So yes, the gender neutral language WILL make a difference.

It will probably mean that another tool has been added to the “I’m going to take the kids away from you now and you are never going to see them again” toolbox that men have available now THANKS TO FEMINISM.

Thus enabling some idiot to torture another mother and her kids claiming she is the one who is abusive to him and then stealing services from what should be a sanctuary for women.

Feminism, at this point in it’s strange and twisted evolutionary history, has proven basically useless to mothers in this whole decades long custody war crisis that mothers have been experiencing. Their mindless support of gender neutrality in custody decisions has led to millions of fit and loving mothers losing their children and since most women become mothers (or at least used to), they can pretty much cross those women off their supporters list.

If history is any guide to what will happen next, feminists will fall into a similar useless pattern vis-à-vis abused women as they did with ordinary fit mothers. Probably eventually striving to have every shelter reflect a male population of 50%, so feminists can show they are totally gender neutral.

Thus, it appears that the more time passes the more useless the entire feminist movement becomes to women. AND like most entities that have outlived their usefulness (such as dinosaurs) extinction as a real possibility begins to loom on their horizon…

Monday, December 26, 2005

Women Who Wish to be Mothers Must Plan Accordingly

Finally a common sense assessment of the actual costs versus perceived benefits of various college degrees from census data. Which I might add, at this point, is the only data I trust. Sadly today much data is put out by either so-called advocacy groups, or even these internationally based non-governmental organizations, which stand to profit from the statistics they release. Frequently they appear to ‘juice’ up the problem they are organized to address, thus getting a larger amount of the budget pie then the real numbers would have entitled them too. Using this approach no problem can ever be solved nor any public policy ever created to effectively address it, as this would mean some group would not be able to get the same share or even a bigger share of public funding once this happened.

Anyway this topic is particularly important to women in their role as mothers for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, is the timeline element of investing years in an education when this investment is structured to take place during the same precious years that are also the most fertile of a women’s reproductive life. Women’s fertility timeline is far shortly then men. Pretty much we know this now after Sylvia Ann Hewitt’s book “Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children” came out. Prior to this getting realistic information from anyone regarding our reproductive timeline was like pulling teeth and women were frequently assured that we really didn’t need to start worrying about declining fertility until our mid to late 30s. Actually the real time to begin worrying is really almost a decade earlier. As women’s actually fertility peaks between 27 and 28 years old and then begins the slow decline that will continue until menopause begins sometime in the mid 40s to early 50s.

Much propaganda was generated using these facts. Painting them to mean women didn’t need to begin worrying about declining fertility until their mid-to late 30s a few years before menopause actually begins, but this was not really true. Even if a woman is not actually in the midst of menopause yet but just a few years away, doesn’t mean she can still easily get pregnant. That’s probably the main reason we see this sudden interest in ‘donor eggs’ from young women. Interestingly enough many of the older women seeking these ‘donor eggs’ want college age women to donate. Why? Because this is the age when nature intended women to have children and thus their bodies as well as their ‘donor eggs’ are at peak levels. Of course, these are also the least likely women to wish to donate eggs. As with their whole life stretching out ahead of them, with all the endless possibilities, why should these young women risk the painful and arduous procedures that go hand in hand with donating her eggs to a total stranger? Not to mention the risk that she might injure herself in the process and not be able to have her own children later.

Of course, this has meant that women who waited too long to have children as they listened to feminist’s propaganda and pursued a career instead, now are offering anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 to young college girls to donate eggs to them. This sort of money by the way is far too much of an inducement to a poorer student to be ethical, thus even this should be regulated, but that’s a topic for another day.

Anyway, women investing this much time during our most fertile years in an education and career might not pay off, even financially, to the extent originally thought. As we can see in this sentence taken from the article below which indicates that “the Census Bureau's figures show that someone with a liberal arts master's degree earned just $5 a month more, on average, than someone with a bachelor's in the same field ($3,460 compared to $3,455). ”

Now clearly in the fields women predominate in such as social work, teaching, early childhood education (working in a daycare center), etc., which require a master’s degree for the most part, you ONLY make $5.00 more monthly then someone with a bachelor’s degree in the same field. Not to mention that even with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, you still might not be making enough to justify the $20,000 to $30,000 annually you are expending for the four to six years it takes to get the required degrees for work in one of those fields.

The other thing the article showed me was that the two fields where a degree still made the most difference in earnings (besides law and medicine) were in computer-related fields and engineering, which women generally don’t major in anyway. Regarding law and medicine, yes, they still make enough income to justify the cost of the educational investment IF a woman actually goes on to become a PRACTICING lawyer or a doctor. It doesn’t however if you decide to quit working after you have your children to stay home with them. Then yes, you have wasted the equivalent of over $100,000 to $150,000 dollars of our society’s educational investment in you. Not to mention taking up a scarce slot that could have been used for someone who was actually going to graduate and become a practicing doctor. I have to say I personally don’t consider it a loss to have one less practicing attorney wandering around out there, however, so staying home with a law degree could actually be considered a public benefit.

One mystery was cleared up for me with this article; however, which is why fewer men then women go on to get degrees today. They figured out, before we did, that in many cases it just isn’t worth it (with the exception of a few fields) when you look at the dollars invested in education versus the actual return in additional income upon graduation.

Anyway to wrap up, time is just as important to women (if they intend to become mothers) as future income. One can always go back to school in their late 30s – early 40s (when your kids are teenagers) but it is not so easy to have children then. Additionally women might even want to investigate the possibility of starting their own small business versus investing anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 in a college education at that point.

However as I have said earlier, proper planning must take place in women’s lives in order to achieve these goals. We, unfortunately to not have the same time to fool around, experiment, try on different hats, etc., before we settle down as men do. Not if we wish to avoid being childless anyway like Maureen Dowd, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Condi Rice, Harriet Miers, Kay Bailey Hutchingson, and thousands more women just like them…

Will Your Degree Pay for Itself?
by Liz Pulliam Weston

With college tuitions heading toward the stratosphere this year, you might well be wondering whether a degree is still a good investment, especially if you're facing the prospect of going into debt to pay the tab.

And if, as we all know, some bachelor's and master's degrees are much more lucrative than others, which are the best investments? To find out, I sat down with my handy-dandy financial calculator to play with some numbers.

It would be an impressive understatement, by the way, to call these figures a rough estimate. I had to make too many assumptions and leave out too many factors for these numbers to be anything other than a parlor game for those who might be interested.

But what they told me supported both common sense and what I've observed in the employment marketplace. For example:

o Associate's degrees are a slam dunk. These two-year degrees seem to result in a massive payback, compared to their relatively low cost, for a high school graduate.

o Ditto, usually, a bachelor's degree. Any bachelor's degree you get at a public university is likely to pay off handsomely, as well. If you're attending a private college, though, you might want to steer clear of education degrees.

o Some degrees are a step back. Thinking of a master's degree in a liberal arts or social sciences field? Let's hope you're in it for the love of learning, because on average there doesn't seem to be any financial payoff. ·

o Professional degrees rule. There's a reason why people borrow tons of money to attend law and medical schools. The return for a professional degree is huge.

Last point, the return for a professional degree is huge IF YOU GO ON TO PRACTICE.

That’s the key.

Anyway hope I gave all mothers out there and future mothers some ideas to ponder.

Also everyone have a Happy New Year, enjoy yourselves and stay safe.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Defacto Parental Decisions Continue Legal Attacks on Mothers

"Friday, November 4, 2005

Court redefines parenthood

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter

The Washington Supreme Court established what amounts to a new category of parents -- one that's the legal equivalent of moms and dads -- when it ruled Thursday that a lesbian who was neither the biological nor adoptive parent of a girl she helped raise has co-parenting rights to the child.

The decision, which significantly impacts parenting laws in the state, may also signal the direction the high court will take in deciding a gay-marriage lawsuit pending before it -- a prospect that delights same-sex marriage advocates and horrifies opponents.

In the 7-2 decision hailed by gays as an acknowledgement of the complexity of families, the court recognized what it called a "de-facto or psychological parent" under the state's common law as one who "in all respect functions as the child's actual parent."

The attorney for Page Britain, the child's biological mother, warned that the ruling strips away parental authority, setting the stage for any adult who helps raise a child -- from roommates to live-in lovers -- to make parental claims. He will recommend his client appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

Writing for the majority, Justice Bobbe J. Bridge said, "In the face of advancing technologies and evolving notions of what comprises a family unit, this case causes us to confront the manner in which our state ... defines the terms 'parents' and 'families.' "

She said neither the U.S. nor state Supreme Court has ever restricted the definition of parent or family by biology. "Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de-facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," she wrote.

In regard to common law, the ruling said, "the courts will endeavor to administer justice according to the promptings of reason and common sense, which are the cardinal principles of the common law."

Six other states also recognize de-facto parents."

I really really wish women would stop doing this. Going into court to decide these issues has the potential to build up a state-by-state erosion of the laws protecting the rights of all other mothers, particularly single mothers. Don’t women understand that these defacto parenting decisions are simply being used to undermine the rights of ALL mothers.

All mothers are at risk when Judges are empowered to decide who should be the other parent of our children, if anyone at all. Since, yes, the ultimate decision by a mother can be that she doesn’t want another person to be given decision-making power over her child’s life. Sadly in today’s world with so many competing interests in children and not all for good, a mother could decide it’s in her child’s best interest that she and she alone be the final arbitrator concerning said child.

The Jerica Rhodes case is a perfect example of how leaving these sorts of decisions to a Judge undermines the rights of not just the mother, but the child as well, leaving them at the mercy of total strangers really.

Now there is another state in the union that has taken that right away from a mother and given it to a Judge to make that decision. Additionally the article tells us six other states now have similar laws on the books which recognize defacto parents. Between defacto parents, step persons now demanding rights as psychological parents, five million grandparents now with custody of other mothers’ children, where in the heck are we heading with this if it continues?

Of course, this is all the result of men trying to be in charge of everything again. I understand that the latest census showed 36% of children were born this year to single women. Yet rather then accept that irreversible fact and begin thinking of ways to assist those mothers and their children achieve their full potential as citizens; instead, men set up these sorts of legal situations and empowering of other women to act as surrogates for men (such as step persons or grandparents) so mothers have more of their rights eroded.

Because make no mistake about it, men are behind this, in spite of the lesbian lead. Since the question has to be asked as to the why of giving legal standing to a lesbian in bringing a case like this to court?


Especially since the Washington State Supreme Court was the author of the Troxel decision, which wouldn’t even give a grandparent overnight visitation. NOW you are giving some unrelated person parental rights?

So again why?

In my opinion, this is because it’s the perfect setup to get what amounts to an anti-mother ruling advanced, while appearing to be ‘assisting’ some individual woman. As who can argue the point now that this ruling MIGHT ultimately negatively impact every other mother, after it helped just one.

We saw this recently in New Jersey last May, when the court there allowed one unrelated woman to be placed on the birth certificate of her partner’s child, when she could have waited the six months or so that it would have taken an adoption to go through and had the same result. Using the ‘best interest of the child’ standard Superior Judge Patricia Medina Talbert of Newark granted the unrelated lesbian immediate parental rights to her partners’ child.

Women don’t seem to understand that building up case law that it’s in a child’s best interest to have two parents on a birth certificate, EVEN if it’s a child conceived by lesbians through artificial insemination with an anonymous donor, can one day translate into it ALWAYS being in a child’s best interest to have two parents on EVERY birth certificate.

Thus having the result of no more women being allowed to use anonymous donor insemination, as two people will ALWAYS have to be on a birth certificate. While at the same time, empowering Judges with the right to make the decision to place someone on your child’s birth certificate, even if you are AGAINST it.

It is clear now that lesbians from New Jersey to Washington State are in the vanguard here, being used by the legal system to advance an anti-mother agenda. Thus, if they continue to take these cases to court, we will eventually see a string of states which have eroded the rights of all mothers (both gay and straight) and hindered us from protecting our children’s best interest.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Memorial Post for Little Jerica and her Mother Lisa Mason (Colon)

When tomorrow starts without me and I'm not there to see, if the sun should rise and find your eyes all filled with tears for me.

I wish so much you wouldn't cry the way you did today, while thinking of the many things we didn't get to say.

I know how much you love me, as much as I love you, and each time that you think of me I know you'll miss me too.

When tomorrow starts without me please try to understand, that an angel came and called my name and took me by the hand.

It said my place was ready in heaven far above, and that I'd have to leave behind all those I dearly love.

But as I turned to walk away, a tear fell from my eye, for all my life, I'd always thought I didn't want to die.

I had so much to live for, so much yet to do, it seemed almost impossible that I was leaving you.

I thought of all the yesterdays, the good ones and the bad, I thought of all the love we shared, and all the fun we had.

If I could relive yesterday just even for awhile, I'd say good bye and kiss you and maybe see you smile.

But then I fully realized that this could never be, for emptiness and memories would take the place of me.

When I thought of worldly things I might miss tomorrow I thought of you, and when I did, my heart was filled with sorrow.

When I walked through heaven's gates I felt so much at home, when God looked down and smiled at me from His golden throne.

He said, "This is eternity, and all I've promised you, for life on earth is past but here it starts anew.

I promise no tomorrow but today will always last, and since each day's the same day, there's no longing for the past.

So when tomorrow starts without me don't think we're far apart, for every time you think of me I'm right here in your heart.

Christopher Rhodes - Guilty

Well it’s over, at least Part I is.

As this monster, Christopher Rhodes, has finally been found guilty of murdering that poor little girl Jerica.

I extend my sincerest condolences to the mother of that poor kid, Lisa Mason (Colon) as well as to Jerica's brothers and sisters (who never got to meet their sister due to this monster unjustly being giving custody).

Dozens of questions still remain unanswered; however, and a full investigation is still needed to be undertaken on this case.

The people of this state (especially its mothers) need to know how this monster got custody of this kid to begin with… As that issue has YET to be addressed.

"Justice for Jerica
Rhodes guilty on all counts

By Oliver Mackson
Times Herald-Record

Goshen – People will ask "why?" for years when they talk about the murder of 7-year-old Jerica Rhodes, but a jury yesterday left no doubt about the "who:" The killer was Christopher Rhodes, who called himself Jerica's father.

Rhodes, 28, of Highland Falls, was convicted of murder and seven lesser felonies yesterday in Orange County Court. The jury delivered its verdict at 2 p.m., after about eight hours of deliberations over two days. The verdict could send him to prison for 29 years to life.

Rhodes showed no emotion at the verdict, heeding a warning from his lawyer that the judge would not tolerate any outbursts. His parents and his younger brother were a daily presence during the trial, but they weren't in the courtroom for the verdict. When they got the news from Rhodes' lawyer, Sol Lesser, outside the courthouse, Rhodes family members quickly got into their cars and departed.

The verdict arrived nearly 10 months to the day after Jerica's body was found on the morning of Jan. 27, in a boys bathroom at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls. Jerica, a first-grader, had been stabbed 16 times, an act of violence that thrust the little village into the national spotlight.

From the start of the three-week trial, prosecutors told the jury that they might never know why Jerica was murdered. Rhodes insisted he didn't kill her, and he even took the unusual step of taking the stand in his own defense to proclaim his innocence.

The jury didn't buy it.

"There was no motive when we began. There was no motive today. But at least today we have accountability, and that's more important," said Assistant District Attorney David Byrne, the lead prosecutor."

Can someone explain to me WHY we need a motive when a drug addict commits a crime?

When you are high on dope you can do ANYTHING and not even remember it the next day…You could probably wipe out your entire family, including the dog, and pass a lie detector test the next morning claiming you had nothing to do with it.

Could we wake up here please, and realize we do NOT need a motive.

He was on DOPE…that’s the motive.

"In addition to murder and possession of a weapon, Rhodes was convicted of six felonies for concocting bogus letters that purported to be "confessions" to Jerica's killing by another inmate at Orange County Jail. Rhodes told the jury that he cooked up the letters out of desperation to get out of jail for a crime he didn't commit.

The phony letters backfired. Byrne pointed out to the jury that they contained details that only the killer could know, such as Jerica's muffled screams of "Daddy, Daddy" as she was stabbed."

I’m against the death penalty but for this detail ALONE, I’d be willing to pull the switch on this dirtbag…

The only consolation here is that for the next 29 years to life, Rhodes will be hearing this muffled voice screaming 'Daddy' every night in his dreams.

Pleasant dreams, you monster.

"The weapon was never found, which was another detail contained in the fake letters.

When Rhodes is sentenced on Jan. 4, prosecutors will ask Judge Jeffrey G. Berry to treat the murder and the bogus letters as separate crimes and impose consecutive sentences.

That would expose Rhodes to a maximum sentence of 29 years to life in state prison."

AND I say good riddance to bad rubbish…

Not that this will help much as ten to one, Rhodes will CONTINUE this lie in jail and have other inmates convinced he is only in prison due to a conspiracy by the establishment against him.

In fact it was really an establishment conspiracy against mothers and their children that led to Christopher Rhodes getting custody of this poor kid to being with…as Jerica Rhodes SHOULD have been with her mother and her other siblings.

She would still be alive today if these gender neutralized social engineers hadn’t chosen this poor kid to be used like a lab rat in a vast experiment, trying to see how many kids they can wrestle away from mothers to hand over to fathers.

They are the real criminals here the ones who aided and abetted this Christopher Rhodes.

"His mother, Linda Rhodes, watched and wept when her son testified on Friday. When the jury got the case on Monday, a well-wisher from Highland Falls passed by her, lightly squeezed her shoulders and whispered, "May God be with you."

Oh hold the pail while I puke.

This woman helped her drug addict son steal a child from it’s mother, aids and abets him in keeping this kid from its mother and her siblings for almost SEVEN YEARS and now she’s painted sympathetically in this article.

It’s been very clear for a while now that the news coverage of this crime was very inadequate, very inadequate.

Instead of focusing on the people, including the Judge and whole legal establishment up there in Highland Falls, who helped this guy kidnap this kid and keep her away from her mother for almost SEVEN YEARS, we have been given nothing but story after story trying to smear Jerica Rhodes mother, Lisa Mason.

Now Lisa Colon, I was just informed by email--so I believe she may have recently married. Congratulations!!!

Anyway, I believe we are owed an explanation for this lack of proper news coverage on this case. As the people of New York State were denied the full story of how this was allowed to happen.

Why was Christopher Rhodes given custody of a 5 month old infant, which was not his?

Why was his record of domestic violence ignored by the police when they responded to the initial 911 call, as well as the courts later?

Why was Lisa Mason and this child not taken to a shelter immediately by the police officers who initially responded to the first 911 call, seven years ago?

Was there a mens/fathers’ rights group or attorney aiding and abetting this guy to get custody and if so, are they liable for any damages in helping a drug addict get custody of and eventually murder an innocent child?

Why weren’t the grandparents, the girlfriend or the teachers charged in this case as well, as I find it hard to believe that this man was a good father figure for seven years and then just up and stabs this little girl 16 times in the head, face and neck…

Surely there were things happening right along and these people’s silence aided this guy, as this 16 times stabbing sounds to me like the culmination of YEARS OF ABUSE, YEARS, ending in this final horror.

Finally I think this newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, needs to assign another reporter to do a series on this case, as this Oliver Mackson did a very sorry job on this story. Ten months after the fact and we know as much today as we did the day it happened, which is absolutely nothing, except the dirt he dug up on Jerica's mother which had NOTHING to do with the murder, NOTHING...

The people of this state (especially its mothers and innocent children) deserve better.