Friday, April 07, 2006

So-called Progressive Court Rulings Undermining Rights of All Women...

Virago, I was looking for some old posts of mine on how adoption of western legal systems in both Japan and Lebanon have been negatively impacting mothers and children in custody cases and I came across this...and I thought I'd re-post it...

I'm still searching for those other posts and the one on the Columbia University research...

But this one was interesting.

More of the On-going Manipulations of Men in their Never-Ending Attempts to be in Charge of Everything Again


Court hands sisters over to mother's lesbian lover

By Nick Britten
(Filed: 07/04/2006)

Two young sisters at the centre of a bitter custody battle were taken from their biological mother yesterday and sent to live with her former lesbian lover following a landmark court ruling.

The Court of Appeal ruled that although the natural mother had blood ties to the girls, that would no longer be deemed an advantage when both parties had brought the children up.

Because of their joint involvement they might both be considered the "natural parent", Lord Justice Thorpe said. The girls would be unable to distinguish between them on biological grounds.

The ruling marks a shift from the traditional view that the biological parent holds an advantage in custody battles.

The judge said: "We have moved into a world where norms that seemed safe 20 or more years ago no longer run. In the eyes of the child, the natural parent may be a non-biological parent who, by virtue of long settled care, has become the psychological parent."

The girls' natural mother, referred to as CG, had a seven-year relationship with her girlfriend, referred to as CW. She gave birth to the seven- and four-year-old sisters, known as A and B, via artificial insemination.

None of the parties can be identified to protect the girls' anonymity.

The court heard that the relationship broke down in 2002 and CG moved to a neighbouring house until she found a new lesbian partner in Leicester. They recently "married" in a civil partnership.

CW, 47, was denied access and any parental responsibility by a county court judge but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal last April and she was granted shared contact.

The judges said shared responsibility was "vital" for the girls' psychological health.

But as the children spent their summer holidays with CW, CG, a "headstrong and selfish" teacher, and her new partner secretly sold their house in Leicester and bought one in Cornwall, registering the children in a new school, a move the judges called "an appalling decision made in an afternoon". It was "a flagrant breach of the court's control of the arrangements for the children and an elaborate deception of CW".

When the family was tracked down, the High Court granted primary care of the children to the former partner, a decision ratified by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Lord Justice Thorpe, dismissing the appeal, said that same-sex partners should have the same rights as estranged heterosexual couples, and that the child's views on which partner was the psychological parent should be considered.

Lady Justice Hallet said she dismissed the appeal but "with a degree of hesitation".

"I am very concerned at the prospect of removing these children from the primary care of their only identifiable biological parent who has been their primary carer for most of the young lives and in whose care they appear to be happy and thriving."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SJGG2NJVRAPTFQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/07/nlesbian07.xml


Well it’s nice to see that this woman Lady Justice Hallet, had doubts, YET went along with the ruling anyway. How many ways can we say useless in English?

Once again demonstrating to mothers that putting other women into positions of power is no guarantee of any mercy being shown either to us or our children. Since some of the most vicious custody rulings against mothers have been handed down by other women.

Anyway, people are acting so stunned about this ruling but it’s nothing new, at least not in the US anyway and generally whatever we do here eventually finds it way to UK and every other country in western civilization.

So it was just a question of time before this lastest gender neutralized feminist fad hit British shores as well.

American Judges have been tossing out the whole notion of the mother/child bond for the last decade or so now and awarding children to live-in boyfriends (Christopher Rhodes perfect example: live in boyfriend who wanted a baby to play with, probably like you pick out a cute puppy at the pet shop), step persons, grandparents, recreational sperm donors missing in action for years. Probably even nannies and/or school teachers, a friendly neighbor will be eligible for custody next. That will be the next logical step in the progression of this mother-envy from a group of jealous male misfits and gender-neutralized feminists determined to destroy the last vestige of the bond between mother and child.

This is just more of the continuing disrespect and envy of men for mothers’ more important role in the bringing forth of life . Men cannot stand not being the center of the universe in something, so this is more of their never-ending attempts to neutralize mothers, more of their attention getting techniques such as this fixation with clown fish, penguins, other nonsense to give themselves a bigger role then merited by their actual real-life contribution.

As I have said in past posts, men are using these lesbian cases to get precedent set which will eventually negatively impact all mothers, both gay and straight.

Lesbians don’t appear to understand that going to court and winning these short-term victories ultimately winds up empowering MEN over WOMEN, each time they win a case.

This will eventually result in mothers having LESS RIGHTS overall, all mothers, BOTH gay and straight. It’s just a question of time before every one of these rulings will backfire on ALL mothers, ALL OF THEM. AND then everyone will be sitting around saying “how did that happen”…Well we can look back to this ruling and a 101 other rulings throughout western civilization that initially appear to be favoring lesbians, but in fact are nothing but men setting the backdrop for a loss of rights, respect, etc., for ALL mothers.

As EACH AND EVERY TIME a Judge tosses aside the biological connection between parent and child (like an old pair of shoes) that’s another nail in all mothers’ coffins as we are the supreme definitive biological connection to children…in spite of the way everyone wishes to paint a mother and father as being exactly alike in every way. In their hearts, I believe men know this to be a lie and this explains why their courts continue throwing out the biological connection to children and painting it as nothing very important. What they should be saying it that it’s not important to men, as their biological connection to children is tenuous, slight; something they sell in Great Britain for 15 lbs., obviously not something very important to them. However, God, evolution and nature obviously decreed only ONE of us to be the bearer of life…and that’s women in her role as mother.

Mother, under natural law, should automatically be deemed the custodian of her children, except in the rare cases of abuse and neglect, however the courts of men will continue to try to defy natural law. Mostly for reasons of envy, jealousy and greediness for the financial gain that comes with having custody of children today.

Additionally, I am going to make a small prediction. In another ten years NO WOMEN will be able to get impregnanted through anonymous insemination. NONE. Actually last year Great Britian made it illegal for a woman to have a child using anonymous insemination and I guarantee that this law will spread. YET now they have the audacity to paint themselves as concerned about lesbian families? This family they just decimated would not have EXISTED today, if it was up to Great Britain. It could NOT have, it would be illegal. Eventually it will probably be deemed some sort of crime to not name a man on the birth certificate of ever child born.

Thus, the gains lesbians thought they were making regarding creating their own families will have disappeared.

YET what will remain behind is the premise that a Judge can decide that the mother/child bond, which has existed since humanity first crawled out of the primal mist, is no longer of very much importance and that the courts of men have the right to hand a mother’s child over to someone else.

That is going to be the lesbian legacy to mothers and children.

Sadly, they are being used by men to pave the way for this continuing war against mothers and children, yet they just don’t see it and continue aiding and abetting these demented, jealous nitwits.

2 comments:

silverside said...

Bingo.

Over at familyscholar.org, they are arguing this case. The wingnuts are furious that some "queer girl" has the same rights as the FATHER, who of course should always have total control over his woman and kids. The liberals are busy arguing that the gay "parents" (ex-lovers to actual mothers) should have the same rights as mothers.

Goddess help us.

Just as soon as women have just enough equality to survive on their own (not paid equally to a man, but enough to get by), they're busy destroying your ability to be a mother unless you are under direct male control. What's the point of nominal economic independence then? What good is it if you are trapped in a bad marriage or relationship, or unable to get out because you are effectively blackmailed (e.g. you will lose custody or be granted "joint" custody with an unrelenting control freak, which is basically no custody.)Or if you can only avoid harrassment if you never have children or never get involved in any relationship, male or female?

NYMOM often points, correctly, to historic example. Here's mine. And actually it's from NYC and NYS. Back during the days of slavery (and it wasn't eliminated in NYS till the 1820s), African Americans were not unskilled laborers like in the south. On the contrary, due to labor shortages, they were trained for many of the most advanced trade skills of the time, skills that would have brought relatively high wages had they been white and free. But they weren't. So all that training and skill building did nothing to help their autonomy and security. As soon as slavery was phased out, as soon as African Americans thought they might be able to cash in on their skills, they were driven out of the skilled trades, and in many cases, driven out of the state altogether. Actually, there was a higher percentage of African Americans in NYC during the American Revolution than there was for years afterwards. In fact, till nearly half way into the 20C.

Lesson? College and a good job will mean diddly if it means you will lose custody, or face continual custodial challenges. Your hardearned job will mean nothing if you are paying child support to a lazy man who is still privileged in the labor force on account of his gender. Women and mothers need to realize that if we lose authority over our own children (basically put in a situation that is little advanced over what slave women faced), no amount of training, education, or professional status will be worth anything. You'll still be poor.

NYMOM said...

Exactly...

I keep trying to tell these crazy gender neutralized feminists that they are going to 'kill' their own movement if they keep supporting gender-neutral custody. As women will start giving up the 'perks' of feminism and just return to being stay-at-home mothers again with their husbands telling them how to vote.

The whole college and career path is going to be tossed out the window as soon as more women figure out that it has to potential to cost them their children.

So this is putting the death knell to the whole feminist movement...as women existed for centuries without these educational/economic rights but were always permitted to raise their own kids...

Feminists don't seem to understand that these new 'rights' are not a good enough substitute for our children.