Sunday, October 29, 2006

Three Strikes Law for Judges

This ruling is a perfect example of why we need to pass a law mandating a three strikes rule for Judges. Whereas when they legislate from the bench ignoring the rule of law, their decision is reviewed and they are fined if found to be ignoring the law. Three times a fine and then their license to practice law is revoked.

The history of this case is that the so-called ‘biological’ father and his girlfriend left these infants in the hospital for 8 days with no contact, other then the initial visit on the day of their birth. The mother was sent home from the hospital whereupon she was eventually contacted by the hospital and informed that the infants would be sent to foster care if no one picked them up. So she went down to get them herself.

In spite of her original poor judgment in getting involved in this surrogacy for money scheme, she was rightfully awarded sole custody by the first hearing Judge, who conclude as any rational being would that there is NO EXCUSE whatsoever to not be there for your new-born infants every freakin day…you don’t leave three newborns in a hospital without even a visit no matter the insurance issues. Nor do you leave them in a hospital nursery long enough that someone else has to be contacted to pick them up or risk them being sent to foster care.

Additionally the children were in the custody of their mother for well over two years. Thus it was not in their best interests to be removed from the only home they had ever known and be handed over to this reckless sperm donor a few months ago. If the court couldn’t see it’s way to awarding her custody as the childrens’ actual mother, then surely it would have been on safe grounds to award her custody as the ‘psychological parent’.

Once again we see Judges ignoring the best interests of children in order to placate men.

This ruling is outrageous as was the initial one reversing custody of those poor kids.

We need to get a Three Strikes for Judges Law going in Pa and every other state in the union actually.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_re_us/triplets_custody

Pa. court refuses surrogate mom's appeal
Sat Oct 28, 5:26 PM ET

PITTSBURGH - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal filed by a surrogate mother who lost custody of triplets she delivered nearly three years ago to their biological father.

A lower court had ruled in April that Danielle Bimber had no standing to challenge the custody rights of James Flynn, 65. Since then, the boys have lived with Flynn in Kirtland, Ohio.

The decision Tuesday means Bimber must now appeal to a federal court if she wants the case to continue. She did not return a phone call to The Associated Press on Saturday and it wasn't clear whether she plans to appeal.

"I knew there was a 95 percent chance that I wasn't going to get them back," Bimber told The Journal of Corry, Pa., for Friday's editions. "Now I know it's 100."

Still to be decided is a suit Flynn filed that seeks $350,000, which includes legal fees, child support and the $20,000 surrogate fee he paid Bimber to bear the children.

Flynn contracted with Bimber in 2001 and agreed to pay her to carry the babies for him and his girlfriend. The three boys were born in November 2003.

Bimber took the children home eight days later and raised them with her husband because, she said, Flynn and his girlfriend didn't name the children or visit them for several days. (emphasis mine: This comment in the article is misleading, as the hospital themselves contacted Bimber and told her they were ready to place the infants in foster care if no one came to get them. Thus this article is another example of bias against mothers in the media trying to mitigate the irresponsibility of the father's action here.)

Flynn and his girlfriend saw the children the day they were born and said insurance and medical issues related to the triplets' premature births kept them from visiting in the days afterward. (emphasis mine. Excuse me but bullcrap...there is NO excuse for not visiting or being with your newborn infants for eight days. NONE.)...

11 comments:

silverside said...

I'm not that far from Erie, just up the road.

I think surrogacy is idiocy. Don't think there is any reason for it to exist. Well, maybe in rare cases, like a sister for a sister. But as a widespread commercial practice, nope. Ban it. Creates more problems that it solves.

Anonymous said...

Refering to the man as "reckless sperm donor" is wrong. Regardless of whether the woman was more involved with the children (because of pregnancy), she was involved in the same reckless behavior with the man. Also, although she eventually went and got the kids, she still let her newborn children sit in a hospital for eight days, which, as you said, really doesn't have any excuse. So if you're going to call the man a "reckless sperm donor" you should call the woman a "reckless mother" at least, if you can really call her a mother.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BloggerNoggin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
booboo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

Yes silverside.

I agree with you 100%.

I would make it illegal to do this for money anymore...but if you wanted to voluntarily help out a relative or close friend and do it, that's up to you...but for money it should be illegal...

That would cut down about 99.9% of the current nonsense going on...

NYMOM said...

"...you should call the woman at least a "reckless mother"..."

Yes, I'll admit she's no prize package...but there is such a thing as redemption and I think she redeemed herself by walking back into a situation when she could have 'legally' turned her back and walked away from it.

Legally she was nothing to the children from the moment of their birth. She was home, she had her $20,000. Whether or not they were sent to foster care 'legally speaking' was not her responsiblity or concern...

She redeemed herself when she showed back up at the hospital to prevent that...and she had the children for over 2 years before they were returned to what is nothing but a reckless sperm donor...so clearly it was not in the best interest of those kids to be sent back to someone who totally ignored them due to insurance issues he was presumbably working on...that was his excuse for neither him or his 'girl friend' visiting three infants in the hospital for over 8 days, not even bothering to name them...

It's outrageous...

NYMOM said...

I deleted a few comments which didn't appear to make sense. I think someone posted a comment on this site which was meant for another one and it started a chain reaction of jibberish....

NYMOM said...

I just want to say this to be is another example of why we cannot trust the judicial system to make decisions in our childrens' best interest. As common sense would have dictated that after two years, those kids remain right where they were...there is no excuse for removing them except to placate a man's legal rights but clearly the best interests of these kids placed no role in this decision.

Anonymous said...

I saw them today in public. The parents are over 60 and look completely drained - the father especially looks fragile. The triplets are three hearty healthy active boys. I don't get how what's written on a piece of paper makes Danielle Bimber not their real mother. The resolution of this case is pathetic.

NYMOM said...

Well I'm glad to hear that 'physically' at least the children are doing well. The media rarely follows up with these situations so we never know the long term impact of these irresponsible rulings on the part of Judges...

I just wonder how these childrens' origins will ultimately impact their long term emotional health when they are old enough to know the history here.

Anyway, thanks for letting us know these kids are doing well...

There are so many others whose stories I've written about on here and we never find out how they are, maybe we're better off.