Saturday, May 30, 2009

It Never Rains but it Pours!!!!

I came across this essay on a mens' rights site and to be honest I didn't like the way the men on the site were treating its author, Andrew Usher. I have engaged in brief debate with this author in the past and although I profoundly disagree with some of his ideas I always found him to be reasonably polite and well-mannered (as per internet standards anyway)...

This idea of a basic income for every citizen and work being 'extra' money for those who wish to live at a higher standard has some potential for ending child support as we know it and the vicious custody wars that have ensued because of it...

It's interesting reading.

Total credit to Andrew Usher at the following address:

One last point: I often find that people have a nasty little habit of just hanging around 'bitching' about every problem but never making any real meaningful suggestions on how to change things; YET when someone else comes up with an idea for any policy changes, they are immediately shot down and called: stupid, unrealistic, etc.,

Sad really, sad.

Men's Wiki

Essay:Basic income

I propose the basic income, also known as the guaranteed minimum income or negative income tax, for modern civilised society. This entails that every person would receive a fixed payment from the government, which is enough to maintain oneself without working. I further maintain that this is only practical with a system of true national health care, as, for one, persons with significant medical expenses could not rely on the basic income alone, as is entailed by the concept. The system would replace all other government benefits, except perhaps for disabled people with special needs beyond being unable to work.

I say that we can and should end poverty by this simple expedient of giving the poor money to be no longer poor. As a system of true socialised medicine will end that worry of those on a fixed income, no one need ever be financially desperate again.

- How should it work?

I will refer only to the USA in the rest of this essay, though it applies to every comparable nation. The basic income would be paid out by the federal government to everyone, and would replace all current welfare and redistribution programs (federal, state, and local) with possibly a few minor exceptions. Similarly the universal health care that accompanies it would replace all current provisions for health care; as these combined form about half of all government spending, their obsolescence would free a considerable amount of money.

The benefit could be paid based on individuals or based on households. In my mind, only payment based on individuals would be acceptable. First, there is the rampant fraud likely to arise if done the other way; this already exists with current welfare programs, and would be much worse if applied to the entire population. Second (and related), the costs of managing the program would be much lower for an individual income as the means to count every person exactly once already exist. It may be objected that this provides an incentive for persons to live in fewer households, but this is no different from the situation now: in both cases, one financially benefits from living with other persons as the fixed costs do
not scale with number of persons. Although I do not like that it is an issue of housing availability and not money per se.

Persons in prison or another involuntary institution should be excluded, but should begin to receive it again immediately upon their release.

- The amount of the benefit

It is necessary to propose a monetary amount for the benefit. Though the exact value it would be can not be specified, I propose a present value of $1,500 per month, plus $200 for each dependent child. This benefit would for obvious reasons have to be limited to citizens, or perhaps citizens and legal permanent residents. My benefit of $200 per child seems low. However, I realise that to avoid encouraging high
fertility, the amount must be less than the minimum reasonable cost of raising a child. Also, as it may be assumed that persons relying on the basic income are not working, it is unnecessary to account for regular child care; likewise, as health care will be free I do not need to include that, either.

This child benefit should not be zero either, I think, though that would not be impossible. No increment would result in many families with children in need of help, just as now, which this program is meant to end.

Another issue is that I do not vary the amount with place of residence, while everyone knows that some places have a significantly higher cost of living than others. I answer that the reason such places do have such a high cost of living is the high demand to live there, and that varying the basic income by place of residence will only drive that demand higher, thus further increasing the cost. The only way to partially equalise these differences is to encourage more housing developement in high-cost areas, bringing the price of housing down there.

The amount would of course be automatically indexed to the cost of living.

- Paying for it

Concrete proposals for a basic income usually include a flat income tax (hence the term negative income tax - the benefit can be thought of as a flat tax minus the benefit amount). I concur. With a flat tax, it makes no difference if it is figured by individuals or married couples, so I would do it by individuals to match the benefit. My tax would have no exceptions, and go from 30% up to 70%, with most ordinary people in the 30% bracket and the very rich in the 70%. This would apply only to earned income (wages, salaries, and other compensation for work performed). Investment income would be capped at 30% to avoid disadvantaging investing or punishing people that live on investment income.

Likewise, the corporate income tax, though it can not be made exactly flat, would be made far more so, at 30 or 40%, greatly increasing revenue; this is only restoring it to where it was in the 1950s.

Considering the amount of the benefit named above, the federal government's revenue would have to approximately double to pay it. The taxes above would go a long way toward that, and others could make up the difference. The most important figure is the proportion of total GDP; my benefit would be approximately 38% of current GDP, which is not out of bounds for government revenue.

- The basic law of the basic income

The basic income would surely decrease the amount of work performed. Many people would choose to not work at all, or to work only part-time, rather than a conventional job. Hence we may be certain that the average income would fall. It must be noted that this would not be a large effect, because employers would soon adjust to the new conditions, and much of the work done in our society has zero or negative value. The reasons for the latter are partly those explicated in the next section that would go away with the basic income, and partly issues of patronage, class, etc. that would hopefully diminish.

If the average income falls, while the worst-off become better off, it can only be by decreasing the income of the rich. Indeed this will occur, by means of the taxes I propose, as well as the fact that businesses will have less to spend on salaries. This can't be considered a bad thing.

- Automation

Though the essential argument does not depend on it, many thinkers have proposed that the basic income is essential to implement because of automation. This may be. It is definite, though, that the basic income has the potential of eliminating many inefficiencies that are at root caused by the reduced number of workers needed in our modern economy. In today's society, there are fewer places for useful full-time work than there are people that, in our economic system, need to have a job. The basic income is the only solution that I can see to this dilemma.

Therefore the prevailing conceit that everyone should have a normal job to support themselves is harmful. It is inconsistent in any case as there are already people that violate this ideal: not only wealthy people that don't need to work, but retired people and stay-at-home wives - anyone not working is in fact living off the rest of society. It doesn't matter where the money is coming from: it is important to realise that money is just marks on paper or in a computer, not real wealth.

And another way that everyone, even working people, is free-loading is through living in an advanced society like ours rather than a Third World society. It is impossible to quantify this, but it is real, and everyone shares it in common. In other words, it is our inheritance for all past technological and organisational developement. Paying part of this inheritance in money is not fundamentally different.

I have another argument, as well: that the possibility of automating many jobs will dramatically reduce the impact of the basic income of national production. As the effective cost of unskilled labor rises, the incentive to automate jobs that have not been automated increases. For example, I just observed, when making a doctor's appointment, that that could be entirely automated given what it now entails - of course, in this particular case, a national health-care system would allow it to be done easily.

The basic income also reduces the impact of further automation on the economy, as workers that lose their jobs face no risk of starving and can take ample time to train for a new career if desired. And as I know that most jobs can be largely automated, I would not be surprised if, say, 30-50 years after implementing a basic income less than 20% of adults were working a normal job, calculated as full-time equivalents.

Therefore, it will increase freedom by allowing us to choose, individually, whether to take productivity increases as more leisure or more money.

- Is it a form of communism?

If we consider the goal of communism to provide everyone a decent living, then we can say the basic income has the same goal. But nonetheless, it does not have the deficiencies of Marxist government.

First, it does not give any more power to the government. To the contrary, government will have less power if anything.

Second, it does not try to abolish money. It is true that the world once ran without money, but the trend throughout history has been to put more and more on a money basis. It is today impossible to live even a short time without money in some form. The basic income accepts this.

Third, it has no ideological component beyond the basic idea. I'm sure everyone knows that governments having an ideological basis become tyrannical because of their need to suppress dissent. This includes, of course, all historical communist governments.

- Its effect on men's rights

The essential difference between the opportunities afforded to the sexes at present is that women can normally rely on a man to support them, if need be, and thus need not work, and most men must. Further, it is presently true that women on average, especially women with children, have access to much more support of various governmental programs than do men, and are if anything more likely to get those kinds of support that are nominally equal. This plan would end such differences, by giving both men and women a precisely equal benefit. It is true that women would normally receive the increased benefit for children they bore out of wedlock, but as mentioned the amount would be low enough so as not to advantage having children.

Therefore, the basic income, alone, would be a great step forward for men. But there is more: with an income assured to all, the justification for alimony and child support disappears. It would be reasonable, then, to completely abolish them upon its implementation; but if not, at least to protect the basic income from any awards, as with all other debts.

- Its effect on youth rights

I wrote an essay, which is online here proposing that the age of majority be made 15, and outlining the securing of adult rights to young people 15 to 20 years old. Since the basic income would be paid to all adults, that would necessarily entail that that be given to all those 15 and over (instead of 18 as at present).

Regardless of whether the age is 15, 18, 21, or otherwise, the plan would surely cause more young people choosing to leave home shortly after that age, simply because that would not require employment. It does not seem that having the age 15 is much worse, even if one considers this a bad thing.

Note that although many people in the youth rights movement say that there should be no age of majority, it is plainly ridiculous to not have a threshold age for the basic income, and paying it upon birth would (as discussed above) become a huge reward for having children, which can not be tolerated. If the money were placed in a trust-fund, not to be given out until the child reaches a certain age, we would again have to decide on an age; further, that plan would be needlessly costly, and it runs contrary to the spirit of the guaranteed income (which is intended for current expense) to have it used for saving as that would be.

- Its effect on crime and criminals

I do not know for certain what impact it will have upon crime. However, I surmise that crime will be reduced overall. As no one would feel the need to turn to crime for a living, it would become a less attractive option. This applies especially to men getting out of prison, who now often feel unable to get reasonable work again and therefore want to go back to the criminal world.

Some crimes, of course, are unrelated to money, but I can not believe there would be any substantial rise in their incidence. I am somewhat concerned that the law would create more 'idle hands', but know that reducing the overall level of crime would allow us to focus more on eliminating the criminal subcultures that remain.

- An end to wage-slavery

All of this, however, is surpassed by the most pointed reason for the basic income; namely, to reduce the disparity of power between employer and employee. No longer would the boss be able to rely on employees' willingness to do anything to avoid termination, for no one would have to fear his life reaching a crisis due to job loss. It is true that the rich would nonetheless have a significant reduction in income, but they tend to be treated better by their employers anyway, and also likely have savings sufficient to make temporary loss of work less traumatic (As well, many weathly couples have two incomes; I will not cite that as a primary reasons because I am focusing only on individuals in this paper.)

Ironically, this scourge, created by this existence of money, will be ended through money.

This is an essay created by Andrew Usher. Please do not edit it; but only comment in discussion.

Maternal Grandparents Again -- Somehow this seemed Appropriate Right About Now...

I just wanted to re-post this.

I'm going to try and get the information myself posted on this blog by next weekend, but in the event I don't I'm sure there are some people associated with the medical field out there who read this blog. Those persons may feel free to post any information they have on the subject here as a response. I can always take the response and use it as a post in itself. Some of you actually did that in another post, but I just don't have the patience to re-look it up again since this blog is getting pretty crowded.

Richard, try to restrain yourself and wait for other more knowledgeable responders to get a word in edgewise here...

SUNDAY, MAY 06, 2007

Maternal Grandmothers Should have Rights on Par with Recreational Sperm Donors

I was really glad to hear that Anna Nicole Smith’s baby was finally returned to the United States. I wasn’t particularly glad to hear that the irresponsible 35 year old idiot who acted as a recreational sperm donor to help create this poor kid actually had custody of her. But it appeared to be the best that could be done with a bad situation since none of the cast of characters involved in this DNA ‘train wreck’ were of much better character then Larry Birkhead anyway.

I did have some sympathy for Virgie Arthur I have to admit. She had raised a number of children, all appeared to have turned out well with the exception of Anna Nicole. She was a retired police officer, never convicted of any crime other then the guilt by association of being the mother of Anna Nicole Smith. Virgie Arthur worked at a respectable job, paid her bills, raised her kids, never got in any trouble, even raised Anna Nicole’s first child Daniel for the first five years of his life, yet none of her past spotless record was good enough to allow her any rights to her own grandchild. Nor did it entitle her to even have her daughter and grandson buried here in the US even though they lived here their entire lives. Of course now that the entire family will be back here in the US, it appears pretty stupid to have Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel remain buried in the Bahamas. Can they get that idiot Judge in Florida to pay for the cost of moving them both back here now I wonder? Probably not.

Anyway the recreational sperm donor, who appeared to have a history of unstable behavior, very similar to Anna Nicole herself actually, was automatically entitled to custody just because the DNA matched. It could just as well have been the guy who delivered the milk every morning whose genetic number matched up and he would have won the jackpot instead. What a farce.

We really need to look at changing some laws and giving a maternal grandmother automatic rights on par with never married sperm donors here, as their genetic contribution is exactly the same. So if DNA is going to rule, it needs to be consistent.

One good thing (from my point of view) which came out of this whole media mess, is that the myth of how the Bahamas was somehow so ‘different’ from the United States in matters of custody has finally been laid to rest. According to the media, the Bahamas was so fixated on mothers that fathers had few rights there compared to here in the US, for instance. I kind of, sort of, had a feeling this was total crap and that just like every other place in the world if men want custody they can get it; but then I thought maybe not, maybe the media knows something I don’t…

But sure enough they didn’t.

I really have to learn to trust my own instinct in these matters, it usually proves itself to be correct. I have a feeling that Anna Nicole Smith, if she had survived, would have been sadly disappointed to find out that just like in the US, recreational sperm donors have the exact same rights as mothers. No difference whatsoever.

posted by NYMOM | Sunday, May 06, 2007

Anonymous said...
What exactly do you mean by 'recreational sperm donor'?
12:25 AM

NYMOM said...
Well I got the term from some UN group that was discussing policies governing international adoptions. They use the term to refer to a man who had casual sex with a woman in which she gets accidentally pregnant. Because the man had no legally binding relationship with the child's mother and the entire pregnancy was an accident, it gives the man and the paternal family no legal rights/obligations to the child. In many other countries a man has to be married to have any legal obligations or rights to a child. It's only in the western countries that we've allowed never married men to get legal rights.

Thus, it's easier to process international adoptions as there is only a child's mother and/or maternal relatives who have any rights to terminate...

I happen to believe this is the proper standard even in the US and that never married fathers should only have rights if mothers chose to confer them, it should not be automatic as it is now. Only married men should have this privilege.
5:58 AM

NYMOM said...
Anyway to continue along that line of thought, if we are going to give these recreational sperm donors rights based upon DNA only, (such as was the case with Larry Birkhead with no legal marriage) then we should balance them off by giving maternal grandmothers of unmarried mothers automatic legal rights as well. Since the DNA contribution is exactly the same from father and maternal grandmothers.

It's an attempt to be consistent with our policies and to be fair to a child by ensuring that the person(s) who have invested the most in said child (either now or over a span of a generation) will always have the most 'weight' in custodial matters.
6:05 AM

Anonymous said...
Actually a maternal grandmother gives only 1/8 of DNA, and the father gives 1/2.
12:44 AM

NYMOM said...
That's not true...

Fathers and MATERNAL grandmothers are genetically on par vis-a-vis children.

So legal decisions going strictly on genetics need to reflect this and maternal grandmothers and fathers legal rights must be the same...
6:35 PM

NYMOM said...
This is a protection for children.

To ensure that the people who have the most invested in these children have the right to make decisions regarding their best interest, while they are too young to speak for themselves.

I heard a tv show talking about fathers who were ex-convicts getting out of jail in NY and how because they didn't get custody of their children they weren't entitled to the package of benefits that went with custody.

The moderator estimated that the package of benefits generated about $10,000 annually, not counting any child support they might get from some poor kids' mother...who these idiots had no concern about whatsoever...just how they could help these men work the system to get custody and start getting benefits.

We need to ensure that our children are not used by men to generate income for themselves. As we've seen by our history of slavery, men are very quick to leap on income producing schemes using children and this needs to be nipped in the bud QUICKLY...
6:42 PM

Anonymous said...
How so?
I mean,

Child = 1/2 mom + 1/2 dad

mom = 1/2gran +1/2gramp

=> Child = 1/4matgran + 1/4matgramp + 1/4fatgran + 1/4fatgramp

How can it be genetically on par?

Math doesn't lie.
1:28 PM

NYMOM said...
Well I'm not a scientist so I don't know the exact details but I have worked for a pharmacy before and heard them discussing it. When I questioned them they confirmed that the maternal grandmother and a biological father's DNA connection to a child were precisely the same.

How it works I don't know...

Unfortunately although men would like to claim everything is exactly 50/50 with a mathematical certainity life is not quite so simple and neat.

I guess 2 + 2 doesn't always add up to 4 in evolutionary terms. It's just the way it is...
10:23 AM

NYMOM said...
Recent information on how Larry Birkhead forged a 'deal' with Howard K. Stern regarding custody of Anna Nicole Smith's baby in exchange for a share of the Texas inheritance (if they win on appeal) are precisely the sort of shenanigans I'm talking about...

The grandmother involved with this situation Vergie Arthur should NOT have been allowed to be cut out of that situation. As she could have functioned as a brake on any later mischief thought up by those two.

She raised Anna Nicole Smith's son until he was 5 and he was fine up until then. In retrospect Smith should have left him with her mother. I think he would still be alive today, possibly on his way to college or even into law enforcement like his grandmother. Many police, sheriffs, firemen, etc., are third generation or so in those fields...since sons will often follow fathers or grandfathers into these professionals (or grandmothers in this case)
10:34 AM

Anonymous said...
You don’t understand how it works because it’s nonsense. It’s just drivel you evidently picked up off Liz Kates’ website, as no one but her has ever made such a silly claim and you swallowed it without even thinking it through.

Liz didn’t even really say that a maternal grandma’s genetic contribution is the same as a dad’s, as any idiot knows that a child gets exactly 23 chromosomes from each parent and no grandparent can represent more than 25% of the total. She said grandma’s body, during her own pregnancy, manufactures the eggs that the mother is born with, the same way dad’s body manufactures the sperm.

Of course it isn’t the same. Dad’s body produces his gametes independently, while grandma’s body can’t produce anything without a one-half contribution from grandpa.

And if you carry this idiocy to its logical conclusion, then a mother isn’t a genetic parent at all.

I think we’ll all just stick with the rational common sense definition of parents, thanks just the same.

Anyone who “confirmed” this rot for you was making fun of you.

Thank God Anna Nicole’s mother was not allowed to further complicate that baby’s life to get a finger into her daughter’s estate. You obviously missed all the monetary goodies she was trying to demand in her custody petition. Check out the transcripts on for that. A share of control over the Marshall estate, the right to join in with the baby in a wrongful death suit, joint custody with dad, sole custody if dad died, which no one but a parent should ever be able to decide. Outrageous.

She had no right to challenge the custodial rights of that child’s remaining natural parent or to ask for any control over Daniellynn’s inheritance, and richly deserved the fine she got for wasting the court’s time. Some "brake."
3:36 PM

NYMOM said...
I know in the small world that you and Liz Kates exist within (and in spite of your attempts to try to place me into it alongside Liz Kates) I am not a part of it.

I'm an outsider.

Sometimes I will agree with certain positions of Liz Kates or Trish Wilson, etc., sometimes, believe it or not, I will agree with a mens' rights position.

So, no...the genetic information did come from a pharmacist...

Someday if I have the time, I'll look him up, I'm still in touch and post the info...
9:49 AM

NYMOM said...
I think time will tell that giving custody of that child to Larry Birkhead was the wrong decision. AND if time allows, clear thinking people will eventually come around to agreeing that maternal parents should have precedent in custody of single mothers' children as well.

I say if time allows because at the rate we're going, it will all soon become a moot issue anyway. They'll be few children for us to fight over.
9:53 AM

Anonymous said...
Unfortunately in some cases children are being used as pawns. When I came into recovery from drug addiction my own mother took away a house from me which she left vacant. I was forced to live with her and we did not get along. Eventually I was homeless. My mother then went through the legal channels to gain custody of my children. For this she was compensated financially. Once that began it made it more difficult for my mother to allow me into my children's lives. As someone totally stupid about the system I knew nothing about this financial compensation, child protective services or family reunification supports available. I struggled on my own to get housing and eventually did. My children lived with me and my mother still collected and continued the lies to officials to collect compensation for children she did not have in her home. Recently I learned my own mother may have told authorities I was dead or something. It's one thing to get custody for the good of the child but it's another thing to undermine parental rights. My mother made every attempt to keep my children from me and I can still hear her saying to me she hated when I came to visit because the children would act too happy. Of course, in the end all our relationships are strained. It's been 20 years now but unethical is unethical. My advice if you need assistance in raising your children and you're prepared to have your children, make sure strong reunification suppports are in place. Otherwise people who have your children gain more support than biological parents. Unfortunately, in this country, children who fall into the hands of child protective services have become a "cash cow." We all know how money changes situations.
11:12 AM

NYMOM said...
I agree with you in most situations; however, if men are going to be given legal rights on par with mothers based only on DNA then we need to include the maternal grandmother in the mix as well...since her genetic connection to her grandchildren is equal to a father...

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Correction of Distortion that Richard tried to slip past...

"I doubt that Polish Knight even knows what the real ages were of the eastern european prostitutes that he was with, nor would he care."

Oh, that's no problem in this particular neck of the woods, Kimberley. NYMOM's already said on another site that she thinks the age of consent for sex needs to be lowered considerably (that way female teachers who prey upon teenage boys would not have to risk jail, you see.)


I just wanted to address this comment of Richard's as it was a deliberate attempt to distort my position on the issue. I happen to believe he did it deliberately as he's been here long enough to know my thinking on these issues pretty well.

The following post was done on my blog back in 2005 for those who wish to check the archives.



Rapists and their Exercise of Parental Rights

Recently due to the impending marriage of Mary Kay LeTourneau, the elementary school teacher in Washington State and her former student Vili Fualaau, we are faced with the specter of a woman, convicted as a statutory rapist, eventually being allowed to exercise parental rights. Generally this is a secondary situation faced by women after a rape, as we are the usual victims of this sort of ‘emotional blackmail’; but as more and more women are charged with these sorts of crimes, the issues are going to become much more complicated.

Frankly, I can see nothing good ensuing from having a parent with the label of ‘rapist’ being involved in the everyday life of the children involved here or from allowing LeTourneau, herself, to enter into a relationship where she is automatically at a disadvantage in her role as wife and mother due to her criminal conviction for rape of the father here.

This is just wrong.

Hopefully whatever happens, her daughters will be allowed to remain with the Fualaau grandmother as they appear to be doing well there; while their mother and father proceed full-steam ahead with this god-awful idea of marrying.

Like I have said many time before and it still holds true, there is NO law against behaving like a jackass and this clearly is one aspect of human nature that is surely gender neutral…

Anyway, whether or not rapists can exercise parental rights, is still an issue that is handled on a state-by-state basis, each one having a different law addressing the issue, many appearing to be acting at cross purposes with their neighboring states. So, as usual, women in their role as mothers must be prepared for the worse, as we are the usual victims of rapists (statutory or otherwise) in spite of the high profile given stories lately where women commit this crime.

"Rep. Sam Ellis was listening to the "Dr. Laura" show when he first heard the awful tale:

A young female caller was telling Dr. Laura that she'd been raped by a man and had gotten pregnant as a result.

She had decided not to abort but to put the baby up for adoption.

That's when the rapist took control of her life again.

To complete the adoption, she needed the birth father to terminate his parental rights.

The rapist, in custody awaiting trial, told her that he'd sign the papers -- if she agreed not to testify against him in the rape. As a result, the rapist would certainly be released.

What do I do? the young woman asked. Protect society or protect the adoption?

Dr. Laura advised that the young woman do what was right for the child. She wished her luck and moved on to the next call.

A rapist has rights over his victim's baby??? Not any more in North Carolina, thank goodness.

But Ellis, a Republican who represents Raleigh and Cary, was appalled; he couldn't let it go, in part because he thought the woman's Southern accent sounded familiar.

He called the show to see whether the woman could be tracked down. Dr. Laura was no help. But Ellis decided that, "even if the woman wasn't from North Carolina, the circumstances that created her situation were."

Ellis contacted the legislative staff and had a bill drawn up to prevent rapists from using parental rights as a way to intimidate witnesses.

Finally, during the final days of the recent session, the bill was wrapped up in another and expanded, so that the parental rights of convicted first- and second-degree rapists are automatically terminated. Convicted rapists must now petition the court to regain their parental rights.

"Basically, it reverses things," Ellis said. "Previously, it was the woman who had to spend the money and try to get the paperwork signed. Now the onus is off the victim."

Information provided courtesy of

Let us be clear with this; however, it doesn’t address the problem of most women in this situation, which is the problem of statutory rapists. North Caroline’s law ONLY addresses rapists convicted of First or Second Degree rape, this leave a LOT of rapists out there convicted of lesser charges still able to hold a club over the head of any mother who has a child in this situation.

Neither she nor her family (remember some of these mothers are as young as 12 or 13, so their parents would STILL be very involved in the decision making process here) yet they would still NOT even be allowed to put child for adoption with another family, if her or her family decided that was in her child’s best interest.

She could still be facing a custody fight and eventually even forced to pay child support to the perpetrator here. Even facing a custodial or visitation challenge from the paternal grandparent eventually, that could NOT be ruled out.

So North Caroline has NOT solved the problem, not by a long shot.

Overall, as we can see each state addresses statutory rapists differently and maybe this IS a large part of the problem, as we can see from the case below with the father being a statutory rapist of the 13 year old mother. New Mexico allowed the termination of his parental rights to proceed; however, New York would only have permitted this termination IF father was CONVICTED of rape in the FIRST DEGREE.

“…New York law recognizes certain parental rights for individuals guilty of statutory rape, as opposed to forcible rape, whereas New Mexico does not. In In re Craig "V" v. Mia "W", 500 N.Y.S.2d 568, 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986), relied upon by Respondent, the court held that an individual who has fathered a child by virtue of sexual intercourse which was consensual, albeit perpetrated under circumstances constituting statutory rape, is not precluded under New York law from bringing a paternity proceeding.

The New York court based its ruling primarily on the fact that "the legislative proscription against the right to notice in a proceeding affecting an out-of-wedlock child is limited to a father convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree, which involves forcible compulsion." Id. (citations omitted). The court observed that the New York Legislature "specifically declined to extend this limitation to the father of a child who may have been conceived as the result of any lesser degree of rape or sexual misconduct."

Information courtesy of FindLaw for Legal Professionals Case No. 95-2053

Thus we see that in New Mexico a mother/father victim would be safe from claims by a mother/father perpetrator of statutory rape. Whereas in New York it would be dependent upon the individual Judge hearing the case; so the mother/father victim is open to being victimized twice; once by the rapist and then again by the legal system.

Here below is another example in the state of Kansas where not only does the perpetrator mother retain her parental rights but the victim father is forced to pay child support to her, thus, as I said above being victimized twice; once by the perpetrator, then again by the legal system of Kansas.

"The facts, as best we can determine them from an inadequate record, do not appear to be seriously in dispute.

Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and 1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989.

At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.

On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender.

On March 8, 1991, SRS filed a petition on behalf of Colleen Hermesmann, alleging that Shane Seyer was the father of Colleen's minor daughter, Melanie. The petition also alleged that SRS had provided benefits through the ADC program to Colleen on behalf of the child and that Colleen had assigned support rights due herself and her child to SRS. The petition requested that the court determine paternity and order Shane to reimburse SRS for all assistance expended by SRS on Melanie's behalf. On December 17, 1991, an administrative hearing officer found Shane was Melanie's biological father. The hearing officer further determined that Shane was not required to pay the birth expenses or any of the child support expenses up to the date of the hearing on December 17, 1991, but that Shane had a duty to support the child from the date of the hearing forward.

Shane requested judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer, contending that the hearing officer "should have found a failure of consent would terminate rights." SRS sought review, asserting that the hearing officer correctly ruled that the issue of consent was irrelevant, but erred in allowing Shane to present evidence pertaining to the defense of consent. SRS also alleged that the hearing officer's denial of reimbursement to the State for funds already paid was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the mandates of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 39-718b.

The district judge, upon judicial review of the hearing officer's order, determined that Shane was the father of Melanie Hermesmann and owed a duty to support his child.

The court found that the issue of Shane's consent was irrelevant and ordered Shane to pay child support of $50 per month. The court also granted SRS a joint and several judgment against Shane and Colleen in the amount of $7,068, for assistance provided by the ADC program on behalf of Melanie through February 1992. The judgment included medical and other birthing expenses as well as assistance paid after Melanie's birth. Shane appeals the judgment rendered and the order for continuing support but does not contest the trial court's paternity finding. SRS has not cross-appealed from any of the orders or judgment of the district court."

Information Courtesy of:

Let’s keep in mind however that Colleen Hermesmann herself was a minor; so the decision might have been different if she was a legal adult when this occurred…

Again, just as with parental rights, custody and child support, there appears to be no standardization of anything regarding statutory rapists, with each state handling sentencing differently, as we can see from the list below:

On May 5, 1997, Stacey A.M., an adult, gave birth to Quianna M.M. The father was subsequently determined to be Quisto P., whose date of birth is August 13, 1984. On January 20, 1998, Stacey A.M. was convicted of engaging in repeated acts of sexual assault of Quisto P., contrary to Wis. Stat. §948.025(1), and sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Stacy A.M. was also convicted of sexual assault of a child pursuant to Wis. Stat. §948.02(2) and sentenced to twenty years of probation consecutive to her twenty-two-year prison term.

A 21-year-old Columbus man who pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation involving his 14-year-old sister was sentenced Monday to five years in prison. With his grandmother and sister standing near the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Don Kelly told Muscogee Superior Court Chief Judge Kenneth Followill that although complaints to police by the sister and grandmother launched the investigation that led to the man's arrest and indictment on incest, rape and child molestation charges, both now do not wish to prosecute. But Kelly said the state would not abandon the prosecution, instead agreeing to dismiss the incest and rape charges and issue a minimal recommendation of five years in prison and 10 years on probation for child molestation. The offender is not named here to avoid identifying the victim of the offenses.

A former Aloha Little League coach and umpire was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years in prison on sex-related charges. Authorities who arrested Michael Robert Harrison, 54, for abusing a child originally thought there might be victims who had contact with him through girls softball teams or boys baseball teams in Wolf Creek Little League. Investigators said no one else came forward to accuse Harrison after his arrest was made public. Harrison pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of first-degree rape and two counts of second-degree sodomy involving a family member. The abuse happened several times between June 2003 and January, starting when the girl was 13.

A 47-year-old Pebble Beach man will serve four months in Santa Clara County jail and three years on formal probation for sexually molesting a 15-year-old Gilroy boy. Randy Domras saw his felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor at his sentencing Friday, nearly four months after he pleaded no contest to committing a lewd act with someone under 16. Domras’ private attorney, Mark Blair, argued that the boy claimed to be 18, the legal age of consent for sexual activity, but Superior Court Judge Kenneth Shapero said this is not an acceptable defense for such a charge - although it can be grounds for a reduced sentence.

A former volunteer fire chief was sentenced to 40 years in prison for having sex with a 12year-old girl. Timothy McGarry, 42, was sentenced Friday. He was convicted by a jury in June of three counts of lewd and lascivious battery against a minor. McGarry was chief of the Thomas Drive Volunteer Fire Department at Panama City Beach when he had sex with the girl, now 14, two years ago. Consent is not a defense if the victim is a minor.

A former Orlando sex-crimes detective who pleaded guilty to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Edwin Mann, 42, was re-sentenced Tuesday on three counts of lewd or lascivious battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation.

She was 34, he was 12. They called it a love affair, but a judge deemed it a crime. Mary Kay LeTourneau, the elementary school teacher whose affair with her former student Vili Fualaau produced two daughters, will be set free on Wednesday after spending almost seven years in jail for second-degree rape. But according to sources close to Fualaau, now 21, and LeTourneau, 42, the pair hopes to renew their relationship, despite a court order banning them from contact for life.

Information provided courtesy of :
Information provided courtesy of :

Overall we can see that there is no logic, no consistency, and most of all no sanity as to how the laws are applied vis-à-vis statutory rapists or their victims regarding either sentencing (all over the place with one person getting four months-another forty years), parental rights (or even custody of said child) born of these relationships or child support. Again victim could EASILY wind up (in a state like New York which is always looking to cut public benefits very ready to hand child over to whoever) paying child support to perpetrator, even PARENTS of victim could wind up paying child support of minor victim to perpetrator, if perp should get custody of child.

Still, these situations are more common for women to wind up as the victims of, then men. Thus women in their role as mothers must be careful, not just for ourselves, but for our daughters as well. We must always be alert that they do NOT become victimized twice by older men who seek them out for sexual gratification and then turn around and use any children involved as a vicarious ATM, generating monies from you or your family along with other benefits from the state.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Baby Madness

Well I know it's a little late but I've been busy; however, I do now want to comment on that Octomom situation that was in the news a few months ago...

First, like everyone else, I agree she was selfish and irresponsible to bring even ONE more child into the chaotic situation she calls a home, never mind bringing eight more children into it. YET I still maintain the vast majority of women who have children using invitro are MORE responsible then the average single mother, who has an unplanned pregnancy from some recreational sperm donor. Sorry, I know many women don't want to hear this but getting pregnant while having recreational sex is the height of irresponsibility especially if it's with some idiot you hardly know, maybe even a one-night stand. There are just too many ways to avoid an unplanned pregnancy these days...

Anyway, I hope California won't pass laws against women using invitro methods since I happen to believe this will be the wave of the future for many women to have any kids and I would not want to see it totally regulated out of existence. This situation is a good example of the saying: "hard cases make bad law".

That's one issue.

The bigger issues is why didn't people speak out against women having six or eight babies at once before this Octomom. These situations should have been addressed long ago. I personally am sick to death of seeing these thin, sickly babies (with tubes coming from their bodies in every direction) displayed on TV or on magazine covers. Not to mention the cost to everyone else as saving these children runs into the millions. It's one thing for this to be an act of nature or God, if you will, it's another to plan this sort of event to happen deliberately. AND since women do not naturally conceive and bear eight kids at one time, this is all (dare I say it) a man-made occurrence.

Women were not built to bear six or eight babies at a pop. Not to mention what happens to the kids when they are born, as you can't possibly pay enough attention to eight kids at one time. I always suspected kids in these situations suffered neglect and/or emotional abuse; but seeing one of these reality shows recently totally convinced me of it. As the kids in that show never stopped crying, even or two of them was always in the background screaming their heads off. This is not natural. I've known and interacted with many large families and never saw anything like it...I, myself, come from a family of eight plus spent much time in an orphanage from the age of 5 or so and never heard so much non-stop crying going on...No one was available to comfort these kids as there were simply too many of them!!!

So the children, themselves, continue suffering emotional abuse/neglect, even after their medical problems are cleared up.

Anyway, if some lawmakers are looking to pass laws it should be along the lines of forbidding doctors from planting more then two or three eggs at a time in a women's uterus and hopefully that will clear the situation up...and mothers who do this should be held up to public scorn (just like Octomom was). They should not be given reality shows and painted as mom of the year.