Wednesday, July 29, 2009

So-called Progressive Rulings Undermine Mothers' and Childrens' Rights

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.";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.


virago said...

NYMOM, I agree with you about the legacy that lesbians might be leaving for women and children in general. I also agree that adopting secular Western culture isn't necessarily the best thing for women in lebanon or japan. However, I still think that most of islamic sharia law is set up to give the father custody over the mother whenever HE wants it. I don't think of this as an abuse of sharia law. I think of this as the ultimate goal. Face it, mother custody in Sharia law is based on what the FATHER thinks is best. If he wants custody, he'll get it, and the Koran supports this.

PolishKnight said...

For starters, blaming this case on "men" is unsupported. Women are now participants in the legal system and you are allowed to vote. If you blame everything bad that society the courts do on men, be sure to give men credit for electricity, computers, and plumbing. Thanks.

Next, the notion of a biological connection, especially via birth, trumping nearly everything else short of open abuse is not recognized by most of society and for good reason. Many mothers adopt children from circumstances where the original mother was unable or unwilling to care for them. Do these mothers deserve less credit for raising children that are not their own?

Next, this case was impacted by the fact that the biological mother deceived and circumvented the court. You can call the court's decision capricious, but the biological mother brought it all upon herself. I love it when men are reminded of their "legal commitments" to pay "child" support to the mother but you overlooked the mother blowing off hers.

Regarding the lesbians theoretically unable to have children if anonymous sperm donorship is eliminated. Nothing prevents these women from sperm tourism, so to speak, and going across the channel on a sperm quest. It's amazing how we're supposed to worship women for their incredible ability to squeeze out life but somehow they can't figure out how to organize a ferry or take a bus. Or even worse, they might have to, eek, have sex with a man to get sperm. Tee hee, yeah, us men are really jealous of the fact that women HAVE to have sex with us to get "child" support or have children. No matter how much some men are made to suffer, we still are "da man" so to speak. We LIKE sex!

One of the biggest precedents set by this case is the fact that lesbian relationships aren't the la-dee-da paradise that feminist extremists made it out to be. It's the old joke: When two lesbians go out to dinner, who pays? Get out the catnip and the scratch pads, we're going to see a lot of fur fly! Meow!

Note that the gender neutral logic/language works both ways and there are lesbian partners who were ordered to pay child-support to their ex-girlfriends because they were consider the father for holding the turkey baster. Once again, the notion of women's independence collides with the fact that they want someone else to foot da bill. This lesbian partner probably had "legal commitments" and that was coupled with rights. That leads to the final point:

Your claim, NYMOM, that us men are so jealous of women is laughable to me. Women's "abilities" to gestate children only become remarkable when arbitrary and very expensive social systems are established to reward women similar to Jim Crow laws making white skin into an asset. Eliminate child-support and welfare or have a situation where they are irrelevent (such as aging career women trying to find a breadwinning man) and the man quickly gets the upper hand. I'm middle aged and loving it. Every dog has his day so to speak and life is more than just 9 months of carrying babies around not only for the child, but the parent as well. A good person, and parent, has to look at life overall.

NYMOM said...

I think the key work here would be 'voluntary' Polish Knight. Mothers who give up infants voluntarily for adoption so her child could have a better life versus a mother being manipulated out of custody of her kids so some jerk can pay less child support.

As you know I wholly support adoption...and the mothers who raise these children as well as the mothers who give them up for adoption...

I think we're traveled this route before.

NYMOM said...


My main point is that feminists and other proponents of gender neutral custody are aiding men who are doing this to get out of paying high child support...

The primary problem is changes to child support policy. The concept of gender neutral custody has existed since the 70s...actually the late 60s...but men facing changes in child support policy have used that concept to wield as a sword against women...if you read those articles carefully you'll see that...

It's a double-edged sword led by changes in child support policy...thus, I consider gender neutral feminists to be little more then dupes in this situation...

NYMOM said...

I understand mother custody in Sharia law is based on what the father thinks is best just as custody in the west used to be...and most people, men and women, used to agree it was best for children to be with their mothers. What has changed???? I think it's high child support.

So if we fix child support everything else will take care of itself.

That's my point.

virago said...

"So if we fix child support everything else will take care of itself.

That's my point."

I guess your right, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

NYMOM said...

No, not soon...

But that's what this blog is about to discuss various policy changes that can be implemented to change things...

I have been contacted in the past to do radio shows, I just didn't feel ready yet as I'm not that articulate, plus I wanted some really good policy changes in hand if I ever decide to follow up on the invitations.

PolishKnight said...

Your greatest policy challenge, NYMOM, is that even as you offer a compromise in allowing "recreational sperm donors" to backout of child-support obligations BUT insist upon divorced men still being stuck with the burden of paying support for children you think should go to the mother by default, it doesn't create a buy-in from most people. This applies even if you suggest making child-support liens for divorced men more reasonable.

You would still have severe opposition for such reforms from the divorce industry: Attorneys, welfare care workers, court psychiatrists, prison guards, etc. all get money from families being broken up and maximum child support paid out. They also happen to be the ones holding the keys to reform. Taxpayers also wouldn't fall in love with a proposal that would reward men for generating illegitimate children (they are slowly coming to grips with the reality that illegitimate children will be created as long as taxpayers either fund, or ask someone else, to fund such children's creation.)

Fathers are not going to overwhelmingly jump to your aid either for a slogan such as: "Give up ALL our rights to custody in exchange for being allowed to work for our exes and not go to jail! Whoo hoo!"

Even men who might believe that a small carrot is better than none have to ask themselves what would happen if, after the reforms were passed making it almost impossible for men to get custody, what would stop the courts and feminists/mothers-groups again getting child-support liens raised to ultra high levels? What legal avenues would such men have to protect themselves then?

"Give me your gun Amigo."
"Before we do that, show us your badges to prove you're federales."
"Badges?!?! We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -- Treasure of the Sierra Madre

The gutsy argument, NYMOM, would be for you to argue eliminating child-support in most cases (except for male abandonment, for example, where the issue of custody battles are moot) as a show of commitment for women to retain default custody by gender. However, would most women go for that? This is really the acid test as to whether women really are on your side and care about their children, and custody, more than the money.

NYMOM said...

I also advocated for being allowed to legally waive child support in the event that a mother wishes to forego a custody battle...legally now women are not allowed to do that (even if they wish to)...

NYMOM said...

I think that should answer most of your questions Polish Knight...the only group not allowed to waive child support (under my plan) would be those who are collecting public benefits.

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM,

If I may suggest food for thought: Why not suggest that mothers make a secret arrangement with the ex-husband to simply return any money they get from child-support? I don't even think it's illegal since I don't know of any legal oversight of how child-support is spent.

That said, do you seriously think that most women would want that option especially when it would have the effect of undermining their own moral case for demanding custody? If a mother wants custody AND child-support, then the father could argue to the courts and also public opinion precisely what we have heard here directed against men: That they are just "cheap" and care about the money.

Regarding collecting public benefits: If that is to be an exception for whatever reason (presumably to save the taxpayers' money) then shouldn't the other exception apply as well? That fathers should be able to demand equal custody to the child and the benefits? Otherwise, it's just the mother getting to be paid as a housewife of the state.

NYMOM said...

We give more concessions to the mother as her investment in children is significant, while the contribution of men is next to nothing...

I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand about this...we've been going over if for almost 4 years contribute LITTLE in this area...

Get it now????

There appears to be no nice way to say this to you.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, most of the investment in children, literally, comes for the 18+ years AFTER the child is born. That's the period we're talking about here. Nobody is talking about men taking away women's babies while they're still in the womb.

As long as men are needed for financial support which is necessary for someone to have the luxury, not sacrifice, to stay at home looking after their own kids, us men are not going anywhere.

So no, I don't "get it now." You gals can walk off anytime. Go ahead. But be prepared to go it ALONE!

NYMOM said...

There are two different kinds of investment we are talking about here: financial and woman is going to wish to take a chance and go through a pregnancy and labor/delivery and all the aftermath of that process (physical investment) if some judge can negate her 'investment' by handing her baby off to a recreational sperm donor...

Like I said before, it's the difference between a legitimate adoption process versus snatching a baby from it's mother to adopt out...

Outcome is the same but big difference in the process.

Anonymous said...

NY said: "no woman is going to wish to take a chance and go through a pregnancy and labor/delivery and all the aftermath of that process (physical investment) if some judge can negate her 'investment' by handing her baby off to a recreational sperm donor..."

If ONLY that were true! We could all do with less women "investing" with recreational sperm donors in this manner...


PolishKnight said...

The Meaning of Work

NYMOM, your claim that physical investment is different than financial is useful, but not in the way you intended.

For many men (and women), there is little effective difference. A ditch digger or garbageman may do dangerous, physically exhausting work to earn money which soon is spent to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. The money is really just a tool for transforming one form of physical work into another.

As someone who learned early on in life the value of living within my means, having spare cash around translated directly into physical, emotional, and even spiritual well-being. I refer to it as "f-you" money. If someone demands that I sacrifice the well-being I refer to above for some cash, I have the ability to consider saying no and often do. It makes a huge difference.

Even so, while I usually have a spare reserve around, I am not a lottery winner (I wish I were.) Simply having socked a little money away is no excuse for me to slack off forever. And this is the distinction you don't seem to get: 9 months of gestation and labor is just a PORTION of the support a child needs. Even at the time, the woman may need financial support to go through those 9 months. So for you to claim that a woman owns a child simply for gestating it is like me showing up for work for 9 months and saying that the boss owes me the keys to the office!

There is another distinction to work you have missed as well: Working for someone else to support yourself is different than doing it for yourself directly. I'm amused at the glamorization of work by feminism that men can just go to work and have a great time unlike working at home which is like being enslaved by a tyrant. It's the other way around! Gestating and raising one's own children and cleaning one's own home is like being the Queen of the Castle. You are both the customer and the job site manager. You decide what is best, what is "clean enough" and what you want. With a seperate customer and manager, you have to find out what THEY want and satisfy THEIR demands. This is known as The Real World(tm).

Your offered compromise has been to suggest women going off on their own and having kids and letting men hang around if the mother agrees with no financial support required from the men. Even so, you still want a safety net which men don't have: Living off the taxpayer rather than supporting the kid yourself. It's like you're willing to go from a limo to a bike, but you still want the training wheels. It's a step, I suppose, but still a chasm away from the basic realities that men have lived with for eons.

Anonymous said...

The patriarchal system, which we have been enslaved in for 5,000 years now has worked on dividing men and women in order to control both.

The patriarchal system despises Mother Nature and has tried to conquer her in every way imaginable- including Mother Earth.

A child only has ONE MOTHER- the womb man who carried the child and gave birth to him/her.

No one else can claim that right.

They may use deceptive intelligence to try and convince people that a natural mother is only a breeder- as it was written in the sacred books thousands of years ago- whereby women and children were mere cattle to be bought and sold by the patriarchs.

As for LJ Thorpe- do not get me started on him and his abuse of women and children- all legal of course.He is the "man" who allows children to be kidnapped without care orders and sold into adoption- with all paper traces of the child disappearing.

Hard to believe , he can actually sit on the bench like he does- I guess he has no conscience.

Anonymous said...

hello i am a single mum from australia, when i was 16 i had a child my mum would come over all the time and say to my daughter oh mummys cruel to you you can come live with nanny if you want and other comments of the same vain, if i disaplined my daughter i was always the one that would be told off, when my daughter was 13 i met a man and we married we had a further 3 children, my mother and for that fact his mother and father controlled a lot of our relationship,i was more resistant to the interfearence, when my eldest turned 18 we had a disagreement and she said she was going to live with her nanna, i let go she was 18, when she went ther my mother said she couldnt stay there and my daughter went and stayed with friends of a friend and got mixed up with drugs,
i asked my mother several times where she was over a three year period and my mother refused to tell me. eventually a friend phoned me telling me where my daughter was, the relationship never went well, eventually my husvband and i split up because of all the presures of his parents and mine, my grandmother died who was a wonderfull woman and i decided to call my relationship with my mother over, i told her to never interfear in my family again and i was no longer wanting a relationship with her,there were other reasons for this dissision,
i hadnt seen her for 6 years no contact at all me and my three children (second family) moved to the country my eldest of the second lot of children doing so well in school and showing promise in anagricultural field, had her photo in the major paper for the school ball. my mother saw this picture and sent a rose and a box of chocolates to the school saying your mum took you away and your so beautiful etc etc the school didnt inform me that a package had come to the school for her , but just gsve it to her she was 14 at the time. all of a sudden my happy family no is fighting and my daughter who just turned 15 ran away the other day 3 days b4 schools due to start. she swore at me and i took her mobile phone from her so she ran away she phone my mother. and my mother came up collected her and took her home she has bought her a mobile phone, taken her shopping for all new clothes, to the local adventure park and enrolled her in a school 232km away from here where she lives , she ran away wednesday its now sunday and i feel like crap, why does my mother undermine my parental authority my whole famil is fractured again i cant keep letting her do this to me but i dont know what to do. sorry this might not be the right forum but i need to talk to someone i feel alone and im so upset my kids are the world to me but i cant keep getting hurt

NYMOM said...

How did any of your other three children form a relationship with your mother if they never saw her??? Why would a teenager leave her school to live with a total stranger just because they sent her some chocolate and a rose????

Anonymous said...

My mother sent the eldest a card and in it said how beautiful she was and that she missed her. she went there for a mother bought her a phone new clothes an i phone a mp3 player, my mother told her a pack of lies and my daughter left to live with her.the day after she left my mother applied for my maintanance payments
from the gov and my x this girl already had a phone it wasnt the latest she had a mp3 player also not the latest a motor bike tv vidio good clothes.
i am not the only one dismayed the whole town where i live cant believe. that she has left all the stuff she was doing here behind. she now dos'nt talk to her uncles and all this is the same thing that happened with the first daughter.