I always like it when a principal involved in one of these cases makes an unexpected quest appearance on my blog to fill everyone in on the aftermath of these situations, particularly the so-called 'parental abduction' cases. Here's a good example.
Now I never said the recreational sperm donor in this case was a monster, an asshole maybe, but not a monster and there is a difference. BUT now I see I was completely wrong. In fact, this character is a dangerous man who should NEVER have been allowed any court-ordered contact...
Here's one result of the whole thing...
Fortunately this girl wasn't seriously injured by the flying ashtray.
I wish her good luck with her future...
Friday, December 24, 2004
Inappropriate Outcome for Various Reasons...
The outcome in this case was only partially correct.
Custody going to the girl's mother was correct...
However child support should NOT have been awarded to the mother...
Nor should visitation have been awarded to the sperm donor in this case.
First of all, marriage is the framework that all societies have set up to protect the rights of fathers and the rest of the surrounding community vis-a-vis children. Men who chose to procreate outside marriage take the risk that they will have no legal rights to any children created outside of that framework and that's the way it should be, as a two-second sperm donation in the back seat of a car or in a drunken encounter during a one-night stand should NOT entitle you to rights...
I'm sorry but a accidental sperm donor is NOT a father, nor should he be treated as one.
This mother fled nine years ago because our current public policy enables men, who have not followed through on their responsibilities as fathers to still get a chance to be what I call a 'half-a@@ed dad"...He doesn't marry the mother and/or make any real public or financial commitment to the woman taking all the risk of bearing his children, leaving that for the rest of us to pick up the tab for that, but as soon as the child is born he is suddenly allowed to emerge and accept laurel leaves as a 'father'...
This after doing nothing outside of a two-minute sperm donation...
It's ridiculous...
Men who do NOT marry the mothers of children should NOT be allowed any legal rights to these children. Of course, they should not be forced into paying child support either...I suggest that perhaps we should change the rules of engagement by denying any individual person the right to go to court for either visitation or child support UNLESS they are married...ONLY the STATE should be allowed the option of obtaining support from a never-married father.
This way fathers who insist on continuing to procreate with mothers and creating children neither can support can still be held financially responsible for said children as the STATE can go to court to get reimbursement for public benefits given to the child BUT never-married parents cannot do so...so there will be no financial incentive for the self-supporting single parent to have children out of wedlock unless they can support them alone, as they won't be able to sue a never-married parent for custody, child support, or visitation...
NOR will a never-married father be allowed to emotionally abuse the mothers of their children by holding these ongoing custody battles over their heads.
AT the same time, society (all the rest of us) will not have to pay for children of parents who cannot support them as the STATE, representing taxpayers can STILL go after reimbursement for public benefits.
Whatever private arrangements parents make between themselves is fine but neither will be allowed into court unless a marriage license is produced. As let's face it people. what is the incentive for men to get married if they can get the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS A MARRIED MAN TO CHILDREN SIMPLY BY GETTING THEIR NAME ON A PIECE OF PAPER...
Answer: NONE...
This public policy change will cut down on MUCH of this nonsense going on lately, most of which appears to be generated by these never-married couples situations where accidental or recreational sperm donors have been given the same rights as a child's mother.
This woman has stated that she 'abducted' her then 5 year old daughter (not that I recognize the concept even, that a mother could ever abduct her own child) because she was afraid that the she could NOT afford the cost of an expensive legal battle to retain custody of her daughter and this is NOT an idle fear. Most non-custodial mothers come from our most backward regions, the South and West and most of them are very low income women...so clearly her fear was very well justified.
In my opinion, ANY custody fight instigated by a man is a form of extreme emotional abuse...unless the child's mother is abusive or neglectful...
For eons mothers have been considered the obvious, best and most natural guardian for the young of every species, including our own, and I see no reason for a bunch of men trying to avoid paying child support and the social engineers who continue to support them to make any change in that arrangement...
NONE..
All interested parties should forward a letter to the prosecutor's office that handled this case congratulating them on getting it HALF-RIGHT anyway and stating our opinion on how the rest of the decison should have been handled.
The address is:
Prosecutor's Office
Don Hill Administration Building
20 South Street, 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055
Thanks....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mom obtains custody, child support
Former missing girl wants to stay with mother
By LACHELLE SEYMOURAdvocate Reporter
NEWARK -- Sheri Lyn Taylor, a Johnstown woman who allegedly disappeared from her California home nine years ago with her daughter, retained residential custody of the girl Monday after six hours of negotiations.
Taylor will also receive child support from the girl's father, David Brancheau, who will have regular visitation rights.
Authorities allege Taylor left California with her daughter Vanesa Brancheau, in 1995, gave her the assumed name of Ariel Rose Taylor, and lived in Kansas City, Mo., Daytona Beach, Fla., and Pataskala before moving to Johnstown.
She claims she left California because she was afraid David could harm them.
The two were found living in Johnstown in July after a woman recognized Vanesa's picture from the Web site of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Taylor received temporary physical custody of her daughter, now 14, in September after a two-day hearing in front of Licking County Juvenile Judge Robert Hoover.
David Brancheau, of Auburn Hills, Mich., will pay $425 per month in child support, plus processing fees. He can visit with his daughter every fifth weekend of the year, and four to six weeks in the summer.
Brancheau says the final agreement rewards Taylor for keeping his child away from him.
"I feel I had 14 years of parental alienation I didn't cause, and I'm left holding the bag," he said.
He went along with the plan because Vanesa wanted to live with her mother, he said.
Vanesa will be covered under her mother's health insurance plans, but David Brancheau will be temporarily responsible for 67 percent of any uncovered extraordinary expenses for the girl.
Both parents will share travel necessary for extended visitations, like those during holidays or spring and summer break, and will pay attorney and court fees.
Taylor and Brancheau must also avoid making "disparaging" remarks about each other.
Although Taylor's custody issue appears to be over, she faces felony charges of forgery and interference with custody for actions allegedly taken during her nine-year run from her daughter's father.
Taylor allegedly used false documents for school enrollment in the Southwest Licking School District, sparking the forgery charge.
Last month, Taylor chose to be charged by a bill of information, which waived her rights to indictment and review by jury.
Taylor's attorney, John OBora, said he is happy with the outcome of the custody hearing, but declined to comment further citing Taylor's upcoming review for the diversion program.
Acceptance into that program would allow her to avoid jail time for the felony charges and would be similar to serving probation.
OBora believes his client would be a good candidate for diversion, but said she will likely enter a plea if she is not accepted.
Reporter Lachelle Seymour can be reached at (740) 328-8546 or lseymour@nncogannett.com
posted by NYMOM | Friday, December 24, 2004
6 Comments:
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I personally know the man and I am very happy that Vanessa is staying with her mom. Sheri did the right thing protecting her child. She did what any mother would do.
9:18 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I am happy for Ms. Taylor and her daughter, but would like to point out that not all women in a situation like Ms. Taylor's are that lucky.
I left my husband after he physically and verbally abused me while I was 4 1/2 months pregnant with our child. We separated and he knew where I lived but I lived my life in fear that he may come and hurt me again and that he may cause me to lose the baby I was carrying. After being out of our lives for 3 1/2 years my ex went behind my back to file for custody (EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NEVER MET OUR CHILD OR EVER PARENTED BEFORE) and won!! The judge had ordered him full custody and that I pay him for back child support without him ever having raised our child.
10:53 PM
Blogger NYMOM said...
Believe it or not this is very TYPICAL today...
For instance, a lot of never-married mothers do not realize that if they do NOT establish legal custody through a court order that ANYTIME, ANYTIME even 5 or 10 years after the child's birth, the father can do just what you said...Go to court and get custody...When you find out is when the police are driving up to snatch your baby away, that can be the first you hear of it...
AND this could happen even if they are not on the birth certificate, by the way. Just to let other never-married mothers know if they read this...
This is something I found out recently from a young never-married mother(although I had heard it before from a man who worked in law enforcement, I just didn't beleive it). This young mother whose b/f was in Iraq...he returned two weeks after the birth so was not even named on the birth certificate because he wasn't here to sign any paternity papers...
Well, guess what, that didn't matter in the least, he just took the child for a 'day visit' to his family he claimed and then disappear with a few weeks old infant for two weeks...no permission, request of mother, telephone call, nothing...She called every agency and number in the state including her local police and guess what, even though she had the legal birth certificate w/o anyone's name on it but hers, no one PAID the slightly attention to her...NO ONE...
Luckily he decided to return the baby, otherwise it could have been a situation similar to yours...
Regarding married women like yourself, well from the time of conception the husband is considered the father in some states. FROM THE TIME OF CONCEPTION...
I assume you just never bothered filing with the courts for custody of your child and your ex-husband just wrote away for the birth certificate (which by rights, he is entitled to) since by law he is the legal father unless and until someone informed the courts differently.
Then he simply filed for custody himself...
My ex-husband did the same thing...he went down and filed for divorce and came to serve me the papers at work...He stipulated custody to ME however (as was very common in the days before high child support, actually I got NO child support and NEVER met any women who did, that's the way it was then)...
Today I would probably have been a non-custodial mother, tricked out of my child, just like you...
So, all your ex had to do was bring the birth certficate to court and file for custody himself...if you filed nothing previously, he would be awarded it...many, many men do this to unsuspecting mothers and get custody of children this way...
I have heard from dozens of mothers in your situation, dozens of them...and even the FBI said about 150,000 fathers a year abduct children, but the time they have the children abducted is shorter then when mothers have them, a few weeks for fathers versus 4 years for mothers...
Initially I thought this was because the fathers returned the children; NOW however I believe it's because they get custody through what someone called a judicially-sanctioned abduction (just what happened to you) and then are scratched off the FBI's list...so it no longer counts as an abduction...
As far as I'm concerned the legal system allowed your child to be abducted...pure and simple...
Well, I have been looking for someone to help me with this blog so if you have some time and are interested, let me know...I've closed most of my comments sections in May and June because of some harrassment from some mens/fathers rights advocates but will open them again in a while...
So let me know...
Good luck in your personal situaton...
Sorry I can't be more help...
2:20 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I have followed this case closely. I can say that there is no excuse for a four year old girl to catch a sexually transmitted disease while in her mother's care. This is the sole reason that custody was pursued by the father not some personal vendetta against her mother. In the end it is viewed politically correct for a mother to be married to two men at the same time and still regain custody of the child. This is long ancient history but the court systems must change to work for the rights of both parents and to stop the injustices against fathers who wish to have custody of their children. There has never been any mention of the parental ailenation that took place and is not considered a crime but it is considered emotional abuse. This is just my take on this .
10:27 PM
Blogger NYMOM said...
Oh please.
I've never met the father who either had or tried to get custody who didn't claim some nonsense like this about the mother. This is baloney. Men pursue custody 99% of the time to get out of paying child support and/or in order to get the financial tax benefits/credits, etc., that flow to the custodial parent...this is the usual crap driven by greedy men masquerading as concerned fathers.
9:44 AM
Anonymous Vanesa "Ariel" Taylor said...
Hello, My name is "Ariel" Vanesa Taylor, and i have no way of proving it to you, however i will let you know that David Brancheau, my father, did not treat my mother or i the way a father or "boyfriend" should. When i first met David/my father, he did not really seem interested in me at all. In fact i will let you know a little story about him. On one of my "visits" with him, we went to chicago to meet his sister and her husband for thanksgiving. On the later half of the trip we had stayed in a hilton hotel. One night he got upset at me because i kept talking about my mother(i was only 14 at the age and was confused why she had been thrown in jail). He had taken one of the hotel clocks and thrown it at me and his then wife Danielle( Danielle and David are now divorced and they did have a kid(my stepbrother Daniel) Danielle now resides in Brazil with Daniel. Is this what you think a beginning father should be? Is that how men act? If so then i am happy i never had a father in the first place. I love my mother to death and i wouldn't replace her for the world. She gave up her youth for me. She gave up work for me. She even gave up her freedom to take care of me. I am now in college and i am taken care of by my loving family. I wouldn't trade them either. If anyone has anything else to say, well say it. However none of you really know the situation first hand, and i wish i could tell off some of the media for making David this great man, because he isn't. He is just some pissed off ex-boyfriend who wanted to get back at my mum, and he tried to hurt her by hurting me. I never knew how to hate til i met David Brancheau. I hope he knows that. I hate him, and maybe someday when i am older and no longer want to punch him in his face for not keeping me as his child (he disowned me) then maybe i may sit down over a coffee and talk with him. Until then, well, there really isn't much else to say.
8:25 PM
Post a Comment
