Friday, September 06, 2013

Sad but Inevitable End to this Story...

I've been following this case for a few years and I hate to say it but the former adoptive parents of this little girl should just step back now and let the child remain with it's father.  Or should I say the father's wife or his parents (whichever one he's dumped her off with to return to his military career).  

Unfortunately this is the inevitable result of allowing unmarried men to have the same legal rights as a child's mother.  Men contribute little or nothing to bringing children into this world and this particular recreational sperm donor contributed nothing long after the fact, Yet he was allowed to overrule the mother's action in placing this little girl up for adoption and into a stable family home two years after she had been legally adopted.

Now everyone wants to play "let's fix this after the fact" but it's too little too late to do that.  This child has now been living in whatever family arrangement her father has left her in since 2011, this is now 2013. 

She should not have her life disrupted for the second time.  

The father has been arrested for custodial interference and posted a $10,000 bond but the real person who should be under investigation and posting a bond is the original judge in South Caroline who overturned established legal precedent in order to give a recreational sperm donor rights to a child who was already legally adopted into a stable family unit.  

This is another example of how mens' rights advocates and gender neutralized feminists have invaded our legal system and made courts a dangerous place now for mothers and children and also goes to show how one person can totally ignore the law as well as the best interest of a child and get away with it.  Time is on the side of the person who knows how to work the legal system...sad really.

Anyway, we are going to see fewer mothers placing their children into adoption and more abortions as they begin to realize that these recreational sperm donors can pop up years after the fact and overrule any decisions they have made in the best interest of their children.

The original adoption should not have been overturned but since it was and the child has now been another two years with a different family her life should not be disrupted a second time.

Very sorry for everyone involved in this case.

Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY12:55 a.m. EDT June 26, 2013

Little 'Baby Veronica' was adopted for more than two years, but an obscure law preventing the breakup of Native American families had forced her return to her father.

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court sided with a 3-year-old girl's adoptive parents over the legal claim of her father Tuesday in a case that revolved around the child's 1% Cherokee blood.In doing so, the justices expressed skepticism about a 1978 federal law that's intended to prevent the breakup of Native American families -- but in this case may have created one between father and daughter that barely existed originally.

While four justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum found no way to deny the father his rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, five others -- including Chief Justice John Roberts, an adoptive father himself -- said the adoptive parents were the consistently reliable adults in "Baby Veronica's" life. They ordered the case returned to South Carolina courts "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

That the nation's highest court was playing King Solomon in a child custody dispute was unusual to begin with. It had jurisdiction because Veronica is 3/256ths Cherokee, and the law passed by Congress 35 years ago was intended to prevent the involuntary breakup of Native American families and tribes.
In this case, however, the first family to get broken up was the adoptive one in South Carolina, led by Melanie and Matt Capobianco. They had raised Veronica for 27 months after her mother put her up for adoption. The father, Dusten Brown of Oklahoma, bjected to the adoption only after the fact.

Brown won custody 18 months ago after county and state courts in South Carolina said the unique federal law protecting Native American families was paramount. The Capobiancos' attorney, Lisa Blatt, had argued in court that the law was racially discriminatory -- in effect banning adoptions of American Indian children by anyone who's not American Indian.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito ruled for the majority that the law's ban on breaking up Native American families cannot apply if the family didn't exist in the first place. He said the father had not supported the mother during pregnancy, agreed to give up parental rights in a text message, and changed his mind much later.

"In that situation, no Indian family is broken up," Alito said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented along with liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and conservative Antonin Scalia, said Veronica now could have her life unnecessarily interrupted for a second time.

"The anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today's decision," she said.

Only once before has the law been tested at the nation's highest court. Nearly a quarter-century ago, the court took Native American twins from their adoptive family and handed them back to a tribal council in a case that Scalia recently said was the toughest in his 26 years on the bench.

Only Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy were on the court for that 1989 case, in which the court ruled 6-3 for an Indian tribe's custody rights. Scalia sided with the majority, while Kennedy joined the dissent. They were in similar positions this time as the court ruled against the law's intent -- Scalia again on the father's side, Kennedy with the adoptive couple.

Friday, August 02, 2013

Interesting custody story in local news...

This has become a rather interesting story of a custody fight between a basketball star and his wife.  Now after these children have been with their mother as their primary parent for years while their father traveled on the road, suddenly every newspaper article I'm reading is painting this mother as 'crazy' or 'unstable'.

Now I don't know any of the principals in this situation personally and it could very well be that this young woman is suffering from the early stages of a mental breakdown, possibly even due to the stress of an almost 5-year long custody fight against her millionaire ex-husband; however, it just seems that this is a very typical story-line used when men wish to remove children from an already established custodial arrangement...

Actually most mothers that I know who have lost custody of their children were painted as 'unstable'.  I've rarely heard of fathers having custody switched for being unstable.  Generally the bar is set pretty high for custodial fathers and it takes proof of severe abuse or neglect before a mother can get custody of her children switched, once custody (even temporary custody) is established.  

One interesting sidebar I read was that the boys' father was working on Fathers' Day so he sent a family member to pick his kids up and when the mother refused to release them, this was used against her as more proof of instability.  I wonder how a mother would have been viewed who could not rearrange her work schedule on Mothers' Day while she was trying to get custody switched to her as a primary parent?

I  have read many stories of how mothers lost custody of their children for working too much and using paid help to fill in for them.  Yet if a father get custody and dumps his kids off on his mother or his latest girlfriend or paid help, this is considered fine. Not a reason for a custody hearing due to a substantial change in circumstances in the custodial situation, just business as usual.

As I said I don't know if the mother of these children is unstable but I just find it strange that another mother has been painted with this broad brush and had her children taken from her and handed over to their father (who will be on the road traveling for much of their daily lives) because of her supposed instability.

Btw, if this mother sees any of that supposed 5 million settlement offer it would be a miracle and if she does manage to get any part of it, most will be used fighting in court to get to see her children over the years...she has a long road ahead of her.

Miami Heat’s Dwyane Wade Custody Battle Rages On, Ex-Wife Unstable?

July 31, 2013 4:11 pm EDT by Will Connolly

According to the Miami Herald, Miami Heat star Dwyane Wade was forced to hand his children over to his ex-wife, Siohvaughn Funches, as custom to her visitation schedule. When Wade refused to do so pending she take a psychological evaluation, the court had to step in and take matters into their own hands.

It was reported that Wade felt Funches’ extremely strange and overly aggressive behavior during their divorce proceedings was something to take note of, especially when she sat outside the Chicago courthouse with a sign stating she was homeless and telling her side of the story to any reporters who would listen.

Wade shares two children with Funches by the name’s of Zion, 9, and Zaire, 4. Wade filed for divorce in 2007 and after a tireless battle in the courts, was granted sole custody in 2011. But the battle wears on as Siohvaughn has recently been granted visitation rights and was to have her second visitation last week, but according to her attorney, Wade kept them from her.

To add to the difficulties, Wade and Funches are apparently working out a $5 million divorce settlement that is yet to be signed by either party.

Now I am not one to pry, but it seems as though Funches has been playing with Wade’s head for quite some time now. And yes, she deserves to see her children, but not if she is psychologically unstable. It’s come to my attention that the only one who suffers in this situation are the children, who are consistently subjected to overzealous media, who trying to get the best scoop and are hearing all these terrible things about each one of their parents. I wish the best for D-Wade and I hope that when all is settled and done, he and his two boys are happy and content.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Follow the Money..

I just came across this, oldie but goodie, which premise still holds true over 10 years after it was written by Professor of Family Law, Mary Ann Mason.

As usual if we 'follow the money' we can see where it leads:  courts attempting to give illegitimate rights to men in order to generate child support payments from what are basically recreational sperm donors, who should have no more rights to children then the man in the moon. 

The thing that troubles me is that people who presumably can act upon this have known about it for almost a decade and yet I  have seen no significant changes in public policy to make any improvements in the situation...

Frankly I feel that if courts are going to rule on custody using a strictly biological relationship to the child then the maternal grandmother should have as much if not more rights then a biological father, since genetically speaking she is more closely related...

Women who can, need to start speaking up on these issues instead of just sitting around on their hands while these attacks on mothers and children are allowed to take place.



Modern custody disputes favor father's rights over child's welfare, according to UC Berkeley study

By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs 

Berkeley -- The modern drive to expand fathers' rights in custody cases has resulted in a significant decline in decisions made in the best interest of the child, according to new research by a University of California, Berkeley, professor of family law.

States now give higher priority to blood ties than to parenting and children can be ordered to live with biological fathers they have never known, said Mary Ann Mason, a lawyer and professor of family law at the UC Berkeley's School of Social Welfare.

"An unwed father who has never seen his child will be given custody in most states in preference to unrelated individuals who have done the actual parenting," said Mason. "Unwed fathers now have the same rights as married fathers - a major historical change of the past two decades."

She added that such disregard for children's needs also occurs in divorce cases where courts "have rushed to 'divide the child,' by insisting on joint custody and ignoring what we know about early child development."

Children are not being represented in court or given a voice of any kind, Mason says in a wide-ranging analysis of custody law published this month (February) as a book.

In "The Custody Wars: Why Children Are Losing the Legal Battle and What We Can Do About It" ( Basic Books, N.Y.), Mason evaluates the contemporary and historical status of custody decisions, demonstrating that modern-day courts have regressed in their concern for child welfare.

This has happened, in part, because states - now wanting to encourage unwed fathers to pay more child support - offer unprecedented rights to them as parents based purely on biology, not actual parenting, said Mason. In another arena, she added, parental rights have been expanded via joint custody decisions - unwise in the case of very young children who need stability in their lives.

"Young children's best interests are largely ignored in joint custody decisions," said Mason. "If very small children could speak, they would not choose to divide their lives in half. It is just not developmentally appropriate."

Courts have known this about small children, ages six and under, since the turn of the century when the "tender years doctrine" became law. Today, nearly 100 years later, the doctrine - which favors a primary parent - is being ignored in a "politically correct" move to joint custody, she said.

But it is in the case of new rights for unwed fathers that Mason finds the most egregious examples of a legal system that disregards the welfare of the child.

Until a Supreme Court decision in 1971, unwed fathers had no rights to child custody based on the genetic relationship. Now, most states have given unwed fathers all the rights of a married father.

"In the case of unwed fathers," said Mason, "states have abandoned the child-centered 'best interests' test. 

Today, it must be shown only that it would be harmful to the child to live with the biological parent, not merely in that child's best interest." She said this means that a young child can be taken from an adoptive parent with whom he or she has a strong attachment, as in the celebrated case of Baby Jessica, because the biological rights of the father have become paramount.

In Michigan, four-year-old Baby Jessica was raised by adoptive parents only to be given in a custody dispute to her biological father. The father was not married to Jessica's biological mother and the child had never seen him.

"If our first concern was truly the best interests of children, we would look at unwed fathers in a different light," said Mason. "We would look, first of all, to whom is performing the actual parenting."

In a current California case, an unwed father was allowed to make a paternity claim for a child being raised by his former girlfriend and her husband.

In the past, such a claim would not have been tolerated by courts because their primary intent was to preserve family stability. This time-honored tradition, in which the married father was always the legal father, also protected the child.

But no more, said Mason.

By allowing this paternity claim, the California court "paid little attention to the rights of Brian, now age four, or even to his needs. His best interests were not considered at all," she said.

If paternity tests bear him out, said Mason, the unwed father may sue for custody and sink that family into dispute, with serious psychological risks for Brian.

"Countless studies, focusing both on married and divorced families, indicate that conflict produces serious negative results in children who need the stability of a primary parent," she said. "We should not be making the rights of parents, whether the mother or the father, paramount in custody cases."

Mason argues strongly that children need advocates in court and that most custody disputes should be settled on the basis of the needs and wishes of the child involved, with changes depending on age.

Until they are adolescents, children should be represented not only by attorneys, but by child advocates, Mason recommends. Currently, psychological evaluations in custody cases test only the personality fitness of the parents, through tests that detect psychotic tendencies. They give little weight to who is doing the parenting, and the evaluators rarely listen to what the children want.

As a result, it is common for children to be forced to divide their lives or spend time with parents they don't want to see, said Mason.

"This is not a child-centered policy. The equal rights of the parents, not the best interests of the child, are the guiding principle," said Mason. She recommends that the United States follow the example of English courts which have provided all children in custody disputes with two advocates -- a legal and a personal representative -- since passage of the Children Act of 1989.

"The philosophy of the Children Act is that children are usually the least powerful party in any dispute and need the greatest protection," said Mason, pointing out that children get far better representation in U.S. criminal courts than in family courts.

Mason believes the wishes of mature children over the age of 13 should prevail in a custody dispute, unless they are at risk of being harmed by their choices.

In addition, she calls for regular reviews of custody arrangements to adapt to the changing needs of children as they grow. And, she urgently endorses a return to the policy of favoring a primary parent, during the tender years.

"The fundamental concept of attachment, introduced after World War II by John Bowlby has withstood a new generation of researchers," said Mason. "For children under six, it can be very destructive to disrupt their bond with a primary parent."

"There must be a place where children are heard and their changing needs are addressed," she said, "a place where judges are educated in child development; a place where the rule of law, while flexible, truly promotes the best interests of the child rather than catering to gender politics."

Added Mason, "Children are not property to be exchanged."

This server has been established by the University of California at Berkeley Public Information Office. Copyright for all items on this server held by The Regents of the University of California. Thanks for your interest in UC Berkeley.

More Press Releases More Campus News and Events UC Berkeley Home Page

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Women Who Make the World Worse

Well  here's another old post I found while looking for something else.  I had totally forgotten about it but I think readers might find it interesting...


I was recently privileged to listen to Kate O’Beirne being interviewed on C-SPAN’s Booknotes for her recent work Women who make the World Worse and I must admit I was impressed with her. She answered all the questions put to her by the interviewer and was able to make a logical and coherent case for all of her views.

That’s pretty rare today.

She covered pretty much everything with one notable exception (which I will mention later) from single motherhood up to and including women in frontline combat in the military. She’s opposed to both, of course.

One unusual thing I found out about Kate O’Beirne’s background is that she was educated by nuns and feels this was very instrumental in her formative years. It’s interesting, as she mentions, how little attention is ever paid by feminists (or anybody really) to the basic ‘outside of the box thinking’ of nuns. They could really be seen as the first independent women of history, as they chose not to marry and instead dedicate themselves to education and serving their communities, long before this was a career choice for women btw.

Anyway she covered everything pretty much in the same vein as I might have with one exception which of course, is she ignored the whole issue of gender neutral custody and never even mentions that millions of fit, loving mothers that have lost custody of their children, many to never see them again. This is due in large part to these crazy gender-neutralized feminists and mens/fathers rights nuts. As those inherent differences she mentioned between men and women also involve women in their roles as mothers, not just the whole military and sports issues, which are minor blips on the radar to mothers compared to our children.


The current fashion today for mothers to lose custody stems from these crazy gender-neutralized feminist's ideas. It's actually seen as progressive today to give a father custody and ignore the mother/child bond. Even infants are at risk here of never having any contact with their mothers again, due to these feminazis social engineering of the court system. Kate O'Beirne admits the truth in this with some of her strongest arguments, even citing how various groups of gender-neutralized feminists heading professional and educational organizations have pathologized the mother/child bond. These unprincipled. gender-neutralized monsters have actually diagnosed a mother's attachment with her child as a sign of mental illness. Yet, she doesn't follow her own logical argument through to the most obvious conclusion and turns around and blames feminists for custody wars. When it should be obvious that it is not feminists at all who are encouraging these custody wars, as they have nothing to gain by mothers keeping custody of their children just the opposite from their point of view. Instead, it is ordinary women trying to keep custody of their own kids who are fighting these battles.

Mothers, properly, wish their children to be spending most of their lives with them, not involved in all kinds of nutty custody-sharing arrangements just to ensure fathers don’t have to pay too much child support. Feminists would LOVE for mothers just to turn their backs on their kids and walk away for some career. It’s ordinary mothers who aren't playing the game according to feminists' and fathers rights nuts' demented playbook.

So in this one area, I found Kate O’Beirne conclusions to be lacking...

Last point.

She does correctly identify men as the culprit behind the current explosion of single mothers. Men’s fixation on casual sex with many women, which was enabled by feminism, places many women today at an extreme disadvantage. As women appear to be still using the age-old strategy of sex as a way to build a relationship, with a pregnancy expected to close the deal via a marriage proposal. Unfortunately it’s not working that way anymore and the result is millions of women being left high and dry with a pregnancy that does not result in a marriage. Thus either an abortion or single motherhood follows.

Feminism appears to have lost women all their bargaining power in our society vis-à-vis male/female relationships. By convincing many young women that casual sex will ‘empower’ them, it has led to women who don’t buy into the ‘casual sex as empowerment’ party line to be operating from a strategic disadvantage on the dating scene. We even see this in the current proliferation of teenage girls giving oral sex to boys in school. These girls are obviously attempting to date boys in a climate where to refuse to have sex probably means a lot of Friday nights at home ALONE watching tv. This is the compromise they have come up with obviously, not having sex but some lesser version of it.

However, Kate O’Beirne seems to miss the point that this is not in the power of women, by ourselves, to change this situation so easily. For instance, her glib answer to what a disempowered single mother ought to do, for instance, “find a husband” doesn’t seem to realistically address the reality for most young women today who wish to be married and have families. Unfortunately men have changed their behavior, not women, so men are the ones who need to take the initiative in this area. Thus, she sidestepped this important social change that has left women scrambling along behind to pick up the pieces broken by the Hugh Hefnerization of our society.

It’s somewhat arrogant to assume that women can totally change this situation by themselves with no sincere wish to change it by the men who are advantaged by it. As I have often said, now that this genie is out of the bottle, most men would be very adverse to putting the cork back in and foregoing the casual sex on demand that is so common today. Anyway, I don't see it just happening because some group of women would like it to, that's for sure.

I mean there is a certain level of attention that a young girl receives for a good number of years as she acts out around men like a tramp or skank as they call it today. AND for many girls this appears to be enough. Thus, ordinary women have this as their competition as they continue trying to build a stable relationship during the years when young men appear more interested in casual sex, then making a serious commitment. BTW, I'm not talking about the competition as being prostitutes. Heck, prostitutes hate these skanks as much as ordinary women do, since they haven't been able to raise their prices since the 70s as so many of these skanks are giving it away for free over the last few decades.

So I think Kate O'Beirne is a little more optimistic then is warranted on the power of women to just turn this around now.

Other than this misreading of the casual sex business and the total ignoring of the custody issue for mothers, however, the interview was good, very thought-provoking. Thus, I look forward to more writing from Kate O'Beirne.
posted by NYMOM | Sunday, February 05, 2006
Blogger Sir Jessy of Anti said...
"Mothers, properly, wish their children to be spending most of their lives with them, not involved in all kinds of nutty custody-sharing arrangements just to ensure fathers don’t have to pay too much child support"

So the only reason fathers want custody is so they can avoid CS? You really have a demented opinion of men Maggie.
Blogger NYMOM said...
As you have a demented opinion of women...
Anonymous ginmar said...
NyMOM you are about as wrong as you can be about why fathers get custody. Fathers get custody because they have more money, more privilege, and face a court system made up of men.

O'Beirne herself uses the same crap all these feminist bashers use: statistics, anecdotes, biased sources and so forth. Frankly, if you're this off base, I'd rather you stop commenting on my blog.
Blogger NYMOM said...
Well I wasn't going to comment for long.

As you know I'm not a feminist and we disagree on just about everything anyway...

I just commented due to the ONE issue we agreed on...but I'm fine with not going back...

However to your point of the court system being made up of men and thinking that's why so many mothers lose custody...on that issue you are mistaken. The court system is mostly made up of men at the upper levels, but the officers of the courts: lawyers, law guardians, evaluators, etc., many of THEM are women...and Judges make their ruling 90% of the time mirroring an Evaluator's recommendations, as few Judges have the time to research a custody case themselves.

AND even when we do get a female Judge, they are MORE vicious to mothers then a man could ever be...Look at that Arlene Goldberg with the Bridget Marks case, even OJ Simpson in California got custody of his kids from a female Judge...


I too initially wanted to believe that men were the source of these unfair custody rulings. Actually, I did believe it for a long time; until I actually got involved with the issue and spoke to many non-custodial mothers and guess what, it's not the fault of men that mothers lose's frequently the fault of other women.

Many of these mothers became non-custodial due to a vicious feminist Evaluator or GAL handing in a recommendation to a Judge who them ruled against them based upon it...


I didn't want to believe it either as it was soooo much easier for me to just blame men...

Easy, but not correct.

But I won't post on your blog again...

Good luck in your life anyway.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Shortcuts lead to a messy outcome in these situations

I don't see this as evidence of any bias against lesbians but just the usual hunt for someone to pay child support when a parent attempts to collect benefits for their children from the state...

The only way to protect yourself and your children in these situations is to use a licensed physician who provides the anonymous donor sperm from a sperm bank.

Now these women have put their children in a bad situation as well, since this man or any of his family members, grandparents, sister, etc.,  can now turn right around and file a custody case against them.

You cannot take short cuts with these issues as you leave both yourself and your children open to years of litigation and stress in a long drawn-out  custody war...

Mother lied about knowing sperm donor, agency says in demanding donor pay
Published January 03, 2013

Days after a sperm donor in Kansas was ordered to pay child support for the baby he helped a lesbian couple conceive, the state agency seeking payments says one of the women may have deceived the department.

In a court filing Wednesday, the Kansas Department for Children and Families questioned the validity of the sperm donor contract between William Marotta and the couple, Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer.

Marotta's lawyer dismissed the state's claims, calling the filing "offensive."

According to The Topeka Capital-Journal documents show Schreiner did not indicate she knew the name or any other information about the sperm donor in her application for child support.

William Marotta told earlier this week he might never have agreed to provide sperm to the couple had he known the legal morass that awaited him after responding to the women’s Craigslist ad for a donor in March 2009, and he suggested he might be a victim of bias against same-sex parenting.

“I have a hunch part of the reason this is going this way is because of people’s feelings toward same-sex couples,” Marotta told

The 46-year-old machinist said he received notice in late October that he was being targeted by state officials to pay child support after the couple -- who parted ways in 2010 but still co-parent their eight children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years -- were ordered by DCF officials to provide the sperm donor’s name. State officials argued that if the women did not identify the donor, the agency would deny health benefits due to withheld information.

The state seeks to have Marotta named the child's father so he can be held accountable for a $6,000 payment the state had provided in public assistance, as well as future child support payments.

The state agency claims it has several conflicting donor contracts on file -- including a copy that doesn't have dates or signatures. The contract "may be invalid on its face," the filing suggests.

But Benoit Swinnen, an attorney for Marotta, said to The Tokepa Capital-Journal on Thursday, "the insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story."

Swinnen said his client had never had a personal relationship with the couple.

The court filing argues the sperm donor contract overlooks a "well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child," adding that the right for support doesn't belong to the parents, but rather to the child. And only when semen is provided to a licensed physician does a donor have protection from a paternity test.

Schreiner answered a question about who the father is with "no idea -- sperm donor" on an application for child support dated Jan. 5, 2012, The Topeka Capital-Journal notes

The filing called the applications "very troubling because [Schreiner] clearly deceived DCF on her first application. She knew the name of the respondent because of the purported 'sperm donor contract.'" Adding that it is "implausible to think" Marotta didn't know a licensed physician wasn't performing the procedure when he took the sperm to the couple's house.

Bauer, 40, and Schreiner, 34, had been together for eight years and previously adopted other children when Marotta responded to their ad and later provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner.

Marotta's attorney said the DCF’s filing failed to address what he identified as gaps in its original petition case -- asking for DNA testing.

A hearing on the matter is expected to be held next week.

Fox News' Joshua Rhett Miller and the Associated Press contributed to this report.