Sunday, March 19, 2006


New York Post
Online Edition




March 17, 2006 -- The first time he ever saw his daughter, she was laid out in a coffin.

But now, the biological father of Nixzmary Brown wants control of her estate - which could reap millions from lawsuits against the city.

And relatives of the 7-year-old girl, whose stepdad allegedly beat her to death while her mom looked the other way, are outraged.

"I tried to see her. I swear to God I did, but I didn't know where she was. Nobody knew where she was," said Abdurrahman Mian, 36, who lost touch with the girl's mother around the time of Nixzmary's birth.

Mian, 36, plans to file papers in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court within the next two months to be named administrator of her estate, his lawyer, Daniel Flanzig, said.

Frankly I don’t want EITHER side in this family to make a profit out of this kid’s death. They never helped her when she was alive, they certainly shouldn’t profit now that she’s dead. Perhaps the state can have Nixzmary Brown retroactively declared a ward of the state and thus no family member would profit from this tragedy. Whatever money comes to Nixzmary Brown’s estate would go directly into a special fund set up to provide funeral money for murdered children…

Something of that nature.

Anyway the more important question is why do we allow these prodigal fathers (or recreational sperm donors as is their proper designation) to turn up YEARS after the fact, having done nothing for these children they have carelessly spawned and then suddenly expect all the rights of being a legal father?

Many of them never even bothered putting their name on their child’s birth certificate, as we saw with the Bridget Marks/John Alysworth fiasco. THREE YEARS and this Alysworth character never even bothered having his name put on his twins’ birth certificate? Even though he was at the hospital when they were BORN…Yet he couldn’t be bothered filling out a form for three years…


Same story with this Abdurrahman Mian, this guy had SEVEN YEARS and he never even SAW his kid nor did she carry his name. Even though he lived in Washington Heights and she lived in Brooklyn, a train ride away and suddenly now he’s entitled to legal rights????

Again please.

We need to look at revising the laws for never-married men when they have created children through irresponsible sperm deposits. The clock for abandonment of their children should start ticking at the BIRTH of the child, just like it does for everyone else…NOT, as is the case now, whenever they finally get around to acknowledging paternity in three, seven or even ten years after the fact.

Why should these prodigal fathers get more time then either mothers or married fathers, people who play by the rules? If either a mother or a married father walks away and pretends they don’t have children for six months to a year (no support, no contact, etc.,) their parental rights are terminated.


These prodigals should have the same treatment.

The ONLY time an extension should be considered is if one of these prodigals can prove the child’s existence was hidden from them. Which was clearly not the case with either Aylswoth or Mian.

Now some will say what about child support? Who will pay to support this child? Well obviously the child’s mother and/or her family will have to do it. Now if she cannot afford it; THEN the STATE can and should be allowed to pursue a prodigal for his share of the public benefits used to raise the children he carelessly spawned. YET again, he should still be allowed no rights unless he can prove the child’s existence was hidden from him.

Many will say this is unfair, yet the government is frequently unfair when it comes to people owing them money. When you owe a student loan or taxes, for instance, you cannot include these debts in a bankruptcy. So isn’t this unfair to your other creditors? Their debts can be wiped out, but the government’s debt still remains? So there is precedent here.

AND if it’s good enough for the IRS, it’s damn sure good enough for child support.

Now on the other hand, an unmarried mother should NEVER be allowed to pursue a court-order for support from a prodigal father. Sorry but that is a right that only the state should be entitled to exercise in order to get reimbursement for a pubic benefit.

Again, we cannot continue allowing a small group of men and women to manipulate the system and cause all this uproar for the rest of us.

Of course, if an unmarried mother and a prodigal should wish to make a private arrangement amongst themselves for visitation, child support, even custody, whatever, no one would argue against that. Actually that was what we did in the past and it cut down on litigation, custody fights, abductions, considerably…however neither party would be allowed standing to force the other into a court ordered agreement against the will of the other. This privilege would be reserved for married parents and/or the state representing the taxpayer being reimbursed for public benefits, nothing more.

As always men, prodigal and otherwise, will begin screaming that their ‘equal’ fathers’ rights under the constitution are being violated, but this is nonsense. The constitution addresses the equal rights of people who are similarly situated. Clearly mothers are situated differently from fathers. Women in their role as mothers invest, risk and contribute more to bringing children into this world, and thus, we must use our common sense when we make laws addressing their situation. The courts of men can never be allowed to overrule the laws of God, evolution, or natural law which places every child with their mother as the person MOST apt to act in their offspring’s best interest, MOST of the time. This has been the situation via mother/child bonding since humanity first crawled out of the primal mists and is pretty much the case with every species, as well as our own (with the exception of a Disney clown fish and some odd reptiles).

Which I care nothing about, so please no penguin, seahorse or clown fish emails. I don’t care about a few freaks wandering off either end of the bell-shaped curve…

Anyway, people who cannot accept this truth (such as gender neutralized feminists and men/fathers rights advocates) should probably take it up with their deity. Complain to them about it.


Anonymous said...

We women would be far more credible if we, including yourself, would stick to facts instead of broadcasting perceptions.

We women, not men, are in full control of reproduction. To have, or not to have, a child is ours, and ours alone.

A woman who wants a child can tell her partner (or a three minute stand in an airport cleaning closet, à la Boris Becker) that she is on the pill, that she is sterile, that it is a “safe” time in her cycle, etc. Even if she was raped she can abort the foetus.

An Illinois doctor, whose ex-girlfriend had oral sex with him, kept his sperm in her mouth and then impregnated herself, was told by the court that he can't claim theft because the sperm were hers to keep, but he could sue the woman for emotional distress. The court also doubled his child support payments to $1,600.00 a month. Taxable to him, tax-free to her. A child, once more, was proven to be a mealticket to her mother.

NYMOM said...

"We women, not men, are in full control of reproduction. To have, or not to have, a child is ours, and ours alone."


I'm just trying to get people to understand and accept this inequity in nature's design and quit trying to act like men have as much input into the process as women do...

It is woman's burden, responsibility, glory, decision, whatever, on whether or NOT to bring a child into this world...

MEN are bit players here, backup and support, understudy, not the Captains but the crew...

The problem is that since men run everything else for their own comfort and convenience and USED to be able to have this whole children thingy revolving around their whims as well, they just can't take it now that they have been downgraded to secondary status here, which they should have been all along anyway, as their role is MINOR, SECONDARY, BACKUP AND SUPPORT ONLY in this area...


It is MEN who wish the world to continue revolving around them who are causing our current problems...they just cannot accept their secondary role here...they want to be in charge of everything again and it just ain't gonna happen...


So when men begin to accept the secondary and relatively minor role God, evolution or nature has designated for them and quit trying to use the court to 'legislate from the bench' in their favor THEN all this will end...

Until then the struggle continues.