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
What exactly do you mean by 'recreational sperm donor'?
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.
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.
Actually a maternal grandmother gives only 1/8 of DNA, and the father gives 1/2.
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...
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...
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.
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...
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)
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 cnn.com 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."
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...
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.
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.
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...