Two dads face off against two moms. It's perhaps the most unique custody battle in recent Florida history and maybe the most radical verdict. Katherine Alicea and her eight-year partner, Ana Sobrino, decided to have a baby about a half-decade ago. Again and again, they tried using sperm from anonymous donors. But Katherine — a driven real estate agent then in her late 30s — couldn't get pregnant.What gets me about this is that the family court is always saying that it is acting in the Best Interests Of The Child (BIOTCH), and yet the judge gives no consideration whatsoever to the right of the boy to have his own father in his life. And no, I don't count some lesbian man wannabe who is going to teach the boy to urinate sitting down.
Enter their close friend, Ray Janssen, a handsome, gay Air Force veteran.
After some casual negotiation, he donated and Katherine conceived. In August 2006, a sweet and burbling baby whom we'll call Austin was born. Katherine put Ray's name on the birth certificate because she wanted the child to know his dad's identity. ...
After considering arguments from both sides, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Leon Firtel on June 3 found Ray was nothing more than a sperm donor. Because there was no contract before birth, he had "no rights."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Judge says biological dad has no rights
I expect to see a lot more homosexual custody battles.The latest is from Florida:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
hmmm, seems in the plain vanilla heterosexual divorces the man is largely considered just the sperm donor as well in the courts when it comes to child custody. Oh, that's sperm donors with a wallet attached.
it's really remarkable when you think about it. As a society we've had many benefits and wrongs righted with the Women's Liberation Movement. Men have benefited in that they can participate more in the direct responsibilities of raising children: that's win-win for both parents and the children. And society benefits by unleashing the talent and drive from the 50% of the population that didn't really have a chance. Still not balanced, but it's light years ahead of where we were, say, even 20 years ago. As a man, I don't stand to lose in that deal. More competition in the workplace? No, more opportunities arise, globalization aside, that's a different issue.
What I don't understand is the more radical side that simply wants to just use men as sperm donors, then just pay for the raising of the children, and not enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of raising the child. In fact, the father is vilified via parental alienation syndrome (NOW can deny reality all they want, it exists, I've experienced it personally). This is supposed to "balance the books" from past wrongs? I hear women are so much better than men in almost everything (check out the NYT article from 26 July on how women are better managers). But they're just as repressive as men, and vengeful to boot. That's better and more enlightened? Sorry, that doesn't wash in the light of reason and logic. Too many laws like child support being tax exempt income as well as support ratios based on deliberately falsified data (and recanted, but that hardly made the news) provide incentive for (mostly) women to pursue taking the children completely away from the father. There is of course a personality/pschyhology angle to all this, but that's another story. But part of the package, too. So much damage done to American society and culture, and it's all self-inflicted.
To be frank, I tell the younger guys contemplating marriage a bit of my story and advise them against both formal marriage as well as having kids. That cartoon George posted a few days ago? Too spot-on, I'm afraid.
Well its simple. The 'radical" side was never a side, it encompassed all of feminism. The selling point (the other side) was all the suckers who thought it would be great for families and get Women with all that "talent" outside the horrible confines of motherhood and into the nobility of waitressing.
We have done a 360. 45 years ago feminist said it was slavery to be a housewife. Now, we glorify it as the good life. Look at the most popular shows now, Desperate Housewives, the real housewives of New Jersey, etc. Wow, what a splendid world to not have to work. Turns out it wasn't slavery afterall. Playing politics with your undersexed, alcoholic boss for 30 years is much closer though.
It was never supposed to be a good thing. It was meant to get double income families to shell out double prices (look at the increase in education, insurance, automobile, health care, and housing costs since the late 60's).
Now, women brag about being Doctors, lawyers, etc. The truth is though, that for every female Doctor, you got 5000 women waiting tables, answering phones, swinging on poles, with no other choice. Don't blame spern donors, blame the Feminist for turning the greatest thing in the world (stay at home mother) into a 4 letter word.
You make some valid points, though I do disagree w/you that the feminist movement was/is completely radical. From what I see it was highjacked by the radical fringe, much like the Republicans and Democrats, and then the fringe gets all the press because they have the biggest mouths. And in this day and age, all you need is a hateful attitude and a big mouth and that's considered intelligent debate and reason. More to the point, you are absolutely correct that stay at home motherhood was vilified, and that's shameful. All the platitudes you hear of the primacy of family and children in our society? All hogwash. Follow the money and talent and you see education and healthcare for poor children get shortshrift. And not just in CA w/our recent budget cuts. I can't say that the increased cost of living is due to an increase in having women work outside of the house, that's a multivariate and highly complex situation that developed since that time: geopolitics, economics, etc. I concede, though, that yes, it now does take 2 incomes to make ends meet, shameful. Lack of options for everyone except to be a wageslave. It would also be interesting to see what the ratio of college-degree'd women there are in the workforce to those slogging it in those jobs you describe, then compare that w/men. I know the info is out there and is published. But yes, it is established women get the short end of the stick in the workworld, no argument, see it all the time. Hate and revenge as motivation for any social movement that's to help the oppressed is doomed to repeat the same mistakes as the oppressor, or make things even worse. Feminism has definitely done quite a bit of that, unfortunately. But it has at least begun to level the playing field in someways, too. It will take serveral generations to sort it out. If we're lucky and keep an open mind and try to be reasonable, reasoning, and fair. Tall order, I know....
Oops, we've actually done a 180, not a 360 as I stated earlier. To the above poster, thank you for your civil retort, but I must say I disagree with just about all of it(except for the parts you agree with me on :))
1. It seems easy these days to blame a failed Social movement on "a few radicals". Nonsense. If you do your research these organizations were all started by Radicals and the intent was the complete destruction of free markets, nuclear family, and Capitalism. It's an easy out to say, oh they started off nobile, but lost their way. Don't fall for it.
2. I don't agree with the shortshirt the poor get in education and healthcare. In fact, in my experience the working lower middle class gets the biggest shaft when it comes to healthcare (I know, I'm part of this class). And that is we make to much for freebies (or at least legally make to mcuh, meaning we pay taxes) and we make to little for healthcare. My thoughts have always been that in the US, you get the best care if you are either very rich or very poor.
3. True, it's never been etched in stone that high housing costs may not completely be the fault of the rise of Feminism. However, many bigtime Real estate moguls like Hearst were licking their chops and spending fortunes to get that movemement under-way. As they say, if it quacks like Duck.
4. I think you are referring to wage-gap (i'm sorry, but it's so hard for me not to say, wage-gap myth) thingy when you say its "obvious" women get the short end of the stick at work. Tell you what, you bring your info on this and i'll bring mine and we'll see who gets the short end of the stick. As I stated earlier the wage gap is a total myth that has been debunked a 1000 times over. Most notably by the Washington Post. Clearly when you take all the pay men make vs. all the pay women make and don't take the time to remove such simple things as the fact more Men work then Women then clearly you are gonna come up with a wage gap. It's childish the way they get their figures.
5. You state it will take a few generations to sort this out. Yikes, that's a heavy price to pay to find out if a social experiement can work or not. Millions of broken homes, fathers not seeing their children, mothers having to live off the state, no benefits, insurance, sky high divorce, record numbers of abortion, etc. Also, feminism wasn't a response to "oppressors". Men protected women till the death. Even in cave men times they find bones and all the children and females are furthest from the cave entrance. Men would sleep at front in case of attack. Feminism is a spiteful, lesbian filled organization that bears its roots in Marxism. In short, a total, utter failure.
P.S. I'm still trying to figure out how the oppressed live 10 years longer
And I'll bet you're the Anonymous poster on the article about Chuck Norris that was so eager to fight over my being a "Liberal". What a pity the exchange wasn't civil like this was, I was actually interested in what you had to say here. And would have there, too, except for your gratuitous ad hominem attack.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but as much as I like Chuck Norris movies, I simply cannot recall having a discussion or debate on an internet forum in regards to him at any time in my life.
Perhaps something a little more specific could jar my memory.
my apologies, I thought you were someone I was having a rather extended row with on another posting on this blog. It was from a couple of days ago and it was entitled something about Chuck Norris commenting on some of the pending healthcare bills in Congress and a particular line in it mandating social workers to counsel expectant families or something to that effect.
Sorry, will get back to you later on your earlier commments in this thread, very interesting stuff you've written here.
Chuck Norris movies are pretty good, great marial artist, but I like Clint Eastwood movies better.
Dad have no rigths but he have all the responsabilities that the woman want to put on him for anychild she have (from anybody). What a justice system!
A membre of the 2nd class citizentry
Post a Comment