|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"These children are going to be just as hurt as anybody else would by losing a parent," Minter said. "Regardless of being married or not, if K.M. was a man, she would have been automatically, without question, a legal parent."
How much is she paying in child support?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:31 PM May 12th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I tend agree with this decision at least in part. I think we need to apply the donor law equally and consistently, which is that a donor (they're mostly male) has no responsibily or rights to the child unless they adopt. That's what most male donors expect when they donate anyway. To make exceptions will only make things unpredictable and inconsistent, and exceptions usually go against the male.
If the bio-donor mom actually helped raise the child and bonded with the child, then perhaps the court should have given visitation rights just as a court can give to a step-parent or a grandparent. *Not* because she was the donor, though, but because she was part of the child's life *and* because she still wants to be.
Had this case gone the other way, it could have been used against men who help raise a child without expecting to be legally locked into responsibility for the child. They'd say, "well, you were part of the child's life, so now you're responsible" (i.e. similar to paternity fraud, though based on different reasoning).
I disagree with the woman from the lesbian rights organiation who opposed this decision. She says that, if the donor were a man, he would have gotten custody. But recent cases have held that male donors have no responsibility or rights over the child unless they adopt, and that's how it should apply to women too. She tries to make her case by comparing this to a California case which I think is the Nicholas H. case, in which a non-bio dad who spent years raising the child got custody, while the bio-dad who had not spent any time with the child did not get custody. I don't necessarily agree with the Nicholas H. case, but I think she's misapplying it here (if that's what she's referring to). Nicholas H. did not involve a donor, like here, and was not about the rights of donor parents but about who raised the child and who did not.
Those who opposed us on paternity fraud in CA (including a lesbian organization that I think is the same one here) tried to use the Nicholas H. case *against* us by saying that it shows that "fatherhood is not about biology." In my opinion that was a misuse of Nicholas H. too, because Nicholas H. was more about *custody* than about support, and was about two people who *wanted* custody, as opposed to paternity fraud which involves men trying to be *relieved* of responsibility for a child that isn't theirs and that they usually didn't raise at all.
Those are my thoughts, but I'm open to others.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:49 PM May 12th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Those who opposed us on paternity fraud in CA (including a lesbian organization that I think is the same one here) tried to use the Nicholas H. case *against* us by saying that it shows that "fatherhood is not about biology."
Yes. This is the lie that the DCSS attorneys, the feminists, and the children's rights organizations use to argue in favor of state sponsored paternity fraud in California.
For those not familiar with the Nicholas H. case here are the key points:
1) Mom was a drug addict that routinely abandoned the child.
2) The mom would leave the child with a boyfriend.
3) The boyfriend signed the birth certificate knowing that he was not the natural father of the child.
4) The boyfriend decided that he wanted to be the legally recognized father of the child. To get that recognition, it requires that there be a judge entering a finding of paternity.
5) The boyfriend also wanted sole custody of the child.
6) The mother of the child challenged the boyfriend's attempt to establish paternity by claiming that he was not the natural father.
7) There was a diligent effort to find the natural father, and he could not be found.
8) The court finally ruled in favor of the boyfriend, and he got sole custody.
What the feminist like to do is use this case, via distortions, to argue almost any lie in their favor in relation to paternity fraud.
However, when the facts of the case are known it is clear that the court made a good ruling, that there was a diligent search for the natural father who could not be found, and the court provided Nicholas H. with a father by adoption (in effect). It is also clear that the biology of the father mattered to the court.
The feminists hate the fact that there was a diligent search for the natural father of the child. They will always hide and lie about this fact to support their lies.
They literally crapped their pants when we pulled out the transcripts from the ruling, quoted the fact that there was a search for the natural father, and then called them misinformed.
Not once did they ever produce a source document to support their claims in Sacramento before the legislature, yet the legislature would let them routinely get away with that crap.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:55 PM May 12th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Those who opposed us on paternity fraud in CA (including a lesbian organization that I think is the same one here) tried to use the Nicholas H. case *against* us by saying that it shows that "fatherhood is not about biology."
Yes Marc. I believe you are right and that this is the same filthy drama queen lesbian feminist organization that promotes paternity fraud.
And Yes. This is the lie that the DCSS attorneys, the feminists, and the children's rights organizations use to argue in favor of state sponsored paternity fraud in California.
For those not familiar with the Nicholas H. case here are the key points:
1) Mom was a drug addict that routinely abandoned the child.
2) The mom would leave the child with a boyfriend.
3) The boyfriend signed the birth certificate knowing that he was not the natural father of the child.
4) The boyfriend decided that he wanted to be the legally recognized father of the child. To get that recognition, it requires that there be a judge entering a finding of paternity.
5) The boyfriend also wanted sole custody of the child.
6) The mother of the child challenged the boyfriend's attempt to establish paternity by claiming that he was not the natural father.
7) There was a diligent effort to find the natural father, and he could not be found.
8) The court finally ruled in favor of the boyfriend, and he got sole custody.
What the feminist like to do is use this case, via distortions, to argue almost any lie in their favor in relation to paternity fraud.
However, when the facts of the case are known it is clear that the court made a good ruling, that there was a diligent search for the natural father who could not be found, and the court provided Nicholas H. with a father by adoption (in effect). It is also clear that the biology of the father mattered to the court.
The feminists hate the fact that there was a diligent search for the natural father of the child. They will always hide and lie about this fact to support their lies.
They literally crapped their pants when we pulled out the transcripts from the ruling, quoted the fact that there was a search for the natural father, and then called them misinformed.
What is especially horrific is that the California legislature would literally allow the feminists and child's rights advocates (feminist hiding behind children) to make any claim. By contrast we had to document and prove every claim or be ignored as drama queens.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where do we draw the line between bio-donor and parent? This lesbian couple were obviously involved with each other, though just as obviously not married. If an unmarried straight couple wants a child, but has to resort to IVF to concieve, is the bio-donor a father, or just the donor?
I'd be afraid of drawing the line between bio-donor and father at marriage. I wouldn't want to rule out nature or nurture as a basis for parenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:18 PM May 13th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this is a good point. At very least, the wishes of the donor should be spelled out in the paperwork.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
I know most of us here have heard of men who were not the bio-father to a child, but lived with the woman and child for years and then had a court order child support.
Is this applicable in California? I know the Custodial mother moved to Massachusetts (talk about a MOVE AWAY!) - and does Massachusetts law then apply?
What I DO also wonder about, is had the "donor mom" gotten partial custody (what a freaking misnomer that is) would she have been liable for child support?
Hope to hear from you soon, appreciate in advance your taking time to reply.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 PM May 13th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I've done very little family law so I'm not the best to ask but I'll try. This is not legal advice, of course.
"I know most of us here have heard of men who were not the bio-father to a child, but lived with the woman and child for years and then had a court order child support.
If they were married and cohabitating when the child was born, there's a conclusive presumption that the child is his, and he has two years from the child's birth to challenge the presumption using DNA, etc. In other cases (not married, etc.), a man can be "presumed" the natural father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child." (Family Code 7611(d).) This presumption can be challenged only within a "reasonable time," whatever that is. (Family Code Section 7630(a)2.) I imagine there is case law applying this to particular situations, but I don't know the case law.
"I know the Custodial mother moved to Massachusetts (talk about a MOVE AWAY!) - and does Massachusetts law then apply?"
I'm not sure, sorry, but I believe that would depend on where the action is filed if there is a judgment yet, and if there's a judgment it would probably go by the state where the judgment was made.
"What I DO also wonder about, is had the "donor mom" gotten partial custody (what a freaking misnomer that is) would she have been liable for child support?"
I believe she could have been, in theory, yes. Who knows what the courts would actually do. There is a huge controversy right now in CA about appellate courts making opinions that they make "unpublished," i.e. nobody can cite them. They can be looked up, but not cited. Those who oppose this (I do) argue that appellate courts are depublishing in order to cover up their inconsistent judgments. I don't doubt that this happens. The court depublished the Dave Gunther decision that we fought for and won. http://www.ncfmla.org/gunther_project.html I don't think they had any good excuse to do so, even though I was very happy about the decision itself. I mention this because it shows how you can't always be certain what courts will do in CA especially in family court situations. It's a bit frightening.
Possibly Warble might have some answers too.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:24 AM May 14th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I know most of us here have heard of men who were not the bio-father to a child, but lived with the woman and child for years and then had a court order child support.
This technique of getting more than one man assigned to be the father of a child is called estopple.
Basically, the mom can have a child by a boyfriend or husband. Then she gets divorced or moves out, and she moves in with another boyfriend or marries. In either case paternity is assigned to the natural father of the child….assuming there is no paternity fraud.
What can happen is that the natural father of the children can claim the boyfriend or 2nd husband interfered with his parental rights and he can demand relief from child support (very rare). Another situation is that the natural father will go to jail and cannot pay child support (more common). So, the mother will claim that the new boyfriend or husband is the father by estopple because he "acted" or "held himself out as the father of the child(ren)."
This technique of getting 2 or more men assigned to pay child support is being promoted by the American Law Institute and it is coming to a state near you. It is very popular with both conservatives and liberals who are actively attacking the notion of the natural family.
The liberals and progressives like it because it attacks the notion of the traditional family, and spreads paternal responsibility to any male that has a relationship with a child. Note that liberals and progressives do not believe that biology has a role in determining the father of a child. For them only the relationship between a child and father counts and there can be many males assigned to the role of the father. The like paternity by estopple because it also attacks the notion that biology matters in determining the father of a child. Naturally, the progressives (AKA communist, leftist, socialist, etc) would never challenge the mother's rights in this way. This attack is only directed at fathers. This is in line with the American Marxist Feminist ideology, which they routinely lie about.
Conservatives like assigning multiple fathers to a child because it gets children off of welfare. They believe that a stepfather should be required to pay for the biodads mistakes by virtue of the fact that the man married the mother with children. Conservatives do not like to hold a biodad that has had too many children responsible for child support. That is because then they end up paying less tithing to their church of choice. To them it is more important that the mother and children not be on welfare and that their church of choice gets their money. So, they prefere to stick the stepfather with child support.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
