Adoptive parents prevail in father's custody battle

....of the second rate citizenship status of men when it comes to paternity. The state bends over backwards to reunite a female and her child almost without regard as to her morals or emotional ability to care for a child. The whole situation stinks!

Very reminiscent of the "Fall Görgülü" (Görgülü case) in Germany where something like this happened to a father of Turkish origin.
He lost the case at the German courts, but took it to the European court for human rights, and won. German courts then tried to get around the verdict. I'm currently not following the case but I think they still haven't been re-united.
I wonder if the lawyer of that man knows about this. Google for "gorgulu case" and you'll find some English info. His son is called Christofer btw.

...WITH legal support from the courts, and now they want HIM to pay CHILD SUPPORT, when he was the only one in the entire situation who had no choices WHATSOEVER? No choice about paternity. No choice about who would raise the child. No choice about the child's future whatsoever.

We need a new model until family law is reformed to grant men the same rights as women - one which I already live by:

No choice = no responsibility. Period. And I don't give a rat's ass what a court has to say about it.

These kidnappers were awarded custody because a) the obvious, misandric reason that everyone "knows" all men are inadequate human beings and b) because this couple is supposedly better able to provide for the child than he is. Yet they're "seeking child support"? I guess they're not such superior providers after all.

Last time I looked, you don't need a license to be a parent, provided you aren't abusive and provide the necessities of life, qualifications which this man clearly meets. Therefore any further "qualifications" imposed on the father as a condition of raising his child (which the mother was so happy to toss in the dumpster), are NULL AND VOID. This is a clear violation of international human rights standards regarding the rights of individuals to reproduce.

Women should take note of this case: there is now legal precedent in Canada for another person or couple to snatch your child, and then keep it because they're a bit better educated than you are, and might provide a slightly "better" set of opportunities for the child. Hell, why stop there, let's toss all the kids in Canada into a room and hand them out to random couples on the basis of their ability to provide "opportunities". It's not as if you as their parent have any right whatsoever to raise them anymore, thanks to this non-trivial decision. As the kidnappers' lawyer pointed out, it's all about the best interests of the child. Here's hoping that living with your neighbors wouldn't provide your child with better opportunities in life, because if it does, you're now shit outta luck. They can grab your kids, and the court has a precedent allowing it to award them custody because it's "best for the child".

And now the father's been denied visitation for a year to give the kidnappers a stronger bond with HIS child?

Just out of curiosity, are these kidnappers suing the MOTHER for child support? If not, why not? Why does she get a pass, when she was the only one who made any "choices" in this matter? Is this not her child as well, and therefore her responsibility? Or is this just another of the infinite places that having a vagina can be used to gain special privilege? Oh, that's right, women are equal until the responsibilities start getting handed out, then they're all poor, wilting victims of somethingorother.

If he's not fit to father his own offspring, and not fit to visit his own children, then he's not fit to pay child support. Plain and simple. Either he's the child's father with full rights, or he's not. The court has said he's not, end of discussion of any "support".

Of course, if the man fails to pay for his stolen child, support which the bitch who made all the decisions for he and his son in this matter does NOT have to pay to a couple already better-off than the father is (if she does, it's not mentioned in the article), they'll use that against him when he attempts to appeal. Not that he has a chance in hell in the feminist/jester-controlled Supreme Court of Canada.

If I were this man, they'd get child support out of me when hell froze over. I'd rot in prison for 25 years first, on the public's dime.

And welcome to Canada, where being the biological parent of a child no longer means a god damned thing in terms of your right to parent or even interact with them. The only silver lining to this judicial dark cloud is that like all of our ridiculous "family laws" up here, this decision will eventually be used against women, too. I wonder if the media coverage will be so glowing when that happens.

This kind of bullshit makes me want to throw up all over some family-destroying court and their friends in the media.

In the USA, if a child is adopted, child support is out of the question. That is what 'adoption' means - full legal and financial responsibility for the child.

This case is bogus if the so called adoptive couple are asking for money. FOR WHAT??!!

oregon dad