Michigan man not even allowed to seek parrental rights to biological son

Submitted by Demonspawn on Fri, 2006-08-04 14:50

In this story we can see the plight of a man not allowed to seek any parental rights of his son that he had begun to raise. Why? The mother no longer wants him around, and since the child was conceived before her divorce from a previous marriage, her former husband is the one who has to take responsibility.

Shocking excerpt from a member of the Supreme Court of Michigan: "As a practical matter, defendant's former husband will almost certainly never provide financial support for defendant's son."

That's right, folks! This man is attempting to sue for rights to SEE his son, and the courts are complaining about who is going to pay for the child. Can the courts make it more obvious that they see men as nothing more than walking wallets?

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Not only that, but the quote is from the dissenting judge.

The real sickness of cases like this is the clear control-freakery of the mother. She has spent years doing her best to completely disenfranchise the father of her child, all the way up to state supreme court. Given that this case hasn't even got to the issue of visitation or custody, one has to wonder at her motivations, if not sanity.

Here's another example. It is clear that mothers these days believe that their children are their chattel to do with and allow access to as they please, regardless of the father, and the courts, with cases like these, appear intent on reinforcing that attitude.

-- Silence is the voice of complicity.
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by JD on Sun, 2006-08-06 02:35

Another sad story, by another group of bauble-brained, dinky court jesters disguised as judges (excuse me). I’d say it’s time for the people to elect judges, what say you? Too many of these twits (again, if you’ll excuse my very mild defamations) think they know what’s best for society; they sit there like these ineffable beings, when many are actually stunningly misinformed and misguided on a number of issues, always stating that “this decision is in the best interest of the law” when almost everyone now knows that judges often act on decisions based on their own parochial beliefs and values, and not on the constitution. And with the widely and readily available plethora of information, average people should be able to determine who are the best judges for the job (like the average person does to determine the most suitable MP–I say “MP” because I live in Canada, btw). Would it be so wrong, or such a hassle, to enable the people to elect judges?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Sheldon on Sun, 2006-08-06 07:36