Fathers: Second- or perhaps third-class citizens

[Anddenex]

Okay. No offense, but I think viann states it all better.

None taken Backroads, none taken. She did state it better.

EDIT: I will provide more insight, last year I watched two children given back to their mother because of "biological rights", who was a conspirator to her boyfriend molesting the two kids. They could not provide enough evidence, even though the children testified to the molestation, and even being tide up while their mother watched. It disgusts me. Why are they with their mother? Biological rights. It is truly sad.

The father was sure he would get his two kids from this situation, but unfortunately he could not. Thus, as Viann specified - Is this "the best for these two children"? Now my friend in continually wondering what will happen to his children.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

It smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

A mentality that unfortunately pervades our juvenile justice system, in the name of "we must protect the children!!!!"

[Backroads]

None taken Backroads, none taken. She did state it better.

EDIT: I will provide more insight, last year I watched two children given back to their mother because of "biological rights", who was a conspirator to her boyfriend molesting the two kids. They could not provide enough evidence, even though the children testified to the molestation, and even being tide up while their mother watched. It disgusts me. Why are they with their mother? Biological rights. It is truly sad.

The father was sure he would get his two kids from this situation, but unfortunately he could not. Thus, as Viann specified - Is this "the best for these two children"?

I guess I kept getting the impression that the subject of this thread was NOT in the best interest of the child by default of her simply being in this family.

As for the case you mentioned, it is sad, but it seems to me it's more a need for integrity in our justice system. I really don't know what else we as a whole society can rely upon but the law.

[Vort]

Nope, not at all. Viann, is exactly in understanding with what I have shared....beefche also, gave insight to my thoughts, which nobody listened to.

Let's examine this claim. Here are some of the statements you shared:

In this situation, the child should come first. Let us look at the possibilities of this situation:

1. The chances are high that the adoptive family are members of the Church.

Again, bringing up the Mormon thing, which wasn't my argument.

I am thinking no one who is siding with the father -- outright -- is truly thinking upon the needs of the child.

I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father.

My last comment. You have misrepresented me, you continue to misrepresent me for your own benefit.

Exactly zero of these statements were reflected by viannqueen3 or beefche, yet they were touched on by selek, Backroads, and myself. Therefore, you are mistaken in your claim.

[Anddenex]

As for the case you mentioned, it is sad, but it seems to me it's more a need for integrity in our justice system. I really don't know what else we as a whole society can rely upon but the law.

Yes, very sad indeed Backroads. I understand Backroads, who can we rely but the law, however it is the law that put two children back into the home of a mother who watched, witnessed, and allowed her kids to be molested.

It is difficult times we live in for sure.

[Vort]

You do realize that mocking laughter is explicitly contrary to the reason the "Laugh!" button was added, don't you, Anddenex?

Instead of mocking laughter, you might consider actually answering the points I bring up.

[Backroads]

Yes, very sad indeed Backroads. I understand Backroads, who can we rely but the law, however it is the law that put two children back into the home of a mother who watched, witnessed, and allowed her kids to be molested.

It is difficult times we live in for sure.

It's either that or let people fight among themselves over who gets what kid.

[Anddenex]

Exactly zero of these statements were reflected by viannqueen3 or beefche, yet they were touched on by selek, Backroads, and myself. Therefore, you are mistaken in your claim.

Since you like to cherry pick Vort, I am not surprised you didn't mention this in your response regarding my responses to you and viann's responses, especially her last response. I will quote myself again seeing you have a hard time recognizing what I meant and what I posted, but you like to cherry pick statements (Read carefully this time):

Viann's recent comment:

Unfortunately in the adoption world we see all too often unfit birthparents take their children home (but not quite unfit enough to get them removed by CPS). Just talking in a general sense but there were/are legitimate good reasons for an adoption plan to be in place for the benefit of the child but the tug of a beautiful newborn in the hospital and the match/placement fails. I've also known couples who have gone through failed placements where birthmothers who are literally homeless, no job, have addiction issues have decided to take their newborn home with them instead of follow through with their adoption plan. The one situation I know of where that happened the baby ended up in the care of DSFS anyway. Is that best for the baby? Like I said- it's going to be a different situation and answer every time.

My comment to you:

My wife's parents went through an ordeal to adopt a kid, who was in the foster system since he was 2. His mother was a drug addict, a whore, and drunkyard, and couldn't keep any job due to her habits (she could not provide any physical or emotional well being for this child), however as you have stated the state kept the premise, it was better that this child be moved from home to home (in the foster system), than be adopted because the mother was unwilling to give up her rights. Yes, of course, in this case it is better, as you share, the child should be with their biological mother.

This is part of the reason why my wife has seriously considered going into family law because the rights of the children are constantly overlooked by the argument, as you suggested, "The rights of the biological parent(s)."

Yes, nothing reflects Viann's responses, and you haven't misrepresented me at all...keep telling yourself that.

I will just use the emoticon for LOL, as you have, instead of the button.

[Anddenex]

It's either that or let people fight among themselves over who gets what kid.

Correct Backroads, it is just disturbing when the court doesn't act in the best interest of the children, when acting in the best interest of the children is the better avenue.

[pam]

Okay let's play nice here. Please please please don't make me close another thread. But you should all know, I have no problem doing so. :)

[Vort]

Since you like to cherry pick Vort, I am not surprised you didn't mention this in your response regarding my responses to you and viann's responses, especially her last response. I will quote myself again seeing you have a hard time recognizing what I meant and what I posted, but you like to cherry pick statements (Read carefully this time):

Viann's recent comment:

My comment to you:

Yes, nothing reflects Viann's responses, and you haven't misrepresented me at all...keep telling yourself that.

I will just use the emoticon for LOL, as you have, instead of the button.

I have reread both comments:

• viannqueen3's comment talked about birth parents who were demonstrably and woefully inadequate for parenting.
• Your comment spoke of a personal experience with a woman who "was a drug addict, a whore, and drunkyard, and couldn't keep any job due to her habits."

Neither comment addressed the immediate concern: A father who, through no fault of his own, had his child kidnapped and wrongfully kept from him for an extended period.

You keep claiming that I have misrepresented you -- a falsehood. Despite my inquiries, you have nowhere shown what I have stated that misrepresents you. I have asked multiple times. All you do is laugh and pretend not to hear.

All you have to do is:

• Quote what I wrote that you think is a misrepresentation.
• Explain in what way it misrepresents you.

It's really very, very easy. That's all you have to do to establish your point. Since you steadfastly refuse to do that, my conclusion is that you cannot do it, and that you prefer instead to hurl false accusations toward me. It would be better for both of us -- all of us -- if you were to prove your accusations rather than just state them and then run away.

[Vort]

Okay let's play nice here. Please please please don't make me close another thread. But you should all know, I have no problem doing so. :)

To be clear: I'm playing nice. I am not making any false or baseless accusations, and I am working hard to stick to the subject and not wander around talking about other things. So I am not "making" anyone close a thread.

[Anddenex]

It's really very, very easy. That's all you have to do to establish your point. Since you steadfastly refuse to do that, my conclusion is that you cannot do it, and that you prefer instead to hurl false accusations toward me. It would be better for both of us -- all of us -- if you were to prove your accusations rather than just state them and then run away.

I have Vort, and then you keep misrepresenting them as you have done with my previous comment.

I have already specified my argument is "What is best for the child"? I have already specified that the father was wronged.

I have already specified, to you, where you were wrong in interpreting my comments and I have already given you examples.

Yet, when I give you an example you think to cherry pick one of my statement, misrepresent it, as you have done with my comments resembling Vianns, and how Viann, is sharing exactly what I was sharing.

No where did I specify that a single father isn't fit to take care of children. I simple asked a question, and you have pounced on me telling me what I said, and what I meant, as if you know my heart and mind.

I have defended myself, and I am tired of defending myself with someone who then misuses another one of my quotes.

[Just_A_Guy]

Correct Backroads, it is just disturbing when the court doesn't act in the best interest of the children, when acting in the best interest of the children is the better avenue.

True; but one of the things the courts have to consider is: should we (the court) be acting at all? The law presumes that parents are going to act in the best interests of their kids, and so it will give parents a wide degree of latitude. Probably, more than the parents deserve; but we tolerate it because the spectre of the state second-guessing parental decisions and arbitrarily removing children from the home for relatively minor infractions is a frightening thing indeed. (See: YFZ raid.)

So the state has decided that its courts don't have authority to even ask the question of what's in the kids' best interest, unless 1) it can be shown that the parents are clearly and egregiously acting against the kids' interest - abuse, neglect, etc - or 2) the parents themselves request that the state intervene and make orders through a divorce, parentage, or adoption case.

Here, you had a married mom who didn't want the kid. She should have just given the kid to dad, but she didn't - either out of spite, or because giving the kid to dad, unlike adopting the kid out, would have created child support liability for her. So she perpetrated a fraud on the court, making it think Dad either consented or was completely out of the picture (which he wasn't) and leading the court to believe it had jurisdiction to act when, in fact, it didn't.

Any remaining questions as to the best interest of the child now become - to borrow a term from criminal law - the "fruit of a poisonous tree". The court now knows it never should have been asking about the child's best interests in the first place. Though Judge McDade's decision was harsh, the alternative (leaving the child with the adoptive parents) would not only have cheated dad out of his parental rights, but sent a clear signal to Utah's adoption mills that if you can get a baby through fraud and hold onto him long enough, you've got a decent shot at keeping him forever (or, at least, to put the biological parents on trial by subjecting them to the "best interests of the child" test--and if that happens, it boils down to a game of who runs out of attorney's fees first).

One heartbreaking case like this today, hopefully forestalls tens or hundreds of similar cases over the next decade.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

JAG, the latter of your statement.. Excellent point.

[Vort]

I have Vort, and then you keep misrepresenting them as you have done with my previous comment.

Let me make sure I understand you. You are claiming that you have quoted my misrepresentation of you, said "This here is a misrepresentation of me," and then explained how I was misrepresenting you.

Right?

I haven't seen it yet. Please point to the post where you did this.

I have already specified, to you, where you were wrong in interpreting my comments and I have already given you examples.

No, you have not. I have quoted your own words, in context, to demonstrate. What you call "cherry-picking" I call "quoting the relevant parts."

For example, suppose you were to say, "We should throw all white people in jail," and then go on to say a whole bunch of other stuff. Then I said, "That's really stupid. We should not throw all white people in jail," and then quoted what you said -- well, that's not cherry-picking. That's quoting the relevant parts. The other stuff you said is irrelevant.

Yet, when I give you an example you think to cherry pick one of my statement, misrepresent it, as you have done with my comments resembling Vianns, and how Viann, is sharing exactly what I was sharing.

I have misrepresented exactly nothing. You have yet to demonstrate any misrepresentation on my part. Another false accusation.

No where did I specify that a single father isn't fit to take care of children.

You wrote: [The child] will now enter the household of a single father, verses a household of a father and mother who love the child. Single father? Father and Mother? Easy answer.

So by "easy answer," you meant the single father should retain his daughter? Uh...nope.

In another post, you claimed: I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father. But of course, the best argument possible is that which had been advanced: The girl is her father's daughter.

Your comment on this point, in the very same post, was: Is a single father better for a child than an adoptive mother and father? If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father. If the child will be better off with the adoptive mother and father, then the child should remain where she is. You may claim this question was merely rhetorical, but you already answered it when you claimed you "[had]n't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father." If consanguinity is not sufficient -- and you already said elsewhere that it was -- then the only other trait you mention is his unmarried status.

The only other reasonable interpretation of your words is that you think the father should not get his daughter back because it's been too long; you dwelt at some length on "two years", saying if it had been a mere six months or even a year, maybe that would be different. But when selek pointed out this argument and suggested that it implies (or more like overtly states) that if a kidnapper can get away with the crime for two years, then the child should legally belong to him, you shouted him down and claimed he had misrepresented you. So I can only assume that you therefore don't really believe that merely keeping the child from her father for two years is sufficient to terminate his natural parental rights. So what other conclusion can I reach?

[Anddenex]

Please point to the post where you did this.

I already have, not going to post again, reread the threads, and if I did, you will continue to cherry pick, and then misrepresent.

[Vort]

I already have, not going to post again, reread the threads, and if I did, you will continue to cherry pick, and then misrepresent.

You don't need to post again. Just reference the post where you did this. I don't believe it exists. Please prove me wrong.

[Anddenex]

Already have Vort, already have. And as I have you keep telling me I haven't and misrepresenting me and thinking by calling it "relevant parts" now you aren't misrepresenting me.

Nothing false in my accusation, I have already shown you, and have verified my previous words, "but you won't." You don't care, and with each share, you still don't care.

There is really nothing more to say. As I said, you think you know my heart and mind. I have shared it with you. I have shared how beefche understood me. I have shared posts that you said didn't resemble Viann's words, but did, and you still don't care.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[pam]

Thread is closed.