Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner

cwbuff wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are misunderstanding or I didn't make myself clear, sorry. If a man signs the birth certificate of a child that was conceived through AI (therefore, NOT the biological father) he is considered the child's legal father, EVEN IF HE AND THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER WERE NEVER MARRIED. Thus, could be granted partial OR FULL custody of a child he is not related to by blood or marriage. That is a fact (in PA) but if you happen to come across any information to the contrary I would be more than interested to read about it. Thanks

Judged:

2

1

1

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
But they will tell you they were born with that sexual
orientation, just as the other 5. And many people believe
that gay and lesbian couples "exploit children" when they
bring them into relationships they cannot conceive them
in by themselves.

Judged:

2

2

1

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
And please tell me what you know about the "precedents in law"
from the state involved here? The Judge "had to make" no such
order at all; he chose to make it based on what he believes.
That is what family "law" (and I use that term loosely) has
come to today; judges playing King Solomon cutting the baby
in half to see who will blink first. In this case neither
side did and the rest is being played out here.
But, again, what do know about family law in the state
they live in? Do you live there too? Are you familiar
with it in some other way?

Judged:

2

2

2

Grandpa wrote:

<quoted text>
As for myself I believe Lisa
and she has my full support.
Please observe how gays seek
to destroy anybody who impedes
their agenda.
Run Lisa RUN!!
We're with you Lisa.
Too bad your first attorney in this matter
was a lesbian gay rights 'activist' who
chose to sabatoge your case instead of
giving you the representation you paid for.
Oh well!! When the gay agenda is concerned
morals and common decency goes out the window.
Common decency is not really so common, is it?
Run Lisa RUN!!

Judged:

2

2

2

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
You are simply wrong, Rose. The law recognizes a lot of
things; biological parents, step parents currently married
(operative word there being currently), adopted parents, and
legal guardians when no parent is still alive or able.
Nowhere does it recognize former lovers or spouses who do
not currently (there is that word again) fall into the
categories that the law spells out.(there may be one or
more I am missing) I can convince a woman to put my name
on the birth certificate and then turn around and challenge
it when we break up, taking a DNA test to prove we were
wrong. Need I go on? The judge in this case decided to
make an example of the mother; this has nothing to do with
the law or status. It is a test case to change the definition
of family as we currently recognize it.
Can I give an example? I meet a woman who has just discovered
she is pregnant. The father has bolted and deserted her. I
promise to love her, marry her, and raise the baby as my own.
I am present at the birth, parent the child, and love it until
one day she decides to end our marriage. I sue for partial
custody and/or visitation. Suddenly the biological father
shows up and does the same..........
where does this end, Rose? Children should NEVER be used
for political purposes or social engineering and that is
all this is. If the other "parent" was a man this would have
been over years ago and you know it. It is entirely a case
for gay rights activists to advance their agenda and the child
is the pawn. And no "religious fundies" caused that.
(And, just in case, my example was purely fiction)
You claim to believe in God but nothing else. What God, Rose?
The one in the very Bible you reject? The one in the Koran?
How do you reject every word ever written about God and still
believe in Him? Anyway, I hope you never lose sight of Him
because, in the end, He is all we have.

Judged:

2

1

1

smatterdanu wrote:

The ex who has been granted custody is not doing what is in the best interest of the child. The child doesn't even remember her because she has not seen her since she was a baby and is now 7 years old. Forcing the child to go live with someone she doesn't know is cruel and wrong. The ex needs to do what is right for the child and give up the child and her custody and let the child stay with the only mother she has ever known, her biological mother.

Judged:

2

1

1

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
Martin Luther King had to break the law.
Nelson Mandela had to break the law.
Harriet Tubman had to break the law.