Posted on 10/01/2012 9:23:05 PM PDT by massmike
Europe’s highest court on human rights will decide if a lesbian can adopt her partner’s child, in this case stripping the father of his parental rights to his son.
The case is very simple according to Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ). “The two female partners want to oust the father and, since the law does not allow them to do so, they claim it is discriminatory,” Gregor reported in Turtle Bay and Beyond, C-FAM’s blog.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will hear the case X and others v. Austria on October 3. Its decision will apply to all 47 countries in the Council of Europe and cannot be appealed.
Austria’s attorney has pointed out that most European countries do not allow a child to have two mothers or two fathers. A homosexual rights attorney who brought the case argued that this is sexual discrimination.
The child was born out of wedlock in 1995. He bears his father’s name. While the mother has sole custody, the father has regular contact with his son and pays alimony.
It is unclear whether the father is aware of the court proceedings since the lesbian couple is pursuing the case anonymously.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Dear Lord, please don’t let the courts take this child’s father away from him. Amen.
It’s in Austria. He’s got a chance. In Sweden or the UK, he’d never see his son again. My prayers go out to him.
Sickening. Really upsetting to think they could even attempt this.
While the mother has sole custody, the father has regular contact with his son and pays alimony.
It is unclear whether the father is aware of the court proceedings since the lesbian couple is pursuing the case anonymously.
************************************************
????
If they succeed, they will have destroyed anything resembling justice.
The courts have already rules that dad has to pay child support.
Now dad has no visitation rights?
Born in 1995? The kid is 17 years old.
Demented people are everywhere.
After all, children are merely chattel, owned by the mother, created for the sole purpose of satisfying the mother's emotional needs. And the father's role is also perfectly clear: he should pay for everything, but should have no contact with the mother or children.
Keep looking up folks.
If he’s 17 he’s old enough to keep the relationship going anyway despite the crazy dames, unless the dykes have already destroyed that.
Probably they just want to force a court decision as a precedent, before the kid permanently bolts in disgust.
To be honest, I was merely confused by the article’s title/Intro - the scaffolding of the case is bizarre. What if 3 ducks, married to 2 penguins demand rights to an Ostrich egg that a Cambridge Tiger devotedly nursed for 2 days while a black Ohioan conservative has signed an affidavit that he cares for the child more than the ducks because he shares skin color with the kid but a birth certificate picture from a Ugandan/Alaskan hospital school posing for financial reasons as a madrassa shows a muslim-jewish black kid named sneezy but with white face pixels extant 35.4% of the time, hence the decision to send the child to the moon, where there is no oxygen, but where at least he will be treated as an equal to the dust for the 187 seconds his brain is alive, no matter his past, and at least for as long as it takes the US and Russia to clear up who owns the moon just before the Chinese invade the orb mistaking it for a small island.
Liberals have a great ideas.
So what if the law is discriminatory? All laws are. Homicide discriminates against murder, declaring it to be worse than other actions, such as watering flowers. Up until now, maybe, family law discriminated as regards custody between parents and, for instance, random strangers. I’ve never had a problem with it.
“’failed to give a valid reason’ for refusing to give up his parental rights”
Um, if they are rights he doesn’t have to have a reason. Unless “rights” mean something different over there, like “temporary claim to be revoked should your wife have sex with someone else who wants in.”
While the mother has sole custody, the father has regular contact with his son and pays alimony.
It is unclear whether the father is aware of the court proceedings since the lesbian couple is pursuing the case anonymously.
This makes me wonder if the Father will be ordered to continue to make alimony payments? (Of course the reporter could have made a mistake here and really meant “child support payments”.)
I didn’t see anywhere that the two lesbians were “married”, (Ugh). But they seem to be acting like a married couple trying to do an adoption of the boy in question. So it they do get the adoption done and still make the guy pay alimony... I’m sorry it is starting to BOGGLE the mind. Law, Precedence... Whatever! What the H*** ever happened to common sense?
here’s one where a lesbian took custody of a child away from BOTH her biological mother and father because they were consulting on the child’s welfare and she felt “excluded”
What a messed-up world we live in. It's probably true that the child's father has no idea about this because 'gay rights' trump parental rights. If the father has no idea of this court action, expect to see another story about a 'crazed' gunman who gunned down his ex and her lesbian lover and is holding people hostage at the courthouse. Cause and effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.