Mother appeals ruling on gays

Washington Times ^ | Nov. 5, 2003 | Valerie Richardson

[Bernard Marx]

DENVER

[Modernman]

Because he's doing family law, he has the "power to look at the big picture" and ignore the law?

I have no idea what custody law is like in Colorado. I'm just saying that, generally speaking, family court judges have a lot of discretion in their rulings.

This ruling is an outlier and will probably end up being reversed or scaled back on appeal.

[netmilsmom]

>>If the mother wants to tell her kids not to sleep around or to always wear a motorcylce helmet, that's fine. Saying bad things to the kids about their father because she doesn't like his lifestlye is completely different.<<

This judge just took away the right of the mother to tell the child not to sleep around (with women).
See?

[WackyKat]

What if the custodial parent hated Christians and constantly told the little girl that the noncustodial parent was evil because he/she was a Christian?
Shouldn't the court be able to tell the custodial parent that, in the interests of the child, she must stop demonizing the noncustodial parent?

[Happy2BMe]

Impeach the imbicile judge and protect our children ping!

oligarchy "The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

[BibChr]

More fundamentally, "relationship" based on sexual perversion should enjoy no custody or visitation whatever.

No issue.

Dan

[Modernman]

This judge just took away the right of the mother to tell the child not to sleep around (with women). See?

I don't see it that way, but I agree with you that this is very close to the line. I really don't think this ruling will survive on appeal. The judge should have issued a much more tightly-worded restriction.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Ah, on closer reading I see that. Same basic point, however. These "Christians" are the same ilk that loudly hold forth that lesbians shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, so this adoption shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

I wonder though about Clark's assertion that McLeod "was not interested in the adoption while it was taking place and that it was never their intention that she would act as a parent." I can't quite imagine any adoption agency and court approving an adoption by anyone who is cohabiting with another person who has "no interest" in the adoption or in parenting the child! And if this really was the case, why would the court now be awarding essentially equal custody rights to the non-parent who had no interest in adopting or raising the child?? Strongly suspect that this is revisionist history on Clark's part, and that they were both very much interested in the adoption, but forced by laws prohibiting adoption by two same sex parents, to have just one of them formally adopt the child.

I feel sorry for the little girl. Joint custody arrangements between warring parents of any sort do serious harm to the child. I remember a little girl in a gymnastics class I taught many years ago. She was 4-5 years old and spending alternate weekends with each parent. So after class every Saturday, all the little kids would eagerly line up to get their little smiley face or teddy bear stamps on their hands -- except this little girl who, every OTHER Saturday had to pretend to have no interest and to disapprove of the whole thing, since her Jehovah's Witness father would have gone ballistic if she got a little stamp on her hand. Who knows what else this poor little girl had to keep track of to keep her parents pacified?

[GovernmentShrinker]

But the other woman is not an adoptive parent nor a relative. She has no legal standing. She had more than seven years to adopt this child and didn't.

In most states (and I believe in all states, during the time period in question), only single people or married couples can adopt a child, so it would not have been possible for the second mother to adopt (unless the first one gave up her legal rights to the child). I seriously doubt Clark's assertion that McLeod never wanted to adopt -- the facts suggest she simply wasn't legally able to.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You're blowing smoke. Either you have an agenda or you haven't followed legal proceedings for the past decade.

At any point in the past seven years, this woman could have requested and been granted custody. She didn't.

Dr. Clark said the room-mate never wanted custody of the child, and the facts support this statement.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Nope, Colorado does not currently allow such adoptions, and has not allowed them at any time during this little girl's life. Apparently courts in one county (Boulder -- not the county where Clark and McLeod reside) have allowed gay partners to be listed as a parent on a birth certificate, when the other partner has actually given birth to the child. But the practice is not recognized under state law, and there are ongoing efforts to explicitly prohibit it. No adoption has ever been allowed by two gay parents of a biologically unrelated child.

http://www.hrc.org/familynet/adoption_laws.asp

[netmilsmom]

>>I feel sorry for the little girl.<<

I do too.
However, I can tell you from the point of view of a mother who cut all contact between my daughter and her much beloved, newly out of the closet, Godmother, the child would be better off for it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Uniform Parentage Act" - from your link, "The Human Rights Campaign Foundation -- Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights."

Since 1999, same-sex parents have been receiving "special" treatment.

Move along. Don't you have some placards to paint?

[Antoninus]

If this sort of nonsense keeps up, there are going to be a whole lot of people breaking the law....

[Antoninus]

What does promiscuity have to do with being a fit parent?

That fact that you would ask such a question demonstrates how far gone you may be.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You're changing the subject. Colorado law does not and did not allow McLeod to adopt the girl.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't think cutting off contact to someone who has been a long-term parent figure (as in this case) is a good idea. But when parents obviously aren't going to work together, then one or the other needs to be given primary custody and decision-making authority. It's unreasonable to leave a young child in the position of having to manage the conflicts between the warring adults.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you think referring to the site you linked to is "changing the subject," maybe you need to read it again.

[Modernman]

That fact that you would ask such a question demonstrates how far gone you may be.

Please share your infinite wisdom on the topic, then, oh wise one.

[Adder]

"Judges are supposed to look out for the best interests of the child- allowing parents to constantly badmouth the other parent is not a good thing for a kid."

That is not what the article says. It says that she cannot teach the child "homophobia" whatever that is. It is not a specific ruling against "bad-mouthing" the other person. It says "homophobia". It is saying that a certain belief system may not be given this child because this court knows better than the parent what is right.
That is where it crosses the line. Similar in scope to "You will not teach creationism, anti- semitism or racism." There simply is no basis for that sort of limit on the speech of the custodial parent.

[netmilsmom]

>>But when parents obviously aren't going to work together, then one or the other needs to be given primary custody and decision-making authority. It's unreasonable to leave a young child in the position of having to manage the conflicts between the warring adults.<<

I agree fully and in this case, the Legal mother should be that person.