Prego woman moves cross-country, accused of absconding with fetus and loses custody

[Nitewaif]

Turned into a huge custody battle. WTF?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/u...men.html?pagewanted=all&smid=fb-nytimes&_r=1&

 

[TheBoatDude]

That poor kid.

I like how they're playing off the fact that she moved to NY just to find a sympathetic judge...Because that - along with getting in to Columbia - is always the easy way out...

 

[Nemo Brinker]

Holy shit, that is fucked up. We get to go where we want in this dang country, prego or not.

Still a mess for the kid, of course.

 

[Daks]

Ah, yes, the old "pretend to get into a good college to cover up your sympathetic judge search" trick.

Those sneaky women thinking they have rights to their own bodies. What I don't get is...if she had the kid and had custody, and then moved, what the fuck would the difference have been?

 

[Caddywumpus]

I thought thats why women went to college... to find a husband.

 

[SummerLove]

Da fuck..

 

[CABilly]

Dude, this is America. The only real paternal right you have after blast off is to pay up.

 

[Marci]

I can't even wrap my head around this.... :mad

 

[chickwebb]

None of you have ever been in CA Family Court, I think. Until you've been there, I suggest you hold your collective tongues.

 

[Marci]

That's a pretty broad assumption. I've been there done that. Was not fun. :x

None of you have ever been in CA Family Court, I think. Until you've been there, I suggest you hold your collective tongues.

 

[chickwebb]

That's a pretty broad assumption. I've been there done that. Was not fun. :x

Me too. Truly f*ked up for everybody. But, try moving out of state with your kids, regardless of your gender, especially if they have a substantive relationship with the other parent. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

In this case, a pregnant woman moving across country, for whatever reason, could be seen as trying to prevent the other parent from having a relationship with the child. And the CA courts take a very dim view of that. And, if the other parent has a bunch of money to lawyer-up, you can bet it'll make headlines!

And I did say "I think" Marci! Plus, if you've "been there", then you should be able to wrap your head around it. :teeth

 

[My900ss]

I am not seeing how this is a Woman's rights issue? I see it as a parental rights issue. Mr. Chickweb summarized what I read the issue in this case to be.

In this case, a pregnant woman moving across country, for whatever reason, could be seen as trying to prevent the other parent from having a relationship with the child.

 

[mean dad]

I am not seeing how this is a Woman's rights issue? I see it as a parental rights issue. Mr. Chickweb summarized what I read the issue in this case to be.

Is it your belief that once pregnant, the woman loses autonomy?

 

[Gixxergirl1000]

It's her body, her decision. One of the more jacked-up court decisions I've heard... and the older I get, the more disgusted I get with our courts. :|

 

[Ogier le Danois]

Is it your belief that once pregnant, the woman loses autonomy?

It is an interesting concept.

Why do we select birth as the point of personhood? Why do we choose birth as the point of legal claim for a father?

It complicates further with intestacy laws that are primarily state based so you have huge variations from one state to the next.

 

[My900ss]

Is it your belief that once pregnant, the woman loses autonomy?

The court in CA did not require the Mother to move back to CA. They simply awarded custody to the parent who lived in CA.

Again I do not see in the Article where there was any consideration not to carry the child to term? Thus this has nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights. She was pregnant and wanted to carry the child to birth, she did so, then CA awarded custody to the Father.

I will say again I read the issue as being one of Parental rights and not one centered on a Woman's reproductive rights. You can choose to interpret the article any way you want, I just see it as being one centered on which State has Jurisdiction for the Family Court Case.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

meh . possibly two unethical people from the start to begin with.

 

[My900ss]

It's her body, her decision. One of the more jacked-up court decisions I've heard... and the older I get, the more disgusted I get with our courts. :|

I am curious where the article they discuss any issue related to the mothers reproductive choices? It relates to where she can reside and maintain custody of the couples child, but I am not seeing how that effects her "body"?

I do not see how the case is anything other than about Parental rights.

Does one parent, Mother or Father, posses the right to move a child beyond reasonable accessibility for the other parent?

^^^ That is what I am reading as the issue to be.

 

[kevin 714]

When you have a child, you hand over so much of your life to another person

 

[Gixxergirl1000]

I am curious where the article they discuss any issue related to the mothers reproductive choices? It relates to where she can reside and maintain custody of the couples child, but I am not seeing how that effects her "body"?

I do not see how the case is anything other than about Parental rights.

Does one parent, Mother or Father, posses the right to move a child beyond reasonable accessibility for the other parent?

^^^ That is what I am reading as the issue to be.

The case was brought because the woman took her own body out of state. At that point, there WAS no child- it was a fetus. I'd happily bet money that this was simply the father being punitive and vindictive.