Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
duplessis3

"Absconding with a Fetus" Victory for MRAs

Recommended Posts

duplessis3

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/11/absc ... fetus.html (not breaking link because Shakesville won't care)

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us ... women.html

 

not breaking because New York TImes

 

Nutshell: Bodie Miller the skiier gets Shannon McKenna pregnant, wants her to have an abortion. She says no, moves to NY from California to go to Columbia. Miller sues for custody, based on her moving to a "sympathetic court" (apparently that is why she got accepted to Columbia, just to upset him) and gets a court in CA to agree, so he gets custody. @@

 

My brain is exploding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lainey

I can't understand that at all. It makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wine time!
PinkPrincess0213

Wow.....that's a crazy ruling....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD

Thanks God for some sanity by the New York appeal court.

No, you cannot "abscond" with your own body. The uterus of a pregnant woman is not detachable. The question of custody of a fetus is simply absurd. If you file for custody of an actual baby, it's possible for a father who gets custody to be the one to provide the physical care, and the mother can go wherever she likes. Pregnancy, by definition, means that it is the pregnant woman who is physically carrying the child. The notion of custody at that stage is complete nonsense.

Here's what "fetal rights" advocates don't understand: rulings like this will ultimately push more women toward abortion, or toward simply denying any knowledge of who the father is.

This was a casual relationship. She got pregnant, he wanted her to abort and then got upset when she told others that she was pregnant with his child. At that point, he had done absolutely nothing to demonstrate any commitment to her or the baby-to-be. If women will told "the casual fornicator (an old legal term) that knocks you up and shows no interest or support may still be able to control your life while you are pregnant", it may very well give them a push to terminate if they were previously on the fence. Otherwise, I can picture some women telling the guy that she miscarried if he reacts badly, jumping on a plane and continuing the pregnancy without his knowledge and writing "unknown" under father's name on the birth registration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NotALoserLikeYou

Wonderfully said, 2xx. It's scary that a man would even think he has a right to control where another adult can live. The first court was so wrong. And then to come and take that newborn right out of her arms, so needlessly cruel. Then he argued he had a wife and intact family (that he cheated on to make said baby!!) and that she would have to use evil daycare. You can't just swap out one mother for the other!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
smittykins

Hijack: Does anyone remember a case where a father sued for custody of his daughter and won, because his ex-girlfriend(a college student)planned to put the baby in daycare, and he didn't want HIS child "raised by strangers" when his own mother was available to babysit?(IIRC, this decision was also reversed on appeal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DGayle
Hijack: Does anyone remember a case where a father sued for custody of his daughter and won, because his ex-girlfriend(a college student)planned to put the baby in daycare, and he didn't want HIS child "raised by strangers" when his own mother was available to babysit?(IIRC, this decision was also reversed on appeal.)

First right of refusal needs to be the default. What that means is if the other parent is available to watch the child, or in some cases, a grandparent, those people have the right to take the child before daycare, regardless of whose time it is with the kid. Is Dad and Granny aren't available, daycare it is. If they are, then is there any harm in the kid being with family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LadyBlue
Wonderfully said, 2xx. It's scary that a man would even think he has a right to control where another adult can live. The first court was so wrong. And then to come and take that newborn right out of her arms, so needlessly cruel. Then he argued he had a wife and intact family (that he cheated on to make said baby!!) and that she would have to use evil daycare. You can't just swap out one mother for the other!

Actually, he was single when he was involved with McKenna. He got married very quickly after they broke up though...I seem to recall it was less than 2 months later. He had zero interest in the baby (or his older child with a different woman) until his new wife had a miscarriage and then suddenly he's fighting for custody of both kids. And the wife is very possessive of McKenna's baby and pretty cruel while they had him, too; there was a very nasty blog post that his wife posted and then pulled down because she got so much heat for it.

Bode also refuses to call both children by their names, he came up with names for them himself, which is just controlling douchbaggery, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Childless

And as soon as his wife gets pregnant again and has a baby, he'll drop those two kids faster than you can blink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.