If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Woman loses custody of her child after judge finds her lesbian lover to be a better parent. Subby guesses the birth mother must have been the man in the relationship   (businessinsider.com) divider line 36
    More: Interesting, adoptees, NYSE Composite, lesbians, mothers, interpersonal relationship, parents  
•       •       •

5046 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 3:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-02 03:26:03 AM  
FTFA:

static4.businessinsider.com


Looking at this picture and caption, subby, I think you're right about that. Good call.

/hotter than eating chili peppers with a cold sore 
 
2012-10-02 04:05:27 AM  
This is actually really great news. If the child had been placed with the irresponsible mother for no other reason than the child was biologically hers, then it would show that homosexual relationships weren't taken seriously in the courts.

But the court made a great decision here, awarding the child to the analog of the father in the divorce. This is the way it should be, without regard to sexuality or gender, but our culture is only beginning to make progress into overcoming long-held biases.
 
2012-10-02 04:14:49 AM  
I was told the future would have hover-things, also dehydrated pizza. Instead we get this shiat.

Raw deal,
 
2012-10-02 04:43:40 AM  
Woo, equality!
 
2012-10-02 05:30:35 AM  
AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.
 
2012-10-02 05:36:02 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.


It's not going to be pretty. I sense impending political outrage.
 
2012-10-02 05:37:28 AM  
i41.tinypic.com

Lesbians do not work that way!
 
2012-10-02 05:38:52 AM  
DNRTFA but I hope the judge wasn't a man or he'll never hear the end of this, because we live in a man-o-centric maleocracy.
 
2012-10-02 05:40:48 AM  
LDM90 - if you think it is possible the judge is not a man then the rest of your statement is senseless...
 
2012-10-02 05:50:46 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.

It's not going to be pretty. I sense impending political outrage.


But we MUST know what Jesus has to say about this from some older, conservative white guy behind a pulpit.
 
2012-10-02 05:54:06 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: LDM90 - if you think it is possible the judge is not a man then the rest of your statement is senseless...


Is your name Francis?
 
2012-10-02 05:55:55 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.


While I am pretty sure it is the case that New York disfavors joint custody..(If parents cannot get along it pretty much insures sole custody for one of them) it is getting more and mor established that same-sex relationships are essentially the same for some purposes. Sure they do not recognize marriage (as in my jurisdiction) but other law plays especially the family law courts...that being said best interest of the child as the court determines it is paramount. Seriously any custody dispute you should start spouting Best interest of the child as soon as possible. I mean you cannot even prenup custody without judicial review. Which is not to say that their is often a formal/informal presumption that the birth parent should gain custody. I would like more facts to be honest...There is a reason the court did this
 
2012-10-02 05:57:36 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.

While I am pretty sure it is the case that New York disfavors joint custody..(If parents cannot get along it pretty much insures sole custody for one of them) it is getting more and mor established that same-sex relationships are essentially the same for some purposes. Sure they do not recognize marriage (as in my jurisdiction) but other law plays especially the family law courts...that being said best interest of the child as the court determines it is paramount. Seriously any custody dispute you should start spouting Best interest of the child as soon as possible. I mean you cannot even prenup custody without judicial review. Which is not to say that their is often a formal/informal presumption that the birth parent should gain custody. I would like more facts to be honest...There is a reason the court did this


May not recognize same sex marriage I know NY does
 
2012-10-02 06:20:06 AM  
I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?
 
2012-10-02 06:33:38 AM  

BronyMedic: AbbeySomeone: Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.

It's not going to be pretty. I sense impending political outrage.

But we MUST know what Jesus has to say about this from some older, conservative white guy behind a pulpit.


Pedophiles aren't gay if they are married or religious.
 
2012-10-02 06:51:53 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: This is actually really great news. If the child had been placed with the irresponsible mother for no other reason than the child was biologically hers, then it would show that homosexual relationships weren't taken seriously in the courts.

But the court made a great decision here, awarding the child to the analog of the father in the divorce. This is the way it should be, without regard to sexuality or gender, but our culture is only beginning to make progress into overcoming long-held biases.


I don't see it as similar to awarding the child to the analog of the father. The reason the judge made a decision on which FEMALE made the better parent was because there was no male to choose against. This is just my anecdotal observations from what I have seen in my brother's divorce and a few other friends, it is damn near impossible for a father to win sole custody or get reasonable joint custody.

Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?


Yes. custody cases seem to heavily favor females, regardless of how incompetent they are and evidence provided to show that. Keep an eye on threads like these and you will hear a few stories.
 
2012-10-02 06:57:32 AM  

Some_Local_Deity: Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?


I wouldn't, but that is generally the way it goes in court. Women usually have to be heinously neglectful to be denied at least joint custody. The kneejerk emotional response to the phrase "taking a child away from its MOTHER" is unfortunately very powerful. No one seems to think much of the horror of taking a child from its father, though. Maybe it's unconsciously centered around the fact that women have boobies. Stupid if you ask me.
 
2012-10-02 07:06:19 AM  

Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?


The difference is is that when the baby is born the mother's male partner is put down as the father on the birth certificate. I don't know how same sex couples birthings/adoptions go but I'm fairly positive that that is not how it works, even in SSM states.

/this is a pretty good outcome

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.


Hmmm... just enough vitriol... already a few nibbles... short and sweet... 5/10.
 
2012-10-02 07:11:59 AM  
What kind of television programming did the said birth mother produce? I think this probably had something to do with the decision
 
2012-10-02 07:27:36 AM  

Hyjamon: AverageAmericanGuy: This is actually really great news. If the child had been placed with the irresponsible mother for no other reason than the child was biologically hers, then it would show that homosexual relationships weren't taken seriously in the courts.

But the court made a great decision here, awarding the child to the analog of the father in the divorce. This is the way it should be, without regard to sexuality or gender, but our culture is only beginning to make progress into overcoming long-held biases.

I don't see it as similar to awarding the child to the analog of the father. The reason the judge made a decision on which FEMALE made the better parent was because there was no male to choose against. This is just my anecdotal observations from what I have seen in my brother's divorce and a few other friends, it is damn near impossible for a father to win sole custody or get reasonable joint custody.

Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?

Yes. custody cases seem to heavily favor females, regardless of how incompetent they are and evidence provided to show that. Keep an eye on threads like these and you will hear a few stories.


Oh, I've heard them. That's what annoys me about threads like these. You would think people would be happy that the tide might be turning toward the good of the children in divorce cases but apparently that's not the case due to other prejudices.
 
2012-10-02 07:33:57 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds


You forgot about letting the kid sleep in. At the cost of getting her to school.

THE HORROR
 
2012-10-02 07:34:30 AM  

Z-clipped: Some_Local_Deity: Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?

I wouldn't, but that is generally the way it goes in court. Women usually have to be heinously neglectful to be denied at least joint custody. The kneejerk emotional response to the phrase "taking a child away from its MOTHER" is unfortunately very powerful. No one seems to think much of the horror of taking a child from its father, though. Maybe it's unconsciously centered around the fact that women have boobies. Stupid if you ask me.


Precisely my point. This is the outcome that people claim to want (good of the child trumping automatic rulings), but instead, we get "this is an outrage!!!" and "activist judges!!!"
 
2012-10-02 09:06:05 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.


Yup, just like any other divorce.
 
2012-10-02 09:30:44 AM  
As there's no evil man involved, the only fair thing to do is split the child down the middle and give each party half.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:42 AM  
www.themoviewizard.com


Approves.
 
2012-10-02 10:45:44 AM  
calling the woman who won custody "analog to a father" is simply and obviously wrong; I say that completely outside of any moral judgment: she can not ever play the role of a father to this child.

I will defend my argument no further, it needs no more, you can not refute this statement.


please note before you get all hopping mad that I have made no argument that the child necessarily needs a father, only that a woman of any stripe can not serve as one. in the light of all that, perhaps the judgment was right, but the argument for it was wrong.
 
2012-10-02 10:49:03 AM  
Furthermore, this "analog to the father" argument removes the role of genetic right, thus further empowering the state to make decisions for you as to how your child should be raised. I'm not saying genetics should play a real role, but the state doesn't need more power to define your role as parent.
 
2012-10-02 12:14:21 PM  

aharown: calling the woman who won custody "analog to a father" is simply and obviously wrong; I say that completely outside of any moral judgment: she can not ever play the role of a father to this child.

I will defend my argument no further, it needs no more, you can not refute this statement.


please note before you get all hopping mad that I have made no argument that the child necessarily needs a father, only that a woman of any stripe can not serve as one. in the light of all that, perhaps the judgment was right, but the argument for it was wrong.


Then why the fark did you post it?

/"analog to a father" is stupid, "analog to a step-parent" makes total sense.
 
2012-10-02 12:23:36 PM  

KatjaMouse: Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?

The difference is is that when the baby is born the mother's male partner is put down as the father on the birth certificate. I don't know how same sex couples birthings/adoptions go but I'm fairly positive that that is not how it works, even in SSM states.

/this is a pretty good outcome

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.

Hmmm... just enough vitriol... already a few nibbles... short and sweet... 5/10.


//ok lets dance

the kid should go to foster car with a good christian family and never have contact with either deviant again. they should move to adopt the child and chage it's name and never ever let either deviant contat it again.
 
2012-10-02 01:07:56 PM  
subby has done worse....
 
2012-10-02 03:18:43 PM  
Why do people assume that one person in a homosexual relationship plays the opposite sex "role" as traditionally* found in heterosexual relationships? Are people that unimaginative that they assume that all relationships will follow the same model?


*Not saying predetermined gender roles are a good thing, just that it's been the traditional model.
 
2012-10-02 03:50:14 PM  
aharown: calling the woman who won custody "analog to a father" is simply and obviously wrong; I say that completely outside of any moral judgment: she can not ever play the role of a father to this child.

No it is not "simply and obviously wrong", nor is it saying that the woman can play the role of a father. It is saying that the parent that did not carry the child and give birth gets custody: ie analogous to the father in a traditional couple.
 
2012-10-02 04:31:59 PM  

Saborlas: Why do people assume that one person in a homosexual relationship plays the opposite sex "role" as traditionally* found in heterosexual relationships? Are people that unimaginative that they assume that all relationships will follow the same model?


*Not saying predetermined gender roles are a good thing, just that it's been the traditional model.


Don't sweat the nomenclature, baby.
 
2012-10-02 08:29:35 PM  

KatjaMouse: Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?

The difference is is that when the baby is born the mother's male partner is put down as the father on the birth certificate. I don't know how same sex couples birthings/adoptions go but I'm fairly positive that that is not how it works, even in SSM states.

/this is a pretty good outcome

Mimic_Octopus: AverageAmericanGuy... this is not progress, this is some political BS. it is not like one parent was a farking crackhead pimping the kid out. it is a lawyer vs a producer. both rich biatches, of course the lawyer wins. the kid is only 6 and the only bad parenting they can cite is "play dates". judge is overstepping bounds. this will and should be reversed.

Hmmm... just enough vitriol... already a few nibbles... short and sweet... 5/10.


I was actually thinking this is a good outcome but after reading that post I changed my mind. He makes a great point... neither parent was said to be a "bad" parent so why should either one of them have to lose their child? The gut reaction is understandable because people like to cheer when the underdog is able to come out on top, obviously with fathers, non biological parents and same sex non biological parents.

The thing is though could you picture a father winning custody of his 6 year girl if the only thing he could say is that the girl's mother slept in and let the kid go on play dates instead of doing school work? You might convince yourself that it could happen so then try to imagine a step father winning custody of his 6 year old daughter (and for our purposes assume the biological father was never involved and the step father legally adopted her at a very young age)...

Anyways it is very clear to most people that fathers do not get a fair chance in court and it is even worse when you realize how many have their kids taken away without even being bad parents.. they were just "not as a good" as the other parent in the eyes of some judge who has spent most of his/her life in academia and court rooms.

It is a bad outcome, male or female, biological or not. Going from living with your kids to being "allowed" to visit them every other weekend is terrible and I only hope I am never in that position.
 
2012-10-02 09:16:22 PM  

Hyjamon: AverageAmericanGuy: This is actually really great news. If the child had been placed with the irresponsible mother for no other reason than the child was biologically hers, then it would show that homosexual relationships weren't taken seriously in the courts.

But the court made a great decision here, awarding the child to the analog of the father in the divorce. This is the way it should be, without regard to sexuality or gender, but our culture is only beginning to make progress into overcoming long-held biases.

I don't see it as similar to awarding the child to the analog of the father. The reason the judge made a decision on which FEMALE made the better parent was because there was no male to choose against. This is just my anecdotal observations from what I have seen in my brother's divorce and a few other friends, it is damn near impossible for a father to win sole custody or get reasonable joint custody.


I am a custodial father. I have met many other custodial fathers over the years. While it is true that women get custody way more often than men do, it's not as difficult for a father to get custody as you imply.

/anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
 
2012-10-02 09:25:15 PM  

KatjaMouse: Some_Local_Deity: I don't see the problem here. Two parents had a child together. They split up and custody was awarded to the better parent. How would it be different if, say, it had been a heterosexual couple who had used a sperm bank due to the man's infertility? Would you automatically favor the mother in that case just because she actually birthed the child?

The difference is is that when the baby is born the mother's male partner is put down as the father on the birth certificate. I don't know how same sex couples birthings/adoptions go but I'm fairly positive that that is not how it works, even in SSM states.


I'm pretty sure that the key word here is adoption. Since the child was adopted by bio-mom's partner they both have the same parental rights under the law. The same would be true in a case where a biological father had no parental rights and another man had adopted the child.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report