Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bustr on June 22, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
-
LAW OF THE LAND
Lesbian declared 'psychological parent'
State's high court favors dead mom's lover over mother, father
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 22, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has removed custody from the maternal grandparents of a child in favor of the lesbian lover of the child's deceased mother.
According to a statement from the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, the court declared Friday the lesbian partner the "psychological parent" of the child, who is referred to only as Z.B.S.
The case arose when Tina B. fell asleep at the wheel on the drive home from an all- night party at a "gay" bar in Charleston, W.Va., and she crashed head-on into oncoming traffic, killing her lesbian partner, Christina S.
While custody initially was given to Christina's parents, a two-parent family that raised five children, the court's decision gave custody to Tina.
According to the law center's statement, the child was fathered by Tina's half-brother, a convicted felon who worked for Tina and agreed to have sex with Christina to provide a child for the same-sex couple.
" This court has once again demonstrated the lethal effects of judicial activism on the nuclear family, which is the cornerstone of our civilization," said Stephen M. Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, which authored a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of two legislators in the case. "While the court pretended to limit itself to interpreting the laws passed by the Legislature, in reality it made law and acted as a superlegislature.
"West Virginia's creation of a new 'right' for a same-sex partner to obtain custody of her deceased lover's child without any written agreement, a will or any attempt at adoption is but a stepping stone to recognition of same-sex marriage."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok this is strange......................
-
Nice neutral POV on that article.
If the two women raised the kid together, and then one of them died, then obviously the remaining one would be the one who should keep the child. That's how it would work with a hetero couple, why would it be different for this?
This article is trying to create a gay Willie Horton.
-
Originally posted by bustr
The case arose when Tina B. fell asleep at the wheel on the drive home from an all- night party at a "gay" bar in Charleston, W.Va., and she crashed head-on into oncoming traffic, killing her lesbian partner, Christina S.
While custody initially was given to Christina's parents, a two-parent family that raised five children, the court's decision gave custody to Tina.
I have to agree. Just plain strange. The woman caused the death of the mother. Why wasn't she charged with vehicular homicide instead of given custody of the child who's mother she killed?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I have to agree. Just plain strange. The woman caused the death of the mother. Why wasn't she charged with vehicular homicide instead of given custody of the child who's mother she killed?
Oh hell yeah... why not make a bad situation worse? I'm sure she fell asleep on purpose.
-
Sandy, I was taking into consideration the part where she was returning from an all night party at a bar. Maybe her BAC was 0.0, I don't know. I do know that if you have ANY BAC reading you are at fault in the death. 0.08 is just a guideline for DWI. My source? DWI education class.
-
Consider it this way, if a male/female couple have kids, and the dad falls asleep at the wheel and the wife is killed in the accident, is that automatic disqualification for him to be a father? What about an automatic charge of manslaughter?
I'd like to argue that the same standard should apply to anyone. Justice is supposed to be blind, which means that it shouldn't matter if the person is gay or not.
-
If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.
-
How is going to a bar high-risk? My wife and I went to a bar last week for her signing contest. We had the kids at a sitters while we were there. Being too tired to drive has killed plenty of people all over the social spectrum. It's regrettable, and most accidents are preventable, so I don't get the difference.
I'm not sure I see your point, but I'm willing to listen.
-
Originally posted by rpm
If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.
That's fine, but if the two were good parents, charges of vehicular manslaughter aren't punishing the surviving parent so much as punishing the children.
People make mistakes. Even good parents do.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
How is going to a bar high-risk? My wife and I went to a bar last week for her signing contest. We had the kids at a sitters while we were there. Being too tired to drive has killed plenty of people all over the social spectrum. It's regrettable, and most accidents are preventable, so I don't get the difference.
I'm not sure I see your point, but I'm willing to listen.
Going to a bar and chosing to drive afterward is high risk behavior in the eyes of the law. I am talking from first hand experience. Not as a victim, but as reformed perpetrator.
It's true we do not have all the facts of this case, but from the information we do have available it states they were at an all night party at a bar. Driving with any BAC above 0.00 makes you liable in the death. It also is a contributing factor to sleepyness. True, I am quoting Texas law and this didn't happen in Texas. I got this information from a Texas mandated DWI driver education class. Different states have differentstatutes and precidents.
Driving when too exausted to safely drive or stay awake also demonstrates poor judgement, especially when the cause of the exaustion was partying. They could have easily called a cab and everyone would still be alive.
Sandy, you are correct that even good parents make mistakes. They are also subject to the concequences of their actions.
-
Ah, so you're assuming they were drinking? I've been the designated driver plenty of times, which means no booze.
If this were court, I think the phrase applicable would be 'assuming facts not in evidence'.
Let's cut to the chase. Would you be as adamant about this if the couple were not gay?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ah, so you're assuming they were drinking? I've been the designated driver plenty of times, which means no booze.
If this were court, I think the phrase applicable would be 'assuming facts not in evidence'.
Let's cut to the chase. Would you be as adamant about this if the couple were not gay?
Originally posted by rpm
If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.
Originally posted by rpm
Driving when too exausted to safely drive or stay awake also demonstrates poor judgement, especially when the cause of the exaustion was partying. They could have easily called a cab and everyone would still be alive.
Remember Chairboy, I am the uberliberal. Just ask Nuke, lazs, Toad, ect. I have no problems with gay parenting.
-
Just Plain Disgusting
-
Hello All,
In one sense the fact that "Tina B.'s" negligence resulted in the death of the child's mother is a secondary issue. What is of far more profound importance is the precedent that this case sets for future custody cases.
Consider this, had Tina merely lived in the same apartment with Christina as her friend she would have had no legal standing to claim custody of Christina's child. She is not directly related to the child while the child's grandparents manifestly are. In fact Tina had no legal relationship to the child or even to Christina at all. In comparable cases, live-in boyfriends who are not biologically related to the child and who have not formerly adopted the child prior to the mother's death have no chance of gaining custody because they have no legally recognized relationship to the child.
In this case, the appeals court (no big surprise there) created precedent by determining that a sexual relationship between the deceased mother and Tina constituted a stronger legal claim to custody over the child than that of her blood relatives and therefore ended the existing custody relationship and transfered custody.
This is pure political pandering and fundamental redefining of family law sans legislation. At no point were the previously existing laws of West Virginia or the desires of West Virginian voters allowed to determine the outcome. This is good news only for those who are in favor of unelected judicial oligarchs mandating their own preferences to the American people.
- SEAGOON
-
The local authorities didn't see fit to charge her, so that's good enough for me to believe she wasn't breaking the law. Two adults got in that car, and presumably they were both at the party, and a tragedy occured. Charging the lady for making a reasonable mistake would be another tragedy, despite the horrible consequences of her reasonable mistake.
As to custody, she was the parent before the accident, and there's no reason she shouldn't be the parent after the accident. I find the new trend to call every judge to doesn't rule to your liking an "activist judge", just disturbing and pretty retarded.
-
The court made it's decision based on the relation between Tina and the daughter, not Tina and the mother.
"the court declared Friday the lesbian partner the "psychological parent" of the child, who is referred to only as Z.B.S."
-
Originally posted by SOB
The local authorities didn't see fit to charge her, so that's good enough for me to believe she wasn't breaking the law.
We don't know that. As I stated earlier, there's a lot of information we don't know about the accident except that they were leaving a bar after being there all night and had a fatal collision. Other than that, it's all conjecture from all of us.
-
I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that the fact she was charged with a crime related to the accident was left out of the article, but I kinda doubt it.
-
Just curious guys,
Main Question: In what sense was Tina "the parent" of Christina's child?
Related Sub Questions: Are live in boyfriends "the parents" of their girlfriends children? Do they cease to be parents after they break-up with their girlfriends? Should they be allowed to sue for custody or visitation rights after the break-up on the grounds of "psychological parenthood"?
If three people live together in a sexual relationship and there are children involved, who is the "psychological parent" of the child or does she/he have one biological and two "psychological parents?"
If you were the grandparents, how would you react to the news that your claims to custody where less binding than those of a non-related girlfriend/boyfriend?
If you were a voter in the state of West Virginia, how would you react to the idea that your views of the grounds of marriage, parenting, and custody were of supreme indifference to the outcome of custody cases and that you had no way of influencing the outcome of such cases?
- SEAGOON
-
I look at the situation, and see that the judge made a reasonable decision.
Two people chose to have a child together. They were both women, therefor lacking the required sperm. One of the women's brother acted as serrogate and donated his sperm the old fashioned way. The women had a child together and were, by any reasonable measure, the child's parents. How can you equate that to a live-in boyfriend who comes into the picture after the fact?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just curious guys,
Main Question: In what sense was Tina "the parent" of Christina's child?
Parent is as parent does.
-
I think gays can be ok parents, though the kid is going to have hard times in school.
I am with RPM that the kid should prolly have not gone to this person.
That was clearly a very stupid choice she made and a person died.
I am all for not letting stupid people have kids.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I think gays can be ok parents, though the kid is going to have hard times in school.
Teenagers are embarrassed by their parents anyway. ;)
-
if you kill someone with your car it's vehicular manslaughter, unless of course your sober, then it's just a unfortunate accident.
-
In fact Tina had no legal relationship to the child or even to Christina at all. In comparable cases, live-in boyfriends who are not biologically related to the child and who have not formerly adopted the child prior to the mother's death have no chance of gaining custody because they have no legally recognized relationship to the child.
Of course, West Virginia does not allow second-parent adoption (as far as I can tell from several sources). So even though this couple decided to have a child jointly, as a family unit, rasied the child as a family for years, with the full and continued support of the biological father for that course of action, there was no option to adopt.
At no point were the previously existing laws of West Virginia or the desires of West Virginian voters allowed to determine the outcome. This is good news only for those who are in favor of unelected judicial oligarchs mandating their own preferences to the American people.
I agree, and in my opinion much like the pandering of the activist U.S. Supreme Court when it declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. When California struck down interracial marriage 1948, a full 9 out of 10 voters disagreed with the decision. Interracial marriage was also seen as being unnatural and an affront to god's will and actions far short of a marriage license could end up with some "strange fruit" swinging from the tree. Civil Rights are a wonderful thing.
BTW, I like how the article author worked in "gay" bar instead of just bar. Nice touch.
Charon
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
80% of all drivers fall asleep and crash, or doze off and narrowly avoids crashing at least once in their lifetime.
Your basis for this claim is?
-
Parentage is normally decided in a couple manners. Biology as in blood relation between the father and the mother. Legally as in adoption. In this case neither situation existed. The biological father, a convicted felon (possibly incarcerated) likely had to sign away parental rights to avoid a conflict with his sister. Admittedly this is just a guess.
The death of the biological mother would have allowed the child to revert to the biological father unless rights were severed or the court determines that the father is not fit for the job. Absent an adoption paper or direct biological parentage the grandparents are the normal fall back position. Creating a new category (psychological parent) that has not previously existed is definately legislating from the bench. It will be interesting to see how if falls out pending legal appeals.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just curious guys,
Main Question: In what sense was Tina "the parent" of Christina's child?
Related Sub Questions: Are live in boyfriends "the parents" of their girlfriends children? Do they cease to be parents after they break-up with their girlfriends?
- SEAGOON
common law marriage + "psychological" parent, if the live in boyfriend has been living in for more than 1 year, and assuming responsibilities of spouse/ father, as far as i know someone could make a decent case that they should have custody...
-
deleted - Rule #7 circumventing language filter
-
Of course, don't forget she's at least the biological aunt, so she isn't totally unrelated even if you want to ignore the other relationship.
The best solution? Full legal gay marriage. When law lags behind reality, you get problems like this one.
-
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.
Now, if you replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
As far as this case goes, Seagoon, read the article. The couple (two women) decided they wanted a kid. The one lady's brother impregnated the dead lady, and the couple had a kid. But it really is the couple's child.
If a married man and woman decided they wanted a child, but the man was sterile so someone else impregnated his wife, and then the wife died in a car accident... you would still consider that child to be the man's child, even though it isn't really biologically his, right?
I don't see it as being any different.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.
Nah, you can be married by a justice of the peace.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.
Now, if you replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Actually the ancient Egpytians are generally blamed for the marriage concept. So its not an exclusive to Christianity, nor does marriage require any religious beliefs.
"Civil Union" is nothing more than a slight change in wording to appease a bunch of ignorant religious bigots.
Allowing gay marriages would've prevented this problem.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.
Gotta disagree with you there. My wife and I are atheists, and we took great pains to have a completely secular wedding.
I hope you're not suggesting that only christians can be married?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Just Plain Disgusting
I agree. Pretty disgusting that the objections to this verdict appear largely to be due to Tina Burch's sexuality rather that to what a 5 year old child and the biological father actually want.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Are live in boyfriends "the parents" of their girlfriends children? Do they cease to be parents after they break-up with their girlfriends? Should they be allowed to sue for custody or visitation rights after the break-up on the grounds of "psychological parenthood"?
Fallacious argument. The relationship didn't break up, the biological mother died. This case would never had got to the stage of repeated court hearings if it had been a simple case of a breakup; custody would have almost certainly gone to the mother.
As for the concept of "psychological parenthood", Justice Davis gave a reasonable definition of this, calling it a person who "fulfils a child's psychological and physical needs for a parent and provides for the child's emotional and financial support." and someone who has a "substantial, not temporary relationship with a child, and one that is forged "with the consent and enthusiasm of the child's legal parent or guardian."
Also, notwithstanding the predictable allegations of judical activism, this was actually a case of an appeals court upholding an existing family court decision. The verdict was also supported by the court appointed advocate for the 5 year old boy in question.