Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
A little girl who was raised by her lesbian parents was placed in an unfortunate situation when her biological mother became imprisoned and her other mother became hospitalized. When the little girl’s biological father sought custody of her, he was denied because of California’s two-parent policy. Instead, the child became a ward of the state. Even though the two women were otherwise disposed, the law still views them as the child’s legitimate parents. Child advocates in San Diego are now helping push legislation in California to allow children to have multiple parents.
University of San Diego Law School Professor Robert Fellmeth is co-sponsoring Senate Bill 1476. If signed into law, it would allow children, especially those with divorced or non-biological parents to legally have more than 2 parents.
Log in- Posts -
Add New
-
Powered by WordPress -
Designed by Gabfire Themes
Vee
September 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm
This is what happens when we refuse to recognize traditional marriages. I feel bad for the girl and her biological dad. Makes no sense whatsoever!!
David W. Johnson Jr.
September 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I Wish We Had A Law That He Could Be Taken In The Prison Yard, Cut His Privates Off And Let Him Bleed To Death. I Wish I Could Be The Cutter. Like I Said, We Have A Lot Of REAL AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN But Way Too Many “n****r” Worthless Males.
Chryll D. Fearn Crews
September 21, 2012 at 5:39 am
We don’t like to think legally and we get burned every time because we don’t. Legally, this man doesn’t exist as the child’s biological father. She had two parents who are no longer able to provide for her so now, again legally, she is where she is supposed to be. I agree with those who said that from the child’s birth he had an opportunity to establish his role, both biologically and legally, with the child. For whatever reason, it didn’t happen. It’s great he wants to step in now but legally,his status is equivalent to the stranger/future foster parent.
freeze
September 17, 2012 at 8:21 pm
When the law was passed about two women being in a so called married relationship their will be problem and this is one that’s only touch the surface. Keep in mind that the Bible says a marriage is between a man and woman and not same s*x. Getting back to that we can eleminate these king of problems in the future. A child being brought up in a same s*x relationship can be confuse as to what a relationship should be about.
naima
September 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I am with Monica Edwards & Jametta on this one. If this man is her biological next-of-kin, and wants to take custody & care for her, allow it. He should, right away, get a GOOD lawyer who is conversant with this type of custody case & defend to the death his right to spare his daughter the displacement, pain & suffering – both emotional & psychological – that she is likely to endure should she become a ward of the State of CA… To say nothing of the physical scars from abuse that she will be predisposed to in being in being lost into a system without a protector or an advocate. This madness needs to be stopped in its tracks. No doubt the child is Black. I suspect that the “two mothers” are not. Too often, Black children are being awarded to non-Black lesbians, without a proper vetting process. It is simply ASSUMED that awarding a Black child to ANYBODY is better than working with the original parent(s) to help put them in good stead, on stable footing, to care for their child & rear him or her to adulthood. Now, w/all the “parties” involved in this young girl’s life, this ensures there will be enough DRAMA (& employment for the parties) to last for years to come, but no HEALTHY RESOLUTION for the child’s plight.
crox1153
September 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm
I AGREE WITH DERRICK.
Kirsten
September 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm
This is where “laws” get really annoying. You have someone who wants to take care of the child and is biologically related and yet because of a law, you put her in foster care? Utterly ridiculous!
kimberly
September 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm
My god…give the man his kid!
Jametta
September 17, 2012 at 11:27 am
If the father is in a postion to take of the child…and it is his seed that gave her life…why not? The reason we are having so much trouble in the family,is because we have gotten away from God’s way of doing thing! A child needs to be valdiated by both sexes. A woman can not give a child what a man gives and vice verse. It is aparent that neither women is in a postion to take care of the little girl at this time. We would rather give her to be a the ward of the state and have to contend with her baggage later in life that’s going to cost the tax payers even more money to undo the emotional and pschological demand that will ensue later in life.
Rjatta
September 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
I have but two questions: Where was this concerned father when this other woman had to step in an assume his role? and, Is he the biological father because he was a donor to a lesbian couple? Either way, I can see why the courts would not hand over this child to a complete stranger. If he and the biological mother were ia relationship and conceived the child, he did not stay around to assume any responsibility. If he was a donor, then he gave up his parental rights much like going to a sperm bank. The article says nothing of either mother wanting him to have the child and neither is dead. So, it stands the mothers (actual parents) are not in agreement with this person suddenly stepping in and posing as a parent to THEIR child.
FACE IT
September 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm
well surely the strangers that the state is going to give the child to was not there for her either,so i think for the best interest of the child ,she should be
with a competent relative in order to bond socially, and psychologically.
remember that when you have a bias,it causes you to think very narrow,and
the bias prevent you from thinking rational into a broad spectrum of a positive
rational.
Rjatta
September 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
I have but two questions: Where was this concerned father when this other woman had to step in an assume his role? and, Is he the biological father because he was a donor to a lesbian couple? Either way, I can see why the courts would not hand over this child to a complete stranger. If he and the biological mother were ia relationship and conceived the child, he did not stay around to assume any responsibility. If he was a donor, then he gave up his parental rights much like going to a sperm bank. The article says nothing of either mother wanting him to have the child and neither is dead. So, it stands the mothers (actual parents) are not in agreement with this person suddenly stepping in and posing as a parent to THEIR child.
Christopher
September 17, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Given that the government is taking the child as a ward of the state, it would stand to reason that the “parents” are unable to give consent. The petition of the father means that he is informed at least to know what is happening with his child and the parents. There are a number of different scenarios that this particular situation could be a part of, however considering your bias in this situation, it would be futile to continue this argument. I will say that it is your specific line of thinking that continues to hurt the perception of Black men in this country in general. I hope that your mind becomes less confined by the box in which the media wishes you to think within.
lovenlyfe
September 17, 2012 at 9:21 am
Where was this black man at before his child’s mother became incarcerated? California is right, a child does have 2 parents and this man should have been one from the day his daughter was born. Be doesn’t have to live in the same home as his child to have a percentage of custody. I am sure it was okay to allow 2 women to raise “his child”, as long as he didn’t bother. Probably only wants custody now so he can get food stamps and what ever other service he feels entitled too. So yes black men be fathers to your children. If you are occupy the seat, no one else can sit there.
Christopher
September 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm
My question to you would be, where does it say that this father was not involved in this child’s life? The fact that he is petitioning for custody means that he is involved at least to the point to know what is going on with the child in the least at the moment. Please think objectively before you consider opening your mouth to speak the ignorance your commentary illustrates.
R U SURE?
September 17, 2012 at 8:58 am
AGAIN, if you have children TAKE CARE OF THEM and fellas I you can provide BETTER for your children THEN get custody of them, PERIOD, or this happens, black males in ths nation are not repected since plymouth rock and the mothers who have children with them on purpose only see black males as sperm donors.
Sargento
September 17, 2012 at 8:47 am
I agree with Derrick.
Derrick
September 17, 2012 at 5:41 am
This is just another way to keep Black fathers AWAY from their children! Isn’t it amazing, how this racist government will let two fe-males have authority over a MAN’S child?
Remember, the government used the welfare system to keep Black men out of the homes back in the early ’60′s. If a woman was caught with the father of their children in their homes, the government would cut off her assistance. THE SAME THANG IS STILL HAPPENING TODAY!
It’s amazing, how this Black man, who WANTS to take care of his daughter, but the government will not allow it. But, this same government continues to call ALL BLACK MEN…dead beat Dads!!!
I HATE THESE RACIST BASTARDS!
Miss T
September 17, 2012 at 9:19 am
Derrick…I’m with you on this one…I totally agree!
Tunie
September 17, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Derrick this law was not against black men. In my opinion if a man is in the household he should be the head of the house. By that I mean a mother should not be on public assistance. Pay the cost to be the boss. I do feel that this father deserves to have his daughter. It’s unfair to her the father for her to be placed in foster care. This law is against parents men and women.