interesting article re: fetal jurisdiction

[CJane]

NY / CA

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/custody-battle-raises-questions-about-the-rights-of-women.html?h=7AQFY25U5&s=1&enc=AZPIWn6URjMzSEXi6PH2CSBvJEyib6OKVjKhW9G7n8p3t_825BmL2XgtCWPPuGT2Qa8&pagewanted=2&_r=0&rref=us&hpw=

 

[single317dad]

Poor kid.

We're only going to see more of this. Unwed fathers (the ones who actually care to handle things correctly) need more protection. It's easy to say "just get married", but reality is that marriage is a thing of the past; the whole idea of two teenagers tying the knot, having 5 kids, and celebrating their 75th anniversary is long gone. There's going to be some new standard, maybe a pre-coital contract, or something statutory requiring prenatal paternity testing.

To say that a man should be able to force a woman he had a one-night stand with to stay put for 9 months is pretty ridiculous. To say that if a couple has been planning a pregnancy sans marriage, that the woman should be able to run to Pakistan as soon as she misses her monthlies is equally ridiculous. There's middle ground somewhere.

 

[LdiJ]

Poor kid.

We're only going to see more of this. Unwed fathers (the ones who actually care to handle things correctly) need more protection. It's easy to say "just get married", but reality is that marriage is a thing of the past; the whole idea of two teenagers tying the knot, having 5 kids, and celebrating their 75th anniversary is long gone. There's going to be some new standard, maybe a pre-coital contract, or something statutory requiring prenatal paternity testing.

To say that a man should be able to force a woman he had a one-night stand with to stay put for 9 months is pretty ridiculous. To say that if a couple has been planning a pregnancy sans marriage, that the woman should be able to run to Pakistan as soon as she misses her monthlies is equally ridiculous. There's middle ground somewhere.

There is no middle ground possible without violating the constitutional rights of the mother...and its a very very slippery slope when we start violating the constitutional rights of one gender to protect putative parental rights of another gender. It opens the door to legislating away other constitutional rights.

 

[stealth2]

Sigh... I really hate the way the stepmom feels justified to step in as she has. I would bet a paycheck they divorce sooner than not.

 

[cbg]

He always was a spoiled brat.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

What can a father do? This IMO, was his only choice. She chose to carry this man baby, just as he chose to cause her to be pregnant.

If in vitro DNA testing is done or paternity established by the courts, can't a father request joint legal custody and restrict the child(Fetus) moving away?

 

[Rwedunyet]

I think the following quote says alot about "it": On Sept. 4, as Ms. McKenna described it, choking up, Mr. Miller and his wife came to her apartment, “took the baby out of my arms, dropped it in a car seat and drove away.”

I remember getting FURIOUS when my kids were babies and someone would say "what's it's name?" I would usually respond with "cousin". Most people never got the joke.

I dont know. I was shocked at the custody decision that was made, but do have to agree with the sentiments behind the court decision. It's not really fair to men that a woman can be pregnant with their child, a child that they both conceived together and will both be responsible for, for the rest of their lives, but that woman, for the nine months that the child is in utero can make crappy decisions, ie moving across the county before the baby is born.

But, courts should not be about sentiment, or even morality, they should be about law alone. I agree wholeheartedly with LDiJ when he/she said (my emphasis added): "There is no middle ground possible without violating the constitutional rights of the mother...and its a very very slippery slope when we start violating the constitutional rights of one gender to protect putative parental rights of another gender. It opens the door to legislating away other constitutional rights. "

That being said, women have a moral and ethical obligation to consider the putative father(s). It's just the right thing to do.

A friend of mine had been living with his girlfriend for 6 years, and they decided to have a baby. Shortly after they joyfully announced a positive pregnancy test, the woman was offered a promotion at work. She felt that having a new baby would hinder her new position, and as such, had an abortion despite the pleas of the soon to be father. She was within her legal rights, but she was wrong to do it. He was devastated. Granted, he owns part of the blame for impregnating her before he married her. (I dont know if a married woman can abort without hubby's consent???)

It goes the other way too, in my opinion. A woman can decide that she is not ready to have a child, for whatever reason, and simply have an abortion. However, a man has no choice......if the woman says "nope, I'm ready, get over it", then dear ole dad pays the child support for 18 years. Those with the uterus have the power. But then we go back to LDiJ's very truthful statement.

I guess the answer is to just use common sense.....men especially.

 

[LdiJ]

What can a father do? This IMO, was his only choice. She chose to carry this man baby, just as he chose to cause her to be pregnant.

If in vitro DNA testing is done or paternity established by the courts, can't a father request joint legal custody and restrict the child(Fetus) moving away?

No...because the fetus is still part of the woman's body and the courts cannot restrict the woman from doing whatever she likes. Which is why the appeals court overturned the trial court's decision in this instance.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

No...because the fetus is still part of the woman's body and the courts cannot restrict the woman from doing whatever she likes. Which is why the appeals court overturned the trial court's decision in this instance.

I know nothing about this kind of stuff. I wonder how it would work in the case of a 'Surrogate mother'. I know that isn't the case with this family, but could BOTH parents decide that the women carrying their child not move the child(Fetus) across the country? If the parents, in the case of surrogacy could restrict that, i don't see why a father couldn't, after he has established paternity, put forth the same restrictions for a women carrying his child.

 

[LdiJ]

I know nothing about this kind of stuff. I wonder how it would work in the case of a 'Surrogate mother'. I know that isn't the case with this family, but could BOTH parents decide that the women carrying their child not move the child(Fetus) across the country? If the parents, in the case of surrogacy could restrict that, i don't see why a father couldn't, after he has established paternity, put forth the same restrictions for a women carrying his child.

A surrogate is a different situation. In the first place it wouldn't matter where the surrogate lived, the baby would still go home from the hospital with the parents, not the surrogate. In addition, surrogacy is a contractual relationship, generally for a fee (varies by state) and a requirement to remain in the area could be written into the contract.

 

[Just Blue]

I think the following quote says alot about "it": On Sept. 4, as Ms. McKenna described it, choking up, Mr. Miller and his wife came to her apartment, “took the baby out of my arms, dropped it in a car seat and drove away.”

I remember getting FURIOUS when my kids were babies and someone would say "what's it's name?" I would usually respond with "cousin". Most people never got the joke.

I dont know. I was shocked at the custody decision that was made, but do have to agree with the sentiments behind the court decision. It's not really fair to men that a woman can be pregnant with their child, a child that they both conceived together and will both be responsible for, for the rest of their lives, but that woman, for the nine months that the child is in utero can make crappy decisions, ie moving across the county before the baby is born.

But, courts should not be about sentiment, or even morality, they should be about law alone. I agree wholeheartedly with LDiJ when he/she said (my emphasis added): "There is no middle ground possible without violating the constitutional rights of the mother...and its a very very slippery slope when we start violating the constitutional rights of one gender to protect putative parental rights of another gender. It opens the door to legislating away other constitutional rights. "

That being said, women have a moral and ethical obligation to consider the putative father(s). It's just the right thing to do.

A friend of mine had been living with his girlfriend for 6 years, and they decided to have a baby. Shortly after they joyfully announced a positive pregnancy test, the woman was offered a promotion at work. She felt that having a new baby would hinder her new position, and as such, had an abortion despite the pleas of the soon to be father. She was within her legal rights, but she was wrong to do it. He was devastated. Granted, he owns part of the blame for impregnating her before he married her. (I dont know if a married woman can abort without hubby's consent???)

It goes the other way too, in my opinion. A woman can decide that she is not ready to have a child, for whatever reason, and simply have an abortion. However, a man has no choice......if the woman says "nope, I'm ready, get over it", then dear ole dad pays the child support for 18 years. Those with the uterus have the power. But then we go back to LDiJ's very truthful statement.

I guess the answer is to just use common sense.....men especially.

Men, wed or unwed, can NOT dictate what a woman may, or may not, do with thier body.

 

[Proserpina]

I know nothing about this kind of stuff. I wonder how it would work in the case of a 'Surrogate mother'. I know that isn't the case with this family, but could BOTH parents decide that the women carrying their child not move the child(Fetus) across the country? If the parents, in the case of surrogacy could restrict that, i don't see why a father couldn't, after he has established paternity, put forth the same restrictions for a women carrying his child.

Let's not forget that legally speaking, a fetus is a fetus. To use the term "child", the fetus needs to actually be born.

What we see here though has less to do with legalities than it has to do with emotion.

 

[CJane]

Is SmokeyParkCop also LongIslandGuy or whomever?

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

There is no middle ground possible without violating the constitutional rights of the mother...and its a very very slippery slope when we start violating the constitutional rights of one gender to protect putative parental rights of another gender. It opens the door to legislating away other constitutional rights.

A surrogate is a different situation. In the first place it wouldn't matter where the surrogate lived, the baby would still go home from the hospital with the parents, not the surrogate. In addition, surrogacy is a contractual relationship, generally for a fee (varies by state) and a requirement to remain in the area could be written into the contract.

As i said i know NOTHING about this kind of stuff. I came here for a 'drug' related question, but this thread caught my eye. Wouldn't that violation of constitutional rights be violated for the surrogate, just like it would be violated for the mother if either one wasn't allowed to move away while pregnant?

If a requirement to remain in the area could be written into a surrogates contract, couldn't it also be written into a visitation agreement?

 

[stealth2]

As i said i know NOTHING about this kind of stuff. I came here for a 'drug' related question, but this thread caught my eye. Wouldn't that violation of constitutional rights be violated for the surrogate, just like it would be violated for the mother if either one wasn't allowed to move away while pregnant?

If a requirement to remain in the area could be written into a surrogates contract, couldn't it also be written into a visitation agreement?

The problem is, the presumption of paternity is intrinsic to the contract, whereas there cannot be a visitation agreement until the child is born AND paternity established.