Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Dad Convicted of Not Being Clairvoyant

You have to love the "litmus test" the feminazis have handed to the legislature/judicial systems - and which those systems, palms greased, swallowed, hook, line and sinker without so much as a whisper of doubt or question. You see, in legal terms, courts like imaginary "tests" that they can use as criteria on which to base their judgement. Its notoriously unsound and easy to manipulate. For example, in the 70s, when people wanted pornography banned, but didn't want to limit free speech, they came up with the L.A.P.S. test. So that any pornography was banned unless it provided some measure of literary, artistic, political, or social value. So at the end of every porn, they'd flash a quick ad that said "smoking is bad for you" to satisfy the LAPS test. What a joke. Finally the courts had no choice but to rule, guess what, in a FREE country, adults can have sex and film it and sell it, as horrible as that is. This is the cost of freedom - some disgusting things are legal. Don't buy them, don't watch them - its your choice and not Big Brother's. That's the point.

So in feminazi land, er, I mean, the U.S. Family Court system, we have a similar test for whether grown men are allowed to see the children that they half-created. The cool part is, no one has any idea this test exists or that they will be judged by it. Further, if they do something on behalf of their family (that's everyone, not just mom, gasp!) and its not included in the family court's "LAPS" test for custody, well then, it just doesn't count. (Laugh or cry now, I don't care which).

For instance, the court has a line item in their "test" which demands a father "support the pregnancy." (as if the pregnancy were in some bubble on the back lawn and not in their wife/girlfriend). What it means of course, is that dad is judged on supporting his wife/girlfriend during her pregnancy (after all they are the one who is pregnant). I have no idea what this means and the courts refuse to elaborate. So if you didn't bring your hormonal, pregnant wife her slippers, this could be construed as "not supporting the pregnancy." If you don't make enough money to buy maternity clothes, that could be construed as "not supporting the pregnancy." If you got a woman pregnant AND WERE NEVER TOLD SHE WAS PREGNANT, you could be accused and convicted of "not supporting the pregnancy!!!!" Oh yes! The person who is pregnant? THEY ARE NEVER MENTIONED IN THIS LITTLE "TEST." So their actions HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR "supporting" or "not-supporting (whatever that is)" the pregnancy! How Clever, no?

Legal folks are not stupid. They went to law school. And they know DAMN WELL what this is - a law written so broadly that nearly anything can be considered as "unsupportive of the pregnancy." ITS A SETUP. With the test so broad, not coming home every night after work/school (or both) and immediately putting a pillow under your wife's back could be considered a failure to support "the pregnancy." The language for this test was deliberately made so broad. Laws are typically quite specific in order to weed out the slimy lawyers who would use them for their own spurious lawsuits, accusations or tricks that the law was never intended to apply to. With a law like this so broadly written, it allows for any bad behavior of the person who is pregnant; it is essentially a "one-way" statute - designed to judge only one of the two people who created this "pregnancy." Mom could come home every night drunk and smoking and belly-butt her husband ten times - its not legally relevant so far as custody is concerned, under this statute.


This is a setup. And when something is a setup - you're bound to fail. Pretty much regardless of what you do. Period.

Below is the story of Christian Diaz. He has a son, born out of wedlock. The mother put his son up for adoption and split, it seems. She did not notify her son's FATHER. You may recall in the previous article the "best interests of the child" were often cited as the reason for doing one thing over another. Well in this case, mom is out of the picture and we should be grateful - if she's unstable enough to ditch her own child with THE STATE (who cares nothing about you, private citizen, do not be fooled) and not even notify her baby's FATHER, then she's no asset to her child, clearly. Further she could be considered very immature and possibly unstable. Additionally, let's all wake the Hell up for a second and treat this woman like she's not stupid - she had sex. She knows what sex is. She's old enough. She knows how babies are made. She's old enough. She decided to engage - as the father did - in risky behavior and have unprotected sex - this made a baby. Then she decided she made a mistake, and abandoned her child - this was very irresponsible of her. Why isn't the court passing judgement on her? Two people did something risky, and only ONE is coming forward to claim responsibility and the court's angle is "he didn't do enough to support the pregnancy?!?!?!?!?!" Does that sound like a big, fat excuse for mom's behavior to you? It does to me.

The baby is now in this world and he's a problem. He needs food and care and a family. His father is quite young BUT he does have a part-time job and is 18 years old. He also clearly loves his son and bought clothes and furniture while his girlfriend was pregnant. He has a stable family with whom he lives and is clearly able to care for his son's basic needs with the help of his family. The best situation? No. BUT - this IS the baby's FATHER - his FLESH AND BLOOD. This baby is HIS son. Not yours, dear reader. Not mine. Not the foster family's and not the judge's. In a FREE nation, like it or not, this man has the right to attempt to raise his son. He's not a drug user, dealer, alcoholic, criminal, or Dr. Evil. He's a 18 year old man growing up a bit fast. Such is life. He has a son and he intends to care for him. THAT IS HIS RIGHT. LIKE IT OR NOT. PERIOD.

The "court," which I struggle not to call a "kangaroo court," whips out their litmus test and holds the boy to it. They point out "..he was not married to the mother and didn't do enough to support her during pregnancy." Uh, What the fuck are they talking about? He wasn't married because he was in no condition to marry, #1. Not to mention, he may have wanted to marry his girlfriend but she split town or left him first. She gave up her baby to foster parents and didn't tell him about it. (Um, that's kidnapping and possibly fraud where I come from). Intentionally giving away someone else's family and not notifying them of it? What if I sold my girlfriend's car and didn't tell her? That would be a crime. And that's just some stupid car. This is a man's SON. HIS FAMILY. His family was given away and he was told nothing. Kidnapping is A FELONY. So his ex is a criminal and he's being accused of not marrying her (not a crime, last I checked), and not "supporting her during her pregnancy." Um, the best thing he can do to support his new family is work, graduate, and get a better job. Baby comes soon and that means the family needs money. All his girlfriend had to do here was have the baby and not leave the guy making money to support said baby, but she couldn't even do that much. He's already working and will be graduating soon. What the Hell else does the court want? Further, should he not be informed at some point that he may lose his rights TO HIS OWN SON if he does not abide by some made-up judicial test? Testing someone's behavior without their knowledge of that test and then condemning them on the basis of the test results is ENTRAPMENT where I come from. Further, what EXACTLY was he supposed to do that he didn't? They act as though his ex ABANDONMENT of his child was his fault, but he did nothing abusive or neglectful.

And this: "When he bought clothes and furniture for his baby during the pregnancy, the court actually criticized him for not sending them to the foster parents."

What the fuck is that? Is the court joking? This is what grown adults in family court deal with, dear reader. Shit so bizarre you must think the judge is literally just making this shit up as she goes along.

Lastly, consider your mom ditched you at birth and your father tried to take you in with he and your grandparents and some stranger called a "judge," decided to give you to total strangers instead based upon the fact that your father didn't make your mother not abandon you even though he had no knowledge she would do that. What sound reasoning.

Brilliant family court. Just frickin' brillant.

JOSE GASPAR: 18-year-old continues fighting for custody of son adopted to another family
BY JOSE GASPAR, Californian contributing columnist | Sunday, Jun 12 2011 03:31 PM

Last Updated Sunday, Jun 12 2011 03:32 PM

Next Sunday millions of families will be celebrating Father's Day, acknowledging the man who raised, loved and cared for them. Fathers hold a special place in a child's life. Dads can become involved in their child's sports, while others enjoy teaching their kids new skills or just spending precious time together. One young father admits it will be a difficult day for him.

"It's going to suck," said 18-year-old Christian Diaz.

That's because Diaz will not have his one-year-old son with him. You may remember Diaz from an earlier column. His then-girlfriend placed their son in adoption, without Diaz' consent. Both were teenagers when she became pregnant.

After a lengthy court battle, a Kern County Superior Court Judge ruled in January in favor of placing the baby with the adoptive parents. Diaz has never been able to see or hold his son, whom he has named Liam. The decision was a hard one for Diaz and his mother, Guadalupe, to accept. And it's taken an emotional toll on the family.

"He's been stressed over the court's decision denying him his father's rights," said Guadalupe, who also lost in having her first grandson.

In summary, the court never found Diaz to be an unfit parent. He has no criminal record and no record of drug or alcohol abuse. He holds a part-time job and plays football and baseball for his high school team. The court did find that he was not married to the mother and didn't do enough to support her during pregnancy. When he bought clothes and furniture for his baby during the pregnancy, the court actually criticized him for not sending them to the foster parents. Why should he send them to the foster parents when he is expecting to raise his own child?

"I tell him, 'Mi hijo, have patience, don't do anything rash. God is watching over this and he will help you'," said Guadalupe Diaz, a working single mother who's been supportive of her son's efforts.

The family is not rich by any means and had to rely on a court-appointed attorney to represent them.

"I feel helpless not being able to do anything," said Guadalupe Diaz.

She said her son who recently graduated from North High School is saddened by the court's ruling but is not giving up.

He has gotten help along the way.

The National Coalition for Men is supporting Diaz. And a nonprofit group devoted to family court reform called Fathers and Families got wind of the story and obtained the services of Marc Angelucci, a Glendale family law attorney to help out during the appellate process at no cost to Diaz.

Angelucci is convinced the Kern County Court erred against Diaz in several ways.

First, the judge denied Diaz a fundamental constitutional right to parent his child, for no good reason except that he's an unmarried father and that the court felt he did not support the pregnancy enough, said Angelucci. Second, the evidence did not support the decision; instead it was based on gender-biased laws that violate the equal protection rights of fathers like Diaz, claims the attorney.

Young mothers have a presumed right to their child; so should young fathers like Diaz, said Angelucci.

The baby turned one on June 4 and remains with his adoptive parents described as a well-to-do middle-class couple.

"I've been told that if I agree to consent to this adoption, I will get pictures of my son sent to me periodically," said Diaz. "There's no way I will ever agree to give up my son."

The issues involved in this case raise a host of questions over the legal complexities regarding an unmarried father's rights to gain custody of his child. In this case, the mother made the decision to give up her child for adoption most likely thinking it was in the child's best interest. But what is difficult to understand is how a father, who is willing to raise his child can legally be denied his own blood.

Last year around this time, President Barack Obama reminded deadbeat dads about their emotional and financial responsibility to their children. Kern County is a good example of that.

Now we have a case where an 18-year-old father who, well, wants to be a dad under all expectations but is rebuffed by a system many feel is biased toward single men.

In the meantime, Diaz still keeps intact the baby's room he set aside at his house, and it remains filled with a crib, clothing and everything a baby needs, in anticipation his dream may one day be fulfilled.

"I still don't have my son, so I don't have any plans for Father's Day," said Diaz.

Jose Gaspar is a reporter for "29 Eyewitness News, " and contributing columnist. These are the opinions of Gaspar, not necessarily The Californian's.

No comments:

Post a Comment