Pages

 

Recent Pages by ggt (Birth Control Works):
The Nationalist's Delusion Sorry Grumpy Cat, Study Finds Dogs Are Brainier Than Cats - Neuroscience News Republican Apostate Congressman Tells Black Anti-Abortion Rights Activist 'You're Ignorant' How Many American Women Die From Causes Related To... -- ProPublica

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 5:35:02am

After reading and pondering on this article, I think there’s a larger elephant in the room, as to how outdated the functionality of our court systems is in light of current technology. A huge part of this case was “who would have to travel where” to participate in court proceedings. There is absolutely zero reason, in this communication age, that any trial proceedings of this sort, properly regulated, require the continuing physical presence of both parties in the same location in the US, given the technology available.

2 kirkspencer  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 6:13:11am

Umm, what? I mean yes, a large part was over which court had the case but that had nothing to do with who traveled where, and the tech wouldn’t have mattered. The case was over which court had jurisdiction - who’s rules would apply.

Nope, the elephant in the room is that this was even needed. That a man got a court to agree to rule on custody AND FLIGHT while the child wasn’t yet born, or exactly what the case was about.

By the way, there are some reasons both parties, or representatives for the parties, need to be present. And at the same time the courts sometimes allow remote testimony.

3 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 6:58:12am

re: #2 kirkspencer

Nope, the elephant in the room is that this was even needed. That a man got a court to agree to rule on custody AND FLIGHT while the child wasn’t yet born, or exactly what the case was about.

Ultimately he didn’t win (fortunately). And obviously, sole custody during pregnancy should belong to the mother. This, of course, changes once the child is born; the instant the child is born.

I don’t see why the state of residence of the mother should then automatically be the required venue for for arbitration. It should depend on the case at hand.

4 kirkspencer  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 7:44:24am

re: #3 SidewaysQuark

Ultimately he didn’t win (fortunately). And obviously, sole custody during pregnancy should belong to the mother. This, of course, changes once the child is born; the instant the child is born.

I don’t see why the state of residence of the mother should then automatically be the required venue for for arbitration. It should depend on the case at hand.

huh? Did you read the article? The required venue was the whole basis of this.

Both he and she went to the systems of the states in which they lived. Since California processed first, New York said ‘nevermind, we’ll just let it all be done in California.’

And in most circumstances this would have been normal. Had she had the child the venue would have been decided in California courts, and she’d have had to make her appeals there. And unless and until she won the appeal the child would go to the father in California.

The Big Difference here is that the child wasn’t born. The reason this is a big deal is that because it was pre-birth the only way the father could have custody would be to force the woman to live in his venue and control.

She had to fight the first decision in New York because that’s the venue in which the original ‘let the California court have it’ decision was made.

5 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 8:09:11am

re: #4 kirkspencer

huh? Did you read the article? The required venue was the whole basis of this.

huh? Yes. That was my whole point to start with.

The Big Difference here is that the child wasn’t born. The reason this is a big deal is that because it was pre-birth the only way the father could have custody would be to force the woman to live in his venue and control.

Yes, therein lies part of the problem. Why should this be the only way the father could have any custody?

6 kirkspencer  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 10:00:05am

re: #5 SidewaysQuark

huh? Yes. That was my whole point to start with.

Yes, therein lies part of the problem. Why should this be the only way the father could have any custody?

I think I’m failing to understand your question. It looks to me like you think an unborn child can be separated from the mother. If so the only way the father can have custody before birth is to have control of the mother.

As to the venue I’m also confused because it appears you have conflated several cases and issues. Let me try again.

There were four courts/cases in the article. Case for possession in California. Case for possession in New York. Case to arbitrator in New York. Appeal of New York arbitrator decision in New York. The appeal, by the way, applies to California.

The reason the appeal was in New York was because the decision being appealed was made in New York. The reason the original arbitrator was done in New York was because that’s the agreement the states of New York and California have in cases of conflicting decisions.

7 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 12:40:49pm

re: #6 kirkspencer

I think I’m failing to understand your question. It looks to me like you think an unborn child can be separated from the mother. If so the only way the father can have custody before birth is to have control of the mother.

As to the venue I’m also confused because it appears you have conflated several cases and issues. Let me try again.

There were four courts/cases in the article. Case for possession in California. Case for possession in New York. Case to arbitrator in New York. Appeal of New York arbitrator decision in New York. The appeal, by the way, applies to California.

The reason the appeal was in New York was because the decision being appealed was made in New York. The reason the original arbitrator was done in New York was because that’s the agreement the states of New York and California have in cases of conflicting decisions.

Well that sets a lot straight; I think I’m complete agreement with you. Sorry about any misunderstanding.

Generally, in cases like this, I feel sympathy for BOTH parents (though not particularly for the father, here). Custody battles compounded by long distance aren’t pleasant for anyone. In NO case, I agree, should they have done what was done to the mother here (prior to her court victory).

It seems to me that the court system is largely inadequate for dealing with interstate child/parental welfare issues; that is the point I was trying to address.

8 FemNaziBitch  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 2:53:27pm

This is another strategy to push the “Personhood” Agenda.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 217 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1