Path: news.primenet.com!ip210.phx.primenet.com!user From: gswann@primenet.com (Greg Swann) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Fighting for my children... Date: 26 Dec 1995 18:35:03 -0700 Organization: Greg Swann Typography & Graphics Lines: 164 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: X-Posted-By: ip210.phx.primenet.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18241 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1958 alt.support.single-parents:3402 misc.kids:241711 My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts of the State of Arizona. This message points to a WWW page that explains in detail what may be the best documented contested divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help or suggestions you can offer. Very best, Greg Swann On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed to the committee members along with the essays Thumper (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require more documentation, _much_ more is available. And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). Greg Swann TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every day that came after it. Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to the quality of her parenting. Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for now. In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." And even though people have been known to have a sudden change of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you is the primary one." If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you to make our laws reflect this simple fact. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. _____________________________________________________________________________ gswann@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) 70640.1574@compuserve.com Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. We are what we do, not what we say we do... - Janio Valenta _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.mci.newscorp.com!news.delphi.com!usenet From: Billy Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: Tue, 26 DEC 95 21:51:46 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 3 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1g.delphi.com X-To: Greg Swann Xref: news.primenet.com misc.kids:241726 Well, good luck. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!crash!saturn From: saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Date: 27 Dec 1995 05:55:17 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA Lines: 176 Message-ID: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: crash-i2.cts.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18251 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1960 alt.support.single-parents:3404 misc.kids:241732 Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts : of the State of Arizona. Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. Take a lesson. This message points to a WWW page that : explains in detail what may be the best documented contested : divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently : revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that : there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my : fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse : the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help : or suggestions you can offer. : Very best, : Greg Swann : On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations : Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This : committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws : governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web : page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce : and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, : attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited : to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html : I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed : to the committee members along with the essays Thumper : (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at : four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). : While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links : on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and : custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it : stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below : originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her : paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been : entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require : more documentation, _much_ more is available. : And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is : an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's : lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no : lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). : Greg Swann : TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM : STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 : : Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith : Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember : her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit : small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was : born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face : to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her : temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, : and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I : bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore : a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that : little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now : and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. : : I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every : day that came after it. : : Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my : fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her : from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her : birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her : prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments : and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have : sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up : the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of : poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. : : I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole : source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I : could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and : cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I : taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best : use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I : could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped : her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And : now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, : a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to : the quality of her parenting. : : Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. : : But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and : under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be : paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in : Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as : she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little : life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't : spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could : say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what : she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in : her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, : I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. : : But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything : I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my : years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as : nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father : because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did : nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for : six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for : now. : : In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one : believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument : in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, : "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, : for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state : to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I : _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she : will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, : my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has : _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ : wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." : And even though people have been known to have a sudden change : of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven : weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you : is the primary one." : : If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business : interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard : and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, : about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not : just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her : and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. : : My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and : fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny : my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily : deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole : discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles : away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, : and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. : I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret : having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me : put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised : that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you : to make our laws reflect this simple fact. : : I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. : _____________________________________________________________________________ : gswann@primenet.com : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) : 70640.1574@compuserve.com : Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. : We are what we do, not what we say we do... : - Janio Valenta : _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!paladin.american.edu!news.jhu.edu!NewsWatcher!user From: bjones@eureka.wbme.jhu.edu (Beth Jones) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Date: 27 Dec 1995 13:52:22 GMT Organization: Biomedical Engineering Lines: 201 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.220.87.99 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18262 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1962 alt.support.single-parents:3405 misc.kids:241748 In article <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) wrote: Listen Elaine, Greg is obviously the only father this little girl has EVER known, who are you to condescend to him??? What you don't understand is that as much as taking away Greg's right to parent his daughter is that at the same time, his daughter's right to him as a father is denied as well, and how dare you do that!!! You have touched on a raw nerve, so unless you are completely ready to fight for your point, don't be so quick to judge someone unless you have walked a mile in their shoes. Keep fighting Greg!!! I understand exactly what you are going through. Beth > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts > : of the State of Arizona. > > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the > straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. > Take a lesson. > > > > > > This message points to a WWW page that > : explains in detail what may be the best documented contested > : divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently > : revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that > : there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my > : fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse > : the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help > : or suggestions you can offer. > > : Very best, > > : Greg Swann > > > > : On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations > : Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This > : committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws > : governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web > : page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce > : and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, > : attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited > : to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at > > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html > > : I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed > : to the committee members along with the essays Thumper > : (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at > : four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). > > : While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links > : on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and > : custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it > : stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below > : originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her > : paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been > : entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require > : more documentation, _much_ more is available. > > : And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is > : an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's > : lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no > : lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). > > : Greg Swann > > > > : TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM > : STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 > : > : Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith > : Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember > : her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit > : small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was > : born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face > : to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her > : temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, > : and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I > : bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore > : a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that > : little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now > : and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. > : > : I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every > : day that came after it. > : > : Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my > : fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her > : from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her > : birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her > : prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments > : and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have > : sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up > : the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of > : poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. > : > : I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole > : source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I > : could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and > : cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I > : taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best > : use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I > : could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped > : her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And > : now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, > : a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to > : the quality of her parenting. > : > : Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. > : > : But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and > : under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be > : paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in > : Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as > : she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little > : life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't > : spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could > : say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what > : she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in > : her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, > : I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. > : > : But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything > : I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my > : years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as > : nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father > : because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did > : nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for > : six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for > : now. > : > : In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one > : believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument > : in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, > : "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, > : for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state > : to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I > : _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she > : will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, > : my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has > : _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ > : wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." > : And even though people have been known to have a sudden change > : of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven > : weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you > : is the primary one." > : > : If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business > : interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard > : and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, > : about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not > : just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her > : and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. > : > : My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and > : fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny > : my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily > : deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole > : discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles > : away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, > : and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. > : I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret > : having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me > : put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised > : that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you > : to make our laws reflect this simple fact. > : > : I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. > > > : _____________________________________________________________________________ > > : gswann@primenet.com > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) > : 70640.1574@compuserve.com > > : Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. > > : We are what we do, not what we say we do... > : - Janio Valenta > : _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!bga.com!news From: dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 27 Dec 1995 13:48:03 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates Lines: 34 Message-ID: <4briqj$2ma@giga.bga.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: jake-4f.ip.realtime.net Mime-Version: 1.0 X-RTcode: a5ae9b5730934ae8f4e14e96 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18263 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1963 alt.support.single-parents:3406 misc.kids:241749 In article <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com says... > >Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: >: My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts >: of the State of Arizona. > > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the >straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. >Take a lesson. > > Elaine, How completely callous can you be? He definitely has the moral ground here. The lesson he should learn is to be aware of the law. He would have needed to press for adoption from day one. Had he done this, he would have legally been the father. The other mistake was being in Arizona. I think he should press on, and in the very least be granted some sort of visitation rights. If he can't get them legally, then perhaps the mother's heart will soften with time and allow him to continue the relationship with his ex-daughter, ex-step daughter, whatever label you wish. That would be the right thing to do. To tell him to just walk away and learn a lesson is just plain insensitive callous bullshit! Dan Daugherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!ip16-011.phx.primenet.com!user From: Shawnre@primenet.com (Shawnre) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 27 Dec 1995 08:49:02 -0700 Organization: Organized?? Lines: 171 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: References: X-Posted-By: ip16-011.phx.primenet.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18268 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1965 alt.support.single-parents:3407 misc.kids:241766 Amen Dan. In article , gswann@primenet.com (Greg Swann) wrote: > My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts > of the State of Arizona. This message points to a WWW page that > explains in detail what may be the best documented contested > divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently > revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that > there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my > fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse > the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help > or suggestions you can offer. > > Very best, > > Greg Swann > > > > On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations > Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This > committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws > governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web > page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce > and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, > attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited > to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at > > http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html > > I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed > to the committee members along with the essays Thumper > (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at > four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). > > While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links > on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and > custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it > stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below > originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her > paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been > entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require > more documentation, _much_ more is available. > > And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is > an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's > lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no > lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). > > Greg Swann > > > > TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM > STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 > > Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith > Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember > her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit > small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was > born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face > to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her > temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, > and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I > bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore > a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that > little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now > and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. > > I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every > day that came after it. > > Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my > fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her > from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her > birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her > prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments > and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have > sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up > the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of > poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. > > I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole > source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I > could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and > cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I > taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best > use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I > could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped > her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And > now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, > a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to > the quality of her parenting. > > Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. > > But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and > under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be > paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in > Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as > she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little > life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't > spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could > say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what > she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in > her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, > I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. > > But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything > I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my > years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as > nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father > because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did > nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for > six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for > now. > > In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one > believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument > in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, > "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, > for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state > to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I > _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she > will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, > my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has > _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ > wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." > And even though people have been known to have a sudden change > of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven > weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you > is the primary one." > > If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business > interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard > and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, > about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not > just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her > and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. > > My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and > fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny > my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily > deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole > discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles > away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, > and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. > I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret > having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me > put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised > that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you > to make our laws reflect this simple fact. > > I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. > > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > > gswann@primenet.com > http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) > 70640.1574@compuserve.com > > Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. > > We are what we do, not what we say we do... > - Janio Valenta > _____________________________________________________________________________ Shawn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!crash!saturn From: saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 27 Dec 1995 19:03:47 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA Lines: 211 Distribution: world Message-ID: <4bs5ak$heo@news3.cts.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: crash-i2.cts.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18274 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1966 alt.support.single-parents:3408 misc.kids:241798 Beth Jones (bjones@eureka.wbme.jhu.edu) wrote: : In article <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine : Gallegos) wrote: : Listen Elaine, : Greg is obviously the only father this little girl has EVER known, who are : you to condescend to him??? What you don't understand is that as much as : taking away Greg's right to parent his daughter is that at the same time, : his daughter's right to him as a father is denied as well, and how dare you : do that!!! Greg entered a bad situation. He also evidently failed to adopt the child. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I had nothing to do with it. It was his choice. Sometimes, we have to live with the results of our actions. This dispite the charm of the excuses we spin after the fact. His ex has dumped him. The court has already decided that he has no rights at all in the matter. Personally, I think that the child has lost yet again. The court was not asking me however. Yes, I did suggest that he get out with cash in the bank.... he could always just sign his paychecks over to the lawyer... : You have touched on a raw nerve, so unless you are completely ready to : fight for your point, don't be so quick to judge someone unless you have : walked a mile in their shoes. : Keep fighting Greg!!! I understand exactly what you are going through. : Beth : > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: : > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts : > : of the State of Arizona. : > : > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the : > straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. : > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. : > Take a lesson. : > : > : > : > : > : > This message points to a WWW page that : > : explains in detail what may be the best documented contested : > : divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently : > : revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that : > : there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my : > : fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse : > : the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help : > : or suggestions you can offer. : > : > : Very best, : > : > : Greg Swann : > : > : > : > : On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations : > : Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This : > : committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws : > : governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web : > : page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce : > : and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, : > : attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited : > : to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at : > : > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html : > : > : I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed : > : to the committee members along with the essays Thumper : > : (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at : > : four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). : > : > : While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links : > : on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and : > : custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it : > : stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below : > : originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her : > : paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been : > : entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require : > : more documentation, _much_ more is available. : > : > : And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is : > : an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's : > : lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no : > : lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). : > : > : Greg Swann : > : > : > : > : TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM : > : STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 : > : : > : Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith : > : Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember : > : her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit : > : small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was : > : born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face : > : to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her : > : temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, : > : and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I : > : bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore : > : a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that : > : little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now : > : and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. : > : : > : I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every : > : day that came after it. : > : : > : Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my : > : fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her : > : from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her : > : birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her : > : prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments : > : and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have : > : sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up : > : the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of : > : poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. : > : : > : I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole : > : source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I : > : could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and : > : cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I : > : taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best : > : use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I : > : could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped : > : her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And : > : now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, : > : a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to : > : the quality of her parenting. : > : : > : Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. : > : : > : But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and : > : under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be : > : paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in : > : Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as : > : she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little : > : life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't : > : spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could : > : say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what : > : she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in : > : her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, : > : I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. : > : : > : But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything : > : I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my : > : years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as : > : nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father : > : because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did : > : nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for : > : six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for : > : now. : > : : > : In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one : > : believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument : > : in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, : > : "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, : > : for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state : > : to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I : > : _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she : > : will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, : > : my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has : > : _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ : > : wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." : > : And even though people have been known to have a sudden change : > : of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven : > : weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you : > : is the primary one." : > : : > : If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business : > : interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard : > : and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, : > : about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not : > : just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her : > : and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. : > : : > : My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and : > : fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny : > : my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily : > : deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole : > : discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles : > : away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, : > : and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. : > : I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret : > : having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me : > : put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised : > : that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you : > : to make our laws reflect this simple fact. : > : : > : I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. : > : > : > : _____________________________________________________________________________ : > : > : gswann@primenet.com : > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) : > : 70640.1574@compuserve.com : > : > : Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. : > : > : We are what we do, not what we say we do... : > : - Janio Valenta : > : _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!umcc.umich.edu!montego.umcc.umich.edu!shf From: shf@montego.umcc.umich.edu (Steve Fox) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 27 Dec 1995 15:00:17 -0500 Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 3 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: montego.umcc.umich.edu X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18278 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1968 alt.support.single-parents:3411 misc.kids:241804 Would you *all* STOP including the *entire* original post if you are not adding or responding to it in detail? It just wastes time and bandwidth. Thank you for your cooperation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!satisfied.apocalypse.org!news2.near.net!xap!usenet From: Lynne Chantler Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:53:10 -0800 Organization: Xyplex Lines: 37 Message-ID: <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chantler-pc.xyplex.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b2a (Windows; I; 16bit) Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18300 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1971 alt.support.single-parents:3423 misc.kids:241897 Elaine Gallegos wrote: > > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts > : of the State of Arizona. > > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the > straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. > Take a lesson. > Elaine will you ever wake up to understand that it takes more than sperm to be a dad! How heartless to assume that you can replace a child that you have loved like you would replace a kitten that died! Major bonehead remark as usual from Elaine. Greg, You have my heartfelt sympathies, and hopefully you will at least be able to be apart of your daughter's life. And take heart that you have had a hand in changing the laws in Arizona so that hopefully someone in your position will have a fairer chance. Lynne -- Lynne Chantler lac@xap.xyplex.com Mom to Grace (12/20/91) "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reconsider." - Mark Twain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!pravda.aa.msen.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!crash!saturn From: saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Date: 28 Dec 1995 19:50:22 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA Lines: 33 Message-ID: <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: crash-i2.cts.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18308 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1972 alt.support.single-parents:3426 misc.kids:241929 Lynne Chantler (lac@xap.xyplex.com) wrote: : Elaine Gallegos wrote: : > : > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: : > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts : > : of the State of Arizona. : > : > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes : the : > straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. : > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own : family. : > Take a lesson. : > : Elaine will you ever wake up to understand that it takes more than : sperm to be a dad! How heartless to assume that you can replace a : child that you have loved like you would replace a kitten that died! : Major bonehead remark as usual from Elaine. Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact that he had seven years to do so. Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? At this point, he is not even her step father. If you really disagree with the judge's final decision, I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is, and start a defence fund for Greg. It's just too easy to call someone else names because you don't like the judgment, or to suggest that he keep paying off lawyers. I do admit that Greg spins a good tale, and his excuses are some of the best around. Don't be such a sucker. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.decus.org!eisner.decus.org!walker_g From: walker_g@eisner.decus.org Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Nntp-Posting-User: WALKER_G Lines: 29 Organization: DECUServe Message-ID: <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:31:57 GMT Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18316 alt.support.single-parents:3427 misc.kids:241948 In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: > Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact > that he had seven years to do so. > Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to > a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? > At this point, he is not even her step father. Did he even realize that there was any reason to go through adoption? I believe in some states (I think this is true in my state, Massachusetts, though I could be wrong) that the mother's husband at the time of birth IS legally assumed to be the father. I remember reading about a year ago about some case where a man and a separated woman had an affair and there was a child and eventually the woman went back to her husband. The child's father, who went to court, was given no rights to the child at all because the woman's husband was legally assumed to be the father. It sounds like Greg and the mother were married at the time of the birth. I wonder if he is listed as the father on the birth certificate? It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine makes it sound. This man was her father by the measures that count - being there - at least as far as his story goes. I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. -- Gail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!ip227.phx.primenet.com!user From: gswann@primenet.com (Greg Swann) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:56:02 -0700 Organization: Greg Swann Typography & Graphics Lines: 99 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> X-Posted-By: ip227.phx.primenet.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18325 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1973 alt.support.single-parents:3428 misc.kids:241980 In article <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org>, walker_g@eisner.decus.org wrote: >In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: > >> Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact >> that he had seven years to do so. >> Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to >> a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? >> At this point, he is not even her step father. > >Did he even realize that there was any reason to go through adoption? I didn't. I admit to being very naive, but it never once occurred to me that anyone could challenge my fatherhood of my daughter. I knew nothing about divorce, custody, the domestic relations courts, etc., prior to all this. >I believe in some states (I think this is true in my state, Massachusetts, >though I could be wrong) that the mother's husband at the time of >birth IS legally assumed to be the father. Check. We were married in Massachusetts. In Arizona, the husband is presumed to be the father, but the presumption is rebutable. In fact, while court procedure commands that I be permitted to defend my rights as a father, and while court precedent commands that it first be established that the best interests of the child will be served by allowing a paternity suit, neither of these requirements was observed. I was not informed of the paternity suit, and no guardian ad litem of my daughter was appointed to adivse the court as to whether or not a paternity suit should be entertained. In addition to appealing to the legislature to change the statute law, I am pursuing an appeal of the paternity ruling on the grounds that two interested parties, my daughter and I, were denied due process. [....] >It sounds like Greg and the mother were married at the time of the birth. Yes. Six months before the actual due date, five months before the (premature) birth. I had proposed two weeks after conception. >I wonder if he is listed as the father on the birth certificate? Yes. Again, I thought nothing of this at the time. (The fact is, I mostly forgot about my daughter's paternity; more than once, I had to be reminded.) >It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some >random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine >makes it sound. In fact, if this paternity ruling stands, my daughter _will_ be handed over to a stranger. At present, should my wife die, my daughter will be sent to live with a man who has spent almost _no_ time with her. She would be robbed by death of one of her parents, and robbed by the state of the other. When I pointed this out to my wife, I think that was the first time she understood the monstrousness of what she has done. >This man was her father by the measures that count - >being there - at least as far as his story goes. >I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. I wanted to point out that I have no "excuses". I have not sought to excuse myself of anything, quite the contrary. I was stupid, and my stupidity has put a horrible burden not on me, but on my children. I am doing what I can to undo the consequences of my foolishness, both for my own and my children's sake, and for the benefit of anyone else caught in this horrible legal trap. In some states, these circumstances would be covered by a doctrine called Equitable Adoption; this doctrine has no precendent in Arizona case law, alas. Between the appeal and the push to change the statute law, perhaps we can get Equitable Adoption or something like it enacted in Arizona. I want to thank all of the nice people who have spoken up, here and in email. I'd be very grateful if you'd cross-post my original message wherever you think it might generate interest. I'd love it, also, if you'd add a link to http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html from your web pages. Very Best, Greg Swann _____________________________________________________________________________ gswann@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) 70640.1574@compuserve.com Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. We are what we do, not what we say we do... - Janio Valenta _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!bga.com!news From: dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 02:04:15 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4bvib0$8o4@giga.bga.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: maria-4o.ip.realtime.net Mime-Version: 1.0 X-RTcode: f9eb2ded309f8e2fd2e34c04 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18327 alt.support.single-parents:3429 misc.kids:241984 In article <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org>, walker_g@eisner.decus.org says... >I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. > >-- Gail Elaine is not completely wrong regarding legal matters and the practicality of knowing when you are beat (by the law). I took issue mostly with her insensitive attitude in a very hurtful situation. In addition to be gruff and defensive, Elaine seems to believe it is a huge waste of money and it is time for him to give up. I think it is a very personal issue, and I can promise I am just about as bullheaded as Greg in that I would rather have my kids than my fortune. However, I am aware of some cases in Texas where people without direct parental rights were able to be awarded what is termed "possessory conservatorship" (like being the NCP). It was done without wasting a huge fortune too. However, Arizona is not Texas. If the laws in Arizona eventually change, there may be a chance in the future. Beyond that, based on the correspondence between Greg's ex and the bio-father, where they acknowledeged Greg's important role, I think that if everyone could get to the point where they aren't so mad, then some voluntary visitation might be permitted. But it seems this thing has everyone so far in flames there might never be any recovery. Again, I have seen a hopeless situation turn around in a few years. So, I know it is possible. His case is an extreme example of what stepparents everywhere are experiencing, that while married to the children's legal parent, they can try very hard to be a parent, but once the marriage is ended, the ex-stepparent has no rights whatsoever. Only the goodness of the hearts of the legal parents can permit any connection to those kids. So, Greg's not the only one, not by a long shot. Dan Daugherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!crash!saturn From: saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 02:58:13 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA Lines: 27 Message-ID: <4bvlg5$egf@news3.cts.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: crash-i2.cts.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18329 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1974 alt.support.single-parents:3430 misc.kids:241988 walker_g@eisner.decus.org wrote: : In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: : > Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact : > that he had seven years to do so. : > Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to : > a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? : > At this point, he is not even her step father. : It sounds like Greg and the mother were married at the time of the birth. : I wonder if he is listed as the father on the birth certificate? : It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some : random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine : makes it sound. This man was her father by the measures that count - : being there - at least as far as his story goes. : I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. Tee hee- outside of the judge, the court, the child's mother, and the child's bio father. Personally, I would hand the child over to Greg to raise, and require the bio parents to pay child support.... however, this is not the final judgement of the court. The case is closed. Greg loses. The child loses. It's really a very straight foreward case, and anyone why doesn't see this is a baboon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!news1.best.com!shellx.best.com!gazissax From: gazissax@best.com (Joel and Lynn GAzis-SAx) Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 00:25:47 GMT Organization: Alsirat Online Magazine Lines: 30 Message-ID: <4bvcib$jgc_001@vip.best.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: gazissax.vip.best.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Xref: news.primenet.com misc.kids:241993 In article <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org>, walker_g@eisner.decus.org wrote: >Did he even realize that there was any reason to go through adoption? >I believe in some states (I think this is true in my state, Massachusetts, >though I could be wrong) that the mother's husband at the time of >birth IS legally assumed to be the father. I actually had assumed that this was generally true, and am a bit surprised to hear it isn't true in this father's state. (I wonder how many other states it may not be true in, and whether mine is one of them.) It seems to me to make more sense to have the law work this way, or at least have this be the default, with the mother's husband at time of birth only being presumed not to be the father under special circumstances (like, they were separated at the time of conception, got a divorce right afterward, and another man has acknowledged paternity). After all, if the law defaults to giving paternity based on genetics priority over paternity based on being married to the mother, that could potentially give adulterers more rights than the men they have wronged, which doesn't seem desirable (plus the fact that the man married to the mother is likely the one who has been *acting* like a father). Lynn Gazis-Sax (trimming my newsgroups because I don't actually read the other three groups this discussion is crossposed to) ************************************************************************ Joel and Lynn GAzis-SAx Main email: gazissax@best.com lynn@elan.com Visit Alsirat, the horror magazine gazissax@netcom.com http://www.best.com/~gazissax/alsirat.html jsax@igc.apc.org http://www.best.com/~gazissax/gazissax.html The Marx Brothers@Darkweb (Joel) Whoopi@Darkweb (Lynn) ************************************************************************ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp.cntfl.com!usenet From: duggan@nettally.com (Denise Duggan) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 16:16:20 GMT Organization: CMDS News machine Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4bvq4j$lt0@server.cntfl.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dns89.nettally.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18333 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1975 alt.support.single-parents:3431 misc.kids:241995 > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts > : of the State of Arizona. The law totally bites when it can do something like this and it absolutely needs to be changed. I can't believe there are people out there who would think that who's sperm was involved makes more of a difference than who raised the child. I hope they implement some kind of "common law" adoption for cases such as these. And before anyone goes spouting off about legalities, let me remind you that just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right. I was raised by my grandfather and he'll always be my Daddy. The slug that contributed the sperm for my conception decided when I was 15 that his wallet was more important than his kids' welfare. Does that mean that he still had the legal right to be my parent? In this situation, doesn't the fact that the jerk ignored the kid for 6 years mean that he should be legally considered to have given up his rights? If it doesn't, it damn well should. Denise Mommy to Jimmy (10/2/93) and Joey (9/11/95) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:58:41 GMT Lines: 26 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18334 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1976 alt.support.single-parents:3432 misc.kids:241998 Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts : of the State of Arizona. Greg, I am sorry that you have had to go through this. I think that this is an example of the brutality of any set of laws--there are always going to be cases where their application will hurt some people who do not deserve to be hurt. In this case, I think that most people support the position of the biological father being the father from a legal standpoint. I certainly do, however it does not diminish my feeling of an injustice being done in this situation. My suggestion to you is to work to get your pay above the bio-father's, and to then offer the wife child support in exchange for generous visitation rights and her agreement to your adoption of the children. While you are out of legitimate legal options (in my mind and in the mind of the court, apparently) you can still use the power of the almighty dollar (along with the other parent's natural desire to provide for her children) to possibly get what you want. Good Luck, David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!pipeline!not-for-mail From: nullvoid@nyc.pipeline.com (Julia Hendricks-Mueller) Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 07:48:42 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline Lines: 16 Message-ID: <4c0o3a$2l8@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com> References: <4bvlg5$egf@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com Xref: news.primenet.com misc.kids:242012 In article <4bvlg5$egf@news3.cts.com>, Elaine Gallegos writes: >: I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. > > Tee hee- outside of the judge, the court, the child's mother, and the >child's bio father. > Personally, I would hand the child over to Greg to raise, and require >the bio parents to pay child support.... however, this is not the final >judgement of the court. > The case is closed. Greg loses. The child loses. It's really a very >straight foreward case, and anyone why doesn't see this is a baboon. > Perhaps the name of this thread should change to "What people think of the way that Elaine expresses herself" and "How Elaine handles being disagreed with"? Because it's drifting away from the current topic... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!castle.nando.net!!ariannah From: ariannah@ASARian.org (Ariannah Armstrong) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 13:45:27 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Lines: 5 Message-ID: <4c0rdn$qmb@castle.nando.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: asarian.org Originator: ariannah@ Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18346 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1977 alt.support.single-parents:3434 misc.kids:242019 I feel for your situation, Greg ... it must be a hard thing to have to go through. Keep your chin up ... Ariannah ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!news.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!pipeline!not-for-mail From: amyleone@nyc.pipeline.com (Amy Leone) Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 10:01:01 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline Lines: 31 Message-ID: <4c0vrd$qo0@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com> References: <4bvib0$8o4@giga.bga.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com X-PipeUser: amyleone X-PipeHub: nyc.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Amy Leone) X-Newsreader: The Pipeline v3.3.0 Xref: news.primenet.com misc.kids:242033 On Dec 29, 1995 02:04:15 in article , 'dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty)' wrote: >be permitted. But it seems this thing has everyone so far in flames there >might >never be any recovery. Again, I have seen a hopeless situation turn around in >a >few years. So, I know it is possible. I would tend to agree with this poster, as I have seen hopeless situations turn around too. Perhaps if Ann, Greg's wife, were allowed some respite from this battle, she could move out of her defensive position and see things as they really are. From reading through Greg's e-mails to his wife and her replies, I see some underlying themes that may not be obvious to him in his distraught state. It is obvious to me that Ann is allowing her strings to be pulled by her new lover, who feels himself to be in competition with Greg. Of course, she fuels this competition by telling her lover what a wonderful father Greg is, the implication being that Greg is a better father than him. What a slap in the face. This guy is afraid this might be true - after all, he walked away from his own daughter. Allowing Greg more visitation merely confirms to the world that indeed Greg is the better of the two, in the eyes of the mother. Good luck! Amy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!nwnews.wa.com!nwfocus.wa.com!redbarn.physio-control.com!haystack.physio-control.com!stevet From: (Steve Thomas) Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 29 Dec 1995 18:04:41 GMT Organization: Physio Control, Inc. Lines: 68 Distribution: world Message-ID: <4c1ajp$d1a@haystack.physio-control.com> References: <4bvlg5$egf@news3.cts.com> Reply-To: don't.bother NNTP-Posting-Host: cim.physio-control.com Xref: news.primenet.com misc.kids:242053 In article egf@news3.cts.com, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: >walker_g@eisner.decus.org wrote: >: In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: > >: > Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact >: > that he had seven years to do so. >: > Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to >: > a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? >: > At this point, he is not even her step father. > >: It sounds like Greg and the mother were married at the time of the birth. >: I wonder if he is listed as the father on the birth certificate? > >: It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some >: random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine >: makes it sound. This man was her father by the measures that count - >: being there - at least as far as his story goes. > >: I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. > > Tee hee- outside of the judge, the court, the child's mother, and the >child's bio father. > Personally, I would hand the child over to Greg to raise, and require >the bio parents to pay child support.... however, this is not the final >judgement of the court. > The case is closed. Greg loses. The child loses. It's really a very >straight foreward case, and anyone why doesn't see this is a baboon. > Elaine - Certainly you're aware that the judge and court are simply interpreting the law, and not necessarily stating personal agreement with the decision?... By the way, not that you care, but, are you, have you ever been, or have you any desire to enter the commercial fishing industry? You are by far the most proficient TROLLER I've witnessed in this group. Must be making up for lack of attention as a child. Too bad you can't take up lurking for a while. This was such a pleasant group without you. --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!pravda.aa.msen.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sover.net!pm0a26.bf.sover.net!user From: deirdre@deeny.mv.com (Deirdre) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,alt.support.step-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 08:29:12 -0500 Organization: Tarla's Secret Clench Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> <4bvib0$8o4@giga.bga.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm0a26.bf.sover.net X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b24.0+ Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18359 alt.support.single-parents:3435 alt.support.step-parents:2760 misc.kids:242054 (followups added to alt.support.step-parents as this is imho a relevant thread there) I've been through this, but in a slightly different vein -- my fiance's two older children still have contact with his former wife BUT NOT really with him. Oh, they called a couple of times in December and, for the first time in two years, each spent the night. But they've spent weekends over at the ex's even though they didn't while the two were married. I pointed out, separately, to each that the fact that they relate to the women in his life (with the noteable exception of me, though they took to another girlfriend he had before we were together) makes him think they don't like him but like the women. They just shrugged. _Deirdre In article <4bvib0$8o4@giga.bga.com>, dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty) wrote: > His case is an extreme example of what stepparents everywhere are > experiencing, that while married to the children's legal parent, > they can try very hard to be a parent, but once the marriage is > ended, the ex-stepparent has no rights whatsoever. Only the > goodness of the hearts of the legal parents can permit any > connection to those kids. So, Greg's not the only one, not by a > long shot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!eskimo!lajoie From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com Message-ID: Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id) Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 18:18:40 GMT Lines: 20 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18362 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1980 alt.support.single-parents:3438 misc.kids:242061 In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, Elaine Gallegos wrote: > > Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact >that he had seven years to do so. > Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to >a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? >At this point, he is not even her step father. Humm.... Yes, it IS possible that a judge would do that, actually. I know of one father ;-) who managed to pull it off. But it was rather unusual circumstances. -- -- Steve La Joie lajoie@eskimo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!eskimo!lajoie From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com Message-ID: Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id) Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever References: <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 18:25:44 GMT Lines: 50 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18363 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1981 alt.support.single-parents:3439 misc.kids:242062 In article <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org>, wrote: >In article <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: > >> Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact >> that he had seven years to do so. >> Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to >> a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? >> At this point, he is not even her step father. > >Did he even realize that there was any reason to go through adoption? >I believe in some states (I think this is true in my state, Massachusetts, >though I could be wrong) that the mother's husband at the time of >birth IS legally assumed to be the father. I remember reading about >a year ago about some case where a man and a separated woman had an affair >and there was a child and eventually the woman went back to her husband. >The child's father, who went to court, was given no rights to the >child at all because the woman's husband was legally assumed to be the >father. Yeah, I read up on this sort of stuff back in 84 for California. A husband has two years to renouce his wife's kid as not his and to prove so. If he renounces the kid, then the bio dad can adopt (and pay child support and be denied visitation like all the other dads). The bio dad has no claim until the husband gives up the kids as his. After two years, if the husband or ex husband doesn't say anything, he loses that option and is the legal father. He could abandon the kid if someone else agreed to adopt, but it is more likely the state would roust him to live up to his obligations. >It sounds like Greg and the mother were married at the time of the birth. >I wonder if he is listed as the father on the birth certificate? > >It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some >random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine >makes it sound. This man was her father by the measures that count - >being there - at least as far as his story goes. > >I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. > >-- Gail -- -- Steve La Joie lajoie@eskimo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!chaotic From: chaotic@netcom.com (Hine Nui Te Po) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Message-ID: Organization: Blancmange X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 23:52:44 GMT Lines: 25 Sender: chaotic@netcom2.netcom.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18377 alt.support.single-parents:3444 misc.kids:242108 Elaine Gallegos (saturn@crash.cts.com) wrote: : Are you NUTS? This man never adopted the child, dispite the fact : that he had seven years to do so. Elaine: even if he HAD adopted the child, we have all seen recently how effective that is. Adoptive parents are increasingly being denied custody to biological parents despite years of parenthood. The rational approach would be to see who has *raised* the child, not who has a pice of paper saying that the child *belongs* to them. : Did you honestly believe that the judge would just hand over custody to : a single man who was not her natural father, nor even her adoptive father? : At this point, he is not even her step father. I hate to admit it, but you are right there. American/state governments have succeded in making biological parents rights more important that the child's needs and desires. It is wrong, IMHO, but true. Greg: Best of luck to you. It only takes one cse to change case law. HineNuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnews.wa.com!uw-coco!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 11:58:59 GMT Lines: 20 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18403 alt.support.single-parents:3448 misc.kids:242137 Hine Nui Te Po (chaotic@netcom.com) wrote: : I hate to admit it, but you are right there. American/state governments : have succeded in making biological parents rights more important that the : child's needs and desires. It is wrong, IMHO, but true. This is a bunch of crap. On the contrary, the current trend is to deny the rights of the biological father and pretend that the best interests of the child can be best determined by the mother and a judge. According to this fiction, the parents have no rights, and we are just doing what is best for the child and of course he or she must follow the breasts. I believe that any parent who is not abusing his or her child has the right to raise his or her child. Regardless of any politically correct propaganda to the contrary. You liberal "let the government save all the children" lambs go raise one or two of your own, and stay the hell out of my life. David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: kr1357@aol.com (KR1357) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 30 Dec 1995 15:49:41 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 30 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <4c48l5$62h@newsbf02.news.aol.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18422 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1986 alt.support.single-parents:3450 misc.kids:242176 In article <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine Gallegos) writes: > >Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: >: My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts >: of the State of Arizona. > > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the >straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. >Take a lesson. > > Greg is the ONLY father that little girl has ever known! Look at this situation from her point of view! From what I have seen in simular situations from some of my father's freinds, she will resent her mother for what she has done when she is older. It is not fair to the child for the mother to do this, and is, IMHO, a form of psychological child abuse. You are the one who needs to grow up and realize who the child views as her "real" father: the biological creep or the man who has been there for her prior to brith!! ] That biological creep has not been part of this little girls life, and is, no doubt, a stranger to her! But you ignore the whole issue about the boy, Cameron! This action is robbing him of a relationship too. He has a right to Greg and his half-sister, and to ignore Cameron as if he is not there is a disservice to the whole problem! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnews.wa.com!uw-coco!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 22:32:45 GMT Lines: 49 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18432 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1988 alt.support.single-parents:3451 misc.kids:242199 Ken Hooper (bighouse@baste.magibox.net) wrote: : David Rogers (drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu) wrote: : : In this case, I think that most people support the position of the : : biological father being the father from a legal standpoint. : : I certainly do, however it does not diminish my feeling of an injustice : : being done in this situation. : If you think that Swann is not her father, why do you think an injustice : has been done? I don't understand what a "father from a legal standpoint" : is. The father from a legal and moral standpoint is, in the words of someone else who posted here, the one who "ejaculated on [the kids'] behalf." If the logic and justification of this escapes you then I suspect that you are blind to your culture. : If the crime of this is obvious to you (and it is, or you wouldn't : think an injustice has been done), ... Thank you so much for thinking for me. : ... you think that he is in fact her : father. If he is in fact her father, why should you and the law maintain : otherwise? I didn't say it was a crime. Au contraire, the law was followed, not broken. I can feel for Swann and for his children, and still support the legal process that led to his predicament. He had other options. To this day he has options that could lead to a stronger role for him as a parent. We have not heard from the mom, only the words from her that Swann CHOSE for us to hear. I can't help but feel for her also. He did not respond to my suggestions, I wonder why? Is he paying child support? Would not a FATHER be paying child support? How did he offer to support the children financially when he was trying to gain some custody? What is he offering now? It appears to me that it is much more important for him to justify his own failure to adopt the children, an option that would have given him important rights within the system than it is to actually do something to work to earn visitation rights to the children. Regardless of what the mother said in any particular email, she feels it is best for her kids to not have Swann in their life (or at least not in control of a portion of it.) She has that right and the responsibility to make those kinds of decisions. He needs to deal with her, to earn or buy the rights he desires from her. She did, apparently, ovulate on the kids' behalf. David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!NEWS!atc.ameritel.net!btroyi From: btroyi Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 18:14:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Lines: 210 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18434 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1989 alt.support.single-parents:3452 misc.kids:242200 Hooray for you Beth! Some people can be really cold!...Good luck Greg! Grannie On 27 Dec 1995, Beth Jones wrote: > In article <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com>, saturn@crash.cts.com (Elaine > Gallegos) wrote: > > > Listen Elaine, > > Greg is obviously the only father this little girl has EVER known, who are > you to condescend to him??? What you don't understand is that as much as > taking away Greg's right to parent his daughter is that at the same time, > his daughter's right to him as a father is denied as well, and how dare you > do that!!! > > You have touched on a raw nerve, so unless you are completely ready to > fight for your point, don't be so quick to judge someone unless you have > walked a mile in their shoes. > > Keep fighting Greg!!! I understand exactly what you are going through. > > > Beth > > > > > > > Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: > > : My parental rights to my daughter have been denied by the courts > > : of the State of Arizona. > > > > Greg, you plowed a field that you did not own. No one disputes the > > straightness of the rows. You did a real nice job. > > The child is not yours. Grow up. Go out and start your own family. > > Take a lesson. > > > > > > > > > > > > This message points to a WWW page that > > : explains in detail what may be the best documented contested > > : divorce in history. The Arizona State Legislature is currently > > : revising its domestic relations laws, with the result that > > : there is now an opportunity to change the law that usurped my > > : fatherhood of my daughter. Please read this message and peruse > > : the material on the web page. I am deeply grateful for any help > > : or suggestions you can offer. > > > > : Very best, > > > > : Greg Swann > > > > > > > > : On December 14, 1995, I testified before the Domestic Relations > > : Reform Study Subcommittee of the Arizona State Legislature. This > > : committee is drafting a comprehensive overhaul of Arizona's laws > > : governing marriage, divorce, custody, etc. I have created a web > > : page relating to my testimony and to the details of my divorce > > : and custody battle as a research resource for journalists, > > : attorneys, parents' rights advocates, etc. My testimony (limited > > : to five minutes) is shown below. The web page is at > > > > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html > > > > : I had made printed copies of my testimony, which I distributed > > : to the committee members along with the essays Thumper > > : (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Thumper.html) and Cameron at > > : four (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/MySon.html). > > > > : While a great deal of documentation is provided via the links > > : on the web page, a great deal more is omitted. This divorce and > > : custody battle has a huge paper trail, virtually all of it > > : stored in digital form. For example, the quotations cited below > > : originate in electronic mail exchanged by my wife and her > > : paramour, the entire 5 megabyte corpus of which has been > > : entered into evidence by my wife. The point is, if you require > > : more documentation, _much_ more is available. > > > > : And since I've learned the hard way that a contested divorce is > > : an avalanche of irrelevancies, I list every charge my wife's > > : lawyers can level against me in a file called No secrets, no > > : lies (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Charges.html). > > > > : Greg Swann > > > > > > > > : TESTIMONY OF GREG SWANN BEFORE THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM > > : STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, 12/14/95 > > : > > : Seven years ago today, I became a father. My daughter, Meredith > > : Katherine Swann, was born on December 14th, 1988. I remember > > : her first moments vividly. She was four weeks early and a bit > > : small. Her birth took longer than it might have and she was > > : born a little blue. The nurses had to blow oxygen at her face > > : to bring her around and bathe her in hot lights to raise her > > : temperature. She squawked at full voice, like a cat underfoot, > > : and I loved her so much it made me cry. A few hours later, I > > : bought a tiny stuffed bear with a rattle in its belly. It wore > > : a pink ribbon that read, "It's A Girl!" Meredith still has that > > : little bear. She keeps it on her bed. I like to look at it now > > : and then, to remind me of one of the happiest days of my life. > > : > > : I am here before you today to fight for that day and for every > > : day that came after it. > > : > > : Because of a brutal irony in Arizona statute and case law, my > > : fatherhood of my daughter has been denied. I was there for her > > : from the very beginning, long before the happy day of her > > : birth. I cooked for my wife and cleaned up the messes of her > > : prolonged morning sickness. I went to obstetric appointments > > : and child birthing classes and hospital tours; I still have > > : sonograms of a very tiny Meredith's very tiny feet. I mopped up > > : the flood when my wife's water broke and, in a state of > > : poorly-concealed terror, drove her to the birthing center. > > : > > : I treasured Meredith in every way I could. I was the sole > > : source of income for our family, and I worked as hard as I > > : could to make her life pleasant. I fed her and bathed her and > > : cuddled and amused her, and I changed my share of diapers. I > > : taught her as much as I could, taught her how to make the best > > : use of her remarkable mind. I took her with me everywhere I > > : could, and I spent every spare minute I had with her. I helped > > : her learn to talk, to walk, to read, to sing and to dream. And > > : now she is a fine and perfect second-grader, a tireless reader, > > : a grave student of bugs and reptiles, and, I think, a credit to > > : the quality of her parenting. > > : > > : Surely I have been her father in every way that matters. > > : > > : But there is one way in which I have not been her father, and > > : under current Arizona law, that one way is held to be > > : paramount: I did not issue the semen that resulted in > > : Meredith's life. I proposed marriage to her mother as soon as > > : she told me she was pregnant, so much did I love the little > > : life within her. It didn't matter to me then that I hadn't > > : spawned that life, and it doesn't matter to me now. One could > > : say I got married for the wrong reasons, but Meredith is what > > : she is because I fought for her life when every other adult in > > : her life wanted to end it. Whatever comes of my court battles, > > : I know that I loved Meredith when no one did. > > : > > : But it is my court battles that bring me before you. Everything > > : I've done, my years of hard work, my years of tender love, my > > : years of unstinting devotion to my daughter's life count as > > : nothing in the Arizona courts. I am said to be not her father > > : because I failed to ejaculate in her behalf, and a man who did > > : nothing _but_ ejaculate and then cheerfully ignored her for > > : six-and-a-half years is held to be her father, at least for > > : now. > > : > > : In the real world, in the world outside the courthouse, no one > > : believes this is true, not even the parties making the argument > > : in court. On July 3rd, 1994, my wife said in electronic mail, > > : "No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, > > : for Meri, Greg is her father." The man who is held by the state > > : to be Meredith's father replied on July 10th, 1994, saying, "I > > : _know_ that Greg will _always_ be her father, and that she > > : will _always_ need him as her daddy." On November 14th, 1994, > > : my wife said that I have been "a good and loving father who has > > : _completely_ taken responsibility for her, and who has _never_ > > : wavered in that commitment--even when another man might have." > > : And even though people have been known to have a sudden change > > : of heart on the way to the courthouse, as recently as seven > > : weeks ago, my wife wrote to me, "Meri's _relationship_ with you > > : is the primary one." > > : > > : If we were talking about a disputed claim, a car or a business > > : interest or a property boundary, I suppose I could swallow hard > > : and walk away. But we are talking about my daughter's life, > > : about an attempt to deny her entire history. To rob her not > > : just of the only father she's ever known, but to rob both her > > : and my son Cameron of the only _lives_ they've ever known. > > : > > : My wife is using the legal position that ejaculation and > > : fatherhood are the same thing as a pretext to attempt to deny > > : my custody of both of my children. For now, she can arbitarily > > : deny _any_ contact between my daughter and I, at her sole > > : discretion, and she is seeking to move my children 2,000 miles > > : away. I didn't believe she would ever do anything like this, > > : and I didn't believe any law worthy of the name would let her. > > : I was wrong twice, and you will never know how deeply I regret > > : having failed my children in this way. I beseech you to help me > > : put things right. The father of a child is the man who raised > > : that child, not the man who spawned the life, and I entreat you > > : to make our laws reflect this simple fact. > > : > > : I thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story. > > > > > > : _____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > : gswann@primenet.com > > : http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) > > : 70640.1574@compuserve.com > > > > : Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. > > > > : We are what we do, not what we say we do... > > : - Janio Valenta > > : _____________________________________________________________________________ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!chaotic From: chaotic@netcom.com (Hine Nui Te Po) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Message-ID: Organization: Blancmange X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 04:13:16 GMT Lines: 57 Sender: chaotic@netcom4.netcom.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18450 alt.support.single-parents:3454 misc.kids:242222 David Rogers (drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu) wrote: : Hine Nui Te Po (chaotic@netcom.com) wrote: : : I hate to admit it, but you are right there. American/state governments : : have succeeded in making biological parents rights more important that the : : child's needs and desires. It is wrong, IMHO, but true. : This is a bunch of crap. On the contrary, the current trend is to deny the : rights of the biological father and pretend that the best interests of the : child can be best determined by the mother and a judge. According to this : fiction, the parents have no rights, and we are just doing what is best : for the child and of course he or she must follow the breasts. First off, you are talking about an entirely different topic than I. You are talking about the biological father vs. the biological mother battles in court. I was discussing the scenario which gave rise to the original post. That is, the rights of non-biological parents vs. biological parents. As to your scenario, the case law is moving more and more in favor of judging a case on fair ground, rather than on the historical mother fixation. Maternal rights are no longer guaranteed. I am happy for that. I believe that a man can make every bit as good a parent as a woman. As to my scenario, case law is moving away from the rights of the non-biological parents and towards the rights of the biological parents. Thus, children are being taken away from their true parents (i.e., the ones who raised the child) and being given to the biological parents with seemingly disregard for the health, happiness, and well-being of the child. : I believe that any parent who is not abusing his or her child has the : right to raise his or her child. Regardless of any politically correct : propaganda to the contrary. You liberal "let the government save all : the children" lambs go raise one or two of your own, and stay the hell : out of my life. Again, your assumption here is that I a) am against paternal rights and b) am a politically correct liberal. Personally, I think that the government per se has done a pretty lousy job of saving the children. I am all for being allowed complete freedom in the raising of my children. On the other hand, we do not live in a perfect world and some people need more help than others. For example, if a divorce occurs, there has got to be some means of resolving the conflict. In the case of the original post, he was denied custody on the apparent sole grounds of not being the biological father. He was not necessarily denied custody because the Courts thought the child should be with breasts (as you so eloquently put it). Had he been the biological father, he very well might have gotten custody, or in the very least reasonable visitation rights. As for my political ideology, I fail to see the relevance to this conversation. We believe what we will and part of what makes this a decent country is that we can speak those beliefs and try to come to some agreement. HineNuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!ip107.phx.primenet.com!user From: gswann@primenet.com (Greg Swann) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 31 Dec 1995 08:42:01 -0700 Organization: Greg Swann Typography & Graphics Lines: 58 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> X-Posted-By: ip107.phx.primenet.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18462 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1990 alt.support.single-parents:3455 misc.kids:242237 In article , chaotic@netcom.com (Hine Nui Te Po) wrote: [clip] >Personally, I think that the >government per se has done a pretty lousy job of saving the children. I >am all for being allowed complete freedom in the raising of my children. >On the other hand, we do not live in a perfect world and some people need >more help than others. For example, if a divorce occurs, there has got >to be some means of resolving the conflict. FWIW, my real error in this matter was failing to establish the terms of the marital contract up front, by means of a pre-nuptual agreement. I would never think to contract with a client on the terms that applied to me when I married, and I realize now that I was some special kind of idiot for demanding more of stangers than I did of my wife. There is no serious money involved her, just the children. But the one thing a pre-nuptual agreement would have given _them_ is a sane termination procedure: pre-established rights and responsibilities, and mediation (with built-in failure penalties) for disputes. We are romantics, and we cringe to think that the terms of commercial transactions should apply to all-you-need-is-love. But when the love is gone, and the normal and reasonable terms of termination in commercial transactions _don't_ apply, that's when the logic of depending on love and honor and 5,000-year-old traditions begins to look pretty daft. I don't know that I'll ever marry again, but I know I'll never marry again without having my children, my rights and my property protected in advanced by a detailed and enforeceable prenuptual agreement. There is this as defense: if your spouse-to-be won't commit to righteousness when you're deep in the throes of love-is-all-you-need, what will he or she commit to when immersed in the bile of hatred? >In the case of the original >post, he was denied custody on the apparent sole grounds of not being the >biological father. He was not necessarily denied custody because the >Courts thought the child should be with breasts (as you so eloquently put >it). Had he been the biological father, he very well might have gotten >custody, or in the very least reasonable visitation rights. Also FWIW, I am still married, and final custody and visitation have not been decided yet. Best, Greg Swann _____________________________________________________________________________ gswann@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) 70640.1574@compuserve.com Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. We are what we do, not what we say we do... - Janio Valenta _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chaos.magibox.net!baste!bighouse From: bighouse@baste.magibox.net (Ken Hooper) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Date: 31 Dec 1995 10:26:06 GMT Organization: Magibox, Inc. Lines: 156 Message-ID: <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net> References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: baste.magibox.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18466 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1991 alt.support.single-parents:3456 misc.kids:242245 David Rogers (drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu) wrote: >: : In this case, I think that most people support the position of the >: : biological father being the father from a legal standpoint. >: : I certainly do, however it does not diminish my feeling of an injustice >: : being done in this situation. Ken Hooper (bighouse@baste.magibox.net) wrote: >: If you think that Swann is not her father, why do you think an injustice >: has been done? I don't understand what a "father from a legal standpoint" >: is. >The father from a legal and moral standpoint is, in the words of someone >else who posted here, the one who "ejaculated on [the kids'] behalf." Except when it is not. Legally, for instance, in the case of adoption, or in situations precisely like Greg Swann's in some states. Morally, I am not convinced that a man who has nurtured a child since birth and before, every day of her life (until she was abducted at age six) is preferable to a man who shot his wad and split. >If the logic and justification of this escapes you then I suspect that >you are blind to your culture. I may be. Please demonstrate the logic of it. >: If the crime of this is obvious to you (and it is, or you wouldn't >: think an injustice has been done), ... > >Thank you so much for thinking for me. > >: ... you think that he is in fact her >: father. If he is in fact her father, why should you and the law maintain >: otherwise? > >I didn't say it was a crime. Au contraire, the law was followed, not broken. _Nolo contendre_. I used the word "crime" in a very loose sense, to mean "manifest injustice." Nevertheless, the fact remains that you're begging the question, which is "should the law demand something this obviously wrong?" An answer such as "it isn't wrong because it's legal" is circular. If you don't think it's wrong, why do you think an injustice has been done? >I can feel for Swann and for his children, and still support the legal >process that led to his predicament. How is that? If the law is not concerned with equity, what in the world is it concerned with? >He had other options. To this day he has options that could lead to a >stronger role for him as a parent. I believe you recommended buying her off, no? You're defending a law that leads, in your words, to an injustice, and your remedy to the victims of it is to recommend that they pay up or shut up. I'd prefer to think I've misunderstood you. >We have not heard from the mom, only the words from her that Swann CHOSE >for us to hear. I can't help but feel for her also. An excellent observation. It is never wise to take testimony at face value, and it is madness to do it in the case of parties involved in a legal battle. Some of Mrs. Swann's verbage is available on Swann's web page (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html). This custody battle comes with extensive electronic documentation--over five megabytes' worth--and my understanding is that all of it is available for the asking. Both Mrs. Swann and the gentleman who contributed the daughter's DNA have email addresses, and I'm sure Swann will give you those addresses if you ask him (gswann@mailhost.primenet.com). They are indeed unrepresented here and I would be pleased if you would invite them to participate. >He did not respond to my suggestions, I wonder why? I do not know. He may have thought they were odious. >Is he paying child support? Yes. He paid child support for both children until the paternity ruling on his daughter, after which he lost--per the force of a temporary ruling--all legal rights to her. He continues to pay child support for the male child, and would happily support the daughter again. >Would not a FATHER be paying child support? Precisely. At no time until she was six-and-a-half did Steve Wright make any attempt to pay child support for the girl, or to ask for or sue for visitation, nor did he show any beyond the most cursory interest in her. >How did he offer to support the children financially when he was trying >to gain some custody? Generously, and he continues to make what I think are very generous offers as regards both visitation and money. Again, a good deal of this is documented on the web page and all of it can be backed up with written documentation upon request. >What is he offering now? I do not know. I will check. >It appears to me that it is much more important for him to justify his >own failure to adopt the children, an option that would have given him >important rights within the system than it is to actually do something >to work to earn visitation rights to the children. (There is only one child for whose insemination he cannot take credit.) In the state in which the daughter was born, my understanding is that no adoption would have been necessary. Arizona is behind the curve, as it happens. He had no idea that the law was different there, and no idea that his wife would have an extramarital affair with Steve Wright six years later. I cannot understand how anybody can hold Greg Swann and his daughter responsible for Mrs. Swann's treachery and the law's vicissitudes, and I certainly don't think he has anything to justify. Beyond that, I fail to see how one earns the right to visitation with or custody of children except by raising them and supporting them financially--which is exactly what Swann has done from day one, and exactly what the man claiming to be the girl's rightful father has not done. >Regardless of what the mother said in any particular email, she feels it is >best for her kids to not have Swann in their life (or at least not in control >of a portion of it.) She has that right and the responsibility to make those >kinds of decisions. He needs to deal with her, to earn or buy the rights he >desires from her. She did, apparently, ovulate on the kids' behalf. She "has that right and responsibility" merely because she "ovulated on their behalf?" Then why does the plight of Swann, and his daughter, bother you at all? If Mrs. Swann succeeds in her legal campaign, there is every reason to believe that the Swann children will never see their father again. If ovulating and ejaculating are all there are to parenting, then neither of them has lost anything--so why is there any injustice here? Moreover, if "buying" the right to see the children would be effacious, you're stuck defending a person (merely because she ovulated) who would actually sell acess to her children for lucre--and you're telling me that such a person can be defended as a mother "from a moral standpoint," while Swann cannot. This is incomprehensible. --------------------------------------- Everybody's Favorite Anarcho-Capitalist khooper@wsp1.wspice.com * public key available "Always and everywhere, men have authority over what they do." --R.W. Lane --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnews.wa.com!uw-coco!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:04:28 GMT Lines: 65 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18478 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1992 alt.support.single-parents:3458 misc.kids:242264 Ken Hooper (bighouse@baste.magibox.net) wrote: : David Rogers (drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu) wrote: First off, I have not read the material on the web page. My comments have been made based on what I saw here. You have filled in many gaps in my understanding, and some of my impressions were erroneous. : Except when it is not. Legally, for instance, in the case of adoption, : or in situations precisely like Greg Swann's in some states. Morally, I : am not convinced that a man who has nurtured a child since birth and : before, every day of her life (until she was abducted at age six) is : preferable to a man who shot his wad and split. Obviously I agree when adoption has taken place. And I agree that in the states where the law supports it, a person in Swann's position should have the opportunity to do custody battle along with everyone else. : Nevertheless, the fact remains that you're begging : the question, which is "should the law demand something this obviously : wrong?" An answer such as "it isn't wrong because it's legal" is : circular. Not quite circular. The law represents (usually) a societal concensus. That serves as the non-circular origin for "it isn't wrong because it's legal." That concensus is not static, and may change over time. But it has weight and validity on its own merit. : I believe you recommended buying her off, no? You could word it that way. I recommended paying her CP for the daughter (thanks for clearing up my lack of understanding as to why sometimes we were just talking about the daughter, when there are two kids involved). : You're defending a law that : leads, in your words, to an injustice, and your remedy to the victims of : it is to recommend that they pay up or shut up. Actually, I was recommending that he spend time and effort living with the reality of the law, and trying to make it work. I guess I have walked into the middle of a political campaign, when I naively thought this was someone looking for support and ideas on how to get more contact with their daughter. : >Is he paying child support? : Yes. He paid child support for both children until the paternity ruling : on his daughter, after which he lost--per the force of a temporary : ruling--all legal rights to her. He continues to pay child support for : the male child, and would happily support the daughter again. Then he has already done and offered what I was suggesting. : Precisely. At no time until she was six-and-a-half did Steve Wright make : any attempt to pay child support for the girl, or to ask for or sue for : visitation, nor did he show any beyond the most cursory interest in her. I think I will have to flip-flop on this whole issue. After 6 1/2 years, adoption should be automatic. Thanks for your arguments and information, Ken. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnews.wa.com!uw-coco!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:15:54 GMT Lines: 29 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18479 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1993 alt.support.single-parents:3459 misc.kids:242265 Greg Swann (gswann@primenet.com) wrote: : FWIW, my real error in this matter was failing to establish the terms of : the marital contract up front, by means of a pre-nuptual agreement. Yes, well many of us thought that such stuff was just for politicians, lawyers, and movie stars. Some of us are lucky enough to merely have financial fallout from this naive approach. Good luck Greg. I have been convinced by the discussion here that there should be no automatic bias in favor of the biological parent. It also seems reasonable to me that adoption should be made automatic after some number of years or, in cases like yours, upon marriage to the pregnant woman. : But when the love is gone, and the normal and : reasonable terms of termination in commercial transactions _don't_ apply, : that's when the logic of depending on love and honor and 5,000-year-old : traditions begins to look pretty daft. Yeah, "til death do us part" should be changed to be "til whim do us part" to reflect the current "societal concensus." : Also FWIW, I am still married, and final custody and visitation have not : been decided yet. Good luck on these. David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnews.wa.com!uw-coco!uw-beaver!grizzly.cs.washington.edu!drogers From: drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu (David Rogers) Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Followup-To: alt.support.divorce,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Message-ID: References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: grizzly.cs.washington.edu Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:32:35 GMT Lines: 53 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18480 alt.support.single-parents:3460 misc.kids:242266 Hine Nui Te Po (chaotic@netcom.com) wrote: : First off, you are talking about an entirely different topic than I. You : are talking about the biological father vs. the biological mother battles : in court. I thought they were related but... : As to my scenario, case law is moving away from the rights of the : non-biological parents and towards the rights of the biological parents. Yes, to the lay person (me) it appears that there have been a large number of highly publicized cases of such injustices. I think that many well- meaning people, such as myself, have been hesitant to break with centuries old tradition on this issue. : Thus, children are being taken away from their true parents (i.e., the : ones who raised the child) and being given to the biological parents with : seemingly disregard for the health, happiness, and well-being of the child. Well, disregarding the seeming bias here, I basically agree. : Again, your assumption here is that I a) am against paternal rights and b) : am a politically correct liberal. Sheesh! A thousand apologies. This is worse than playing the dozens. : As for my political ideology, I fail to see the relevance to this : conversation. We believe what we will and part of what makes this a : decent country is that we can speak those beliefs and try to come to some : agreement. There is a meta-issue here that confuses me. Sometimes one is talking to the poster of a message when one responds, and more often one is talking to a community. Apparently I do a poor job of delineating the difference. Is there a concensus on how to deal with this problem? The political ideology of the community has great relevance to the dicussion. And identifying components of the community as espousing a certain subset of all beliefs is a bit dehumanizing, however it is a necessary part of the polical process (basis: no two people can have EXACTLY the same set of beliefs, justifications, etc., yet people gain political power by gathering into groups). Thanks for your thoughts, David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chaos.magibox.net!baste!bighouse From: bighouse@baste.magibox.net (Ken Hooper) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 31 Dec 1995 20:28:43 GMT Organization: Magibox, Inc. Lines: 8 Message-ID: <4c6rpr$r1q@chaos.magibox.net> References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: baste.magibox.net Correction: A paragraph in my message of today should read: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18483 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1994 alt.support.single-parents:3463 misc.kids:242270 Morally, I am not convinced that a man who has nurtured a child since birth and before, every day of her life (until she was abducted at age six) is not preferable to a man who shot his wad and split. ^^^ KH ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!ip16-024.phx.primenet.com!user From: gswann@primenet.com (Greg Swann) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 31 Dec 1995 20:24:02 -0700 Organization: Greg Swann Typography & Graphics Lines: 158 Sender: root@primenet.com Message-ID: References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net> X-Posted-By: ip16-024.phx.primenet.com Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18500 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1995 alt.support.single-parents:3467 misc.kids:242299 In article <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net>, bighouse@baste.magibox.net (Ken Hooper) wrote: >David Rogers (drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu) wrote: [clip] >>We have not heard from the mom, only the words from her that Swann CHOSE >>for us to hear. I can't help but feel for her also. > >An excellent observation. It is never wise to take testimony at face >value, and it is madness to do it in the case of parties involved in a >legal battle. > >Some of Mrs. Swann's verbage is available on Swann's web page >(http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html). This custody battle >comes with extensive electronic documentation--over five megabytes' >worth--and my understanding is that all of it is available for the >asking. > >Both Mrs. Swann and the gentleman who contributed the daughter's DNA have >email addresses, and I'm sure Swann will give you those addresses if you >ask him (gswann@mailhost.primenet.com). They are indeed unrepresented >here and I would be pleased if you would invite them to participate. FWIW, I've left them out of this discussion because they are not germane to it. The issue is my campaign to change the laws of Arizona, and the arguments made in behalf of that campaign consist of undisputed facts. It's easy (for me, too) to get bogged down in side issues, but the issue is this: in law, in Arizona, if the man who raises a child is not the same man who fertilized the egg that resulted in the child's life, should the man who fertilized the egg be regarded as the father (the law at present) or should the man who raised th child be regarded as the father (the law as I seek to see it changed)? My wife and her paramour might have many interesting ancillary things to say, but the facts of my daughter's history cannot be contested. In the same respect, while I have many (I think) compelling arguments to make against my wife's qualities as a parent, I am not here to contest for custody in public. Assuming a level playing field, custody will be decided in the courts, as advised by our custody evaluator. If the present circumstances obtain, my wife will almost certainly be awarded custody of _both_ of my children _irrespective_ of the findings of the custody evaluator, (A) since I am regarded by the courts as being father only to my son, not to my daugther, and (B) since the courts are loathe to split up siblings (regarding the emotional bond as being significant among brother and sister, but not between father and daughter). This is _why_ my wife brought the paternity suit, to usurp custody without contest. Whatever might be the best interests of the children--and inlookers are _right_ to be cautious when hearing only one side of a story like this--will not be considered. My children will be delivered to their mother without any meaningful examination of her worthiness to have custody of them, and without any consideration of my qualities as a parent. This may be the law at present, but no one can dare to call it justice... >Yes. He paid child support for both children until the paternity ruling >on his daughter, after which he lost--per the force of a temporary >ruling--all legal rights to her. He continues to pay child support for >the male child, and would happily support the daughter again. I pay $1,230 per month in child support for my son Cameron. Prior to the paternity ruling, I was paying $1,460 per month for both children. A 50% reduction in children brought me a 16% reduction in payments . I pay $450 per month for my son's day care, except that my son is not afflicted with day care. In addition, I pay $1,675 per month in in-kind benefits including all of her pre-marital debts, all of our community debts, all of our tax arrears, all of our current tax payments, and all of her health insurance expense. My court mandated payments come to $1.10 for every dollar I make _prior_ to any of my living expenses. >>Would not a FATHER be paying child support? > >Precisely. At no time until she was six-and-a-half did Steve Wright make >any attempt to pay child support for the girl, or to ask for or sue for >visitation, nor did he show any beyond the most cursory interest in her. At present (since May), my wife's paramour pays $500 per month in child support for my daughter. The payment is not court mandated, and my wife said before witnesses that "sometimes he can't" make the payment. >>How did he offer to support the children financially when he was trying >>to gain some custody? > >Generously, and he continues to make what I think are very generous >offers as regards both visitation and money. Again, a good deal of this >is documented on the web page and all of it can be backed up with >written documentation upon request. > >>What is he offering now? > >I do not know. I will check. This is the current offer, as quoted from a letter to my lawyer: >>>Quoting begins<<<< Therefore, I propose that we present this as an opening offer. We have made many offers, both through you and privately in email, and none of them has had more than cursory acknowledgement. My duty as a parent commands that I continue to make these offers, in the hope that one of them will bring Ann and Ms. Fromm to the table. I have made this offer (and the temporary custody offer transmitted earlier) in email to Ann, but she has insisted that any negotiaitions must be carried out through you and Ms. Fromm. Here is the substance of the offer. A. Ann and Wright pull the Schneider ruling. In a 10,000 word mail bomb Ann sent to me on Friday, she insists that this is legally impossible. Both you and Mr. Rose insist that it is not only possible but trivial. B. Ann cooperates with me in my legal adoption of Meredith. I did everything for Meredith but the one thing that matters most, it turns out, and I will regret it for life. I want the chance to correct that error to the extent that I can. Moreover, it is clear that Meredith's relationship to both Ann and I as her parents will not be secure as long as my legal status as her father is denied. C. Ann and I sign a settlement agreement in the form of joint legal and joint physical custody of both children. In her mail bomb, Ann insists that the enmity between us forbids us to cooperate, and that this failure to cooperate would cause a court to deny a joint custody ruling. My surmise is that Ann has been attempting to scavenge for difficulties in order to lay groundwork for an inability to cooperate when, in fact, our ability to cooperate has been steadily improving. In any case, since we are discussing a negotiated settlement, what a court might do is not terribly germane. The question before us is, how can each parent have confidence that the other will not use a legal advantage to deny access to the other? And the obvious answer is for both parents to have the exact same status in law with respect to both children. D. The proportions of time that the children spend with each parent are to be set by Dr. Joy, with the timetable to review or change those proportions also set by Dr. Joy. I am unwilling to accept Ann as a fair judge of what is right for the children, and I am willing to concede that I may not be a fair judge of what is right for the children. I have believed from the first that Dr. Joy is immensely competent, and so I am willing to submit to her prescriptions. E. Everything else is on the table. I have no objective in this divorce _other_ than my parental objective, so I am inclined to be flexible about matters of debt, finances, property, etc. >>>Quoting ends<<<< Greg Swann _____________________________________________________________________________ gswann@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 12/26/95) 70640.1574@compuserve.com Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified. We are what we do, not what we say we do... - Janio Valenta _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!bga.com!news From: dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 31 Dec 1995 23:54:25 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates Lines: 46 Message-ID: <4c77ri$f3j@giga.bga.com> References: <4c1h8k$f2s@chaos.magibox.net> <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: maria-4j.ip.realtime.net Mime-Version: 1.0 X-RTcode: 10223d0b30b13f4cfde72291 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18505 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1996 alt.support.single-parents:3469 misc.kids:242317 In article <4c5ofv$bgu@chaos.magibox.net>, bighouse@baste.magibox.net says... > >In the state in which the daughter was born, my understanding is that no >adoption would have been necessary. Arizona is behind the curve, as it >happens. What in the hell is the deal with Arizona? That state always seems to be cranky or something. They won't change to Daylight Savings Time like everyone else. They won't declare a Martin Luther King holiday. If a deadbeat NCP flees to Arizona, they won't enforce a child support paragraph in a decree unless you first domesticate the decree in Arizona (in spite of their claims to be a reciprocity state). Domesticating a decree in Arizona gives a hell of an advantage to the deadbeat who fled to there. And now this about not affirming that the husband of the mother of a child at time of the child's birth is not the father of the child even when no one else had contested it before the child was two years old, and the bio-father was shown to be aware of the child's existence and true bio-paternity. In Texas, there is a saying "No man's life, liberty or property or safe while the legislature is in session." I guess if you move to Arizona, they ought to provide you with a pamphlet explaining what sort of oddities in the law exist there that don't exist most other places. >He had no idea that the law was different there, and no idea >that his wife would have an extramarital affair with Steve Wright six >years later. I cannot understand how anybody can hold Greg Swann and >his daughter responsible for Mrs. Swann's treachery and the law's >vicissitudes, and I certainly don't think he has anything to justify. It's amazing how much I trusted my wife when I married her. Knowing what I know now, I would have moved to protect myself a lot better than I did. I guess I'll know better next time around. Better to be protected and not need it than to need it and not have it. Dan Daugherty ----------------------------------------------------------- Tacking into the wind .... ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: wonderdave@aol.com (WonderDave) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 31 Dec 1995 19:08:30 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 22 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <4c78lu$9cr@newsbf02.news.aol.com> References: <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18506 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1997 alt.support.single-parents:3470 misc.kids:242318 In article <1995Dec28.163157.1@eisner.decus.org>, walker_g@eisner.decus.org writes: >It wouldn't be a case of a judge just handing over custody to some >random single man whose name was picked out of a hat, the way Elaine >makes it sound. This man was her father by the measures that count - >being there - at least as far as his story goes. > >I don't think anyone agrees with Elaine. > >-- Gail Dispite the fallout, I agree with Elaine Dave http://home.aol.com/WonderDave Email - WonderDave@aol.com Voice Mail - (215) 671-0833 "You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around, thats what it's all about" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!bga.com!news From: dd@bga.com (Dan Daugherty) Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 1 Jan 1996 00:19:45 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates Lines: 56 Message-ID: <4c79b1$f3j@giga.bga.com> References: <4bqn45$qkv@news3.cts.com> <30E2E796.5714@xap.xyplex.com> <4busdu$13s@news3.cts.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: maria-4j.ip.realtime.net Mime-Version: 1.0 X-RTcode: 4493b7f230a125845be7280e X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18508 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:1998 alt.support.single-parents:3471 misc.kids:242319 In article , gswann@primenet.com says... > >In article , chaotic@netcom.com (Hine Nui Te >Po) wrote: > >[clip] >>On the other hand, we do not live in a perfect world and some people need >>more help than others. For example, if a divorce occurs, there has got >>to be some means of resolving the conflict. > >FWIW, my real error in this matter was failing to establish the terms of >the marital contract up front, by means of a pre-nuptual agreement. I >would never think to contract with a client on the terms that applied to >me when I married, and I realize now that I was some special kind of >idiot for demanding more of stangers than I did of my wife. There is >no serious money involved her, just the children. But the one thing a >pre-nuptual agreement would have given _them_ is a sane termination >procedure: pre-established rights and responsibilities, and mediation >(with built-in failure penalties) for disputes. > I don't know that I'll ever marry >again, but I know I'll never marry again without having my children, my >rights and my property protected in advanced by a detailed and >enforeceable prenuptual agreement. > >Greg Swann > Greg, I am now in the category of twice bit, three times shy? I would be very interested to find out more about pre-nup agreements that can require mediation, etc. I always thought pre-nup's only covered division of property. I am still rankled at how my ex unilaterally exited the marriage w/o joint counseling, etc. At the time she announced she was leaving me, I felt betrayed from a lost love/loyalty perspective, and then I got so totally paranoid that I couldn't trust her on ANY issue, and I was so afraid she would use all her daddy's money to nail me to the wall. I'm glad she's gone now, but that sure as hell was the wrong way to leave. I sure as hell don't want to take a chance on getting in such danger again. -- Dan Daugherty ----------------------------------------------------------- Tacking into the wind .... ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: Scott Phelps Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids Subject: Re: Fighting for my children... Date: 1 Jan 1996 16:11:09 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 14 Message-ID: <4c912t$42r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-col2-12.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jan 01 8:11:09 AM PST 1996 X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 32bit) Xref: news.primenet.com alt.support.divorce:18527 alt.dads-rights.unmoderated:2000 alt.support.single-parents:3476 misc.kids:242349 I know how you feel Greg. I allowed my ex a temporary summer visit with my kids in June of 1994 and they have not come home yet. She hired a lawyer and "counselors" and told the court that the kids were abused in my home. The next thing I know I am thousands of dollars in debt to several lawyers trying to prove that I didn't do anything. No one ever talks to the kids.... Too bad Scott