Another Lesbian Custody Battle, Another Vindictive Mother
October 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI've often discussed the issue of the rights of lesbian “social mothers”–women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers.
I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mom and a dad, and that fathers offer much to children that mothers don’t provide. However, this is not possible in lesbian couples.
When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected. I also believe that the biological mother has a responsibility to her children and to her former partner to hold up her end of the deal with the partner with whom she created the child, and that courts should hold her to her commitment.
These cases are now becoming routine. When the relationship goes sour, the lesbian biological mom does to her ex exactly what heterosexual mothers so often do to their ex-husbands--drive her out of her child’s life. When heterosexual women do this, our society makes excuses for them and assumes that the ex-husband must have done something bad to merit it. With these lesbian breakups we can see the truth much clearer--some women (straight or gay) are vindictive, and this vindictiveness drives them to purge their exes from their children’s lives.
The Montana case detailed by the Associated Press below is another example. Also notice this common theme--the lesbian biological mother is so vindictive that she employed a conservative, anti-gay group to legally pursue her vendetta against her ex.
From Former same-sex partner gets parental rights (Associated Press, 9/30/08):
MISSOULA, Mont. - A judge ruled in favor of a woman who sought parental rights to a boy and girl adopted by her former same-sex partner, a decision described as a first for Montana.
Michelle Kulstad sought joint custody of two children — an 8-year-old boy and a 5-year-old girl — adopted by Barbara Maniaci. In his ruling Monday, District Judge Ed McLean agreed.
"To discriminate further against Ms. Kulstad because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color," McLean wrote.
Attorneys for both sides have said the same-sex parental rights trial was a first for the state, whose voters in 2004 rejected same-sex marriage by about a 2-to-1 margin.
McLean said Kulstad was a legal parent, even though Maniaci adopted the children — the boy in 2004 and the girl in 2006. The judge said Kulstad must receive joint decision-making authority in the children's lives, including their health care and spiritual upbringing.
Kulstad and Maniaci lived together in the Missoula area for 10 years, raising the children in tandem before ending the relationship in 2006, according to evidence presented at the non-jury trial in May.
Maniaci, who is now married, argued that she and her husband should be able to raise the children as they see fit. She said Kulstad was neither their adoptive parent nor a biological relative.
Austin R. Nimocks, who represented Maniaci, did not return a phone call seeking comment Monday. Nimocks also is senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal agency.
Kulstad said she was not listed the adoption records because it is illegal in Montana for same-sex couples to adopt.
"));
19 queries. 0.355 seconds.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 am
A kernel of common sense in the family court.
It's a shame that they so often don't see fit to extend that to biological fathers.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
Wow ... this kind of single hate attack funded by others not directly involved has happened for decades to low to middle class status Dads and yet not a peep from the media. As if never happened ... passed off as the grumblings of malcontents ...
Hmmm another fine example of the abrogation of Dads in favour of another yet another agenda by the Media. They are after all simultaneously part of the solution and the problem.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:10 am
Wow ... this kind of single purpose attack funded by unknown sources not directly involved but diametrically vehemently opposed to their opponents existance has happened for decades to low to middle class status Dads and yet not a peep from the media. As if never happened ... passed off as the grumblings of malcontents ... but when it happens to a lesbian ...Oh My ! the horror of horrors... they have to get that story out ...AP picks up the story right away ! No false accusations ... no perjured testimony .... no instant arrearages due to imputed income ... no wrongful imprisonment(s) - no seizure of all personal assests - And this is a story for AP ???
Hmmm another fine example of the abrogation of Dads in favour of another yet another agenda by the Media. They are simultaneously part of the solution and the problem.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
i bet those kids are really well adjusted.
good thing women run the world now.
there so much better @ parenting, don't cha know.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
I would have raised the argument that the adoptive mother perjured herself whe adopting the kids. If it is illegal for a same sex couple to adopt then she obviously lied to get the children.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
good point lujlp. i missed that, however, isn't it pretty much accepted by most clear thinkers that women lie to gain leverage on a daily basis and without recrimination? the double standard is not only there for all to see, it stands immune from criticism. too judgemental as we all are told.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
all 3 ex wives have accused little ol' fuzzball me of being judgemental. imagine!
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Like Glenn I used to hope that these lesbian cases would usher in hope for ostracized dads. But the following quote makes me wonder:
"To discriminate further against Ms. Kulstad because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color," McLean wrote.
Obviously discriminating based on biology is wrong, but why do such a high % of these judges get it RIGHT when lesbians (and preferences) are involved, but such a high % of these don't see what's happening to dads as discrimination based on gender?
I remember reading in one of Glenns blogs that despite "best interests of the child" when Marcia Clarke (the high-powered DA who tried to put OJ behind bars) got divorced and was working 11-14hour days, instead of giving custody to dad (who had many more care-giver hours logged in than Marcia) the judge declared "children belong with their mother" and awarded her custody.
But of course they wouldn't be with their mother, they would be with nannies. This BS is only going to end when we bang our drum loud enough and long enough that it causes people to take notice.
That is why I think the antics of F4J is right on. Due to a much more tabloid-style news outlet in the UK (and also having a much more open society) F4J is bringing these courts to the bargaining table. These sh*theads will only come to the bargaining table when they have to, and that will only be when they think people will start protesting or voting (i.e. they will lose some of their "power" which is all they care about).
Being polite and waiting in line only gets you shafted. I'm not advocating violence, but high-profile traffic stopping antics may be our best bet.
Also, I say the UK has a more open society because of the F4J protester who climbed buckingham palace, and the two F4J protesters who threw flour-filled condoms at Tony Blair. If that was done here, they would have been shot dead no questions asked.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
This proves one thing. When it comes to being treated unfairly in custody battles the only common links have been reduced to vindictive moms and the court systems that do their dirty work. Young children get attached to people that are around in their everday lives and 2-4 years would be plenty of time. This makes for a perfect opportunity for Maniaci to alienate Kulstad from them with years of bad mouthing, lies, and deception.
Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. My guess is they will just continue to deny PA until it reaches critical mass among gays and lesbians and then they will come to the rescue. And they will also specifically redefine PA so that it only happens to straight women and homosexuals as well as denying the fact they ever denied it.
And on the legal side of this lujlp has a good question:
I would have raised the argument that the adoptive mother perjured herself whe adopting the kids. If it is illegal for a same sex couple to adopt then she obviously lied to get the children.
With as strict as adoption agencies can be (which makes sense due to the fact that they are trusting the person/couple in question with a child) I'm really suprised they haven't been informed of this lie. But more than likely they would not take any real action because to do so would incur the wrath of gay rights activists that would twist the fact that she lied into discrinimation against gay. And rest assured the feminsits would be all over that one.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Danny says
"Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. My guess is they will just continue to deny PA until it reaches critical mass among gays and lesbians and then they will come to the rescue. And they will also specifically redefine PA so that it only happens to straight women and homosexuals as well as denying the fact they ever denied it."
MCA says, very insightfull observation. This may be an unfortunate reality of the modern legal culture, that the American Bar Association is now feeding the public.
It's Almost time to bring the American Bar Assiciation to task for engageing in faulty and inflamatory misinformation that creates a prejudice against men.
We would have to prove that:
A, The propaganda they are promulgateing is faulty, for that I refer you to RADAR.
and
B. The faulty and inflamatory misinformation they are feeding to the public is createing a legal bias against men.( Thats easy enough, look at the sentence disparities Men vs. women)
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
MCA says, very insightfull observation.
I appreciate the compliment MCA but its not insight. Its just watching hypocrisy at work and drawing damn near the only possible conclusion.
About the only other way it could turn out is if they actually came off their high horses and admitted that not all men who are done wrong did not do it to themselves, not all men are participants in the oppression of women, all women are not victims, all men aren't victimzers, and most importantly negative things like greed, anger, hatred are f'n gender neutral. That would reduce feminism's "arguments" by a significant percentage (but it would not eliminate all of feminism because despite the hypocrisy of many of its members there are some valid feminist arguments). I would be scared of the drug one would take to make you think that is posslbe.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
I wonder what would happen in a custody battle where the dad has subsequently had a sex-change operation to female. It would put that judge in a quandry, wouldn't it?
From the bench "While discrimination against fathers has been and continues to be acceptable, in this day and age to discriminate further against the transgendered is no different than telling them to get to the back of the bus..."
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Twees dad
"I wonder what would happen in a custody battle where the dad has subsequently had a sex-change operation to female. It would put that judge in a quandry, wouldn't it?"
MCA says
"In the future we may see men lining up for sex changes, so they can get the female priveledges."
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Twees dad,.. If i get a sex change to a women, will society stop discriminateing against me, may be a real question 20 years from NOW.
If i get a sex change am i now eligeable for state grant monies, fat state buerocratic desk jobs, female educational advantages, criminal justice sentenceing discounts, ect.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
How come so many lesbians want children, but they hate sperm?
I know, I know, it has to somehow be about the Evil Patriarchy causing psychological and emotional conflict in women who are otherwise pure and perfect.
They can make all the children they want and raise them in homes with "two mommies."
But girls, 1/2 of your child's DNA is always going to come from a man.
So you're still screwed. Even if you don't engage in that particular act.
Feminist have very underdeveloped senses of irony.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
I've noticed that so far, none of our neighborhood's lesbians have commented. (Unless some of you "guys" are fronting...")
That is what bothers me about lesbians.
Not their sexual preference. I could care less. (Mainly because they are lesbians is why I do not care about their sexuality.)
But their lack of sincerity .... now that is problematic.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
'Danny says: ... Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. ...'
I really don't think it is going to happen to lesbians Danny - they have rights !
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
"Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. "
Danny, it will tear the whole house down. "Feminism is the theory, lsbianism 's the practice". Lesbians are by virtue of their sexuality inherently purer feminists, so their needs are central to the struggle. And that will be the thin edge of the wedge. The internal contradictions in feminism will crack it at the foundation.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
JIm says
"Lesbians are by virtue of their sexuality inherently purer feminists, so their needs are central to the struggle. And that will be the thin edge of the wedge. The internal contradictions in feminism will crack it at the foundation."
Wow, Very penetrateing insight, as we will finnally watch fammily law (as we know it) come unglued.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
I can't wait to watch Sarah Palin "debate" tonight.
She has been a most useful instrument for exposing the foolishness of feminism ....
If Obama had just had the judgement to put Hillary on his ticket, we would be watching a world-class cat fight tonight .... Sarah vs. Hillary.
What a missed opportunity.
I hope there will be at least one question about dinosaurs living with people.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
somethings missing from the story - so they gave her joint decision making etc.
WHAT ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT? No this cannot stand - this woman is a deadbeat. Court order court order court order. Put her in the system!!!! - she is denying the children food and clothing. To jail with her......
oh wait sorry - i must have been channeling Doc. .......
seriously thought i'd be curious to see if CS was ordered - if not WHY NOT???
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
pj_lem:
I really don't think it is going to happen to lesbians Danny - they have rights !
You sure about that? Glenn has already made a few posts about the breakdown of lesbian relationships with children involved in which one mom does everything she can to keep the other mom out of the children's lives. The lesbian mom in this story claims that since she didn't mention her parter during the adoption process the other mom should have no parental rights after the breakup. And while it is totally unfair that gay couples are compelled to lie about their sexuality for the sake of adoption we all know she lied about it just so she could increase her chances. So she was good enough to be around the kids when they were a couple but now all of a sudden she isn't?
If lesbian custodial moms are willing to lie to get custody of the children then what is keeping them from taking the next step and badmouthing the non-custodial moms?
You see having moms who are alientated from their children because of vindictive dads is not a stong enough blade to cut the web of lies feminists are weaving because in that case all they'll do is claim that, just like they do with DV, that parental aliention ONLY occurs when its the dad alienating the mom.
Obviously stories of dads getting alienated by moms isn't working because they just respond with, "He probably did something to deserve it." or "She's the real victim." I think its being called "an abuser's tatctic"?
Stories of dad getting alienated by dads won't get any support from them because "they know that men are always the perpetrators" and "on the rare occasion that a man is the victim he probably did something to deserve it therefore he is not a real victim." And it doesn't help that there is no woman involved that be painted to look like the victim. BTW I don't think I heard of any custody battles like this between gay male couples. I'll have to look for some...
So in the end the only instances of PA that can possibly make them see the light are the ones between lesbian couples. In that situation the victim is a woman and perpetrator is a woman. There is no man to lay the blame on unless they pull one out from somewhere. And even then its a toss up because in order for them to help the mom that is alienated they have to admit that she was alienated by a woman. But since its feminist fact women don't commit evil unless a man makes them this will cause a lot silence, double talk, and head 'sploding contradictions.
So let me correct my previous statement of:
Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. My guess is they will just continue to deny PA until it reaches critical mass among gays and lesbians and then they will come to the rescue. And they will also specifically redefine PA so that it only happens to straight women and homosexuals as well as denying the fact they ever denied it.
to say:
Feminists are so quick to declare that parental alienation is not real because it mostly happens to fathers. I wonder what they will do once they realize its happening to lesbians. My guess is they will just continue to deny PA until it reaches critical mass and then they will come to the rescue. And they will also specifically redefine PA so that it only happens to women as well as denying the fact they ever denied it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
When a man sees a tool, he asks --- what can I produce with it?
When a woman sees a tool, she asks --- how can I benefit from it?
And, get a man to use it to benefit me.
Yes, I am cynical about females. Gotta luv 'em. Because it is still not legal to lock them up and re-educate them.
I would really hate to be the head of the Office to Re-educate Women.
Just shoot yourself.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com » Another Lesbian Custody Battle, Another Vindictive Mother. [...]
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
roy....how about the department head of "male rights and reparations" with an all female clerical staff? that would be a hoot.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
"The judge said Kulstad must receive joint decision-making authority in the children's lives, including their health care and spiritual upbringing."
While I am glad to hear that this woman won joint custody, I can't help but wonder how many divorced fathers get that kind of deal in Montana???
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
None Dave none. Lesbians have rights.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 am
None Dave none. Lesbians have rights.
Being a lesbian had nothing to do with it. Its just the simple fact that she is a woman.
December 21st, 2008 at 6:05 am
Hi
My lesbian friends are thinking about having a baby with a my other gay friends and they are looking into legal co parent agreement between the 4 of them.Does anyone have any advice for them?
Do co parenting agreements stand in court?
Thank you.