Seems to me that heralding this woman as a hero is a mistake. She eludes her financial responsibility as well as pawning off a little girl while retaining perks of an open adoption? In addition, she's now denigrating a man who was supporting two children that weren't his, and had offered to marry her, and make them a complete family which she refused. She was willing to take his money, make a child, let him pay for her bills, but not marry? Simply put, she's a hero for not living up to her financial obligation to the child, but the man is a deadbeat. I get it now. Nice double standard. Further, nice way to perpetuate that women aren't financially responsible for their kids too. Moreover, nice message that little girl is going to grow up learning that men are to be relegated to being only a paycheck while women can escape their financial obligations yet still be involved while men can't. Men go to jail or lose their licenses if they don't pay, but this woman doesn't and she's a hero. Get real. Nice slant. The judges need to inquire why she didn't marry him. What financial support was he providing before she was pregnant to her, and her other children? Where was the father of her other kids, and what support was he providing if any? What caused that relationship to fail? To me, that's all very much relevant.To me, this is more about her character and psychopathology than anything. This is about father's rights, and mens equality too. There's so much more to this case than just what race the child is. This case highlights the disparity in rights between mothers and fathers. I'd hope that people actually learn that men have rights to their children too from this case. It's about time that reality is acknowledged.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 18:40