Baby Veronica and the Fallacy of Gender Equality

Thanks to NYMOM for her input about this case. This is why I have pointed out many times that men should not be granted the same rights and responsibilities to illegitimate children as to legitimate children. It is not to punish women or children, but to protect them. The laws regarding Native American tribes are complex, but the real issue here was-is- that unwed fathers are granted the same legal status as married fathers and mothers. The child’s father broke up with the mother while she was pregnant, wanted to relinquish his rights, was not present during pregnancy/birth and had never supported the mother but, because of our modern-day gender neutral laws, he was nevertheless allowed to assert the same rights as a married father who makes an investment in the pregnancy and supports the mother. This child has known nothing but confusion and a broken family now since being first taken away from adoptive parents by a father she had never before met. Unfortunately this is very common. Men don’t want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood yet they want the rights of fatherhood. Men’s rights groups and their gender-neutralized feminist allies do not work for the best interest of children nor families. Obviously, society is no longer structured around what is best for children. It’s all about one’s own selfish interests and political correctness. This is also why I am against any paternity testing unless it is by a married father who is divorcing his wife for adultery within a very strict time frame after a chid is born because it tears apart families and allows men to walk in or out of a child’s life at their own whim. This child had never even met her biological father (who was allowed to assert rights the same as a married father) until she was 27 months old. We must make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births for the sake of family/societal stability and the sake of our children.

“I’ve been following this case for a few years and I hate to say it but the former adoptive parents of this little girl should just step back now and let the child remain with it’s father. Or should I say the father’s wife or his parents (whichever one he’s dumped her off with to return to his military career).

Unfortunately this is the inevitable result of allowing unmarried men to have the same legal rights as a child’s mother. Men contribute little or nothing to bringing children into this world and this particular recreational sperm donor contributed nothing long after the fact, Yet he was allowed to overrule the mother’s action in placing this little girl up for adoption and into a stable family home two years after she had been legally adopted.

Now everyone wants to play “let’s fix this after the fact” but it’s too little too late to do that. This child has now been living in whatever family arrangement her father has left her in since 2011, this is now 2013.

She should not have her life disrupted for the second time.

The father has been arrested for custodial interference and posted a $10,000 bond but the real person who should be under investigation and posting a bond is the original judge in South Caroline who overturned established legal precedent in order to give a recreational sperm donor rights to a child who was already legally adopted into a stable family unit.

This is another example of how mens’ rights advocates and gender neutralized feminists have invaded our legal system and made courts a dangerous place now for mothers and children and also goes to show how one person can totally ignore the law as well as the best interest of a child and get away with it. Time is on the side of the person who knows how to work the legal system…sad really.

Anyway, we are going to see fewer mothers placing their children into adoption and more abortions as they begin to realize that these recreational sperm donors can pop up years after the fact and overrule any decisions they have made in the best interest of their children.

The original adoption should not have been overturned but since it was and the child has now been another two years with a different family her life should not be disrupted a second time.

Very sorry for everyone involved in this case.”