The mother deserves this endless fight. There’s a price to pay for being stupid.
The child, not so much.
Termination of parental rights would seem to be in order for subjecting her child to perverse influences.
I’ve spent half a lifetime at the so-called “Hall Of Justice” on the sixth floor on S. High. It’s a miracle more people don’t go postal.
Seems like she brought this on herself by her choice of lifestyles.
Too bad the kid is in the middle.
Some people just shouldn’t be parents since they are too selfish and can only think of themselves.
Their relationship was unnatural and under the Constitution cannot be equivalent to marriage. The child can not have two mothers unless the mother relinquishes her rights....which she didn’t. It is not biologically possible for the child to have two mothers and it is illegal for the courts to give “mother” rights to non biological people when their is a living mother. We are talking about inalienable rights...and the court can NEVER deny that right unless gross neglect.
The biological father also has inalienable rights to the child. The court is making up rights out of thin air and this can not stand.
It is denial of the fundamental inalienable right of that child to have a biological mother and biological father. Court does not have the power to deny nature and God’s Laws when it is the foundation of our legal system.
The judge needs to be fired. The courts that recognize “gay” marriage has to get back to the meaning and intent of our Constitution and Natural Law Theory and get rid of this irrational and unconstitutional coupling. It is shameful what the courts are doing to the child whom has inalienable rights that CANNOT be denied EVEN by a court.
Our courts have twisted the Constitution to some bizarre document which sounds like it is for a communist country built on whims of moral relativism.
Our laws are built on moral absolutes which cannot legally be ignored since our rights come from God. Their denial is a denial of our God-given rights.
!
I hope folks think about this before we allow pols to change the definition of marriage. If it can happen to this woman it can happen to any parent.
This story is the best argument against gay marriage and civil unions. When you change the definition of "marriage" for a few you change the definition of "parent" for everyone.
Er, can anyone say "conflict of interest?"
Pretty sure that disqualifies the entire firm from representing the ex-girlfriend.
Wow! Last I heard this woman was on the run with her daughter. I’m glad things are looking up for them.
In bed with dogs, get fleas. If she conspired with the girlfriend to obtain the baby, the girlfriend gets shared custody.