tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post2140714064262035702..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Biology is irrelevant, judge rules in gay custody battleLorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-57472310535521721472023-01-19T21:07:51.874-05:002023-01-19T21:07:51.874-05:00Amen to thatAmen to thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-19623279481830818952023-01-19T21:02:32.472-05:002023-01-19T21:02:32.472-05:00The Child lives with her biological mother full ti...The Child lives with her biological mother full time and has for the past 3 years. Quoting an order written by a judge does not make it fact so let's get the facts straight. Scollar was indicted and convicted of 3 felonies and disbarred for stealing millions of dollars from her escrow account.. (see the Daily News Article) Her attempts to bribe family court have yet to be disclosed. The child and her mom are now in Supreme Court investigating what Scollar did with the child's "Trust", 529 Account and Savings account. Clearly the judge made profound mistakes in this case. "The more responsible?", "The more truthful?" I think not. Altman was the more laid back parent and "the freer spirit"? I didn't realize that was against the law. Any information traveling around the internet is Allison Scollar's narcissistic gas lighting techniques of which she is a master. It's catching up with her now. As they say, more will be revealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-46061358213748339182023-01-19T20:49:13.020-05:002023-01-19T20:49:13.020-05:00Well all...the judge was wrong on the facts and wr...Well all...the judge was wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, however once Allison Scollar was indicted and convicted of 3 felonies the judge "retired early" and people scattered like rats. The Daily News Article explain a fair amount of details that are fact based. Scollar now is unable to disclose the whereabouts of the child's trust, 529 Account and savings account. She is being Sued in Supreme Court now. There's an article in the post and other magazines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-80555793150051009342016-01-26T20:27:02.087-05:002016-01-26T20:27:02.087-05:00Concluded a case with Sosa-Lintner in late Septemb...Concluded a case with Sosa-Lintner in late September 2015 and can completely relate to your case. <br /><br />This is a Judge who has absolutely no business being on the bench at least not a judicial bench. The only silver lining is that her retirement will thankfully spare future families her capricious and completely arbitrary rulings.<br /><br />Her legacy will always be the seminal case where a unanimous state appeals panel threw out the controversial ruling by the Judge that returned a foster child to his natural mother (one who showed no remorse) despite her conviction for killing his little brother. <br /><br />The four-member Appellate Division of Supreme Court panel called the ruling made by Manhattan Family Court Judge Gloria Sosa-Lintner "an abuse of discretion". <br /><br />Enough said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-88434514883564783482015-08-25T07:57:45.096-04:002015-08-25T07:57:45.096-04:00Interestingly all these articles about this landma...Interestingly all these articles about this landmark case have missed the point. I am her biological mother and her father was never "a sperm donor." He was her father, a man I chose because he is an amazing human. What journalists missed was that this judge unilaterally created new case law called "biology is irrelevant" "and the more responsible person should have Custody". New case law without any legislation to create a legacy for herself. she is leaving the bench this year "retiring she says" on the heels of Scollar's new criminal investigation in Federal court for stealing Millions of dollars from her escrow account. According to a case she filed in Supreme Court shortly after her federal case began admitting she was giving escrow funds to "friends of 35 years who were threatening her life". The more responsible parent? Biology is irrelevant? No one is over seeing family court and the judge has made her decisions ignoring best interest standards of the child. It's sad for my daughter that she has not been able to see her dad and after 5 years in Manhattan family court -perjury has now become Karma.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016969891739881062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-78219093747227947132012-10-09T21:51:54.594-04:002012-10-09T21:51:54.594-04:00The adoption case I am familiar with was a contest...The adoption case I am familiar with was a contested adoption. The NY Post got the basic facts of the case wrong and the "journalist " had no understanding of adoption or contested adoption laws in New York. The Post largely represented one parties version of events as fact but added embellishments of their own. As a result the article did not make any sense from either a logical or legal perspective. <br /><br />The case settled after pre-trial discovery under terms favorable to the other party because had it gone to trial they would have almost certainly won. Essentially the opposite outcome that someone reading the article might have expected. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-11597741647992910322012-10-08T14:45:21.371-04:002012-10-08T14:45:21.371-04:00No, Betty, I wasn't responding to you. I only ...No, Betty, I wasn't responding to you. I only saw that earlier comment from an ANON today and was responding to that. <br /><br />Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-22936749746004133222012-10-08T12:28:51.430-04:002012-10-08T12:28:51.430-04:00Lorraine, it seems that your comment (11.35 A.M to...Lorraine, it seems that your comment (11.35 A.M today) is in response to me. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, I am not Anonymous Oct. 6, 11.06 A.M or October 2, 11.42 P.M or indeed any other Anonymous commentating on this thread. Also, I am no more familiar with this case than you are. My information, such as it is, comes entirely from the N.Y Post and the Huff Po. <br />As you said yourself, for news stories the N.Y Post is as accurate as anyone else.Bettynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-10092434341327825302012-10-08T11:35:50.123-04:002012-10-08T11:35:50.123-04:00Thank you Anonymous for making us aware of your di...Thank you Anonymous for making us aware of your disinterested bystander status. <br /><br />Now I'm curious, though, what happened in the adoption case <br />you are familiar with, and what did The <i>Post</i> do and get wrong? We have seen that in a lot of adoption stories. In publications such as the vaulted <i>New Yorker.</i>Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-68076006849486460032012-10-07T19:51:41.605-04:002012-10-07T19:51:41.605-04:00Lorraine said "How about letting us know your...Lorraine said "How about letting us know your incredibly close connection to this case? And why? Are you ...er, Schollar? Her attorney? Involved in the case in anyway? A friend?"<br /><br />Viktoria said "You really seem to be coming at this with a vested interest, and until we know that, it is difficult to take your comments seriously--except as someone who doesn't have the guts to say that you are Scollar, or her attorney." <br /><br />Just because anonymous doesn't tow the party line doesn't mean anonymous is Schollar or her attorney - or is in cahoots with either. Opinion doesn't have to be based on personal experience. It's not always all about us.<br /><br />The N.Y Post report states that Altman accused Schollar of sexual abuse: "The claims led to an Administration for Children’s Services investigation and a gynecological examination of the girl, with Altman’s consent, despite Altman’s later testimony that she “herself did not believe the child had been sexually abused. " <br />That is pretty serious behavior, and certainly not "motherly". <br />The judge also said "The evidence shows that the child was traumatized by the ACS experience and yet Respondent-Altman said she believed the chid had a ‘ball or ‘blast’ at the examination,” and that Altman "has continued to profess facts that are not proven or are outright lies . . ."<br /><br />I hope that the adults in this case get it together enough to undo at least some of the damage that has already been done to this little girl. Of course biology is relevant. I hope for her daughter's sake that Brook Altman gets visitation rights - and abides by them.Bettynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-13669741598873915812012-10-06T11:08:53.229-04:002012-10-06T11:08:53.229-04:00In acrimonious divorces where one parent loses cus...In acrimonious divorces where one parent loses custody, it is very very easy to control visitation, such as visits to grandparents in a distant state; certain holidays and events that do not occur in the mandated visit period, schools, vacations, are totally under the control of the custodial parent, and it is extremely easy to influence a young child's reactions to the parent without custody, as access to the child is more limited. <br /><br />Having lived and married a non-custodial parent, whose bitter ex did everything possible to destroy relationships with children, I do have some first had knowledge of how this works.<br /><br />Anonymous, since you obviously have a pony in this race, unless you at least tell us where you are coming from--are you a non-biological lesbian parent, involved in the case listed here--your comments may be legally correct but they sure as hell lack heart. You really seem to be coming at this with a vested interest, and until we know that, it is difficult to take your comments seriously--except as someone who doesn't have the guts to say that you are Scollar, or her attorney.Viktorianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-26362093591861132832012-10-06T08:21:52.034-04:002012-10-06T08:21:52.034-04:00A few small facts seem to be missing from some of ...A few small facts seem to be missing from some of this discourse. Beyond the unfortunate "biology is irrelevant" comment, this is not a contested adoption but a divorce custody case. The child in this situation has been with both legal parents from birth. Would it all sit easier with some had it been a male stepparent who had adopted the partner's child?<br /><br />A non-custodial parent does not lose all rights to the child, they just lose custody. In most divorces there is still visitation, and the non-custodial parent is required to pay child support. Joint custody is not always the answer, and it has been a nightmare for some children shunted back and forth between contentious parents.<br /><br />The child will still know her biological heritage and any other relatives involved, unlike in a stranger adoption. Her history will not be erased or become a secret. Biology is not the ONLY thing that should be relevant in a custody case, just one of the things, in this case evidently other things were more important. I fail to see how this case relates to most adoptions of the more traditional kind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-67792047339739371152012-10-05T21:24:52.534-04:002012-10-05T21:24:52.534-04:00I have no connection to this case. I read the NY P...I have no connection to this case. I read the NY Post article and for the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming the article is accurate though the NY Post has written some incredibly inaccurate articles about adoption cases being litigated (one case they reported on I was very familiar with). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-31845399721475587132012-10-05T19:15:17.456-04:002012-10-05T19:15:17.456-04:00The point that everyone seems to miss is that no m...The point that everyone seems to miss is that no matter the circumstanses biology always matters to the child! If mom and dad were serial killers of the year the child(human) still wants to know their biology..not necessarily the serial killer parents but their biolgy and their ancestory is RELEVANT..its relevent to the adoptee and their children, their children and so one. So someone, anyone just dismisses it and it becauses a matter of law, it dimishes the child..every time. Even when adoptees state they don't care..their children might, their childrens children might. So for those that smirk when clueless people call biology irrelevant...just think of what the child aborsbs...non biology is beeter then biology. so then that means there is something wrong with me as my biology is no good...<br /><br />If biology is unable to parent....then the onus needs to be put on those particular people...not biology. Cluelss aparents and society needs to understand what they are saying when they say biology doesn't matter<br /><br />Biology is important...the the child. Its a huge piece of who they are. Judges, aparents, social workers need to get that its up to the adults to change themselves, their way of thinking and their expectations of adoption. Its in the best interst of the child...bbiology is aways relevant..if it was not there would be no need for families ...babies would be passed around all the time, there would be no need for infertitly clinics and we would all be disconnected robots. The funny thing is that I believe that everyone knows this...deep in their hearts they KNOW that adoption is sad but that knowledge gets pushed aside for whatever mindset they may be in at the moment. It is sad that a child NEEDS to be adopted and lose bio connections especially if its not really needed. Its does make it better for the child when it is REALLY needed...but it does not make it any less sad that a person loses what they lose when they are adopted.<br /><br />Biology is relevant...no matter what anyones says or thinks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-68509232491709130072012-10-05T17:11:48.217-04:002012-10-05T17:11:48.217-04:00"Robin, judges cannot make rulings based on w..."Robin, judges cannot make rulings based on what the custodial mother *might* do." <br /><br />"Robin is right, Altman will have no say about how the child is raised, where she will live, what school she will attend."<br /><br />Judges do rule on what they think would be in the best interest of the child in the long-term considering possible outcomes. I'm not saying that the outcome I outlined earlier will happen. My point is that the adoptive mother now has all the POWER. And she certainly can control how much or how little contact the girl has with her bio-families.<br /><br />Another reason I don't like this ruling is that I think it will cause conflict for the little girl. I can almost guarantee that she will feel a strong pull to her natural parents. By the judge's decision she is being told that biology is not important. This is going to be at odds with how she really feels and could set up a disconnect between how she really feels and how she thinks she SHOULD feel.<br /><br />Isn't this similar to what happened to us BSE babies? We adoptees weren't expected to have such a strong pull to our natural families. Biology wasn't supposed to matter so much. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.<br /><br />This ruling further cements the erroneous adoption mindset that biology doesn't matter. I think it is both frightening and dangerous.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-3928183899579731532012-10-05T09:37:18.764-04:002012-10-05T09:37:18.764-04:00Anonymous:
How about letting us know your incre...Anonymous: <br /><br />How about letting us know your incredibly close connection to this case? And why? Are you ...er, Schollar? Her attorney? Involved in the case in anyway? A friend? Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-54138455909968860902012-10-05T01:44:53.666-04:002012-10-05T01:44:53.666-04:00Anon,
While I understand that as a matter of law, ...Anon,<br />While I understand that as a matter of law, both parents were on the same footing, I would think that in determining "the best interests of the child," the judge would consider biology as well as other factors.<br /><br />Many child welfare experts would testify to the value of the biological connection. It appears, though, that either there was no evidence of the benefits of being raised by biological relatives or the judge chose to ignore it.<br /><br />Flatly denying the relevance of biology as a matter of fact is disturbing.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-25229622481652646922012-10-05T00:40:52.211-04:002012-10-05T00:40:52.211-04:00Robin, this is just about custody. This birth moth...Robin, this is just about custody. This birth mother keeps her full legal recognition as a mother, she only becomes a non-custodial one.<br /><br />Under law biology IS irrelevant.<br />In biology US-law is irrelevant.<br />In medicine, child protection, nature conservation, law enforcement and daily life both matter.Theodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634057445114838262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-55192979534031371032012-10-05T00:16:56.856-04:002012-10-05T00:16:56.856-04:00Lorraine said "There were other allegations, ...Lorraine said "There were other allegations, but with the judge making that kind of absurd statement--biology is irrelevant--it is hard to accept the outcome."<br /><br />Some of the allegations were very serious and, along with the parental abduction, are probably what let to the Judge deciding that the best interests of the child were best served by awarding full custody to the non-bio parent (the GAL/attorney for the child apparently supported that position). <br /><br />There was nothing absurd about the Judges statement regarding biology. In this case it was irrelevant as far as New York law is concerned. Both parties were legal parents of the child. <br /><br />Even in a contested adoption case resulting from a revoked adoption consent, a New York Judge is required to rule based on the best interests of the child and disregard the child's biological connection to the birthmother. The adoptive parents and the biological parents are considered to have equal standing. In practice though, some Judges favor the biological parents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-85165265316452651702012-10-04T18:25:47.377-04:002012-10-04T18:25:47.377-04:00Robin, judges cannot make rulings based on what th...Robin, judges cannot make rulings based on what the custodial mother *might* do. The same thing--and the same problem--happens with married biological parents all the time. They can only make a ruling based on the evidence regarding who is more fit to parent. Lilly was correct to point out that this is no infant-adoption/stranger-adoption case. This is more like a step-parent adoption case, where a new family form has been constituted. However, in this case, the family form was there from the outset, the non-biological mother was also there, and the child is no doubt equally attached to her. The two women are both real parents in every sense of the word. To deny this is to admit what I fear many of you on this forum believe to be true--that only natural is real.<br /><br />Agreeing with Lorraine's last point: one hopes the acrimony can be put aside for the sake of this child and that both mothers can be a part of her life. This seems to me a much more balanced approach than dismissing the adoptive mother outright as a force for bad stuff down the road (which we don't even know will happen). Beehivenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-83414830129449996672012-10-04T17:48:46.828-04:002012-10-04T17:48:46.828-04:00from today's New York Times in a story about s...from today's New York Times in a story about step relationships after a divorce: <br /><br /><i>If you don’t talk to your brother for 20 years, he’s still your brother. Don’t talk to your ex-stepbrother, and he becomes just another former acquaintance. </i><br /><br />What makes the difference? Biology. <br /><br />Although it may be difficult to have this decision overturned, we can only hope there is a loophole somewhere that the natural mother can climb through. <br /><br />When you read the whole story in the Post, one of the complaints of Scollar (the adoptive mother) was that the biological mother did not treat the child's therapy appointments seriously. The judge wrote: "...or felt that play dates were more important than therapy..." At one point Altman, the biological mother, flew with the daughter to California without Scollar's (adopted mother) knowledge or permission. <br /><br />There were other allegations, but with the judge making that kind of absurd statement--biology is irrelevant--it is hard to accept the outcome. Robin is right, Altman will have no say about how the child is raised, where she will live, what school she will attend. I couldn't find out anything about visitation rights. LilySea does make some good points, however, and despite the acrimony between the two women now, they need to find a way to work together for the good of the child, and should have been ordered to do so.Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-73278483116579068252012-10-04T15:38:43.350-04:002012-10-04T15:38:43.350-04:00LilySea wrote:
"It is not a case of stranger ...LilySea wrote:<br />"It is not a case of stranger adoption or a child losing its biological origins."<br /><br />It is a case of the child no longer having any legal connection to either of her biological parents which, as a fellow adoptee, I can tell you is very significant. The adoptive mother who is now her only legal parent has every right legally to move the girl halfway around the world and to end all connection that the girl has with her biological families. She could very well grow up with her biological relatives no longer being any part of her life. This ruling has paved the way for her to be separated not only from her biological relatives but from her true ancestry as well. This is very significant and quite sh*tty.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-63340836810017870532012-10-04T14:45:04.234-04:002012-10-04T14:45:04.234-04:00Here's an example of an ugly case that went on...Here's an example of an ugly case that went on for a few years. The kids won in the end, thankfully:<br /><br />http://lilysea.blogs.com/peterscrossstation/2009/05/behave.htmlLilySeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812905445813679050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-66694253817851970452012-10-04T14:37:49.857-04:002012-10-04T14:37:49.857-04:00I understand your frustration at the idea that bio...I understand your frustration at the idea that biology is irrelevant. No, it's not irrelevant.<br /><br />But there's a bigger context here than biology versus adoption. Both of these women planned this child and were together for its conception and birth. This child knew them both as parents for her entire life--including prenatally.<br /><br />It is not a case of stranger adoption or a child losing its biological origins.<br /><br />Most importantly, this ruling is a huge change from previous rulings all over the country (and circumstances in which, with no legal standing, no court could intervene even if it wanted to) that have separated children from parents they have known since birth.<br /><br />This is an enormous problem in the world of lesbian parenting. It happened to me (no court involved as I had no legal standing).<br /><br />It's not just about adoptive parents claiming children that are not biologically related, it's about children losing parents. It is absolutely in the best interest of children that both partners in a lesbian parenting couple be regarded as "real" parents by courts.<br /><br />The question of third-party reproduction ("donor" gametes being bought and sold, "surrogate" mothers being hired, etc.) is a separate question from whether these parents, once they ARE parents, need equal treatment by the law. They do mainly because their CHILDREN need this.<br /><br />I am a strong believer in openness in all third-party reproduction and in the BANNING of money in exchange for third-party reproductive assistance. Need an egg? Ask your sister. Need a "surrogate" ask your best friend. Need sperm? Ask your partner's brother.<br /><br />And tell the kid from day one who everyone is and maintain strong relationships with them.<br /><br />But that does not mean that the people important to children--though not genetically tied to them--should be thrown under the bus when the adults can't get along.LilySeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812905445813679050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-44691953846833244502012-10-04T13:26:40.906-04:002012-10-04T13:26:40.906-04:00I think it is not only the pool of potential adopt...I think it is not only the pool of potential adoptive parents but that there is a mindset in the gay rights community that there should actually BE a baby available to adopt. I see this mindset also especially among Hollywood actresses who think they can pursue their careers until their mid-forties and then JUST adopt (love ya Viola Davis but not your family planning approach). That, of course, someone else will be ready, willing and able to supply a baby for them.<br /><br />It really has nothing to do with being for or against gay rights or whether or not sexual preference has any bearing on one's ability to be a good parent.Robinnoreply@blogger.com