freeflybella

Ummmm...It's a dog. A DOG. It's not a child. It's not like 99% of all the stray dogs in the world wouldn't be better off in a cardboard box with a homeless guy sharing the night's dumpster dive treasures because at least then it has a packmate and a snack. I applaud them for not backing down. People in that field don't do it for the money. They don't do it for the fame. They do it for the care and protection of animals - often discarded or abused by people. (Celebrities, too) A dog randomly given away has a better chance of ending up on the street again than a dog in a no kill shelter. Their goal isn't to "maybe get dogs off the street" or "kind of protect animals" or "at least they're a little better off" Their goal is save the lives and work to ensure famillies that will last for the dogs. I agree Ellen abused her celebrity and didn't own up to her mistake. She must've felt guilty that her cats were the reason her partner couldn't keep the dog. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I don't think so. I think they are sticking to their goals in spite of Ellen's celebrity. Ellen isn't qualified to determine whether a particular home is a good fit for a certain dog. What if the dog was shown to be aggressive with kids? What if the kids were rowdy and this dog needed a calm environment? What if everyone in the family was gone all day and this dog needed more attention to thrive? How would Ellen know? It's the center's job to place animals in families that are a good fit. Why didn't the hairdresser's family apply properly to get the dog back? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Agreed. Celebrities are not above having to follow the rules. That rule is a good one - it's for the protection of the animals. Ellen should be apologizing to "the heartbroken" kid and owning up to her mistake rather than turning negative attention (understatement of the decade) on such an underappreciated cause/organization. It's Ellen's fault that kid had "her dog" removed - not the agency's. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Just how many of them are there? This is the second time in a few weeks that police have distributed the face of a pedophile (lifted from a tape) and asked for the public's help in identifying him. On one hand, I'm glad - it feels like the veil of secrecy is being lifted. On the other hand, a part of me wants to scream and hide seeing their horrid smiling faces and knowing what they're doing and that they are still out there. I know pedophiles are universally reviled as the lowest of the low - but doesn't it seem like there are just SO MANY of them? Doesn't it seem like we just couldn't be doing enough to stop them or else there wouldn't be so many? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Apparently, that's not even really true. New York's limit was rejected hence, no family making 83,000 would benefit. It could happen under future administrations. Depends on what the meaning of "almost" is. After all, 9 is almost10. In fact, it's almost10.5, which makes 9 almost more than10. So we can't really say Bush lied this time. Ha. You're right. I had no idea how smart he is! And just for the record, the poverty level for a family of 4 in The United States of America is not $83,000. It's $20,600. That's $396.00 per week. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Apparently, that's not even really true. New York's limit was rejected hence, no family making 83,000 would benefit. It could happen under future administrations. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

More presidential BS: "The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience. Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four." The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request. " http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685 Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

"Daphna Nachminovitch, director of PETA's domestic animal department, said the group would not endorse stealing a pet bunny. "Just like dogs and cats, (rabbits) have been domesticated, so we encourage people who have the knowledge and ability to adopt rabbits from their local shelters," Nachminovitch said." What a lame attempt at protest. Preschoolers are all emotion and curiosity. It's ridiculous to think a point could be made by targeting 5yr olds and their pet. Just like any fringe group (uh...skydiving) - Peta attracts some nutballs. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

What's the story on the Lucas case?! edited: nevermind...googled. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Oh! Sorry! Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

We all approach life with bias.

Well - most people who have no direct experience with adoption or have any reason to research the issue are ignorant about it. I just said that I haven't read much about it. What I didn't say was that your relationship was any less "real". Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I was speaking strictly to the question of one parent in one state, one parent in another and the outlandish idea that you could take a newborn and shuttle him back and forth for extended periods of time. You asked about the paternal bond having equal weight for a newborn in which both parents are active caregivers, not a situation where a newborn is immediately placed in a brand new family. There are too many variables in your question comparing adoptive vs bio parents. If you're asking if I think a significant bond is broken when a mother gives up a baby at birth, yes I do. Do I think all babies adopted at birth will have resulting issues? I would guess not but haven't read any research in that area. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

And damned proud of it. But you're right, if I was younger, if I was less confident, if I was less marketable, if I was any number of different things - it could have been insurmountable. I am one of the most vocal proponents of the value of men/fathers in families. I think it's a shame that boys are being raised without fathers partly because they then can start to believe that fathers aren't as necessary. They grow up devaluing themselves. I've said before that that's something I plan to teach my son early. He, as a boy/man, will have a strong role in our household that I hope he will carry with pride into all his future relationships. One of the other things he's going to learn is that he should be prepared to have a baby with any woman he decides to sleep with. Because if "accidents" happen - he pretty much has no control over whether she decides to have the baby. And skipping out - not supporting that child - whatever - is not and acceptable option.

In the first 2-3 years, where it's not possible to have a 2 parent household (divorce) and all other things being equal (no one is mentally disturbed) the infant's mother should be the custodial parent. I think it goes without saying that a loving 2 parent household is far better than a single mama and child. But when comparing the lifelong implications of losing one or the other of a maternal vs paternal bond - the maternal takes the pot. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I love that. Here is a fantastic article on the biology of maternal and paternal bonding. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I don't really understand what you mean when you say "provide a better home". The maternal bond is necessary. Unless the mother is neglectful or abusive or otherwise is harmful to the child - he should be with her. It's not that I think the paternal bond is just bonus points - I think the paternal bond is different. As I said, all other things being equal the maternal bond should prevail. The infant grew inside the mother. Has heard her heartbeat, heard her voice, smelled her for 9 months. She and the baby are biologically and emotionally bonded at birth. She is needed for optimal sustenance. She is wired to respond on every level to that baby. Yes, the father bonds. But not in same way. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Crazy. But true. Whole chapter in Freakonomics talks about the abortion ban timing up with high crime rate 18 years later - then roe v wade timing up with reduction of crime 18 years later. Interesting. I agree don't have the baby but unfortunately he's probably the LEAST likely person to influence the girl in that direction - if she's not already considering it. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Please help me to understand why that it is better for only one parent to have custody, as oppose to both having equal custody. This is something I have not been able to really grasp yet. (not being sarcastic) Because it creates the most stable home environment for the child. There are 2 types of "custody" - parental rights and physical custody. You, as the biological father will almost always have 'parental rights". That is, you have the right to go to court and ask for visitation, for the ability to jointly parent your child and the ability to financially support him. The courts will almost never sever your parental rights. Even if you're a total loser, you will get many many chances to fuck up, fuck up your kid and re-prove yourself. In that sense, you and she have 50/50 custody. Then there is physical custody - which is where the child spends most of his time. If you want to establish joint physical custody you cannot move out of state. Period. I have no idea what kind of arrangement a court will order but I'd be surprised if you'll get overnights for a long long while. If you move away, you be responsible for travel and visitation will mostly likely start out as very limited and supervised, possibly at your expense as well. Joint physical isn't totally unreasonable as long as you and the mother are equally known to the child from the beginning. That means be there everyday. And have an amicable relationship with the mother. That's actually the best possible scenario. If all of this REALLY is about your unconditional, undying love for your baby - you'll do whatever you have to do. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

The rest of your post was pretty spot on. And well stated. Except for 2 things. It's NOT necessarily true that the mother will use the child to "get even" for him leaving her. We have no idea what what with the mother in this situation. Period. And then to be clear - I think you were referring to my comment that all things being equal the baby should remain with the mother...I never made a judgment as to who is the better parent. I said "all things being equal"... A baby should not be taken from its mother unless absolutely necessary. Divorce or breaking up is not absolutely necessary. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

It sounds like that is what you should do, if money is a major issue for her but not for you, and if you do not want to get married. This sounds like the best way to take care of the child, considering the situation that you are in (and assuming that she is capable of taking care of the child aside from the money issue). If they both want the child and are equally fit to be parents, and she wants there to be a custodial parent and a visiting parent, shouldn't the parent who's more capable of providing a good home be the custodial parent? Blues, Dave All things being equal - the child should be with it's mother. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Thank you for your opinion. Can you explain the '2-3 years, no motherly separation' to me please. I am not familiar with this as she is not planning to breast feed. Also, I am not voluntarily being moved out of state. This is not my decision, so I am not able to 'stay put'. I could definitely see if I was choosing to move away; especially if I was choosing to move away to get away from the mother or my responsibilities, but that is not the case here. I am not running away, nor trying to. And I believe I can establish a bond with our child without being in a particular state. And I can help raise him the rest of his life by physically being there. And I do not think that I am a total stranger. I am the father of the child. If that is my chance to build a relationship with our child, then I will take that chance. And I am not 'taking the child' at all. Why do you think that I am taking the child from the mother. I am not trying to never come back or anything. I just would like to spend the same amount of time raising him as she does. I think the child will benefit from both our experiences and what we both have to offer him. The first 2-3 years of a child's life are the most important years in developing attachments, developing trust, developing personality, etc. At 6 months old - a child has NO idea what relationship any person has to him other than what is consistently present. If you move out of state - and then come take the baby from the one consistent person in it's life - you are esssentially ARE a stranger to him - and you would then be breaking that bond between him and his mother. Of course, he would then form an attachment to you but your plan of switching out primary attachment figures every 6 months presents a pattern of breaking and reforming bonds that could impact his ability to form lasting relationships, build trust, build self-esteem for the rest of his life. Trust me, no court will allow your scenario to occur. If you move out of state, you will have very limited visitation until the child is older. Before haggling with your ex girlfriend over 'what's fair' - do some real research into infant development and parenting. Your baby deserves the best outcome in this unfortunate situation. Fight for that. Also, urge her to breastfeed. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY out of the question. Babies should not be separated from their mothers - especially overnight - for the first 2-3 years. If you move out of the state, it is your responsibility to travel back and forth. OR you can stay put, pay a fair amount of $$, visit often to establish a bond with your baby and help raise him for the rest of his life. The idea that you would come in AS A TOTAL STRANGER and take a baby from it's mother is ludicrous. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

And now DMX. After being charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty in NJ (2002) he even did a PSA against it. I don't think the media attention is overkill AT ALL. People are realizing that it's not small pockets of inbred rednecks - it's "respected" and "idolized" people in the spotlight. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I agree wholeheartedly. Check out any sites related to CAFOs in this country to find animal cruelty and torture at it's worst. But my logic takes me the other way. We shouldn't let one guy off - we should ban animal cruelty in all it's forms. Whether or not an animal is loved by one person should NOT be the deciding factor in whether it's torture or cruelty. Have a look at any undercover slaughterhouse footage and tell me anyone loves those animals - then tell me that' shouldn't be illegal. Animals are sentient beings not to be exploited. Period. I personally believe something small inside all of us is hurt when we hear of or see animal cruelty. How many of you pipe up when a guy beats a puppy to death? It's just that on a larger scale (such as factory farming) it's too much to comprehend. It has to hit home, it has to become personal for most of us to care. The animals "have to be loved by someone" for it to matter. That's why Vick is now the scapegoat. On some level he's paying for something we all abhor but can't be bothered in daily life to do anything about. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi