http://www.mombian.com/2009/07/11/more-on-utah-custody-case/ Sustenance for Lesbian Moms Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:39:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.mombian.com/2009/07/11/more-on-utah-custody-case/comment-page-1/#comment-92612 Charisma Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:52:15 +0000 http://www.mombian.com/?p=5292#comment-92612 In my last appeal, the ex tried to claim the same thing - that it was her Constitutional right to determine who our child spends time with since she is the biological parent - a right which she claimed superses a non-biological parent's right to be with their child. This was her second attempt at this claim on appeal - she had originally made this claim in our first appeal years before - to which the Court had given her a rather succinct response at the time, saying that pressing her Constitutional rights in this manner was inappropriate and that if she wanted to make that claim, she was most likely also infringing upon my Constitutional rights, as well as our child's. But as I mentioned previously, despite this response, she tried it again in our latest appeal. This time the Court of Appeal gave her a thorough answer about HOW allowing one parent's rights to dominate another parent's rights would be completely asinine. I found it extremely interesting that Dickson would now be claiming the same thing. Someone should probably let her know that this claim has been ruled on at least once now - and failed. In my last appeal, the ex tried to claim the same thing – that it was her Constitutional right to determine who our child spends time with since she is the biological parent – a right which she claimed superses a non-biological parent’s right to be with their child. This was her second attempt at this claim on appeal – she had originally made this claim in our first appeal years before – to which the Court had given her a rather succinct response at the time, saying that pressing her Constitutional rights in this manner was inappropriate and that if she wanted to make that claim, she was most likely also infringing upon my Constitutional rights, as well as our child’s. But as I mentioned previously, despite this response, she tried it again in our latest appeal. This time the Court of Appeal gave her a thorough answer about HOW allowing one parent’s rights to dominate another parent’s rights would be completely asinine. I found it extremely interesting that Dickson would now be claiming the same thing. Someone should probably let her know that this claim has been ruled on at least once now – and failed.

]]>