Thursday, July 11, 2019

Katy Faust has selective memory and a real fondness for lying

Katy Faust
Katy Faust seems unable to write a single paragraph without lying
via YouTube
This from Katy Faust: This Gay Dad Lost Custody of His Own Kids. His Case Matters for All Children.. This relates to a case that I had previously written about. I prefer to have the Supreme Court of the State of New York explain the matter (rather than Faust's misrepresentations):
Joseph and Frank were domestic partners who began living together in 2009. As they desired to have children genetically related to both of them, they asked Joseph's sister, Renee to act as a surrogate. … Renee executed a surrogacy contract in which she agreed to be impregnated with Frank's sperm and to terminate her parental rights…

…In early 2014, Joseph and Frank separated, and the children continued to reside with Frank. …in May 2014, Frank suddenly refused to allow Joseph or Renee to have any access to the children. In December 2014, Frank moved to Florida with the children without informing Joseph or Renee, or commencing a proceeding for custody of the children.
There is more (emphasis added):
In an order dated April 8, 2015, the Family Court denied that branch of Frank's motion which was for permission to relocate with the children to Florida.
In sum, Frank is the biological father. Under New York State law a partner to a biological parent who “shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.” Joseph is seeking custody and Renee is seeking visitation. Frank put this is play by violating a court order.

Other states have similar laws. You might recall the Lisa Miller case where two lesbians were parenting a child. The biological mother got religion and fled the country with their daughter (with some help from Mad Mat Staver and others). A Vermont judge awarded custody to the non-biological parent on the same basis.
Along comes Katy Faust and her “The Before Us” nonsense:
Katy Faust is a religious nutter. She is opposed to gay parenting and she is opposed to surrogacy. Faust (Them Before Us) filed an amicus brief on June 17 authored by former counsel for National Organization for Marriage, Charles LiMandri. The brief asks the Supreme Court of the United States to hear this matter on appeal.

I am not going to comment on the brief. The following comments relate to Faust's post at Heritage Foundation's blog:

On the surface, Faust supports the parental rights of Frank, the biological father:
While Joseph’s sister is the biological mother, she never wanted a parental relationship with the children and surrendered her parental rights after the children were born. Frank is their biological father and was their primary caregiver and only legal parent until the twins were almost 7 years old.

The problem arose three years after Frank and Joseph separated. A court chose to remove the kids from Frank and give them to Joseph, even though he is not the biological father and had no legal relationship to the kids.
Ms. Faust kinda forgot about the part where Frank violates a court order and moves with the children to Florida. She also kinda forgot about the fact that Joseph was a part of the children's lives until Frank — for no apparent reason — cut off contact. Frank, by the way, is represented by Gene C. Schaerr, an anti-gay devout Mormon originally from Utah who fought marriage equality tooth and nail. But I digress.
Always a lie or two:
In other words, biology and legal status are no longer necessary factors in becoming a “parent.” Neither does an adult need to undergo the vetting and screening of an adoption process. All you need is to show that you intended to co-parent a child at the time he or she was conceived.
Not exactly. I quoted from the law (above). A partner to a biological parent who “shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.” Joseph is seeking custody and Renee is seeking visitation. Obviously, that is considerably more than Faust's claim of an intent to co-parent at conception. Faust kinda forgot the “clear and convincing evidence” part.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between having standing and legal custody. Standing just means that one can sue for custody and visitation. Then it is up to family court to determine what is best for the child or children. So when Faust claims that there is no “vetting or screening” she is full of crap. Per the New York Supreme Court, 2016:
Additionally, we stress that this decision addresses only the ability of a person to establish standing as a parent to petition for custody or visitation; the ultimate determination of whether those rights shall be granted rests in the sound discretion of the court, which will determine the best interests of the child.
Let's take a trip to revisit Obergefell:
What’s telling is the way the court reached this conclusion: It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which redefined marriage as based on mere consent between adults, regardless of sex and the needs of children.

The New York court reasoned that if marriage is no longer based on the needs of children, then neither is the definition of “parent.”
Again, the sanctimonious Ms. Faust is full of crap. Yes, the Court did mention Obergefell but only to the extent that Justice Kennedy expressed concern for the children who were being raised by gay couples, specifically, “stigma.” The idea that the New York ruling was based on Obergefell is just fiction. The primary basis for the ruling was the fact that a non-biological, non-adoptive parent could be forced to pay child support. Therefore, that same individual should have standing to sue for custody and visitation.

Rinse and repeat the same BS:
Why This Notion of Parenthood Is Flawed

The root problem with New York’s expanded notion of parenthood is that it grounds parenthood in the consent of adults, not in the natural rights of children.

As noted above, this flows from the Supreme Court’s logic in Obergefell, which sees marriage as a vehicle for adult fulfillment that has nothing to do with the natural rights of children.
No! As much as Ms. Faust would like to discredit the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges the ruling of the state court did not “flow from the Supreme Court's logic.” Furthermore, one more time: Standing and parenthood are two different things.
Of course — Mommy and Daddy are best:
Of course, gay and straight couples can both love one another and share a mutual commitment to each other. That’s not in question here. What’s at issue is that there is a stark, undeniable difference between what gay and straight couples offer children.

Consider the unique benefits kids get when raised by their married, opposite sex-parents. They get to enjoy a daily relationship with the two people they are biologically related to.

Statistically, their parents are the most likely to be attached to, protective of, and invested in them.
The statistics she cites compare children of single parents with children raised by married parents. It has nothing to do with the parenting by gay couples. Ms. Faust, for all her self-righteousness appears to be a pathological liar.
The losing argument in Obergefell:
Things are different for kids in same-sex-headed households. No matter how loving the two adults are, they will be raised at best by only one biological parent, and sometimes by no biological parent. They will likely suffer mother-hunger or father-hunger, and when they look in the mirror they will wonder who gave them their unique eyes, nose, mouth, and hair.
Oh bullshit! All of the research demonstrates, again and again, that the children of gay couples are as healthy, happy and secure as those raised by opposite-sex couples. Where is the evidence of the mother-father-hunger?
The children are not getting equal treatment in these two kinds of households. But the new definition of parenthood isn’t interested in what kids need.
One more time: The Court did not redefine parenthood. It established ground rules for legal standing.
More BS:
In the name of nondiscrimination, courts like the one in New York are only interested in what adults have access to. New York law now demands that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, which are not equally ideal for kids, be treated equally in matters of parenthood. Other states have taken a similar path.
This has absolutely nothing to do with nondiscrimination and the notion, the idea, that gay and straight couples “are not equally ideal for kids” is a lie, no matter how many times Faust repeats it. There is no evidence to support her contention. None!
What will happen if the [United States] Supreme Court takes this case, rules against Frank, and “intent to parent” becomes an acceptable basis for parenthood across the land?
The above is just more lies. She has “intent to parent” in quotes as if that was the verbiage from the Court. It is not. By the way the New York State Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state. It is the exact opposite of the federal system. The Court of Appeals is superior to the Supreme Court. The chronology is hard to follow because this has been in the courts for five years. Why would SCOTUS agree to hear a case when state appeals might not have not been exhausted?
I am done with Katy Faust (for today). I have no idea what this means:
First, parental rights will be threatened as the state will gain power to override the claims of parents to their children. Second, and even more terrifying, children will be considered commodities to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to acquire them—their rights, identity, and safety be damned.
She just doesn't get the difference between parenting and standing. Family courts will continue to award custody in the best interests of children. The best interests of the adults are irrelevant no matter how often Faust states otherwise. This woman is a menace. Katy Faust is also a pathological liar. Lyin' for the Lord.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.