Messages By: seenfff

     The law is hidden; Mel is 100% correct. If Ohio has this law, it's deeply masked, and the fact the site makes it plain of being an unoffical version of the ordinances of Ohio makes it worse. Additionally, this law is highly moot. All Esther and her family needs to prove is Pyrce as an unfit father, and the courts should and be required investigate whoever wishes to have custody/sole custody.

     As an outside party, this child's interest is not being set as a priority. From my understanding from my mom and her brother who are both adopted, an open adoption is normally reserved for temporary foster care. I suspect that in the future; Esther fully plans to request custody back. I am positive if this is the case as a family friend; the present adoptive parents will have no problem obliging her.
     In the interest of this child, I would remove her completely from the situation. I would remove this child from the present adoptive parents, and I would get this little girl a closed adoption. Or, I would only allow visitation from all parties under a case workers supervision.
     As to comments about single parents, you have to admit that it is extremely problematic forcing your child to be under the authority of babysitters, which poses a great risk to your child in more ways than one, attempt to provide shelter, food, and other necessities, and the ability to raise a child or worse children with morals, respect, and manners to enable him/her to enter adult hood with a foundation of right and wrongs without added issues of abandonment, behavior issues, and other mental injuries endured that are more likely rising a child alone.

       Simply put, the United States is extremely sexist. This law is a blatant attempt to trample civil rights. I think that law should be removed, and both parents should have equal rights unless the courts deem otherwise and have exhausted all other options.

       Parents should have equal rights when it comes to their children, and the courts should not remove children unless the situation warrants it. All removing a child, especially older, does is cause emotional issues that no amount of therapy can heal. In simple terms, the Punitive Law is unjust and grossly sexist to men who want to be in their child's life.

     There are three main factors here. The child, the father, and the mother. Additional factor is the grandparents. I wouldn't trust Esther's father unsupervised around any child. It's quite plain that Esther is emotionally scared by him.
      The best case for parenting is having a mother figure and father figure in a loving home. Finances should only become an issue when money should be geared towards the child but spent elsewhere. Failing that, a biological parent is best suited especially when the other wants in the child's life. What makes this situation even worse, this child has a biological parent eager to be in her life, and the other family is either too selfish or prejudice to see that.
      To make matters worse, Esther's family gave custody to a family friend, and the situation would require meetings between both families. This is a stacked deck against Pyrce, and I hope that the courts come to their senses and grants Pyrce a chance to be the fathe he is attempting to be.

     As to the guy with the runaway mother, only you know the situation. Does she has sole custody and sole discretion of your child with visitation

     There are situations where sexual harassment is extremely anti men. Such as women are just as attracted to butts, legs, feet, faces, hands, or some other body part in addition to personality. If I took a woman to court, she counter suited me of sexual harrassment; there's a 97% chance. I would lose and be labeled as a sexual predator just based on whatever body part that I would be attracted to. That would be noticed before a woman's personality before approaching the woman to see how our personalities related. There should be a distinction between admiration of attraction and making crude suggestions that should require being initially approached. Another words if I made a sexual comment to a woman, she should be required to tell me; she did not appreciate the remark or advance directly before going to the next level rather than just going to the next level. Most men would leave the woman alone. A simple turn down doesn't translate 98% of the time as "I'm not interested. Please Leave me alone."

     I do agree a person regardless of gender who conducts sexual abuse towards children should be banned from any parental rights to their child. I see no difference between a murderer and a sexual predator. The only difference is that the person is alive although who they were meant to be died the day of the assault or shortly later.

    How exactly did you find out about this law?

Martha, he should still recive the standard 90 day trial with Human Services checking in on him/his grandmother.

         I'd say that I agree with you in this case Jenny. But, she might grow up with emotional issues like my mother that is similar to issues developed through divorce.

       It's really simple. Teach good morals, teach respect, teach manners, teach intelligence, tech bad decisions have consequences. Spend as much time with the child as possible. The parent/s should be in the child's life as much as possible. If the child doesn't follow the rules or does something wrong, a punishment that suits the crime should be used. If someone or something is having a negative impact on the child's life, it should be obvious to either remove the person or eliminate/limit use of the something such as violent video games, which I might add does more for anger management than the anger management agency does. (Note I was trouble when I was younger and placed in a Anger Management and other behavior handicap school until my freshmen year of high school). Bare in mind, the number one advice is to hit either a pillow, matress, or punching bag, and each has the downside of teaching especially a child to hit something in anger. Bad idea.

      There's so many factors in this that I cannot begin to cover them all.

1) I have the distinct impression that Esther's family deliberately derailed all attempts by Pryce to have any kind of contact with his child. Not to mention, the grandfather openly admitted to threatening the life of his unborn granddaughter, and he expects the attempt at smoothing it over with redirecting the threat to this little girl at Pryce? Why isn't the grandfather banned or forced into supervised visits. My thoughts because it is a family friend of Esther's family who has custody of the child. I find that to be gross neglect on the adoptive parents end.

2) My impression of the entire situation is that either they all have visitation rights or none does. As a family friend who has custody or whatever of the child, I would believe that the best situation until an adoption is finalized is the daughter be placed in another home.

      My reasoning. Esther's family is already bashing Pryce on as many fronts as possible. Depending on the outcome, this effects his credibility to find work, drive, credit score, and much more. And worse, this child will be taught to hate her father because friends are generally choosen by similarities in personality and beliefs. Kinda like choosing a church and religion. This would not, I REPEAT NOT A HAPPY LOVING HOME FOR A CHILD. (Please do explain how being raced to hate anything is a happy home?)

3) The law is sexist and biased.

      A) Both parents should have equal rights to the child. This includes adoption, abortion, and custody issues.
     B) Both parents should be named on the birth certificate, and this should be considered registration for both parents. Failure to have a father's name should require Human Services involvement. 1) Prevent prejudice upbringing. 2) Ensure the child is in a happy loving home. 3) The child is not being treated as property. Such as, I strongly have the impression that this should be a closed adoption until the decision is finalized, which I'm sure the grandfather would be just as pleased with.
     C) If a accused to be the father turns out not to be by paternity test, he should not be forced to pay child support for a child who he didn't help concieve.

     D) Either Sperm Donors should be terminated in practice or strict guidelines should be implaced to avoid a mother giving birth of a child from a sperm donor. Another words, if a sperm donor has a record then she should have signed a waiver of forcing the donor of the sperm to paying child support.

     E) I am pretty sure that more would be needed to create a functional law.

      I'd try Solomon's tactic if I was the judge. I would allow required supervised visitation among the families by a Human Services case worker. I would also make sure that any supervision is done by a person who has not already made up their mind about the situation, or push came to shove the baby would be living with a temporary foster parent until the situation was resolved. Then again, based on what I saw; I'd seek a permeanent home for this child well away from all three parties.

        I think that the only reason why this situation even revolved is that Esther's father chose to consider Esther having a baby out of wedlock (unwed) that Pryce raped her, and Esther herself stated that she was not raped. I believe that this was largely Esther's father's doing. The father wrongly accused a man who he liked prior to Esther's pregnancy. I don't know about other posters if they were ever around or know something who was sexually assaulted, but it causes chaos and much anomosity.
      Has it not occurred to anyone else that if Esther's father had not decided to consider a baby born out of wedlock; this situation would be entirely different? I would think that the two families would come together. Isn't that what families are supposed to do? Support their fellows, and the baby ties Esther and Pryce together.
     So, why then is the baby living with family friends? It's simple unless I misunderstood; Esther's father made it so. Why then would there be so much friction dominantly generated from Pryce and Esther's father.
      I admit that I didn't see the whole show; I missed the first 15 minutes. However, a rape accusation convicted or not destroys a person's ability to find good work. So, with anyone and everyone who says it takes money to be a father; Esther's father derailed that quite nicely. But, I will say if I managed to quit smoking; I would relapse in this situation too. Does this mean that I'm an evil person? Nope, it means that it takes much effort, energy, and determination to quit in the first place. And, a DUI does not necessarily translate into needing AA meetings, which I hope aren't like Anger Management.

      The ability to raise a child with good morals, manners, and respect is a right. The ability to bring a child into the world is a priveledge given by God.

      In my minds eye, Esther was pressured into an adoption by her father who was more than willing to have that child murdered before birth. He made sure that Pryce was busy trying do what was right, and I highly doubt that fighting for his child's life allowed him to lookup laws except maybe abortion laws. Simply put, I say shame on Esther's dad who obviously played a significant role in Esther's choice to place the child for adoption.
     I highly doubt that Pryce and Esther's child is in a loving home. I believe that the child will constantly be bombarded that her father is a rapist, and your father was barred from you because he raped your mother. I would wager that will also decline the daughter from remotely hunting down her father unless she's as stubborn as my family in which case Pryce will likely risk getting some words from her that are completely unfounded by Esther's own words.

      I think that this law is obscure because unlike most if not all other laws are extremely broadcasted. This one isn't.

     Thank you to whoever recognized that the spelling was wrong as Prunitive that helped greatly in looking it up in my state.

      As to the situation of Bryce and his daughter, he really should at the very least have visitation rights to his daughter. On the safe side, I think when Bryce's family or Esther's visits the baby; they should have a Children Services case worker present or no such visit can take place.

     We have Esther's father who by her own words wrongly accusses Pryce of sexual assault and threatened a unborn child's life to coerce Bryce into accepting the adoption. It would stand to reason that he shouldn't be trusted with the baby either. And, even if Bryce did get visitation rights, I would think it safer to have a case worker present during all meetings in case Esther's father murders his own grandduaghter to pin it on Bryce.

      By the way, Anger Management teaches people with anger problems of any sort to use one or a couple of the primary methods of anger control. 1) Punch a pillow, matress, punching bag. The downside is that it teaches people who really have anger problems to hit something. Is this not a bad idea? 2) Verbally Vent, I think that what he said about his child was wrong to anyone who might be involved, but it is taught. When you're deeply upset, people will say the first thing to pop into their head without thinking it through. (I do agree that I didn't note anything to suggest that he did or did not think what he said was right. Then again, I missed about the first 15 minutes. 3) A non destructive vent such as walking/games.

      I do agree that there's more to the situation that wasn't dealt with, and I strongly feel that much of this situation involved Esther's father beliving that his daughter was sexually assaulted, which Esther herself says did not happen. If he hadn't, I wonder how many differences would have taken place.

      In any case, I think that the best interests of the child is being grossly misplaced. With the Freedom of Information Act, if Esther's father is not wrongly accusing Bryce as a threat to the child, the child would be much safer being adopted well out of the inner circle of either family. Considering, Esther's father was more than willing to have Esther abort the baby in lieu of allowing Bryce any contact; I think that this child should have been placed with a family outside of both families contacts, friends, and other resources. Change her name and so on as though she was in protective custody.