"Media Bias in So-called “Father’s Rights” Case"

[bloom]

WSB-TV in Atlanta has reported on the case of one George McCormick, an unwed father who is attempting to gain custody of the daughter who was given up for adoption. If you watch this little newsclip, you’ll get the impression that this is just a case of a father’s rights not being honored. “Father Fights for Custody!” Poor George just wants a chance to raise his little girl, but the mean old State of Georgia gives all the power to the unwed mother – and she decided to give the baby up for adoption without telling him. In other words, he’s practically a poster child for the Father’s Rights crowd.

Bullshit.

George McCormick is a nutcase. A whack job. A threat to society. He’s dishonest, violent, threatening, and a criminal. He also seems to be psychologically deranged. In the briefing filed with the court, the attorney for the birth mother spelled out the truth about this guy:

1. McCormick had an ongoing sexual relationship with the birth mother when she was underage, during which time he joked to his friends about her youth, bragged about giving her drugs, and made pornographic videos of her, which he offered to show to “anyone who would watch.”

2. He lied to the birth mother and her parents about his age and background, and made up wild, often conflicting stories about his military record, children he had fathered (whom he variously reported as dead or abandoned), and so on.

3. During the pregnancy, he refused to help pay for the birth mother’s medical care, complained that he could only afford to feed himself and his dogs, and only grudgingly provided small amounts of cash (totaling less than $250 over the entire course of the pregnancy). The birth mother had to rely on Medicaid, her parents’ help, and what she could earn by working as a clerk at PetSmart. <more>

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/

People shouldn't be surprised in Bush*s super-patriarchal world that the media is going to be super-biased.

It's just something for people to be aware of.

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. Interesting that you find the mother's Attorneys word to be the gospel.

:shrug:

[bloom]

2. The idea was that it was the Father's side of the case that was the ONLY

one presented in the media.

Interesting that you didn't get that.

:shrug:

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. You must, of course be referring to the bias shown on your link.

That gave only the mother's lawyers version of the story. THAT HE GAVE to the media.

Did you even go to the FAPT link from your link?

[bloom]

7. Do YOU watch the video?

I think the video was exactly as presented in the blog.

With quotes like, "The whole case shows fathers have to fight for rights that mothers just get".

It did not mention any of the things listed in the blog that have been part of the case.


The way that people watch the news and then think that they know everything there is to know the case and end up thinking "oh that poor guy" - is what this is about.

[NaturalHigh]

17. In another thread...

I was chastised for only "getting the facts" from the article posted. Of course, that was when a woman was collecting child support from her ex-husband for a child that wasn't even his. Interesting that this article is supposed to be taken as the absolute truth when it favors the woman's point-of-view.

It's not that I don't believe this article; this is the first I've ever heard of this case. I'd just like to point out the double standard some people like to use when it comes to issues of child custody or support. I doubt that the OP has read much about this case that isn't biased toward this particular point-of-view.

[bloom]

20. With the article you are bringing up

it sounded like a lot of people weren't even reading the article and were just basing their outrage on what they thought should be true. For instance fraud was not found and it seemed a lot of people assumed they knew the the truth of the matter - when people do need to keep in mind they may not have all of the information - and the case would make more sense if they did.

I'm sure there are cases where even if you did have all of the information - it would still be outrageous. Like the recent case of the judge who gave a rapist who raped a 7 year old girl - 60 days in jail. There can't be any mitigating factors, IMO, and saying that the guy needed to get out in a hurry so he could get counseling was just not a valid reason for such a lame sentence either.

And yeah - I don't side with the rapists. And I'm more skeptical of men trying to get out of child support than I am of women who are trying to do the best for their children. And if the man seems like a complete control freak who doesn't sound like he has the best interest of the child in mind - I'm more skeptical of that.

It sounds like you have your biases - and were you privy to information in the other thread that led you to believe you knew more than what the article stated - you were so sure that the man was the victim?

[NaturalHigh]

37. I read the article.

Yeah, the man got the short end, stuck with paying another eleven years for a kid that isn't his. The wife screwed around on him, and she's being rewarded for it.

Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with what you're saying about the man in your article. This was the first I've ever heard of it. However, it IS a double standard to claim that you can get all the facts from this particular article, which just happens to suit your point-of-view, but that the facts in the previously mentioned article are suspect.

[rucky]

3. Personalities aside, the legal question remains:

Did he have parental rights when the adoption took place?

I really don't know. I haven't been following the story.

[bloom]

4. The issue presented

is that the case is being tried in the media with only one side of the case being presented. The Father's.


I don't live in Atlanta and I'm not following it - I wonder if someone from Atlanta has noticed the bias.

[bloom]

5. P.S.

From what was posted on the blog I quoted - there should be a case of child molesting/child pornography that should be pursued and the "Father" should be locked up. Sounds like it's been documented.

[rucky]

9. It'll be a long process, but...

If indeed he had parental rights at the time of the adoption, AND the allegations you say are proven, they could retroactively waive parental rights and that would make the adoption legally ok.

The mom absolutely did the right thing, btw.

[sandnsea]

8. You just made his case

Mothers don't have to be perfect or meet any criteria at all to take that baby home. It's a given. So why shouldn't the baby be given straight to the father. He shouldn't have to prove he's fit to be a parent any more than a mother has to. You listed all these reasons that he shouldn't be given custody, which is exactly his point. Nobody is making lists against new mothers who want to keep their children.

[bloom]

10. You know what

You're right.

Mother's don't have to be perfect to take the baby home - they generally have to deal with the baby whether they are fit or not. Unless they decide to put it up for adoption.

But if the father isn't fit - why should a child be given over to him? Father's don't automatically have the baby - it's not coming out of their body after all. Why should a knowingly unfit person have a right to to have a baby given over to them - just to have protective services step in the same day and take it away? I don't think that really makes sense.


P.S. I think a large part of the legal issue keeping him from getting custody is that he didn't follow the proper procedures to do that.

[sandnsea]

12. Equal Rights

It's wrong to put a double standard on parenthood. Fathers don't get enough respect and they're perfectly capable of raising children. I don't know all the particulars of this case, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in society's thinking about fathers.

[Tsiyu]

13. You have never been to a custody hearing in Atlanta

Lots of fundies, lots of mothers losing custody.

No, mothers do not automatically get to take the kid home. I can cite examples, but trust me on that one. Many times mothers are tested for drugs in their systems at birth and the children become wards of the State.

It is simply not true that women are automatically granted custody at divorce. It is most especially not true in places in the North Georgia area. Very active and militant fathers' rights groups there.

I could tell you horror stories from both sides, and that is the point of the OP

[sandnsea]

21. The case is about a newborn

And nothing else. Mothers are not routinely tested for drugs or presumed to be unfit parents at the birth of the child. There has to be something obvious to trigger family services intervention. That is all I am referring to. Men aren't given the same presumption of being a fit father at the birth of a child, they just aren't. I can't imagine a case where a single father would be allowed to walk out of a hospital with a newborn and not get a visit from family services. That's what I'm referring to and that is the issue the father in the OP is addressing.

[bloom]

23. Of course you have to admit

that nowadays - pregnant women can be prosecuted for doing things while pregnant that are injurious to the fetus. What restrictions do the men have on their lives for what can be 2 years or longer - with breastfeeding and all? They aren't getting routine blood tests as fathers. The mothers sure are.

It will never be equal - no matter what anyone does. It just won't.

There is nothing a man could do to make it equal, IMO.


And men who have sex with underage women shouldn't expect a thing. They need to have relationships with adults.

[sandnsea]

24. Listen to yourself

You're comparing a woman injecting drugs and alcohol into her fetus with a man having sex with a girl he may not even have known was under age. You're doing exactly what I'm pointing out. Setting up completely different standards for mothering and fathering. Let me see, drug addict mom; emotionally immature dad; how hard is that decision to make. Not too.

[bloom]

25. I don't think so

What I think you want to do is pretend that women don't automatically go through tests. What automatic tests do the father's have?

Why shouldn't fathers go through the same tests/the same trials mothers go through - if you want them to be so "equal".

Are you really defending this guy?

What we have is an underage mom (she's not a drug addict - that was just an example of what mothers potentially go through) vs. an unstable, violent, child molesting man who should be a felon by the sounds of things - and locked up.

And yeah - why not give all the fathers blood tests - like the mother's have. I want things to be more equal. Have any father tested for drug use....

Throughout the pregnancy, the birth mother made it clear to McCormick that she planned to give the child up for adoption. As the delivery date drew nearer, McCormick began to boast that he was making “preparations” to raise the child himself. When the birth mother visited his apartment to see what preparations had been made, it was filthy, reeked of dog urine and feces, and was completely unfit for a child. At that point she informed McCormick that she would definitely be giving the child up for adoption to another couple.

When the child was born, the birth mother’s attorney attempted to provide McCormick with notice of the adoption proceedings. He dodged service for several days, saying, “You’re not going to find me unless I want you to. I know how to hide.” His legal tactic now is to claim that he was not properly notified of the adoption.

In the weeks after the birth (and adoption), McCormick began a campaign of harassment against the birth mother and her attorney. He screamed and yelled and left threatening messages to the effect that he was going to get custody of the child. Because of this, the first adoption fell through. (Fortunately, a second adoption was quickly arranged.)

He tried to blackmail the birth mother’s parents by impersonating their creditors’ attorney.

He tried to harass an acquaintance into testifying on his behalf, to the point where the woman feared for her safety.

He hacked into the adoptive parents’ computer and cellphone records.

Colleagues and acquaintances report that McCormick once slammed a pregnant woman against a glass window, threatened an acquaintance with a gun, and has been fired from several jobs for violent and aggressive behavior. One characterized him as “a real threat,” and “not fit to be in society, although it takes a while to figure it out.”

[sandnsea]

26. Mothers are not routinely tested for drugs

That is just not true, my daughter just had a baby six months ago and many of her friends have recently too. They do not do tests on every new mother. They don't question whether new mothers are fit parents. They don't even question whether the fathers are, as long as the mother is going to be the primary caregiver. That's the way it is and I don't know why you're denying it.

This case has already moved beyond the point it would have if the parent that wanted the child hadn't been the father. If the girl had wanted to parent the child, that would have been the end of it, and nobody would have heard another word about it, including family services. It's a double standard that even brought any of these other issues into question. Mothers have to screw up pretty badly to get family services involved.

[bloom]

27. Mother's have a lot of blood tests

and I think that hospitals would be on the look out for any sign of abuse - of herself - therefore the fetus.

When I was pregnant with my first child - I went to a clinic. And I can guarantee you that at a place like that - with women without much money - they are looking for signs. The men don't get looked at of course. But the mothers have quite the going over. It's not like they would be able to hide much.

[sandnsea]

31. My daughter-in-law went to a clinic

They DO NOT test your blood for drugs, they can't without a search warrant. Further, I guarantee you that the men ARE looked at a whole lot more closely than the mothers. More women are beaten and murdered during pregnancy than at any other time, and you can bet these doctors know that. In any event, the point is that if the father said he was going to take the infant home and raise it, he wouldn't just be looked at, he'd get a family services visit. Or two or three. I was never trying to defend this particular father, only to say that women don't go under the same scrutiny just to have their child. Otherwise every mom would have to go through a complete home visit and several interviews, and we'd have an even larger foster care problem because there's really no such thing as a perfect parent anyway.

[bloom]

32. "More women are beaten and murdered during pregnancy"

See - that's another thing. Until as many fathers are being beaten and murdered during the pregnancy of their offspring as the mothers - we're never going to be equal.

And, in fact, we never will.

[sandnsea]

33. That's true

But you don't deny one group equality in one area because there are problems for another group in another area. You keep plugging forward and try to fix whatever wrongs you see. Believe me, women get the way short end of the stick in almost every area. This is just one where I don't think we treat men fairly. Fathers are not banks, children do better when the responsible parental units are completely involved in their lives.

[bloom]

34. I think the Father's Rights people

would have more credibility if they acknowledged that women start out with a huge amount invested already - in time, physical risks, emotionally, job wise (I was fired for being pregnant), and so on so forth.

To deny that such investment has occurred and to pretend that the father should be on equal footing is disingenuous.

I am sympathetic to fathers who really do put the children interests first and who are seriously concerned about helping out.

The ones who are control freaks (usually with some kind of personality disorder) and those who just want to get out of their obligations - I don't have any sympathy for at all. And I think the "Father's Rights" movement encourages that kind of men as victim thinking.

[bloom]

14. birth rights

I think if a man rapes a woman or statutorily rapes a minor - that he should have to pay child support and NOT get custody and would NOT get adoption options.


There aren't that many women raping men - but for those instances where they did - it would be crazy to force the man to pay child support - custody would seem like his option if he wanted it.


Rapists shouldn't expect respect - that's for damn sure. And that is what this case sounds like to me. (And if it's not statutory rape for and 26 year old to have sex with a 15 year old - then I think it should be.)

[sandnsea]

22. The issue is parental fitness

And whether men have to meet a different standard in order to parent their children. That's all I'm referring to. I don't know all the details of the case, whether the 15 year old told him she was 18, or what. All kinds of possibilities and now that family services is involved, than the best interest of the child should be the primary factor. But there is a question as to why a 15 year old mother can take a child home, no questions asked. But a 26 year old father has to prove his fitness.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. A Child is 100% Every Single Bit As Much As The Fathers As The Mothers,

Always. PERIOD.


And that isn't in response to this news story, as I don't know enough of the facts to comment accurately on the case. But the comment instead is just to factual reality in general, outside of any specific case.

[meow2u3]

11. Father's rights = male supremacy

Remember the repuke code.

[BiggJawn]

29. Don't get me started....

So....I was exercising some fucking "Rethuglican Code Word" when I finally got physical custody of my daughter?

Yeah, whatever.

[seabeyond]

15. well, being an objective female, and having expereinced a long

drawn out court battle my brother had with the woman who gave birth to a child, i can tell you the stories told about him. it could be listed one two and three also. 8 years,..... 150k on his part fighting every falsely known allegation made about him was quite a challenge. he would be accused of stalking the woman while he was in midwest and she in louisanna. he would have to drive down in between ihis job to go to court and prove he was there, and spend lots of money on lawyer, loss of pay, and the concern he might enter the state and be picked up for allegation of assault or stalking. he always kept a big wad of money on him. for eight years he had more threats on his right to exist.

there are bad women. there are bad men. i dont know if both are bad, if the man is bad, or if the woman is bad

i do know the court is stacked for the mother. it is clear. we women can recognize the immediate perception we create of the male, and it is not a good perception. i have seen schools deny my brother the right to see the grades of his child because the mother said my brother was violent.

i jsut have had enough experience with court and what happens when a female wants to get a man, that i dont just easily go to blaming the male.

he had a court hearing and with a minister, 3 court appt psychiatrists, private monissouri pre k adm, and a handful of others got the ruling,......... oviousy would be better with the father, but the mom isnt THAT bad.

she wasnt beating the daughter. if it is ruled the father is the better parent why is the line only not THAT bad so much lower for the mother to win

brother spent another four years fighting it,.... jumping the hoops and getting further into debt, until the mother was that bad, two years ago, and brother finally got his daughter

[bloom]

16. In this case

If the 26 year old man is showing off pornography that he made of himself with a 15 year old - something concrete that he is not going to be able to deny - then I can't see why the courts should have any sympathy for him. Along with everything else.

And to make this a poster "Father's Rights" case - does not do the "Fathers Rights" people any favors - if they want people to be sympathetic to their cause.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. It will be the Sisters, Second Wives and Mothers of loving fathers

who bring fairness to matters of custody and support.

Men and Fathers speaking up for their rights are too often accused of 'trying to get out of support', or 'trying to dominate women'.

This custodial father of three boys would like to say, Bless you for sharing that story.

[WinkyDink]

18. Hmmmmm....Sounds familiar.

George..... is a nutcase. A whack job. A threat to society. He’s dishonest, violent, threatening, and a criminal. He also seems to be psychologically deranged.

[upi402]

19. MANY very valid cases exist. Bad selection from our TV news again

The TV news doesn't give a shit about fathers' rights. That is very generally the case.
There are many many cases of good, nurturing men who are completely discounted solely due to their gender.
It is 100% unfair and sexist.

Anyone who disagrees has not paid attention at all to the facts on the ground. It is blatant and "in-your-face".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. I agree. Unfortunately Our Rights As Fathers Are Still Way Too Little.

It has gotten a bit better, but hopefully in the future the bias will be gone and Fathers will have as many rights as the mother, as they should, especially in custody battles.

[upi402]

35. I've seen a rash of 'mothers changing their minds about motherhood' lately

Is there something in the water? On TV there are only stories about men. But I've been hearing about moms bailing out from word of mouth far more. Usually it's an internet or work romance and motherhood was no fun anymore.
Also, the guys get $0-$80 a month from the female.

I used to hear about guys paying 60% of their take-home pay. AND -they had to pay if they were laid off.
AND -they had their incomes inputed, to raise their income being judged to a maximum future potential -payable at the time whether or not that was their income.

I could go on and on with this. It's so nuts. Especially when it happens to people you know.