|
 |
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Do Gay Couples Make Good Parents?; Who has Jurisdiction in Divorce Cases?
Aired February 4, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out", do gay couples make good parents? The American Academy of Pediatrics embraces gay adoptions and partner benefits. But is this endorsement based on politics or medicine?
Also, is Alabama a better place to raise a child than Israel? A state judge tells a mother leave the country and kiss your child goodbye.
(APPLAUSE)
FREDERICKA WHITFIELD, HOST: Well, hello and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Fredericka Whitfield.
It's controversial: gay couples adopting children. But it got a major booster shot today from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The academy says its studies show that homosexual couples can provide the loving, stable and healthy family life children need. It is encouraging recognition of gay couples, especially when it comes to medical and legal benefits for the children. Critics, on the other hand, say the academy has an agenda and it has nothing to do with the children.
Here to talk about it is Dan Savage, author of the syndicated sex advice column, "Savage Love." He's written a couple of books including "The Kid: An Adoption Story." It's about his own journey into that territory and he has a new book coming out this fall titled "Skipping Toward Gomorrah."
Also with us, Reverend Lewis Shelton, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition. Thanks very much for the both of you of joining us. Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics has reviewed two decades of studies, all supporting the notion, in their view, that this is an issue of children's rights. Dan, let's begin with you. Is this an issue of children's rights.
DAN SAVAGE, AUTHOR, "THE KID": Yes, it's an issue of children's rights.
WHITFIELD: How so?
SAVAGE: It's also an issue of parents' rights because gay and lesbian parents are perfectly fine parents and there are more children out there waiting to be adopted than there are homes for them. The right likes to talk about gay and lesbian people adopting as if they were taking children away from heterosexuals. If those heterosexual couples weren't getting children because gays and lesbians were snapping up all the available babies, and that's just not true. There are tens of thousands of children waiting for adoption who can't find homes. And very often, gay and lesbian couples are willing to adopt children that straight couples rejected.
My own son that my partner and I adopted was turned down by a heterosexual couple before we adopted him. He was a drug and alcohol exposed infant with a homeless teenager for a mother. And his mother wanted to stay in contact and have visitation rights. And they couldn't find a heterosexual couple who was willing to welcome her into their lives the way my boyfriend and I have been willing to welcome her into our lives and be good parents to our son.
WHITFIELD: There are 9 million American children living in a household where there is at least one gay parent. On the other side, the argument is that children need to have both genders in order to grow physically and emotionally properly. And that's the view of Reverend Lou Sheldon, correct?
REV. LOUIS SHELDON, TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION: That is correct. It is very evident that studies that have come back, especially the study of the University of Southern California where Judith Spacey (ph) was the key researcher there. They found out that children raised in same sex households have a very definite higher level of being promiscuous and also wanting to explore the homosexual relationship.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: But you know what, Reverend Sheldon? The academy...
SHELDON: The issue here we have to...
WHITFIELD: Let me just interrupt you. The academy is saying that there is no scientific evidence supporting that notion.
SHELDON: I know they are saying. That is very true. They say a lot of things. They have also said, you know, that young teenagers shouldn't have their parents' permission before they have an abortion. This statement is a political statement.
SAVAGE: When it comes right down to it, Reverend Sheldon will never be satisfied, just like the creationist argument...
SHELDON: And it's very important that we understand that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
SAVAGE: No matter how much evidence there is, you are never going to be satisfied.
WHITFIELD: All right. Dan, let's just let the reverend finish his point. SHELDON: ... is what they are into. See, what they have done is this: They have moved from medicine to public policy and into politics. And when they have done that, they have not substantiated the fact that the dynamics of the chemistry of a male and a female can never be replaced by same sex people. It can't be replaced. No matter you how many stories they concoct about it.
SAVAGE: There is this argument that the right likes to make. They like to make it sound like gay and lesbian parents are raising their children in the backs of gay bars and my child is never exposed to a woman. My child has four grandmothers, a female pediatrician, female teachers. He has his own mother who comes and sees him. Our children are exposed to men and women. He also spends the night with his friends who have male and female parents.
And the idea that just having both genders in the house somehow is going to protect a child or automatically equals a healthy, well- adjusted child is incorrect. Andrea Yates was a perfectly unfit mother. Having a mother in the house does not necessarily mean that you are going to have a good parent in the house. Now, I'm all for mothers. My mother is a female.
WHITFIELD: And Dan, you are also saying...
SHELDON: The thing that isn't coming out here is simply this...
WHITFIELD: Let me interrupt there, reverend. And, Dan, you are also saying that if your child were not allowed to receive the benefits, health benefits or even Social Security benefits, if it comes to that, from either one of you parents, then the child...
SAVAGE: It's nuts to let us adopt and then not let us get married. It's crazy to let us adopt and then not want to do everything society -- I want to do everything to keep this child's parents together and to provide for this is child. It's in society's own best interest, whatever your feelings are about homosexuality. You can feel that homosexuality is a terrible thing.
SHELDON: Here's the issue. The issue comes down to this: Very clearly, homosexuality is a social disorder. This has been stated again and again by many people.
SAVAGE: It's been stated again and again by Reverend Lou Sheldon. That doesn't make it true.
SHELDON: ... by Robert Spicer (ph), who was the individual who was very instrumental in 1973 in removing the social disorder statement from the diagnostic comments. So therefore, he now came out just a year or so ago and what did he say? He said, you can change. Your lifestyle can change.
(CROSSTALK)
SAVAGE: But I'm not interested in changing my lifestyle.
WHITFIELD: OK, Reverend and Dan, let me just interrupt you real quick, gentlemen, because we have a guest here in our audience who has a point he would like to make. Hi, Craig.
CRAIG: Hi. My name is Craig. This is my son, Cooper. And my partner and I have been in a committed relationship for six years. We are no less stable or monogamous than any other couple out there. We do not frequent bars. Our son is in a loving, committed home. I'm a stay-at-home parent. I'm there for him when he comes home from his preschool, which he goes to three mornings a week and that's for social interaction.
We have very active grandparents, grandmothers, aunts, uncles, friends. He spends the night with friends of his who have a mom and a dad, but he also spends the night with friends of his who have two dads or two moms. His outlook is already varied. I don't believe he lacks for anything.
SAVAGE: When I was a child, I didn't look at my parents and think, oh, here's the penis parent and the vagina parent. I looked at my parents and said these are the people who take care of me and look out for me and provide for me and love me. This obsession with gender I think is misplaced. There are plenty of children out there who should be worried about, who need to be -- who don't have health insurance, who don't have food, who don't have parents who love them, who have nowhere to live, who are homeless. There are children out there that people who follow Jesus Christ should be looking out for and my child is not necessarily one of them. My child is well provided for.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: Dan and Reverend, we also have someone who is on the line here. We have got a caller. Let's here what Jim has to say and then we'll get back to you -- we'll get back to you in a second there, Reverend. Let's hear from Jim.
SHELDON: You promise?
WHITFIELD: Yes, I promise.
All right, Jim, are you still there on the telephone?
CALLER: It is -- well, my name is Jan. Are you...
WHITFIELD: OK, Reverend, why don't make your point right now then?
SHELDON: All right. I'm saying this: If we had known ahead of time, we could have brought in couples that would have said the very opposite that this homosexual couple said about he and his lover there. You see, it's very evident that the whole human anatomy is destined for male or female. What does the doctor cry out when the baby enters -- when the baby leaves the birth canal? He says boy or girl.
And when you begin to try and say that there is another kind of gender that is called sexual orientation, you are creating a confusion for a child. I think it's despicable what the group has done, the national -- the pediatric group has done in saying that homosexual parenting is OK. It is a dysfunctional lifestyle that can lead to a lot of problems for the life of a child.
SAVAGE: And that is Reverend Sheldon's opinion and he's free to hold that opinion, and I would encourage him not to adopt a child with his boyfriend if he feels that way.
WHITFIELD: And, Dan, we also have someone with an opinion. Her name is Jan. She is on the telephone. Let's go to her right now.
JAN: Hello.
WHITFIELD: Hi there.
JAN: What I want to say to the reverend is, you know, first of all, it's not very Christian to be that judgmental. And second of all, as a person who has been a psychotherapist, a clinical psychotherapist in Maine for 23 years, I can assure you that the gay couples that I have worked with, both male and female, have been every bit as responsible, if not more so, than heterosexual people who have brought their children to me for all kinds of disabilities, including emotional abuse, learning disabilities and I think that you should think twice before you and your God, which I'm imagining is the same God that I, you know, that I espouse and worship. I think that maybe a little less judgment and a little bit more education would enable you to look at parenting as a function and not a religious matter, sir.
SAVAGE: I would add that...
SHELDON: Oh, it's very much a religious matter. I think you're dead wrong in saying that it's not a religious matter. Children want to know who the boss is. Children need to know the source of their creation. They need to see beyond the human factor. They need to see the spiritual factor. And my only point about the homosexuality...
SAVAGE: And Reverend Sheldon is free to raise his children in that way.
WHITFIELD: And, Reverend and Dan, I have got Craig who would like to respond to the Reverend's comments just moments ago. Craig?
CRAIG: Regarding the fact about basically being a non- functioning person in society, my partner and I are socially active. We are teaching our son volunteerism. We're committed to the community. We go to church each Sunday. The church we attend welcomes us and our family, and our son is very active in his Sunday school class, and his second home is his church. This is not a non- functioning family and our son, therefore, will not be a non- functioning member of society. He's growing up seeing what I think are good role models. He's seeing his entire family extended, grandparents and so on being excellent role models.
SAVAGE: I think what we're seeing...
SHELDON: Well, if homosexuality is not a dysfunctional behavior, then why the reports coming out to us that so many homosexuals have not gotten the message that they must prevent the kind of homosexual high-risk sex that they...
(CROSSTALK)
SAVAGE: For 600 years, heterosexuals passed syphilis around.
SHELDON: ... and that's exactly what the department of health is saying now, that homosexuals are not willing to accept the fact that they're doing this...
SAVAGE: For 600 years, heterosexuals passed syphilis around when syphilis was a fatal, sexually transmitted disease.
WHITFIELD: So, Reverend, you actually have some support out there, not on our phone line right now. Jeff in Texas seems to agree with you. Let's here from Jeff right now.
JEFF: Yes. We are basically making it very, very difficult for heterosexual couples to adopt children. My sister, who is a school teacher, my brother-in-law, who is a cop, had to go to Albania to get a kid. I mean, two of the people that you really want to have raising a child, first and foremost, before anybody else -- who else would you want raising a kid? And they have to go to Albania because they make it so difficult.
SAVAGE: That's a -- I would respectfully say that that's a myth that children are hard. There are many, many more thousands of children waiting for homes than there are people out there willing to adopt them. Many of these children are older children. Many of them have drug or alcohol exposure, HIV exposure. Some of them have been abused and abandoned and, very often, heterosexual couples don't wish to adopt these children. And very often...
SHELDON: Well, that isn't true.
SAVAGE: ... homosexual couples will adopt those children.
SHELDON: That is not true. You are not right when you say that. I resent that. You making up these stories?
SAVAGE: I know from personal experience that a heterosexual couple rejected the baby that we adopted.
SHELDON: I know about the adoption system. I have been involved in California for many years in terms of trying to change the law. There is a liberal attitude that does not want there to be the kind of reform in legislation for adoption. So you don't really know what you are talking about. I mean, there are heterosexuals that would love to adopt children.
SAVAGE: I think I know a bit more about gay people adopting than you do, Reverend.
WHITFIELD: All right. Reverend Lou Sheldon and Dan Savage, thanks very much for joining us. We are going to continue this discussion, however, though. We have another couple of guests who are coming up after this break. So we are going to take a moment and rejoin this conversation when we come right back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
WHITFIELD: Well, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about the American Academy of Pediatrics giving its nod to gay adoptions. Joining us now are Alan Amberg, president of Diverse Communications, a gay and lesbian media consulting firm; and Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council. Thanks very much for joining us.
Well, right now, as it stands, there are three states, California, Vermont and Connecticut, which allow second-parent adoptions. Do you believe this American Academy of Pediatrics report now kind of empowers other states to perhaps put similar laws on the books? Let's begin with you, Alan.
ALAN AMBERG, DIVERSE COMMUNICATIONS: Well, one of the things that we have seen is that this is not a new issue. This is something that has been going on a lot of fronts for a long time. For instance, in the race where Dukakis ran against Reagan, I guess, there was an issue where there had been a child who had been adopted in Massachusetts by a gay couple. Dukakis, for political purposes, pulled the child out of this house and said that in Massachusetts, they couldn't have any more adoptions by gay families. This child was then put into so-called normal homes where, subsequently, the child had received physical and sexual abuse.
This went on in the Hawaii gay marriage case, where the state tried to say that the reason gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry was because of the children. They threw everything at the court and they lost on every single count.
WHITFIELD: So then the question, does the academy's report better educate people, in your view?
AMBERG: Absolutely. People listen to doctors, and pediatricians are not known for their radical views. So this is a really good thing, that they stepped forward and said, look, if we are going to genuinely look at the best interest of the child, and this is why when my colleague, Mr. Connor, says things about they have succumbed to political correctness, well, it bothers me because these children need to have protection of the law.
If one parent is the one where there's health insurance that comes in, because we don't have a universal health system, if one parent is the place where there are legal rights vested and that parent isn't around and it's the other parent needs to go to the school, both parents need to be vested for child support, for health insurance, for the future and stability of these children.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ken Connor, why do you see this...
AMBERG: And that's what we are talking about.
WHITFIELD: OK, thank you. Ken Connor, why do you see this as a political issue?
KEN CONNOR, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, the problem with same-sex adoption, of course, is that it trivializes the important contribution that each gender makes to the development of a child. The data and common sense and experience show that children do best when they are in families with mothers and fathers who are united in marriage. The problem here is that the American Academy of Pediatrics has gone outside the issue of science and made...
AMBERG: No, sir. The data show that children do best in families where they are both loved and cared for.
CONNOR: ... a political statement. The fact of the matter is what this is really about is normalizing homosexual relationships and trying to equate them with marriage. This is another front in the political campaign to do exactly that. And it's lamentable, I think, that the academy has succumbed to political correctness rather than rely on the hard social science.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ken and Alan...
AMBERG: Ken, this is about children. There are children in the foster care -- excuse me, Fredericka -- there are children in the foster care system by the thousands that need homes. Yesterday, I happened to have breakfast with a lesbian couple. They have been together 15 years. One is a nationally recognized scientist. The other worked for a nationally recognized arts organization. They've now adopted two kids and one is a stay-at-home parent. Those two children left in the foster care system would have endured something probably too horrible to describe. It happens to children all the time.
CONNOR: Let's -- don't throw...
AMBERG: So forget political correctness. You look in the eyes of those two beautiful children I saw yesterday and you tell them that they are not allowed to have a home because you hate gay people.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ken and Alan, quickly...
CONNOR: That's not it at all, Alan. Come on.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: Wendy is nodding her head. She has got something to say.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: Hold on a minute, gentlemen.
CONNOR: What's at stake is the well being of the children.
WHITFIELD: Hold on there, Ken. Let's hear what Wendy has to say here in the audience. She's nodding her head.
WENDY: I'm undecided on issue. I can look at it from both sides. There's a religious issue that I believe in that says that homosexuality is a sin. But also religion is a one-way street between that person and the Lord and who am I to judge what God tells each individual person.
However, there are children in this world that need homes and I would much rather see a child in a loving environment with two people to care for them than to be in foster care, to be...
WHITFIELD: Regardless of their gender?
WENDY: Exactly.
WHITFIELD: OK. John in California has a question and a comment.
(APPLAUSE)
Let's hear from John in California. He's on the phone. He would like to join in.
JOHN: Yes, regarding gay adoptions, I think it's really selfishness on the part of gays. It's just a me, me, me. I want this child. I want this lifestyle. If you are gay by choice, if you're gay by biology, I mean, one of the side effects is that you can't have children naturally. And I think it's just selfishness and children deserve to have both parents, biological mother and father.
AMBERG: Well, I hate to tell you about this, Ken...
CONNOR: Fredericka, I think it's important to understand that moms and dads alike each play an important contribution in the emotional, physical and psychosocial development of the children. Look, go to any playground and watch mom and dad interacting with Johnny on the monkey bars. Dad is typically saying go for the top, Johnny, you can make it. Mom is typically saying, Johnny be careful, please be careful.
Look, father masculinize their children. Mothers help civilize their children. Parents model importantly relationships.
AMBERG: You know what, Ken? There are lots of children who grew up in single households.
CONNOR: Let me finish and I'll give you the opportunity.
AMBERG: Sure.
CONNOR: I think it's important to understand that in heterosexual marriage, there's some important role modeling that goes on. We are seeing husband and wife. We are seeing male and female. We're seeing mother and father. These are not relationships that we see in a same sex marriage. And children don't have the opportunity to develop a healthy understanding of what each one of those roles involves when you are dealing with a same sex...
AMBERG: First of all...
WHITFIELD: And, Ken, you have company in New Jersey. Erica (ph) is on the line and she would like to voice her opinion.
ERICA: Hi. I just wanted to say that every child deserves love. It doesn't matter if their parents are same sex or heterosexual. Every child deserves love. OK?
(APPLAUSE)
My husband and I have gay friends and they are wonderful with our kids, absolutely wonderful, OK. Every -- it doesn't matter if you are same sex -- if our are a same-sex couple, you still have the same potential as a heterosexual couple to be good parents.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: OK, she didn't agree with you there, Ken, sorry. She agreed with you there, Alan.
AMBERG: Hang on just a second, building on what the caller just said, let's make a point. Gay parents, like other adopted parents, are studied to within an inch of our lives before we are allowed to adopt. They are checked out to make sure that the home is good, that the heart is there, that there are no problems that are likely to come up. And so wouldn't it be nice if all parents in America were studied that closely.
Contrary to my good colleague's understanding, there are lots of parents who, for whatever reasons, are not good parents. Just because one is a boy and one is a girl does not make for good parenting. It's care that matters. It's love that matters.
CONNOR: Here is what the study shows. It's undeniable. The Journal of Epidemiology in 1997 showed that among homosexuals, there are higher rates of suicide, higher rates of depression, that in gay couples, there's a higher rate of domestic violence. There's a shorter life expectancy.
AMBERG: Oh, no, that's not so. That's not so.
WHITFIELD: Ken, broad-based scientists are not supporting that notion. They are saying that there isn't a broad-based study that supports that notion.
CONNOR: Well, the fact of the matter is...
AMBERG: And, in fact, Fredericka, your former guest, Reverend Sheldon, incorrectly sited Judith Spacey (ph) at the University of California, who today in the "New York Times" said that in fact, science supports that gay parents can be good parents.
CONNOR: Well, in point of fact, here's what is at issue: Can a gay couple, can a same-sex couple, provide the same kind of important role modeling and contribution to emotional and psychosocial development that a heterosexual married couple can? And the answer is they can't, sadly.
AMBERG: Yes. Yes. The answer is yes.
CONNOR: You know, the judge in Florida, when he upheld Florida's law which prohibits gay adoption, said there was a rationale basis for the Florida legislature to rule as it did because, first of all, it said that there's greater social instability in gay households. Secondly, there is a significant amount of gender....
AMBERG: And Whose fault is that, sir? That's the fault of people like you.
CONNOR: You know, if you'll let me complete my discussion, we can have a civil discussion.
AMBERG: But you are saying things that are out of context and untrue, sir.
CONNOR: No. The court said that Florida had an interest in promoting stability within the household, that there was social stigmatization that these children experienced and that there was a greater incidence of gender identity confusion.
Look, those are the unmistakable facts. We know from the Journal of Developmental Psychology, for example, that lesbian couples who raise girls have those -- those girls wind up engaging in significantly more homosexual activities than children raised in heterosexual households. There are significant differences in the quality...
AMBERG: And I wonder what the quality of that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: Now, Ken and Alan, I'm hearing -- there are some folks here in the audience who have made the comment that that same argument might be made, whether it be successfully or not, about a single-parent household.
CONNOR: Indeed. We know that children fair much better in married households than in single-parent households. There's no question about that. The incidence of suicide among children in single-parent households is greater, academic failure, juvenile delinquency. Children do best when they are in families where they have a husband -- where they have a mother and father united in marriage. Common sense and experience tell you that...
AMBERG: Children do best in...
CONNOR: ... and so does the data. WHITFIELD: OK. Well, we have got folks in the audience that don't necessarily agree with everything being said by you two. So let's hear from somebody right now.
AMBERG: There are real children from real families who are doing fine.
WHITFIELD: All right, Kirby, what do you have to say?
KIRBY: Well, the simple fact of the matter is is that we should be worried about the welfare of the kids. And as difficult as the chore is to adopt a kid when you are a gay man or lesbian, the parents are going to treasure this kid. It takes so long and so much effort for them to get it and, you know, heterosexual...
AMBERG: And money.
KIRBY: Unmarried or married couples, you know, they can make kids real easy and there's an awful lot of them out there who are very poorly cared for. A lot of the gay -- when a gay parent finally can get, you know, custody of a kid, they work awful hard to make sure the kid is well cared for and, you know, well adjusted.
WHITFIELD: Angel in West Virginia?
ANGEL: Yes. I have a comment.
WHITFIELD: OK, hold on Angel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have made up my mind. I think from Adam and Eve all the way through Sodom and Gomorrah, the world has made a misjudgment. Our colleges, our churches should preach homosexuality so we can be better parents. Let's let them have classes so we can go from heterosexual to homosexual. We'll be better parents. This is a bunch of rotten junk that you are passing out. The Bible says it's wrong. Society says it's wrong. Studies prove that it is wrong.
AMBERG: Sir, do you eat pork? Give me a break.
WHITFIELD: Angel in West Virginia, what do you think about that?
ANGEL: Yes, I tend to agree with the gentleman who just made the comment in the audience. I totally disagree with same-sex adoption because it took a man and a woman to create the child, in the first place, and I believe that it's up to a man and woman to raise that child.
AMBERG: And if they were, that would be great. But think about the number of children both here and around the world that have no parents. I was in South Africa two years ago and I saw some of the children who were made orphans by the AIDS epidemic. Those children need homes. The bottom line is...
CONNOR: You know, Fredericka, in America...
AMBERG: ... instead of spending your energy worrying about children who have no health coverage, who are not ferociously lobbying the federal government not to balance their deficits on the back of poor people, they are worried about whether we adopt children or not. It's selfish. You talk about selfish. That's selfish.
CONNOR: Fredericka, it's undeniable that here in America, the single biggest factor in the transmission of HIV AIDS is homosexual sodomy. That's a very high-risk behavior which has already killed over 400,000 Americans in this country.
AMBERG: Yes it's killed a lot of other people.
CONNOR: Yes 22 million people worldwide. Now why do we want to promote...
AMBERG: That's right. Most of whom are heterosexual.
CONNOR: Why do we want to promote life-styles that create this high risk for disease in New Jersey, when the very first homosexual couple that was permitted to adopt a child, pre-deceased the child within a short time of the adoption because both partners died from AIDS.
Now, look, we ought not allow...
WHITFIELD: You know what, gentlemen. I wish had a whole hour to give to you on this topic but unfortunately we are running out of time. We have another topic we want to continue on. But thank you very much, Ken Connor and Alan Amberg for helping to inspire a very heated and emotional conversation here, and I appreciate it.
When we come back, we'll talk more about children, their parents. But this is quite different. We are going to take quite a turn for you. So stick around and find out.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: A mother's choice. A woman faces losing her daughter if she moves to Israel. Too dangerous, says a judge. Too outrageous, says the mom. We'll talk to her lawyer right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. All Katerina Korn wants to do is take her daughter to Israel to live. All her father wants is to have her little girl close to home in Alabama. The couple currently has joint custody and the little girl lives with her mom, but an Alabama judge said Israel is too dangerous.
If Katerina wants to live there, fine. But she can't take her daughter with her. She will lose custody. With us today is La Tresia Kinnell, Katerina's attorney. The father's attorney declined our invitation to participate. We wanted to let you know that.
Thank you for joining us, Latrecia.
LA TRESIA KINNELL, ATTY FOR KATERINA KORN: Thank you for having me.
WHITFIELD: All right, so we know the basics. The mother wants to go back to, go to Israel. Her visa is running out and she wants to take her 2 and a half-year-old daughter. And a circuit court judge in Alabama said no. It's not right. The baby has to stay. The child has to stay with the father. You pick pit up from there.
LA TRESIA KINNELL, ATTY FOR KATERINA KORN: Yes. What the order basically states is that the court considered the day-to-day living dangers in Israel. The court also made a finding that the mother has been this child's primary care taker all her life, we are talking about a two-year-old little girl here, and that the mother took care of the child in Alabama and also in Israel.
What happened was my client went to Israel for a visit for approximately one month with her family there. While there she received a call from her husband letting her know that he wanted a divorce. Well under the visa that she currently has, she can not work in this country.
So if she were to come back to the U.S. to defend the divorce action there was no way for her to support herself or her daughter.
WHITFIELD: Why are you and your client convinced that this is an issue of traveling to Israel and not an issue of joint custody, and if she were to go overseas then the ex-husband is not be able to see his child. They are not going to be able to have this joint custody enjoyed?
KINNELL: Well, everyday we have couples who live maybe one in Alabama, one in California. They get divorced. We are able to put a visitation schedule in place. This judge has done that very thing. In the event that Mrs. Korn does return to Israel, he has given her a visitation schedule with the child. With today's technology, Internet, telephone, these people can have contact with each other. It's not like she's going to be over in Israel and unable to have contact with her father.
WHITFIELD: I would imagine that the ex-husband argument is going to be I'm not going to be able to pick up my daughter through the Internet. I'm not going to be able to be there with my daughter for a birthday party, et cetera. This makes it much more difficult, that I would have to get on a plane and now go overseas in order to visit my daughter.
KINNELL: And that's correct but what we have in this case is a father who works long hours everyday. The court's order states he works continuously up to 7 days a week. He put on at least 6 or 7 witnesses who testified they would be willing to help him babysit. So is it better for the child to be at the care of babysitters to be with her father, or with her mother who has been her primary care taker all of her life.
WHITFIELD: Did the ex-husband not argue successfully that when the wife went overseas most recently to Israel, that she was accused of kidnapping the child, that it was not an agreement, that both of them had concurred with? Is that why the judge then ruled in favor of the husband? KINNELL: No. That's incorrect. What happened was when the two of them could not reach an agreement as to what type of support he would provide for her to return to the U.S. with the child, he filed a petition under the Hey (ph) Convention, seeking to have the child returned to the United States.
And what the Israeli court stated in its the order was that my client never said, no I'm not going back to the U.S. or I don't have to return. She said I understand I have to return to the U.S. with my child, but I think that conditions should be put in place for me to return to the U.S., among those being him providing financial support.
The court there ruled that yes, indeed that was the case, ordered him to provide financial support up front before she even returned to the U.S. and once that was done, she returned here with Libbey.
WHITFIELD: OK, now there's a hearing February 14 and this perhaps is a case that is still unresolved and perhaps on February 14 during that hearing we'll know exactly what the judge will finally decide; correct?
KINNELL: Right.
WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much La Tresia Kinnell for joining us to talk about this case. We are now going to talk about the case further, though, with retired judge Ellen Morphonios and Gloria Allred, a radio talk show host, and a Los Angeles attorney specializing in divorce and civil rights cases. She won a case before the California supreme court dealing with the issue of a parent moving away after the divorce. And although in this case it was 40 miles, not an ocean.
All right, ladies, big difference here. We are talking about a fairly contentious joint custody battle here. The father says, no way. I'm not going to get a chance to see and enjoy the benefits of being with my 2 and a half-year-old daughter if mother takes the daughter away to Israel.
Gloria, let's begin with you.
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Well the first issue is, does the person who has been the primary care taker, in this case the mother, have a right to move away with a child after divorce without risking losing custody? And in our case in California we established that the custodial parent does have that right.
Now another important issue in this case happens to be, is the judge right in deciding that it is too dangerous for the child to live in Israel? I think the judge is wrong in that regard. I think it should be the custodial parent who makes the decision as to where it is safe to live with the child and where it is not safe. There are those who might argue that New York is not a safe place. My daughter happens to live there with my grandchildren. Some people would argue the whole United States is not safe because we are at risk of further terrorism according to our government. I think it should be for the parent to make the decision. WHITFIELD: So now, what kind of recourse does Katerina have now? Trying to make that argument that, how dare the judge discern exactly what place my child should be living.
ALLRED: Well I think -- if she's not successful at the full hearing that's coming up, then I think she's going to need to look at her options for appeal and then it will depend on what the law is in the state of Alabama because family law is a state by state type of issue and it's going to be up to the courts in Alabama to make that decision.
WHITFIELD: All right. Ellen Morphonios is the judge being a bit too tough here, or do think he's got the right idea?
ELLEN MORPHONIOS, RETIRED JUDGE: Well, No. 1, I think he definitely has the right idea, for this reason. He's the judge. And he has the case before him. The big question in my mind is jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction over this family? As I understand it, there were no prior court rulings decreeing custody to any one person other than the one Israeli opinion that came out, the lady left for a one month vacation in Israel, and after a year her husband began to get extremely upset and finally turned to the Israeli courts to help him.
The Israeli courts did say that yes, she says she's going back to the U.S. He should pay all the bills and the child go back with her when they go. They returned to Alabama separately and the Alabama court then had jurisdiction of the body of the child, of the mother and the father before it as I understand the facts. I can be wrong. I didn't work on the case in any way.
But having the jurisdiction before him, the court said No. 1, Israel has got to be, nobody can question that Israel has got to be one of the most dangerous places in the world, probably second only to Colombia and I'm not quite sure it's second to Colombia. I love Colombia, the country of Colombia and the Colombian people and I have many friends, but you couldn't pay me to let one of my children go to Colombia right now. It's not safe.
I also feel it's not safe to go to Israel where you can be wiped out simply for walking into a store at the mall when some jerk puts a bomb in his pants and blows up the mall.
ALLRED: And that could happen here, your honor, that could happen here in the United States.
MORPHONIOS: It could, but it doesn't.
ALLRED: Always on alert in that regard.
(CROSSTALK)
MORPHONIOS: Sure we are on the alert, but it hasn't happened.
ALLRED: I can't say there's any safe place in the entire world. WHITFIELD: You know what, Gloria Allred and Ellen Morphonios, let's just hold our thoughts for a hot second. Let's take a deep breath and take this break and we'll be right back and continue this conversation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. We are continuing our conversation about a contentious custody battle taking place in Alabama right now. A mother wants to return to Israel. She wants to take her 2 and a half-year-old daughter with her but her ex-husband who lives in Alabama says no way, and he got circuit court judge to agree with him.
Ellen Morphonios who is a retired judge is in Florida. She joins our conversation as well as Gloria Allred out of Los Angeles. All right, ladies we are getting into a pretty heated battle there.
Ellen, you brought up a good point asking about the agreement of this joint custody. And the judge reminds them that should the defendant decide to leave the USA to reside elsewhere, this shall be deemed a material change in the circumstances that such legal custody shall immediately change, meaning some of the dates and time agreements that they had would be changing already. It was something like every other weekend shared custody and in the case of someone to leave the U.S., it might mean that 6 weeks during each summer between June 30 and August 15 would be selected by the defendant.
So, given that, the judge has made those conditions. Should he be able to mandate which country a parent decides to travel to?
MORPHONIOS: Well, I don't know whether you wanted me or not, but we come back to the basic issue in my mind, and that is of jurisdiction. He happens to be the one with the jurisdiction and he happens to be the one who got his order in first. So it must always be considered, again it may be changed. Had the Israeli court gotten there first and said hey this is an American citizen born and wherever she was born, and that sort of thing, you would have a different story but you don't.
People always want there to be fairness and justice in the rulings of the court. That isn't possible. Sometimes the clear wording of the law means that there is going to be some injustice there. It's going to be an injustice if one parent has to be here and the other parent nations and nations away and thousands and thousands of dollars away to make the visit.
WHITFIELD: All right, Gloria.
ALLRED: Fredricka, I think the real key question within the issue of whether she can move to Israel is who decides whether she can move to Israel. Now apparently...
MORPHONIOS: She can.
ALLRED: Excuse me. May I complete my thought. I would appreciate it very much.
MORPHONIOS: I'm sorry, Gloria.
ALLRED: In any event, who decides she can move to Israel. Now, I think it should be the parent who has custody. If the court has determined that she is a good enough parent to have custody, then she is a good enough parent to decide what is in the best interest of her child.
You know these kinds of issues come in a different way everyday before courts. Sometimes there is a parent who has been a primary care taker of the child who lives in a poorer area that may have a higher crime rate than in other areas. Does that mean that the child should always go to the richer parent who can live perhaps in Beverly Hills because it might be safer? No. We should leave it to the loving caring custodial parent to decide what is safe and what is best for her child or his child.
WHITFIELD: All right. Gloria, and Ellen, I know you both have both been on the show enough to know that sometimes we have callers who have questions and comments as well as people in the audience. And that's where we want to go right now. We want to go to Ann in Connecticut. She has a question or comment. Which is it, Ann.
CALLER: Well, I have a comment. I was exactly in the woman's situation and I think that experts should understand the suffering that is caused by treating a mother as a piece of property. I was divorced in England and wanted to return home to America and was told by a high court judge in London that I could leave and kiss my children goodbye, and rather than doing that, because I cared so much for the children's welfare I sacrificed my own welfare and it had a very damaging affect on my life, my career, my future prospects. I lost time. I was old when I came home. So really understand the suffering that this causes mothers who after take care of children and have to be in a good mental state of mind to do that.
ALLRED: It is interesting that in the United States, the non- custodial parent, who is usually the father, is not restricted in any way from moving wherever he wants. In fact, he doesn't even have a duty to visit the child. And yet when it comes to custodial parent, the mother, she's the one that often has restrictions placed on her. I'm glad we have done away with this kind of thing in California.
WHITFIELD: All right. Even in Alberta, Canada they have opinions and thoughts on this, on U.S. law here, and that's where Paul is right now. Let's go to him.
CALLER: Yes. I just think it's real unreasonable distance to have a father go visit a child that he must love. Just because the mother is the primary care giver that doesn't mean the father hasn't tried to get her. The mother always gets primary care, about 85 percent of the time when they are young.
Myself in Alberta, I have been fighting for my little girl and because she was young, the mother got her because she was going to be able to breast feed and all that. I have been fighting for two years now trying to get visitation. If she is moving to an unsafe region to begin with, where there is a lot of anti-American thoughts to begin with, and believe it or not, that little girl is American. They are going to know that.
ALLRED: And the mother is an Israeli citizen. It may be that the child is in addition an Israeli citizen. But without even getting into issues of citizenship, the issue is who decides? We have a very mobile society these days. People are moving around. Sometimes parents after divorce move to be back with her family in order to get more support from her extended family. Sometimes they move for educational reasons, career opportunities, lots of reasons people move.
As the attorney for the mother pointed out earlier, alternative visitation arrangements can be made. Maybe he can have longer vacations with the child.
WHITFIELD: All right, Gloria, real quick, we are running out of time on this topic, real real quick we want to get Jenelle's (ph) comment in.
JENELL: In the interest of the child, I think we need to trust our system, our judicial system is the best we have got and a mediator clearly needs to be appointed here and our judge system is the best we have.
WOODRUFF: All right. We'll see what is going to happen. Because February 14 a final determination will be made in this case. We are out of time right now. So our thanks to Judge Morphonios and Gloria Allred for joining us. Thanks also to our studio audience and at home for participating in all of this. Thank you very much.
Hope we were able to answer all questions and get all of your comments on. Of course we were not because we have run out of time but I know this is a very hot contentious conversation here. I am Fredricka Whitfield. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 o'clock Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE.
Here's Judy Woodruff with a preview of "INSIDE POLITICS" in Washington.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
