I wanted to have a baby for years before I had Christopher. I made a lot of life changes to prepare for him. I made huge diet changes and took herbs and herbal teas and such. Bevin was up for co-parenting with me and all was ideal for a time. We were in love, we were happy, we were excited about Colorado. We agreed I'd be a stay-at-home Mom for 5 years and that started off well, even though it did backfire. We co-parented as a couple for 2.5 years and we continued to co-parent reasonably well after splitting up for another year. I never had then, nor do I have now an intention to remove Bevin from Christopher's life.
Unfortunately, Bevin went on the attack. He wasn't satisfied with his income in Denver and accepted an out-of-state job. I begged him to do otherwise, but he made that choice. He then filed for full custody to take Christopher out of Colorado and away from me.
Bevin is a psychological parent. He has not properly asserted the underlying facts for the Court to recognize him as such, but, in my mind, he clearly passes any psychological parent test in any jurisdiction. I am on the defensive. And my primary claim is that when there is a fit, involved biological parent and a fit, involved psychological parent, that the biological parent's rights should take precedence. This takes no rights from non-biological/psychological parents; it is an assertion about priority of rights and it only makes sense.
But it's gotten much uglier than that. Bevin's claims against me; his mud-slinging... The CFI report... My claims against Bevin... And there is the fact that Tim, Christopher's other biological parent, is getting forgotten. Bevin and I promised Tim that he would be involved in Christopher's life; that we would be honest with Christopher; that Tim would have time with Christopher. It is all an ugly nightmare, but, in the end, the basic argument is whether or not, with no endangerment, do Bevin and I stand on equal footing before the Court?
And the BIG picture is that Christopher is going to mostly lose either Bevin or me. Bevin's choice to relocate put that into action and it is going to hurt Christopher no matter which way it goes. I believe that Christopher is too young to be ripped away from his mother and I also firmly believe that remaining in Colorado with the friends and family support he has known here since birth is what will be best for him. Bevin seems to believe that having to start over in a new place with no support and with little contact with his mother is best for Christopher.
I wanted to avoid all of this. I begged Bevin to think of Christopher and drop the motion; to leave Christopher with me and that he could come to see him every single weekend if he could. I also begged Bevin to just stay in Denver. Bevin refused and we are where we are and it is a painful place; a place I never imagined.
I have heard, even from Bevin, that it appears that my defense against him looks like I am trying to harm LGBT parental rights. I see that as FAR from the truth. I understand how important the concepts of psychological parent is to LGBT parental rights. In fact, I support the concept of psychological parent. When a child grows up with someone and forms a solid bond with them, that is a sacred thing. However, I'm not the one trampling that sacred bond. Bevin's actions have made it so that one of us must have a limited relationship with Christopher due, if nothing else, to physical distance. All I am arguing is that, if that must happen, that it should be Bevin because 1) he chose to cause the situation and 2) his rights as a psychological parent should not take precedence over my rights as a biological parent--as the only natural, bio and legal parent.
Why the Court cannot see this is unclear to me. I'm not blind; I know Bevin has spun a web of scary lies before the Court. But with all of Bevin's known lies and proven bad acts, how can the Court continue to believe him? How can the Court rip a child away from his mother with nothing more than conjecture and perjured testimony?
No comments:
Post a Comment