Olympic Medalist Miller, Over-reach

[CaféAuLait]

Most mothers aren't happy with joint custody....it's way to disruptive for the child to move from one place to another - unless they live close enough to each other, which now they don't, so it's not unreasonable for her to not want joint custody. And he is selfish in wanting joint custody, because he obviously has the money to fly to NY on a whim, but she's in school and flying back and forth to California would disrupt her studies, not to mention put her in the poor house.

Well, okay, does it really matter? What about the texts, from your own link, that shows he's not really interested in being part of it when she was pregnant?

I guess Ill repeat myself again, as I said before, I would like to see all of the texts in context. Why is that such a problem? To me it just does not jive he is demanding children in one breath and in the next he is demanding an abortion.

Because she lives in New York, and he is the one that wants to see the child.

Again, why would he need to fly her and not just fly and pick up his child?

I didn't say he was breastfeeding, I said "if he was- would you be in favor of him being pulled away from his mother".....you didn't answer, but from your answers it seems like you would.

And, you're reading an old article, because he wasn't able to get him back, and no, he wasn't able to take him to Russia, either. And you seem perfectly happy that the baby would have been separated from his biological mother for that long? No loving father would do that to a child he truly loves.

Again, he had custody, and I was addressing your assertion that his seeing his child would be detrimental to the child. I said it only would be if the child were breastfeeding. Something you missed apparently. And he was granted the right to take his child to the Olympics.

Skier Bode Miller can bring son to Winter Olympics after striking short-term parenting agreement with former Marine lover in NY court* - NY Daily News

That's is such an inane suggestion. When you are in the throes of a sexual orgasm, you are not going to stop and consider whether or not you might be impregnating someone, or if the woman, getting pregnant, and start planning for the possibility that the other one may want to keep the child away from you! In a perfect world everyone would do everything right, but we don't live in a perfect world, shit happens.

It’s not an inane question. This is why there are unwanted children. Use protection, condoms, pills, etc. BEFORE that orgasm happens. Not that hard. She knew he wanted children. She could take precautions and or he could.

Yeah, they are both responsible. But, they are not together and the courts have to decide what is in the best interest of the child.

And studies show that a child without a father in their lives are living at a detriment. I've already provided the links.

You seem to have a dislike for McKenna and keep making statements about what she said or didn't say.....the fact that she has "texts" from Miller claiming he doesn't want to be part of it should be sufficient for a judge to figure out that maybe his "joint custody" claim is just to keep from paying child support.

I have no like or dislike or McKenna or Miller. You have alleged he does not want to be a parent he just does not want to pay child support, or a child would be worse off if his father were to raise him because ‘women are better’ for children.

Yes, and there is no law that says that a pregnant woman cannot move from where she lives, especially if the dude that got her pregnant has gotten himself married to someone else.

And, it's too late to be contemplating what they should have thought of before they conceived the child, that horse is already out of the barn....you need to deal with what is...and what is, is that the baby needs to be with his mother and that maybe all the "sperm chucker" deserves is visitation rights.

And there you have it, your views of this man are obviously that where you see him as nothing more than a sperm chucker. Instead of a person who seems to care for his child. Who cares if he married after dating this woman a few times who decided she no longer wanted a relationship? Does that matter? Nope, not at all.

 

[CaféAuLait]

That's true, there have been cases where the father is a better parent...I'm saying in "most" cases....the children go to the mother. But I am saying, that a baby belongs with its mother.

A baby does not "belong" with its mother, he or she belongs with its parents, mother and father. Men are just as capable as women. Societal norms are why women are given custody over men, not because they are the better parent or person. It’s a shame that a man can step up and is still regarded as nothing more than a sperm chucker. He does nothing and he is a deadbeat, god help him if he does want a part in his children life because then he will be accused of all kinds of crap.

And you think that Bode is going to be taking care of the baby 24/7? The fact is they live 2000 miles apart...you need to use common sense, too.

As I said above, that argument was ludicrous. It might help to read what I wrote.

You haven't even considered the fact that McKenna could very well fall in love and marry someone that would be an excellent father to Samuel. She is beautiful, young and smart, any man should be proud to go with her.

Samuel does not need a father he has one who is willing and able, yet you want to strip him of that right and accuse him of trying to get out of paying support because he asserts his parental rights and want to see his child and in fact when he filed the paper work he also filed to PAY child support as well.

You are jumping to conclusions that she ran away to keep him from the child. The fact is that we don't know the whole story, but the parts that I am privy to, I'm rooting for McKenna. She was strong and had her child even if the father didn't stand by her, she deserves to keep him. If wants to be part of his life now, then the onus is on him to make that happen.

I never said she ran away from him to keep the child. Ever.

Yes it is, if it is going to be disruptive to the child. The child is always the most important thing. And, you keep going back to what they should have "thought" - it's a tad late for that.

The most important thing is he have a father in his life as well as his mother.

Yes, you supplied the article, but it doesn't seem to register with you....the guy is a sperm chucker...and you're making him out to be oh so wonderful "Mr Dad of the year".

I have never made him out to be father of the year. I have suggested he be allowed to father his child, just as much as his mother be allowed to mother her child. It seems as if you want men to have no right at all to their children. Only to see them once a month and or every other summer or holiday. That is not what fathering is all about.

Are you unable to comprehend? I already told you, that is what the article said...but it's going to be pretty hard for you to prove that she dumped him, when he is the one that found himself another girlfriend quite quick and married her even before McKenna gave birth to their baby.

LOL I suppose I could ask the same of you. So someone can’t find a girlfriend after dating a woman a few times and marry 5 months later? That argument is weak to say the least.
As McKenna said. 'it was a fling" and she did not want to continue in the relationship. Lets say he dumped McKenna, it matters not, this does not affect his RIGHT To be in his child's life.

 

[CaféAuLait]

I don't know if you are a mother, because most mothers will agree that when it comes to a baby, the mother is most definitely better for the baby. You keep saying that "it's not about the parents, but what is best for the child", but if the child is still a baby, it is in the baby's best interest to stay with its mother. Granted once the baby is older, it is in its best interest to have the nurture and caring from both parents, but as a baby, he belongs with his mother. Even nature knows that the mother's presence is critical in the baby's first year.

And why this case is so bizarre is because the father was not even married to the mother and quickly found himself another mate. Even in the animal kingdom, you always see the babies with the mothers, not the fathers. If McKenna had been nursing this baby, would you still be of the opinion that the judge should have taken the child from the mother to give to the father, because in your mind the father is just as important?

The survival of all animals who breastfeed their young has, throughout their long history, depended on Nature's way of keeping the mother and her young together, both for nourishment and protection. Some animals, such as lambs can follow their mothers from birth, but "higher" animals such as chimpanzees, and especially human beings, are too immature when they are born to follow their mothers in this way, and instead they are normally carried about by their mothers, at first in her arms, and later on mother's back.
For this to happen, Nature has provided a process of "bonding", so that normally a mother becomes attached to her particular baby, making her want to stay near him or her and respond to any crying or other signals. Successful bonding is helped by keeping mother and baby together in the early hours and days after delivery and breastfeeding. If they are separated at this time bonding may not occur normally. In many animals, and sometimes in humans, this may lead a mother to reject her baby. Nature's pattern seems to be that mothers and infants are designed to stay close to each other and in physical contact for much of the time, especially in the first year of life, while mother goes about her activities. Breastfeeding is part of Nature's pattern, to work with attachment behavior in developing a close, warm, and pleasurable mother-infant relationship. In humans, for better or for worse, these are the early days in a relationship which, in some form or other, will be lifelong. It may be that one day this baby will care for the mother or father.
Babies need their mothers and other carers to be sensitive and responsive to their signals. Through this responsive relationship, mother infant "attunement" normally develops, in which the interactions of mother and baby are like a coordinated "dance", which forms the basis for later communication and language development.

Attachment And Separation: What Everyone Should Know - The Natural Child Project





Yes, but she lives in New York, he lives in California. Since she was the one that gave birth and is now living in NY, and he is happily married to someone else in California, doesn't it appear selfish to you that he wants that baby traveling back and forth just so that he can spend time with him? Is he going to pay for the back and forth travel? Is he trying to escape paying child-support by wanting joint custody?

Of course she didn't want joint custody, but seeing how the courts were jerking her around, she may have changed her mind just to be able to be with her baby. I think the courts will be able to see the insanity with his demanding joint custody, and will end up granting him visitation rights, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he doesn't visit the baby that often, if that is all that he is given.

Of course most mothers will agree ( and yes I am a mother and for me to think that I am better than my husband if we were to separate would be nothing but an emotional decision which would be unfair to my husband and child) , but that does not negate the fact that men are changing, society is changing. Men and women's roles in children's lives are changing. Surly you are not suggesting that two men raising a child will have a disadvantage because there is not a female in the picture?

I am a mother, too, and my husband is as good a father as I am a mother, but if we had gotten divorced when our son was a "baby" - he wouldn't even thought of taking him away from me.

And, I have no qualms about a man raising a child, they can be excellent parents and I admire a man that wants to be part of a child's life and doesn't abandon them if they end up divorced. This case is bizarre. He admitted that she wasn't the woman for him, but had unprotected sex with her anyway, then he marries another woman and expects the x-girlfriend to just hang around so he can be with the child. That seems a tad selfish and totally against women's rights. She moved before the child was born....the child is now a resident of New York....and now he wants the child inconvenienced throughout his life, just so he can be part of his life. I say, let him be the one that visits him as often as he wants to, but don't put the child through such an ordeal for selfish reasons.

Just because she was not the woman for him and she found he was not the man for her does not mean the case is bizarre IMO. I can turn that argument around you make above:

She KNEW he was not the man for her when she realized he wanted 4 children but she had unprotected sex with a man who wanted children anyway, even when she did not want to raise a family with him. She expects him to forget ( or have a very limited relationship) the child SHE KNEW he wanted and decides to move 3000 miles away. One can argue that is selfish. She knew he wanted the baby and wanted her child inconvenienced by moving and.... See how that works?

Instead of assigning reasons for each persons behavior why not allow each parent their rights as a parent?

One can believe I am for Bode Miller, I'm not for Miller I am for a child having both parents, especially when one wants to be in his life. We have too many deadbeats who don't.

 

[Mertex]

I guess Ill repeat myself again, as I said before, I would like to see all of the texts in context. Why is that such a problem? To me it just does not jive he is demanding children in one breath and in the next he is demanding an abortion.

Does it really matter? You are not going to believe it even if you see the texts, because you are stuck now defending a loser and you don't want to lose face. You believe everything he says, but question what she says? Wonder why that is?


McKenna, 27, showed texts from Miller, 35, indicating he didn’t want her to keep the child. Miller purportedly tells her in one text, “I’m not going to do this with u Sara. U made this choice against my wish and gave me no say. U are going to do this on your own.” McKenna had the baby, Samuel Bode Miller McKenna Jr., on Feb. 23 in New York — three months after Miller filed court papers in California.

Read more: Judge slams ex of skier Bode Miller for moving to New York while pregnant - NY Daily News
Judge slams ex of skier Bode Miller for moving to New York while pregnant - NY Daily News

Again, why would he need to fly her and not just fly and pick up his child?

I didn't say he needed to fly her, but obviously he is not going to volunteer to fly the child to her when it is time for her to have him in a joint custody.

You are assuming a lot of things....you think that he is going to fly and pick up the baby, and then fly and take him back, but you don't know that.

Again, he had custody, and I was addressing your assertion that his seeing his child would be detrimental to the child. I said it only would be if the child were breastfeeding. Something you missed apparently. And he was granted the right to take his child to the Olympics.

Skier Bode Miller can bring son to Winter Olympics after striking short-term parenting agreement with former Marine lover in NY court* - NY Daily News

Yes he was granted the right to take him, but they couldn't get a passport for him due to the discrepancy in the names. All the articles that claim that he was to take him, are written before the Olympics started.....when you find one that shows that they did take him then you can say that. They said it on TV, when they were talking about him, that he wasn't able to bring the baby to Russia because they couldn't get a passport in time, and when they showed his wife, she was alone.

It’s not an inane question. This is why there are unwanted children. Use protection, condoms, pills, etc. BEFORE that orgasm happens. Not that hard. She knew he wanted children. She could take precautions and or he could.

It is inane, because you are talking about something that has already happened. They can't go back to before the baby was conceived and use protection....it's in the past, you have to deal with what is "now" - not with what could've been. And yes, she knew he wanted children, but did she know they weren't going to stay together? And he probably knew that she didn't want all the children he wanted. So, that's a wash.

And studies show that a child without a father in their lives are living at a detriment. I've already provided the links.

And who is saying that Bode shouldn't be in his son's life? He doesn't need joint custody to be in his life, if he really wants to be in his life.

I have no like or dislike or McKenna or Miller. You have alleged he does not want to be a parent he just does not want to pay child support, or a child would be worse off if his father were to raise him because ‘women are better’ for children.

You also alleged that she didn't want him to be in her son's life. She can't force him to be involved, and the fact that she moved to NY to continue her studies should not be held against her, he had already married someone else, why should she be tied down to where he lives just because he wants to be near the child? That's insane.

And there you have it, your views of this man are obviously that where you see him as nothing more than a sperm chucker. Instead of a person who seems to care for his child. Who cares if he married after dating this woman a few times who decided she no longer wanted a relationship? Does that matter? Nope, not at all.

Well you seem to be blinded by the Gold in his Olympic medals that he has won, but as a responsible father he is not. Having 3 women pregnant at the same time hardly makes a model for fatherhood. And you keep alleging that "she" no longer wanted a relationship, but you don't know that....she tried to get him involved when she was pregnant and he refused...the texts prove it, but, oh, you don't believe the tweets because obviously you do have a dislike for McKenna and are mesmerized by Bode, who is obviously a player.

 

[BDBoop]

And the child couldn't go see dad fail at the Olympics, because dad dicked around with his name and they couldn't get a passport in time.

 

[Mertex]

That's true, there have been cases where the father is a better parent...I'm saying in "most" cases....the children go to the mother. But I am saying, that a baby belongs with its mother.

A baby does not "belong" with its mother, he or she belongs with its parents, mother and father. Men are just as capable as women. Societal norms are why women are given custody over men, not because they are the better parent or person. It’s a shame that a man can step up and is still regarded as nothing more than a sperm chucker. He does nothing and he is a deadbeat, god help him if he does want a part in his children life because then he will be accused of all kinds of crap.

You are out in the twilight zone. They are not together, so the baby can't be with "his" parents. Are you so devoid of reason? So, you think McKenna should hand over the baby to the father just because he is a gold medalist? He didn't want anything to do with him before, but now he does, so she can forget about her rights?

As I said above, that argument was ludicrous. It might help to read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote, and you are saying that because she is going to take the baby to day care, the baby is better off with another woman, Bode's wife? I would trust my baby more with daycare than with the jealous wife of the baby's father.
Obviously you haven't read the articles that say Morgan Beck was harassing McKenna.

Samuel does not need a father he has one who is willing and able, yet you want to strip him of that right and accuse him of trying to get out of paying support because he asserts his parental rights and want to see his child and in fact when he filed the paper work he also filed to PAY child support as well.

You have reading comprehension problems. I have not said that he needs to be stripped of his rights. If you're going to make up crap, then I won't be bother discussing this with you. Quit saying shit that I haven't said. He deserves to be involved in his child's life, but that doesn't mean he should get joint custody. There, what part of that did you not understand?

I never said she ran away from him to keep the child. Ever.

You've been saying all along that she was the one that broke the relationship, all based on comments that you don't know if they are true. If she was still texting him when she was pregnant, obviously she wasn't breaking up communication with him.

The most important thing is he have a father in his life as well as his mother.

Again, I have to keep repeating myself.....it doesn't mean that he has to have joint custody.

I have never made him out to be father of the year. I have suggested he be allowed to father his child, just as much as his mother be allowed to mother her child. It seems as if you want men to have no right at all to their children. Only to see them once a month and or every other summer or holiday. That is not what fathering is all about.

Now you've gone out in left field. Nowhere have I said that the men have no right at all to their children. This guy has children by different women, he is not your typical father, who marries the mother of his children. He just chucks his sperm, leaves them to deal with their pregnancy alone, and then demands that they give him joint custody to the children.
You are as loony as he is, if you think that is right.

LOL I suppose I could ask the same of you. So someone can’t find a girlfriend after dating a woman a few times and marry 5 months later? That argument is weak to say the least.
As McKenna said. 'it was a fling" and she did not want to continue in the relationship. Lets say he dumped McKenna, it matters not, this does not affect his RIGHT To be in his child's life.

Yeah, right, he has a 4 year old daughter by another woman, a son by McKenna and is also fighting another custody battle with another woman who is about to/or had his child....and you don't get the sense that he is a player? Yes, he has a right to be in his child's life, but not at McKenna's expense, and certainly not joint custody.

 

[CaféAuLait]

As I said I just would like to see all of the texts, I just think it is strange to demand children and then demand abortion. No harm no foul. As I said it sounds strange.

I didn't say he needed to fly her, but obviously he is not going to volunteer to fly the child to her when it is time for her to have him in a joint custody.

You are assuming a lot of things....you think that he is going to fly and pick up the baby, and then fly and take him back, but you don't know that.

Yes you did say such, here is your post:

Like I said, there are conflicting stories....but I still believe McKenna should have full custody, unless he is willing to fly her back and forth, but, we won't find out till the end of March.

(emphasis added)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8608017-post67.html

I was responding to, and now you accuse me of "assuming" because I replied to you and I said “IF he flies to pick up his son, he would not have to fly her”.

Yes he was granted the right to take him, but they couldn't get a passport for him due to the discrepancy in the names. All the articles that claim that he was to take him, are written before the Olympics started.....when you find one that shows that they did take him then you can say that. They said it on TV, when they were talking about him, that he wasn't able to bring the baby to Russia because they couldn't get a passport in time, and when they showed his wife, she was alone.

Again, you missed why I said such. It was to demonstrate she was not breastfeeding. HE had previous custody of his son, as I said before which means she was not actively breastfeeding.

It is inane, because you are talking about something that has already happened. They can't go back to before the baby was conceived and use protection....it's in the past, you have to deal with what is "now" - not with what could've been. And yes, she knew he wanted children, but did she know they weren't going to stay together? And he probably knew that she didn't want all the children he wanted. So, that's a wash.

This is really getting silly. My point at the time which has become so convoluted was if they had both been thinking logically this would not be an issue and there would be no hardship on a baby who very well could have ended up an unwanted child because the two of them did not think about the result of their actions. Meaning they were both not thinking about a possible child, but themselves. A problem which is endemic in today’s society.

And who is saying that Bode shouldn't be in his son's life? He doesn't need joint custody to be in his life, if he really wants to be in his life

Perhaps you don’t understand the tenants of joint custody, it allows a father to make decisions in a child’s life as well as see his child more than just a few days out of the year. There is joint custody and joint physical custody. If Miller asks for both or one he should br granted either if it is his desire to raise his son along with his ex girlfriend. It was you that suggested his ex could fall in love and remarry ‘finding a great father' for Miller’s son.

You also alleged that she didn't want him to be in her son's life. She can't force him to be involved, and the fact that she moved to NY to continue her studies should not be held against her, he had already married someone else, why should she be tied down to where he lives just because he wants to be near the child? That's insane.

No, I did not. In fact I said the EXACT opposite. That she should be allowed to move and I disagreed with the judge who ruled she moved for ulterior reasons. I never said she should have to stay there, I have said that if he wishes to enjoy his son while in two separate states then he should be given that right.

Well you seem to be blinded by the Gold in his Olympic medals that he has won, but as a responsible father he is not. Having 3 women pregnant at the same time hardly makes a model for fatherhood. And you keep alleging that "she" no longer wanted a relationship, but you don't know that....she tried to get him involved when she was pregnant and he refused...the texts prove it, but, oh, you don't believe the tweets because obviously you do have a dislike for McKenna and are mesmerized by Bode, who is obviously a player.

Blided by Olympic gold medals? That all you got, ad hominem argument there? It has nothing to with Olympic gold. You don’t know me. I have been a champion of father’s rights for some time. In fact I was heavily involved in the Terry Achane case. Look it up if you want to see how men are treated. It’s despicable and sanctioned by some state laws.

I provided quotes where McKenna said she did not want to be in a relationship with Miller and ended the relationship because he wanted 4 children, you keep arguing it's bizarre he had unprotected sex with her, I think its bizarre she had unprotected sex with him given she did not want a family with him. He did not have three women pregnant at the same time. You need to read, his daughter was 4. Having two women pregnant is no laughing matter and as I have said how many times in this thread, he needs to learn how to use protection.

 

[CaféAuLait]

You are out in the twilight zone. They are not together, so the baby can't be with "his" parents. Are you so devoid of reason? So, you think McKenna should hand over the baby to the father just because he is a gold medalist? He didn't want anything to do with him before, but now he does, so she can forget about her rights.

This is why the court exists; his son CAN be with both parents. It’s called shared custody, something you are against. It happens all the time in the states. I never said the child should be taken from McKenna. Again you attack without reason and try and say its because of gold medals. A shame you can’t debate without the rhetoric.

I did read what you wrote, and you are saying that because she is going to take the baby to day care, the baby is better off with another woman, Bode's wife? I would trust my baby more with daycare than with the jealous wife of the baby's father.

Obviously you haven't read the articles that say Morgan Beck was harassing McKenna.

No, I did not say that. You need to go back and read what I said. My reply to you arguing that the majority of people MUST agree the baby is better off with the mother. Wait here you go:

YOU said “Majority of the people must agree that the mother (unless she is unfit) are better off with the mother, since that is the way majority of divorce cases in America end up”

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8608394-post73.html

My Reply to you:

For you to argue in the manner that you have then the McKenna should not be considered a good option for a parent because the baby spends all of his time in daycare as she works and goes to school. Both arguments are ludicrous. They both deserve time with their child, through shared custody.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8608394-post73.html

A shame you can’t see that I clearly said that or BOTH arguments was LUDICROUS!.

Again, The major reason women were always awarded custody is because the male was considered the breadwinner and the females stayed at home and raised their children while the men were expected to provide. As I stated BEFORE that is changing, roles are changing and this is not a reason not to grant custody to someone.

You have reading comprehension problems. I have not said that he needs to be stripped of his rights. If you're going to make up crap, then I won't be bother discussing this with you. Quit saying shit that I haven't said. He deserves to be involved in his child's life, but that doesn't mean he should get joint custody. There, what part of that did you not understand?

Im not making ‘up crap” You said:

You haven't even considered the fact that McKenna could very well fall in love and marry someone that would be an excellent father to Samuel. She is beautiful, young and smart, any man should be proud to go with her.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8608562-post79.html

Thusly implying Miller would not the child’s father. A shame you can’t recall what you said or admit it.

Additionally you stated in a few posts number 69 being one that Miller was basically filling for shared custody to avoid paying child support and you implied this was his selfishness. You can't believe he loves his son and wants to be with him. It seems there are only horrible things up Millers sleeve. Amazing. A man can try to do the correct thing and still be criticized and accused of wrong doing.

You've been saying all along that she was the one that broke the relationship, all based on comments that you don't know if they are true. If she was still texting him when she was pregnant, obviously she wasn't breaking up communication with him.

Wow, you really have not followed this conversation very well. Again, the OP article and you said Miller dumped her. There are quotes in the paper I supplied which said she did not want to continue the relationship. I have not used that as an argument that she should or should not retain custody, ever.

Now you've gone out in left field. Nowhere have I said that the men have no right at all to their children. This guy has children by different women, he is not your typical father, who marries the mother of his children. He just chucks his sperm, leaves them to deal with their pregnancy alone, and then demands that they give him joint custody to the children.You are as loony as he is, if you think that is right.

You implied McKenna may remarry and find a father for Miller's son. He has two children, period, no more on the way. You don’t know why the first relationship ended; you have no clue about his relationship with his daughter. Maybe SHE did not want to marry. Seems like McKenna did not want to marry either. Is he supposed to force women to marry him?

Yeah, right, he has a 4 year old daughter by another woman, a son by McKenna and is also fighting another custody battle with another woman who is about to/or had his child....and you don't get the sense that he is a player? Yes, he has a right to be in his child's life, but not at McKenna's expense, and certainly not joint custody.

He has a four year old daughter by Chanel Johnson and is fighting this custody battle and for visitation of his daughter and McKenna. Not sure where you are getting a third suit from. Care to elucidate?


Bode Miller Gets a Gold Medal ... In Knocking Chicks Up | TMZ.com