Legal: Reversing The "Bond" Law in Washington State

I have had some time to consider dependencies, custody matters (which typically affect two parents), and parental rights and children's rights laws.

I think the law regarding termination of parental rights because of "bond" issues should be reversed and overturned. It discriminates against fathers particularly, working mothers or disabled persons, those falsely accused of crime who can't get their kids back when exonnerated, and military families--all the above, indirectly if not directly.

Explanation as follows:

1. I have worked as a professional nanny for a number of years. I have witnessed, firsthand, what fosters a bond and what may interupt one, temporarily. I have personally witnessed the transfer of a bond from the mother to the primary caregiver, which happened to be me, on two different occasions. It happened with a 10 month old that I cared for, after about 6 months, it was very noticeable. When I left for a vacation and came back, it was clear. I also experienced a sense of loss when my time with her was over and I actually grieved for her. Then, I was a nanny for a 7 and 3 year old. It wasn't that I preferred the 3 year old to the 7 year old, but that I spent more TIME with the 3 year old, who wasn't yet in school or preschool. After almost one full year, when the mother came home from work, the 3 year old would scream and burst into tears, saying, "Cameo, don't leave! don't leave me!" and there was no easy way to separate from her for even a night. It began to happen every single night when the mother came home which seemed to cause some concern in the mother and with me also. I felt uncomfortable, because I wanted to give my best, but felt bad that the child preferred me and voiced this preference. After about a month of this, the mother decided she was quitting her job to stay home with her girls herself.

I visited the girls after I was released, and at first the 3 year old would still cry and panic when I left but then she went easily to her mother. It was still probably hard on both of us.

This transfer of bond was NATURAL because I am a good caregiver and I spent the most TIME with the children. I worked 10 hours a day. However, it would be ludicrous to suggest the nanny had a right to take the child from the mother, the rightful parent, because of a bond that, for whatever reason, was transfered temporarily.

The mother's right is to have her own children, and if the bond is transfered because she WORKS, or because she TRAVELS, or because she is in the MILITARY on service, this is not grounds for termination of parental rights.

Any argument that a child in state custody has less of a right to be with the rightful parent, falls flat. If the parent is competent and not a danger to the child or if the parent is falsely accused and tried under pretenses, there are no grounds for termination of parental rights because of the transfer of a bond.

2. The nanny does not have a greater right to the child, than the parent. Statistically and according to child development research, the best care for a child is with a primary caregiver, one-on-one. It is a fact that children in daycare do not thrive as well as children who either have a stay-at-home parent or a nanny. It's not to make those who have children in daycare feel guilty, but if we are concerned with the truth, and must face it, this is what it is.

3. Similarly, he right of the mother to her child is no different from the right of the father to his child. No FATHER should be discriminated against and the mother favored, simply because, for some reason, the father did not have the opportunity to match the same number of hours that the mother had with the children. The lack of father's rights and paternal consideration is shocking, in a modern society where women are encouraged to break the glass ceiling, a father who may be the better provider has problems of his own, in fighting for the right to have custody of his children. He is fighting a different kind of uphill battle, where society favors the mother over the father, without taking into consideration that the father has the same right to foster and continue a bond as the mother and that his possible sacrifice of time spent with the children was because someone had to bring home the bacon or had other duties. No mother should be discriminated against for working, with regard to her right to her children, just as no father should be discrimated against for working. Additionally, there are plenty of custody battles involving parents who never married, where the mother is favored automatically because it is assumed she is the more nurturing of the two. This is a stereotype which has no place in a fair and equal legal custody case.

4. Damages to parents and children because of the Washington State "bonding" law:

One major example of miscarriage of justice, would be the case of the parents who were falsely accused as being child molesters of others' or their own children. Some of the parents who were falsely arrested, and given shoddy trials, and sent to PRISON as innocents, once exonnerated, after the trauma done to them and their children, they were UNABLE to get their OWN KIDS BACK because the state had already allowed other people to adopt the children and argued for termination of parental rights due to the lack of continued bond.

These parents COULD NOT GET THEIR KIDS BACK, when these children were their own, and no one had a RIGHT to take separate the children from the parents in the first place.

After being FALSELY accused of crime and JAILED, these same innocent parents could not get their own children BACK, when they should have had every legal RIGHT to take their children BACK. It is immoral and should be illegal to not have a

"right of return"

for extenuating circumstances which are beyond the parent's control. The state, instead of apologizing and returning the child to the rightful parents, justifies the adoption which was made and most likely, would even use the fact that they were ever "charged" with anything criminal, against the parents, to create suspicion and doubt.

5. The "bond" law in Washington sets a precedent for discrimination against working mothers, and especially fathers (who are still often primary breadwinners) because it encourages the idea that if the mother is at home or spends more time with the children and there is therefore a natural bond, that she has more of a right to time with her children than the father.

The better parent is not always the one who has spent more time with the child.
Children become "bonded" to even bad parents, because this is who they spend the most time with and they don't think they have a choice and seek security and try to adapt to their environment.

Should fathers or mothers who are away for service in the military, be discriminated against if they return and there is a divorce and the court is considering which parent the child is most "bonded" to? should anyone who serves the country and makes this kind of sacrifice be then punished by the same country they defended, because someone wants to take issue with the fact that they were "away" and that, EVEN, they may have returned with...

Oh, hell! I dunno...

Maybe a little bit of fucking PTSD.

(I don't know if I should say "Can I get a witness" or what. Because this law has got to go.)

Let's imagine another scenario. The parent flees for some reason or goes into Witness Protection or even fakes their own death. Maybe they disappear because they are kidnapped. Meanwhile, if there was no spouse or family willing to give the child back if the original parent returns, and the child is adopted out, should the right to have the child in the biological parent's custody be ignored because of these extenuating circumstances? This very rarely happens, but sometimes what appears to be "abandonment" is just not that and is a temporary move made to BETTER ensure the safety and rights of the child and parent for the long-term.