Olympic Medalist Miller, Over-reach

[hazlnut]

He's an incredible skier!!

World class.

Watching him Ski (80 miles per hour/ clears 100 yards of air off a lip) makes me smirk at snowboarders.

 

[CaféAuLait]

I haven't seen this other link you are talking about but this quote says volumes about the guy in question.



So he wasn't in the slightest bit interested in his own son until his latest partner wasn't able to have a child of her own. Now suddenly he switches from deadbeat dad to devoted dad?

He strikes he as the selfish sort who won't be around to see his son graduate high school let alone college. But that is just my opinion of him. There are plenty of divorced dads who are not deadbeats and who do play an active role in the lives of their children but this guy isn't one of them.

That's HER claim. She also claims that SHE left him over the fact he wanted children. A bit strange if you ask me. I'm unsure how you can argue he wasn't the slightest bit interested in his child given miller filed for paternal rights before his son was even born.

You say, "he suddenly wants to be a part of the baby's life" when in fact he petitioned for a paternity suit naming him as father to gain parental rights BEFORE his son was born. IN fact he begged her to return to California before his son was born. When she refused he filed suit to share custody after the baby's birth. She said NO, he then argued that he should not have custody because he believed that she moved to gain better rights since NY generally supports mothers over fathers and he won that suit. He was given Custody of his son shortly after his birth. Then that ruling was overturned when his son was 9 months old and his mother gained custody. They have now decided on joint custody for the time being.

As far as your other claim he was not interested in his child until his wife miscarried, he filed the paternity petition in 2012 BEFORE his new wife miscarried. The timeline in the op is off.

You apparently didn't read the article that you claim to have read!

Beck and Miller married in October 2012 and announced they were expecting a child, but Beck had a miscarriage in January.
Days after the devastating news, Miller filed court documents to gain joint custody of his son with McKenna.


Read more: Olympic skier Bode Miller begins latest round of bitter custody battle | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Then there is this part that you also missed!

At a hearing earlier this year, the lawyer representing McKenna said it is too late for Miller to try to seek joint custody.
'If you look at the texts [messages] from Bode Miller to my client, he wanted nothing to do with the baby,' attorney Kenneth Eiges said.


Read more: Olympic skier Bode Miller begins latest round of bitter custody battle | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I did read it, I also supplied a link which show that the paternity suits was revealed by the media the same Saturday Miller's wife lost their child. Its really pushing it to believe his wife lost their child Saturday morning and Miller ran to a lawyer that same Saturday and filed paternity paper work in a courthouse closed on a Saturday, all on the SAME Saturday, his wife lost their child.

“Pretty hard morning. We lost the baby,” Miller’s wife, professional volleyball player Morgan Beck, typed Saturday night, mere hours after reports said her husband has filed paternity lawsuits against two other women.

Read more: Bode Miller and wife lose baby as he enters custody battle with other women - NY Daily News



Her attorney claims there are texts, SHE also stated SHE left Miller because he wanted too many children. Again, it does not pass the smell test. I'm all for proof, lets see ALL the texts in context. Her claims do not match up with other statements she has made, such as Miller wanted children and that is why she ended the relationship.

McKenna revealed the couple had sex only twice - and that Miller failed to use protection as he assumed she was ready to get pregnant, she said.


After they met in California, they went their separate ways, and she said he was reluctant to continue a relationship because he wanted a large family, and she did not.

Olympic skier Bode Miller begins latest round of bitter custody battle | Mail Online

 

[CaféAuLait]

He's an incredible skier!!

World class.

Watching him Ski (80 miles per hour/ clears 100 yards of air off a lip) makes me smirk at snowboarders.

I watch these men and women down hill skiers and cringe at how fast they take those curves and when the wipe out I can't see how they are not hurt worse. I can't even imagine how these men and women have the strength to stay on course, their legs and abs must be in excellent condition. Its amazing to watch all of these athletes.

 

[CaféAuLait]

And here is another report:


Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant

Nobody can ever accuse Bode Miller of lacking fertility.

According to a report from TMZ, the Olympic skier and gold medal winner has filed two paternity suits to establish custody with two separate women.

One of the suits involves a woman named Sara McKenna, who is currently pregnant and due in February. Miller is seeking joint legal and physical custody of the soon-to-be-born boy.

The other suit involves a woman named Chanel Johnson, who has a 4-year-old daughter. Miller claims to be the father and is hoping to establish joint and physical custody, as well as child support payments.

But here’s the big thing: Miller married his wife (pictured), volleyball player Morgan Beck (now Miller), in October, and she is currently pregnant and due in August. Yeah, there’s a lot going on here.

Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant | Larry Brown Sports

 

[Mertex]

And? She named HIS son without his permission. Once the child is born it is no longer only the mothers choice. It's a life and therefore he also gets a say and was obviously trying for that input far before his son was born.

His name (Bode Miller) is not even on the birth certificate, so no, he doesn't get to dictate what the child's name is.

So, you believe that a woman, scorned by the father of her unborn child, who marries another before the child is even born, should still be given consideration on what the name of the child should be? That is utterly ridiculous.

And, even if the courts agreed with you, the name of the child is what is on the birth certificate, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, and that is what the child should be referenced as...to not do so is confusing to the child.

She was not scorned, she left him. She stated SHE ended the relationship ( because, gasp, HE wanted too many children!!!) and they only had sex 2, count em, 2 times. Her claims, not his.

Do you have a link indicating that she left him, because according to the articles I've read, he gave her an ultimatum, have more children and she refused. He also said he realized that she was not the woman for him. She got pregnant in June, and he married Beck in Oct....if she was the one leaving, he sure got over the break-up fast.

As for how many times they had sex, has nothing to do with anything...one time can render you pregnant.

It's utterly ridiculous to me that you base what his rights are with his child because you think he cheated on or left this chick. Miller petitioned the court to have his deceased brothers name added as his sons middle name. I agree the baby might become confused. However, no more than those parents who call there child by their real name and a nick name.

Where did I say that he should be denied his rights because he cheated or left her. Those are just facts, and as the father, yes, he has certain rights.....full custody, no.
I don't deny that he has visitation rights, like most divorced fathers, but his behavior (marrying someone else before she even gives birth) doesn't strike me as one of a level-headed person. And for the judge to arbitrarily take the child from the mother and place him in custody of a father that never even met the child before that time, truly irresponsible on the part of the judge.

 

[CaféAuLait]

His name (Bode Miller) is not even on the birth certificate, so no, he doesn't get to dictate what the child's name is.

So, you believe that a woman, scorned by the father of her unborn child, who marries another before the child is even born, should still be given consideration on what the name of the child should be? That is utterly ridiculous.

And, even if the courts agreed with you, the name of the child is what is on the birth certificate, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, and that is what the child should be referenced as...to not do so is confusing to the child.

She was not scorned, she left him. She stated SHE ended the relationship ( because, gasp, HE wanted too many children!!!) and they only had sex 2, count em, 2 times. Her claims, not his.

Do you have a link indicating that she left him, because according to the articles I've read, he gave her an ultimatum, have more children and she refused. He also said he realized that she was not the woman for him. She got pregnant in June, and he married Beck in Oct....if she was the one leaving, he sure got over the break-up fast.

As for how many times they had sex, has nothing to do with anything...one time can render you pregnant.

It's utterly ridiculous to me that you base what his rights are with his child because you think he cheated on or left this chick. Miller petitioned the court to have his deceased brothers name added as his sons middle name. I agree the baby might become confused. However, no more than those parents who call there child by their real name and a nick name.

Where did I say that he should be denied his rights because he cheated or left her. Those are just facts, and as the father, yes, he has certain rights.....full custody, no.
I don't deny that he has visitation rights, like most divorced fathers, but his behavior (marrying someone else before she even gives birth) doesn't strike me as one of a level-headed person. And for the judge to arbitrarily take the child from the mother and place him in custody of a father that never even met the child before that time, truly irresponsible on the part of the judge.

Yes, I included the link several times here it is again:

McKenna revealed the couple had sex only twice - and that Miller failed to use protection as he assumed she was ready to get pregnant, she said.


After they met in California, they went their separate ways, and she said he was reluctant to continue a relationship because he wanted a large family, and she did not.

Olympic skier Bode Miller begins latest round of bitter custody battle | Mail Online

The reason why I included the quote about her stating they had sex twice is because she and her lawyer called this a fling, Miller was accused of leaving her or even 'dumping' her for his new wife and then after she lost their baby tried to take hers. It was to show that this was not the case.

You claimed in the OP:

Olympic Medalist Bode Miller, gets woman (McKenna) pregnant, dumps her, marries another woman (Beck), gets her pregnant, then Beck miscarries, and he sues McKenna for custody of the child. It gets worse.....

That is not what happened at all. McKenna left Miller because she did not want a large family and this was not some intense relationship, they had sex twice and McKenna called it a fling. Additionally, Miller filed for joint custody of his son BEFORE he lost his other child and before McKenna gave birth. It was she who filed for sole custody in NY right after the baby was born and he was fighting that. He started fighting for the rights to be a father to this child before it was born.

Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant

http://larrybrownsports.com/gossip/bode-miller-wife-paternity-pregnant/170899

As far as my statement about being utterly ridiculous, he did not file for full custody, he filed for joint custody, she filed for sole custody. The article you linked to has a lot of facts messed up as does your statement. You seem to take pleasure in the fact he is doing poorly at the Olympics and question if its karma. All because he would like joint custody of his son. That is what he filed for, joint custody. Not a thing wrong with that if he is a competent person, albeit one who needs to learn how to use condoms, as well as the women he sleeps with IMO.

 

[Mertex]

No, he filed for joint custody, a NY judge ruled his ex was wrong for leaving the state of California and sent the case to California where they gave miller custody based on the NY judges ruling, and gave full custody to Miller. A decision which was reversed.

One could argue she is being a jerk for wanting full custody as well stripping him of his rights. The custody dispute has been settled, it is joint custody for the time being, as was petitioned for. He has the child now while his ex finishes her schooling and she says she is happy with the decision! Why are you so angry about it?

Actually, she has stated that she would be fine with joint custody, so she doesn't sound like a jerk to me. And, the child is with the mother, not with Miller, as the confusion over the name prevented them from getting the child a passport so he could go to Socchi with Miller and wife. And, the joint custody is only temporary.

She first argued she would NOT be fine with joint custody and her lawyer argued such in court. My response was to the above post to point out the absurdity of saying he is a jerk for filing for joint custody.

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.

As far as the timing, he filed the suit BEFORE his wife miscarried. She lost the baby on a Saturday morning, the news reports about the paternity suits were announced as being filed the week before we announced the same morning by the media.

“Pretty hard morning. We lost the baby,” Miller’s wife, professional volleyball player Morgan Beck, typed Saturday night, mere hours after reports said her husband has filed paternity lawsuits.

Read more: Bode Miller and wife lose baby as he enters custody battle with other women - NY Daily News

The articles are giving conflicting stories, because I read that he filed after his wife miscarried, but even so, he had previously made it clear he wasn't interested in being part of the pregnancy. From your link:

McKenna, a former marine, had previously claimed that the skier had suggested she have an abortion. according to the New York Daily News.
When she first told Miller of the pregnancy, he texted her: 'U are going to do this on your own.'

On the same day Miller and Morgan Beck, a pro volleyball player, announced via Twitter that she’d miscarried the baby they were expecting in August, news broke that the downhill skier is engaged in two other custody battles.

Two other custody battles? Sounds like he is irresponsible where he places his sperm.

It was pure coincidence she lost their baby the same day the media got wind of the lawsuits he had filed days before.

Bode Miller and wife lose baby as he enters custody battle with other women - NY Daily News

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.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Actually, she has stated that she would be fine with joint custody, so she doesn't sound like a jerk to me. And, the child is with the mother, not with Miller, as the confusion over the name prevented them from getting the child a passport so he could go to Socchi with Miller and wife. And, the joint custody is only temporary.

She first argued she would NOT be fine with joint custody and her lawyer argued such in court. My response was to the above post to point out the absurdity of saying he is a jerk for filing for joint custody.

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.


The articles are giving conflicting stories, because I read that he filed after his wife miscarried, but even so, he had previously made it clear he wasn't interested in being part of the pregnancy. From your link:

McKenna, a former marine, had previously claimed that the skier had suggested she have an abortion. according to the New York Daily News.
When she first told Miller of the pregnancy, he texted her: 'U are going to do this on your own.'

On the same day Miller and Morgan Beck, a pro volleyball player, announced via Twitter that she’d miscarried the baby they were expecting in August, news broke that the downhill skier is engaged in two other custody battles.

Two other custody battles? Sounds like he is irresponsible where he places his sperm.

It was pure coincidence she lost their baby the same day the media got wind of the lawsuits he had filed days before.

Bode Miller and wife lose baby as he enters custody battle with other women - NY Daily News

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.

As far as the reports, I linked to several articles which show the filing for paternity was before he lost his child with his wife.

A question about your contention that Miller needs to fly her to CA. Why does Miller have to fly her back and forth? I doubt she is breastfeeding since Miller has had the child for months before the last court decision and Miller will have his son for the next four months to include in Russia without his mother. Why can't he fly and get his child, why does she have to come with her son for visitation? Of course its hard on a child. Perhaps she should have thought this through as well as Miller? The onus is not all on Miller here. She KNEW he wanted children and had unprotected sex with him. In fact McKenna has said such was her reason she did not want to remain in the relationship with Miller. This makes no sense IMO, according to her Miller demands children then he demands she end the pregnancy. That's why I question the context of these supposed texts.

THEY BOTH had unprotected sex, both adults KNEW could result in pregnancy. She moved, she knew BEFORE she moved Miller was seeking joint custody. She moved to better herself through education. Just because she wishes to better herself through education does not strip this child's rights to have a father, or for Miller to be a father if even only for part of the year. Nor does it strip her rights to be a mother. Sounds like both needed to think this through far before a child was conceived.

 

[Mertex]

( emphasis added)

A baby needs his father as well, just as much as a child needs their mother. Miller filed for joint custody, not sole custody.

That's true, but since they are not together, the child is better off with the mother. 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.

Wiki:
In western society in general, following separation, a child will end up with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, and a secondary caregiver, usually the father.[3]

Statistics when fathers are absent from the home:

But, if he has visitiation rights and is truly wanting to be part of his life, the child won't be without a father. Surely you are not suggesting they all live together.

This isn't about a selfish man or selfish woman its about what is best for the child. If a father wants to be present in their child's life and their are no concerns about abuse or issues, then joint custody should be awarded. Same for a woman, just because she gives birth does not give her superior rights. Its about the child, not about the selfishness of either parent.

This could be about a selfish man, since many "joint-custody" cases means neither partner has to pay child support. Maybe Miller is trying to escape having to pay child support? Since each state handles joint custody/child support different, I can't say that is what he is doing, but it could very well be.

If parents have a child equally, fifty percent of the time, often, a court may not order either parent to pay child support. However, some states may take the child support obligation, determined by the applicable child support formula and divide the obligation in half, thus arriving at an appropriate amount. In other states, child support is calculated based on how many days a child spends with a parent.
Joint Custody Child Support - Know Which Parent is Expected to Pay


Also, most states don't award joint custody when parents live in different states, because it is too disruptive to the child. That is totally selfish to expect the child to go back and forth. In the case where they are not married, and the father marries someone else, the biological mother should have superior rights, and it is about the child not the selfishness of one parent, in this case, Bode Miller.

This whole thread is based on a flawed OP written by someone who was ticked about a judges decision( a decision I agree was flawed given his reasoning) .

Please explain what part of the OP or why the OP is flawed, considering you agree that the decision by the judge was flawed.

And is angered by a woman who reports that Miller wanted her to abort the child but SHE also claims SHE ended the relationship (which was an on and off again relationship) because "Miller wanted too many children". Something does not pass the smell test.

I am angered by a woman? That sentence doesn't make any sense.

And, it doesn't matter who ended the relationship...obviously Miller wasn't so broken up about it since he was able to hook up with another woman and marry her before his x-girlfriend even gave birth, and has made claims that he knew McKenna wasn't the girl for him. That is the part doesn't pass the smell test.


Also, the fact that he is in other custody battles with other women, should cause you concern with your sense of smell......you must have missed that one.

McKenna revealed the couple had sex only twice - and that Miller failed to use protection as he assumed she was ready to get pregnant, she said.


After they met in California, they went their separate ways, and she said he was reluctant to continue a relationship because he wanted a large family, and she did not.

That could be viewed as him giving her an ultimatum. Since women are the ones that have to carry the child in pregnancy, no man should be dictating to the woman how many children she should have....it should be a mutual agreement.

And further, Bode Miller may just be trying to get out of paying child-support with his joint-custody suit....that should be taken into consideration by the judge when it comes to court.

Joint Child Custody

 

[Mertex]

You almost repeated what I said above verbatim. He filed for JOINT custody, he wanted to be a part of his sons life, a mother is no better than a father, period.

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

She is the one who tried to keep him out of his sons life and said he wont see his son because she claims he wanted her to abort the child ,YET also stated she ended the relationship because Miller wanted children. A NY judge sent the case back to CA who gave temporary custody to Miller based on the NY judges decision. Read the stats I posted above about fatherless homes. A baby should never be separated from EITHER parent. A child needs both parents.

He asked for SHARED custody, not sole, she demanded sole custody. Not him.

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.

 

[Mertex]

He's an incredible skier!!

World class.

Watching him Ski (80 miles per hour/ clears 100 yards of air off a lip) makes me smirk at snowboarders.

Yes he is, but apparently he wasn't as good as Mayer, this time. And snowboarding is a totally different sport, skiers can't do the somersaults up in the air that snowboarders do.

 

[Mertex]

And here is another report:


Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant

Nobody can ever accuse Bode Miller of lacking fertility.

According to a report from TMZ, the Olympic skier and gold medal winner has filed two paternity suits to establish custody with two separate women.

One of the suits involves a woman named Sara McKenna, who is currently pregnant and due in February. Miller is seeking joint legal and physical custody of the soon-to-be-born boy.

The other suit involves a woman named Chanel Johnson, who has a 4-year-old daughter. Miller claims to be the father and is hoping to establish joint and physical custody, as well as child support payments.

But here’s the big thing: Miller married his wife (pictured), volleyball player Morgan Beck (now Miller), in October, and she is currently pregnant and due in August. Yeah, there’s a lot going on here.

Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant | Larry Brown Sports

Oh Wow! What an incredible guy.....he gets everyone he dates pregnant......must be really proud of his sperm count.

 

[CaféAuLait]

That's true, but since they are not together, the child is better off with the mother. 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.

Wiki:
In western society in general, following separation, a child will end up with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, and a secondary caregiver, usually the father.[3]

Because you looked up the Wikipedia article about ‘single parents’ does not mean that a child is better off with a mother. It goes to the old mindset that a female must have custody and a male is not as capable. Your article goes onto explain that the reason the phenomena took place was because men were the providers and this is changing where men are staying home while the woman works.

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. She KNEW he wanted a child and consented to unprotected sex knowing this.

But, if he has visitiation rights and is truly wanting to be part of his life, the child won't be without a father. Surely you are not suggesting they all live together.

You have ignored the statics of men who choose not to be in their children’s lives and I never suggested they all live together, yet supplied detailed facts of children whose lives are adversely affected because their fathers are not a part of their lives. Why should he only get visitation rights? McKenna was fully aware he wanted a baby and consented to an act which may produce a child and Miller should have been aware she had every right to move before he participated in the same act.

This could be about a selfish man, since many "joint-custody" cases means neither partner has to pay child support. Maybe Miller is trying to escape having to pay child support? Since each state handles joint custody/child support different, I can't say that is what he is doing, but it could very well be.


If parents have a child equally, fifty percent of the time, often, a court may not order either parent to pay child support. However, some states may take the child support obligation, determined by the applicable child support formula and divide the obligation in half, thus arriving at an appropriate amount. In other states, child support is calculated based on how many days a child spends with a parent.

You are jumping to conclusions and implying he is a deadbeat father since he wants to be a part of his child’s life. That's the mind set which hurts men who want to be a part of their children's lives. Not to mention you article goes onto state this is changing in society where men are the caregivers while women work. That leap is just as bad as the judges who stated that McKenna moved to NY to get more child support.

Also, most states don't award joint custody when parents live in different states, because it is too disruptive to the child. That is totally selfish to expect the child to go back and forth. In the case where they are not married, and the father marries someone else, the biological mother should have superior rights, and it is about the child not the selfishness of one parent, in this case, Bode Miller.

So it’s selfish to want a relationship with a child which is more than a few days out of the year? Which is about all he will get with HIS son, a child McKenna KNEW he wanted before she became pregnant. Both were adults when they made their respective decisions and BOTH should have though this through.

Please explain what part of the OP or why the OP is flawed, considering you agree that the decision by the judge was flawed.

I already have. You and the article contended Miller dumped McKenna, FALSE. You contended that Miller filed for paternal rights after his wife’s miscarriage, FALSE. I believe the judge should not have said she could not leave the state while pregnant. That is what I found flawed.

I am angered by a woman? That sentence doesn't make any sense.

I was speaking about the person who wrote the article you linked to.

Also, the fact that he is in other custody battles with other women, should cause you concern with your sense of smell......you must have missed that one.

Um what do you mean I missed that one? I supplied the article which showed he filed. He filed for custodial and visitation rights to McKenna’s child and his other child. Something I already commented on. Perhaps you missed it? In fact I said he needed to take better precaution.

And, it doesn't matter who ended the relationship.

Right it does not, however you implied Miller dumped McKenna, if it does not matter, why imply such?

 

[CaféAuLait]

And here is another report:


Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant

Nobody can ever accuse Bode Miller of lacking fertility.

According to a report from TMZ, the Olympic skier and gold medal winner has filed two paternity suits to establish custody with two separate women.

One of the suits involves a woman named Sara McKenna, who is currently pregnant and due in February. Miller is seeking joint legal and physical custody of the soon-to-be-born boy.

The other suit involves a woman named Chanel Johnson, who has a 4-year-old daughter. Miller claims to be the father and is hoping to establish joint and physical custody, as well as child support payments.

But here’s the big thing: Miller married his wife (pictured), volleyball player Morgan Beck (now Miller), in October, and she is currently pregnant and due in August. Yeah, there’s a lot going on here.

Bode Miller reportedly files two paternity suits; his wife and another girl are both currently pregnant | Larry Brown Sports

Oh Wow! What an incredible guy.....he gets everyone he dates pregnant......must be really proud of his sperm count.

That article was to show that Miller filed for paternal rights BEFORE his wife lost her baby and it does.

 

[CaféAuLait]

You almost repeated what I said above verbatim. He filed for JOINT custody, he wanted to be a part of his sons life, a mother is no better than a father, period.

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

She is the one who tried to keep him out of his sons life and said he wont see his son because she claims he wanted her to abort the child ,YET also stated she ended the relationship because Miller wanted children. A NY judge sent the case back to CA who gave temporary custody to Miller based on the NY judges decision. Read the stats I posted above about fatherless homes. A baby should never be separated from EITHER parent. A child needs both parents.

He asked for SHARED custody, not sole, she demanded sole custody. Not him.

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?

 

[BDBoop]

No. It makes him a controlling dick.

To want to have a say in his sons name and joint custody of his son?

The baby's name is on the birth certificate. To call him by a different name is confusing to the child, because unless the name is legally changed to something else, it will remain Samuel.

A loving parent does not intentionally cause confusion to their child.

My daughter has a beautiful name. Tiara Serenity. When she was 11, her dad not only came into her life, but threatened to take her away from me, and change her middle name to Paula.

Seriously. He tried so hard to turn her against me. Wrote us both letters, not knowing how close she and I are. Mine was full of hate and vitriol, hers was light and life. We each read our own, and didn't even say anything, just held the letters out to each other, read them and laughed. It was like they were written by two different people.

She did have a minor "why don't you just let him have visitation" fit, but I explained to her; he passed on visitation when we went to court when she was six. The judge asked, and he said no. If he wants visitation, he needs to go to court. And since he came into her life at the exact age I was when I was molested, oh hell no shall I just hand off my baby girl. No. Just on.

 

[BDBoop]

Dear Mertex;

Posts 69 and 70 are why I love you.

xoxo

Boop

 

[Mertex]

She first argued she would NOT be fine with joint custody and her lawyer argued such in court. My response was to the above post to point out the absurdity of saying he is a jerk for filing for joint custody.

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.


The articles are giving conflicting stories, because I read that he filed after his wife miscarried, but even so, he had previously made it clear he wasn't interested in being part of the pregnancy. From your link:

McKenna, a former marine, had previously claimed that the skier had suggested she have an abortion. according to the New York Daily News.
When she first told Miller of the pregnancy, he texted her: 'U are going to do this on your own.'




Two other custody battles? Sounds like he is irresponsible where he places his sperm.

It was pure coincidence she lost their baby the same day the media got wind of the lawsuits he had filed days before.

Bode Miller and wife lose baby as he enters custody battle with other women - NY Daily News

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.

As far as the reports, I linked to several articles which show the filing for paternity was before he lost his child with his wife.

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?

A question about your contention that Miller needs to fly her to CA. Why does Miller have to fly her back and forth?

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

I doubt she is breastfeeding since Miller has had the child for months before the last court decision and Miller will have his son for the next four months to include in Russia without his mother.

I didn't say she was breastfeeding, I said "if she 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.

Why can't he fly and get his child, why does she have to come with her son for visitation?

If the courts were to grant joint custody, I don't know what kind of arrangements will be made. Obviously he has the money, obviously she doesn't, she's an ex-GI going to school to get a degree.

Of course its hard on a child. Perhaps she should have thought this through as well as Miller?

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.

The onus is not all on Miller here. She KNEW he wanted children and had unprotected sex with him.

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.

In fact McKenna has said such was her reason she did not want to remain in the relationship with Miller. This makes no sense IMO, according to her Miller demands children then he demands she end the pregnancy. That's why I question the context of these supposed texts.

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.

THEY BOTH had unprotected sex, both adults KNEW could result in pregnancy. She moved, she knew BEFORE she moved Miller was seeking joint custody. She moved to better herself through education. Just because she wishes to better herself through education does not strip this child's rights to have a father, or for Miller to be a father if even only for part of the year. Nor does it strip her rights to be a mother. Sounds like both needed to think this through far before a child was conceived.

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.

 

[Mertex]

That's true, but since they are not together, the child is better off with the mother. 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.

Wiki:
In western society in general, following separation, a child will end up with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, and a secondary caregiver, usually the father.[3]

Because you looked up the Wikipedia article about ‘single parents’ does not mean that a child is better off with a mother. It goes to the old mindset that a female must have custody and a male is not as capable. Your article goes onto explain that the reason the phenomena took place was because men were the providers and this is changing where men are staying home while the woman works.

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.

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. She KNEW he wanted a child and consented to unprotected sex knowing this.

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.

You have ignored the statics of men who choose not to be in their children’s lives and I never suggested they all live together, yet supplied detailed facts of children whose lives are adversely affected because their fathers are not a part of their lives. Why should he only get visitation rights? McKenna was fully aware he wanted a baby and consented to an act which may produce a child and Miller should have been aware she had every right to move before he participated in the same act.

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.

You are jumping to conclusions and implying he is a deadbeat father since he wants to be a part of his child’s life. That's the mind set which hurts men who want to be a part of their children's lives. Not to mention you article goes onto state this is changing in society where men are the caregivers while women work. That leap is just as bad as the judges who stated that McKenna moved to NY to get more child support.

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.

So it’s selfish to want a relationship with a child which is more than a few days out of the year? Which is about all he will get with HIS son, a child McKenna KNEW he wanted before she became pregnant. Both were adults when they made their respective decisions and BOTH should have though this through.

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.

I already have. You and the article contended Miller dumped McKenna, FALSE. You contended that Miller filed for paternal rights after his wife’s miscarriage, FALSE. I believe the judge should not have said she could not leave the state while pregnant. That is what I found flawed.

According to her, he did....if she was lying, then I'm not to blame. And, you were given a part of your own link that said he filed right after his wife had a miscarriage. The fact is like I said, and which you obviously didn't read, or couldn't read, there are contradicting stories. You have no proof that your articles are the "true" ones, so quit acting as if they are.

I was speaking about the person who wrote the article you linked to.

Um what do you mean I missed that one? I supplied the article which showed he filed. He filed for custodial and visitation rights to McKenna’s child and his other child. Something I already commented on. Perhaps you missed it? In fact I said he needed to take better precaution.

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".

Right it does not, however you implied Miller dumped McKenna, if it does not matter, why imply such?

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.

 

[Mertex]

You almost repeated what I said above verbatim. He filed for JOINT custody, he wanted to be a part of his sons life, a mother is no better than a father, period.

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

She is the one who tried to keep him out of his sons life and said he wont see his son because she claims he wanted her to abort the child ,YET also stated she ended the relationship because Miller wanted children. A NY judge sent the case back to CA who gave temporary custody to Miller based on the NY judges decision. Read the stats I posted above about fatherless homes. A baby should never be separated from EITHER parent. A child needs both parents.

He asked for SHARED custody, not sole, she demanded sole custody. Not him.

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.