1. You don't get to call yourself a parent because you marry someone with a child, or who goes on to have a child while you're still legally married.
2. Acting in the best interest of a child doesn't make you a parent. Even if it did, that's not what this man did. Calling CPS would have been in the best interest of the child, but subjecting him to another court battle over his custody is not.
3. This man doesn't even call himself a parent, so I'm not quite sure who you're attempting to defend here.
From what I can gather, this woman is sleeping with her ex-husband, who was once arrested for allegedly abusing her. He was not convicted, and has no other record of violence. Even if he did, I don't see how her sex life affects her son.
Now, if she started dating this man, and/or moved in with him, I can certainly see how he might be in danger of being traumatized, and could certainly see someone calling Child Protective Services so that they could take care of the situation.
Please note that even if the child's father gets custody, the child still has the same risks when he visits his mom. A custody battle doesn't solve anything for the son, whereas CPS most certainly could. Of course, if you're intent on revenge, inciting a custody battle is certainly a potent weapon.
How is not being a biological parent not 'actually' being a parent? Some of the best parents are not biological.
This is true, in general, but I don't think it has much bearing on this case. This guy is neither the biological parent nor the step-parent. He was one guy that (actual legal filing dates aside) lived with this child's mom for a fairly short amount of time in between other flings.
I really doubt that he's what anyone would call a parent, especially since he doesn't call himself a parent.
Also, how being a parent gives you a different perspective than anyone else on this topic, especially considering that the man in question wasn't actually a parent.
Revenge would have been if the current husband used the info to inflict harm or cause damage to his wife...
He did. She's being sued for custody. If you don't think that most custody suits are fueled by anger at the other parent, then you're not paying attention.
...by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood, and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
I'm not a psychic either, but having a parental perspective (which doesn't give either of us any sort of moral high ground here), and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation.
Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all.
With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime.
Yeah, but you have to remember that they're using the the news definition of 'hacking' which means 'anything involving a computer that the writer does not fully understand'. See?
hack1
vb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand
What became fascinating to me was that the information that was coming out got me detailed (and extraordinarily accurate) information well before (as in hours) before mainstream media had the results.
LOL, no, really, I haven't shopped there in ages because of their crappy customer service, but there's not a week that goes by that I don't read a 'Sears screwed me over.' or a 'Sears won't let me purchase items.' story on the Internet.
No, I don't have either, I just know that their policies suck, their websites suck, their customer service sucks, many of their products suck, and that tells me that people who still shop there are uninformed suckers.
There are tons of fantastic movies on Netflix, like the recent Pixar blockbuster Up, just for instance.
Of course, the real awesomeness is in the television shows and the documentaries. I love queuing up shows for my kids, knowing that they'll be commercial-free. Honestly, Netflix is worth it for that alone.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Acting in the best interest of a child doesn't make you a parent. Even if it did, that's not what this man did. Calling CPS would have been in the best interest of the child, but subjecting him to another court battle over his custody is not.
3. This man doesn't even call himself a parent, so I'm not quite sure who you're attempting to defend here.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re:
On the post: Should MySpace Friends & Photos Be Enough Evidence To Convict Someone Of Criminal Gang Activity
Re: Re: What's a gang, anyway?
According to this case, by simply being associated with people who are known to be part of the group.
On the post: How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard
Re: Re: News feed.
The zombie apocalypse is going to suck for me.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if she started dating this man, and/or moved in with him, I can certainly see how he might be in danger of being traumatized, and could certainly see someone calling Child Protective Services so that they could take care of the situation.
Please note that even if the child's father gets custody, the child still has the same risks when he visits his mom. A custody battle doesn't solve anything for the son, whereas CPS most certainly could. Of course, if you're intent on revenge, inciting a custody battle is certainly a potent weapon.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true, in general, but I don't think it has much bearing on this case. This guy is neither the biological parent nor the step-parent. He was one guy that (actual legal filing dates aside) lived with this child's mom for a fairly short amount of time in between other flings.
I really doubt that he's what anyone would call a parent, especially since he doesn't call himself a parent.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re:
He did. She's being sued for custody. If you don't think that most custody suits are fueled by anger at the other parent, then you're not paying attention.
...by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood, and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
I'm not a psychic either, but having a parental perspective (which doesn't give either of us any sort of moral high ground here), and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation.
Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all.
With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should MySpace Friends & Photos Be Enough Evidence To Convict Someone Of Criminal Gang Activity
What's a gang, anyway?
Thanks, Ohio.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re:
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
hack1
vb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand
On the post: How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard
News feed.
^^This. This is why I use Twitter.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Idiots? Not so much.
On the post: NBC Universal & MPAA Get NYC To Run Propaganda 'Anti-Piracy' Ad Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTA TV?
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re:
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re:
Of course, the real awesomeness is in the television shows and the documentaries. I love queuing up shows for my kids, knowing that they'll be commercial-free. Honestly, Netflix is worth it for that alone.
On the post: NBC Universal & MPAA Get NYC To Run Propaganda 'Anti-Piracy' Ad Campaign
Re: Re: Re: FTA TV?
Next >>