Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Kidnapped! - The Custody Poll (SPOILERS)

This poll is probably a big mistake, and not how an author should decide the outcome of her story, but I'm really curious to know what people think.

I've given you two choices. I've deliberately left out the one I think a lot of people would prefer, because a) I'm not sure I can make it happen and b) leaving it out gives you scope for discussion. For those who aren't following the story, and don't mind spoilers, this is the setting:
SPOILERS
CK, from another universe, is the father of Jon. altLois, Jon's mother, reputedly died soon after Jon was born. Jon ended up being the baby our Lois and Clark found and adopted at the end of the series (I won't explain here how that happened because it would take too long).

Ahhhh, this question is evil, evil, evil!

I can't pick! On one hand, CK seems to be getting his act together and is the biological father...but L&C are the only parents that Jon has ever known, and they are a stable, happy family.

I don't suppose the option you left out is repeatedly slapping HG Wells with a large trout for getting this mess started in the first place?

Jen

I voted to have the baby go with CJ. Of course, I thought that the other dimension Lois wasn't really dead, but your last post put a real damper on that. Anyway, I'm sure which ever way you go it will continue to be a terrific story.
Thanks,
Catherine

Biological, schmiological... I think that's a largely irrelevant factor anyway, and much more so here -- would a DNA scan be able to tell the difference between Clark & CK? For all practical purposes, our L&C *are* Jon's biological parents.

I do sympathise with CK's agonizing loss... but in these cases I think the welfare of the child should be the most important factor, and L&C are the only parents Jon's ever known. I don't believe in taking a child out of a good, functioning home.

Besides, in this universe he has grandparents and a mother, too, but I noted that "reputedly died" part, and suspect we may find out otherwise.

The people who have been on the scene, changing diapers and being spit up on, are the "real" parents.

PJ

Hi,

I wasn't going to vote, but decide to vote for CK.

I think in every universe everyone have a doble in the other. In one universe is Clark in other is CK. People are fisical identical. As one Lois and another Lois.

What happen if this Lois and Clark have their own Jon?
He will be identical to the other Jon. Wouldn't be taking their Jon his rightful place.

Another thought came to me. If Wells went to warn Lois and Clark about the curse, so Lois couldn't die. Why he didn't go to tell about the events to CK and his Lois? Or tell the other Lois to take care more of herself.
That is really annoying me.

MAF

Okay,

As much as I hate to admit it, if CK sued for custody, he would get it. 1) he never signed away his parental rights, so leagally, Lois and Clark's adoption is illegal. 2) the purpose of family and children services and the family courts is to reunite families and keep them together, therefore with no history of abusing a child, CK would be granted custody because of being the baby's only living biological parent.

BF

Hi,

Before we all go to court. Is probable the court want to verify who is the biological father.

They probably ask for DNA test as evidence. AND Clark and CK can't explain of two identical person. One claim paternity and the other adoption.

I've gotten all caught up with the last couple parts of the story now, and as sorry as I do truly feel for CK, I just can't bear the thought of that poor baby being wrenched away from the only home and parents he has ever known. As Pam said, he is thriving where he is.

I'm trying to figure out which option that Yvonne left out, that she figures that most people would prefer. What other options are there? What am I missing here? Hmm, something else to mull over as I continue to read future installments...

KathyM

Put the baby in the copy machine, mix 'em up so you can't tell which is the original, and they all live happily ever after!

No?

Well, it was an idea.

Sorry, Yvonne, I can't pick. I definitely feel for CK now, way more than for the jerk that he was at the beginning of the story, but at the same time, I agree with those who said it would be cruel to wrench Jon away from the only family he's ever known.

Guess it's up to you to make the hard decision!

Bethy

I feel very sorry for CK but I think that Jon should stay with Lois & Clark. As Pam suggested they are the ones who have done all of the hard work. They are the people Jon recognizes as his parents. Ck is a new addition to the family group. It would be very traumatic for Jon to be seperated from them. I know the courts would rule in CK's favour but Lois & Clark have proven that they love Jon and can care for him properly.

Wells will just have to find another Lois for CK!

Tricia

The courts, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, place WAAAAAAY too much emphasis on a matter of biology. In darker cases than this, it's resulted in children going back to abusive households to be abused again or even killed. There was a recently a case in the news here where two children were killed and a third was left in critical condition -- "mom" had left them in a hot car, but apparently moved the bodies inside before calling for help. Social services had visited the home over 20 times in the past year.

However... I suspect in this case, the courts will not be involved.

"Well, yes, your Honor, he and I do have identical DNA (and those strange bits the lab noticed are the Kryptonian parts) but that's just because he's from an alternate reality... hey, who are those guys wearing the white coats?"

PJ
who really shouldn't be joining this argument as she hasn't read any of Kidnapped -- too traumatized by the subject matter to read this one in installments!

Well, I'm waiting for the finished product too and I'm enjoying this one also.

Not got much to contribute as I don't know the facts, but just going on the responses here I think I side with the stay with LNC option. Which, as it's based on complete ignorance, means precisely zip, but I offer it anyway. <g>

Maria - re your question about Wells warning the other Lois. I'm not sure that would be possible. There are thousands (millions?) of alt universes out there, Wells couldn't keep an eye on all of them. He has developed an interest in the Lois and Clark of his own universe and I think that's probably all he can physically do. There's some think even that was too much. <g> Right, Hazel?

And I agree that taking this one to court would be a non-starter, for all the reasons previously mentioned. Does Alt Clark even have a history in this universe? Documentation? All of these would be looked into by a court and they would come up with a ghost. Wouldn't they? (More large assumptions there but in any case I don't think Alt Clark would be able to pull that one off. Too many questions, too few answers.)

LabRat

Hi, I bet you never thought you'd see me in this thread

First, I agree with Pam, that biology is over rated as a criteria for choosing the proper parent(s). CK never knew that he had a child until he came back. In effect, he was nothing more than a sperm donor. With the mother dead, and the father missing, I actually think the Wells did the right thing here.

I think Yvonne has established that CK would be a good parent, in that he loves Jon and would try his best for the boy, but we already know that Lois and Clark have proven to be good parents so far and already have in place a great support system also. (Though I personally think that Lois and Clark's jobs and lives aren't really conducive to providing a good stable child raising environment in the first place but that's not what's in question here).

So, if the welfare of the child is really what is the most important, then Jon should stay with Lois and Clark. CK's desire to take Jon home with him is a selfish one. He has to know that no matter how well he thinks he can provide for the boy, that Jon is better off where he is.

This all hinges on the fact that their is no Lois in CK's life anymore. And as much as I hate the fact that his Lois died in such... an unfortunate way, I think to have her suddenly miraculously return would compromise the story. Much of what CK had to go through to 'become human again' dealt not only with what he experienced on New Krypton, but the losses he had to face once he came back. Overcoming the loss of the most important person in his life cannot be underestimated, and we see a lot of CK's desire to have Jon is based on the erroneous feeling that the child can 'replace' that loss.

Bringing Jon into his life would give CK whatever it is that a child is supposed to give a person (it seems like it would mostly be negative stuff to me ), but it would never fill the hole in his being that Lois once filled. Only the mature, romantic love of another woman could ever hope to ease, if not completely fill, that.

Having Lois suddenly reappear when she's needed so badly would smack of a deus ex machina type conveniece. I have the greatest respect for Yvonne's talents but to bring Lois back and make it work would be incredibly difficult.

Tank (who wonders if anyone who care this much if this were about REAL people)

Hi,

Before someone decide shoot me

Now everybody can shoot.

MAF

I must confess that I am posting under complete ignorance, as I am waiting for Kidnapped to be finished before reading it. However, seeing the matter at hand, I couldn't help but throw in my two cents.

I was adopted by the people I consider my parents. My biological mother couldn't keep me for some reason, so I was put up for adoption. So Michael and Terri McKenna found me, fell in love with me (who wouldn't? <g>) and adopted me. They are much more my "real" parents than my biological parents could ever be. They have raised me for 15 years and treat me like I was their own flesh and blood. If given the choice to go live with my biological mum and dad, I don't think I would, no matter how wonderful they may be. They would never truly be my parents.

Take it however you like, its only my opinion.

Caroline

That's a lovely story, Caroline; thanks for sharing it with us.

It also reminds me of something else in this equation. Clark was 'adopted' and grew up without knowing his real parents or where he came from (as, of course, was CK). Now, this could affect them in different ways, as we know. The Kents are terrific parents and very definitely an advertisement for adoption. On the other hand, for a large part of his life Clark longed to know his true origins.

CK was adopted by the Kents too, but they're dead in his world. And, Yvonne, since you're mirroring the universe of Tempus, Anyone? in other ways, does this mean that CK's parents died when he was ten? Did he then spend time in the foster system? He might have stronger feelings about a child needing to be with its real parents... but then, the fact that, to him as a teenager, his real parents meant the Kents might also make him lean towards seeing Lois and Clark as Jon's 'real' parents: real in every way that matters other than biology.

What a conundrum you set in this story!


Wendy (who agrees with Pam and Tank, as it happens).

Note that I have not read this story. Any information I have was told to me by others, so I do not know if some of my assumptions are inaccurate. The question, itself, assumes that anyone who answers the poll has read the story and makes one assume many things.

I'm going to take what is currently a minority opinion on this matter. I believe that alt-Clark should have custody of his child and here are the reasons I think so.

First and foremost, it was completely irresponsible for HG Wells to interfere. I would think Andrus would have immediately appeared to arrest him on the spot, but unfortunately Andrus probably no longer exists. By removing Jon from his natural universe, Wells has succeeded where Tempus has failed. Since we all know that Utopia is created by Superman's and Lois' descendants, Wells has stopped Utopia from occurring in the alt-universe because there are no longer any descendents of Superman and Lois remaining. It's highly doubtful that alt-Clark will marry and father any more children. Even if he did, Lois was the other half that Utopians celebrated. Hence no Utopia.

Secondly, since alt-Clark has been able to father children with Lois, it's apparent that this universe's Lois and Clark will be able to do the same. Would the presence of two descendants of Superman interrupt the balance of time and prevent the creation of Utopia in this universe as well? In any case, Well's interference has jeopardized two universes.

Taking aside the matters of galactic importance, I'll now focus on what's right when it comes to the child. I've always considered that the current justice system treats fathers abominably, as if they were mere sperm donors. Fathers are often stuck with 50% of the burden, yet none of the rights. Unlike Tank, I do not consider a father a mere donor, especially if the father wishes to be involved in the raising of his child. It is not his fault that he did not know of the existence of his child until a year after his birth. In fact, the only difference between alt-Clark and this universe's Clark is that one had sex with his Lois and the other did not before departing for New Krypton. If Clark had also fathered a child with Lois, she would have died as well (I'm assuming the curse at work here) and left a child behind. So this Clark could easily have been stuck in exactly the same situation.

I compare alt-Clark with other figures in history who went to war. I see his departure no differently than that of a draftee. alt-Clark's case is even more severe because no one else could have done what he could: lead the Kryptonians to war. Say, as an example, the leader was Eisenhower during World War II. He was uniquely qualified for the job of Supreme Commander, AEF, just as no one else could have taken alt-Clark's place. Take as a hypothetical if he went away to fight the Germans, while Mamie stayed behind. She died, leaving behind a new child. While he was gone, his child was left with foster parents for a year because he was too important to return home, lest the world fall under Nazi (Lord Norr) control. I seriously doubt anyone would consider keeping his child away from him upon his return even if the baby has bonded with his foster parents. I discount the adoption angle here because no court in the world has jurisdiction over multiple universes. You cannot make a case for abandonment either because 1) Clark didn't know of the child's existence and 2) Lois was still alive when he left. Think of the 150 children born to sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln while she was at sea, meeting their fathers for the first time when she returned from the Persian Gulf just a short month or so ago. Being away when a child is born is not a crime punishable by losing your child.

Some have mentioned that the baby has already bonded with this universe's Lois and Clark. I use Clark as a comparison. His original parents were Lara and Jor-El. We don't know how long he had with his parents but he must have had some bond with his parents. We know this for sure from Clark's experience in the episode, "Never on Sunday" since he experienced slight trauma when separated from his true parents. Yet he adjusted to his new adopted parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent, loving his new parents greatly with absolutely no memory of his original parents except when under the spell of Baron Sunday. In this analogy, I place L&C in the role of Lara and Jor-El (first parents) and alt-Clark in the role of Martha and Jonathan Kent (second parents). I contend the baby is capable of bonding with his true parent, alt-Clark, without suffering psychological damage due to separation anxiety primarily because he won't remember L&C. I, for one, can't remember anything at all before the age of four. If the child was much older, perhaps that is not the case but an infant would suffer, at most, short term trauma.

I have sympathy for both alt-Clark and L&C. Both deserve to have children. L&C can likely have children of their own without a curse to worry about after defeating Tempus in the Old West. alt-Clark has no one left. He doesn't even have his child anymore, something to remember his dead fiance by, a part of his Lois to cherish. I feel more for him than I do for L&C because he is now in a hopeless situation. His soul mate is gone, so he will not be able to find happiness with another. Having his child with him can help alleviate the pain. Unless he is proved incompetent as a parent, he should retain custody of his child.

Finally, some say that the welfare of the child is of the utmost importance. I agree. I don't think that this applies in this case. I have no reason to assume that alt-Clark cannot care for his child, so I don't think the child will suffer no matter who he ends up with. That being the case, I must side with the natural father. I noticed a few who commented that parentage plays too big a role in custody cases. I disagree with that. As a father myself, I cannot imagine the horror of someone taking my children away from me because I went off to war. I would fight to the death to get my kids back. It would be a dark day when a government can take away someone's child because it thinks one set of parents is better than another with no regard for parentage. That goes out the window if the child is endangered, but I wouldn't want another party deciding which environment is better for a child. It's already a dark enough world when a government can tell a family it can only have one child. Would I want the government to take a child away and have him given to a rich, loving family as opposed to a not-so rich loving family who were the natural parents? Some may say wealth shouldn't be a factor. That may be true because I'm only using wealth as an example, but who do we want to decide those criteria when parentage is no longer a factor? Should a child be given to the smarter parents? The better looking parents? Who's to say, barring incompetence or endangerment, where the child would be better off? The baby belongs with his natural father.

I'm with Roger on this. While reading the storyparts the idea of Lois and Clark keeping this child in the end has never entered my mind!

He was brought to them for safekeeping, he isn't theirs and never will be - not now that his own father has come to claim him. And rightfully so! The baby is very young, he'll get over being separated from Lois and Clark very quickly but they, understandably, will be heartbroken. A truly agonizing situation for all three adults involved.

A tough one you've taken upon yourself this time, Yvonne! Good luck with the writing of this ending - you'll need it!
We'll be watching!

Ursie

Roger, you make a lot of valid points, but I have to disagree with one of your fundamental arguments.

You say that you see no reason to asuume that CK couldn't do a good job of raising Jon. This is where we disagree.

Being a single parent has to be incredibly difficult under normal circumstances, but at least a 'regular person' has the ability to plan ahead for those times when he won't be available to care for his child. This is not true for CK.

Yvonne has implied that CK will most likely take back up his Superman mantle when he returns. That means that his time is not his own. What does CK do when he 'hears' about some situation that needs his attention. He can't just ignore it, yet he can't leave Jon alone for who knows how long.

Of course, there are ways around this, like a full-time live-in nanny, but we've seen no indication of those kind of thoughts on CK's part. His whole focus to date has been a selfish one. He's thinking only of how he feels and hasn't really addressed what it would take to raise Jon in his world beyond, 'he could make it work somehow'. Until we see CK working out some detailed logical ways that he can provide properly for Jon, I don't think he is the better choice for custody.

You bring up the whole Tempus, Utopia, and the curse scenario. I get the impression the you think that the curse is the reason why altLois died in childbirth. Even if Yvonne accepts the show's canon on the whole Tempus thing and the baggage it brings, there's been no indication that Tempus has interfered or been any sort of factor in the alt-universe.

Obviously, there is more story to be told and more 'information' that must be revealed before a final disposition of Jon can be made. My opinion has been based on what we've seen so far (and the fact that I have no emotional attachtment to any child, so I can think logically ).

Only time, and Yvonne can tell.

Tank (who still thinks that it would be irresponsible for Clark to impregnate Lois if there was anything greater than a normal human danger to her by doing so)

Wow! Where do I start?

Well, I think I'm just going to dive in at random, and maybe come back a few times to update my response.

This caught my eye, Roger:
I'm not so sure. Just because you can't recall anything before a certain age doesn't mean it didn't have an effect on you. Also, I saw a TV programme last week which discussed the issue of intersex children (kids born with some features from both sexes). For a long time, science was persuaded by a landmark study from a well-respected physician that for the first two years of life, children were mentally asexual - you could imprint either sex on them so long as you did it within 24 months of birth. So doctors did (and still do) convert such children to one sex, and then they're raised as that sex. For children who'd probably suffer immeasurable trauma if left as they were born, this is considered the best choice. However, this doctor took things further with one child, and converted a completely normal boy to a girl (they didn't spell the reasons out as to why, although I have a strong hunch). At first, everything seemed to be going well for the child, and the doctor published his findings accordingly. This was taken as further evidence that infants are a 'blank canvas'. However, when medical science finally turned their attention back to the girl (now a young adult), they discovered that 'she' was living as a man and had undergone surgery to convert himself back. The case that had underpinned medical practice for umpteen years was thus completely discredited. The boy said he'd been miserable for most of his life, and never, ever wanted to be treated as a girl again. He's now married with kids.

Now, I realise that this isn't the same as taking a child from one set of parents and raising him with another set, but I think it demonstrates that infants are not as reprogrammable as we might think.

Yvonne
(back for more when I've got the time)