Transgender Man Plans to Keep Seeking Divorce - ABC News

A transgender Arizona man whose divorce request was rejected after his marriage was declared invalid plans to keep trying to get his 9-year union dissolved, saying Tuesday that he wants the three children to whom he gave birth to know their parents' marriage was legitimate.

Thomas Beatie, wearing a dress shirt and tie, said a judge's decision last week to reject his divorce request was a swipe against his identity and could cause problems for him down the road if he decides to remarry.

He also said the ruling underscores his belief that Arizona is unaccepting of transgender people, pointing out a proposal in the Legislature that seeks to shield businesses from liability if they ban people from restrooms that don't match their birth sex.

"This obviously is not Beatie versus Beatie," Thomas Beatie said as he spoke to reporters at his attorney's office. "This is the state of Arizona versus transgender people, human reproductive rights and fairness under law."

Beatie, who plans to appeal the ruling in his divorce case, was born a woman and later underwent a double-mastectomy and began testosterone hormone therapy to become a man, but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children. He married his partner Nancy in early 2003 in Honolulu and became pregnant because Nancy was unable to have children. Thomas Beatie conceived with donated sperm. The couple eventually moved to Arizona.

AP

Thomas Beatie, and his girlfriend Amber... View Full Caption

Thomas Beatie, and his girlfriend Amber Nicholas, speak at their attorney's office, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, in Phoenix. Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach ruled, March 29, 2013, that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages prevents Thomas Beatie's 9-year union from being recognized as valid. Beatie was born a woman and later underwent a double-mastectomy, and began testosterone hormone therapy and psychological treatment to become a man, but he retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children. Gerlach said he had no jurisdiction to approve a divorce because there's insufficient evidence that Beatie was a man when he married Nancy Beatie in Hawaii. (AP Photo/Matt York) Close

"Imagine what this is doing to my children," Beatie said as he held the hand of his girlfriend of one year. "In time, they are going to look back and see that a court said that's not your daddy. I'm sorry, that's who I am. I am my children's father."

Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach ruled on Thursday that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages prevents Beatie's marriage from being recognized as valid.

Gerlach said he had no jurisdiction to approve a divorce because there's insufficient evidence that Beatie was a man when he got married. The judge said the Beaties never provided records to fully explain what Thomas Beatie actually had done and not done to become a man. The ruling also noted that Thomas Beatie had halted the testosterone treatments.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which isn't involved in the Beatie case, said the decision doesn't set a precedent and instead applies only to the Thomas and Nancy Beatie. Still, Minter said the decision is legally flawed and demoralizing to transgender people.

The ruling saves Thomas Beatie from paying alimony to Nancy, but Thomas said he was willing to take on that financial obligation because he wanted a court to recognize his marriage.

He said moving back to Hawaii to start divorce proceedings there was impractical. It would likely separate him from his children, lead to heavier living expenses and require him to find new employment.

Michael Cantor, one of Thomas Beatie's attorneys, said Beatie could remarry in Arizona, but he could create conflicts in Hawaii, where Beatie's first marriage was viewed as valid and where he could later be accused of polygamy.

David Higgins, Nancy's attorney, said his client will likely join Thomas Beatie in his planned appeal of Gerlach's decision. "She recognizes Thomas as a male and recognizes that her marriage is valid," Higgins said.

View the original article here

Key adviser attacks nursery plans

21 March 2013 Last updated at 19:57 ETBy Hannah Richardson BBC News education and family reporter

Ministers said they wanted childcare to be of higher quality

One of the government's key advisers on childcare has issued a strongly worded attack on its plans to increase the number of children nursery staff can look after in England.

Prof Cathy Nutbrown, who reviewed childcare and qualifications for the government, said its plans "make no sense at all".

She said changing ratios would "dilute" the effects of raising staff quality.

The government said standards and safety were linked to staff quality.

And it has stressed that only those nursery settings that employ more highly qualified staff would be allowed to increase the number of children cared for by each of its workers.

'Watering down'

In a strongly worded response to the government's plans, More Great Childcare, Prof Nutbrown said the current proposals would "shake the foundations" of quality nursery provisions.

"Watering down ratios regardless of the level of qualifications held by staff is likely to lead to worse, not 'great', childcare and will undermine intentions to provide quality early learning experiences," she said.

Prof Nutbrown said any of the positive effects that might have come about by enhancing qualifications would be "cancelled out" because children will simply have too few early years professionals working with them.

She added: "So, do I think changing the ratios will make a difference if people are better qualified?

"The difference will be too few adults with too many little children; too few moments in the day for a toddler to have uninterrupted time with their key person, and too few early years practitioners to talk and work with parents."

"Here is the nub, there is nothing relaxing about the proposal to 'relax' ratios. It will lead to stress - for children, for parents and for early years practitioners, whatever their title or qualification."

It was impossible to provide "good foundations for life and learning for the youngest children on the cheap", she added.

'More flexibility'

Prof Nutbrown has been at the heart of shaping government policy on childcare. The Sheffield professor has been advising the government on early years education since 2010 and has been held up by the Department for Education as a leading expert in the field.

She led the government's review of early education and childcare qualifications and contributed to the Tickell review of the Early Years Foundation Stage, which looked at the previous government's guidance on how education should be organised for children up to the age of five.

A Department for Education spokesman said: "Prof Nutbrown's review provided a valuable contribution to the development of our proposals for early education and childcare.

Continue reading the main story

England's nursery ratios

• CURRENT
• Under one and one-year-olds - 1:3
• Two-year-olds - 1:4
• Three-year-olds and above - 1:8 or 1:13 (teacher-led)
• PROPOSED
• Under one and one-year-olds 1:4
• Two-year-olds - 1:6
• Three-year-olds and above - 1:8 or 1:13 (teacher-led)

"We have taken forward several of her important recommendations, but we recognise that reforms and improvement need to go much further if we are to give parents a proper choice of high quality childcare and early education.

"All the evidence shows that quality and safety are linked to high quality staff. Our reforms mean that only high quality providers will be able to have this additional flexibility.

"Our preliminary work suggests providers will be able to attract quality staff - using the new ratios could enable nurseries to pay staff up to £3,000 more per year."

Prof Nutbrown's comments come as the National Children's Bureau (NCB) charity releases the findings of a snapshot survey suggesting an overwhelming rejection of the ratio-change plans from the early years sector.

Of the 341 early years staff who responded, 95% said they were concerned about increasing childcare ratios and that practitioners caring for children aged two or under should not be looking after any more.

Similarly, 80% felt the ratios for under-fives should remain as they are. Suggested changes would see both these ratios raised to four children for every staff member.

NCB chief executive Dr Hilary Emery said while there was agreement that the government needed to act in order to make childcare more affordable, "there are widely held fears that allowing providers to take on more children, in the same space with the same number of staff, could put children's welfare at risk and won't necessarily save parents any more money".

View the original article here

College dropout found dead with plans of a campus attack - TheCelebrityCafe.com

A college dropout at the University of Central Florida with plans of a campus attack is dead after a suicide.

According to CNN, 30-year-old James Oliver Seevakumaran was found dead in his dorm room after a self inflicting gunshot to his head, Monday. His body was found next to a backpack which contained explosives and weapons.

"While the crime scene processing was under way in that room, we found some notes and some writings that indicated that this was a planned attack," said UCF Police Chief Richard Beary.

Seevakumaran’s plan seems to have been set since February when he first made purchases of weapons and ammunition. In the room was a handgun, assault rifle, four bombs and a couple hundred rounds of ammo. A time line of Seevakumaran's plan was also found, including where he wanted to be and when he wanted to be there during the attack.

His plot was spoiled, however. A fire alarm went off at 12:20 a.m. in the dormitory and his roommate noticed him and his weapons. Seevakumaran pulled a gun on the roommate as he ran into a bathroom to dial 911.

The quick response from the authorities is what seems to have made Seevakumaran pull the gun on himself.

"It could have been a very bad day for everybody here,” said Beary. “All things considered, I think that we were very blessed here at the University of Central Florida.”

CBS reports Seevakumaran was arrested in 2006 because he was driving with a suspended license. Seevakumaran never reached out to campus counselors. Roommates say that Seevakumaran would show signs of anti-social behavior, but never anything violent.

Close to 500 students were safely evacuated from the dormitory, and classes at the university were canceled.

View the original article here

Battle looms over rival press plans

15 March 2013 Last updated at 01:20 ET

Labour leader Ed Miliband: "We are determined to get a solution that will deliver for victims"

Continue reading the main story

• Robinson: Why PM pulled plug
• Reaction as talks halted
• Report at a glance
• Q&A: The Leveson Inquiry

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are expected to outline proposals on press regulation later, after the prime minister's surprise announcement of a vote on his own plans next week.

The statutory underpinning recommended by the Leveson report has been supported by Labour and the Lib Dems.

David Cameron opposes that, wanting a regulator established by royal charter.

He halted cross-party talks on Thursday, with a debate and vote on his proposals due in Parliament on Monday.

"MPs don't yet know exactly what options they will be faced with" in Monday's debate on the Crime and Courts Bill, said BBC political correspondent Robin Brant.

"There was a frantic rush to beat the deadlines imposed by parliamentary procedure last night - details of several competing amendments are expected to be published later."

Labour is expected to table amendments designed to produce what the party describe as "a Leveson-compliant royal charter".

Underpinning

The Leveson inquiry was set up by Mr Cameron to examine the culture, practice and ethics of the press in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal at the now-defunct News of the World tabloid.

Its 2,000-page report, published in November, found press behaviour was "outrageous" and "wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people".

It recommended that the press should set up a tough new independent regulator, but the system should be underpinned by legislation to ensure the system was effective.

Prime Minister David Cameron: "We have a workable system ready to go"

The report exposed divisions in the coalition government, with Mr Cameron opposing statutory control.

Labour Party sources say they expect their proposals to be supported by Lib Dem votes, following talks between Labour leader Ed Miliband and Lib Dem deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.

Many who oppose statutory control feel it could limit freedom of speech, whereas those who back it say self-regulation - the current system of press regulation - has been shown to be ineffective in preventing press intrusion.

The prime minister is understood to have told Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband by phone on Thursday that he would not accept a press law of any kind.

Speaking later at a Number 10 press conference, Mr Cameron said the press treatment of people such as the families of missing girl Madeleine McCann and murdered teenager Milly Dowler had been "absolutely despicable".

He said a royal charter would help to create the world's "toughest" regulatory system, which would allow the imposition of "exemplary damages" on newspapers that refused to sign up.

'Disappointed'

One of the reasons cited by the prime minister for halting the cross-party talks was that he felt other bills were being delayed and potentially endangered by efforts to pass Leveson-related legislation.

Mr Clegg said he was "disappointed and surprised that David Cameron has decided to walk away from the cross-party talks" just when "real progress" was being made.

"Clearly I don't agree with David Cameron's approach. I will be working with politicians... from all parties to make sure we deliver the right solution," he said, adding that press regulation should not be the subject of "party political points scoring".

And Mr Miliband said the prime minister's solution did not serve the victims of press intrusion as "ministers could change his proposals without reference to Parliament, and it's not properly independent of the press".

He said a cross-party solution could still be reached, even if Labour and the Lib Dems went above Mr Cameron's head to talk to Tory MPs.

Nick Clegg: "David Cameron has decided to turn his back on a cross-party approach, I have not"

Media reform campaign group Hacked Off said the prime minister's announcement "shows that he's still protecting his friends in the press and betraying press abuse victims".

Baroness Sheila Hollins, the mother of Abigail Witchalls, who was attacked and became the subject of media intrusion, said press freedom should allow newspapers "to act in an ethical responsible way".

She added: "It is not freedom for them to continue to work in a way which intrudes on people's lives, which harasses them, which intimidates them, which misrepresents them."

In a joint statement, executives of major newspaper publishing groups and press bodies said: "The prime minister is right to reject statutory regulation of the press - free of political control for 300 years - as fundamentally wrong in principle and unworkable in practice."

They said the industry was "ready to move with speed" on its own vision of a new system of self-regulation, which "delivers fully on the Leveson principles and will provide real protection for members of the public".

In Scotland on Friday, an expert report on regulation of the press north of the border will be published.

Former High Court judge and solicitor general Lord McCluskey was appointed by First Minister Alex Salmond to recommend press regulation reforms in Scotland. Press regulation is devolved to the Scottish parliament.

View the original article here

MPs back plans for secret courts

4 March 2013 Last updated at 03:56 ET

Critics say it should be judges not ministers who have the final say on what can be heard in public

The former head of the judiciary, Lord Woolf, has thrown his support behind plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret intelligence in private.

Later on Monday, MPs from all sides will try to force the government to introduce more safeguards before these so-called secret courts can be used.

Ministers want sensitive evidence to be used in trials without UK or foreign intelligence sources being exposed.

Critics say this would threaten open justice.

Those opposed to the proposals also believe they could enable allegations about the mistreatment of terror suspects to be covered up.

'Standards of justice'

The government has introduced more safeguards to legislation currently being scrutinised by Parliament, ensuring that judges and not ministers decide when these so called secret courts are used.

And the concessions have been welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who sits as a crossbencher in the House of Lords.

In a letter to The Times he says the government's plans will retain "the standards of general justice" while ensuring that all sides can put their case.

But, the BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said, Labour and other MPs want further changes.

In a series of votes in the House of Commons later, they will push for secret courts to be used only as a last resort when national security outweighs the need for open justice. Ministers say this would mean no trial would ever be held in closed session.

Defending the plans in December, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply in a small number of terrorism-related cases which would "simply not be heard" in court otherwise. "We're not talking about closing a bit of justice that previously was open," he said.

The government is concerned that millions of pounds have had to be be spent settling claims which it was prevented from challenging successfully, because that would have involved revealing secret intelligence in open court.

But the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights has said the proposals - which would mean some defendants would not hear all the evidence against them - mark a radical departure from the British tradition of fair and open justice and the case for change has not been made persuasively.

View the original article here

Benefit plans target new EU migrants

4 March 2013 Last updated at 00:43 ET

The restrictions on the movements of Romanians and Bulgarians expire at the end of 2013

Government plans to clamp down on "benefit tourism" could see both Britons and immigrants affected by changes to the rules on entitlement.

Ministers are looking to limit access to benefits, health care and housing when freedom of movement controls on Romanians and Bulgarians end.

But they believe that to comply with EU laws, any changes may need to apply to both immigrants and some Britons.

Council housing priority could be given to those with local connections.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the government was drawing up a package of measures designed to bring the UK into line with policies in other European member states already deemed legal by the European Court of Justice.

Councils will be urged to use new powers to give priority on council house waiting lists to those with local connections - whether born, educated or with relatives in their area - which could make it harder for outsiders to get housing.

Ministers are also examining the possibility of linking some benefits to contributions which would have the effect of excluding new arrivals from eligibility, our correspondent added.

'Forecasts difficult'

On Sunday, Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC people should not be attracted to the UK just by the benefits available and "benefit tourism" had to end.

He said ministers wanted to remove "artificial, perverse incentives" to come to the UK.

One immigration pressure group estimates 50,000 people will move to the UK every year from Romania and Bulgaria once the movement restrictions expire at the end of the year, but Mr Hague said any attempt to estimate the number would be "guesswork".

William Hague: "There is no magical secret [immigration] figure"

People from Romania and Bulgaria have been free to live in the UK and anywhere else in the EU since the countries joined the EU in 2007, but in the UK they have either had to apply for one of the limited work permits available, be self-employed, or work in specific jobs such as seasonal agricultural or as domestic servants.

Under EU rules, these temporary restrictions must come to an end at the beginning of 2014, after which Romanian and Bulgarian migrants will have the same rights to live and work in the UK as those of other EU countries, which will give them access to benefits and the NHS.

Ministers say the impact of the temporary work restrictions, and the fact that eight other EU countries are also ending their restrictions at the same time as the UK, make forecasting the number of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants who might come to the UK difficult.

View the original article here