David Marcus - What did Kirk know and when did he know it?

[Timewalker]

Well, not that it matters, but I am a Psychologist.

You're right. It doesn't matter, at least in this discussion - unless your specialty is dealing with matters pertaining to family court situations like child custody and adoption.

You obviously feel very confident that of course you are a positive part of your child's life because you are his father.

That's not the case with a lot of other people. I'm grateful that my parents finally divorced, because my mother was physically, psychologically, and verbally abusive. She might have thought that of course she could only be a positive influence on my life because she was my mother, but that would not have been true. If I'd stayed with her, I shudder to think what my life would have turned out like. Alcoholism would probably have been part of it, probably smoking, and my life choices would have been very different ones.

Yes, I did have a mother-figure in my life - my paternal grandmother, who did the bulk of the job of raising me. I went years at a time of not even speaking to my biological mother, and that didn't have any detrimental effect on my life.

Not that I think for a moment that Kirk would have been an abusive parent, and I don't believe Carol would have subjected David to any of her subsequent romantic partners who would be less than at least courteous and respectful of David (did I misread in the novel that Carol and Jedda were having a relationship at the time of TWoK?). So it's very likely that Carol had other relationships and some may have been as father-figures to David. Aside from the protomatter cheating, he doesn't seem to have grown up with any major character flaws from not having had Kirk in his life.

Last I checked, that wasn't intended to apply to the relationship of an adult to a minor child. When a parent "loves" their minor child by letting them go, often IRL the results are -- how can I say? -- less than optimal.

A lot of young/teen mothers have given their children up for adoption because they cared enough to let them go to a home where they could be cared for a lot better than they would be otherwise. I would define that as "loving them enough to let them go."

Several people in this thread have contended that since David turned out okay, Kirk (and Carol) did nothing wrong. This is a work of fiction. The fact that David turned out well "proves" nothing other than that the writers decided to say that he did. They could as easily say that he was raised in the rainforest by monkeys and grew up to become an erudite, tea-sipping gentleman of leisure -- that would obviously be absurd, but they could still say it. I am not, of course, saying that children of single parents can't turn out well; we have RL examples to the contrary. But we also have RL evidence that, all other things being equal, having two parents does advantage a child.

Two parental figures are an advantage, yes. As long as they love the child, do everything possible to make sure the child has proper food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care and do not abuse the child, it doesn't matter if they're the biological parents or not.

We don't know how many other men Carol may have had in her life; I have trouble believing that she would have lived like a nun all those years. Aside from cheating, there's no evidence that he was disadvantaged by not having had Kirk around.

That Kirk has made some questionable choices makes him a more realistic, more human character. Okay. I just refuse to define his actions in this matter -- his choice to let himself be excluded from his son's life -- as anything other than a flaw.

There's a difference between making a choice because it's what you want and to hell with what anyone else wants, and making a choice because it's what would make things less difficult for everyone involved.

 

[1001001]

You're right. It doesn't matter, at least in this discussion - unless your specialty is dealing with matters pertaining to family court situations like child custody and adoption.

You obviously feel very confident that of course you are a positive part of your child's life because you are his father.

That's not the case with a lot of other people. I'm grateful that my parents finally divorced, because my mother was physically, psychologically, and verbally abusive. She might have thought that of course she could only be a positive influence on my life because she was my mother, but that would not have been true. If I'd stayed with her, I shudder to think what my life would have turned out like. Alcoholism would probably have been part of it, probably smoking, and my life choices would have been very different ones.

Yes, I did have a mother-figure in my life - my paternal grandmother, who did the bulk of the job of raising me. I went years at a time of not even speaking to my biological mother, and that didn't have any detrimental effect on my life.

Not that I think for a moment that Kirk would have been an abusive parent, and I don't believe Carol would have subjected David to any of her subsequent romantic partners who would be less than at least courteous and respectful of David (did I misread in the novel that Carol and Jedda were having a relationship at the time of TWoK?). So it's very likely that Carol had other relationships and some may have been as father-figures to David. Aside from the protomatter cheating, he doesn't seem to have grown up with any major character flaws from not having had Kirk in his life.


A lot of young/teen mothers have given their children up for adoption because they cared enough to let them go to a home where they could be cared for a lot better than they would be otherwise. I would define that as "loving them enough to let them go."



Two parental figures are an advantage, yes. As long as they love the child, do everything possible to make sure the child has proper food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care and do not abuse the child, it doesn't matter if they're the biological parents or not.

We don't know how many other men Carol may have had in her life; I have trouble believing that she would have lived like a nun all those years. Aside from cheating, there's no evidence that he was disadvantaged by not having had Kirk around.


There's a difference between making a choice because it's what you want and to hell with what anyone else wants, and making a choice because it's what would make things less difficult for everyone involved.

Well, the poster said to “ask any psychologist”, so I asked myself, and I agreed with me.

 

[Brennyren]

A lot of young/teen mothers have given their children up for adoption because they cared enough to let them go to a home where they could be cared for a lot better than they would be otherwise. I would define that as "loving them enough to let them go."

Fair enough, and I agree completely; to provide for your child as best you can is certainly an act of love. I may have made too broad an assertion there. Nonetheless, I think that in the case of Kirk, he was too willing to agree that he could bring nothing of value to his child's life. He's an intelligent, capable, loving, brave -- even heroic -- man; if nothing else, those are admirable traits for a child to see in someone in his life.

There's a difference between making a choice because it's what you want and to hell with what anyone else wants, and making a choice because it's what would make things less difficult for everyone involved.

And there's also a difference between making a choice because it's the right thing to do, and making a choice because it simplifies things for you personally. Now, we can argue all day over whether what Kirk did was the right thing to do, but the fact that what he may have seen as "the right thing to do" was also the thing that required the least effort from him does make it a little suspect in my eyes. It's always nice for someone when they can tell themselves that the easy thing is also the virtuous thing.

People in this thread keep predicting bloody custody battles would have ensued if Kirk had attempted to assert any kind of parental rights, even the right to visit or stay in touch, or be acknowledged as David's biological father. I suppose that would depend on how hard Carol was willing to fight, and just how irrational she was willing to be. I understand that she didn't want David to hero-worship his big-deal Starfleet dad and maybe follow Kirk into space, but that isn't really a valid reason to exclude Kirk from the kid's life entirely. (The more so since we know enough of Kirk's history to know there was vanishingly small chance that Carol didn't know, when David was conceived, that Kirk either already was a Starfleet officer or was going to be. When I see a kitten, I am not surprised to learn it will become a cat.) There's no reason to think Kirk would have been abusive in any respect, and he wasn't a substance abuser. He's basically a good person. He had a job Carol didn't care for, and didn't want her son to follow him into, and that's the whole substance of her objection. Carol herself, while protective -- not necessarily a bad quality in a parent! -- is presented as intelligent, reasonable, rational. If Kirk had shown he actually cared enough about the kid to contest her wishes, is it so impossible to believe that she might have realized that she was trying to keep a good man out of her son's life, and then backed off?

 

[DonIago]

I maintain that in the end we don't know enough about the particulars of their situation to judge either of them.

 

[Nyotarules]

If Prime Admiral Marcus was anything like his Kelvin version I have a theory that Dr Marcus projected her daddy issues onto her child.

 

[UssGlenn]

Nonetheless, I think that in the case of Kirk, he was too willing to agree that he could bring nothing of value to his child's life.

We don't know what went down during the discussion, or how willing Kirk was to agree.

It's always nice for someone when they can tell themselves that the easy thing is also the virtuous thing.

Indeed, the Prime Directive is based on that very principle, and it's importance is drilled into the heads of everyone in Starfleet.


Also, Kirk asking why Carol didin't tell David he was his father, implies that Kirk expected David to be told at some point. So perhaps the agreement was that he stays away while David is so young when "why does daddy go away all the time" questions would be emotionally damaging. And when David is old enough Carol introduces Kirk to him as his Dad. Carol just never took the second step, and Kirk didn't rock the boat.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If Prime Admiral Marcus was anything like his Kelvin version I have a theory that Dr Marcus projected her daddy issues onto her child.

Based on nuCarol's comments about (I'm paraphrasing here) "whatever happened to the man who raised me", I tend to think that Marcus only turned into a bad guy because of something that happened after the timeline divergence, and the Prime version of him was genuinely a good man.

(Another reason I suspect this is because in STID, nuCarol was in Starfleet, whereas the Prime version was not.)

@Timewalker - yeah, Carol was having a thing with one of the Regula I researchers (in the novelization) but it wasn't Jedda. The guy's name was Vance Madison.

 

[lawman]

...If, like an adult, at any point she realized that from a legal standpoint she literally does not have a case for denying Kirk access to his son (why the quote marks around "his," anyway? No one denies that David is Kirk's son. Or do only mothers have children?), then the courtroom drama ends. If Carol is such an awesome parent and wonderful human being, then why couldn't she do the reasonable thing?

I actually had a minor internal debate about whether (and where) to use the quotation marks I wound up putting around the word "his." It's not that I doubt the paternity. Rather, I did it to signify the sense of ownership associated with the word, where litigation is concerned. After all, it's not that Kirk would have had any doubt that Carol would be a good parent, or any reason to believe he'd be a better one, or any belief that his lifestyle would be better for David than hers, or any presumption that he could contribute something crucial to David's upbringing that he would otherwise be deprived of. IOW, none of the legitimately selfless reasons for litigating for parental rights apply. In such cases, all that's left is the argument that "he's got my DNA in him, so part of him is mine, so i'm entitled to be part of his life!" As I commented earlier, that's nothing but ego.

Several people in this thread have contended that since David turned out okay, Kirk (and Carol) did nothing wrong. This is a work of fiction. ... But we also have RL evidence that, all other things being equal, having two parents does advantage a child.

Well, of course it's a work of fiction. What we're talking about is whether the characters' actions (as determined by the writers, of course) were reasonable and plausible. They were. You can't apply that "all else equal" formulation here, as I discussed earlier, because the fact that the parents did not want to be together obviously renders things unequal.

Honestly? I can live with Kirk being flawed. Another thing that's true IRL is that all of us are flawed in some ways, at some level; as a more religious friend of mine is fond of quoting, "For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That Kirk has made some questionable choices makes him a more realistic, more human character.

I agree about Kirk, and about human flaws, in the abstract. I just don't think this situation qualifies.

(Can't agree about the "sin" part, though — that's a point of view that irritates me, since even if God actually existed, "sin" is basically defined as disobedience to him, and in my worldview obedience to arbitrary authority is a character flaw, not a virtue. But I digress.)

...I think that in the case of Kirk, he was too willing to agree that he could bring nothing of value to his child's life. He's an intelligent, capable, loving, brave -- even heroic -- man; if nothing else, those are admirable traits for a child to see in someone in his life.

I don't think either he or Carol imagined that he would "bring nothing" to the child's life. It's a question of what he would bring. Kirk admired his own father, so far as we know, and even with a Starfleet career it seems reasonable to suppose he could have been as good a father to David as George Kirk was to him. The difference is that George had Winona's cooperation in the process, whereas Jim attempting to do the same would've been in conflict with Carol. She saw them as living in different and incompatible worlds. As you put it,

He had a job Carol didn't care for, and didn't want her son to follow him into, and that's the whole substance of her objection.

That's really not a small thing. It can be hugely influential in a child's life.

(As an aside, this is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of the Vanguard novels' use of Carol. Given her objections to Kirk, it would seem more than a little hypocritical of her to then haul her young son off to a dangerous deep-space Starbase where he would be surrounded by scads of Starfleet officers with decidedly military priorities, no more admirable than Kirk and often much less so. It would've made much more sense for her to raise him in some peaceful, research-oriented civilian setting.)

I maintain that in the end we don't know enough about the particulars of their situation to judge either of them.

Hear, hear. I'm not willing to cast aspersions on either one. We don't know the precise circumstances or reasons behind their decisions (heck, that's why this thread exists!), so people are bringing lots of suppositions into things in order to place blame. Myself, I don't really see anything to place blame for... whatever the details, it appears that Kirk and Carol, and also David, went on to lead fulfilling, meaningful lives.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Well, not that it matters, but I am a Psychologist.

And how does that make you feel?

View attachment 4586

We need one of those that replaces "children" with "moderators".

 

[1001001]

And how does that make you feel?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

We don't know the precise circumstances or reasons behind their decisions (heck, that's why this thread exists!)

Well, the thread exists because I was curious how most people interpreted that scene & I wanted to find out what they thought about exactly when Kirk found out about David. I was never expecting the huge debate about parental rights & all of that. Frankly, if I was, I would've just taken it to The Neutral Zone section of the Forum. I was just trying to settle a chronology question.

 

[Commishsleer]

It wasn't just Kirk's right to be in his son's life. It was his responsibility.
What if Carol had shacked up with some guy who hurt David physically or emotionally. Easy to say in retrospect it never happened But Kirk would never know because he 'stayed away'.

And the Courts will give you access to your child provided you act normal (don't get violent) and are not of course a criminal, drug addict, mentally disturbed - which Kirk was not. And David would not be disturbed by any custody battle that happened when he was 6 months old. If Carol decided to persist in defying the court then full custody would be granted to Kirk and then Kirk might have to make a decision his career or looking after his son. Usually it won't come to that and the mother will cooperate with access. These are 2018 courts of course. Perhaps 23rd century courts are different

 

[Timewalker]

I think that in the case of Kirk, he was too willing to agree that he could bring nothing of value to his child's life.

Whoever suggested that Carol wanted him to stay away because he couldn't bring anything of value to David's life? That certainly was not the reason Carol herself gave.

If Prime Admiral Marcus was anything like his Kelvin version I have a theory that Dr Marcus projected her daddy issues onto her child.

Could we please leave nuTrek out of this? Admiral Marcus isn't a TOS character and David isn't a nuTrek character.

USER=7939]@Timewalker[/USER] - yeah, Carol was having a thing with one of the Regula I researchers (in the novelization) but it wasn't Jedda. The guy's name was Vance Madison.

Thanks for the correction. It's been literally decades since I last read that novel, so I wasn't clear on this point.

Well, the thread exists because I was curious how most people interpreted that scene & I wanted to find out what they thought about exactly when Kirk found out about David. I was never expecting the huge debate about parental rights & all of that. Frankly, if I was, I would've just taken it to The Neutral Zone section of the Forum. I was just trying to settle a chronology question.

It's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad it wasn't there, because we wouldn't have had the input from the folks who aren't opted in.

 

[DonIago]

It wasn't just Kirk's right to be in his son's life. It was his responsibility.
What if Carol had shacked up with some guy who hurt David physically or emotionally. Easy to say in retrospect it never happened But Kirk would never know because he 'stayed away'.

Are you suggesting that, especially in the 23rd century, and knowing what we know of her, Carol would have become some hapless "damsel in distress"?

Carol certainly didn't seem to have reservations about reaching out to Kirk in TWOK when she felt she needed to.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Are you suggesting that, especially in the 23rd century, and knowing what we know of her, Carol would have become some hapless "damsel in distress"?

Carol certainly didn't seem to have reservations about reaching out to Kirk in TWOK when she felt she needed to.

That was essentially my reaction to that scenario, as well. The scenario really seemed to be laced with so-called traditional gender roles and sexism, with the man cast as the protector and the woman cast as not only vulnerable without a man around but also promiscuous (owing to the subtext behind "shacking up").

Maybe that wasn't intended, or maybe the poster was thinking of a particular scenario in their own personal experience.

Besides, we're also led to believe that crime, especially on places like Earth, is all but eliminated in the 23rd century. An emotional or physical abuser would likely be quickly identified and... rehabilitated.

In any case, and without any comment on whether Kirk was meeting all of his parental responsibilities, I think we can safely assume that, if Kirk had not had faith in Carol's judgment, he would not have acquiesced to allow Carol to raise David on her own.

What if Carol had shacked up with some guy who hurt David physically or emotionally.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Carol certainly didn't seem to have reservations about reaching out to Kirk in TWOK when she felt she needed to.

It probably helps when you're as pissed off as she was.

 

[DonIago]

I'm willing to go out on a limb and venture a guess that anyone hurting David physically or emotionally would have pissed Carol off.

 

[MAGolding]

I see this has become a discussion of parental responsibility, father's rights and duties, and so on.

In "Requiem for Methuselah":

FLINT: Galileo, Socrates, Moses. I have married a hundred times, Captain. Selected, loved, cherished. Caressed a smoothness, inhaled a brief fragrance. Then age, death, the taste of dust. Do you understand?
SPOCK: You wanted a perfect, ultimate woman, as brilliant, as immortal as yourself. Your mate for all time.

I note that Flint does not mention children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, etc.

If Flint married a hundred times, either he was sterile or he had a bunch of children over the millennia from his various marriages. When one of Flint's wives died of old age, their children, if any, would probably be adults and able to take care of themselves, and Flint might possibly have given them land or money to support them before faking his death and leaving. But a lot of Flint's wives would have died young in medieval or ancient times. And Flint could have taken care of them until they were adults and then move on.

Or maybe Flint was a serial deadbeat dad, abandoning his latest set of children whenever his latest wife died.

Or maybe Flint couldn't have children.

 

[Commishsleer]

That was essentially my reaction to that scenario, as well. The scenario really seemed to be laced with so-called traditional gender roles and sexism, with the man cast as the protector and the woman cast as not only vulnerable without a man around but also promiscuous (owing to the subtext behind "shacking up").

Maybe that wasn't intended, or maybe the poster was thinking of a particular scenario in their own personal experience.

Besides, we're also led to believe that crime, especially on places like Earth, is all but eliminated in the 23rd century. An emotional or physical abuser would likely be quickly identified and... rehabilitated.

In any case, and without any comment on whether Kirk was meeting all of his parental responsibilities, I think we can safely assume that, if Kirk had not had faith in Carol's judgment, he would not have acquiesced to allow Carol to raise David on her own.

I'll rephrase if you like "shacking up" to "met and married/cohabitated with a new man/woman" who 'had opportunity' to hurt David physically or emotionally. Perhaps that sort of thing doesn't happen in your 'fancy' neck of the woods but it happens in mine.
I'll give you a simple scenario (not mine thank goodness). Couple has 2 children. Man leaves his wife for another woman and starts a 'new family'. Man ignores his first 2 children. Son of first marriage is devastated. Son of first marriage does everything to get back into fathers life but new wife resents previous offspring.

Sorry I can't give you an example of where a man nobly 'stayed away' in my social group but I can't think of anyone who's admitted to that. And when people of my acquaintance say my ex won't let me see the kids I just tell them to go to Court (and implied - not stated - stop using that excuse).

And if you give Kirk the out that he wouldn't have left Carol look after the child if she wasn't absolutely perfect and that the 23rd century has no crime and all step-parents are going to be wonderful and caring then I still say that David would have benefited from Kirk in his life. Unless Kirk is the outlier - the only bad egg in the 23rd century.

And if Kirk had custody and Carol had stayed 'nobley' out of her son's life I would still say she had a responsibility to her son. She still should be a 'protector' of her son if necessary say if Kirk 'married; a Janice Lester (although you never know Janice could have have been a good mother). You know if she were interested in her son at all.

 

[Timewalker]

I see this has become a discussion of parental responsibility, father's rights and duties, and so on.

In "Requiem for Methuselah":



I note that Flint does not mention children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, etc.

If Flint married a hundred times, either he was sterile or he had a bunch of children over the millennia from his various marriages. When one of Flint's wives died of old age, their children, if any, would probably be adults and able to take care of themselves, and Flint might possibly have given them land or money to support them before faking his death and leaving. But a lot of Flint's wives would have died young in medieval or ancient times. And Flint could have taken care of them until they were adults and then move on.

Or maybe Flint was a serial deadbeat dad, abandoning his latest set of children whenever his latest wife died.

Or maybe Flint couldn't have children.

If Flint claimed to be Galileo (let's leave Moses out of it, since there isn't any ironclad evidence that he really existed), then he had children.

Over the years, however, I've come to think of "Requiem For Methuselah" as a precursor to the Highlander TV series, and the reason no sword was used in the Star Trek episode is because Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are not Immortals.

And if you give Kirk the out that he wouldn't have left Carol look after the child if she wasn't absolutely perfect and that the 23rd century has no crime and all step-parents are going to be wonderful and caring then I still say that David would have benefited from Kirk in his life. Unless Kirk is the outlier - the only bad egg in the 23rd century.

The "Earth is a utopia" thing is TNG's schtick. Obviously there is crime in the 23rd century.