View Full Version : More than two parents for the legal standard in Calif
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/california-multiple-parents-bill_n_1644613.html
In the state of California multiple people, more than two, may have legal parental authority over children if this legislation goes through.
I guess this is codifying Hillary's "Village" to raise a child.
Probably some of you think this is a good idea. I'd be interested in your reasons for that.
ToomuchStuff
7-3-12, 1:40pm
I don't think this is a good or bad idea. Way too early into it for that. What role will Judges be given by this? Will they have leeway? I have seen instances where step parents are more parents, then the biological. This doesn't stop visitation rights, but may mean a better situation for the child. Yet I don't want to go to extreme, either. That is why I ask are Judges given leeway?
I know of one instance now, where a child is being raised by a step grandmother. Her husband had custody after the parents died, then he died a couple years ago. What if his ex were to come back into the picture, after having nothing to do with the kid?
Can't have extremes of EITHER. IMHO
Most people will think of this in relation to gay marriage, or perhaps some of the new fertility arrangements involving surrogates/donors, but this can actually very valuable for families where a step-parent is adopting his/her step-child. (Which, at the time a sibling adopted his step-daughter, he was told was the majority of child adoption proceedings, interestingly.) For my brother to adopt his daughter, her biological father had to agree to terminate his parental rights first because legally a child could only have two parents. Now as it happened, the bio-dad was easily located and cooperative so all moved forward smoothly. But in a more contentious situation, it might be to the child's benefit for the stepparent to have parental rights even if the biological parent's rights cannot be terminated. (For instance, if the mom were ill, and the biological dad were a poor parent, then it might be best for the child for her step-dad who had raised her to have full parental rights and a stronger claim for custody if the mom died.) Under this new law, it looks like a family court judge would have to review the situation and make a call.
Whether this is a good idea overall, I don't know--family court judges would likely have to parse some really complicated situations if one of these 2+ situations broke down...
I can see good and bad in this - it's only as good as the people with parental authority are. In situations where all parties (older child being one of the parties) want this, I don't see it as a bad thing. I can also see where it could get very "complicated" when the parties involved have different ideas of what should be.
What happens now when two divorced parents have co-custody and one of the parents remarries? The step parent has no legal parental authority? The divorced parent loses legal parental authority? I would have thought they'd all have it anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/california-multiple-parents-bill_n_1644613.html
In the state of California multiple people, more than two, may have legal parental authority over children if this legislation goes through.
I guess this is codifying Hillary's "Village" to raise a child.
Probably some of you think this is a good idea. I'd be interested in your reasons for that.
I haven't read the article, but in my childhood I was brought up by 3 people.
Divorced Mom - practicing alcoholic, abysmal, but loved us as best she was able
Divorced Dad - also alcoholic, sobered up in my early childhood, but very self-absorbed and running around doing his own thing, present for all of our sports stuff though and totally present financially
Paternal Grandmother - Glue that held it all together, made sure sis & I in church every time they opened the doors, did all of our teacher gifts, knew our friends, ironed the name tags in our clothes for camp, made sure we did our summer reading, etc.
Our family made all efforts to stay away from government as much as possible, so we weren't that hung up on legalities of custody - the realities of the situation dictated what nights we spent the night with whom.
Oh, your mom's still at happy hour even though she said she would be home when grandmother is supposed to drop you off after Wed church.. and she continually chooses this weeknight to get loaded and not come home -- guess you are spending the night with grandmother on Wednesdays.
But in our case I think if my Grandmother needed she would have had as much right (if not more) of our custody.
Maybe not on topic as related to article, but off the top of my head response based on question.
Will read article for sure, thanks for posting it.
Well, as a stepmom, I would have been reassured by this. I had all the responsibility with none of the legal authority.
I haven't read the article, but in my childhood I was brought up by 3 people.
Divorced Mom - practicing alcoholic, abysmal, but loved us as best she was able....
How would this law have made your parent, already responsible for you, to act in a responsible way?
Well, as a stepmom, I would have been reassured by this. I had all the responsibility with none of the legal authority.
But in today's world with gay marriage sanctioned and etc, wouldn't you have had the legal environment to go for parental rights?
.... What if his ex were to come back into the picture, after having nothing to do with the kid?
Can't have extremes of EITHER. IMHO
What is preventing step grandmother from going for custody now? Who actually has legal custody of the child now?
I think it's disgusting!
What is "disgusting" about it? It is simply a tool to help deal with messy family situations.
I raised my neices for several years, as did my mother, while my sister and her husband were on their multi-state crime spree, and busy selling off their other babies, or aborting them when they couldn't find a buyer. It would have been handy if the courts had had another potential tool to protect the kids.
What is "disgusting" about it? It is simply a tool to help deal with messy family situations.
I raised my neices for several years, as did my mother, while my sister and her husband were on their multi-state crime spree, and busy selling off their other babies, or aborting them when they couldn't find a buyer. It would have been handy if the courts had had another potential tool to protect the kids.
So you see this law as giving you additional or better (or whatever term) legal standing in any custody action because your nieces' birth parents would not have signed off on custody to you, is that right?
How would this law have made your parent, already responsible for you, to act in a responsible way?
I don't think it would do diddly about that, but if needed my grandmother could have pursued the rights she needed since she was really the one bringing us up (???), say my dad didn't bankroll everything or my mom was truly doing terrible harm to us
We had a relatively peaceful situation for a crappy throw of the dice of life.
BTW, I'm not defending the law - I need to read article to even know what I'm talking about.
I'm just saying a village raised me.... but I want to stay as far away as I can from 'El Federales', as my mom referred to the gov.
I guess what has my dander up is that the way topic was framed it is a Liberal Assault on The Family (via 'hillary village reference').
I think more what is at hand in The Family Under Assault from Modern Life and a liberal attempt to address it.
I can see how it might allow for giving legal standing to loving grandparents, for example, who may not have it under current laws. I'm not at all turned off by the idea of a village raising children, if by "village" you mean supportive, caring, involved community. After all, that's the way it's always been done.
ToomuchStuff
7-3-12, 3:23pm
What is preventing step grandmother from going for custody now? Who actually has legal custody of the child now?
From what I understand of the situation, she has legal custody, via the wills, etc. (parents granting custody to the biological grandfather, his will providing legal guardianship to his wife). But since she isn't the biological one, one of the others, could force the issue, if they so choose. (guardianship, typically gives to parental rights, if no abuse or extenuating circumstances. Legal guardians can sue for adoption, and a judge can suspend parental rights, but what if they still want a civil relationship?)
Granted some choose to leave it alone for the benefits of the child, some want nothing to do with the kids/family, but others will force the issue because they think blood is everything. In my family tree, there is adoptions, siblings and grandparents raising nieces and nephews, etc. This provides the Judges one more tool as long as it isn't forced guidelines.
Is it right in all situations, a RESOUNDING no. Is it the right thing in some, if this gives the Judge some common sense usage, then yes.
So you see this law as giving you additional or better (or whatever term) legal standing in any custody action because your nieces' birth parents would not have signed off on custody to you, is that right?
I have not read the text of the law, only the OP's link.
The story indicates the law opens up options for judges in resolving messy situations.
My situation was particularly messy, and "custody actions" are especially messy when violence and death threats are involved, some of the parties are not free actors. Some additional tools in the hands of the judges could have prevented at least one death, I suspect.
I would've loved to have had more than two parents I was dealt, both of whom were useless as parents and protectors. I wasn't wanted underfoot, and my maternal aunts DID want me and if they'd had more rights could've helped me avoid the abusive and life-threatening aspects of my childhood. This sort of law, on the surface, does not get my dander up.
Is Glenn Beck telling everyone they should be angry about this? 'Cause if he is, well, I should get right on it then, rather than trying to see its merits.
Is Glenn Beck telling everyone they should be angry about this?
What are we supposed to be angry about? Some sort of space-alien gay/transexual/polyamorous agenda thing?
<sarcasm>I'm sure there must be a liberal agenda here somewhere, and I just like to obey Glenn's orders whenever possible. </sarcasm>
I am comforted a bit by this wording in it:
"In an appropriate action, a court may find that a child has more than two natural or adoptive parents if required to serve the best interest of the child. In determining a child's best interest under this section, a court shall consider the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents' relationships with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships."
Seems like it creates an even bigger legal morass in custody battles and in child support decisions - but I don't see anything disgusting, just, er, complicated. An interesting evolution of our social net...
I dreamed of being abducted by benevolent space aliens when I was a kid....
Originally posted by Bae.
It is simply a tool to help deal with messy family situations.Or... a tool in which to promote messy family situations. Generally speaking, I think two good solid, well-rounded figures are the ideal combination. Even then, when both parents fail to work from the same page, that almost always proves to be detrimental to any child, never mind adding another one or two (or more) to the mix.
Generally speaking, I think two good solid, well-rounded figures are the ideal combination.
I think parents who take their marriage vows seriously, and who don't divorce, and who are good-natured, intelligent, moral people, and who don't have children until they can handle them, are the ideal.
What percentage of the population is like that, do you suppose?
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-12, 4:09pm
That the nuclear family can have a lot of potential darkside, is no secret. The degree of isolation and insularity that can be part it just magnifies it, it's the whole world to a kid and often an alien world indeed. Could be a legal morass to have dozens of legal guardians though yea.
I suppose I don't understand the legal definition of the term "parent" as it applies here. On the surface, it seems this ruling is a normal evolution of today's society, and has NOTHING to do with a LGBT agenda. (or any other agenda - Christians, for example).
With so much divorce, single people living together, grandparents or other relatives helping out with children, etc - this is just one more tool in the court's tool kit to ensure a child has a loving and caring home life.
My son dated a young lady who was raised completely by step-parents. Her bio mom and dad divorced before she was born, mom kept baby. Mom remarried, and within one year divorced. (One can assume she married to share the load of child-rearing, and when step dad said he'd take over, she quit). Step-dad later remarried, and he and his new wife raised to adulthood a child who was neither of their's biologically.
Or... a tool in which to promote messy family situations. Generally speaking, I think two good solid, well-rounded figures are the ideal combination. Even then, when both parents fail to work from the same page, that almost always proves to be detrimental to any child, never mind adding another one or two (or more) to the mix.
I agree, but I don't think denying different options if the kid doesn't have two good solid, well-rounded figures is going to make even one 'traditional family' have better parents. People who are inclined to be messy, lousy parents won't care one way or the other about this law and it certainly won't change their behavior. People who are lousy parents usually are so because they are too focused on their own needs/wants to the exclusion of those of people around them, including their children. I have trouble imagining a situation where someone is a reluctant, but good, parent and sees this law and says "Yes! Now I can go be an irresponsible parent since the courts will just add a third parent to the mix and everything will work out fine!"
Originally posted by Bae.
What percentage of the population is like that, do you suppose? Not many, is my guess, but with such odds, is it right to add even more confusion and turmoil to a child's life by adding another set of less than ideal guardians?
Such guardians, you can only assume from the law's text, would be vetted most vigorously, and if I had to guess, would be just as likely to add stability to a child's life versus reducing it. In my case, additional (loving) legal guardians might've saved me from a pretty terrifying childhood. Not to mention the cost of twenty years of psychotherapy to recover from it.
My birth parents would not have signed off on releasing legal custody, as that would've been too much for their self-image. But share legal custody? Maybe.
ToomuchStuff
7-3-12, 4:27pm
Not many, is my guess, but with such odds, is it right to add even more confusion and turmoil to a child's life by adding another set of less than ideal guardians?
How do you add ideal guardians? If you can solve that, please do.
By no means, do I live in a perfect world.
So you see this law as giving you additional or better (or whatever term) legal standing in any custody action because your nieces' birth parents would not have signed off on custody to you, is that right?
Oooh, Iris. Sticky situation!:0! On the one hand Rush Beck says this is bad, and a LIBERAL idea so, evil actually! On the other hand, one of the resident conservatives has actually thought about this (and experienced it first hand) and thinks it might be a useful tool to get to what's best for the kid, which isn't just a liberal idea as it turns out.
What to do, what to do? How will you know what to think about this?!;)
I don't know how I feel about this.
I can see situations where it would be in the best interest of a child. I have a friend, for example, who was a stepmother to a little boy (J) who's bio-mom was largely absent, but would never have relinquished her parental rights. J is the same age as my Bella, seven, and has a biological brother from his dad and step-mom and a "brother" who is 11 that he has lived with since he was a baby. Stepmom is the only mom he really knows, but Dad is mad at Stepmom and refuses to let J see either Stepmom or the older brother. That is devastating for a kid. The situation was messed up to begin with, but now it's even more messed up. If Stepmom was considered a parent, which she has been all along in practice, she would have the right to see him and, more importantly, he would have the right to see her and his brother.
That said, stuff like this makes me nervous because family court seems to have infinite ways to mess things up for kids. I've seen some situations that are just astounding. I do think there are a lot of situations where having more than two parents could really compound the chaos.
But in today's world with gay marriage sanctioned and etc, wouldn't you have had the legal environment to go for parental rights?
One would hope! Sadly, not yet.
Oooh, Iris. Sticky situation!:0! On the one hand Rush Beck says this is bad, and a LIBERAL idea so, evil actually! On the other hand, one of the resident conservatives has actually thought about this (and experienced it first hand) and thinks it might be a useful tool to get to what's best for the kid, which isn't just a liberal idea as it turns out.
What to do, what to do? How will you know what to think about this?!;)
I think it's much to-do about nothing as often happens in LaLaLand. Most likely, if it goes through, it will in some cases work in favor of children and in other cases it will work against them. The law isn't going to solve situations where irresponsible adults are fighting over custody or even are abandoning it. Somewhere along the way I remember hearing a judge on the East Coast lament that family law hasn't caught up with current situations in which there are surrogate and bio and adoptive and step parents, so I suppose this law might make him happy.
But it just sounds to me as though it is codifying more mess and less clarity. But whatever. Kids will suffer no matter what legislation is put forth in Calif.
Already I pity the kids who are "evenly divided" between custodial parents in different households where they trudge to one household for 3.5 days per week, and spend the other 3.5 days at the other parent's house. It's all very "fair" and "equal" yet I doubt it's in their best interest. Imagine divvying up the kid between surrogate mom and bio dad and adoptive mom who lives with 2nd hubby (step dad) and 1st adoptive dad. Throw in some militant grandparents who want their rights, dammit, and the kid won't know which end is up, where home is, or who he has to listen to.
I can see how it might allow for giving legal standing to loving grandparents, for example, who may not have it under current laws. I'm not at all turned off by the idea of a village raising children, if by "village" you mean supportive, caring, involved community. After all, that's the way it's always been done.
The Village of course weighs in on aspects of raising children, but making more people legally responsible just seems to me to in effect spread responsibility so that no one is really responsible.
The Village of course weighs in on aspects of raising children, but making more people legally responsible just seems to me to in effect spread responsibility so that no one is really responsible.
I'm just guessing this tool will be used in cases where you don't in fact have several responsible adults in the kids life. If the bio mother or father is responsible the judge has no reason to hand the kid over to a third party. But in so many cases, the third party is the only stable responsible person in the mix. I don't think this is a case where any comer has legal claim to the kid. Bio parents have first choice in responsibility to a kid, but if they fall down on the job, the courts now have legal leeway to find the person in the pool of adults in the kids life who will be responsible, and for a young adult, finally settling in to a stable household is way less disruptive than just staying in the unstable household with irresponsible adults in charge for many more years until that kid can strike out on their own, without parental support might I add. simply saying let's not rock the boat doesn't do the kid any service, and continues the sheltering of really bad parents from public scrutiny. I know some would like to never admit there are bad parents our there who would do harm to their own kids, but the truth is, there are some monsters our there, and they aren't all make believe.
bae, I'm curious now, where are your nieces now and how are they fairing?
... If the bio mother or father is responsible the judge has no reason to hand the kid over to a third party. ....
Sure he does, when that third party wants a piece of the commodity i.e. the child and is petitioning the court for that.
Oooh, Iris. Sticky situation!:0! On the one hand Rush Beck says this is bad, and a LIBERAL idea so, evil actually! On the other hand, one of the resident conservatives has actually thought about this (and experienced it first hand) and thinks it might be a useful tool to get to what's best for the kid, which isn't just a liberal idea as it turns out.
What to do, what to do? How will you know what to think about this?!;)
peggy, ya know, Ariana Huff evidently considered this newsworthy and the link I provided was from HuffPo.
ToomuchStuff
7-3-12, 9:05pm
Sure he does, when that third party wants a piece of the commodity i.e. the child and is petitioning the court for that.
That is where Judicial discretion should come into play. Give him the power to tell them to go pound sand, or pay the fee's of the defendant(s), or if they have evidence of abuse, wrongdoing (on a consistent basis, not a one time screw up), etc. then judge accordingly.
bae, I'm curious now, where are your nieces now and how are they fairing?
Both graduated from high school with decent grades, and live with their mother in Utah(*), and are working while doing community college/trade school.
Neither is likely to be a rocket scientist at this point, but with some care and support, they haven't fallen for the first guy to poke at their poor self-esteem and started cranking out babies. I just had dinner with one yesterday, she's out staying with my Mom here for a month or so this summer, and she's doing OK, all considered.
They could have been so much more, both are quite smart. When they arrived on my doorstep in elementary school, neither knew how to eat with silverware, they'd been eating fast food in the back seat of a car for years. They couldn't read or write when they were supposed to be in 2nd/4th grade. Their father used to kill family pets in front of them to discipline them, and the kids were old enough to have seen several siblings brought home for short periods of time before they vanished mysteriously.
I am not sure how the several nieces/nephews that got sold off are doing, presumably the families that purchased them really wanted a kid, and hopefully are taking good care of them. And the handful that were killed because they were inconvenient, well, I know what happened to them.
(*)One of my sister's earlier scams was "let's convert to Mormonism, the Mormons will take care of us!" It worked out differently than they expected, because they got caught in Utah eventually for some of their crimes, and the nice Mormon judge, a real hanging-judge, and the nice Mormon prosecutor and public defender arranged to have the mother and father jailed, the kids placed in a superb foster home, and eventually reintegrated the mother into the community through a series of halfway-houses and parole programs. The father is no longer with us, some of his old drug dealering partners finally found him and extracted their own judgement.
peggy, ya know, Ariana Huff evidently considered this newsworthy and the link I provided was from HuffPo.
Now Iris you know perfectly well that non-progressives don't have the ability to think original thoughts, hold well formed opinions or enjoy the ability to reason without first being indoctrinated by the evil entities known as Limbaugh and Beck. There's no other explanation! Well, at least in Peggy's world. :cool:
Already I pity the kids who are "evenly divided" between custodial parents in different households where they trudge to one household for 3.5 days per week, and spend the other 3.5 days at the other parent's house. It's all very "fair" and "equal" yet I doubt it's in their best interest. Imagine divvying up the kid between surrogate mom and bio dad and adoptive mom who lives with 2nd hubby (step dad) and 1st adoptive dad. Throw in some militant grandparents who want their rights, dammit, and the kid won't know which end is up, where home is, or who he has to listen to.
In our family, half n half worked. It was a major hassle some days, mostly for all the driving, but ultimately, the kids have a relationship with both parents, and grew to appreciate having two homes, double birthdays & extra step-grandparents, etc. Each household made sure the kids had time with the appropriate grandparents, and my stepkids got bonus cousins, as neither of their parents' siblings have children, but my sis does.
I think the key to making it work for all is the parents approach. Make it no big deal, and it becomes no big deal.
Now Iris you know perfectly well that non-progressives don't have the ability to think original thoughts, hold well formed opinions or enjoy the ability to reason without first being indoctrinated by the evil entities known as Limbaugh and Beck. There's no other explanation! Well, at least in Peggy's world. :cool:
Well, the link might have been HuffPo, but the 'Hillary village' crack was all Rush Beck. I never questioned the link, or the interesting topic to discuss, but Iris wasn't interested in a rational discussion. She WAS interested in classifying this liberal, i.e. 'nanny state hand-holding dumb idea'. With an OP like that, what do you expect?
Both graduated from high school with decent grades, and live with their mother in Utah(*), and are working while doing community college/trade school.
Neither is likely to be a rocket scientist at this point, but with some care and support, they haven't fallen for the first guy to poke at their poor self-esteem and started cranking out babies. I just had dinner with one yesterday, she's out staying with my Mom here for a month or so this summer, and she's doing OK, all considered.
They could have been so much more, both are quite smart. When they arrived on my doorstep in elementary school, neither knew how to eat with silverware, they'd been eating fast food in the back seat of a car for years. They couldn't read or write when they were supposed to be in 2nd/4th grade. Their father used to kill family pets in front of them to discipline them, and the kids were old enough to have seen several siblings brought home for short periods of time before they vanished mysteriously.
I am not sure how the several nieces/nephews that got sold off are doing, presumably the families that purchased them really wanted a kid, and hopefully are taking good care of them. And the handful that were killed because they were inconvenient, well, I know what happened to them.
(*)One of my sister's earlier scams was "let's convert to Mormonism, the Mormons will take care of us!" It worked out differently than they expected, because they got caught in Utah eventually for some of their crimes, and the nice Mormon judge, a real hanging-judge, and the nice Mormon prosecutor and public defender arranged to have the mother and father jailed, the kids placed in a superb foster home, and eventually reintegrated the mother into the community through a series of halfway-houses and parole programs. The father is no longer with us, some of his old drug dealering partners finally found him and extracted their own judgement.
Wow, poor kids. At least you were able to offer them some stability. Good thing they are still in your and your mom's life. With good examples and loving support, they might still rise above their unfortunate family circumstances. I have seen many young adults whom I thought were lost, pull themselves up and surprise everyone. Good luck to them.
Well, the link might have been HuffPo, but the 'Hillary village' crack was all Rush Beck...
No really, it was entirely my own. Does this mean that you think I should write for Rush Beck? I may be flattered.
I don't know that "it takes a village" is a "crack". I live in/near a village, precisely because I believe it *does* take a village. I like being able to call any random person on Main Street and have them locate my daughter within 5 mins for me, and I like that little old ladies let me know If There Is A Problem Developing.
I don't know that "it takes a village" is a "crack". I live in/near a village, precisely because I believe it *does* take a village. I like being able to call any random person on Main Street and have them locate my daughter within 5 mins for me, and I like that little old ladies let me know If There Is A Problem Developing.
No, the idea of "it takes a village" is spot on. When I was growing up, you couldn't get away with anything cause all the adults in the neighborhood were in cahoots!;)
But linking that to Hillary with a sneer is definitely a crack, as it was meant to be.
Iris, sure you could write for Rush Beck. You don't even need to think really, just know that every liberal/democrat is an evil, anti-American, god hating baby killing socialist, and EVERY idea, word, effort, action must be classified either liberal (bad) or conservative(good), kind of how you classified that article.
And that really makes it easy for us because if it is classified liberal, why we don't even need to take the time to read it or think about it or consider if it is a good idea. It's automatically trashed, along with anyone who DOES think it might be worth looking at. Which is where the conundrum comes from when people from both sides say let's look at this and consider how this might be a good thing. Of course, Rush would never allow that. In his world there can NEVER be consensus on anything! His stock in trade is to keep everyone spun up and in the hate mode.
I think i would be more flattered to know I could NEVER write for Rush.>8)
I think i would be more flattered to know I could NEVER write for Rush.>8)
But could you write for Lawrence O'Donnell?
Peggy, I just thought I'd beat the usual list of characters to the obvious punch.
Just having some (hopefully harmless) fun at your expense, sorry. (Classic bully tactic noted - 'sorry, but I'm doing it anyway' line)
Signed,
Self-Admitted...Talk out of both sides of your mouth, don't rock the boat, but let's be a smart-alec, Get My News from John Stewart/Colbert Nation Member*
*And not to offend Colbert Nation members either... I just happen to have an odd cafeteria-style belief system that often has me arguing both sides of any given issue (????)
Originally posted by Jp1.
I don't think denying different options if the kid doesn't have two good solid, well-rounded figures is going to make even one 'traditional family' have better parents.Denying or affording, whatever it may be, IMO, it stinks high to heaven.
ToomuchStuff. Perfect or imperfect world, this has all the earmarks for failure IMO. Example: Real parents (poor), guardian parents (RICH)! Yay! I wonder who wins-over Re: this one, regardless of what calibre of parenting skills the "rich" guardians bring to the table with them? But little ones and teens aren't impressionable, so no worries over favourites or anything...
But could you write for Lawrence O'Donnell?
Peggy, I just thought I'd beat the usual list of characters to the obvious punch.
Just having some (hopefully harmless) fun at your expense, sorry. (Classic bully tactic noted - 'sorry, but I'm doing it anyway' line)
Signed,
Self-Admitted...Talk out of both sides of your mouth, don't rock the boat, but let's be a smart-alec, Get My News from John Stewart/Colbert Nation Member*
*And not to offend Colbert Nation members either... I just happen to have an odd cafeteria-style belief system that often has me arguing both sides of any given issue (????)
Ha Ha Ha! I don't actually listen to Lawrence O'Donnell but I guess i will have to if that's who us John Stewart/Colbert Nation folks get our marching orders from! :laff::laff:
I'll take a cafeteria-style belief system over party-line-no-matter-what any day! Cafeteria-style means you actually think about that mystery meat casserole before you decide to take it or not! :)
I think the key to making it work for all is the parents approach. Make it no big deal, and it becomes no big deal.
I would say that this must be the case.
On the plus side, as bae says, this will allow people to step up and get custody when the parent's aren't responsible without going through the CPS system. So, there's an efficiency in it. The problem that I could see happening is people protesting too much -- taking parents to court to garner visitation/custody rights when the parents are responsible.
For example, I think that if my MIL saw this as a remedy to get her "rights" to see her grandson on a regular basis -- and could get that determined in a court -- then she probably would pursue it, even though we are fine, responsible parents (who, in her mind "stole" her grandchild from her). I'm sure, though, that a court would be reasonable and would not hear her claim -- because it is based not on DS's needs, but on her own desires. And I find that courts really do try to weigh the relative needs of the individuals involved.
That being said, as redfox says, once you do have a court order of custody and visitation, it really is what you make of it.
Many of the divorced families that I know purposefully live very close to each other and work diligently to make things as easy as possible for the kids. In one case, both parents live on the same street, and the children "float" between both homes, with each parent confirming with the other via text "hey, kid is here" that way the other knows where the other is. Even though their agreement asserts that it's so many days here, so many days there week-to-week or what have you.
One of my friend's lives in a neighborhood (about a 3 block radius) with all of her sisters (there are 5 sisters total), their children, their husbands, their exhusbands, the grandparents on both sides (in her case and two of her sister's case) and so on. I think every house is a family member. So, those kids are *exceptionally* fluid, but of course it's not at all court ordered. Her own son -- just 4 -- might be with his cousins and crash at granny so-and-so's who is the mother of the ex husband of her third sister, whose children are 7 and 9. So, it really is a little village. They also do a heck of a lot of gardening together. DS's friend was telling DS how they planted more trees over the weekend. Apparently all the dads --bio and step -- plus grand-dads (bio and step) were with all of the boy children planting trees, while the girl children were manning the mulch and the mums and grandmums were making lunch (and doing group cooking/freezing for everyone all week).
We are sort of forming an ex-pat family in our little community -- we have neighbors within walking distance for DS (two houses over), and then our neighbors have a baby, and then her mother has moved here, and then about 2 blocks down we have another family with a 9 yr old son, and so on and so forth. We want to set up biweekly "family dinners" with this crew, so that's what we're working on. :)
What is "disgusting" about it? It is simply a tool to help deal with messy family situations.
I raised my neices for several years, as did my mother, while my sister and her husband were on their multi-state crime spree, and busy selling off their other babies, or aborting them when they couldn't find a buyer. It would have been handy if the courts had had another potential tool to protect the kids.
You are the perfect person to respond to that comment. There really is no rational argument against what you said here. It is simply another tool for family court judges to deal with what is before them.
I have not read the text of the law, only the OP's link.
The story indicates the law opens up options for judges in resolving messy situations.
My situation was particularly messy, and "custody actions" are especially messy when violence and death threats are involved, some of the parties are not free actors. Some additional tools in the hands of the judges could have prevented at least one death, I suspect.
OMG. I knew it was a tough situation but not that dire. Very brave of you to take it on. I do admire you for that.
I think parents who take their marriage vows seriously, and who don't divorce, and who are good-natured, intelligent, moral people, and who don't have children until they can handle them, are the ideal.
What percentage of the population is like that, do you suppose?
I think that Mrs.M comes from the point of view of having a good, supportive husband who thinks the same way she does. We are not all fortunate enough to have the same background.
ToomuchStuff
7-5-12, 11:39pm
ToomuchStuff. Perfect or imperfect world, this has all the earmarks for failure IMO. Example: Real parents (poor), guardian parents (RICH)! Yay! I wonder who wins-over Re: this one, regardless of what calibre of parenting skills the "rich" guardians bring to the table with them? But little ones and teens aren't impressionable, so no worries over favourites or anything...
Just now getting back on. Family obligations yesterday.
Calibre of the parenting skills IS one thing the judge has to look at. Money may allow opportunities and may provide better lawyers, but that will not make a better person. This has a chance of failure, no different then out current system (thinking about the recent news story where the girl was found in the closet, after being returned to her mom by CPS, then dropping out of school a few months later.)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/23/32-pound-10-year-old-found-locked-in-missouri-closet/
It is a tool, pure and simple. No different then a wrench, where I can use a wrench to fix something, throw it into the workings and screw something up, or kill someone with it. A tool, is ONLY as good as the user.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.