Biological parents to King Solomon: "Split the kid in two. We're okay with that."

[shereads]

Heh heh.

Just go look in the hospital nursery at all the little babies with curly hair and beards.

I sell the stuff by the quart. Just bring your own mayonnaise jar.

---Zoot

My empties are in your PM box.

 

[Kassiana]

I think I see the problem, here. Well, several problems.

She, Boxlicker has said in essence what I have. Honestly. If you understand Box, you understand me. I'm not sure you do, as you didn't understand Box's analysis of your position, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

I'm analyzing this from the perspective of someone who sees a bad legal precedent ahead if we let the "She" perspective take over American law. Okay?

Here are the facts as I see them. If you want me to respond to you, address them, speak civilly, and keep ugly emotions out of your response as well. Thanks.

1. A man, X, does want to have a child.

2. The woman he's with, D, deliberately lies to him in order to get his rights terminated to said child.

3. Sadly, X believes D.

4. D lies again to get another family to adopt his child, now called C.

5. X finds out about D's betrayal only after a long period of time, when his rights are about to be terminated by C's adoptive family.

6. X wants his child and deliberately fights for his right to parent C.

7. Under the dominant perspective I see here, X has no right to C and should be sent away, never to see his child again.

What should the laws of the United States say when 1-6 happen? Should a man who, unlike most of the deadbeat dads out there, honestly loves and cares for his child, be denied the right to parent his child because a hateful woman lied to him and the courts? I don't think so. I think if we set up this precedent, we're encouraging lies and laziness. What is a better legal precedent to have?

I think that under these circumstances, X should be able to parent C, but the adoptive family should also be able to continue their relationship with C...just not as C's parents.

Are there any serious objections to the above? Honestly?

I'd love to hear your respectful replies.

 

[shereads]

I can't speak for shereads, but from my own perspective, my comments have nothing to do with the rights of the adoptive parents. I'm interested in the rights of the child, and that to me is what dictates that this be handled differently to a property dispute.

In a property dispute, the only issue is who has the best claim to the property. If someone steals my car and sells it to you - even though you know have no way of knowing it - it's reasonable for me to still want my car back. The car doesn't care who it goes to, and I had it first. On property, I am absolutely with you, although admitting some sympathy for the poor sucker who bought the car and now has neither car nor money.

With a child, however, the question isn't merely whether the original possessor or the eventual owner has better claim to the item. It's also about the health and happiness of the child. By advocating limits to parental power, I'm not dismissing their claim to be the proper "owners" or custodians - only suggesting that in such cases, the child's happiness is more important than that right to custody by the biological parent. Yes, in the event of crimes, someone will inevitably sufffer, and the parents will be very unhappy. But if the other choice is for the child to suffer confusion and misery, I think that the adults should shoulder the burden.



It would be best for the parents for this to happen, but I'm not convinced that it's best for the child. If s/he only knows that s/he lives with a loving family and is happy and rooted there, I don't think that there is any special biological power that would override that from the child's perspective - particularly as any "dirty tricks" would be unknown to the child and (in the cases cited) to the adoptive parents, leaving their relationship pure and untarnished. The existence of various social welfare agencies suggests that children themselves are not always better with their biological families. Also, interestingly, the hesitancy of most agencies to remove children even from much less than ideal homes is rooted back in that primary concern: the belief that uprooting a child from his or her family is a severe blow, and an action of last resort - not for the parent's sake, but for the child's.

Shanglan

I don't see how it could be expressed any clearer.

 

[Kassiana]

I don't see how it could be expressed any clearer.

Okay. So you're not looking at legal precedent setting, and I take it you don't want to.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I can't help but look at it from a legal (and personal, honestly) point of view here, and I don't understand how you can't, so I think I should stop posting here unless someone wants to talk to me about legal precedent this would set up.

Thanks for the civil response, She. I appreciate it, especially after I got a bit heated earlier.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Okay. So you're not looking at legal precedent setting, and I take it you don't want to.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I can't help but look at it from a legal (and personal, honestly) point of view here, and I don't understand how you can't, so I think I should stop posting here unless someone wants to talk to me about legal precedent this would set up.

Thanks for the civil response, She. I appreciate it, especially after I got a bit heated earlier.

Actually, looking at this from a legal precedent basis, in my opinion, only strengthens the position I've chosen. The trend of modern legal interpretation has been to increase the rights of children in comparison to older traditional standards. In very old approaches (100+ years) children are treated fairly flatly as property - something that comes out quite clearly when one examines things like articles of apprenticeship. In somewhat more recent times, the first case in which parents were prosecuted for child abuse in the United States was actually prosecuted under cruelty to an animal charges - because children had no seperate legal standing or laws regarding their treatment. That situation, mercifully, has been changed, and legal precedent to this date has been a steady increase in the autonomous rights granted to children. For the reasons listed in my last post, I think this a good thing on the whole, although like all ideas capable of extremes that are best weighed with individual inquiry.

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

Actually, looking at this from a legal precedent basis, in my opinion, only strengthens the position I've chosen. The trend of modern legal interpretation has been to increase the rights of children in comparison to older traditional standards. In very old approaches (100+ years) children are treated fairly flatly as property - something that comes out quite clearly when one examines things like articles of apprenticeship. In somewhat more recent times, the first case in which parents were prosecuted for child abuse in the United States was actually prosecuted under cruelty to an animal charges - because children had no seperate legal standing or laws regarding their treatment. That situation, mercifully, has been changed, and legal precedent to this date has been a steady increase in the autonomous rights granted to children. For the reasons listed in my last post, I think this a good thing on the whole, although like all ideas capable of extremes that are best weighed with individual inquiry.

Shanglan

Thanks, Fury. Good boy!

This addresses what "Hear My Voice" is trying to accomplish. (The foundation begun by Jessica's adoptive parents with the money from their book.) Their point is not to change the law in favor of adoptive parents. They lobby state by state to expand the importance of the child's best interests, which in some states isn't really defined or addressed by a particular process, but is at the discretion of the court. A judge whose sympathies are with one set of parents might easily rule that it's in the child's best interests to be awarded to them. He'd be an idiot to say "it's not a great gig for the kid, but I feel sorry for Mr. Manson and his niece, so they win."



What "Hear My Voice" is trying to achieve is a uniform requirement that one component of a custody case be a "Best Interests Hearing." A hearing devoted exclusively to presenting evidence of how a particular arrangement might affect the child. A Best Interest Hearing might be the time when the child's court-appointed legal representative puts forward the idea of a visitation arrangement so that the child isn't deprived of either set of parents. As it is now, it seems to become a tug-of-war between two sides that grow to hate each other, in which case a liberal visitation arrangement isn't going to be a priority of either side.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks, Fury. Good boy!

Delighted to be of service.

I think the idea of the child having an appointed legal representative an excellent one. It will help clarify that the child's interests are seperate to the question of how the adults get on with each other, and would hopefully generate some advocacy for the most vulnerable of the parties.

Shanglan

 

[Kassiana]

A Best Interest Hearing might be the time when the child's court-appointed legal representative puts forward the idea of a visitation arrangement so that the child isn't deprived of either set of parents. As it is now, it seems to become a tug-of-war between two sides that grow to hate each other

In part, too, that's due to the nature of the American legal system. We have an adversarial system here, not a cooperative one like in some other countries of the world (France, IIRC?), where all parties work together to determine the truth (criminal cases) or the best possible result (civil cases). The two sides are supposed to fight with each other by the nature of the system.

It may be that the best thing to do with child custody cases is to bring them to arbitration or mediation, or to reform the American legal system enough to make the family law cases, at least, non-adversarial in nature.

Shanglan, what would you do to discourage lying in order to terminate biological parents' rights? I am curious, because I know you do object to such behavior and I'm certain you've thought about it. Of course, if you don't want to answer, you can tell me to kiss your donkey.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan, what would you do to discourage lying in order to terminate biological parents' rights? I am curious, because I know you do object to such behavior and I'm certain you've thought about it. Of course, if you don't want to answer, you can tell me to kiss your donkey.

I would never direct your kisses to a donkey when I had to option of collecting them myself.

As for the question of discouraging lying, I would follow the same process by which I would discourage most other crimes. I would make sure that it is specifically a crime in the penal code, I would communicate it clearly on legal documents like birth certificates and legal surrenders of custody, and I would prosecute and punish it vigorously. I would also make it open to civil damages. As with any crime, it's impossible to completely prevent it, but I think that a seperate issue from who should suffer if it's committed.

Shanglan

 

[Kassiana]

I would never direct your kisses to a donkey when I had to option of collecting them myself.

As for the question of discouraging lying, I would follow the same process by which I would discourage most other crimes. I would make sure that it is specifically a crime in the penal code, I would communicate it clearly on legal documents like birth certificates and legal surrenders of custody, and I would prosecute and punish it vigorously. I would also make it open to civil damages. As with any crime, it's impossible to completely prevent it, but I think that a seperate issue from who should suffer if it's committed.

Shanglan

So for example, you would not support keeping a biological parent from having some form of relationship with her/his child if the situations we've been looking at occurred, would you?

It's one thing if the bio parent suddenly "changed his mind" after giving up his child for adoption, but in the cases we've been talking about, I think it'd be unfair to deny these fathers at the very least the right to build a relationship with a child they wanted.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would never direct your kisses to a donkey when I had to option of collecting them myself.

As for the question of discouraging lying, I would follow the same process by which I would discourage most other crimes. I would make sure that it is specifically a crime in the penal code, I would communicate it clearly on legal documents like birth certificates and legal surrenders of custody, and I would prosecute and punish it vigorously. I would also make it open to civil damages. As with any crime, it's impossible to completely prevent it, but I think that a seperate issue from who should suffer if it's committed.

Shanglan

Lying under oath or on sworn statements is already perjury, a felony. Other kinds of lying are also illegal as false advertising. If it were ever made illegal to tell a lie of any kind, nobody would be able to guard the jails because everybody would be prisoners.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So for example, you would not support keeping a biological parent from having some form of relationship with her/his child if the situations we've been looking at occurred, would you?

It's one thing if the bio parent suddenly "changed his mind" after giving up his child for adoption, but in the cases we've been talking about, I think it'd be unfair to deny these fathers at the very least the right to build a relationship with a child they wanted.

Oh heavens no. I think it would be very good solution for the biological parent to be able to visit and develop a relationship with the child. I think the main thing I see there is that it would be an added support to the child's life - a new person to help guide and care and offer emotional assistance - rather than the loss of a family, tearing the child away from adoptive parents that s/he views as his/her own. I think that you're right, that in circumstances where the adults were seperated from their children through deceit, it seems the fairest answer all around to allow them some role in their children's lives.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

If it were ever made illegal to tell a lie of any kind, nobody would be able to guard the jails because everybody would be prisoners.

Hence, actually, my comment on making lying about paternity a specific crime. It helps narrow the field and define the specific violation and appropriate punishment.

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hence, actually, my comment on making lying about paternity a specific crime. It helps narrow the field and define the specific violation and appropriate punishment.

Shanglan

Lying about paternity is quite common. Frequently, a woman would claim that the richest of her several lovers was the father of her baby. Also, frequently a man would deny absolutely that he was the father of a child even though he was aware that he might have been. Fortunately, there are usually ways to find these things out now.