What is a parent?

[Meadmaker]

What is a parent?

In another thread, related to marriage, I have expressed concerns related to family life in America. One of my consistent themes has been the connection between sexuality and reproduction. While that link may be pretty darned obvious to some people, others have objected. Whether I like it or not, those people have a point. After all, in this brave new world of technology and liberal attitudes toward sexual relationships, the two areas are increasingly divorced, for several reasons.

For one thing, it is fairly easy to have sex without causing babies. In the past, most people interested in having sex would end up causing birth, whether they wanted to or not, but not anymore. Contraception is nearly 100% reliable when used correctly. If you are absolutely certain you don’t want to have babies, vasectomies and tubal ligation are available. Of course, some people know that they are incapable of having babies due to medical conditions, and others are beyond childbearing years. If conception does happen accidentally, abortion is available in the US, most of Europe, and some other places. Finally, liberal attitudes toward sex now make it legal for homosexuals to have sex, which won’t end up producing babies.

On the opposite side of the coin, it is possible to have babies without having sex. Artificial insemination is readily available, so a woman can have a child who is the biological child of a man she has never met. Through in vitro fertilization, a woman can have a child with her husband without ever having sex, or with any other man, or in fact, she can have some other woman’s child with a man she knows, or a man she has never met. Eggs, sperm, and embryos can all be frozen, so that one or both biological parents need not even be alive, but they can still reproduce.

And, of course, adoption has always been an option.

So what does it mean to be a parent these days? Who is and who is not a parent? What privileges and obligations should parents have? Is it possible to stop being a parent? Can two people of the same sex both be parents of the same child? Can more than two people be parents of the same child? Less than two? I want to talk about parenthood today, as a legal concept. Does anyone else care to join in?

This post just described the issue. My next entry will post some of my thoughts on how the law ought to define and treat parents.

[Meadmaker]

So, I will begin with a basic observation. For the moment, an egg that came from one woman and a sperm cell that came from one man are still necessary to create a baby. Also, in order to make a baby, one woman has to become pregnant and bear that baby for several months. These conditions may change in the very near future, but I would like to ignore those possibilities for the moment in favor of the situation as it exists today, and is likely to exist during the next decade. If anyone really wants to discuss cloning and its implications, go for it. It might be here very soon, and there is a slim chance it’s already here, and we just don’t know about it.

What are the privileges and responsibilities of a parent? We can’t describe in exact detail all of them, but we can say in general terms. If you are a parent of a child, you are required to do everything reasonable to assure the general welfare of a child. Failing to provide the basic necessities to one of your children, to the best of your ability, can and should result in a charge of child neglect, which is a criminal offense. In exchange, you are given wide latitude over the control of that. You can do an awful lot to that child that you wouldn’t be allowed to do to any other human being. In fact, your control over that child continues unless your actions are demonstrably harmful to that child, in which case you could be charged with criminal child abuse.

So, in this world, who is a parent? Who, legally, has the right to take control of a child’s life and accept the responsibility for the welfare of a child? Most of the time, a man and woman have sex, make a baby, and become parents. But what about all those other cases? Here are my opinions on the subject. I’m not certain in every case that these are the right opinions. Part of my purpose is to examine these opinions and subject them to scrutiny.

If you don’t want to sort through all the legalisms that I have attempted to sort through in my mind, here are some principles that guided me:

Women who give birth have first chance to be considered the mother of the child. Biological parents, except anonymous sperm and egg donors, are usually next in line. Spouses are next, but in a few cases might take precedence over biological parents. Babies can’t be abandoned, but they can be given over to someone else for adoption.

For the sake of argument, I have allowed circumstances under which three people can simultaneously be parents of a child. I’m not sure this is a good idea, but I can’t think of any reason why it is not. I’m hoping someone can come up with a reason other than ,“It just doesn’t seem right to me”.

The rest of this post is a whole lot of detail that describes those principles and tries to think through all sorts of possibilities related to them. Feel free to skip if that level of detail doesn’t interest you.

1. In all circumstances, a woman who is pregnant is that child’s parent once it is born. Legally, every child born has one mommy (at least).

2. If you are a parent of a minor child, you cannot choose to cease being considered the legal parent of that child, except for very limited circumstances that I will try and detail below, all of which must include finding at least one new parent. In other words, babies can’t be abandoned, legally.

3.Legally, the parent-child relationship only exists for children who are born. A fetus does not have legal parents. Different laws can apply to fetuses.

4When a child reaches 18, the parent or the child may declare that there is no longer a legal parent-child relationship between them. If that happens, it can be reinstated at any time only if both the parent and child agree. Parents have no special control over adult children, but the parent-child relationship can influence inheritance and issues related to death, sickness, or burial.

5. If a woman is married to a man at the time she gives birth, and they both believe that the husband is the biological father of the child, then the husband is considered a parent of the child.

6. If a woman becomes pregnant through sexual intercourse, and the biological father can be determined, then the biological father is a parent.

7. If a man becomes a father as described in 5(i.e the usual case), but subsequently discovers that he is not the biological father, then he may have himself declared to not be a legal parent. However, he must do so within six months of determining that he is not the biological father.

8. An anonymous sperm or egg donor is never a parent.

9. If a woman is married, and she deliberately becomes pregnant through some means other than sexual intercourse with her husband, with the full knowledge of her spouse, then whoever is her spouse at the time she became pregnant, is a parent. (If two lesbians agree that one of them will get knocked up by a mutual friend, the two lesbians are the legal parents, unless the man wants to be. See below.)

10. If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, the woman becomes pregnant, but the woman marries a different person before the child is born, the man might not be considered a parent.

11. If the man is aware that the woman is pregnant with “his” child, and does not object to the marriage or inform the spouse, then he is not a parent.
If a person is married to a woman at the time she gives birth, and that person is aware that he or she is not the biological father of that woman’s child, but makes no objection, then he or she becomes a parent, assuming that the biological father does not claim parental rights.

12. If a woman has sex with a man, and becomes pregnant, she is obligated to inform the man who made her pregnant, if she knows who he is. That man will be the parent of the child unless he renounces his identity as a parent. He may only renounce his identity as a parent with the agreement of the woman.

13. Any person can renounce his or her identity as a parent of a child under the age of two years, only under the following circumstances.

14. There exists at least one other parent of that child who agrees to become the sole parent. OR
There exist one or more people willing to become that child’s parent or parents, and all existing parents agree to renounce their rights as parents.


15. If a person wishes to renounce parental identity for a child aged greater than two years, he may do so as in 12, but he must petition a judge to do so. The judge may prohibit the renunciation of parental identity if he deems it to be in the best interests of a child. (I really wanted to avoid any situation where I was relying on the judgement of a judge. I think no good can come of it. But I had to try and think of what to do when a bad dad wanted to abandon his 14 year old son, and there was someone willing to take him.)

16. If a woman begins a course of assisted reproductive technology (e.g. artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization) she may designate one partner. If she becomes pregnant as a result, the law will treat those two people as if the partner was a man with whom she had sexual intercourse that resulted in pregnancy.

17. If a woman agrees to act as a surrogate mother, bearing a child as part of a program of assisted reproductive technology, she may designate one or two people who will presumably become the parents of the child when the child is born. Such an agreement is not legally binding. In other words, the pregnant woman might decide to keep the baby as her own, in which case her only obligation is to pay the original person or couple for the costs incurred. However, if the pregnant woman decides not be considered the mother of the child, the original partners in the agreement automatically become the parents. In other words, she can’t decide that she doesn’t want the baby herself, but she will give it to someone she likes better than the original people in the agreement.

18. If a child has no parents, that child may be adopted by one or more other people.

19. If a married person adopts a child, the spouse must agree to the adoption. The spouse does not necessarily have to also adopt the baby.

20. All persons adopting a child must agree to the adoption, and the simultaneous adoption by all other adopters.

21. Whenever anyone renounces their parental identity, and that renunciation is agreed to, the person has a recision period of at least thirty days during which to reclaim their parental identity. Once the renunciation becomes final, that person loses all claim to parental status.

[Tmy]

You know what freaks me out. These hollywood "parents" who have kids as if they are the latest must have accessory! They all have nannies raisning the kids. And no one calls them on being bad parents.

Its not like they are working 24/7. Why cant you watch/raise your own kid. Does anyone think that Julia Roberts is changing diapers?

[CBL4]

Meadmaker,

All of what you wrote sounds pretty reasonable to me. I might quibble but it is generally appropriate.

Just out of curiosity, why did you decide you needed to spend the time on this issue?

CBL

[Meadmaker]

I left out a couple of important points. I think I'm up to 22.

22. Under no circumstances can the government declare that a legal parent is not a parent.

23. In the event of the death of all parents, those parents can designate someone who has the right to adopt their children. Those so designated have first opportunity to do so, but if they do not, close relatives have the right to adopt.

24. Divorce never changes the identity of someone as a parent.


Just out of curiosity, why did you decide you needed to spend the time on this issue?

CBL

Over in the gay marriage thread, I kept insisting that gay marriages and straight marriages could not be treated exactly identically, because gay marriages couldn't produce babies, but straight ones could. A lot of people thought that was incorrect. They thought that two lesbians, one of whom was artificially inseminated, or two men who adopted a baby together, could be considered exactly the same as a married couple with a child.

Some people also thought that it was inconsistent of me to insist that the most important thing about marriage was the raising of children, but then insist that the creation of the children was the really important part.

I'm exploring whether they are right.

There are also implications for divorce, for fathers' rights, for the institution known as "covenant marriage" and for all sorts of people, including me, who have used assisted reproductive technology.

[Kaylee]

1. In all circumstances, a woman who is pregnant is that child’s parent once it is born. Legally, every child born has one mommy (at least).

...

17. If a woman agrees to act as a surrogate mother, bearing a child as part of a program of assisted reproductive technology, she may designate one or two people who will presumably become the parents of the child when the child is born. Such an agreement is not legally binding. In other words, the pregnant woman might decide to keep the baby as her own, in which case her only obligation is to pay the original person or couple for the costs incurred. However, if the pregnant woman decides not be considered the mother of the child, the original partners in the agreement automatically become the parents. In other words, she can’t decide that she doesn’t want the baby herself, but she will give it to someone she likes better than the original people in the agreement.


I'm curious about point 17. In this scenario is the surrogate mother also the biological mother? IRL, sometimes she is and sometimes she isn't.

Just curious. Either way, I agree.

[Tmy]

I left out a couple of important points. I think I'm up to 22.

22. Under no circumstances can the government declare that a legal parent is not a parent.

.

What if they are really bad parents??? Cant you dump the jokers and turn the kid over to someone else.

And what about situations where someone raises a kid for years and then finds out hes not really the dad, its someone else. Who gets to be parent?

[slingblade]

I left out a couple of important points. I think I'm up to 22.

22. Under no circumstances can the government declare that a legal parent is not a parent.

"Under no circumstances" covers a lot of theoretical ground.
I also think it's largely the child's point of view that matters most . . . or at least most often.

Two kids get switched in the hospital. Mom A has Baby B, Mom B has Baby A. If it's discovered, the families have a variety of options for dealing with it, but as far as the kids are concerned, their Moms haven't changed. If it's never discovered, the women are still "legal" parents to the kids.

Maybe your statement that the government can't declare a "legal" parent not a parent is true. Something niggles at me that it may not be, but whatever.

All I'd like to mention here is that "parent" is both a noun and a verb. One can be the former without performing the latter, and vice-versa.

I feel that non-hetero couples who adopt or use insemination are parents just the same as hetero couples who also use those methods.

As to whether non-hetero couples can be parents, ask the kids. It's their opinions that really matter.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Meadmaker --

Just as there are many kinds of families, there are many kinds of parents. I generally agree with your defining principles, but they are not quite how I would have started. I would have started by defining three and a half classes of legal status for parenthood.

"Natural" parents automatically gain the legal responsibilities of parenthood at the child's birth, and are designated as the parents on the original birth certificate. No other legal paperwork is needed to establish their parenthood. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these will be the genetic parents, who are also the birth mother and her spouse. In a few cases it will be different, which is what the more detailed rules are for.

"Adoptive" parents accept the legal responsibilities of raising a child to whom they are not natural parents. There are two levels of adoptive parenting: fostering and full adoption. Generally there are paperwork and fees, often involving a court hearing. Usually the state holds these parents to a higher standard before approving the adoption, and to closer scrutiny, at least for a while, afterward.

"Non-legal" parents are part of a child's extended family. They usually do not have the same legal obligations as the first two classes do, but the moral obligation is just as strong. Sometimes, however, there are custody and support issues involved. Also, in the event of the death of all legal parents, these relatives form the pool of first choice for an adoption.

One sub-class of "non-legal parents" involves persons who marry someone who is already the legal parent of a child. By the nature of marriage and family, many of the obligations are shared between the spouses. There are different considerations in the event of a divorce or the death of the legal parent than if the new spouse were to adopt the child, but during the normal course of the marrige, there is little difference. Another, related sub-class is a person who relinquished legal obligations so that the other paren's spouse can adopt. These two quasi-legal types of parents have a closer tie emotionally than the others (grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.) and should have a higher legal connection as well.

From this starting point, my list of specifics would have grown a little differently, some of the circumstances you needed a lengthy explanation for, I might have been able to touch on in one or two sentences, and vice-versa.

Rather than generating such a list and then try to compare the differences, I will just comment on some of the things I noticed in your list.

4When a child reaches 18, the parent or the child may declare that there is no longer a legal parent-child relationship between them. If that happens, it can be reinstated at any time only if both the parent and child agree. Parents have no special control over adult children, but the parent-child relationship can influence inheritance and issues related to death, sickness, or burial.

I would have phrased it this way: On the child's attaining legal age, the legal responsibilities of parenthood end, except as provided in other law (for example probate law for parents who die intestate) or by mutual agreement. Parenthood itself -- the emotional ties and moral obligations -- continues.

5. If a woman is married to a man at the time she gives birth, and they both believe that the husband is the biological father of the child, then the husband is considered a parent of the child.

....through....

12. If a woman has sex with a man, and becomes pregnant, she is obligated to inform the man who made her pregnant, if she knows who he is. That man will be the parent of the child unless he renounces his identity as a parent. He may only renounce his identity as a parent with the agreement of the woman.

This is where my slightly more fluid concept of natural parents would have simplified the statements. These set out the more common combinations of natural parents.

13. Any person can renounce his or her identity as a parent of a child under the age of two years, only under the following circumstances.

14. There exists at least one other parent of that child who agrees to become the sole parent. OR
There exist one or more people willing to become that child’s parent or parents, and all existing parents agree to renounce their rights as parents.


15. If a person wishes to renounce parental identity for a child aged greater than two years, he may do so as in 12, but he must petition a judge to do so. The judge may prohibit the renunciation of parental identity if he deems it to be in the best interests of a child. (I really wanted to avoid any situation where I was relying on the judgement of a judge. I think no good can come of it. But I had to try and think of what to do when a bad dad wanted to abandon his 14 year old son, and there was someone willing to take him.)

I'm assuming that these rules are to allow for the common practice where one parent relinquishes all his parental rights and obligations so that the spouse of the other parent can adopt the child. I think the ability should be somewhat more flexible than it often is now, but not as flexible as it would be if these statements were the only conditions placed on the the practice. I'm not sure how it can be re-worded to allow both the flexibility and a tight framework.

21. Whenever anyone renounces their parental identity, and that renunciation is agreed to, the person has a recision period of at least thirty days during which to reclaim their parental identity. Once the renunciation becomes final, that person loses all claim to parental status.

I have never liked the idea that a parent who reliquishes his/her legal responsibilities so that the spouse of the other parent can adopt becomes a legal stranger. This is one of the main reasons that I would consider an almost quasi-legal status for the singled-out sub-class of non-legal parents.

22. Under no circumstances can the government declare that a legal parent is not a parent.

Unless that person has voluntarily and legally agreed to step down. (See my response to points 13 - 15.) But even then, only to a lower level of obligation, not to legal "strangerhood." (See my response to point 21.)

Or unless that person, by engaging in violent or dangerous acts neglects, endangers, or abuses the child.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

My last two comments are more by way of simply my philosophy than trying to shoehorn existing law into that philosophy.

Moving into the purely philosophical, rather than the legal, brings us to one of your unanswered questions. Can a child have more than two legal parents?

I don't know. Unless there are unusual circumstances, then at least one of the parents will not live in the child's primary home. This brings up custody and support issues, as well as the simple fact that that parent will miss out on a lot of "quality time" with the child. Granted, these issues arise even under the current system, and is one of the reasons that the non-custodial parent is often pressured to relinquish parental rights in favor of the spouse of the custodial parent.

I see no good answer to that, either under the current system or under a system with more than two legal parents. A system more in tune with my musings about a quasi-legal status for the spouse of a parent might provide the child with a more natural arrangement (living with two "parents" in the primary home, and vacationing with another two "parents"). It is the usual de facto arrangement, so why not make it official?

While "plural marriage," as practiced by some break-away Mormon groups would not immediately evidence these problems (although in the case of a divorce, it could multiply them.), I have other reservations about the practice Plus, it currently is illegal.

[Meadmaker]

Real life case that is prompting part of my musings on the subject of parenthood, and gay and straight marriages. Friends of mine. We’ll call them Amy, Beth, Charles, and David. Amy and Beth are married, but since we live in Michigan, the law doesn’t recognize the marriage. Amy wanted a baby. Beth thought it was a good idea, too. Charles was a mutual friend. Amy was artificially inseminated with Charles’ sperm. David was born. David is now 7.

Amy and Beth live together, and are raising David as their joint child. Charles remains actively involved in their lives, but does not live with them. Everyone involved, including David, knows that Charles is David’s biological father.

Now, is Beth a parent? Under current law, no. If gay marriage were allowed, then I think she would have to be considered a parent. Charles, on the other hand, has no parental rights or responsibilities under either current or hypothetical future law in which gay marriage is legal.

But should it be impossible for Charles to be a parent, even if Amy and Beth are legally married? I can think of no rational reason it ought to be impossible. If Amy and Beth can both be considered “parents” of a child, then why not Amy, Beth, and Charles? It would be one of the cases where Amy and Beth, being spouses, are the presumptive parents of Amy’s child. However, both of them wish to create a third parent for David, and they all agree. Voila. Draw up the paperwork.

And, what if, instead of Amy, Beth, and Charles, we were dealing with Amy, Bob, and Charles? Amy and Bob are married, but for some reason Amy wants to have Charles’ baby. I don’t know why. Why should I care? Should it be possible for Amy and Charles to be considered parents of a child, even though that child was conceived and born while Amy was married to Bob? I can’t think of a good reason why not.

Or is there some point where we, as a society, say, “Enough is enough! Go out and screw whomever you want to, but when there are kids involved, there are some rules! We don’t give a hoot what extra-special relationship you have. From now on, all the laws are going to exclude the weirdos! And we decide who are the weirdos! We don’t have to explain why!”

(More to come)

[Scot C. Trypal]

What gets me is that there are many abusive parents out there (many not abusive enough to break the law), and you are worried about David. Some parents are so emotionally abusive their children will never recover; some women bring “fathers” in and out of their children’s lives, and it’s David making you wonder what makes a parent?

Is he abused? Do you think he’ll regret being born? Does he not benefit from having two parents and one other very involved adult? Criminals, even convicted pedophiles, can maintain and gain a status as “parent”, but these children raise by same-sex couples, most of them well-adjusted happy typical kids with dedicated homes, caused you to start a thread questioning if they should call their parents parents. All because of the gender of those raising them and/or a bit more complicated family story?

It reminds me of a case in Florida about a decade ago. A woman lost custody of her child to her ex-husband. Not only was she the primary caregiver, the “father” was a convicted murderer; he had killed his first wife. But the court didn’t want the child to grow up in the “lesbian world”, as though it’s a different world than this one.

Again, I think you are doing a similar thing and ignoring the real world actions and effects of parenting in favor of stereotypes. What matters here is what happens to the child, what the child needs, and so on, not genital shape.

Now, is Beth a parent? Under current law, no.

One meaning of parent that gets easily lost is the emotional/instinctual parent. It’s what all the legal, and social stuff is based upon, and you can be a child’s parent in this sense without being a legally or socially recognized parent. Say, for example, you found out tomorrow you weren’t your children’s father genetically. They were then taken from you legally, and the whole world stopped seeing you as a father. Would you be any less a father to your children? Beth is David’s parent in this sense, and, in my estimation, it’s the most important sense.

Still, you don’t think that for David, do you? No matter what they say, David only has one mom, right? Or at least that’s what you typed when I first read your posts about this family many months ago.

But it simply doesn’t matter to the kid if you or the law thinks Beth is his mom or not. Parenthood is infinitely more than that; it’s one of the most basic instincts in both parent and child. I mean, do you think Beth can just be taken out of the picture, like some stranger? You think explaining sex chromosomes, heredity, and the social norm of “girl+girl = bad; girl+boy = good” to the kid will make him respond less like he lost his mom than any other kid?

If the law is truly there to protect the rights of children (even ignoring parental rights), it would be there to force Beth to act as the David sees her, as she agreed to act.

But should it be impossible for Charles to be a parent, even if Amy and Beth are legally married? I can think of no rational reason it ought to be impossible. If Amy and Beth can both be considered “parents” of a child, then why not Amy, Beth, and Charles? It would be one of the cases where Amy and Beth, being spouses, are the presumptive parents of Amy’s child. However, both of them wish to create a third parent for David, and they all agree. Voila. Draw up the paperwork.

They don’t all control and live in the same household, right? The child has to live somewhere and there has to be some sort of means of decision-making for guiding his life. In the scenario you’re suggesting he’d be set up with visitation schedules right from the start, with 3 parents who do not love and are not obligated to each other. You can’t see a rational reason why that’d not be a good idea, other than it just doesn’t feel right? I’d be pretty sure Amy, Beth, David and Charles could, and they’d not dare risk the harm to David associated with this 3-parent scenario anymore than the average parent would.

Consider that Charles is, no matter how much a friend or genetic relative, an outside party, one who 1. willingly surrendered his parental obligations, 2. does not live with the child and 3. is not in love with or in a life-long obligation to the child’s other parents. He did not stay up all night patting David’s head with a wet rag when he was sick. He does not go to work each day for David’s sake. As odd as it may sound, giving Charles parental rights or obligations in this semi-hypothetical situation would undermine the child’s home, and I doubt many homes would go for that (though that’s exactly what many anti-gay activists want, to h#%l with what’s best for the child or what the child wants).

Or is there some point where we, as a society, say, “Enough is enough! Go out and screw whomever you want to, but when there are kids involved, there are some rules! We don’t give a hoot what extra-special relationship you have. From now on, all the laws are going to exclude the weirdos! And we decide who are the weirdos! We don’t have to explain why!”

Yes, of course there is, and that point is already in existing law. If you can prove that a child’s parents are weirdos (you know the type; they get pleasure from causing their children pain, or use them as sexual objects, or care so little as to not meet their most basic needs), then you can easily break up their family. But aside from weirdos, the law is greatly hands-off, and for good reason.

I mean, can we break up my neighbor’s family? They have way more children than they can care for, emotionally or logistically. I’ve had to stop numerous times for their 4 year old playing in the street. Wouldn’t he be better off in a family that can give him the full attention of mothering and fathering? And why stop there? Might not your children be better off in another home, Dave? Honestly, aren’t there better parents and homes out there than yours?

The fact is there is only one ideal family (yes, it’s my family ;) ). But there are no better parents for your children than your wife and you, Dave, the man who wanted to take on that huge responsibility, the guy who feels for them what no one else feels. That is, unless you become a weirdo and force the law’s hand.

Now, are you even hinting that you want to tighten the law’s grip on families? Maybe take kids from their homes because they weren’t conceived the right way or their caregivers aren’t the right sex? If so, it’ll get very ugly. It’s not just that government is capable of doing a lot of harm to kids when it interferes with family, and that no one wants organizations like the DMV deciding such matters. But try to take children away from true parents, those who truly know what their family is worth, as a matter of public policy and things will become vicious; that there would be your society-collapsing alteration of our culture.

[Tmy]

You seem to be really consumed about the rights of parents. What about the rights of children?? They aint possessions.

[Scot C. Trypal]

You seem to be really consumed about the rights of parents. What about the rights of children?? They aint possessions.

Was that directed at my post?

If so, could you be more specific? In rereading, the only mention of parental rights I can see is where I specifically ignored them, and I, throughout, focused on the child’s rights and the effects they feel.

[Meadmaker]

I'm curious about point 17. In this scenario is the surrogate mother also the biological mother? IRL, sometimes she is and sometimes she isn't.

Just curious. Either way, I agree.
Hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of a surrogate as a non-biological, but I think the two cases should be legally the same. Basically it says that if you give birth, the kid's yours, but if you are giving it away, you have to honor any previous agreement.

[Meadmaker]

What if they are really bad parents??? Cant you dump the jokers and turn the kid over to someone else.

My opinion is that you can take away custody, and refuse to let a parent exercise what would be considered normal parental rights, but you can't say that a parent isn't really a parent. You might be able to convince me to make an exception for criminal activity that affects the child.

And what about situations where someone raises a kid for years and then finds out hes not really the dad, its someone else. Who gets to be parent?

I think I covered this one. If you know that you aren't the dad, but you act like one anyway, then you're the dad. If you were deceived into thinking you were the dad, presumably by a lover who didn't mention that your relationship was something other than exclusive, you may, but are not required, to accept responsibility and be the dad.

There's a basic principle here. If you actually sire a child, you have a right to know that you did so, and you have the right to be acknowledged as the father, and you have a duty to perform the required acts of fatherhood. However, if there is someone else who is willing to take over that task, and everyone agrees that would be for the best, then the other guy can be the dad.

[Meadmaker]

"
Two kids get switched in the hospital.

Never thought of that. There's no good answer, but I think the best answer, legally, is that the legal parents of the child are the ones who raised the child for a long time before discovering the switch.

[Meadmaker]

What gets me is that there are many abusive parents out there (many not abusive enough to break the law), and you are worried about David.

Actually, I think David is getting along just fine. You, on the other hand, must think there is something wrong, because you want to change the laws that govern David's status. I'm just testing the limits of those possible changes.

Beth is David’s parent in this sense, and, in my estimation, it’s the most important sense.

I agree. I'm just wondering how the law ought to be written. For the moment, Amy and Beth get along just fine. If that changes, Beth has no rights.

Frankly, I'm ok with that. Not because that is what is best for David, but because I don't know what is best for David, and I don't want judges stepping in and deciding. Amy gave birth to David, and her opinions should be respected above everyone else's. As long as things continue as they are, that means that in every sense except the legal one, Beth is also David's mom, and Charles is a friend of the family.

What we have to worry about is what happens if Amy and Beth stop getting along. Meanwhile, we also have to decide whether Charles can possibly have any legal role in David's life, if that is the desire of Amy and/or Beth.

Real case from California a few months back. Two lesbians had a baby together, but just for a twist, lesbian A had her egg inseminated in vitro by an anonymous donor, and the embryo was implanted into lesbian B. But then lesbian B decided she didn't like lesbian A anymore. Where does the kid end up?

I don't know how the courts decided the case. What I would not like to see is a decision based on a judge interviewing the two women and deciding, "I think A would be a better mom, so I'll give it to A." I don't want to see that because it gives the judge incredible power. He could just as easily say, "I think these two are both flakes. I'll take the baby and give it to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They go to my church and want a baby."

If the law is truly there to protect the rights of children (even ignoring parental rights), it would be there to force Beth to act as the David sees her, as she agreed to act.

Would the law force Charles to do anything? Would it matter, legally, how David sees him? Should the law allow Charles to enter into the same sort of agreement that Beth entered into? The only difference is that Charles isn't having sex with Amy. Where do we draw the line, and why?

In the scenario you’re suggesting he’d be set up with visitation schedules right from the start, with 3 parents who do not love and are not obligated to each other. You can’t see a rational reason why that’d not be a good idea, other than it just doesn’t feel right?

I think I see your point. The obligations of parenthood create such demands that only two people who have a loving commitment to each other should be able to enter into that agreement. Is that it?

You also seem to be asserting that it is impossible for three people to have that sort of commitment. I agree with that. Does anyone reading this disagree?

(The real Amy, Beth, and Charles definitely do not have that sort of agreement or commitment, but could any three people have such a commitment? Should the government allow them to try?)

But there are no better parents for your children than your wife and you, Dave, the man who wanted to take on that huge responsibility, the guy who feels for them what no one else feels. That is, unless you become a weirdo and force the law’s hand.

So, it seems then that the basis for legal parenthood is the acceptance of responsibility and commitment. By that reasoning, if a guy meets a woman in a bar and has a one night stand, and doesn't want any part of the baby that resulted, is he a parent? Does he have any obligations? Morally, I think he has an obligation to immediately enter into a loving commitment with the woman and become an ideal parent to his child, but that's an unrealistic fantasy, and besides, I'm not really talking about moral commitments. I'm talking legal.

I frankly don't have an answer to that scenario, and it's related to your real life scenario and the Amy, Beth, Charles David real life scenario. It's related because it goes to what makes someone a parent. Is it the commitment to be a parent? Then our singles-bar one night stand guy is not a parent. Is it biology? Then Beth is not a parent.

As a matter of principle, I don't think anyone should have the obligations of parenthood without the rights of parenthood. I see the law treating men in particular as people who ought to pay child support, but who shouldn't be cosidered real parents.

My answer to who ought to be a parent is that if you make a baby with someone, you are the parent unless you
a) don't want to be a parent AND
b) can find someone who does want to be, and is willing to take over your obligations.

Meanwhile, if you are willing to take on the obligations of a child you didn't make, you may do so as long as someone who had previous parental obligations doesn't object.

If I understand your point correctly, you are adding an additional condition. If more than one person wants to take on those obligations and be considered a true parent, those two people must have a committed loving relationship, because that is necessary to create the environment in which they are able to provide the appropriate environment for the raising of a child. That would eliminate the bizarre cases, like three way parenting, and parents who are married to someone other than their co-parent at the time of adoption.

That makes sense to me.

(Over in that other thread, we'll mark you down as option number 6, and you can explain to others why you want to impose your view of morality on other people with a more liberal view of things. I doubt anyone will actually challenge you on it.)

[Meadmaker]

You seem to be really consumed about the rights of parents. What about the rights of children?? They aint possessions.

I'm guessing this is directed to me, not Scott.

I think parents are the protectors of children's rights. I'm just trying to figure out who the parents are.

The right wing says that there are plenty of people who think that parents are the enemy, and children need the government to protect them from bad parents. It's questions like this one that feed that thinking.

I think that unless there is an actual danger to health and safety, the government needs to keep hands off.

[Meadmaker]

I'm assuming that these rules are to allow for the common practice where one parent relinquishes all his parental rights and obligations so that the spouse of the other parent can adopt the child.

It covers that case, and every other case where the natural parent relinquishes parental rights.



I have never liked the idea that a parent who reliquishes his/her legal responsibilities so that the spouse of the other parent can adopt becomes a legal stranger.

But what's the alternative. If there is a legal parent, and another quasi-legal parent, and they disagree about what to do, who wins?

My answer would be that in every case, from great to trivial, the legal parent wins, because otherwise, they aren't really a parent. If a divorced parent gives the child up for adoption to the new spouse of the other parent, the divorced parent has to simply rely on the good graces of his ex and his or her spouse. I don't see any other way to make it work.

[TragicMonkey]

The right wing says that there are plenty of people who think that parents are the enemy, and children need the government to protect them from bad parents. It's questions like this one that feed that thinking.

Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes it's true.


I think that unless there is an actual danger to health and safety, the government needs to keep hands off.

Agreed. Again unfortunately, sometimes the first warning we get is a dead kid.

[Meadmaker]

Edited: Duplicate post

[Tmy]

I'm guessing this is directed to me, not Scott.

I think parents are the protectors of children's rights. I'm just trying to figure out who the parents are.

The right wing says that there are plenty of people who think that parents are the enemy, and children need the government to protect them from bad parents. It's questions like this one that feed that thinking.

I think that unless there is an actual danger to health and safety, the government needs to keep hands off.

Who says parents are always going to be the best protectors? Its not like you go under any training or certification to become a parent.

And are parents really under govt fire??? If anything its the opposite. Parents get the govt to interfere wh everyone elses rights in an attempt to babypoof the country.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Aren’t you getting tired of me jumping to the wrong conclusions about your posts, Dave? :) I know I am.

Anyway, I agree with much of your response. For goodness sake though, don’t resurrect the gay marriage thread. I’ve been wondering how to euthanasia that one since its page 5.

I’ll respond to the rest later.

[Meadmaker]

Who says parents are always going to be the best protectors? Its not like you go under any training or certification to become a parent.

And are parents really under govt fire??? If anything its the opposite. Parents get the govt to interfere wh everyone elses rights in an attempt to babypoof the country.

In answer to your questions, me and yes.

[TragicMonkey]

In answer to your questions, me and yes.

Parents are always going to be the best protectors? Always?

The couple is accused of starving to death their 6-month-old daughter, Woyah, with a strict raw-vegetable diet and causing severe malnutrition in their surviving four children, who moved in with Joseph's half-sister, Mary Andressohn, following Woyah's death in June 2003.

The infant weighed less than 7 pounds and was 22 inches long when she fell into respiratory arrest at home and died on May 15, 2003. Her weight had actually decreased since her birth

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20051021/cr_ct/guardianchildrenofparentsaccusedininfantsdeathwere malnourished;_ylt=AoXChQWHnEirsSgE7Di3DghvzwcF;_yl u=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Yeah, the parents are always going to be the child's best protectors.

[Tmy]

How about them Hollywood parents living off actor kids. You think they have the best interests in mind?? Making your baby cry for the cameras should be considered child abuse. But its ok for a movie or commercial???

Then there are teen parents. Most of them are friggen clueless. And druggie parents! Their priority is the drugs not the kids. There are alot of loser parents out their who wouldnt qualify for pet adoption, nevermind a kid.

Ive known peeople who work for child services. They are damn if they do and damned if they dont. IF they take kids away, they are scum messing wh parental rights. But if some kid is killed evryone complains that DSS did not do their job.

[Meadmaker]

I married someone who worked for child services. You are right. They are damnded if they do and damned if they don't. But that goes with the territory.

If you give parents strong authority with very few restrictions, some will abuse that authority, and that will result in death, injury, neglect, and all sorts of bad stuff happening to kids.

If you give social services strong authority, some of the people who work there will abuse that authority, which will result in some children being taken away from their parents unnecessarily. Those children will then be placed in foster care, institutional care, or some other arrangement, and some of those arrangements will be with really bad situations, such as abusive foster parents. This will result in death, injury, neglect, and all sorts of bad stuff.

Power corrupts, and will inevitably be misused. At least if you give wide authority to the parents, you are granting that power to someone whose best interest is most likely to be aligned with that of the child.


When the health or safety of a child is threatened, then I would like to see child services have the ability to act. I like the ability to investigate allegations of issues. But that's where it should end. No evidence of harm should imply no authority to act.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I have never liked the idea that a parent who reliquishes his/her legal responsibilities so that the spouse of the other parent can adopt becomes a legal stranger.


But what's the alternative. If there is a legal parent, and another quasi-legal parent, and they disagree about what to do, who wins?

My answer would be that in every case, from great to trivial, the legal parent wins, because otherwise, they aren't really a parent. If a divorced parent gives the child up for adoption to the new spouse of the other parent, the divorced parent has to simply rely on the good graces of his ex and his or her spouse. I don't see any other way to make it work.

I agree. There has to be a clear indication of who is and who isn't a legal parent, and parenting usually can't work long-distance, especially if the other parent(s) don't work to support the distant one. Still one wishes that things weren't so bleak.

However, even in my suggestion in the paragraph after the one you quoted, (now using a specific example: that of a mother with an ex-husband (natural father) and a current husband (live-in father)) the two "fathers" (the natural father and the spouse of the mother) are not both legal parents, but the one that is a "non-legal" parent does have unofficial rights of access and influence and should be one of the first choices for becoming a legal parent should circumstances warrant it.

Such an arrangement, like all extended family arrangements is dependent on the goodwill of the legal parent(s). And it's sad that children are deprived of a relationship with family members that could love them, but if they don't get along with the legal parents, I suppose the bitterness and infighting could be worse than the lost opportunity.