- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Blended Families
Schrodinger
member
CA may redefine "parent"
Schrodinger
member
An interesting bill was introduced in CA today, allowing children to have more than two parents. I see it mostly used as a way to allow a biological parent rights when a gay couple has children, but I wonder how this would also impact blended families. It would seem like a bio-parent wouldn't have to have their rights terminated before a step-parent could adopt.
Sorry its not clicky . . .
This discussion has been closed.
Re: CA may redefine "parent"
I think that is referring to cases where a gay couple "uses" an opposite-sex friend to conceive. So the bio parents are one of the couple and the other person.
I hate to reference a TV show on this, but its like on Grey's Anatomy - Sophia has three parents (Callie, Arizona, and Sloan)
They explained in the article, a lesbian couple with a daughter was the inspiration for the bill. One mother was sent to jail, the other mother was hospitalized at the same time. The bio-father tried to take custody of his daughter, but a court ruled he had no legal rights to his daughter and she became a ward of the state. Since the article makes no mention of whether or not the bio-father knew the couple prior to the adoption or not, I won't draw any conclusions.
ETA: I can see this bill being used more frequently for gay couples with children than in blended families just because that's what the bill was written for. I assume that a blended family situation would be put forth at some point as a challenge to the scope of the law (if it passes).
TTC 10/11. IUI 2/12. BFP 3/8/12. 4/26/12 missed mc. RE consult 5/17/12. IVF #1 ER 7/13/12 53R, 41M ICSIed, 32F, 8 5d, 6 6d blasts - all PGD/frozen. PGD results 1 normal M and 1 normal F, 1 maybe M. FET 9/6, transferred 1 F embie. Beta 9/15 BFN. FET#2 planned for 11/2012 put off until 2013. Surprise BFP 11/21/12!! My son was born on 7/24/13!
I could see a few limited scenarios where it would be useful, but it also seems like a court that was more flexible or concerned with children would accomplish the same thing. In the example that they used in the article, I don't see why putting a child into the custody of the state was better for the child than going into the custody of an interested adult. I was under the impression that courts will go to great lengths to place kids with grandparents, aunts & uncles, etc.
I hope this bill doesn't pass go any further, I think the implications to blended families is not well thought through.
Personally, in my situation, I would jump at the chance to have legal right to skids. We have very amicable relations with BM and SF. SF and I (SM) are both very involved as parents. And there are half siblings on both sides. So I want this for my own life.
I do see a lot of problems with it though. If SM and BF divorce, but SM has become a legal parent, do you split the visitation three ways? Its hard enough with two parties. The same with legal rights to make medical/religious/educational decisions for the child: splitting it further (by adding another person to the mix) is just asking for trouble.
Perhaps there should be some middle ground, like limited parenthood that becomes null upon divorce...
Sorry, but that would never fly with me.
This could effectively give more "rights" to one parent, since the BIO and Step parent now get a % of the rights and two against one is a pretty strong number.
A step parent was not part of the equation when that child was concieved and should not have LEGAL rights to said child.
Infact, this is why I have such a strong view on STEP PARENTS having equal say in how a child is raised in the specific home BECAUSE OF THE current legal ramifications to begin with. Something bad happens on my watch, I can get sued even if I have no legal rights to keeping said kid in check.
Can you imagine the cup of worms this kind of legislation will have? BF is not remarried but BM is. She gets her SF acknowledged at a legal parent. How are decisions to be made? Will BM and SF be seen as one entity or two agains the one BF?
What happens to child if one BP dies? Does the SP now have equal rights to the child? Hells no.
And the financial ramifications!???! There is no way in hell I will become LEGALLY financially responsible for SS. If I were to get an inheiretance, that opens money from a family he has met ONCE (at my wedding) to him and his mother's hands if they so desire.
HELL NO
^^^ This. I'm sorry, why should my income be used in calculating CS for K, when I have my own 2 children to provide for as well? My XH hasn't paid me a dime in CS the last 7 years and I might one day be responsible for covering not just his lack of support, but contributing to CS for another child as well?! Nope, not happy about that.
As someone who lives in CA, I see this ending badly. I understand (to an extent) the purpose of this Bill, but I can see how some rogue Judge will try and apply it to blended families for purely financial reasons. Meaning, BM is receiving welfare and food stamps, so BF and his wife are now jointly responsible for the CS payments so the State can get its money back.
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools
I sure hope this is written in a way to never allow a child to be adopted without both legal parents agreeing in court. I have a feeling some people on here would be hopeful that this would allow them or their spouse to adopt their child b/c the bio-parent is not agreeing to give up their rights and just the thought of this being allowed and the possible ramifications make me sick (think of all the parental alienation cases we have heard on here, and the custodial parents that would have their kids adopted by the step-parent against the non-custodial parent's consent just because they have full legal custody!
And I am VERY pro-gay rights (actually I hate that I would even need to clarify that) but I do not thing that a child should have 3 legal parents, I think that in these situations the parents (the LGBT parents) should be able to legally make the bio-parent the legal custodian if they are unable to be there for their child but that they do not need 3 parents. And I do not understand why a step-family would need 3 legal parents, although I do think that step-parents should have more legal rights so they could do more for their step-kids in many situations like going to the school or doctor.
Just my 2 cents.
Littlejen, I pretty much agree word for word. My first thought when I read the article was about an episode of Taboo about a plural marriage with a child involved. In that case, I'd be all for having all adults in the situation be given the same legal rights. I could see that in an LGBT situation with an open adoption benefitting as well.
But I agree with you about finding it very concerning that the courts could decide who has legal rights to a child. I really hope that they don't allow a step-parent adoption if both bio-parents don't agree to it. I can't imagine giving up some of my custody time to a step-parent if I was a bio-parent. I thought the same thing you did about all the posters that would like to terminate parental rights of an uninvolved bio-parent. It just doesn't sit well with me that a step-parent could override the rights of a bio-parent.
I really think that the intent of the law could be achieved in other ways (or with another series of laws) that give an "involved adult" limited rights in limited scenarios.
I agree with most of your points, but this one I have mixed feelings on. I do think that in a lengthy marriage, especially one where half-siblings are involved, if a bio-parent dies that a step-parent should somehow get limited visitation or limited contact if the step-parent desires it. Something that would at least acknowledge that the child still has family that wants to stay involved.
But by limited, I mean something like 2-10 days per year, at the expense of the step-parent.
I can see the can of worms that it would open, but it just feels wrong to me that a step-parent would lose their spouse and their family in one stroke.
Replace Stepparent with MotherinLaw. Even if you have a great relationship with your Inlwas, do you honestly believe if your DH were to die, they should LEGALLY be allowed 10 days out of a year to do WHATEVER they want (because when in legal custody, you have more leaway) with YOUR child?
And, like a camel, once the nose is under the tent, it is now open to a huge dramidary stinking up the casbah. We really don't like how BP is parenting, and look how much better my 10 days!
A high school teacher of mine and his DH and two children with a lesbian couple, so it would apply for their situation. I'm not sure which two are the bio parents of each child, but technically their spouses have no legal right to the child, and could get royally screwed if something happened to one of the bio parents. But this is different than just a blended family, as the children were born with the intent of them being raised by 4 parents.
If it's more of a voluntary thing, and less of a mandatory thing, I don't have a problem with it.
It couldn't be a one-size-fits-all type solution, because that would be a disaster. But if they opened the door, and let lawyers/courts work with parents to achieve the setup they wanted, I can see how it would be beneficial.
In my situation, it would be really nice for DH to have some legal rights when it comes to DS. Perhaps they wouldn't supersede those of his biological parents, but there's a long way between equal and nil.
I don't think that the SP should have any legal custody rights, just limited visitation rights. But yes, I do think that "other family" (whether its step-parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) should be allowed a limited visitation. I feel that its in the child's best interests to know their extended family. In an ideal situation the surviving spouse would recognize this and give up a small amount of their time, but we all know that ideal situations seldom exist.
Note that I'm not saying each of these people get 2-10 days, just that the surviving bioparent should give up a total of 2-10 days so that their child can know their family.
^^ All of this, especially the bolded.
In cases where a surrogate or donor is used, if this bill were to pass and make it mandatory that the surrogate/donor be named a parent as well, I see there being a drastic decrease in the amount of sperm donors, egg donors and surrgoates that are available for couples to use. Even in issues with adoption, what if the birth mother doesn't want a relationship at all later on but it becomes mandatory that she be named as a parent? I really hope if this passes it is a voluntary option for families.
And I completely agree with you Felles. It would be awesome if my husband had more legal rights in regards to my children as well. Their father lives across the country and clearly isn't involved in their lives. If I'm out of town or unavailable to make some sort of decision, why shouldn't my husband be allowed to make a decision in the best interests of the children he's essentially raising? Why should someone who only sees the kids once a year for 2 weeks get to decide what's in their best interest? In blended family situations where both parents are equally involved (like my husband and BM's arrangement), I don't necessarily feel that there's a "need" for me to have more legal rights because clearly both parents are involved and available. But in situations where one parent is clearly not involved, I feel the SP should be given a little more rights in regards to medical decisions, and potentially custody/visitation rights should the CP pass away.
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools
Longtime lurker, but the bill doesn't make it mandatory that the surrogate/donor be named a parent. It makes it possible for them to have parental rights in a situation like the one cited. They still have to meet California's legal definition of "parent" (which often includes actual parenting responsibilities for the child, financial support etc.). I can see how it might be applicable to a blended family, but if the law is narrowly written (which it seems it is here), a judge would quickly get overruled on appeal if they tried to expand its scope to step-parents. So bottom line: I don't see any major negative implications to the law. It seems to be a way to protect non-traditional families where the surrogate/donor maintains a relationship with the child so that if both parents are unavailable, the child does not have to become a ward of the state.