If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Third Party Parent Law
The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent law.
In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called "de facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians, the final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes heterosexual couples too. "We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights 03.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Third Party Parent Law
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net... The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent law. In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called "de facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians, the final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes heterosexual couples too. "We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights 03.html Hmmmm.... Me thinks me smells a rat in the kourthouse.. This sounds like more judicial b.s. to me. And it rather strikes me that this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative ways around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public), as they help to maintain the status quo. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Third Party Parent Law
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net... The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent law. In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called "de facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians, the final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes heterosexual couples too. "We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights 03.html Hmmmm.... Me thinks me smells a rat in the kourthouse.. This sounds like more judicial b.s. to me. And it rather strikes me that this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative ways around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public), as they help to maintain the status quo. This is not a status quo decision. It is a legal decision that was made regarding homosexual parents that overflows into having direct implications on heterosexual parents. Several times I have posted here that parents have to be aware the courts will tie homosexual partner decisions into heterosexual parent issues and the result will be dramatic changes in how heterosexual parents will be treated by the courts. The line is being blurred between parents and partners and that should be a major concern of all biological parents. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Third Party Parent Law
And it rather strikes me that
this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative ways around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public), as they help to maintain the status quo. You've read the case (Parentage of LB, http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?f...ocid=756261MAJ) and think this affects the "Parenting Plan" (RCW 26.09.187 et seq) system of "custody" how? In re LB was about who, besides biological and adoptive parents, might be a parent. It had nothing to do with Washington's version of shared parenting, which is as follows: " (b) The court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time only if the court finds the following: (i) No limitation exists under RCW 26.09.191; (ii)(A) The parties have agreed to such provisions and the agreement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into; or (B) The parties have a satisfactory history of cooperation and shared performance of parenting functions; the parties are available to each other, especially in geographic proximity, to the extent necessary to ensure their ability to share performance of the parenting functions; and (iii) The provisions are in the best interests of the child." RCW 26.09.187(b) (http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?...action=section) As you can see "shared parenting" is unlikely to occur against the will of one or the other parent. Notably however, once the order is entered, it is hard to change it. I just do not see how this case affects division of the child's time between his or her parents. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Foster Parent Speaks Out | Doug | Foster Parents | 5 | January 20th 05 08:46 PM |
Ah, the day in the life of a foster parent or "As the Foster Parent's Stomach Turns" | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 3 | April 13th 04 06:17 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| The Plant answer DNA swab Question | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | October 4th 03 04:22 AM |