Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Cute until it chews your face off.


1 posted on 01/22/2010 4:05:06 PM PST by Daffynition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Daffynition

No chimps, I baby sat for one in my home once, never again.

He was a dangerous creature.


2 posted on 01/22/2010 4:13:20 PM PST by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daffynition

This is an intentionally misleading headline. This has nothing to do with “custody” and everything to do with ownership. It is well established in American jurisprudence that it is not custody of animals that is determined in a divorce proceeding, but ownership. Animals are, and should be, viewed legally as property, nothing else.

While it is a somewhat interesting set of circumstances, considering that the plaintiff is alleging that his stolen property was pregnant at the time of the “theft” (and I really don’t know what the case law is in this regard) this isn’t about custody, but about stolen property, and the possession or receipt of stolen property and not about custody. The last thing we want to do is assign “rights” to an animal that are reserved exclusively to human children and their parents. That would be a dangerous and extremely slippery slope.


3 posted on 01/22/2010 4:25:17 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson