Posted on 11/03/2005 5:19:59 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
So does she get to pay defacto child support too?
It takes a village to figure out who gets visitation rights with this poor child.
Muffy
If this was a M-F couple would a live-in non Daddy have any rights in court? how about if the woman had lived with her mother, the child being raised by mom &grandma would grandma have rights in court? Past rulings say no.
Aren't these the same justices that said there was no fraud in Washington's governor election?
Aside from the current problems this poses...I also see this as an new budding way for the STATE or other individuals/groups to take our own children away.
Living document, my ass.
All this accelerated social change, which we can't control because of the infection in the courts, will just lead to a little counter movement we call REVOLUTION! Problem is, it won't be a neat and tidy war like in 1776...IMO, That's what the world is comming to.
I posted something similar after you without catching yours...I like yours alot better! (I had skipped the the socialism, and went straight to the revolution part..haha)
If you live by the turkey baster, you die by the turkey baster.
So, here is a potential unintended consequence.
A straight woman has a baby out of wedlock and the father has to pay child support. The woman remarries when the child is very young and the couple is together for, maybe 10 years and then divorce. The stepfather sues for custody. He wins because the mother is debilitated in some way (drugs, alcohol, whatever) Now the child has a custodial father and a biological father who must pay child support.
These things really, really open up a can of worms that could end up getting very nasty and complex. Not to mention extraordinarily damaging to the kids.
If she's a defacto parent, then the couple should hit up the lesbian for child support!
Mark
As you can see in the article, he and the mother are now married.
Mark
tyrants
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
More and more insanity, it won't end until the tsunami of sewage in the name of diversity, tolerance, "gay" rights and the like is stemmed, stopped, corked, put back in the closet, ended, finished, defeated, and had a stake put through its heart.
And who suffers the most? Children.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
My thoughts exactly. So if a M-F couple shacked up for a certain length of time the male non-parent has paternity rights given this precedent.
There once was a gullible Swede
Who was asked by two dykes for his seed
Now a weird Swedish court
Makes him pay child support
He got screwed without doing the deed
-TruthShallSetYouFree
Right out of the script of ER. Life immitating politically correct, appeal-to-emotion drivel. There are some very sick people in the US judiciary these days.
Love your tagline!!!
The only way a live-in nonbio would have rights is if and only if they had legally adopted the child. My brother married a gal with a daughter by a previous relationship. They had a son together after marriage. They divorced 5 years later. Mike had no rights to the girl because he hadnt adopted her even though he raised her and had been awarded custody of the son.
And that should be the law. But apparently "de facto parent" only works when the "Parents" are in a perverted relationship...Oregon probably thumbs their nose at traditional marriage and probably would have ruled against your brother in a similar situation.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.