California and Multiple Parenthood

[HisIsTheCrown]

click to see
What is the limit? The sky?

 

[Gertabelle]

From the article:

“My Three Daddies”

California, the battleground state for the arguments for and against same-sex marriage, is now considering an unconventional law that would allow children to be legally granted more than two parents.

The bill – SB1476 – would apply equally to men and women, and to homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Proposed by State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, it has passed the Senate and awaits an Assembly vote.

Leno cites the evolving American family, which includes surrogacy arrangements, same-sex marriages and reproductive techniques that involve multiple individuals.

“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ families today,” Leno told the Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco." Sacramento Bee, which first reported the story.

…

“We are not touching the definition of a parent under the current law,” said Leno. “When a judge recognizes that a child is likely to find his or her way into foster care and if there is an existing parent who qualifies as a legal parent, why not have the law when it is required to protect the well-being of the child?”

Parents would have to qualify under all legal standards and agree on custody, visitation and child support before a judge could divide up responsibilities.

Several other states, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maine and the District of Columbia, recognize more than two parents.

“Most children have at most two parents, but some children have more than two people in their lives who have been a child’s parent in every way,” says Leno in his fact sheet on the bill. “For example, a child raised from birth by a biological mother and a non-biological father may also have a relationship with his or her biological father.”

…

Glenn T. Stanton, director of Global Family Formation Studies for the conservative group Focus on the Family, argues that the bill appears to advocate for children’s rights, but in reality gives adults legal protection to create “radical families.”

“We hear all this celebratory talk about ‘new families,’ but there is no sociological, psychological or medical data showing any of these new family forms have served to the elevate the general physical, mental, educational or developmental well-being of children in any meaningful way,” said Stanton.

“That job is best done for children by their own mother and father,” he said. “And this bill would only take us farther down the trail of more ‘experimental families’ that fulfill adult desires, but consistently fail our children.”

Just wanted to share some details of the article. What a mess our legal system is creating.

Gertie

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

From the article:

Just wanted to share some details of the article. What a mess our legal system is creating.

Gertie

One day we will have a 1000 parents kid.
Look: 2500 years ago. We all have DNA from the same ancestor there.!!!
So it is a question of shortening the time.

 

[GratefulFred]

Who would disagree that THE BEST for each child is for him or her to have ONE father and ONE mother who are sane, sober, married, and in love, and who want that child or children?

Kids with such parents, whether the family be rich or poor, usually have better than 95% chance for becoming solid adults whether they become rich or poor themselves.

Can anyone deny that the the above violates GOD’S PLAN in anyway?

How do we stay connnected to God’s Plan? The ONLY real way to constantly and sincerely practice our Faith.

Rightly, we do value FREEDOM greatly. But it is expected that we make GOOD USE of our Freedom.

If we fail to make good use of our Freedom, what is the better answer? Should we write laws approving the bad use of Freedom?

It seems that is what America has done since Roe v Wade 50 years ago. Now we are trying to illegalize the use of certain drugs that usually take away a parent’s ability to properly raise thier children. Now we are trying to change the definition of marriage. Now we read about this multiple parent bill.

Time to vote out those who are trying to take America further and further away from God’s Plan.

 

[tm30]

One day we will have a 1000 parents kid.
Look: 2500 years ago. We all have DNA from the same ancestor there.!!!
So it is a question of shortening the time.

No, the final outcome won’t be 1000 parents; the final outcome will be 0 parents.

Parenting will become so far removed from the biological relationship of mother and father, parenthood itself will be effectively null and void. And then the state will step in…

Mark it.

 

[edwest2]

We must speak up in the public square with checkable facts and our faith. One way people are deceived is to create new words for old ideas.

Multiple parenthood is a lie. A deception. The work of the devil and involves spiritual warfare. This is what they want:

beyondmarriage.org/

Peace,
Ed

 

[ASimon]

There’s nothing wrong with what’s being proposed here.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

There’s nothing wrong with what’s being proposed here.

Why?

 

[AdriannaJean]

Why?

While I agree, on a moral level, that multiple parents are against God’s plan, I think the proposal is in the best interest of the child because it is talking about protecting children that are already in that situation, not about stopping them from being in the situation in the first place.

I may have misunderstood the article, and if I have feel free to correct me.

But my understanding of this is that it is designed to prevent this situation:

A child, Melissa, is being raised by her three polyamorous fathers, Bob, Ray and Mike. They have all raised her equally and together from her infancy. Because of the current law, only two of them are legally recognized as her parents, let’s say that Bob and Ray are the only legally recognized ones. Now let’s posit that Bob and Ray both die. Legally, Melissa is now an orphan, even though one of the people that has raised her from birth is still alive and well and wants her. At this point, legally, Melissa would have to go into the foster system, which would be traumatic, both for her and for Mike. This would also be a useless waste of space in the system because Melissa already has a capable guardian that loves her, but is not legally recognized as so.

The new law would allow Melissa to have more than two legal parents. That way, should the two legally recognized parents die, she will remain with the remaining parent, which is better for her, the remaining parent, and puts less stress on the foster system.

This has nothing to do with saying that polyamory is morally ok, it is just to protect children who are already in a vulnerable situation from further trauma.

 

[AdriannaJean]

Or, an even less radical example of how this law would be effective:

Melissa’s parents, Shelly and Jim, got divorced when Melissa was a baby. They have shared custody. When Melissa was still very young, Shelly remarried a lovely man named Rick. Rick spent just as much time and energy raising Melissa as her biological parents and loves her just as much. Both of Melissa’s biological parents die tragically. If Rick is legally one of Melissa’s parents, she does not have to go into the foster system, but can remain with Rick. Clearly, this is better for everyone involved.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

Or, an even less radical example of how this law would be effective:

Melissa’s parents, Shelly and Jim, got divorced when Melissa was a baby. They have shared custody. When Melissa was still very young, Shelly remarried a lovely man named Rick. Rick spent just as much time and energy raising Melissa as her biological parents and loves her just as much. Both of Melissa’s biological parents die tragically. If Rick is legally one of Melissa’s parents, she does not have to go into the foster system, but can remain with Rick. Clearly, this is better for everyone involved.

Well Thought…It is good to be surprised…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Oh yucky. Poor kids. It’s bad enough when two parents who have split apart battle over custody. It’s going to get even messier when three or moregrown ups don’t get along with each other. This is** not** in the best interest of children.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Or, an even less radical example of how this law would be effective:

Melissa’s parents, Shelly and Jim, got divorced when Melissa was a baby. They have shared custody. When Melissa was still very young, Shelly remarried a lovely man named Rick. Rick spent just as much time and energy raising Melissa as her biological parents and loves her just as much. Both of Melissa’s biological parents die tragically. If Rick is legally one of Melissa’s parents, she does not have to go into the foster system, but can remain with Rick. Clearly, this is better for everyone involved.

Since you asked earlier that we point out if any errors in your thinking, the chance of both biological parents tragically dying in short time period is far less likely than one biological parent dying. More likely children who have been adopted by a third non-bio parent will be left with bio parents fighting for custody against the “third” parent that they no longer get (or never got) along with. If the mom dies, Melissa’s biological dad might fight for custody against her step father or even if the mom doesn’t die, they both might have to fight for custody against him. With the history of one divorce, a second divorce is more likely. Melissa’s biological mom might divorce the step dad before Melissa is eighteen. Poor Melissa.

This happens even when there are only two parents. I know a mom who divorced when her children were young and the bio dad wasn’t involved at all. She remarried and her second husband adopted her children. The couple eventually divorced when the kids were teens. Messy, messy, messy.

Kids pay the price when grown ups don’t get along. It’s hard enough when two grown ups don’t get along–it would be even worse when three don’t get along. This strange stretch of family laws is being set up for families that are already dysfunctional–and dysfunction families are made up of people who typically behave dysfunctionally. They will make life messier for kids.

 

[GratefulFred]

AdriannaJean:

Your example - 3 dads - points out why a 3 dad family should NOT be legal in the first place. Definnitely not God’s Plan.

Your example - remarried with a step dad who did not have legal custody. While I cannot speak for any judge, it does seem likely that custody would be granted to the step dad, absent some showing that he is a bad dad.

Laws cut both ways. A law allows something and it also requires something. Do we want a law that requires a third or fourth parent to take on responsibility they do not want? Can we not predict endless court cases over which of the multiple parents has how much responsibility and who is not living up to their responsibilities?

How far from the ideal home - loving mom and dad, sane and sober - do we go? We can go too far.

I also note that the Bill’s author is gay. Is this bill designed to advance the gay agenda? Is that agenda part of God’s Plan?

 

[CopticChristian]

There’s nothing wrong with what’s being proposed here.

Asimon,

This is proposed in the best interest of the gay community and not the best interest of the child. You take it as right or wrong. It is not in the best interest of the child.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

AdriannaJean:

Your example - 3 dads - points out why a 3 dad family should NOT be legal in the first place. Definnitely not God’s Plan.

Your example - remarried with a step dad who did not have legal custody. While I cannot speak for any judge, it does seem likely that custody would be granted to the step dad, absent some showing that he is a bad dad.

Laws cut both ways. A law allows something and it also requires something. Do we want a law that requires a third or fourth parent to take on responsibility they do not want? Can we not predict endless court cases over which of the multiple parents has how much responsibility and who is not living up to their responsibilities?

How far from the ideal home - loving mom and dad, sane and sober - do we go? We can go too far.

I also note that the Bill’s author is gay. Is this bill designed to advance the gay agenda? Is that agenda part of God’s Plan?

The baby needs somebody !!! It does not matter who he is, somebody !"!!!