De Facto Parenthood

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’d never heard of this. It sounds like the next step after homosexual marriage.

Similarly, a revolution in the legal understanding of parenthood seems to have quietly begun with little or no public debate or discussion. This dramatically transformative development is the statutory recognition of “de facto” parenthood — the notion that an unrelated individual (usually the unmarried partner of a biological parent, but potentially any adult) can be designated as the legal “parent” of a child by virtue of an agreement with a biological or adoptive parent, or even just a relationship with the child. In some cases, three or more people may be designated “parents” of the same child. While a handful of state courts have endorsed the idea in the context of disputes between same-sex couples jointly raising children, not until very recently has a legislature endorsed it.

article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzcwZjA0ODk2NzM2NzY4N2IyYTQwYmY1NGQ3NGUyODc=

 

[SpaceNeedle]

I’d never heard of this. It sounds like the next step after homosexual marriage.

Similarly, a revolution in the legal understanding of parenthood seems to have quietly begun with little or no public debate or discussion. This dramatically transformative development is the statutory recognition of “de facto” parenthood — the notion that an unrelated individual (usually the unmarried partner of a biological parent, but potentially any adult) can be designated as the legal “parent” of a child by virtue of an agreement with a biological or adoptive parent, or even just a relationship with the child. In some cases, three or more people may be designated “parents” of the same child. While a handful of state courts have endorsed the idea in the context of disputes between same-sex couples jointly raising children, not until very recently has a legislature endorsed it.

article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzcwZjA0ODk2NzM2NzY4N2IyYTQwYmY1NGQ3NGUyODc=

Some time ago, I read an article about a fella who had been paying years worth of child support for his son. Eventually it was revealed that the child was not his biological son. Nevertheless, the state of California requires this man continue to pay child support. OTOH, the man still has a father-son relationship with the kid, which in the courts eyes made him liable for the costs of the child’s upbringing.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think this is a complicated issue. Legally, if two people are married, it is assumed that the husband is the father, whether he is or isn’t. And I think we all realize that many kids grow up with a parent figure who is not mom or dad, or even biologically related. Those people can be hugely important in a person’s life.

I remember a friend of mine who’s parents were divorced became very close to the woman her father dated for a number of years. When they eventually decided not to continue the relationship, it was hard for her - that woman had occupied an important place in her life, as I’m sure my friend did for the woman.

I can imagine some cases where it might be appropriate for there to be some legal recognition of this. It happens with step-parents regularly. Parents who know someone is important in a child’s life should make sure they get a chance to continue the relationship, and sometimes they don’t, for selfish reasons.

But I don’t know about the legalities. Normally, the parent would still be the legal guardian unless he or she was not up to the task, which would be a case for the courts. I suppose a woman, say, raising her kids with help from her sister might want the sister to be able to make legal decisions, but I think there are ways to do that.