California Considers Bill to Legalize More Than Two Parents

California Considers Bill to Legalize More Than Two Parents

With California in financial problems right now, they seem to be concerned about yet another social problem.

A State Senator is sponsoring legislation to allow a child to have more than two legal parents.

Apparently this will make a "better" mom or dad "legally" available.

Did you ever wish you had been adopted? Wish you had any other parents but your own?

Wish no more. State Senator Mark Leno of California (D) is coming to your rescue.

Leno is sponsoring legislation to allow a child to have more than two legal parents. Why, if Dad and Mom weren’t good enough, now you can have Dad, Mom, and Mom’s good friend Uncle Charlie (who looks a lot like you) to all be your parents.

Remember when you found that wedding certificate of Mom and Dad’s and the date was only four months before you were born and they had once mentioned that they had only known each other for a month before they got married? But Uncle Charlie knew Mom even before Dad? Don’t you worry about it. Now you can call Uncle Charlie dad, too. It’ll make things much easier.

Or your mom and your other mom had a baby because they got a sperm donor? Now you can call your sperm donor Dad. Whoopee!

Imagine the family "reunions" generations from now

Leno chortled, "The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today."

Now I know many kids that do not have the mother or father in the house, being raised by single parents.....but I have never heard of anything that would require this sort of legislation!

Of all the things our legislators could be doing, I find this to be completely stupid. There is no other way to explain it.
How about the government gets out of people's lives and let people decide who's their daddy.

So, basically they are legally recognizing godparents. Which would give them more legal rights to care for the child if the child becomes orphaned. At least that's what I derive from it.

reply to post by xuenchen


A less biased Source

Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include:

-A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father.

-A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.

-A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well.

So, I say, who cares? If it doesn't affect you, why get involved? And a really good reason for this?

Designating multiple parents in such cases could enhance the child's prospects for financial support, health insurance or Social Security benefits, thus reducing the state's potential financial responsibility, supporters say.

As one proponent says, "People should be able to create their own lives". And families, marriages and living arrangements. People should have more freedom.

xuenchen, you don't want people to have this freedom?

.

Wouldn't the state then have FOUR parents instead of a measly two parents, for financial support and reimbursement for children that received any type of government assistance? Plus, that will be FOUR chances of the child being on a parent's medical insurance plan and not the state insurance.

I'm sure somehow it is California that will gain financially with this silly bill. But, the Californians have to pass the bill before they will really know what is in it.

Go Nancy! It's You're Birthday! Go Nancy! Party like it's your Birthday!

Seems like California would like to turn itself into one big commune. Collective parenting, weed, etc.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree that it may help streamline benefit dispersal for SS and such, but would it not also create other legal issues that were not intended?

What chaos could this potentially create in areas such as death benefits, estate laws and liability issues? This opens a very big door that may be best left unopened. Let the people live free and who cares what the government says.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

xuenchen, you don't want people to have this freedom?

Oh I never even came close to that assumption now did I ?

I will defer judgment until all the pros and cons are sorted out.

I'm looking for the language of the proposal to see if any sneaky side agendas are in there.

I smell a windfall profit for some unknown associates of the Senator.

I wonder if this was a lobbing effort?

It appears on the surface at least to be a Liberal agenda of some kind.

We can't be too careful nowadays right ?

Money is tight and thieves are hungry.

reply to post by xuenchen


A couple gets married, has a child, eventually divorces, both parents move onto other relationships, have an amicable divorce settlement, custody and visitation. Both parents active in the joint childs life love that child. They move onto another relationship, and the second spouse wants to adopt the child as their own. This helps in emergency care situations where a parent or legal guardian has to make a quick decision and have the legal backing to do so.

Not the diabolical mess it seems now is it?

reply to post by xuenchen


...Why are Liberals so freaking idiotic? What good is this bill.. what purpose does it serve.. why is a politician wasting time trying to get it passed?

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by xuenchen

 

A couple gets married, has a child, eventually divorces, both parents move onto other relationships, have an amicable divorce settlement, custody and visitation. Both parents active in the joint childs life love that child. They move onto another relationship, and the second spouse wants to adopt the child as their own. This helps in emergency care situations where a parent or legal guardian has to make a quick decision and have the legal backing to do so.

Not the diabolical mess it seems now is it?

good point.

is all that in the proposal?

I still can't find the proposal.

reply to post by xuenchen

Originally posted by xuenchen
Oh I never even came close to that assumption now did I ?

That wasn't an assumption. It was a question.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I'm looking for the language of the proposal to see if any sneaky side agendas are in there.

Here's the Bill

reply to post by xuenchen


How is that a good point?

Let's assume you get divorced, your wife (naturally because the Liberal nanny state hates men) gets near full custody of your child. Her new husband adopts your child. Your child then is in an accident where it's on life support and your wife dies. Her new husband, before you even get the news, legally pulls the plug on your child because according to the State it's his child too.

Or there is a divorce, you're all still friends. Your wife remarries and her husband adopts your child. You're ok with it because he seems nice and you want the child to live as normally as possible. Then they decide to move 2k miles away, put your kid in a boarding school, and indoctrinate the child against you. Legally you have no rights, and when 2 of the three parents agree, your opinion no longer matters.

Or there is a divorce and you remarry. Then you die. Now your ex wife and wife have shared custody of the child, a bitter legal battle ensues as both have the same legal definition over the child.

Or there is a divorce, you both remarry. Now the child has 2 moms and 2 dads. Then your wife and her husband divorce, but your wife decides to marry the guy she had an affair with that ended her second marriage. That guy decides to adopt your kid as well. Then you and your wife get divorced. Your second ex wife remarries and her husband adopts your kid. Now the kid has 4 dads and 2 moms. You get married again (didn't learn your lesson did you) and she adopts. Now 3 moms. but alas, 3 months later a divorce and she marries your brother whom she had an affair. He adopts your kid.

Just... all kinds of stupid with this law.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yours is a better point.

I agree.

This could cause more trouble instead of helping.

here's part of the law.

This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 legal
parents, require the court to allocate custody and visitation among
the parents based on the best interest of the child, including
stability for the child.
(4) Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are
responsible for supporting the child. Existing law establishes
statewide uniform guidelines for calculating court-ordered child
support. These guidelines direct a court to consider the parents'
incomes, standard of living, and level of responsibility for the
child.
This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 legal
parents, direct the court to divide child support obligations among
the parents based on the statewide uniform guidelines, adjusted to
permit recognition of more than 2 parents.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.

perhaps they are looking at existing child support obligations being unaffordable.

sounds like legal / lawyer mumbo jumbo.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Her new husband, before you even get the news, legally pulls the plug on your child because according to the State it's his child too.

That is illegal. One parent cannot decide to pull the plug on a child if the other parent doesn't even know about it.

Legally you have no rights, and when 2 of the three parents agree, your opinion no longer matters.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? Where do you get that majority rules when it comes to parenting?

Now your ex wife and wife have shared custody of the child, a bitter legal battle ensues as both have the same legal definition over the child.

ANY TIME there are two parents in a custody suit, a bitter legal battle can ensue.

Just... all kinds of stupid with this law.

And with the myriad of suppositions surrounding it.

What I see from this is a way for the state to put more people on the hook for child support.

Now, mom can hit up "uncle Charlie", the mailman or even some poor anonymous dude who "donated" into a cup for child support in that state. Heck, anyone who even bears a slight resemblence to the kid might find themselves on the hook with this law.

Another reason people should be fleeing that state like cockroaches when the lights come on.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Yeah, looks like you read the bill... NOT! It's clear that you don't, but doesn't ANYONE care about facts anymore?

The bill would authorize the
court to make this finding if doing so would serve the best interest
of the child based on the nature, duration, and quality of the
presumed or claimed parents' relationships with the child and the
benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships.

Do you think the court would find that an anonymous stranger would be in the best interest of the child based on his relationship with this anonymous stranger?

:shk: Why do I answer these posts?

looks like they are getting ready to make things easier for those genetically modified babies with 3 birth parents. Now there won't be any messy court hearings or custody battles. Now all 3 genetic donors can be mommy and daddy.

California......

Once again proving they are the whackjob laugh fest of the entire nation.