It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California bill could allow more than two parents per child

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
California bill could allow more than two parents per child





Leno’s bill, which has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly, would apply equally to men or women, and to straight or gay couples. 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 yeah thats happening here in ca...

Now I see the benefits to this, you could have a step mom adopting a child, and still have the original mother in the picture and such...

But it places no limits on the type of arrangements...

I thought the argument of gay marriage would lead to all these weird combos as false but this bill puts no limit on what the arrangement could be.

Not that a child having more support is a bad thing, its Just I thought it wouldn't lead to this, wasn't that the whole Pro-movement thing.

That it could just be two, but now you could have a threesome raising a child based on this law.
edit on 3-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I don't buy anything the FEDS are trying to sell me. One thing is for sure that we need to teach our children is NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. People should use all these policies as "guidelines," not rules to live by. I think people should be more autocratic. Most people can't be self-governed because they lack forsight or strength. Sometimes it can be attributed to FEAR. After all, that's the best weapon the FEDS use against us.

I keep spreading the idea, that whatever tools and information the FEDS give the people, that people should use it to their advantage, not the FEDS. It's like guerrilla warfare. Of course everyone's still brainwashed and manipulated to be a millioniare, but it's not up to the people. I would rather make money illegally than give a cut to the FEDS just to stick their whole hand in my pie. Pretty soon, the FEDS are gonna start charging for air.

It's almost frustrating to know that it's pointless out there to think that your life will actually be in your hands. Some people cling to religion and spirituality. Alls i know is that the more people understand systems, the more holes they will find.

There is No more greater good for humanity on this planet. There's always a hidden agenda. All we can do is be patient, wait and be prepared.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Isn't much coming out of California that surprises me anymore.......................World going to hell, and this is what the elected officials are spending their time on?????
Honestly, how embarrassing for someone to even admit, that they live in Cal. and elected these morons to represent them..

Now onto those we have elected into the Federal government...............................
I guess insanity has become like the flue ay?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The potential for emotional damage to the children is beyond imagination! Talk about an identity crisis. Take it a step further and imagine the ramifications to family law - child suppot and visitation. This is "out there" even for California.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 





that they live in Cal. and elected these morons to represent them..


yep, My wife and I actually are moving the hell out of Ca in Aug, we have decided to uproot and go live near Portland.

We are looking at buying some land... just in case.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I don't have any words to describe what I'm feeling about this idea. On the one hand, maybe it makes sense and protects the interest of some parents that were left out of previous legal rulings. On the other hand, it is an extremely sad situation that our definition of a family unit has fallen this far. And it isn't the fault of gay couples, it is the fault of so many divorced couples, so many out of wedlock couples, so many kids given up for adoption because the parents were drug-addicts or losers. The entire situation is just sad beyond words.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If this where to suddenly help all the children with out parents find them, so be it.

Even in my personal religious beliefs the welfare of a child overrides all else (what you did for the least you did to me)

If me being against this would prevent one child from being taken care of than Ive screwed up, But honestly, this is not the case.

I don't think there are "3 Parent" homes out there just itching for a child to adopt.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Anyone wonder why we need the government to pass a law to allow us to raise a child?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
"I'm a child from a broken home. Three of my parents went to Oregon, one went to Kansas, and I'm in California with the other four."

"Have your Mom and Dad been married long?" "Well, two of them have been married for five years, I don't know about the rest."

"We have decided to move the parent-teacher conferences to the Arena this year, in order to accomodate everyone."

Sorry, I'm just in a weird mood. I guess it's the heat. But, really, do Californians stay up nights planning to do strange things?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Suppose they twist this law further so that the government can be the third parent!!


edit on 3-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)


5 years later they announce "Three parents Good, two parents Bad"


edit on 3-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

assisted reproduction


Wat. Who is going to be the third parent? The turkey baster?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1

assisted reproduction


Wat. Who is going to be the third parent? The turkey baster?



I've never heard the government be called a Turkey baster before!



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
My wife and I actually are moving the hell out of Ca in Aug, we have decided to uproot and go live near Portland.

We are looking at buying some land... just in case.


You wouldn't find much comfort in Portland. We are about as liberal and open as you can get. Imagine Seattle during the grunge period and throw in some pretentious hipsters and viola, Portland. Nearby, you have Silverton with a transgender mayor (he's quite awesome, actually). The surrounding valley areas are nice and quaint but equally progressive. I absolutely love it but I'm not sure it's what you'd be looking for.

If you are wanting a more socially conservative area of the state, look towards Central Oregon. Sisters, Bend, Redmond, Prineville, etc. That whole area is absolutely beautiful with mountains, rivers, lakes, and just about every outdoorsy thing you can think of. Land is much cheaper there, too.

As to what California is doing, I think they might be on to something. Honestly, it's the economy that is forcing us into positions where it literally takes a village to raise a child. Nuclear families do not work in our economic environment like they used to. Besides, there is no actual biological or instinctual reason to limit families to one couple and their children. Rich people do this all the time but they call their extra partners "employees" or "nannies". Let the poor have a turn at rich-guy hedonism.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This cannot end well. Somehow I sense what morals are left in some Californian homes may be slipping away with bills like this.

"I gots one Momma, one Poppa, .... And another Poppa! My two poppas don't get along very well, but they say benefits are good this way!"



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Many speak of 'Freedom', yet they want the Government to regulate what and who consist of a 'Parent'

with the increase of 'Legal Guardians' the Legalities of custody shall get convoluted



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 





Many speak of 'Freedom', yet they want the Government to regulate what and who consist of a 'Parent'


Parenthood is also about obligations, parental rights and rights of the child. Some government involvement is certainly needed to regulate these. If you want an example of a useless legal institution, then "marriage" comes to mind.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
If you want an example of a useless legal institution, then "marriage" comes to mind.


I Concur Two Hundred Percent,

the 'Legality' or Marriage is frivolous, it fails to be 'Binding', Evident within the countless Divorces amidst other altercations,


my main point was a multitude of people want to pick and choose which 'Freedoms' they require,

when it benefits them, the Government can intervene, when they oppose it, the Government intervenes too much



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Kids having more than two parents is nothing new at all. There are many kids who have multiple step-parents, bio parents, godparents, grandparents, etc who help or completely raise them.

This law is just making such arrangements legal and allowing those folks who actually do the parenting of the child to be able to make significant decisions for the child's well-being.

Of course, as with any legislation, it has its downfalls. But, I think it is an interesting idea, and it could help a lot of children who have fallen through the cracks of the current system. Most importantly: it could prevent more children from falling through the cracks of the current system.

Thanks for posting!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If this where to suddenly help all the children with out parents find them, so be it.

Even in my personal religious beliefs the welfare of a child overrides all else (what you did for the least you did to me)

If me being against this would prevent one child from being taken care of than Ive screwed up, But honestly, this is not the case.

I don't think there are "3 Parent" homes out there just itching for a child to adopt.


I'm not getting this from the post above I dont see any good reason given. If the kids already has a 3rd person in their life than they are getting more support than many single parent kids. If one partner isn't in the picture officially as a parent who cares.. that kid still has two functioning role models. We need to think.. what hidden reasons could Ca legislatures be banking on happening if this passes.. whats the hidden angle no ones seeing?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by benrl
 

.

This law is just making such arrangements legal and allowing those folks who actually do the parenting of the child to be able to make significant decisions for the child's well-being.

Of course, as with any legislation, it has its downfalls. But, I think it is an interesting idea, and it could help a lot of children who have fallen through the cracks of the current system. Most importantly: it could prevent more children from falling through the cracks of the current system.


Baloney,

Making the state recognize someone officially as a Third parent will do nothing for the kid that cannot already be done. The system has nothing to do with this. There has never been any case where a kid fell through the cracks of the system in any way because they needed yet another parent. The kid already has at least one active parent - legally that's good enough in every state in the country.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join