The bill, SB 1476, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno (D) from San Francisco, amends California’s current two-parent-per-child law to allow for several of them to protect the best interests of the child.
The additional parents would have to meet a court-established definition of a parent, according to Leno.
The bill is not meant to expand the definition of who can qualify as a parent, but rather to eliminate the limit of two per child, he said.
Leno said inspiration for the bill came from a 2011 state appellate court case in which a young girl had two mothers. When one of the mothers was sent to prison and the other was hospitalized, the girl’s biological father wished to care for her.
The court, however, ruled the biological father could not be a legal guardian because of California’s current law allowing only two parents per child.
The state took custody of the child.
If children can have 4 parents, a man should be allowed to have 3 spouses. Only a matter of time ;)
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
My parents got divorced when I was young. Custody was shared so I spent a pretty even amount of time with both parents. Both parents eventually remarried.
I had always considered myself having four parents and I'm pretty sure if any 3 of them became incapacitated at a given time the 4th would have legally been my parent, right?
My parents got divorced when I was young. Custody was shared so I spent a pretty even amount of time with both parents. Both parents eventually remarried.
I had always considered myself having four parents and I'm pretty sure if any 3 of them became incapacitated at a given time the 4th would have legally been my parent, right?
Not in California.
As the spouse of your parent they can qualify for SOME stuff but not all.
imagine THIS scenario which desrcibes my fiancee.
She has two parent who divorced when she was young. Her mother got remarried soon thereafter and thats the man she basically considers her father. They got divorced a few years ago. Legally, for benefits and the like, she cant claim to be with her original stepdad because hes not her legally her parent in any way (despite him having the best benefits). She can go with her mother, her biological father, or her 2nd stepdad. If she were Californian her options would open to include her original stepdad.
This is a good law.
-- ~Edwardsdv~ Captain America http://www.sethskim.com/Captain%20America%20is%20Back2.jpg
Typically most people would not prefer to stay with the 1st stepfather than with the mother in a case like that.
But my point is that I had a mother, father, stepmother and stepfather. Are you saying if some freak accident killed three of the four people leaving only my stepfather or stepmother alive they would not have legally been allowed to claim me? They would still be a parent at that point since there was no divorce.
From: TheCapisBack | #013
If she were Californian her options would open to include her original stepdad.
And how does this even work? Suppose the kid in question is very young.
Woman(A) and Man(A) have a child. Woman(A) and Man(A) divorce. Woman (A) has custody and also marries Man(B). Woman (A) divorces Man(B) and marries Man(C).
Does that mean Man(B) could try and fight for custody because he was briefly a parent despite not being the biological father?
Typically most people would not prefer to stay with the 1st stepfather than with the mother in a case like that.
But my point is that I had a mother, father, stepmother and stepfather. Are you saying if some freak accident killed three of the four people leaving only my stepfather or stepmother alive they would not have legally been allowed to claim me? They would still be a parent at that point since there was no divorce.
From: TheCapisBack | #013
If she were Californian her options would open to include her original stepdad.
And how does this even work? Suppose the kid in question is very young.
Woman(A) and Man(A) have a child. Woman(A) and Man(A) divorce. Woman (A) has custody and also marries Man(B). Woman (A) divorces Man(B) and marries Man(C).
Does that mean Man(B) could try and fight for custody because he was briefly a parent despite not being the biological father?
If he were given legal parent status in that time, I would say yes, he could. The courts will probably still side with the mother, but itd be a claim as strong as Man C and arguably Man A I would think.
-- ~Edwardsdv~ Captain America http://www.sethskim.com/Captain%20America%20is%20Back2.jpg
But in some cases the kid in question is still really young.
I could understand a kid in his teens being old enough to make the sort of decision for him/herself, but not in a case with a young child.
I think its more an option of opening up options. If the MAN B is able to take the child in that scenario he should be able to instead of the kid ending up in the state system or with relatives who have anarguably lesser connection to the kid.
-- ~Edwardsdv~ Captain America http://www.sethskim.com/Captain%20America%20is%20Back2.jpg