My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

[frigidmagi]

yahoo

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." target="external">Sacramento Bee, which first reported the story.

Leno told ABCNews.com that he recognized a "problem" in the legal system in 2011 when an appellate court placed a girl in foster care when her legally married parents -- two lesbians -- could not care for her.

The child was taken into state custody when one of her mothers was jailed and the nonbiological mother was hospitalized.

The court did not have the authority to appoint the girl's biological father, with whom she had a relationship, as a legal parent. That third parent could have "benefitted the well-being of the child," said Leno.

"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.

"In such a situation, the child may consider both adults in the home to be parents, as well as his or her biological father. In such a case, it may be in the child's best interests to have a legally protected relationship with all three of the parental figures in his or her life."

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."

But Leno argues that a new law would address more than just same-sex families, including one in which a man raises a nonbiological child with a woman, but the child also has a relationship with the biological father.

A lesbian couple, for example, might also want to include a male friend who provided sperm for the conception of their child as a legal parent.

Leno maintains that it is in the best interest of a child to designate multiple parents to provide financial support, health insurance and other state benefits.

Not to do so can have "disastrous emotional, psychological, and financial consequences for the child," according to Leno.

Adoptive Families Might Use Law
Such a law might serve not only same-sex families, but adoptive ones as well, where there may be a relationship with a biological parent.

However, Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said situations where the law might be applicable are "pretty limited."

"Most people don't aim for this and don't need it," he said. "It's an arrangement that's created for specific circumstances -- but I don't see a big trend here."

"People in the adoption world get very concerned about a law like this," said Pertman. "One of the concerns they have about open adoptions is co-parenting and it simply is not. There are circumstances where there is a real need and individual cases where it serves the needs of the child. That should be the focus, to have a law that permits the child to get what he or she needs."

And some legal experts in California question the impact of such a law on an array of issues like tax deductions and wrongful death suits.

Leno acknowledges that the law might be applied in "rare circumstances" and only when it is required "for the best interests of the child."

"Some of the hyperbolic corners of the opposition are suggesting there could be four, six or eight parents," he said. "But I think that it will not be used when a child has too many parents, but when there are too few."

The bill was co-sponsored by the University of San Diego School of Law's Children's Advocacy Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Huh. Thoughts?

[General Havoc]

Leno has a habit of trying stunts like this to get attention. Irrespective of the issues involved, I'd warrant this is nothing more than more of his hot air.

[Steve]

On the other hand, it would serve a viable purpose if passed. The case remarked upon of a perfectly workable parent being overlooked in favor of state care, which is frankly horrid even today, simply because state law does not allow a judge to recognize more potential parents but two? Granted, I'm wondering if the law is really stated so strictly or the judge in question simply doesn't have the imagination or, heh, judgement to test it some...

[frigidmagi]

I found that part odd honestly. I know of cases where uncles, aunts and grandparents have been given custody over state care. In one case, a cousin. Hell, in Oklahoma there was one case where a neighbor was given custody (both parents were killed by a drunk in a SUV, they were both in their mid thirties with dead parents and no siblings, the neighbor was a family friend and babysitter). Surely a biological father isn't such a huge leap if judges are willing to favor your cousin over state care?

[Josh]

Yeah, I'd have to put it down to a bad judge in a case like that. By and large, folks associated with the state know how abysmal state care can be.

Hell, in a lot of ways this is simply expanding the scope of legal guardianship.

[General Havoc]

Indeed. If this is true, it's simply a bad call by the judge. Most of the time, family courts move heaven and earth to find someone, anyone able to take in the children in cases like this.

That said, if the judge was so against the biological father taking the kid, there is always the possibility that there was a reason...

[Comrade Tortoise]

Indeed. If this is true, it's simply a bad call by the judge. Most of the time, family courts move heaven and earth to find someone, anyone able to take in the children in cases like this.

That said, if the judge was so against the biological father taking the kid, there is always the possibility that there was a reason...

State laws also differ and it may have been a Bureaucratic thing.

*Parents die*
Family court: No legal relatives... um... Quick! Get the neighbor certified to be a foster parent.... OH LOOK! We found a suitable home with someone the kid knows so we dont have to completely uproot their life. Excellent!

Now, you dont even have to go through that particular hoop if there is a biological (through surrogacy) parent, or a step parent, or hell, even someone both parents agree in writing should have custody of the child in the event of their deaths. It stops being a thing.