Posted on 05/22/2008 7:25:14 AM PDT by sickoflibs
The reality of 21st century life is that it's difficult to define a family with children. Most people understand this. The most practical is a "know it when you see it" definition: One adult - or two adults in a loving and committed relationship - raising one or more kids. Leave aside matters of genetics, gender or marital status.
But somehow this widespread social change has eluded the Maryland Court of Appeals, which this week has decided that there is no such thing as a de facto parent.
The court relegates an unmarried parent - in this Baltimore County case, a woman who helped raise a child adopted by her same-sex partner - to the same status as any third party, overturning her court-ordered visitation rights. Consequently, when the case returns to a lower court, she will have to prove that the adoptive parent was unfit or "exceptional circumstances" existed if she wants those rights restored.
But this precedent will put an unfair burden on thousands of Marylanders who may be going through a similar process. And that includes cases involving not just same-sex couples but unmarried mixed-gender couples where one partner is not the adoptive or biological parent as well. As Judge Irma S. Raker pointed out in her dissent, the better outcome would have been to treat de facto parents - those who have acted as parents but lack official designation - "as the equivalent of a legal parent with the same rights and obligations."
The Maryland court's failure kicks the issue to the General Assembly, which has demonstrated an inability to tackle such controversial issues as capital punishment and same-sex marriage.
The decision by Maryland's highest court to ignore the evolving notions of the modern family is not helpful in this regard.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
HIGHLIGHTS
" The most practical is a "know it when you see it" definition: One adult - or two adults in a loving and committed relationship - raising one or more kids"
" widespread social change has eluded the Maryland Court of Appeals, "
" General Assembly, which has demonstrated an inability to tackle such controversial issues as capital punishment and same-sex marriage."
"Maryland's highest court to ignore the evolving notions of the modern family"
Don’t forget from the original article that the Lesbian is charging that the mother is unfit because she is a Christian.
Looks like the court said there is more to being a parent, than looking like one.
COME ON GAY “MARRIAGE” ADVOCATES,
tell us again how the goal is NOT to destroy the concept of the nuclear family, and thus the society that’s based on it.
Isn't this the purview of the legislature and not the court? So in fact the court showed wisdom in saying "this isn't up to us, your remedy is in the legisalture". Yet the editors of this paper show their stupidity and true colors.
So obviously this woman was not in on the adoption. I am wondering how old the child is? IMHO, if the child is old enough to verbalize some coherent opinion on the matter, I think it should be taken into consideration. The same is already going on with visitation rights....especially grand-parents.
Reading the post over, I see that there may be an issue that the parent who has custody may be unfit. Sounds a little deeper than plain old visitation rights. Does this woman want custody?
Oh yes, let’s allow anyone who wants to claim parental rights. The claimant here apparently never adopted the kid herself. Was that legal in Maryland? Could she have done so? I think a lot of this began when abortion decoupled the rights of the father from that of the mother. That is, it was entirely up to the mother to decide the father’s rights. If she had the baby, the father was on the line for support. If she didn’t have the baby, it was entirely her choice. So this is the logical extension of that philosophy: unmarried partner who didn’t adopt child demands rights of parent even though she retained throughout their relationship the right to legally walk away without paying child support. She wants the right without ever having accepted the risk of responsibility.
Of course the focus is supposedly on the bond between the child and partner but this is a red herring in my mind. If the child is old enough to truly bond with the partner, the relationship will continue even without rights being granted. But if the child is too young to continue the relationship without court coercion, then it is likely the so-called bond isn’t that close and need not be protected by destroying the concept of parenthood.
"...evolving notions of the modern family..."
So civilization has been wrong for millenia, and only now are we getting things set right? Thank goodness for the guiding lights at the Baltimore Sun.
It’s almost a fad for single women to skip the husband and start a “family” by adopting a child. I don’t think it’s a healthy trend but I seem to be in the minority on that.
Hopefully we’re not . .
Was she ALSO court-ordered to pay child support?
I noticed many people on this board were praising Laura Ingraham for adopting a child even though she’s not married. Not being one of those who buys the Marxist redefinition of “family”, I recognize the reality that single women with children are not families.
“it’s difficult to define a family with children. Most people understand this.”
They do? I guess I’m not most people.
This is insane. She's saying that any adult who ever lived in a household with a child could claim the "rights" of a parent or be on the hook for the responsibilities of a parent. Insane.
And like another freeper pointed out, what about punative child support laws allowing judges to throw parents in jail without a trial? Would the LOVING partner be subject to that? NO . The federal government has its own support enforcement system, what would they do? What a mess this would cause. The judges had to throw out these un-workable ideas.
I dont think the lib writer really means responsibilities. He just is on the Gay marriage mission.
Maybe, if the other formerly "loving partner" sues for support under the "de-facto parent" interpretation. After all, the only reason any of the "loving partnerships" are being adjudicated is that they they've terminated, with extreme prejudice. Couples of any type who are still together aren't suing for visitation rights.
With this kind of potential payoff, I can see people claiming that somebody they dated a couple of times, or even a child's favorite teacher is a "de-facto parent." Like I said, the judge is insane.
This kind of stupidity really ought to be painful.
Barf-O-Rama!
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.