Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • wlspence1
    Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 338 X-Mailer:
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 27 5:39 AM
      Message-ID: <d4o15e+acdl@...>
      User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
      MIME-Version: 1.0
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
      Content-Length: 338
      X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
      X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 66.42.7.94
      X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
      Sender: notify@yahoogroups.com
      X-Yahoo-GPoster: HYC6_LhQWGrH4ti5


      The California Legislature is once again---the last time was in
      1996---considering a statutory requirement of _equal_ joint custody.

      For help on contacting the Legislature, and links to details of the
      bill, advocacy, and that enable one to follow its progress, go to
      http://www.redshift.com/~wls/bills0506.html#presumptivejointcustody
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Of course this only applies to those who waive constitutional requirements and need someone, anyone, to tell them what to do and how to live their lives.
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 27 12:44 PM
        On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:39 AM, wlspence1 wrote:
        >
        > The California Legislature is once again---the last time was in
        > 1996---considering a statutory requirement of _equal_ joint custody.

        Of course this only applies to those who waive constitutional
        requirements and need someone, anyone, to tell them what to do and how
        to live their lives. I'd like anyone on this list concerned about a
        "statutory requirement of _equal_ joint custody" to kindly explain to
        me why they fuss over a statute but ignore a constitutional provision,
        specifically Step One, taking the oath of office which is the act which
        converts an ordinary Rube into an "officer", which includes the members
        of the California Legislature.

        > For help on contacting the Legislature, and links to details of the
        > bill, advocacy, and that enable one to follow its progress, go to
        > http://www.redshift.com/~wls/bills0506.html#presumptivejointcustody
        >

        For help on identiifying the Legislature, find Californians in
        compliance with their own state constitution's requirements for the
        filing of an oath of office. If instead one finds names of people
        occupying the physical publicly-owned buildings and doing business
        there under color of law but there is no required oath of office on
        file in the official records for these people, one may have stumbled
        upon a ring of criminal impersonators (before accusing anyone, make
        sure your state law makes "impersonation of an officer" a crime, and
        personally check for their oaths). Most states require that an oath of
        office be filed BEFORE the citizen appointee or electee assumes any
        special powers of the office. Prior to the oath being filed, there is
        no "officer", just another neighbor.

        After the person acts claiming the office as justification without an
        oath being taken, he has impersonated an officer. If you want to vest
        people like that, who tell you that they promised to uphold a rule (but
        didn't) and then immediately violate that rule, with powers to have any
        say over your life and the lives of your family, that's a decision
        everyone is free to make.

        But once one makes it, one should not complain about the results.

        As you can see, freedom in California is a personal choice made in the
        moment. One may decide to live free, subject only to the general laws
        as officailly published, or one may decide to subject themselves to
        unproven (but immensely popular) myth and fantasy.

        Are there really any people on this list with their own "California
        representative"?

        Can anyone give me the name of a qualified legislator currently doing
        business in California?

        Can anyone send a scanned .jpeg of a certified copy of his or her oath
        of office for us all to see? Otherwise, what makes him qualified to
        act as an "officer"? The constitution mentions an exemption provided
        for some employees by law. Does anyone think there might be people
        without either the oath or the exemption who still possess any official
        powers?

        If they don't have the required oath on file, can anyone explain why
        they permit such a Californian to have any more say in their life than
        would a neighbor living a few houses down the road? Wouldn't a local
        master be preferable to a criminal impersonator located farther away?
      • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
        Great questions. Personally, I wonder why people seek government PERMISSION to get married and make the government a partner in the contract between husband
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 28 4:15 PM
          Great questions.

          Personally, I wonder why people seek government PERMISSION to get
          married and make the government a partner in the contract between
          husband and wife?
           
          I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to raise their kids.

          Patrick in California
          It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
          on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
        • pireleif88@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/28/05 10:46:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Afterward the birth, they tell you yes, but where were they before hand when conception
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 29 7:02 AM
            In a message dated 4/28/05 10:46:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paradoxmagnus@... writes:



            I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to raise their kids


            Afterward the birth, they tell you yes, but where were they before hand when conception contemplated was being given or it first occured by taking place? Since all govt disclaimers, agreements and such first set forth give rise upon birth, never conception.  Seems to me the gov't miserably fails to advise making one aware first of their rights duties and what are claimed to exist responsibilities by their awaiting until a much greater length of time afterwards the conception and birth when custody first becomes a reality issue by it being contested or something akin looks like it best for the govt. to then step in Johnny come lately and interfere. How disingenuous, but then again typical for the gov't. I find it amazing that the things never taught us in school which most people in society as result miserably fail at being it was always taken for granted by being assumed every one just knew how to successfully parent raise a child, how to successfully earn and handle money, how to successfully save money, how to successfully have a relationship with a significant other, how to eat healthy. Instead of less costlier route being taken of prevention gov't doing everything possible to preempt casualties, govt does little to nothing before hand but waits till long afterwards damage being inflicted seen as wrought so as everything to appear as much more costlier in terms of $, time consuming and not without emotional scarring left behind or even death to those individuals closely directly found to exist in line of fire.
          • wlspence1
            ... Unless there s perceived danger to the childen---which the government must show to a clear and convincing standard---it s a matter of one parent inviting
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 29 4:33 PM
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:

              > I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to
              > raise their kids.

              Unless there's perceived danger to the childen---which the government
              must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's a matter of one
              parent inviting the government in, to attack the other parent. This
              bill's aim is to make that harder to do.

              Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a contract, unless
              one of the parties calls on the state to give it an advantage over the
              other.
            • M Silver
              Yes true. Before the government allowed lawyers free access to the family units net worth there was the church to solve maritial issues. The goal of the church
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 29 11:34 PM
                Yes true.

                Before the government allowed lawyers free access to
                the family units net worth there was the church to
                solve maritial issues. The goal of the church was to
                keep the families together, not destroy peoples lives
                for profit and reward.

                This is the result of Judicial activism and feminist
                jurisprudence.


                --- wlspence1 <wls@...> wrote:
                > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,
                > <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
                >
                > > I guess that's why the government feels it can
                > tell parents how to
                > > raise their kids.
                >
                > Unless there's perceived danger to the
                > childen---which the government
                > must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's
                > a matter of one
                > parent inviting the government in, to attack the
                > other parent. This
                > bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
                >
                > Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a
                > contract, unless
                > one of the parties calls on the state to give it an
                > advantage over the
                > other.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • paradoxmagnus
                So why do you need a license to get married? A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL. Patrick in California ... the
                Message 7 of 12 , May 1, 2005
                  So why do you need a license to get married?

                  A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

                  Patrick in California

                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "wlspence1" <wls@r...> wrote:
                  > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to
                  > > raise their kids.
                  >
                  > Unless there's perceived danger to the childen---which the government
                  > must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's a matter of one
                  > parent inviting the government in, to attack the other parent. This
                  > bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
                  >
                  > Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a contract, unless
                  > one of the parties calls on the state to give it an advantage over
                  the
                  > other.
                • wlspence1
                  ... Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally more important
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 1, 2005
                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "paradoxmagnus"
                    <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
                    > So why do you need a license to get married?
                    >
                    > A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

                    Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce
                    the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally
                    more important thing is the _state_ of marriage that comes into
                    existence if the ceremony given legal force by the license is
                    performed.

                    It's implications regarding child custody are nevertheless rather
                    limited: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the
                    husband's, biology to the contrary sometimes, and a child artificially
                    conceived is regarded as a child of the marriage; that's about it.
                    The latter now also obtains within a registered domestic partnership
                    in California, as does community property law and various entitlements
                    to benefits, rights to guardianship, etc.

                    Lawyers---canon law attorneys---were involved even when marriage was
                    largely the province of the ecclesiastical courts. Probably the main
                    force behind creating a civil notion of marriage in Great Britian and
                    early America was the property-owning class's interest in controlling
                    who could inherit their wealth.
                  • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
                    How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? It isn t. When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren t you making the state a partner in the
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 2, 2005
                      How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? 
                       
                      It isn't. 

                      When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren't you making the state a
                      partner in the CONTRACT?
                       
                      It appears so.

                      If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
                      the marriage?
                       
                      Yup.
                       
                      Patrick in California
                       
                      It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
                      on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
                       
                       

                       
                    • wlspence1
                      ... The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children, under the doctrine of _parens patriae_. Unless one of the parents takes an issue to
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 2, 2005
                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:

                        > If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
                        > the marriage?

                        The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
                        under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

                        Unless one of the parents takes an issue to family court, what the
                        state can do to one's children is however quite circumscribed by a
                        series of US Supreme Court cases---stretching from the 1920s to the
                        present---which enunciate parents' rights as a fundamantal liberty
                        interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

                        Otherwise, what the state mainly does in marriage is provide a default
                        form of a contract, which can in fact be overriden in a pre-nupt'.
                        You can for example in many states agree before marriage that there
                        will be no spousal support if the marriage is dissolved, but not that
                        child support be waived.
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human being acting as its agent. If one who didn t like being the subject or object of state
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                          On May 2, 2005, at 5:14 PM, wlspence1 wrote:

                          > The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
                          > under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

                          Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
                          being acting as its agent.

                          If one who didn't like being the subject or object of state assertions
                          was really serious, (s)he would not permit unqualified or unauthorized
                          persons to speak or act for the state. But the decision to waive
                          rights to due process is a decision everyone is free to make, that's
                          for sure. And by all evidence, it is a very popular course of action.
                        • wlspence1
                          ... Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their `counsel who do show
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 7, 2005
                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...>
                            wrote:

                            > Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
                            > being acting as its agent.

                            Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child
                            protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their
                            `counsel' who do show up in court. . . . In family court it's more a
                            matter of the power the Legislature has given the judge.

                            Yeah, too many give up too fast, but there are things like the
                            Domestic Relations Abstention that preclude due process that we all
                            should be working together to defeat.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.