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

Re: California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Apr 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 12 , Apr 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , May 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , May 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 12 , May 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , May 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 12 , May 7, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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.