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

Re: California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.