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

Re: California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.