But the same problem would arise with an adopted child in a normal family wouldn't it not if the adopted parents were unavailable? The parents of children given up for adoption though sometimes don't want to know anything about the child.
But why would the law prevent the biological father if he was willing from taking legal guardianship? Surely it wouldn't prevent blood relatives from doing the same if actual parents ended up being unavailable?
I've sure we agree that as long as the father seemed stable and capable of providing care, he should at least be granted temporary legal guardianship if he wished in such a case instead of going into state care.
I can see where a law can cause confusion if it recognizes multiple parents as responsible even when the ones caring and raising the child are available and capable. From the original link..........
Under the proposal, families with three or more parents would share custody, financial responsibility and visitation for the child, based on a judge's determination of each parent's wealth and the time spent with the child.
The legislation does not place any limit on the number of recognized parents a child could have, although, Leno called the possibility of a child having five or six parents "laughable."
But how is that different than a parent paying child support to a child being totally raised by the other parent and a step-parent after remarriage?
Of course, many sperm donors probably wouldn't want to care for children they fathered. Particularly if they hadn't know the child at all. Heck, they don't even know how many they have, where they live, etc. That's referring to sperm donors to a sperm bank. There are those that donated a lot of sperm on the street and don't know or want to know about the kids.