He's her father, and unless there was some legal agreement under which he surrendered his rights, he should have been allowed to be the child's legal guardian.
| Forum Announcement |
Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!
sometimes have legal guardianship if the "normal" parents can't or won't provide proper care?
I guess it was California law that stopped that, but I would have thought that nit picking lawyer could get a distinction between the title of parent and legal guardian.
I know a guy at work him and his wife got legal guardianship of her niece because the mother wasn't fit, and the father had never had anything to do with the child. The lawyer told them to settle for legal guardianship because they could get that, but they couldn't officially adopt the child unless either the mother signed agreement or she didn't visit the child for over a year.
The story didn't specify so I'll need to guess. The girl is said to have had two mothers. Is it OK to presume this was a lesbian relationship and the biological father only provided his half of the zygote? Now one "mother" is in jail and the other is in the hospital. The details of what happened and why are not specified either but we have a young girl with no one to care for that fits the California definition of being a parent in that the two women have already filled the quota. Which, if either of the women, was the other biological parent isn't said. Logic tells me that, unless the biological father is at least 1/2 human, he'd feel some love and concern for a child he helped bring into the world regardless of how this all came about. He'd be the "no hassle" choice to take her if it's his desire.
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.