Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Sad situation....(bad headline title)

by Steven Haninger / July 3, 2012 1:19 AM PDT
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Sad situation....(bad headline title)
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Sad situation....(bad headline title)
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by Josh K / July 3, 2012 1:38 AM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Confused, don't people who are not parents in any sense
by Roger NC / July 3, 2012 7:53 AM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Maybe you didn't notice the initial home situation

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.

Collapse -
(NT) Agreed. Rob
by Ziks511 / July 3, 2012 12:56 PM PDT
Collapse -
Seems to be the relationship you describe
by Roger NC / July 3, 2012 11:00 PM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Maybe this example is also a good argument
by Steven Haninger / July 3, 2012 11:16 PM PDT

to discourage whatever allowed this predicament to happen.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Big screens for the big game

Still looking for the best TV deals ahead of Sunday's game? Here are our top three big screen picks.