California is considering a law that would make it possible for a child to have more than two legal guardians. I am in favor of this law for two reasons. One, it gives children an extra blanket of protection from being taken by the state in the event that their parents are killed, or deemed unfit or some other equally terrible situation. For example, the child of two lesbians or two gay men could go back to the sperm or egg donor who helped concieve them (That's if they opt for this. Custody won't be forced on anyone who doesn't want it). My second reason is that kids often form parental relationships with people other than their parents (I did) and having three legal guardians could be a way to help them cope with the fact that they love another adult the same way they love their parents. I don't expect a lot of people to be in favor but there's my two cents.
California Considering Odd Parenting Law
- Thread starter writer811
- Start date
polamalu43
New Member
I am not sure I like this. Who would have ultimate say over the child? The parents? The other legal guardians would not step in unless something happened to the parents?
I don't think anyone should ever have rights to a child other than his or her parents, unless for some reason the parents have been deemed unfit, in which case grandparents or other family members should be given the opportunity to take custody before putting the child into state custody. Next, parents can already name replacement custodians in the event of their death by creating a living will. Lastly, I don't think every adult that the child loves or forms close bonds with needs to be named as a custodian over said child. Thus, I don't really see the point in creating this law.
I don't think it is a good idea either. Parents can name guardians in a will in the event that something happens to them. I wouldn't even want to think about the legal ramifications if a third guardian wants to enforce custody or have the other parents deemed unfit. Why would they even consider a law like this?
This is a ridiculous law. A child needs one father and one mother as nature intended. Anything else is something man has created to solve his own ego, to solve a problem of one or the other parent's not taking his responsibility seriously, or to help in case something has happened to one or both parents. This is a needless law.
The will can always be challenged and many parents don't update the part that says what will happen to their kids if the people they named get divorced, die or end up on drugs. I think a third guardian is a good idea as long as there is a contract that spells out the limited powers the third one has.
I don't know all of the details but the whole point of it is to make it less likely for the child to become a ward of the state. Wills and godparents aren't perfect and this law would make it easier for them to asume custody if something were to happen to the parents. Also, I don't feel that it's necessary to bring in the issue of "one woman one man" but if we're going to go there, I feel I should point out that in apes and monkeys and other social animals, responsibility for child rearing falls to the entire group. Females will nurse young that aren't theirs and males will teach and protect all of the young. So... I feel we can leave nature out of this. Laws are, after all, unnatural.
This is some news. If there are more than two guardians for children, there's a risk that they will grow more attached to the other than the two actual parents. I can just imagine so many scenarios where this law can go wrong. They may be too detailed to happen and may not occur on a daily basis, but the risk is still there.
The responsibility on a child should solely rest on the father and the mother. Anything they do must be in consideration of the child. I don't agree with the saying that the child would have a place to cling on in the event there are some disputes between the parents. This just leaves an opportunity for the parents to 'fight it out' and not care about the child since he/she is safe with the guardian after all. That is just wrong in my opinion.
The responsibility on a child should solely rest on the father and the mother. Anything they do must be in consideration of the child. I don't agree with the saying that the child would have a place to cling on in the event there are some disputes between the parents. This just leaves an opportunity for the parents to 'fight it out' and not care about the child since he/she is safe with the guardian after all. That is just wrong in my opinion.