Skip to main content

I am working on a very interesting case, and wanted some feed back on the potential ramifications. Many states, New Jersey included, have a mechanism that allows a third party, to custody and visiation rights with another person's child.

Basically, the idea has different names in different states, Defacto parent, In Loco Parentis, Functional parent, but the pattern is the same.

1. bio or adoptive parent must invite third party in to his or her life with child.

2. third party must live with child.

3. third party must take responsiblity for the child, such as financial or care taking responsiblity, and not expect to be paid back by bio or adoptive parent.

4. third party and child must have a parentlike bond that is strong enough for the court to allow it to continue despite and over the objection of the bio or adoptive parent because the continuation of the reltationship is in the child's best interest.

Most of the case law I have read, and I have not read all of it, deals with lesbian relationships. However, in New Jersey, we have a case where the third party was a neighbor of the aunt who was taking care of the child and that neighbor got custody.

Personally, I think that it is a dangerous precedent because many poor women live with men who care for children that are not that man's child[ren]. When that relationship ends and the mother is put out on the street, at least in New Jersey, the man could be successful in obtaining custody of her kids while she is homeless because for the kids to stay with the man, in his house where the kids lived, would be better than living on the street with mom. Remember, man has no bioligical relationship to the children but in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Virgina and other states he could be deemed the psychological parent and mom would then lose cusotdy.

I think this line of cases are dangerous.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Biological does not immediately equal fit. There are plenty of biological parents who are completely worthless and/or abusive individuals.

I would always support a child living with someone who will care for them financially and emotionally over just handing them over willy nilly to whomever gave them life.

quote:
When that relationship ends and the mother is put out on the street, at least in New Jersey, the man could be successful in obtaining custody of her kids while she is homeless because for the kids to stay with the man, in his house where the kids lived, would be better than living on the street with mom.


Nikara, you would rather see the children living on the street with their homeless, biological mother?

I think the court has a responsibility to see that the children are in a place where they will be taken care of. And the dangerous streets are not that place.

They need to be in a stable place and it's necessary for these adults to have custody in order to register the children for school, etc. It doesn't sound as if the biological parent loses visitation rights or access to the children, so I don't see anything unreasonable about the situation. As for women who may be forced out onto the street because of domestic violence, there are certain steps they can take to prevent the abuser (who is usually in control of all the money and property) from getting custody of the children.
The idea of giving custody of a child to any non relative just because they have been in a live-in relationship with the parent is absurd. That doesn't usually apply to relatives and certainly shouldn't apply to them.

This practice of giving over peoples children to strangers has been fueled by homosexual activists, who are, once again stepping waaay over the boundary lines by demanding the right to impose their agenda on others. I've heard young women complain of being molested by their mother's live in lesbian lovers. And the problem of men molesting children of both genders has been prevalent for a while now. Although not impossible, women have been traditionally more sexually conservative and less likely to molest children then men. But from what I've heard and observed, more women adapting lesbianism tend to assume more masculine and predatory attitudes regarding sexuality.

A friend's knew a male homosexual 'couple' at her church that were allowed to adopt a 12 year old foster boy. After the adoption she witnessed that the men would act angry if the boy looked at girls and when he attempted to ask her questions about girls one of the men angrily butted in and informed her that the boy wasn't thinking about ˜that' right now.

To make a long story short, a few years later the men had broken up and the boy was a flamboyant gay and in a sexual relationship with the other one. That is the consequence of entertaining such non sense – the children and our future suffer the most just to preserve someone's fiendish, arrogant pride. Sadly, this poor boy was completely robbed of his natural development into a heterosexual man.

I personally believe most people are extremely selfish, and even more so in this age of anything-goes sexuality. In some cases people make up all sorts of stupid excuses to try and take away someone's children. Some are interested in pursuing them for support payments to supplement their income or have some hidden sexual interest in the child. Traditionally many men who are no longer interested in a woman and move on to another one often no longer wants anything to do with the children that woman had by him because he doesn't want to have to pay support. So when people are suddenly fixated on getting custody of a child that's not even theirs it raises a red flag for me.
This is an interesting argument you are making. Let me first say I am no worshipper of Blood, meaning I do not give one favor simply because they have blood ties, I think of Black people as one Big family which allows me to deal with truth rather than focus on if one is a relative or not. With that said, the court systems have made what I believe is insane decisions when it comes to the family and parenting in general. I made the argument on another forum which might be a good topic of discussion here but in another thread that, current laws allows women to abdicate their parental responsibility by way of an abortion when they decide they do not want to have a child, even if the man wants his child to be born, however if the woman wants the child and the man does not, he has no say so and can not force her to have an abortion, and will be forced to pay child support for a child he did not want. Please do not patronize me with arguments of he should have used protection blah blah blah, The point is women can abdicate their parental responsibility while men have no such choice when it is them who do not want the child. Clearly there is no equality in this situation because equality in this situation would require that a woman loose control over her body.

I say all that to say this, I think the courts decision to hand over the child to the non-biological parent is consistent with their decisions to make men pay child support for children that are not his biologically. There are hundreds of cases documented all over this country where men who discovered a child was not really his biologically were still forced to pay child support for the child simply because the child has bonded with them and think of him as his or her father and because he has been the provider for them. To rule in the cases you mentioned above differently would go against precedent already set and give those men who are now paying child support for children that are not theirs an opportunity to appeal the courts decision in their cases.
I believe if someone engages in sexual activity they need to be mature minded enough to take responsibility for the consequences without whining about it. The consequences of sex for sport are limitless. But people are so self serving and dependant upon some cheap fix instead of building real relationships, that's why we're in the mess we're in today. The only rights abortion takes away are the rights of the child whose life is cut off, which is alive and growing from the time of conception. Both parents have a responsibility to any child brought into the world. So before engaging in intimate acts that could potentially give birth to a child with someone both owe it to any child that may come out of that encounter to have honor, respect and devotion to each other first. So don't have sex with those you don't respect and are not committed to. If you do so you are still be accountable for whatever the consequences are, including venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
I can agree with all that you said shemika but it still does not address anything I wrote (inferring that you were responding to what I wrote). In fact you did exactly as I said not to do and that is to patronize me with arguments of responsibility, I am sure you know I am all for responsibility before the sexual act and after the sexual act. That is all good in theory, it is a great philosophy to teach and we should teach it but it is not what we have in this country today, so in light of that and our inability to make every act responsibly the court system hand down decision based on the realities put before them not what it should be or could be if this or that happen. The topic of Abortion can be debated to everyone's wits end but at the end of every argument stands the reality that abortion is legal right now, thus we are not discussing the act of abortion in so much as we are discussing what it does and that is it allows the woman to abdicate her parental responsibility even if the father of the child is against the abortion. The opposite is not true, men can not legally abdicate their parental responsibility without the agreement of the woman to either have an abortion and or accept his abdication of any parental responsibility to the child, which I do not believe any court will see as legal or binding agreement.

Recently a court ruled that the man who engaged in Oral Sex with a woman who then took the sperm out of her mouth and impregnated herself with it is responsible for supporting the child. The argument was his sperm was a gift and when she received it, it was hers to do what ever she chose to do wit it. My point in saying this is to point back to the original point of this thread and that is the courts handing over children to non-biological parents is keeping with traditions in Family court of making decisions that for all tense and purposes makes no sense but once the ruling is handed down we are then stuck with it and all future cases similar to it will refer to the bad ruling by the judge as precedent thus we are locked in.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:

Biological does not immediately equal fit. There are plenty of biological parents who are completely worthless and/or abusive individuals.

I would always support a child living with someone who will care for them financially and emotionally over just handing them over willy nilly to whomever gave them life.


I think the court has a responsibility to see that the children are in a place where they will be taken care of. And the dangerous streets are not that place.

They need to be in a stable place and it's necessary for these adults to have custody in order to register the children for school, etc. It doesn't sound as if the biological parent loses visitation rights or access to the children, so I don't see anything unreasonable about the situation. As for women who may be forced out onto the street because of domestic violence, there are certain steps they can take to prevent the abuser (who is usually in control of all the money and property) from getting custody of the children.


Absolutely! It is the child's welfare that must be paramount and beyond all other considerations. These are the defenseless, those that have no voice (figuratively), those who cannot defend themselves or fend for themselves.

It is society's and the court's obligation to protect them, and to try to place them in a nurturing, secure environment if one or both of their parents cannot provide one.
.
.
I can appreciate the fact that making a ruling in any court is very difficult since both parties are capable of lying and concealing information to get what they want. The fact these rulings are often questionable is another consequence of reckless cultural practices. You can't wreak havoc in your personal lives and expect another set of humans no more perfect than you are to be able to correct your mistakes. Like the saying goes, you can't plant weeds and expect to grow daises.

The people making the decision with integrity can only base it upon whatever laws happen to be on the books at the time, info received, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, what they feel is in the best interest of the child. And I believe the best interest of the child should come before the personal convenience and interests of the man or woman.

I find it amazing how no one has a problem with getting locked up for shoplifting but feel its perfectly okay to abandon a child they helped create. It is obvious that a man is unable to tell whether a woman is pregnant with his child unless she chooses to tell him, that goes without saying whether abortion is legal or not. So I don't get your argument, that's been the case since the beginning of time. A real MAN should be a leader and willing to step up to the table and be responsible when called on to do so regardless whether the woman chooses to give birth or inform him she's pregnant. At one time they didn't have blood tests and men didn't complain then. Now they do have blood tests so they have the option to demand one. If they've been irresponsible enough to sleep around they should make use and be thankful for that much.

Some of these men don't have one initially because they care for the woman that the time of the pregnancy and even say they don't care if it's theirs or not and will raise it as their own. Then later on they meet someone else and no longer want anything to do with the women and wish to start over. Men are so accustomed to abandoning women that way without a care they now feel it's acceptable to do the same to innocent little children. Besides being brutally selfish toward the woman is it extremely devastating to a child. The child is not responsible and did not create the situation but now they will be destroyed by this self-centered, hap hazard mans actions.

The court recognizes the harmful impact this will have on a child's self-esteem and future potential to build relationships for the rest of their lives. And rightfully wish to make the parents (biological or not) maintain a place in the child's life to eliminate some of the damage. Throughout history every responsible culture requires the men to take responsibility to any women they engage sexually as well as any children they bring into the world or assume a parental role toward. You just can't go willy-nilly with every feeling that comes over your flesh; you have to do the right thing!
Wow, glad to get the feed back. Frenchy, I think a child should be where ever it is loved and cared for, biological, adoptive or psychological parent, it does not matter to me.

Here in New Jersey, however, I have some problems. As I indicated I am working on some interesting cases that involve this issue.

Case One: Man, Joe marries Woman, Pam, who he thinks is pregnant with his child. Child is born, Joe,Jr, and Joe does not get blood test and signs the birthcertificate. 11 years later, Pam and Joe are getting divorced, when he says he wants custody of his son, she say, he is not your son. Joe gets blood test on Jr., low and behold, Jr is not Joe's kid. Is Joe the psychological parent of Jr., I say yes, and I will let you know what the court says.

Case Two: Gina is a lesbian, who is dating Janet. Gina decides that she wants to have a kid, talks to her friend Sam, he gives her some sperm in a cup, Janet inseminates Gina with a suringe. Gina get's pregnant, Sam signed a wavier so he is out of the picture, Janet was at birth, along with Gina's sister, Gina's old lover Sue and Sue's new girlfriend Karne. Janet never lived with Gina, but just about every other weekend Janet has Gina's son Bobby, at her house, Bobby also stays with other friend's of Gina for the weekend, like Sue and Gina's sister, and Bobby god-parent Dr. and Mrs. Jones [who do not know Gina is gay {Gina and Dr. have been friends since college and medschool}, but that is besides the point]. Janet, picks Bobby up to go to daycare every morning for three years. Sue picks up Bobby every evening from daycare for three year's. They do this to help Gina out because she is a surgical resident [like Gray's Anatomy, ABC Sunday night, written by a Black Woman no less]. Gina and Janet break up when Bobby is 2 1/2, but Janet still does the morning daycare run for another year. During this time, Gina meets Paula and they start dating, but not living together. Janet get's pissed when Bobby is 3 1/2 and says that she is Psychological parent of Booby. I say no she is not. I will let you know what the court says.
quote:
Originally posted by Nikcara:

Wow, glad to get the feedback. Frenchy, I think a child should be where ever it is loved and cared for, biological, adoptive or psychological parent, it does not matter to me.



Double Wow! These cases must be heart wrenching at times, Nikcara.

It's a story often told; the law versus the welfare of the child. And if something goes wrong, the child is the loser.

I was wondering, are these cases over full custody, joint custody, visitation rights? Are child support payments an issue?

The first case seems less complicated. Does Joe, Sr. still want to be a part of Jr.'s life, even though he is not the bio father? Is this a straight custody case or are there other considerations, like the big one, child support? Since Jr. is now at least 11, are his feelings considered by the court?

Can you just slap Pam and Joe, Sr. around a bit and tell them to get their act together for the child's sake?

The second case seems so convoluted. Is there any way of knowing who the child has bonded with or who will provide the most nurturing and caring environment for Bobby? It seems from what you have said that Janet could just walk away if she wanted. Is she doing all this, paying attorney's fees and all, because she's jealous? Is there a chance she actually cares for Bobby?

Why didn't Gina just get a pet instead of bringing a child into the world that, from your description, she seems to pass around to anyone who is convenient?
.
.
Just as an update. I won the Psychological Parent Case [two lesbians, my client was the biological parent], the lover gets nothing, no custody, no visitation and my client's daughter was added to the Final Restraining Order as a protected party. Shout Out to Vox who did two great briefs which the Judge used language from in her opinion. In about 45 days we will know if the lover is going to appeal, but I do not think cabbage
I suppose it's good for you and Vox that you won (congrats! it always feels good to win Smile), but that's so unfortunate for the child and the other parent. I hope she appeals. IMO, custody issues should be taken completely out of the hands of attorneys and handled by psychologists in conjunction with a judge. There's a child here who is going to be completely cut off from one of his parents, a parent it seems he saw more off than his birth parent. sck

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×