Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$12,000 would assure that they are both the legal parent of the child should something happen, especially since the non-bio woman did not legally adopt the child. Why not? You need to cover yourself some how.
How would IVF change anything? They are a same sex couple. It's not possible for them to both be biologically related to the child, even with IVF.
$12,000 would assure that they are both the legal parent of the child should something happen, especially since the non-bio woman did not legally adopt the child. Why not? You need to cover yourself some how.
I don't doubt she had to pay for an attorney to fight her in court, that cost money too. It could be less than fertility or adoption or it could have cost more. Let this be a lesson to others to legally adopt a child if you consider them your legal child.
No guarantee that a single IVF cycle would have resulted in the birth of a child. I know a lot of people who have used IVF and they have all spent far more than that.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, I would like more information about why they started the legal process for a second parent adoption and got talked out of it.
It changes nothing for me,,, and yes, I did read it.
I don't agree that any unit, verbal commitment, promises, or same-sex individuals shacking up, constitutes "a family". Too many in our society do, that's why this decision seems rational and acceptable to them.
I follow a different code of conduct -- God's law, not man's. So, I'm not the one confused by this twisted nonsense.
And there's only one reason why you threw out that last sentence, Kermorvan. Talk about using a broad brush to paint people with?
Just for the record, I have never been, nor will I ever be, a fan of Sarah Palin.
Society has confused everything... by accepting everything. Therein lies society's biggest problem.
Isn't one of God's laws "Judge not lest ye be judged?"
Seems too many people want to do God's job down here on Earth.
The fact that the couple involved are homosexual has nothing to do with this. People who attempt to spin it that way are part of the growing avoidance problem.
Slowly over time, we Americans are being striped of our parental rights. An increasing number of people believe that your children should be raised according to their standards and moral code, not the parents standards.
The ruling on the OP's presented case should throw a chill up everybody's spine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
It changes nothing for me,,, and yes, I did read it.
So, you read it, you understood that both the Alaska Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court4 did nothing but fallow the law and well-established caselaw ... and you still think they should have ruled differently.
All right, so you just think courts exist to practice whatever judicial activism makes you happy. Sheesh, talk about shelf-absorbed ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
I don't agree that any unit, verbal commitment, promises, or same-sex individuals shacking up, constitutes "a family". Too many in our society do, that's why this decision seems rational and acceptable to them.
I follow a different code of conduct -- God's law, not man's. So, I'm not the one confused by this twisted nonsense.
Yeah, no surprise. I didn't believe your first sentence in your first post when I read it - "The fact that the couple involved are homosexual has nothing to do with this" - and now you're admitting that you don't believe it, either. Wouldn't it have been easier not to say it in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
And there's only one reason why you threw out that last sentence, Kermorvan. Talk about using a broad brush to paint people with?
Just for the record, I have never been, nor will I ever be, a fan of Sarah Palin.
Hey, you're the one bleating on and on about the problem being 'same-sex' relationships and 'shacking up' as twisted nonsense. And the governor who appointed the judge who wrote this decision is a reactionary who built her career around lashing out against so-called twisted nonsense (a hateful assessment with which I'm sure she would have agreed with at the time of her appointment, though I suspect that she, unlike you, has probably grown up enough since then to at least lose that sort of commentary). She pandered to exact the sort of rage that simmers in people like you.
Duh. You really needed that glaringly obvious fact explained to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
Society has confused everything... by accepting everything. Therein lies society's biggest problem.
Basically, you miss the fact that cancel culture no longer applies mostly to those you want cancelled.
For me, it all comes down to deciding to have a child as a family. If the non-biological mother had come into the picture after the child was born, I'd have a very different opinion. To me, this is no different than if a male-female couple decided to have a child via sperm donor, or the situation when a father finds out he's not the biological parent, files for divorce, and still has legal responsibility and custody of the child. The court generally decides it is best for a child to have two parents unless there's abuse involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
I would like more information about why they were talked out of the second parent adoption. I think it would have been more clearcut if that had been done. But even without it, it's clear that they considered themselves to be the equivalent of a married couple, with each serving as a parent. It's not at all surprising to me that the court would choose to present the relationship between that second parent and the child. This wasn't someone the bio mom was casually dating, this is someone who lived with, loved, and raised the child for 5 years as a parent.
I have the same thought. I've never met a lawyer who is lackadaisical about stuff like this. Why would they have been advised not to formalize the relationship with adoption? It feels like legal malpractice to me.
It is my understanding that these days when a surrogate is used, a separate egg is used in the surrogate. This way they are not getting parenting rights. Apparently, carrying the baby does not have (at least in some instances) a significant amount of legal rights when it comes to parenting. So I am not certain putting one woman's egg in the other woman's belly would change the calculation. But if they had even thought about that, it seems they would have taken some additional steps to protect their parenting rights (which I guess the non-bio one didnt). I wonder what the attorney told her that made her believe it was a bad idea to legally adopt the child
Firstly, let me say that I didn't know this was a thing, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved. I had never before heard of "psychological parent."
I find it extremely disturbing that a non-biological parent who never adopted a child can make a lawful claim for custody, shared or otherwise, on account of having been a "psychological parent." Sure, if we are looking at the best interests of the child, the concept of psychological parent makes sense, but I wonder how many of these cases backfire, with the child coming to see his/her biological parent and the now-ex becoming increasingly nasty with one another.
I'm really stunned by this concept.
How would this be any different than a married couple that had to use a sperm donor? How would this be any different than a couple where an egg donor was used, artificially inseminated with the husband's sperm?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
