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.
Which was noted in my original post. But that doesn't change my position on the matter. If I'm in a committed relationship with someone with who doesn't adopt my child and where we never marry, the very fact that we were in a committed relationship (and they developed a psychological bond with my child) should give someone custody rights over my child? It's just that point that is objectionable to me.
I really didn't know this was a thing until I read this.
I agree with you. It's shocking and chilling that this can happen.
We've (hubby and me) never viewed our children as "our property", but they areours. They do belong to us. Shame on any parent that doesn't believe that.
Who decided this is no longer true about our own children, and when was that decided for us?
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.
I wonder if any of those who are up in arms over this decision have actually read this decision?
[actually, that was rhetorical - I have no illusions than any of them have done so]
Here are some facts:
*They had a child together. They pursued adoption by the non-biological parent by were dissuaded from it by an attorney. The biological parent's will named the non-biological parent as the child's guardian. This establishes for all intents and purposes that the parents both saw themselves as equal parents as pertaining to the child. Extensive testimony was given by third-parties to the fact that this was a family unit. The biological parent testified that she called the non-biological parent her 'wife', that she called the unit a 'family'. and that the child was taught that she had 'two moms'.
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not just make this up. They cited both Alaska statues and caselaw. This comes from a statute that was passed by the Alaska in legislature:
Quote:
(a) A child born out of wedlock is legitimated and considered the heir of the putative parent when (1) the putative parent subsequently marries the undisputed parent of the child; (2) the putative parent acknowledges, in writing, being a parent of the child; or (3) the putative parent is judged by a superior court, upon sufficient evidence, to be a parent of the child. Acceptable evidence includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the putative parent's conduct and bearing toward the child, either by word or act, indicates that the child is the child of the putative parent. That conduct may be construed by the court to constitute evidence of parentage. When indefinite, ambiguous, or uncertain terms are used, the court may use extrinsic evidence to show the putative parent's intent.
*This interpretation of the above statute is not new. The following, quoted in the decision this thread concerns, is from a 1982 federal court decision over another Alaska custody case:
Quote:
The statutes [ie: Alaska's statutes] recognize that those relationships that affect the child which are based upon psychological rather than biological parentage may be important enough to protect through custody and visitation, to ensure that the child's best interests are being served.
*You've never heard of this supposedly new-fangled concept of a 'psychological parent'? Why do you think it's relevant to a judicial proceeding that you know nothing about something that has been around since at least the 1970s? https://jp.booksc.eu/book/47030233/1705e3
*The specific ruling here, of both the trial court (Alaska Superior Court) and the appellate court (Alaska Supreme Court) is that the non-biological parent is legally a parent for custodial purposes twice under Alaska law.
Quote:
In a written order the superior court interpreted Alaska’s legitimation statute and found that Kelly is the child’s legal parent under the statute. The court alternatively found that Kelly is the child’s psychological parent and that denying Kelly custody would harm the child’s welfare.
Quote:
The superior court also explicitly found “by clear and convincing evidence that [the child’s] welfare requires [Kelly] to have joint legal and shared physical custody.” The court noted that the child has viewed Kelly as a “caregiver” and “mother figure” since birth. The court concluded that the child “would suffer clear detriment if he were placed solely in Rosemarie’s custody.” The superior court then analyzed the statutory best interests factors and made detailed, well-supported factual findings related to each factor. The court concluded that shared custody was in the child’s best interests and awarded joint legal and 50/50 shared physical custody.
*Alaska law clearly requires numerous factors pertaining to the child's best interests in determining custody.
*We hear a lot of complaining about 'judicial activism'. From this ruling:
Quote:
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Superior courts have broad discretion to award custody. We will reverse a custody award only if the superior court abused its discretion or relied on clearly erroneous factual findings. A actual finding is “clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with the definite impression that a mistake has been made.” Whether a parent-like figure is a psychological parent presents a question of fact.
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not even alter the lower court's ruling; they merely affirmed what the Alaska Superior Court had initially ruled.
Quote:
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court’s decision.
In short, there is nothing novel about this decision. Nothing. Period.
Those of you who dislike this application of statutes and caselaw that are both the better part of half a century old can perhaps air your grievances with Chief Justice Daniel Winfree (appointed to his seat, by the way, in 2008 by Governor Sarah Palin) for not just ignoring the law and the precedent and ruling as you wish.
Last edited by Kermorvan; 10-14-2021 at 06:49 AM..
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.
I wonder if any of those who are up in arms over this decision have actually read this decision?
[actually, that was rhetorical - I have no illusions than any of them have done so]
Here are some facts:
*They had a child together. They pursued adoption by the non-biological parent by were dissuaded from it by an attorney. The biological parent's will named the non-biological parent as the child's guardian. This establishes for all intents and purposes that the parents both saw themselves as equal parents as pertaining to the child. Extensive testimony was given by third-parties to the fact that this was a family unit. The biological parent testified that she called the non-biological parent her 'wife', that she called the unit a 'family'. and that the child was taught that she had 'two moms'.
Thanks for sharing those additional details from the court opinion. While I did not review the Alaska Supreme Court decision until today, I still have some concerns even with that additional information. Understanding that same sex marriage wasn't legal in Alaska until 2014 (the child was born in 2013), it is my understanding that two unmarried people could still jointly adopt prior to 2014. Per the court opinion, the parties said they looked into this, "but an attorney apparently gave them advice making adoption seem problematic." Note, the State SC stated that, regardless of the legal accuracy of that attorney's advice, it wasn't relevant to their decision.
But I have found nothing to state that both parties weren't allowed to adopt (if someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to amend my statement).
Moving on, regardless of whether they were allowed to adopt jointly prior to 2014, the reality is that this was an option for years before the relationship ended. I do have to question how committed the non-biological partner was to the child (or whether something else was up) if this step wasn't taken, though ultimately that's neither here nor there for me as an adoption was not made. Again, for me, biology does matter. And outside of a legal instrument where someone has formally adopted a child, I remain against a splitting of custody in cases like these where there is no allegation that the biological parent is unfit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not just make this up. They cited both Alaska statues and caselaw. This comes from a statute that was passed by the Alaska in legislature:
*This interpretation of the above statute is not new. The following, quoted in the decision this thread concerns, is from a 1982 federal court decision over another Alaska custody case:
With respect, nobody claimed that the AK SC made this up. Opinions were just offered expressing disagreement with the state of affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
*You've never heard of this supposedly new-fangled concept of a 'psychological parent'? Why do you think it's relevant to a judicial proceeding that you know nothing about something that has been around since at least the 1970s? https://jp.booksc.eu/book/47030233/1705e3
*The specific ruling here, of both the trial court (Alaska Superior Court) and the appellate court (Alaska Supreme Court) is that the non-biological parent is legally a parent for custodial purposes twice under Alaska law.
No, I hadn't heard of this concept until now, which I readily stated in this thread. But, again, regardless of when I first found out about the concept, I'd still have a problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
*Alaska law clearly requires numerous factors pertaining to the child's best interests in determining custody.
Yes, but as I have mentioned, best interests is subjective and sometimes political, which is why I'm against these kind of arrangements where there are no substantiations that a child's biological parent(s) are unfit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
*We hear a lot of complaining about 'judicial activism'. From this ruling:
I note that you are the first to bring up judicial activism in this thread. I have not disputed ever in this thread that the court was acting within the bounds of the law when it ruled as it did. Rather, I merely offered an opinion as to why I have a problem with the concept and practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not even alter the lower court's ruling; they merely affirmed what the Alaska Superior Court had initially ruled.
Appellate courts are deferential to trial courts determination of the facts, even if the appellate courts would have ruled differently. Most adopt a "clearly erroneous" standard when deciding whether to disturb factual findings of a lower court. But, again, this just goes to the subjective nature of best interests and other standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kermorvan
In short, there is nothing novel about this decision. Nothing. Period.
Those of you who dislike this application of statutes and caselaw that are both the better part of half a century old can perhaps air your grievances with Chief Justice Daniel Winfree (appointed to his seat, by the way, in 2008 by Governor Sarah Palin) for not just ignoring the law and the precedent and ruling as you wish.
Nobody has claimed that this decision is novel; I've explicitly stated that this was new to me, and I'd wager that most probably don't know about this concept. Don't know why you decided to bring Palin into this conversation, though, as nobody here has brought up partisan politics as a basis for opposition
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 10-14-2021 at 08:04 AM..
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.
I agree. It doesn't change anything for me either.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant to me here for this discussion, but I don't know why this is a question being asked as I showed no bias toward sexual orientation in any of my posts.
I respect your and others' opinion on this matter. I'm just floored that someone can stake a claim for custody on account of having been in a relationship with a biological parent and having developed a bond with the offspring of a biological parent.
Taking a look at some of the psychological parent laws at play, though, I see that one of the requirements (although not exclusively) is that there has to have been an understanding that a psychological parent was understood by all parties to have been playing the role of a parent. It makes sense on paper, but I feel like it's a slippery slope in many ways, too.
Because its more than having a relationship with the biological parent. They are both the childs parents. The only thing missing is a piece of paper. They were together 14 years, had the child via artificial insemination. Other than that piece of paper (marriage certificate or adoption paper) how is it any different than a situation where a male/female couple reproduce via artificial insemination or surrogate and custodial custody is given to the parent who was the dominant care giver to the child.
Further if that custodial parent refuses visitation for the other parent and engages in a court battle for sole custody it is not uncommon for a judge to award custody to the non custodial parent.
Actually a very similar situation happened with my ex DIL and her baby daddy. She continually created drama and tried to keep him from seeing his daughter, going back and forth to court , etc., to the point the judge awarded him sole custody. He was the biological father but they were never married nor ever lived as a couple.
I wonder if any of those who are up in arms over this decision have actually read this decision?
[actually, that was rhetorical - I have no illusions than any of them have done so]
Here are some facts:
*They had a child together. They pursued adoption by the non-biological parent by were dissuaded from it by an attorney. The biological parent's will named the non-biological parent as the child's guardian. This establishes for all intents and purposes that the parents both saw themselves as equal parents as pertaining to the child. Extensive testimony was given by third-parties to the fact that this was a family unit. The biological parent testified that she called the non-biological parent her 'wife', that she called the unit a 'family'. and that the child was taught that she had 'two moms'.
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not just make this up. They cited both Alaska statues and caselaw. This comes from a statute that was passed by the Alaska in legislature:
*This interpretation of the above statute is not new. The following, quoted in the decision this thread concerns, is from a 1982 federal court decision over another Alaska custody case:
*You've never heard of this supposedly new-fangled concept of a 'psychological parent'? Why do you think it's relevant to a judicial proceeding that you know nothing about something that has been around since at least the 1970s? https://jp.booksc.eu/book/47030233/1705e3
*The specific ruling here, of both the trial court (Alaska Superior Court) and the appellate court (Alaska Supreme Court) is that the non-biological parent is legally a parent for custodial purposes twice under Alaska law.
*Alaska law clearly requires numerous factors pertaining to the child's best interests in determining custody.
*We hear a lot of complaining about 'judicial activism'. From this ruling:
*The Alaska Supreme Court did not even alter the lower court's ruling; they merely affirmed what the Alaska Superior Court had initially ruled.
In short, there is nothing novel about this decision. Nothing. Period.
Those of you who dislike this application of statutes and caselaw that are both the better part of half a century old can perhaps air your grievances with Chief Justice Daniel Winfree (appointed to his seat, by the way, in 2008 by Governor Sarah Palin) for not just ignoring the law and the precedent and ruling as you wish.
Our ages has nothing to do with this case.
They were playing house. They were not only not legally married but this "2nd mother" isn't on the child's birth certificate. Legally she isn't their parent.
The way they should do it is they use the egg of the one mother while the non-bio mother is the one to give birth, then they both have a legal tie to it.
Fertility treatments and IVF have been around for many, many years.
Because its more than having a relationship with the biological parent. They are both the childs parents. The only thing missing is a piece of paper. They were together 14 years, had the child via artificial insemination.
Thanks. I appreciate that position.
The piece of paper, for me, is an exception to biology and serves as a direct, legal contract to assume legal responsibility for a child. Thus, while biology trumps for me in most cases--especially if it isn't shown/alleged that a biological parent is unfit--it's easier for me to wrap my head around a formal legal adoption changing things. Absent a formal legal document (which still doesn't trump biology for me generally, only serving as an exception to policy), there is too much leeway for people to just walk away, which I also don't think is fair but represents the reality of the situation.
I'm curious to know if in a situation where an ex-non biological partner doesn't want anything to do with raising the child, if the biological parent can sue for child support on account of the ex-partner being a psychological parent? That's something that I'll look into more later, but this topic is a fascinating one to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Other than that piece of paper (marriage certificate or adoption paper) how is it any different than a situation where a male/female couple reproduce via artificial insemination or surrogate and custodial custody is given to the parent who was the dominant care giver to the child.
Further if that custodial parent refuses visitation for the other parent and engages in a court battle for sole custody it is not uncommon for a judge to award custody to the non custodial parent.
Actually a very similar situation happened with my ex DIL and her baby daddy. She continually created drama and tried to keep him from seeing his daughter, going back and forth to court , etc., to the point the judge awarded him sole custody. He was the biological father but they were never married nor ever lived as a couple.
While I don't know if this is what I'd call a case of one partner serving as the dominant care giver to the child (the facts from the case are all over the place and the biological mother claims she was the dominant caregiver), assuming that this case and the hypothetical you provided were identical, my position wouldn't change. Again, my position on the matter has nothing to do with sexual orientation. And from where I stand, apart from the point about biology, not formally taking steps to adopt despite being able brings up other concerns that I mentioned in the first paragraph of my response here.
As for cases where there are two biological parents who split, my position on biology trumps, which would lead to some form of shared custody. Though I understand that there are cases where one biological parent may be awarded sole physical and/or legal custody over a child.
Those of you who oppose the decision are doing so because of your own biases, not the law, nor what is best for the child.
The child was told the non biological parent was a "mom", called that person "mom" was part of a "family", and all the other things that go along with that, including the will, etc., etc., etc.
We don't rip children from their mothers unless the mother has abused the child, period.
Those of you who oppose the decision are doing so because of your own biases, not the law, nor what is best for the child.
The child was told the non biological parent was a "mom", called that person "mom" was part of a "family", and all the other things that go along with that, including the will, etc., etc., etc.
We don't rip children from their mothers unless the mother has abused the child, period.
If only that was true.
Moving on, as discussed, best interests are subjective and oft political.
Still, our biases are clear, and we make no secret of them. Interestingly enough, you show some of your own biases as well with your post (not that there is anything wrong with that). Indeed, our biases are part of what make us who we are (or rather who we are is often reflected by our biases). I can only provide why I feel about a certain topic; I'm certainly not in the business of telling people how they should feel.
Edit: loving the discussion, by the way. I admit that I don't have the only answer to this issue. It's interesting to read how/why others feel on this issue.
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.
