quote:

ORIGINAL: Teequilla

Why can't we use the legal model of other countries that have polygamy all ready?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Teequilla

Why can't we use the legal model of other countries that have polygamy all ready?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Well, obviously you don't know much about child support laws and parenting time. Take your "each takes custody of one child" scenario. Obviously the partners that remain intact have the benefit of more than one income to support the child who stays, while the one who goes suffers a serious decrease in standard of living. So there is no "balance" for the child.

In your third scenario, again, you are not taking the relationships between the adults and the children into account. The children's best interest is first and foremost priority. It isn't simply about the money but the psychological impact on the child.

quote:


Child support has never amounted to "simple math." There are a lot of considerations that go into the calculation of child support. You have already made the statement that only the genetic parents should be taking on the financial responsibility, however, in a poly family, where even the non-biological adults have acted as a parent, there are considerations to be made there, both pyschological and financial.

quote:


It seems obvious that your lack of understanding or consideration of the children of such relationships play a big part in your comment.

As I said before, if all the complexities of those relationships ending can be worked out, I believe people should be able to live and love in the way that suits them. However, if children are going to be brought into the mix, it isn't as simple as two parents divorcing and remarrying and then divorcing again. Even with that situation, there have been issues of the pyschological impact on the child being separated from a step-parent have caused major issues in the court, with the step-parent not only wanting, but deserving of time with a child they raised and loved as their own.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

In this past week, there have been two momentous leaps forward for the LGBT community.  One, the fading out of don't ask/don't tell.  The other, marriage for same sex couples in NY.  I've always said that the strides forward would be in the gay community first, before they would happen for us poly folks.

As those walls come down, I'm struck with two odds feelings.  The first, of course, is happiness for the folks in the LGBT community.  Real, tangible progress!

Strangely enough, the other is hope.  Now that the impossible has been made possible on another front, I have to wonder if it is possible for us, too?  Will we see the legal recognition of multiple partner households in our lifetime?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats

Up front: the listed scenarios are just possible scenarios I came up with off the top of my head when I wrote my piece. They would be outcomes of the judgment that the judge had taken the child's needs into account.

I differ with you on the "each takes custody" scenario. The family that keeps one does have more resources normally, however, there is no reason to force this type of arrangement. This would be an elected arrangement, probably at the behest of a teenager.

And that isn't to say that the simplified scenarios cannot be altered or rebalanced if balance is needed. That would be part of being a judge, making judgment calls.

quote:


Since I have no idea what specifically you are talking about with the second paragraph, I cannot retort with anything other than: Ideally yes, the child's interests are first and foremost. However, in reality, that does not always happen. Again, the decision of how to divide, and who goes with whom, has to be made by an objective, neutral third party. There really should not be a default division.

quote:


Yes, there are a fair number of considerations involved,. Most of them are not actually math related and tend to be emotional and psychological. I agree with you there. Where I disagree is automatic parental rights to the non-biological parents. If they want rights, they can adopt them, which divides the fiscal responsibility a little more. That would necessitate a change in adoption laws to reflect more than a binary parenting adoption scenario.

quote:


I also have a dislike of fixing fiscal responsibility on emotional and psychological issues. There is a child. Child currently has X amount of cost. X=(sum of legal parents income)*Percent of total spent on child. X/# of legal parents = amount of fiscal responsibility per legal parent. Adding more to one side or another is simply a punishment and nothing more. On the flip side, I also don't think that remarriage should negate the need for child support. (No, I have no idea if that archaic idea is still a part of our current legal system, other than for death benefits in Ohio.)

quote:


I opted to not deal with the psychological issues for one simple reason: they have to be handled on a case by case basis and it would be very rare for there to be any more than passing similarities in any two cases. Again, that is the reason we have a neutral judge who ultimately makes the call.

quote:


I did not touch on visitation either. As far as non-bio parents, without an adoption arrangement, they shouldn't have any actual legal rights. Tossing a kid around that many would be hard, especially if they scattered to the four winds. But it is no less hard in our current system if the two parents move more than a couple hours drive apart. Sometimes, people, adult or child, have to cope with hardships. Divorces are rarely painless. If a poly family splits up, your multiplying the number of divorces, and thus the pain. There is not any way to get around that. Unfortunately, that is one of the downsides of a legal poly family. More potential homes for kids to be passed around. Are you honestly saying that under any scenario it would be ok to not have visitation rights for legal, separated parents?

quote:


Again: Adoption! For a step-parent to have a legal leg to stand on, they have to adopt the child. Why should it be any different for a non-biological poly parent? Otherwise, it is just an emotional plea to a judge to correct their mistake of not filing the proper paperwork to obtain the adoption.

quote:


People tend to think that just because there is emotion involved that it's complicated. It's an emotion. They are generally not actually complex. Yes, can be hard to deal with, but that doesn't make the emotion or the situation complicated. Messy maybe, but that's life, and again reinforces the point I made earlier: There has to be a neutral judge to make the judgment! The judge who ultimately makes the call has less emotionally invested in the matter. Ideally neither parent (or any of the parents) would love the child any less than the other, so that is pretty well balanced. The idea that they are better off with the mother is demonstrably untrue. There have been enough studies on that subject that it is long past time for the courts to drop it from consideration.

quote:


As far as the psychological impact... That is going to happen to the child if they are not emotionally mature enough to handle the situation. (or if they are kept in the dark and not talked to about it.) If it's going to happen, it would happen poly or not. Minimizing the damage is hard, if not down right impossible for the court. It is the parents' job to alleviate that pain as best they can. The judge asking the kid's opinion on where to live helps. Usually the impact on the child revolves around feelings of guilt and distress. The guilt has to be addressed by the parents, but the distress at seeing one's family torn apart without having any control or input in the situation is always hard.

quote:


Ya know... the best way to really solve all of this is a legally binding prenuptial agreement. Set it out before hand, and treat any shared parenting as automatic adoption if it's written that way. To be honest, I think a prenup/living will/powers of attorney should be required as it is to even obtain a marriage license from any state. Unromantic, but it would save a hell of a lot of headache later, and it is ignorable if nothing bad happens. Even as it is today, there would have to be a pretty major cause to violate a standing prenup, like drug use, abuse, neglect, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Wolf2Bear,

To be clear, I'm pretty sure in the states where same sex marriage is legal, same sex couples lose the rights of a "civil union." Civil unions were *supposed* to grant the same rights as marriage (even though we all know they seriously lacked in that regard), so if same sex marriage is legal, civil unions should no longer exist, or at best, become something available to both same sex, and heterosexual couples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Epytropos

Government should never have stuck its nose into it in the first place. Its a religious ceremony, and gov't does nothing but create problems.

I hate to break it too you, but you've got this backwards.  Marriage has always been a government-sanctioned contract, all the way back to dynastic Egypt.  Marriage has always been about transfer of property and, for the upper classes, political power.  It was religion that stuck its nose where it didn't belong and has created unnecessary problems. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
For your information, less than 1% of divorces ever go before a judge, so no, that isn't who is deciding such things.

quote:


There isn't an "automatic parental rights" thing going to the non-biological parents in my discussion. What I am saying is that if multiple people get married and together choose for one of them to become pregnant, they are ALL parents to that child and like it or not, biology plays very little part in the reality. If ALL parties decide TOGETHER to take on the responsibilities of having a child, then ALL parties bear in the responsibilities, both financial and psychological.

quote:


There are no states where re-marriage negates the need for child support.

The problem (again) is the fact that more than the biological parents are making a decision to have a child in a poly marriage situation, therefore, all parties become responsible. Adding more to the person supporting the child is not a punishment, it is to keep the quality of life the child is used to.

quote:


You don't seem to grasp the fact that if children are involved, those pyschological issues need to be considered, yes on a case by case basis, but on every case. And again, the judge is rarely making the call in a divorce action. You are thinking of post judgement motions where the parties are having disagreements.

quote:


I never said that either parent shouldn't have parenting time. I spoke about the reality that these (potential) children have more than just two biological parents in a poly marriage, and the court HAS taken the postion that the psychological and emotional connection between a child and a non-biological parent is just as valid. So yes, even without an adoption, non-biological parents HAVE been granted parenting rights. For the record, as current law stands, a child can not be adopted by anyone without the consent of living parents, and it must involve the termination of rights. In other words, your (general) new wife can NOT adopt your child without your child's mother terminating her rights. Our laws don't allow for more than one legal mother and legal father. THAT is where the complexity for poly relationships where there are children born of the relationship come from.

quote:

quote:


Again: Adoption! For a step-parent to have a legal leg to stand on, they have to adopt the child. Why should it be any different for a non-biological poly parent? Otherwise, it is just an emotional plea to a judge to correct their mistake of not filing the proper paperwork to obtain the adoption.

AGAIN, NO! Step-parents have been granted not only parenting time rights, but custodial rights of children that they have been the "pyschological parent" to. And again, custodial rights, financial responsibilities and parenting time do NOT equal adoption and current adoption laws do NOT allow for more than two parents at a time. So before you spout off about something, it would be best to find out what is fact and what is simply your opinion.

quote:

That would necessitate a change in adoption laws to reflect more than a binary parenting adoption scenario.

quote:


Ah, now we see where you are coming from. First, courts HAVE been taking fathers into consideration for quite some time. However, there is something called the "Tender Years Doctrine" which has and does continue to dictate that young children go with the primary caregiver, which like it or not, still tends to be the mother.

quote:


At what age are you deluding yourself that happens? A child's "opinion" is not even able to be legally sought before the age of eight. Prior to that, they don't have the capacity in the eyes of the court to form such an opinion. Typically, judges aren't talking to children prior to their teenage years.

quote:

This would be an elected arrangement, probably at the behest of a teenager.

quote:


Do you realize that a pre-nup is nothing more than a piece of paper, a contract. Like any other contract, it can be broken, and can be litigated. No contract is "iron-clad" regardless of what people seem to think. Even if the contract can't be broken, there can still be costly and ugly litigation over it.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Wolf2Bear,

To be clear, I'm pretty sure in the states where same sex marriage is legal, same sex couples lose the rights of a "civil union." Civil unions were *supposed* to grant the same rights as marriage (even though we all know they seriously lacked in that regard), so if same sex marriage is legal, civil unions should no longer exist, or at best, become something available to both same sex, and heterosexual couples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

As LC pointed out, other countries allow for "civil unions" (or rights for living together) for both same sex and heterosexual partners.

Personally, I believe that doing so completely negates the need for marriage, but at the same time doesn't really afford rights to those in civil union situations. The point being that if you are living together and getting those benefits, but you can just up and leave if the mood suits you is not necessarily a good thing.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.