3 Adults In Polyamorous Relationship Declared LEGAL Parents By NL Court - First For Canada

[echo4747]

not quite sure how I feel about this ... a lot to think about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=sGsGKbfRQq8

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What does it matter what anyone else feels about it really? I don't mean that in a snarky way. I quite literally mean why does anyone elses opinion on the subject matter?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...amourous-relationship-three-parents-1.4706560

The three people in the Newfoundland case turned to the courts after the province said only two parents could be listed on the child's birth certificate.

Lawyers for the province's attorney general argued that the provincial Children's Law Act does not allow for more than two people to be named as the legal parents of a child.

In his decision, Fowler acknowledged that was the case, but he stressed that the court's opinion hinged on what was in the best interests of the child.

"It has been well-established that in dealing with the matters of children, the best interests of a child or children shall always be the determining factors for the courts," the decision says.

Fowler said the child was born into a stable, loving family that is providing a safe and nurturing environment.

 

[echo4747]

do the "two dads" have equal legal parental rights?

 

[glenn1]

They shouldn't need the government's approval for their relationship, but the government will need to update its laws and tax codes if they feel the need to weigh in with a redundant formal "approval" of marriages that aren't the typical 1+1 arrangement.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They shouldn't need the government's approval for their relationship, but the government will need to update its laws and tax codes if they feel the need to weigh in with a redundant formal "approval" of marriages that aren't the typical 1+1 arrangement.

This case had literally nothing to do with any of that. So why would they need to do anything? This is about parentage only on a birth certificate.

 

[echo4747]

what if the relationship sours ... both "dads" entitled/obligated to custody/ support?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

what if the relationship sours ... both "dads" entitled/obligated to custody/ support?

Possibly.

Child support is about the well being of the child. The courts will work to ensure the child's environment and way of life is maintained based on whatever the circumstances of dissolution are. If someone leaves then they would likely still be responsible for contributing to the standard and way of life the child was accustomed to. It's not really that difficult nor is it different than every other child support arrangement out there. There's just an extra person.

They wanted this legal requirement. That would be an end result of it that they and they alone would need to bear.

 

[Rifter]

Good courts got this one right for a change. The government has zero authority to tell people which relationships they can have and which ones they cannot.

 

[brycejones]

what if the relationship sours ... both "dads" entitled/obligated to custody/ support?

Sure, this would be the commitment they effectively made.

 

[Indus]

A kid is much worse off with 0 parents or lack of parenting than with 3 parents.

 

[glenn1]

This case had literally nothing to do with any of that. So why would they need to do anything? This is about parentage only on a birth certificate.

Because some laws or government policies may be based on the content of that birth certificate? I'm not arguing for or against any laws or policies or the decision itself, only stating that some downstream impacts from this decision may need to be accounted for. The same thing happened when we transitioned from marriage being conceived as only 1 man + 1 woman since the forms, laws, and policies were completely based on that assumption and once the assumption changed so did those other things. I presume the same will be true if government transitions its understanding of marriage from 1+1 to include other arrangements.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Because some laws or government policies may be based on the content of that birth certificate? I'm not arguing for or against any laws or policies or the decision itself, only stating that some downstream impacts from this decision may need to be accounted for. The same thing happened when we transitioned from marriage being conceived as only 1 man + 1 woman since the forms, laws, and policies were completely based on that assumption and once the assumption changed so did those other things. I presume the same will be true if government transitions its understanding of marriage from 1+1 to include other arrangements.

Those downstream things will have to be addressed when they come up and are before the court. They can only decide on what is in front of them and whether or not it is detrimental to the child. In this case the action of adding a third name to the BC isn't a detriment to the health and well being of the child so the court agreed with the applicants.

The rest is TBD.

 

[glenn1]

Those downstream things will have to be addressed when they come up and are before the court. They can only decide on what is in front of them and whether or not it is detrimental to the child. In this case the action of adding a third name to the BC isn't a detriment to the health and well being of the child so the court agreed with the applicants.

The rest is TBD.

I think you're missing my larger point that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what constitutes a marriage at all, whether it be "traditional," same-sex, plural, with a toaster, or anything else. At best it's an excuse to extort people out of $125 for a "marriage certificate" which could be produced for pennies or at worst for the government to define morality a particular way by being the gatekeeper to what constitutes a "marriage." If there's some government interest in allowing tax benefits, or inheritance rights, or whatever other benefits that currently are associated with "marriage" you could easily just offer the benefits decoupled from the need to get a Mother-May-I certificate from the justice of the peace.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think you're missing my larger point that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what constitutes a marriage at all, whether it be "traditional," same-sex, plural, with a toaster, or anything else. At best it's an excuse to extort people out of $125 for a "marriage certificate" which could be produced for pennies or at worst for the government to define morality a particular way by being the gatekeeper to what constitutes a "marriage." If there's some government interest in allowing tax benefits, or inheritance rights, or whatever other benefits that currently are associated with "marriage" you could easily just offer the benefits decoupled from the need to get a Mother-May-I certificate from the justice of the peace.

Sure they should be when it's owing to what rights the people have under the law. The Church should decide this?

 

[jackstar7]

I think you're missing my larger point that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what constitutes a marriage at all, whether it be "traditional," same-sex, plural, with a toaster, or anything else. At best it's an excuse to extort people out of $125 for a "marriage certificate" which could be produced for pennies or at worst for the government to define morality a particular way by being the gatekeeper to what constitutes a "marriage." If there's some government interest in allowing tax benefits, or inheritance rights, or whatever other benefits that currently are associated with "marriage" you could easily just offer the benefits decoupled from the need to get a Mother-May-I certificate from the justice of the peace.

Do you advocate to your representatives to change the laws to remove government from marriages? Or is this just more of your message board libertarian bullshit?

 

[shortylickens]

 

[OutHouse]

They shouldn't need the government's approval for their relationship, but the government will need to update its laws and tax codes if they feel the need to weigh in with a redundant formal "approval" of marriages that aren't the typical 1+1 arrangement.

wtf did you even read it? fuck man at lease make a little effort.

 

[OutHouse]

A birth cert should only have the names of the two people who created the baby. if the couple want a poly relationship fine but that third person did not contribute the sperm or egg and should not be listed as a parent on a birth cert.

 

[jackstar7]

A birth cert should only have the names of the two people who created the baby. if the couple want a poly relationship fine but that third person did not contribute the sperm or egg and should not be listed as a parent on a birth cert.

It's this kind of simplistic thinking that leads to so much trouble.

How does it affect you if someone else is listed as a parent? Not at all? Exactly. Calm down, old man.

 

[brycejones]

A birth cert should only have the names of the two people who created the baby. if the couple want a poly relationship fine but that third person did not contribute the sperm or egg and should not be listed as a parent on a birth cert.

You do know there are already people alive today who contain genetic material from 3 people don't you?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...g-3-parent-babies-for-women-who-are-infertile

No quite the same situation as the OP, but science is already way ahead on this one.

 

[brycejones]

They shouldn't need the government's approval for their relationship, but the government will need to update its laws and tax codes if they feel the need to weigh in with a redundant formal "approval" of marriages that aren't the typical 1+1 arrangement.

wtf did you even read it? fuck man at lease make a little effort.

When your shit post is so pathetic even outhouse has to call it out.

Congrats on your "winning" glenn1.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

A birth cert should only have the names of the two people who created the baby. if the couple want a poly relationship fine but that third person did not contribute the sperm or egg and should not be listed as a parent on a birth cert.

My name is on my son's BC and I am not his biological father. Come tell me it shouldn't be. I've been there since he was a couple months old. I've raised him. I've done everything with him. Tell me my name should be there.

 

[OutHouse]

My name is on my son's BC and I am not his biological father. Come tell me it shouldn't be. I've been there since he was a couple months old. I've raised him. I've done everything with him. Tell me my name should be there.

I apologize I should have made my thoughts more clear. bottom line is having 3 people bc is stupid. hope they stay together if not figuring out child support will be a mess.

 

[deathBOB]

A birth cert should only have the names of the two people who created the baby. if the couple want a poly relationship fine but that third person did not contribute the sperm or egg and should not be listed as a parent on a birth cert.

Birth certificates have never required confirmation of paternity/maternity. Why require it now?

 

[brycejones]

I apologize I should have made my thoughts more clear. bottom line is having 3 people bc is stupid. hope they stay together if not figuring out child support will be a mess.

Why is it stupid? We can already combine the genetic material from 3 people and create a baby.