Calif. bill would allow kids more than 2 parents

Children and their parents cheer and applaud after the space shuttle Discovery, teathered to the back of a modified 747 jumbo jet, flew over the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center April 17, 2012, in Chantilly, Va. / Getty Images

(CBS/AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California children could have more than two legal parents if a bill speeding through the Legislature becomes law, CBS San Francisco station KPIX-TV reports.

The bill by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow judges to recognize multiple parents in cases where children would be best served by several parental relationships. All parents would still have to meet existing standards for legal parenthood.

Leno has characterized the bill as a response to America's evolving families. Married couples dropped below half of all American households for the first time in 2010, according to the Census Bureau.

Several other states, including Pennsylvania and Maine, recognize more than two parents.

Supporters cited several examples where the law could be applied, including a lesbian couple that conceived a child with the help of a sperm donor who has been involved as a parent or a man who married a woman while she was pregnant with the child of another man, who also maintained his role a father.

They also said the bill could keep some children out of foster care by establishing additional parents with caretaking and financial responsibility.

Opponents fear there could be no limit to the number of parents a child could have.

"Because parentage law is so complicated, it is difficult to attempt to change one aspect of it without upsetting the entire framework," the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists wrote in a letter of opposition.

Opponents also said Leno's bill could undermine conservative family values.

"He's trying to change the whole attitudes and understanding of what family is," said California Right to Life Committee Director Camille Giglio said. "Family is a father and a mother and children."

Supporters said it is unlikely the number of parents would proliferate because the bill does not change the definition of parenthood or allow temporary caretakers such as boyfriends or girlfriends to be considered as parents.

Instead, the bill, SB1476, involves families in which more than two adults take a child into their home and present the child as their own, not as a step-child.

Backers dismissed moral concerns, saying the bill is a simple modernization of family law.

"It's not us who have changed the nature of families; families have done it on their own," said Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. "It is cruel to prevent judges from ruling a way that protects kids in favor of an abstraction of what a family used to look like."

The Senate has approved the bill, and it is working its way through policy committees in the Assembly.

[Scimajor]

This is the kind of thing I'd expect from the city council of Berkeley rather the that state of California. It's idiotic.

We've redefined what it takes to be called a Man or a Woman. We no longer care about the X and Y chromosomes. We've redefined what it takes to be called Man and Wife. Now we're redefining what it takes to be a parent and/or how many parents you can have? Hey, my son wanted to be a cat when he was 2. He should legally have the right to be a cat.

This reminds me of a scene from "The Life of Brian" where the guy wanted to be called Loretta and have a baby. John Cleese's character asked "Where's the baby going to gestate? In a box? ".

[hypnotoad72]

Well, since 2-parent homes keep falling part, and since it costs more to raise kids, we can either bring wages back up to pre-stagflation levels or let them have 20 legal parents. Given how often the politicians seem to overlook the wage issue, when it comes time for the PTA meetings, be prepared to extend them an extra 30 minutes due to needing more introductions. No fuss, no muss.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0612/How-skewed-is-America-s-income-inequality-Take-our-quiz/Median-income/

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/vicious-cycle-stagnant-wages

http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2009/3/10/the-american-dream-died-in-february-1973.html
(it's been going on so slowly that nobody would have really noticed when the proverbial snowball began...)

[hypnotoad72]

Well, since 2-parent homes keep falling part, and since it costs more to raise kids, we can either bring wages back up to pre-stagflation levels or let them have 20 legal parents. Given how often the politicians seem to overlook the wage issue, when it comes time for the PTA meetings, be prepared to extend them an extra 30 minutes due to needing more introductions. No fuss, no muss.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0612/How-skewed-is-America-s-income-inequality-Take-our-quiz/Median-income/

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/vicious-cycle-stagnant-wages

http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2009/3/10/the-american-dream-died-in-february-1973.html
(it's been going on so slowly that nobody would have really noticed when the proverbial snowball began...)

[vsmit]

We will just MANDATE that employers pay more. Then, uh, they will lay off employees to get their expenses down. Won't that be great for the children.

[hypnotoad72]

vsmit -

Well, when workers get paid less... which includes you... we used to get paid more. They chose to move people from pensions to 401ks to gut. Now they're doing it with wages. Companies do not value YOUR worth. But with posts like yours it's easy to see why...

But what the heck, let's get government to pay the companies that are offshoring taxpayer money as well. That'll help even more!!!

Still, you may keep thinking symptoms are problems with your unsubstantiated one-liners. And our children are probably screwed either way. Thank the following, amongst others, for stuff like this:


http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm#Corporations
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/mitch_mcconnell.htm#Corporations
http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm#Corporations
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Judd_Gregg.htm#Corporations
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jim_demint.htm#Corporations
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Orrin_Hatch.htm#Corporations

And others, including some Democrats...

"Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)"

Note that, if you look it up, Obama voted YES to repeal that anti-free market initiative, so I think a few people need to rethink their beliefs - which includes you. Ironically, if it weren't for all the taxpayer-funded handouts and bailouts (which have not been repaid, google it), the same companies would collapse. It seems big government DOES work.

And every other form of freeloading our tax money is used for:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/where-the-productivity-went/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=4
http://www.ctj.org/html/layoffs.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html
http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_divide/2009/06/walmart-workers-on-welfare-lets-look-for-the-spin.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/04/04/Minimum-Wage-and-What-It-Buys-You-1950s-to-Now.aspx?index=1
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x13292164/COLUMN-American-workers-got-what-they-deserved
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/03/31/senator-bernie-sanders-guide-to-corporate-freeloaders/
http://www.truth-out.org/top-us-corporations-outsourced-more-24-million-american-jobs-over-last-decade/1303196400
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm
http://www.sociology.vt.edu/course/socprobs/corporatewelfare.html
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/05/02/undercover-boss-season-finale/
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/supervisor-wants-employee-to-quit-part-time-job/2902
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/hiring-illegal-immigrants.html

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-us-it-jobs-arent-coming-back-465?source=fssr
http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/beware-the-plot-increase-the-h-1b-visa-program-269
http://hubpages.com/hub/HowH1BVisaFRAUDiskillingAmerica?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9133529/U.S._H_1B_workers_outnumber_unemployed_techies
http://www.ourfuture.org/corporate-welfare
http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/184312/5388
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/25/unpaid-jobs-the-new-normal/

Happy reading - all the info you'd ever want can be found in the bulk of those articles... ;-)



Do people know ALL the reasons for budget shortfalls, and lack of prosperity, and need for welfare, include
(a) jobs going offshore or being automated (meaning fewer people with jobs to tax, and it hurts our trade deficit as well since we're not making or servicing anything)
(b) SMBs failing due to large competition being allowed to destroy them with predatory tactics
(c) all the corporate subsidy (corporate welfare)
(d) corporate subsidy going to corporations THAT offshore


The class war, incidentally, started when the management demanded workers take pay cuts, train their own cheap H1B replacements, lost jobs due to illegals (who are also used to drive down wages...)



So feel free and go enslave yourself. Won't that be great for the children too. But as you clearly did not read the previous articles I'd posted, you won't read these other ones I've repeated either.

[1notrub11]

"The bill by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow judges to recognize multiple parents in cases where children would be best served by several parental relationships. All parents would still have to meet existing standards for legal parenthood."

Gee, I wonder who will make the definitions required for this statement?
Best served
Several

A classic example of proceeding without concern for unintended consequences.

[hypnotoad72]

Or if he caters to lobbyists who might find this situation to be profitable... I don't know enough about him yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. Lobbyists will bribe any politician they can find...

[Mike_in_USA]

What a windfall for lawyers! They must be quite happy about this--means work for a long time. Not counting the legal battles between interested parties. And;
"It's not us who have changed the nature of families; families have done it on their own," said Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. WRONG. It is you by upholdong certain laws and not others and legislation that has been passed.

[hypnotoad72]

Until the legal profession is offshored. You may or may not have read the occasional article in the past. Expect this industry to be next for devaluation.

Then wait for the lawyers to go after management, who made all the decisions in the first place.

[wlhoppers]

The California Legislature is a joke, not particularly because of this bill but because it can't do the work of the people on time or within budget. Let's see them tackle a responsible budget first, before they go messing with people's families.

Of course that will never happen. I've lived here too long, even worked in the Legislature, to expect a different outcome.

[1notrub11]

I have to agree. Terminal incompetence is the only way to describe it.

[retiredgustav]

Getting ready for the Mormon takeover.

[hypnotoad72]

Interesting typo...