Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Heather Has Two Mommies and a Daddy

Scott Shackford | 7.3.2012 4:19 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

"And baby makes three" may need an update.

California legislators are considering giving judges the leeway to declare more than two adults as the legal parents of a child. The Sacramento Bee explains SB 1476, introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco:

Under Leno's bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them.

SB 1476 is not meant to expand the definition of who can qualify as a parent, only to eliminate the limit of two per child.

Under current law, a parent can be a man who signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, for example. It also can be a man who was married and living with a child's mother, or who took a baby into his home and represented the infant as his own.

Leno's bill, which has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly, would apply equally to men or women, and to straight or gay couples.

The bill was inspired by a court case involving a child with two moms. When one mom was sent to prison and the other mom ended up in the hospital, the child's biological father stepped forward and offered to take care of her. But the law currently states that a child can only have two parents, regardless of gender combination. Instead the child was taken by the state, according to MSNBC.

The religious right "traditional values" response is as expected: "blah blah NO GAY MARRIAGE blah blah," even though the law could also come into play in complex heterosexual relationships.

Other objectors are more concerned that allowing for a third (or more) legally recognized parent could cause a whole host of other legal problems:

Opponents counter that the issue is complex and that allowing multiple parents in one section of law inevitably raises questions that could spark litigation in other sections.

Tax deductions, citizenship, probate, public assistance, school notifications and Social Security rights all can be affected by determinations of parenthood, notes the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists.

"This bill, in our opinion, if passed, will cause significant unintended consequences," said Diane Wasznicky, the group's president and a family law attorney in Sacramento.

Assemblyman Donald Wagner, an Irvine Republican who opposes SB 1476, noted it could spark litigation, say, in a case of a wrongful death of a child with four potential parents and determining who has a claim.

Karen Anderson, of the California Protective Parents Association, said the legislation could result in a child being bounced among multiple adults in a bitter family breakup.

"It's hard enough for children to be split up two ways, much less multiple ways," she said.

Well, that's the first time I've seen lawyers complain that a new law might result in them getting more work.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Report: John Roberts Wrote the Bulk of the Dissenting ObamaCare Decision That He Voted Against

Scott Shackford is a policy research editor at Reason Foundation.

PoliticsNanny StateCivil LibertiesPolicyGay MarriageMarriageCaliforniaSocial IssuesFamily IssuesParenting
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (34)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Joe M   13 years ago

    The religious right "traditional values" response is as expected: "blah blah NO GAY MARRIAGE blah blah," even though the law could also come into play in complex heterosexual relationships.

    So freakin idiotic. So it's better to let the government take the kid than a loving parent? Wake up, righties!

    1. ChicagoTom   13 years ago

      So freakin idiotic. So it's better to let the government take the kid than a loving parent? Wake up, righties!

      Queers and straights who help queers have kids can't be loving parents. By Definition. Duh!

      And something or another regarding bestiality as well.

      FAMILY VALUES!!!111Eleven!!

    2. Alan   13 years ago

      No kidding. This guy steps forward and says he'll take care of his biological child - and the state says, "No, we'd rather pay someone else to do it."

      WTF?

  2. Joe M   13 years ago

    But yeah, this is just a gateway drug to polygamy.

    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      That's the word that popped into my head.

      So what happens when a Mormon has been elected president and polygamy has been legalized? Hijinks ensue!

      1. tarran   13 years ago

        Polygamy isn't the problem.

        Just think what happens when the tax code runs up against line marriages.

        MHA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

        1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

          Hulk smash!

      2. Bill   13 years ago

        Finally a reason to vote for Romney?

  3. daveInAustin   13 years ago

    Is is really the only option to send the kid to a parent or foster care? Is it not possible for the parents to declare a temporary guardian in the case where "both" parents are unable to care for the child? The guardian could be an aunt or an uncle, or a biological father.

    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      What? Why do you hate the state, Austinian Dave?

      I find this disturbing, as I always figured my brother and his wife were the automatic back-up parents, not the state.

    2. R C Dean   13 years ago

      Oh, go ahead and let them pass the law. Once you have a bunch of people who are all legal parents to one kid, its going to be really hard to tell them they can't all marry each other.

      And I can hardly wait to see the gay marriage crowd oppose polygamy by parroting all the arguments against gay marriage that they ridiculed.

  4. A Serious Man   13 years ago

    If it was okay for Tom Selleck, then it should be okay for America.

    And did any of you see the sunrise this morning?

    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      I loved that episode. Or episodes--think it was a two-parter. Fucking Ivan.

      1. A Serious Man   13 years ago

        I've only seen a few episodes of Magnum PI, but I watched that particular one after Archer did this awesome parody of it.

        1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

          Excellent. I really need to watch that show.

          1. Virginian   13 years ago

            It's one of the best shows on TV right now.

        2. Greg   13 years ago

          RAMMMMMPPPPPAAAAGGGE!!!!!!!!

    2. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

      Awesome.

  5. Spartacus   13 years ago

    Opponents counter that the issue is complex...

    If only this would be a deterrent to legislation more often. It actually should be an argument for giving more leeway to individual cases, not less.

  6. The Immaculate Trouser   13 years ago

    Just the first step down the slippery slope to robosexual relations.

  7. mr lizard   13 years ago

    This is also a great opportunity to saddle mild hunters with step-child support payments.

    1. mr lizard   13 years ago

      Grrrr stoopid auto correct, I meant milf hunters...serial milf hunters to be more specific.

  8. NL_   13 years ago

    The tax deduction thing is a red herring here. The IRS polices that game already. If you have the kid over 50% of the year, the deduction is yours - unless you sign a waiver and assign the deduction to somebody else.

    No need for a tax rule change. Only one person (or one couple filing together) can claim a given kid.

    1. NL_   13 years ago

      Also, could be wrong, but I think the rules on waiving the deduction for the benefit of somebody else is basically limited to a non-custodial parent. So pretty limited opportunities for gaming, aside from giving the tax benefit to the high-income noncustodial parent (who splits the tax benefit in the form of child support payments to the low-income custodial parent).

  9. Eduard van Haalen   13 years ago

    So, is everyone on board for this glorious new law, or I do I have to start burning some haters at the stake?

  10. AlgerHiss   13 years ago

    Why stop at 3? Hell....what's wrong with 5 or 6 parents. Maybe 11?

  11. 0x90   13 years ago

    "Other objectors are more concerned that allowing for a third (or more) legally recognized parent could cause a whole host of other legal problems..."

    I believe Shere Khan made some similar arguments.

  12. Susie   13 years ago

    I was the extra mommy. My stepson lived in my home from the time he was 2 1/2. His mother was in jail and then mental hospitals at the time. When my stepson was 11 his father was killed in an accident. The courts ruled that I had no legal relationship with him. He is now 25. I have not seen him or heard from him since he was 11. Clearly it's time for a change.

    1. Scott Grossman   13 years ago

      Susie, your situation is terrible but was also preventable. If the biological mother agreed to give up her parental rights then adoption would have been an option. If not then your husband still could have nominated you to be your stepson's guardian upon his death.

      1. Alan   13 years ago

        There's certainly room to change the law - but Susie's situation could also have been resolved if her stepson had been allowed to make his own choice about where to live. This isn't so easy with very small children, but once a child is four or five years old, and certainly by the time they are nine or ten, why can't they have a say in such a big decision for themselves?

        Children have fewer rights in this country than they did 200 years ago.

        1. Ymmarta   13 years ago

          Parents have fewer rights as well.

  13. heller   13 years ago

    Tom Selleck is so angry, he pissed himself.

  14. General Woundwart   13 years ago

    that babie is hot

  15. GettiYetti   13 years ago

    lol, OK wow that makes a lot of sene dude.

    http://www.Planet-Privacy.tk

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Joe Biden and Donald Trump's Perverse Pardons Undermined the Rule of Law

Jacob Sullum | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: 940 Days in the Hole

Charles Oliver | 5.12.2025 4:00 AM

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!