Is Taking the Biden Name Not in a Child's Best Interests?

Hunter Biden's attorneys make a curious argument to oppose his daughter taking his name.

Throughout family law, courts tend to consider what outcomes or arrangements would be in "the best interests" of the child." Accordingly, when parents find themselves in court fighting over custody, child support, or other matters, arguments are typically framed in such terms, even if the parents are pursuing their own selfish interests.

With this as background, I found this New York Post report on recent filings in an ongoing court battle between President Biden's son, Hunter, and the mother of his daughter who was born out of wedlock, to be quite interesting. Apparently one issue between them is whether Biden's child should be allowed to bear the Biden name.

From the report:

Hunter Biden asked a judge to deny his 4-year-old daughter from taking his surname — claiming it's a lightning rod for criticism and would rob the child of a "peaceful existence."

The first son's request on Jan. 6 came amid an ongoing paternity case against him in Independence, Ark., where Biden is fighting to lower his child-support payments to baby mama Lunden Roberts for their love child, Navy Joan Roberts.

Roberts, 31, asked Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer on Dec. 27 to allow their daughter to take the Biden name, claiming it would benefit their daughter because it is "now synonymous with being well educated, successful, financially acute and politically powerful." . . .

[Hunter Biden's] lawyer fired off a motion the following week to ask the judge to deny Roberts' request, arguing that his daughter should decide for herself once "the disparagement of the Biden name is not at its height."

Hunter Biden had denied paternity of Navy Joan Roberts, until DNA testing demonstrated that he was Navy Joan's father. Lunden Roberts claims that allowing Navy Joan to take the Biden name would help "rectify" Hunter Biden's "neglect" of his daughter. Biden's attorneys claim Roberts' effort is "political warfare" against the Biden family, pointing to the fact that Lunden Roberts had previously sought to protect their daughter's privacy by redacting her name and identifying information from court filings.

Comments

[Michael P]

He may feel that being held accountable for his actions is a terrible slight against his name, but the name recognition is probably still a huge step up from being just another out-of-wedlock child of a stripper.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What an asshole Biden is for not recognizing his granddaughter. Same Mrs Biden. Decent people don’t do that, whatever they think of the mother.

Remember Trump denying his nephew medical treatment as trustee of some family deal? Same shit. Anyone who could be cruel to an innocent related child is worthy of zero respect.

[ReaderY]

It’s Hunter Biden, not President Biden, who filed this petition and who is responsible for these actions. Check your facts before atteibuting!

[Flight-ER-Doc]

An asshole from a family of assholes: His father, his sleazey stepmother.....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Kleppe]

In the post you are responding to, bevis wrote "what an asshole Biden is for not recognizing his granddaughter." I am pretty sure you inadvertently conflated what bevis wrote with the subject of the post. I don't know why else you would claim Hunter Biden is "responsible" for Joe Biden not recognizing his granddaughter.

Joe Biden's refusal to accept the true contours of his family tree was most recently apparent when he and Jill failed to hang a stocking for Navy Joan, despite hanging stockings for all of their other grandchildren (and even their pets). Honestly this is pretty shameful behavior.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Also, the mother (who based on a couple of stories appears to be a perfect responsibility match for Hunter) is being threatened by a former/current boyfriend who is a wrestler or bodybuilder or some such. The mother asked for secret service protection for the child, who is eligible it as the grandchild of the president. Biden senior said no.

I have three grandchildren so far. If I were president and someone was threatening the home where my grandchild lived I’d send somebody in to quietly feed the guy his own balls.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Well, clearly you are a better human being than the President of the United States is

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a pretty low bar. Most people are morally better than child-sniffing incestuous pedophiles who commit treason.

[Krychek_2]

And what about people who slander other people by falsely claiming they are child-sniffing incestuous pedophiles who commit treason? Where do they fall on the morality scale?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I have no idea who you’re talking about. Let’s just look at Biden (and Trump, if you like) stand alone as to how they treat children in their family.

[Krychek_2]

I was referring to BCD's comment immediately above mine, which I think was directed at Biden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh. I (cough) didn’t see it.

[ravenshrike]

There's plenty of video showing that Bad Touch Biden sniffs children. There's a diary which was confirmed as real when the federal government charged the people who gave it to a journalist with transferring "stolen" property across state lines. Inside the diary is the following line.
‘I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)’
Those two things combined would mean to any rational person that there is a very high likelihood of Joe Robinette Biden being a child sniffing incestuous pedophile.

[Krychek_2]

Yeah sure there is; there's also video of Elvis at a recording studio on the dark side of the moon.

I seem to recall that Biden's daughter, the alleged author of the diary, repudiated it.

[ravenshrike]

Just to be clear, are you saying the US Justice Department and New York federal court system fabricated charges against Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander?

[Krychek_2]

I'm saying that I did not fully appreciate the wisdom of "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear" until I began hearing about right wing conspiracy theories and fabricated claims of wrongdoing by Democratic politicians. Remember the claim that Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of a pizza place?

The vile way the Biden family is treating this grandchild is bad enough. It's not necessary to also make up stories about him being a pedophile.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

It is, but take the win.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden’s refusal to accept the true contours of his family tree was most recently apparent when he and Jill failed to hang a stocking for Navy Joan, despite hanging stockings for all of their other grandchildren (and even their pets). Honestly this is pretty shameful behavior.

I am not familiar with goyishe apparel rituals, but is it customary to put socks on the wall for people who aren't there and aren't expected to be there?

[bevis the lumberjack]

We have a stocking for our children and sons-in-law and our grandchildren whether we expect them at the house or not. Everyone gets similar value stocking stuffers whether they’ll be there or not. Eventually we’ll figure out how to get the stuff to them.

My mother does the same in the old stockings she made in the early 60s even though she’s 84 and we’re all between 58 and 65. It’s a way of letting your family know you’re thinking about them.

From my experience that’s what the tradition is, but I guess everyone has their own.

[santamonica811]

We've been doing stockings with the same group of friends for 35 years. We've never hung stockings for people who know will not be there. So, to me and my friends, the idea that not putting up a stocking is evidence of some bad motive or black heart is batshit crazy.

The paranoid or evil in society find reasons to hate. Reminds me of yet another scene from "Annie Hall."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t want to spend more time on this issue than it deserves, but it’s not clear to me that the other grandchildren were all there. (I see some reports that say Biden spent Christmas with his “family” but I couldn’t find anything that specified who that included beyond his wife.) But if they’re inviting the kids, why not include the child his son is treating so shabbily?

[mulched]

That's the damn shame about it. It would cost Joe Biden so little to be nice to this kid.

[bevis the lumberjack]

A story I saw said that they even had stockings for their dogs. Hope that’s not true but if so……

[santamonica811]

My friends (that I referenced upthread) who would never have a stocking for someone who will not be there, DO have stockings for all their pets. Who *are* there, and who--I must admit--are really really excited and happy when given their presents of cat toys, doggie treats, etc..

Again, I see absolutely no reason to find anything bad about putting up a stocking for anyone or anything who is actually there for the holidays. YMMV, of course.

[David Nieporent]

But if they’re inviting the kids, why not include the child his son is treating so shabbily?

No idea. Maybe they did. Maybe the mother said she doesn't want anything to do with them. I'm not privy to the intra-family dynamics.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Did he say President Biden? I don't see where he said President Biden. I don't think he said President Biden. Why did you jump to the conclusion he said President Biden? He didn't edit away any reference to President Biden.

[decline to state]

What other Biden is this child the granddaughter of?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Oh dear. I did not see that word!

Whoops!

Sauce for the goose and all that.

Blimey. I doubt it will teach me a lesson, but it ought to.

[Michael P]

Joe Biden has also refused to acknowledge this grandchild. He didn't jump to any conclusions.

[bacchys]

MAGAts don't care about facts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When the Bidens hung the stockings for their grandkids this past Christmas, did they include Navy?

Or no?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Saw another story on this today that include JB’s reaction to the granddaughter. Unlike you, I did check my sources.

[santamonica811]

1. I think the judge must steel himself before deciding the case, in order to be fair to the mother. Any parent who deliberately names a child "Navy" has very little credibility regarding other "how to name this child" issues.
2. I don't really understand the father's position. It's my understanding that the general rule is that we all can change our names to whatever we want...as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes. (The rules for those convicted of criminal [and civil??] offenses might be different, I suppose.) Here, there can't be fraud, as it's now established that Hunter is the father. I get the attempt to pin this to the "in the best interests of the child" standard, but I don't see how it could possibly fit here.
3. I also understand the sentiment of "let my name die with me" argument. But that's usually reserved for INfamous people. Hunter Hitler, or Hunter Quisling, or Hunter bin Laden, not with a last name associated with the US Presidency. (Although, I suspect that Ivanka sometimes has wished, over the past 6 years, that she had taken the Kushner name, once she married.)

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Celebrities of all sorts give their children names that I can only call 'weird'. Moon Unit and Dweezle, Scout and Rumer, Whatever the hell Musk calls one of his kids (AFAIK it is unpronounceable in any earthly language - and I generally LIKE Musk)...

Navy? Not even in the upper tenth percentile of weird

[decline to state]

Also, as of 2021 in terms of popularity as a name for newborns it was in the 400s. So not a huge number of them, but not unique either.

[Gasman]

"Also, as of 2021 in terms of popularity as a name for newborns it was in the 400s. So not a huge number of them, but not unique either."

Nor is the name Unique, unique.
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi

[Michael P]

The Musk kid who was in the news recently (because of a threatening stalker) is named X.

"Navy" seems to have spent several years among the 600 most popular names for newborn girls, although it's on a downward trend right now.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

No, his name is X Æ A-12 Musk
In modern English the ligature is pronounced as the 'a' in cat. Put it all together and what do you have?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

ecks ash eh 12 according to Musk.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

As I said: No earthly language.

[santamonica811]

I like a ton of what Musk has done. Dislike his untruthful "promises" to do other things (eg, drilling a test underground road here in the LA area). But, totally aside from his politics, or his business acumen; I am saddened by his evidence of mental challenges that he seems to face. (I felt the same way about Kanye West for years, when he was making excellent music but also spiraling down with--to me--obvious signs of mental and/or emotional and/or psychological failings.) When someone is self-destructing in slow-motion, it is somewhat heartbreaking.

And I'm starting to feel this way about Musk. Yeah, if his $100 billion in worth dives all the way down to $6 billion, it's hard to feel sorry for him. He'll be just fine, financially. But you gotta have some empathy or sympathy for the demons that seem to be screaming inside his head.

[bacchys]

Alleged stalker. Who doesn't seem to have done any stalking.

[Kazinski]

My mother in Law’s given name is Navy so it’s not unheard of, it’s a pretty common name in her native country.

Between 400 and 800 girls are named Navy every year in the US, but it’s #452 in popularity.

If she named her baby Kashonda you wouldn’t say a word about it, even though it has zero hits on the baby database.

[Noscitur a sociis]

2. I don’t really understand the father’s position.

I agree that the position set forth in the father’s filings is hard to follow. I also strongly suspect that you understand what the actual reason is that he doesn’t want his daughter using his name.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The "Biden" name is probably worth $50M in sweet Chinese cash.

[Kleppe]

Maybe they're afraid that little Navy Joan will try to horn in on their racket?

[Tallman]

Exactly. Think of it as a trademark violation; we need to ensure foreign governments are giving money to the branch of the family that can actually influence the Big Guy(tm).

[Martinned]

Now that the child's name is forever disclosed in the archives of the New York Post (and this site, and who knows how many others), the question is basically moot.

And yes, whatever the harm that might come to her as a result of being called Biden, that's nothing compared to the Navy-shaped cross she already has to bear.

[Mr. Bumble]

What’s in a name?

If her name was "Biden" would that cause Dr. Jill and Slo Joe to acknowledge her or would they continue to ignore her as they've done so far?

[Martinned]

I don't know or care. Nothing in this story will cause a single person to change their vote in 2024 (assuming Biden runs), and frankly if this story did cause someone to change their vote they should have their right to vote taken away.

[Tallman]

Maybe not those two, but I suspect many people in general will treat her marginally better. They'll know that "Biden" indicates some relationship to a powerful family, but will forget the specific details of her story.

I also suspect a few people will know the details of her story, feel sorry for her, and thus, treat her marginally better.

[Lee Moore]

Throughout family law, courts tend to consider what outcomes or arrangements would be in "the best interests" of the child."

I'd just like to mention that this is a really pernicious legal standard, guaranteed to boost the judge's already enormous ego into full on megalomania.

If Pop thinks A is "best" and Mom thinks B is "best" and the judge thinks "C" is best, then guess who wins ? The judge ! Who'da thunk it ? Whatever anyone else thinks, it's Poppa / Momma judge who knows what's best for the child.

Meanwhile in a world sceptical of judicial megalomania, nobody knows what's in the best interests of the child. The best that you can do is say that some things are manifestly against the child's interests, whereas everything else is not. There's no reason why the judge should be picking his or her fave from the universe of everything else. So the legal standard should be that :

1. the judge determines whether the course (A) proposed by parent 1 is "manifestly against the interests of the child"
2. ditto for parent 2 (B)
3. so long as neither is "manifestly against", then
4. the judge picks A or B*
5. if one is "manifestly against" then the judge picks the other
6. only if both are "manifestly against" does the judge get to exercise his or her inner Megaparent and craft C

* if the dispute is not between the two parents, but between the parents and Child Services, the judge should be required to rule for the parents unless their choice is "manifestly against."

[David Nieporent]

Judges do not randomly craft option C unless, in fact, the judge finds that A and B are both inadequate. Otherwise, the judge generally picks from A or B.

[Lee Moore]

I appreciate that judges do not always exercise the full extent of the discretion that this judicial discretion maximising standard allows.
I feel sure that if the legal standard for police searches was “it seemed like a good idea” many police would hold fire until they thought they had reasonable cause to search. But that wouldn’t make me a fan of the “it seemed like a good idea” standard.

[Martinned]

Why would you treat children as if they are the property of their parents. The evidence is decidedly against parents being very reliable caretakers. (As evidenced by this woman calling her daughter Navy.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not sure what you’re saying. If you’re talking about these parents, you’re probably right. If you’re talking about parents generally, you’re way wrong.

[Martinned]

How can you tell which parents are which, other than by bringing appropriate cases before a court?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Based on how you observe their interactions with their children. Based on how their children turn out.

[mulched]

You can only decide if parents are responsible caretakers via court case?

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess she should have checked in with you for a list of "approved" names. Any thoughts on "Ketanji"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" The evidence is decidedly against parents being very reliable caretakers. (As evidenced by this woman calling her daughter Navy.)"

Are you suggesting that then evidence is against parents in general being reliable caretakers? Compared to who? Non-parents?

Parents at least love and care about their children.

The parent-child relationship is decidedly different than the judge-litigant relationship.

[Lee Moore]

The parent-child relationship is decidedly different than the judge-litigant relationship.

It surely is. And while we’re at it, I’ll mention that Martinned’s insistence that children are not the “property” of their parents, while it is true in the sense of chattel, it is not true in the sense of asset.

Children are their parents’ most precious possessions*, never mind houses or 401ks. And they are the most precious because, unlike houses and 401ks, the parents retain an interest in them forever (or at least indefinitely.) The children are the parents’ future.

That is why (biologically) parents put effort into children. They are an investment. Or rather the investment. They’re the only investment that matters. All other investments are surrendered on the death of the parent. But not children. A child is forever – or until that line becomes extinct.

We are evolved to love and protect our children. Because life is reproduction. Everything else is a hobby. Human or beetle, your babies are your future.

* the child may be regarded as a possession of the parents, but also of itself, ie the possession is non-rivalrous as between parents and child.

[Lee Moore]

Parents don’t own their children, but they are the naturally supplied caregivers until such time as the children are capable of paddling their own canoes. As the naturally supplied caregivers, parents are naturally endowed with a strong protective urge to look after their own children. Nature does not supply them, or judges, with any similar urge to look after other peoples children, beyond a generalised and very much rebuttable benevolence.
Moreover humanity got by for 99.9 percent of its existence without any judges to offer their advice to parents on child rearing.
Therefore judicial involvement in child rearing should be a rare and exceptional happening, undertaken only when it is absolutely clear that the parents are non trivially harming the child.
There is bound to be a temptation for pompous asses to imagine that calling your child “Navy” constitutes an indication of parental unfitness. And unless the hurdle for judicial intervention is extremely high and unless judicial discretion is extremely low, the osmotic tendency for pompous assery to accumulate in the judiciary creates a terrifying risk of the rearing of children being taken from the parents who love them by asses who don’t, but who enjoy demonstrating their snobbish “superiority” over working class families.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Grover Cleveland’s out-of-wedlock son seems to have taken a different name, and he turned out all right.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48066577/james-e-king" rel=

There’s DNA evidence that someone in Thomas Jefferson’s circle – and the Monticello people think it’s Jefferson himself – had some children on the wrong side of the sheets. It seems that eventually some of the descendants took Jefferson's name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%E2%80%93Hemings_controversy#Historical_consensus

[Milhouse]

Cleveland's acknowledged "son", not necessarily his actual son. I don't think anyone knows who the actual father was, nor will anyone ever know. Cleveland stepped up and accepted responsibility for the boy because all of the mother's other lovers were married, or otherwise unwilling to make themselves known.

But, acknowledgment or not, as a bastard he would not have been expected to carry Cleveland's name.

[Milhouse]

PS it's even possible that Cleveland wasn't sleeping with the mother at all, and was merely a good enough friend that he was willing to do this for her when the actual father refused. His being unmarried made it not such a big deal for him; this was the era of the double standard, after all. (She was unmarried too, so there was no adultery involved. As far as I know Donald Trump is the first person to be elected president while publicly known as an adulterer.)

[Fats of Fury]

And just like that Bill Clinton never existed.

[David Nieporent]

Grover Cleveland's mother named him after a muppet, so…

[mulched]

Abandoning your own child or grandchild is despicable. Whatever you think of them politically, Bidens are not good people.

The judge's decision should be easy. Hunter Biden wouldn't know this child's best interest if it bit him in the ass. Whatever he's asking for, do the opposite.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And if you believe the Daily Beast (and why not believe them?), there’s been other out-of-wedlock Presidential children.

Warren G. Harding was recently confirmed by DNA tests as the father of one Elizabeth Ann Blaesing, the mother of course being Ann Britton, the sex-in-a-coat-closet woman. It seems that Blaesing didn’t take the Harding name.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/31069889/elizabeth-ann-blaesing

It seems that the Daily Beast and other helpful sources are paywalled.

[Dilan Esper]

Jefferson raped Sally Hemings and impregnated her to produce those children, there is zero doubt about this, and the people who want to make some other Jefferson relative the rapist are just douchebags who can't stand that their hero was such an awful person.

[Life of Brian]

Jefferson raped Sally Hemings and impregnated her to produce those children, there is zero doubt about this

Weirdly, the Wikipedia article on the subject walks through scads of evidence on both sides, and when discussing the ultimate conclusion notes that Jefferson’s paternity is the “majority view” and that the evidence is “consistent with” and “favors” it.

Perhaps you should submit some edits and straighten everyone out?

[Darth Buckeye]

Well, depends on what the definition of the word "rape" is. After all, there are some feminist activists that believe that consensual sexual intercourse between a cis-man and a cis-woman is always "rape."

[Life of Brian]

Well, depends on what the definition of the word “rape” is.

Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked is about whether Jefferson was the father of the children at all, not the circumstances under which he conceived them. So we don't even have to reach the ever-expansive rape definition du jour.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Wow! Glad you have solved that riddle, that cannot be proven by any actual ...what's that stuff called? EVIDENCE!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You should go to those famous Wikipedia comment boards and try to correct their entry, since at present they simply say that its scenario is endorsed by historical consensus, while acknowledging dissent. Reference to the dissent should presumably be purged – Wikipedia is known for its anti-wokeness so they routinely ignore evidence of mistreatment of black people by white people. (/sarc)

If we’re discussing the balance of probabilities, then the relationship likely began in metropolitan France, where (unlike the French colonies) slavery was technically illegal.

[Kazinski]

Do you have any evidence she was actually raped?

Sometimes people in the same household develop feelings for each other regardless of their relative station or backgrounds.

https://www.historynet.com/strom-thurmond-meets-his-daughter/

[Noscitur a sociis]

I assume Dilan Esper is taking the position that meaningful consent isn’t really possible when one of the parties owns the other.

[TwelveInchPianist]

When one party owns the other, I would imagine that there could be occasions where the consent was meaningful (to the owned party) and others where there was no meaningful consent.

[Milhouse]

By the same standard, through most of history "meaningful consent" in that sense wasn't possible between married couples either. Which would define all children born for all those millennia as the products of rape.

[Tallman]

There isn't even proof that TJ himself is the father (vs. merely someone in the male Jefferson line).

That said, whomever was the father, I guess you could argue from power differentials to get "rape" (modern terminology, of course). OTOH, that standard clearly makes Clinton a rapist too, and he's obviously still aware enough to jail, so I doubt that argument gets made.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“who can’t stand that their hero was such an awful person.”

Does impregnating a slave (although it’s not clear that she was a slave when the relationship began, but she was quite young. She was one of the few people in history who chose to become a slave) make him more of an awful person than owning slaves in the first place? I don’t know if that’s clear.

[Milhouse]

Owning slaves didn't make him an awful person. He had no choice in the matter. It was illegal to free them, so the only way he could stop owning them would have been to sell them to someone who didn't object to slavery, who would be likely to abuse them.

[Kazinski]

That's not quite true, freeing slaves was legal, but Jefferson was constrained because he was essentially bankrupt and he couldn't dispose of his assets (slaves and land) without paying off his creditors first.

[Milhouse]

So it was illegal for him to free them. It might have been legal for some other people to free their slaves, and if so one could argue that failing to do so made them awful people, but not freeing his did not make him one.

However as I understand it there were actually laws in Virginia against anyone freeing slaves. I don't know how strict these laws were, but their existence would explain other people owning slaves without being awful.

At any rate, Jefferson himself wrote that this was the reason he saw it as his duty to keep his slaves and be a good master to them, rather than selling them and thus cleaning his hands at their expense.

[Milhouse]

Even if Jefferson did father at least one of her children, there is no evidence that he raped her, unless you subscribe to the completely modern idea, that would not have made any sense to anyone at the time, that any sex between a slave and his/her owner, or anyone in the owner's family, or even another slave if the owner made or sanctioned the match, is to be defined as rape regardless of its actual nature.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But if you hear the term "Presidential bastards," the chances are that the term refers to the Presidents themselves.

[SimonP]

In this thread: a bunch of Trump supporters and Herschel Walker enthusiasts pretending to be outraged over Joe Biden not embracing his son's offspring as a granddaughter and member of the Biden family.

Snore. Be a little less predictable, chuckleheads.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You don’t have a grandchild, huh?

This little girl is already behind the eight ball given that she’s got what looks like two fucked up parents – certainly Hunter is and looks like her mom might be too. Abandoning your own flesh and blood like Biden Sr has that situation is unconscionable.

I made the same point about Trump and his family in my post above but you ignored that just to call names Wonder why you did that.

And you’re the only one who has mentioned Walker, you arrogant prick.

[Sarcastr0]

You dragged the President into this because I guess he’s a more interesting target than Hunter.

Don’t pretend this is some kind of apolitical moral dudgeon. It may be bipartisan, but you only care because of politics.

Me? I grew up after Lewinsky. Tilting at the Presidential morality windmill had been pure political points scoring for all my life,

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know I’m bipartisan on this but you also know it was political. Ok.

I care because I know. There are people I know privately who have done stuff like Biden is doing to a child or grandchild and I despise them for it too. Biden should be ashamed of himself for treating a granddaughter like that. You and I are lucky ours were better people.

Treating a grown woman like shit is what it is, but it pales in comparison to doing it into an innocent child.

I don’t talk about Hunter because he’s so worthless that I just don’t want to argue with y’all defending him for political reasons. But I do hope there’s someone non political out there thinking about his influence peddling business in the context of us now knowing he had access to sensitive documents. And I don’t think he should have any say in the kid’s name. He could have taken care of that by simply keeping his dick in his pants, which unfortunately isn’t in his skill set.

In context of your Lewinsky comment, I actually thought about that this evening. Ike was president when I was born. We don’t know these people of course (although I did have like a one minute conversation with Reagan when he was in office) but starting with Eisenhower through today I count more presidents that seemed like decent guys than were assholes. The most recent two are nowhere near the decent guys list.

[Bored Lawyer]

A yes, the Rule of Trump. Trump acted like a jerk, that forever excuses our side's jerkiness.

[Kleppe]

Is there some allegation that Trump has illegitimate children or something? If so, I'm not sure why an allegation against one person is worth equating to a confirmed fact about another. Remember that time Hunter boned his dead brother's widow for three years? What a hillbilly family.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Adler customarily leaves to the likes of Blackman and Volokh the tossing of red meat to this blog's disaffected, bigoted, knuckle-dragging right-wing fans.

Not today.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Anyway, there's NO EVIDENCE that traditional family structures have any advantage over alternative families, so what's the big deal?

[Kazinski]

Ummm, did you miss the sarc tag?

Because I think there actually some evidence.https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-marriage-effect-money-or-parenting/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I forgot I need a sarc tag for even the most outrageous sarcasm, so /sarc.

If only Jonathan Swift had used /sarc tag for his Modest Proposal, or Daniel Defoe had used a /sarc tag for The Shortest Way With the Dissenters.

/sarc not sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno if this post was worth the inevitable comment section.

[Kazinski]

"Commenters pounce"?

Maybe it wasn't worth Hunter and Joe and their lawyers filing the motion to oppose the name change (and yes, I think the political people got in a room and wargamed this. Hunter said the name change is "political warfare".)

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s a post about a legal question on a legal blog. Not the author’s fault that you feel compelled to defend the Bidens no matter what.

[Kazinski]

It's not really a legal question, it's a linguistics topic: defining chutzpah.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which party is the Jew?

[Bored Lawyer]

Biden said he attended shul more often than most Jews, so perhaps it's the president.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They should have you review and approve their posts so the comment sections meet your standards.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Worth it?

Lathering this blog's carefully cultivated collection of half-educated right-wing bigots into a polemical meltdown is the Volokh Conspiracy's principle purpose.

It is odd, though, to observe Prof. Adler, rather than Prof. Blackman or Prof. Volokh, inciting the clingers. Prof. Adler is customarily better than this.

[Tallman]

More pertinently, I’m not sure the motion to interveen here was worth the media attention the motion would inevitably bring. See Streisand effect

[MonitorsMost]

You say that as if the comments on any post on Reason don’t immediately turn into a cesspool.

It’s an interesting issue but I doubt there will be any relevant case law on the issue. I can’t imagine a situation where the paternal father’s last name could be so out of bounds that it would constitute an abuse of discretion. Politics is crazy, but the president’s last name is not infamous in any sense of the term.

The real disappointment is that no commenters appear to have made a “Navy Jones’ Locker” pun.

[F.D. Wolf]

I'm reminded of an old, corny joke I heard from my late father, who cast his first presidential ballot for Thomas Dewey in 1944. (He and my grandfather were decidedly not fans of ole FDR).

A man goes to the county clerk and says, "I want to change my name."

The clerk says, "Well, we can't just let anyone change his name on a whim. You have to have a good reason. What is your name?"

"Franklin Delano Stink."

"Oh, goodness," says the clerk. "I can see where that could be an issue. What, sir, would you like to change your name to?"

"Joe Stink."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is nice that you have good memories of your father and grandfather.

Did it bother them to see better Americans defeat their conservative views in the culture war, or were they happily doomed clingers all the way to replacement?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It is nice that you have good memories of your father and grandfather."

Most of us do, Arthur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Something can be common and nice.

[Krayt]

You, like the person in the joke, hadda change your name because you called someone names.

[Commenter_XY]

Doesn't AR state law control here? What's the law on the books on 'the best interest of the child' in AR? Oh, and aren't detailed financial statements (like tax returns with supporting documents, etc) required by court to make a determination on reducing child support? To me, it is all about what is in the best interest of this child.

Really...who can decide what is in the best interest of Navy Joan Roberts? I don't know if King Solomon could even sort this out. Hopefully the AR family law Court can. Until the Court rules, it is Lunden Roberts who makes the call on what is in the best interest of this child.

Other: I really hope the child support monies paid have been used wisely; note, I am not insinuating otherwise.

[Kazinski]

I don't know whether it was one of the documents provided to the court, but Miranda Devine of the NYPost recently unearthed a document where Hunter claimed he was living at Joe's House in Delaware at the time Navy was born, and paying 50,000 a month in rent to Joe
https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1613576887728496640/photo/1?

Isn't that pretty close to what Burisma was paying Hunter a month to be on their board?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder if Joe reported the rental income on his tax return?

The Biden family better hope that Hunter doesn't pull a Prince Harry and write a tell all book.

[Michael P]

Apparently Slow Joe declared $19,800 of rental income in 2017 and $0 in 2018, when Hunter claimed to have paid almost $50k/month.

I hope the IRS has good civil-service protections for the auditors who will be assigned to investigate this. They will assign an auditor, right?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, sure, if either of them had $600 or more in transactions on Venmo. Otherwise they’ll be ok.

[Tallman]

That's the big legal advantage of their infamous 'shared bank account'; no actual transactions hit the banking system.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but maybe a big legal disadvantage leaving Joe a co-conspiritor for everything Hunter did with the bank account.

The IRS does have an innocent spouse rule, but an innocent dad rule when he's spending the proceeds won't work.

[Tallman]

>innocent dad rule

No. And worse, this kind of financial arrangement is, itself, illegal. But FBI/IRS......

[David Nieporent]

What on earth are you talking about? What "kind" of financial arrangement do you think is "illegal"?

[Michael P]

Probably the kind where the son selling access complains "Don't worry, unlike Pop I won't make you give me half your salary" (without that showing up as any sort of transfer between the family members).

[David Nieporent]

Hunter claimed he was living at Joe’s House in Delaware at the time Navy was born, and paying 50,000 a month in rent to Joe

That link literally shows nothing of the kind. Do you even bother to read? (I mean, if you're citing the NY Post, the answer is obviously no.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Overdue for your eye exam? Look at the image in the tweet which shows monthly rent at $49K and change.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but look at the box that's checked: it says that Hunter owns the property, not that Joe does. It in no way says that Hunter is paying anything to Joe.

The form is actually confusing; it has a section heading for residence but then immediately below that asks about the company. Given the amount of that rent, I suspect it's saying that the firm is paying that rent, not that an individual is.

[Mr. Bumble]

"oh what a tangled web we weave...."

Biden family motto?

[Kazinski]

But Hunter doesn't actually own the property does he?

Is that more fraud, claiming assets he doesn't own?

Depending on the form and the purpose did Hunter have to provide bank statements? Did he need to characterize those 49k monthly payments as something more innocuous than "10% for the big guy"?

[David Nieporent]

How do I know? The form, as posted, doesn't even identify the property! The address is redacted! Why are people assuming that it's Joe Biden's house rather than, e.g., the building next door?

[Kazinski]

Well I’m not actually citing the NY Post, I’m citing the document with Hunter’s signature.

Probably just more Russian disinformation.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, I'm not sure what you're citing, because neither the document nor the tweet says:

1) "Hunter claimed he was living at Joe’s House"
2) "at the time Navy was born,"
3) "paying 50,000 a month in rent to Joe"

[Kazinski]

Well let's go over those:

Hunter says the House was his current residence July 27,2018, but also said he moved out Feb 2018, which would have been about the time his daughter was conceived, not born.

He also says he owns the house, but is paying rent. Joe is the owner, so who else would he be paying rent to?

This is also the same house Joe was stashing classified documents at. So there should be a congressional investigation into:
1. What did Hunter know and when did he know it about the classified documents.
3. Did he host any Russian hookers or drug dealers at the Delaware home in 2018, and did they have access to the classified documents:
"A Russian woman, a drug dealer, and two of his compatriots may have stolen a laptop from Hunter Biden in 2018, Hunter told a prostitute in another sex video, leaving the president’s son concerned he may be blackmailed because of his father’s political position."
3. What was the source of the funds Hunter was using to pay "rent" on the Delaware home?

[David Nieporent]

Hunter says the House was his current residence July 27,2018, but also said he moved out Feb 2018, which would have been about the time his daughter was conceived, not born.

He also says he owns the house, but is paying rent. Joe is the owner, so who else would he be paying rent to?

So, in other words, you concede that there are things on this form that don't make any sense. But instead of saying, "Hmm. Not really sure what's going on here. What is this form?" you immediately craft a story that isn't even supported by the form, but claim that it is.

[Kazinski]

Well we both do agree its not clear, so we need two things, a special prosecutor to look into the issues of who had access to the classified documents 2017-2020, and whether Hunter was paying rent, owned the house, and whether Joe was benefiting from Hunters Ukranian, Chinese, and Russian business deals, and a congressional investigation to make sure that their isn't a whitewash.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Doesn’t AR state law control here? What’s the law on the books on ‘the best interest of the child’ in AR?

I doubt that there's a lot of precedent on whether the president's illegitimate grandchild should have the president's last name if the president's son doesn't want her to.

[Illocust]

Seems pretty clear that having the name and thus the offical acknowledgement of a democrat president is going to be all upsides in getting the child into prestigious schools. Being an unacknowledged bastard is much worse.

[William Cheswick]

Hunter Biden is playing the role of Billy Carter.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

To diminish Hunter's embarrassment, send him sippy cups, pacifiers, and large adult diapers.

[mydisplayname]

This is a simple matter.

Hunter Biden suffers from Paternity Dysphoria and, accordingly, "has a sad" whenever he is reminded of the fact that he is indeed the father of the child Navy. The Courts must recognize this dysphoria, as must we all: it is wrong to allow the child to adopt his father's name, as doing so will exacerbate Hunter's Paternity Dysphoria. In fact, the child's mother should be prosecuted for her wanton disregard of Paternity Dysphoria.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Maybe some clue about how to resolve this can be obtained from the fact that in German “Beiden” (pronounced "Biden") means “both”.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Can Brandon be a girl's name?

[F.D. Wolf]

I wonder if this is the first time in history a father is fighting for his infant child NOT to carry his name. What a prince.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has said that the “best interests of the child” is the standard for a name change and has set forth the factors to consider in determining it:

We hold that in determining the child’s best interest, which must ultimately be the controlling consideration in any change in status, the trial court should consider at least the following factors: (1) the child’s preference; (2) the effect of the change of the child’s surname on the preservation and development of the child’s relationship with each parent; (3) the length of time the child has borne a given name; (4) the degree of community respect associated with the present and proposed surnames; (5) the difficulties, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed surname; and (6) the existence of any parental misconduct or neglect.

Huffman v. Fisher, 987 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Ark. 1999) (generally referred to as “the Huffman factors”).

Again, oddly, and perhaps uniquely, Hunter Biden is arguing against the use of his name. So, apparently, he is seeking a judicial decree that the name “Biden” carries less respect than that of a former stripper and that the name “Biden” is an “embarrassment”. I don’t know, but it sounds to me like he may have a very good case.

[Mr. Bumble]

For more see this story from Jonathan Turley:

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/15/the-importance-of-being-biden-how-hunter-reached-seeking-to-bar-daughter-from-using-his-surname/

[ragebot]

"Again, oddly, and perhaps uniquely, Hunter Biden is arguing against the use of his name. So, apparently, he is seeking a judicial decree that the name “Biden” carries less respect than that of a former stripper and that the name “Biden” is an “embarrassment”. I don’t know, but it sounds to me like he may have a very good case."

Seems reasonable to me as both Joe and Hunter are both embarrassments.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Changing the child Navy's last name to BIDEN is neither for nor against her best interests. It's merely for aesthetics and "bragging rights" of Mommy. I don't see how an honest judge could refuse to grant the petition, despite all the screaming and howling of the Bidens. No matter what her name becomes, she is still an heir-at-law of her biological father, Hunter "Crackpipes and ChiComs" Biden.

[Joe_dallas]

Only an Heir - in - law (testate/) if Hunter dies without a will, or if Hunters valid will at time of Hunters death includes Navy as an heir.

That being said, sounds like the Bidens would specifically exclude Navy from their wills. I generally only see children removed from the will if there has been an adoption, or the child has committed some neferious act the warrants removal as an heir (drug use, etc).

Fortunately or unfortunately the ability to contest a will is very fertile depending on the state. Some states, such as Texas are open to any will contest as long as there is a reasonable basis for contesting the will.

[Krayt]

Of course she should take the Biden last name!

There's tons of money to inherit from Grandpa, not one dime of which was illegal or improper over his long career as senator, VP, and president!

There's tons of money to inherit from daddy, not one dime of which was illegal or improper trading off that same last name, with curiously large salaries that have nothing to do with it.

[CFred]

Maybe she will finally get a grandchild Christmas stocking on Joe's mantle

[Mr. Bumble]

Right after the dog and cat...

[Kleppe]

Which Trump son was the crackhead impregnating strippers, Don Jr or Eric? Can never remember.

[Mr. Bumble]

Barron?

[Frank Drackman]

Did you know Charles Manson had a son??, "Charles Manson Jr." try dealing with that name in 1970's California.
Knew a Surgeon in the 90's with the same name (not related) really enjoyed writing his name on the Anesthetic Record, surprisingly nobody ever joked with him about it, (Ironically, he cut way more people than the "Real" Charles Manson did (didn't kill anyone himself)

Frank

[KenveeB]

You tried to deny she was your child and now you're trying to deny her your name. Let's not try to pretend you're motivated out of any concern for HER well-being.