"Just friends" couple allowed to 'adopt' kids, judge rules.
Posted by Anonymous User
|
"Just friends" couple allowed to 'adopt' kids, judge rules. January 04, 2014 |
Good gravy.
Couple who are just friends allowed to adopt, judge says in landmark ruling
The couple, who have been friends since 2000, decided to adopt a child together and went to court to add the man’s name as the girl’s father. And we have FAIL right from the start. He is not the sperm donor, nor is he married to the 'mother', nor does he have any serious intention to marry her. By about several thousand years of precedant, he has no right to be called her father.
In a first of its kind ruling in New York, a Manhattan judge has given a couple who're just friends the green light to become legal co-parents to an adopted girl. Four years and they're still not married, hence my accusation above.
The pals identified, only as LEL and KAL, met in 2000 and have been close friends since, according to court papers.
Several years ago, KAL decided she wanted to become a mom, and LEL offered to be her sperm donor.
But when she couldn't get pregnant, they “decided to instead adopt a child together,†the court papers say. Infertile, obsessed, uncommitted friends with benefits. Oh, this just keeps getting better.
“They spent years planning and hoping†for a child, and their dream came true in 2011, when KAL was able to adopt a child — identified as G. — from Ethiopia. Oh spiffy! Adopting a black/brown peasant kid, that's sure to be EXTRA trendy!
They traveled to Africa together to bring the baby home, but because they weren't married, only KAL was able to adopt, filings say.
When they returned to the U.S., the pair petitioned Manhattan Surrogate's Court to have LEL named as a second legal parent, even though they don't live together and are not romantically involved.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Rita Mella did so.
“From the moment they met G,, more than two years ago now, KAL and LEL have functioned as her parents," the judge wrote in a decision from last month.
“G. calls KAL ‘Mommy’ and LEL ‘Daddy,’†and “although they live in separate households,†they “have created a nurturing family environment for G., including a well-thought-out, (like hell) discussed and fluid method of sharing parenting responsibilities between their homes.†'
he splits time at LEL's house in Brooklyn and KAL's apartment in Manhattan, and they “also spend much time together as a family,†even travelling together to visit each other's relatives, the ruling says.
G, “a good-natured toddler and quick to laugh,†transitions “easily and smoothly between her two homes†and has “good relationships with LEL's domestic partner and KAL's housemate,†the ruling says.
LEL argued that making him a legal second parent was in G.'s best interests, and would provide her with better health care and school options, and a more secure future.
Mella agreed, and used a 2010 state statute allowing “intimate partners†to adopt as a basis for allowing the couple’s the adoption to proceed, noting that the phrase can mean a close, long-term relationship. In plain english: the judge twisted the ancient precedent of "you banged it, you bought it" - which was once used to drag irresponsible men back to supporting the woman they impregnated and abandoned even if only with a check - to allow two people who can't even claim to be 'co-parenting' to claim equality with a couple who's duly filed for a marriage certificate, marched up the aisle, and pledged before whatever god(s) they believe in and a crowd of witnesses to stick together.
She also cited the findings of the social worker who observed the family in action, and determined that “even though their relationship is not based on what many consider a traditional family, they exhibit a love and respect for one another and clearly cherish the family they have created.â€
A top matrimonial lawyer not involved in the case, Bernard Clair, said the ruling “expands the boundaries of adoption rights.†It sure does. Next up: adoption info-booths at trendy fashion shops. Don't laugh; it might well happen.
Another blog commentor stole my own thoughts:
There is a flogging reason that two people (forget the gay debate for a moment) d pledged to stick together for life were the only ones allowed to claim parenthood unless there were no other options, like a single auntie. I can only hope that the kid can handle the emotional bomb when she finds out that 'mama' could not even be euphamistically called a common-law wife because she and 'dada' didn't even live in the same house. There are definitions you do not break, bend, stretch, or otherwise 'rule' on and a world of catastrophe awaits those stupid enough to do so.
Couple who are just friends allowed to adopt, judge says in landmark ruling
The couple, who have been friends since 2000, decided to adopt a child together and went to court to add the man’s name as the girl’s father. And we have FAIL right from the start. He is not the sperm donor, nor is he married to the 'mother', nor does he have any serious intention to marry her. By about several thousand years of precedant, he has no right to be called her father.
In a first of its kind ruling in New York, a Manhattan judge has given a couple who're just friends the green light to become legal co-parents to an adopted girl. Four years and they're still not married, hence my accusation above.
The pals identified, only as LEL and KAL, met in 2000 and have been close friends since, according to court papers.
Several years ago, KAL decided she wanted to become a mom, and LEL offered to be her sperm donor.
But when she couldn't get pregnant, they “decided to instead adopt a child together,†the court papers say. Infertile, obsessed, uncommitted friends with benefits. Oh, this just keeps getting better.
“They spent years planning and hoping†for a child, and their dream came true in 2011, when KAL was able to adopt a child — identified as G. — from Ethiopia. Oh spiffy! Adopting a black/brown peasant kid, that's sure to be EXTRA trendy!
They traveled to Africa together to bring the baby home, but because they weren't married, only KAL was able to adopt, filings say.
When they returned to the U.S., the pair petitioned Manhattan Surrogate's Court to have LEL named as a second legal parent, even though they don't live together and are not romantically involved.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Rita Mella did so.
“From the moment they met G,, more than two years ago now, KAL and LEL have functioned as her parents," the judge wrote in a decision from last month.
“G. calls KAL ‘Mommy’ and LEL ‘Daddy,’†and “although they live in separate households,†they “have created a nurturing family environment for G., including a well-thought-out, (like hell) discussed and fluid method of sharing parenting responsibilities between their homes.†'
he splits time at LEL's house in Brooklyn and KAL's apartment in Manhattan, and they “also spend much time together as a family,†even travelling together to visit each other's relatives, the ruling says.
G, “a good-natured toddler and quick to laugh,†transitions “easily and smoothly between her two homes†and has “good relationships with LEL's domestic partner and KAL's housemate,†the ruling says.
LEL argued that making him a legal second parent was in G.'s best interests, and would provide her with better health care and school options, and a more secure future.
Mella agreed, and used a 2010 state statute allowing “intimate partners†to adopt as a basis for allowing the couple’s the adoption to proceed, noting that the phrase can mean a close, long-term relationship. In plain english: the judge twisted the ancient precedent of "you banged it, you bought it" - which was once used to drag irresponsible men back to supporting the woman they impregnated and abandoned even if only with a check - to allow two people who can't even claim to be 'co-parenting' to claim equality with a couple who's duly filed for a marriage certificate, marched up the aisle, and pledged before whatever god(s) they believe in and a crowd of witnesses to stick together.
She also cited the findings of the social worker who observed the family in action, and determined that “even though their relationship is not based on what many consider a traditional family, they exhibit a love and respect for one another and clearly cherish the family they have created.â€
A top matrimonial lawyer not involved in the case, Bernard Clair, said the ruling “expands the boundaries of adoption rights.†It sure does. Next up: adoption info-booths at trendy fashion shops. Don't laugh; it might well happen.
Another blog commentor stole my own thoughts:
Quote
That poor kid. Brought into a non-existent family so she can be a boutique accessory for “mommy†to cart around and show off. I’m glad she’s alive, at least, but what a lousy starting point – more so because it’s intentional.
There is a flogging reason that two people (forget the gay debate for a moment) d pledged to stick together for life were the only ones allowed to claim parenthood unless there were no other options, like a single auntie. I can only hope that the kid can handle the emotional bomb when she finds out that 'mama' could not even be euphamistically called a common-law wife because she and 'dada' didn't even live in the same house. There are definitions you do not break, bend, stretch, or otherwise 'rule' on and a world of catastrophe awaits those stupid enough to do so.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.