09-13-2007, 05:10 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles Gender:  Posts: 11,896 Country:  Points: 39,908, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed |  |  Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae  The ruling had nothing to do with 'custody' except for the fact that it removed the non-custodial parents 'right' to file suit on the child's behalf. FOR ANY REASON!
After this decision, non-custodial parents have no more legal standing to file suit on the child's behalf than does their next door neighbor.
So if YOUR child, in the custody of your ex-whatever develops a life threatening disease, your ex has the right to decide whether or not to continue treatment, or let the child die, and YOU have no legal standing to object.
This decision came about regarding a First Amendment challenge by a father who objected to the school that his child, in the custody of the mother, was attending. The USSC ruled that he, since he didn't have 'majority custody', didn't have legal standing to file suit. The legal ramifications of this decision, as relates to abortion, went right over the heads of most people. After all, who has 'majority custody' of a fetus?
|
It's a sad sad situation and again highlights the need for adults to be very careful who they marry, and especially for women to be careful about who they choose to father their children.
But majority custody doesn't apply until the child is born. |