Thursday, February 16, 2006
Great new case affirms children's rights to both parents --
-- even if one of them is Michael Jackson and the other had agreed to get out of the children's lives completely.
It also affirms that a child must be represented by counsel in a termination.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B180135.DOC
This is very important. If whacked-out celebrities are allowed to be TRULY "single parents" and not have to deal with the inconveniences of sharing the parental role with anyone, lots of ordinary people are going to believe that they have a right to do the same.
Unfortunately, it did not say, at strongly as I would have liked, that there is absolutely no way the mother could have ever voluntarily terminated in the first place without either a finding of unfitness or a new couple to take the child.
It did say that a mere agreement between the parents is not enough to terminate parental rights; there needs to have been a genuine inquiry by the court into whether the child's best interests would be served by the termination, and the children would have had to have had their own, independent, lawyer. It also cites a general public policy in favor of two-parent families, and several earlier cases supporting that policy.
It includes an explanation by the trial judge of how he originally came to terminate parental rights back in 2001. It is severely lacking, but revealing. The judge spoke as if he was just swept along on the current and felt like he "had to" do what the presumably high-priced lawyers on each side wanted him to do. It sounds like the most fundamental abdication of the judge's responsibility and independence. As if the lawyers were pointing kryptonite at him. ¶ 7:42 AM
It also affirms that a child must be represented by counsel in a termination.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B180135.DOC
This is very important. If whacked-out celebrities are allowed to be TRULY "single parents" and not have to deal with the inconveniences of sharing the parental role with anyone, lots of ordinary people are going to believe that they have a right to do the same.
Unfortunately, it did not say, at strongly as I would have liked, that there is absolutely no way the mother could have ever voluntarily terminated in the first place without either a finding of unfitness or a new couple to take the child.
It did say that a mere agreement between the parents is not enough to terminate parental rights; there needs to have been a genuine inquiry by the court into whether the child's best interests would be served by the termination, and the children would have had to have had their own, independent, lawyer. It also cites a general public policy in favor of two-parent families, and several earlier cases supporting that policy.
It includes an explanation by the trial judge of how he originally came to terminate parental rights back in 2001. It is severely lacking, but revealing. The judge spoke as if he was just swept along on the current and felt like he "had to" do what the presumably high-priced lawyers on each side wanted him to do. It sounds like the most fundamental abdication of the judge's responsibility and independence. As if the lawyers were pointing kryptonite at him. ¶ 7:42 AM
