Kids Can Now Have More Than 2 Legal Parents in Calif.
Gov. signs new bill allowing judges to recognize more parents
By Ruth Brown, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 5, 2013 4:05 PM CDT
   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – Heather can now have two mommies and a daddy ... at least in California, which has just signed a bill allowing kids to have more than two legal parents. The move is intended to recognize a broader range of family structures in legal cases, like those where a same-sex couple shares financial or custody responsibilities with a biological parent of the opposite sex, reports the LA Times. "Courts need the ability to recognize these changes so children are supported by the adults that play a central role in loving and caring for them," says Sen. Mark Leno, who authored the bill.

The bill was partially inspired after a 2011 case, in which a girl ended up in foster care after one of her mothers went to hospital and the other was incarcerated, but her biological father did not have any parental rights. Gov. Brown had opposed a similar bill last year, but has not commented on why he changed his mind and signed this one. However, this measure is narrower than the one he vetoed, the San Fransisco Chronicle points out, and will only allow a judge to recognize more than two parents when he or she finds that not doing so would be harmful to the child.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Kids Can Now Have More Than 2 Legal Parents in Calif. is...
3%
8%
5%
33%
7%
44%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 48 comments
Who_Cares
Oct 6, 2013 8:09 PM CDT
Yeap, that's California for you. I hope that all of them will pay alimony or child support when necessary.
julianpenrod
Oct 6, 2013 5:44 PM CDT
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } The fact is, there is at least as much danger in this move as any amount of “benefit”. Among other things, it is patently unnecessary. It is always within the purview, and responsibility, of the court to decide if details, extenuating circumstance and so on in a case make it appropriate to go beyond “hornbook law”. To establish something like this as a law removes a level of discretionary responsibility on the part of the court, establishing a form of automatic required judgment in a case. This ignores facets that might otherwise lead to a legitimate ruling otherwise. Among other things, insurance benefits for an injury to the child could now be divided amongst as many as a dozen or more people, and decision about what treatment to give the child can be complex and confrontational. And since no one can claim to be the primary support of the child insurance for one of the parents, for example, could be diminished, as well. It's the same as, for example, for the “Castle Doctrine” laws. Before, it was rudimentary for a judge to decide form obvious evidence if a person had a reason to use force to protect themselves, but, now, with the aspect removed from judicial discretion, people are literally given the option to kill without question and repercussion.
TheJman
Oct 6, 2013 5:12 PM CDT
I don't understand why liberals hate the traditional family. Is it because they're so screwed up they feel the need to screw everybody else up? Misery loves company?