Third Party Parent Law

The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent law.
In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called "de
facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians, the
final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes heterosexual
couples too.

"We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the
interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and
support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and
represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of
justice."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights
03.html

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...
The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent
law.
In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called "de
facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians,
the
final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes
heterosexual
couples too.

"We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the
interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and
support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and
represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of
justice."


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights
03.html

Hmmmm.... Me thinks me smells a rat in the kourthouse..

This sounds like more judicial b.s. to me. And it rather strikes me that
this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative ways
around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public), as
they help to maintain the status quo.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...
The Washington State Supreme Court has created a new third party parent
law.
In a recent ruling the court allowed for a new class of parents called
"de
facto parents." While the original case was a dispute between lesbians,
the
final court ruling went beyond homosexual couples and includes
heterosexual
couples too.

"We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the
interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and
support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and
represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of
justice."



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...parentalrights
03.html

Hmmmm.... Me thinks me smells a rat in the kourthouse..

This sounds like more judicial b.s. to me. And it rather strikes me that
this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative
ways
around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public),
as
they help to maintain the status quo.

This is not a status quo decision. It is a legal decision that was made
regarding homosexual parents that overflows into having direct implications
on heterosexual parents.

Several times I have posted here that parents have to be aware the courts
will tie homosexual partner decisions into heterosexual parent issues and
the result will be dramatic changes in how heterosexual parents will be
treated by the courts.

The line is being blurred between parents and partners and that should be a
major concern of all biological parents.

And it rather strikes me that
this is an attempt by some activist judges to create new and innovative ways
around joint custody (before they're forced to accept it by the public), as
they help to maintain the status quo.

You've read the case (Parentage of LB,
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?f...ocid=756261MAJ)
and think this affects the "Parenting Plan" (RCW 26.09.187 et seq)
system of "custody" how?

In re LB was about who, besides biological and adoptive parents, might
be a parent. It had nothing to do with Washington's version of shared
parenting, which is as follows:

" (b) The court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her
residence between the households of the parents for brief and
substantially equal intervals of time only if the court finds the
following:

(i) No limitation exists under RCW 26.09.191;

(ii)(A) The parties have agreed to such provisions and the
agreement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into; or

(B) The parties have a satisfactory history of cooperation and
shared performance of parenting functions; the parties are available to
each other, especially in geographic proximity, to the extent necessary
to ensure their ability to share performance of the parenting
functions; and

(iii) The provisions are in the best interests of the child."

RCW 26.09.187(b)
(http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?...action=section)

As you can see "shared parenting" is unlikely to occur against the will
of one or the other parent. Notably however, once the order is
entered, it is hard to change it.

I just do not see how this case affects division of the child's time
between his or her parents.