If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OR Appeal On Child's Surname
The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a
child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former spouses last name and the name used by her other three children. The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate. The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name the child using any surname she chose. The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory. First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used. And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her custodial parent and three siblings. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child. If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OR Appeal On Child's Surname
"Bob Whiteside" wrote .................................................. .... http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child. If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment? == Well, there may be other gotchas as well. In FL., consenting to giving a non-bio child a man's last name could interfere with future CS proceedings. One of the matters for consideration when a non-bio man tries to get CS waived is whether the man consented to the child having his surname. OTOH, I posted here years back that my son's ex (divorce wasn't final) wanted her new baby to have my son's surname because she wanted them all to have the same last name. The letter from the PA Vital Records Bureau came certified/restricted delivery to my son telling him that he should let them know, in writing, if he objects. The letter also stated that he was known to not be the baby's father and had no financial or other obligation to the child unless he wished to assert parental rights of the child. He allowed the name with no acceptance of parental rights. So, there are some statutory nuances in this area that men need to be aware of/ alert to. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OR Appeal On Child's Surname
Bob Whiteside wrote: The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former spouses last name and the name used by her other three children. The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate. The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name the child using any surname she chose. The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory. First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used. And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her custodial parent and three siblings. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm ... This decision's reasoning has merit for this particular, individual case where there are several other siblings and where the child is in the physical and legal custody of the mother. But it would probably not apply where there is only one child, there is joint custody and where a mother, now divorced, has kept her married surname and then wants a new, out-of-wedlock child to have her surname (that is, her ex-husband's name) rather than the surname of the natural father. There ARE many such situations that I've heard of.. Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child. If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OR Appeal On Child's Surname
okay, Bob, I don't have any alcohol nearby so I'm going to have to take
this one slowly. Could somebody first off explain to me what lush, call the cops on the batterer one minute cry about her baby not doing anything wrong the next, logic could explain giving a child your _former_ spouse's last name. Not your last name, your former spouses last name? Secondly, after somebody leads the honorable judges on the Oregon Court of Appeals by the hand for a nice electroshock therapy session, they should explain to these kooks in black muumuus that any embarrassment the child saves by having the same last name as its mother will be offset by the fact that she's this person's child in the first place. This is pretty much a slap in the face of a father. Basically put, Oregon has said that he's enough of a father to keep writing those checks, but not enough of a father for the child to have his last name. Hell, I'm a liberal even, so if they had gone with a hyphenated last name, either way, it's good. But this is not what they have done. Bob Whiteside wrote: The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former spouses last name and the name used by her other three children. The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate. The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name the child using any surname she chose. The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory. First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used. And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her custodial parent and three siblings. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child. If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We don need no steenkin' CPS. | 0:-> | Spanking | 223 | July 19th 06 07:32 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Free Form: NOTICE OF APPEAL | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 3 | July 2nd 04 03:23 AM |
Free Notice of Appeal Form | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 357 | June 8th 04 04:31 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |