I agree, but they will just change the votes anyways. The end is near.

Because if the government weren't involved, the child would end up being cared for by the parent with the most money. If selling children to the highest bidder is your idea of child welfare, I guess Ron Paul will suit you just fine.

Waste of a vote -- at least vote for one who has a chance -- geeeeeez.

Because if the government weren't involved, the child would end up being cared for by the parent with the most money

If the government hadn't involved itself in the first place, there would have never been a legal limit of two parents to begin with.

At at the risk of being repetitive... Ron Freakin Paul 2012.

Waste of a vote -- at least vote for one who has a chance -- geeeeeez.

If you live in Ohio, or Florida where your vote really does make a difference, then definitely vote for one of the two that has a chance. But if you're like most of us that live in a dedicated red or blue state, a few votes for Ron Paul won't effect the election, but it will bring him more into the national spotlight, and maybe a few people will listen to his message, and give it some thought instead of just buying into the picture the media paints of him.

100% right Spencer. For most of this country, a vote means squat. Presidential elections should have no borders. Let every vote count instead of the archaic Electoral College system. Or at least force each state to split their Electoral College votes according to percentage of votes cast. Would make the system a whole lot fairer.

Just to put your mind at ease, your views are rapidly shrinking and will soon be a footnote in socialogical history, like the Skakers and Puritans. You may state that there are millions that support your viewpoint, but let's be realistic, in the past thousand years the world has completely changed its value systems and moral compasses numerous times, and it will continue to do so for thousands more.

Have a nice day, and dont forget that everything is better with a bagel

Thank you Mr. Helland - what does Ron Paul have to do with California custody laws anyway? It's foolish that the biological father wasn't considered a "parent" in this case. And one doesn't have to be gay for this to be an issue. My daughter married a man with 2 kids from a previous marriage, and their biological mother doesn't see them or send money for support - she just calls every now and then. He and his ex-wife were married in California, so WHY NOT add my daughter as one of the kid's parents, since she's the one actually RAISING them???

Hi Voter-in-LA,

Your idea sounds fair, true, but only if you fail to understand the nature of the United States. It's in our name, but most people don't give it a thought. We are a republic of sovereign states, not a single nation of one state, or a single nation with many principalities. Just like this law being proposed in California--my own state--your idea wants to put fairness first at the expense of logic. It might make great sense to eliminate the Electoral College, but you should be the one compelled to make the case that a republic of several sovereign states is no longer the best way to form a national government. Why, for instance, is it more fair to let our state, assuming you mean Los Angeles and not Louisiana, dominate the vote simply because we have more people? Imagine that half of the states have relatively close elections, but that California is not close at all, voting heavily for liberals for president. Would it be fair that our state essentially invalidate all those other states' close outcomes for the opposite party simply because people in our state are more dedicated to liberalism?

Which brings up the central point...if more was done at the state level and not in DC, as our constitution clearly indicates and which we clearly ignore, then your desire for fairness could be done right here, in our state, rather than trying to overcome the objections to your wishes by people who live in other states. So, rather than hope to end the Electoral College so that you can make things "fair", why not simply try to adhere to the constitution and do more of the things you want done in California. This way fairness can impose upon just you and the people of your state the unintended consequences of your benevolence.

Pandora's Box is spewing.

What ever happened to just being called an Aunt or an Uncle. I have a lot of friends that who's kids call me Uncle Blake. And I do a lot for them. almost as if they were my child at times. Stick with Aunt and Uncle. Geez.

#1, this is the FATHER we are talking about here. HOW could HE not ever be considered one of the parents? He should sue the state of California for loss of affection for a trillion dollars. This kind of crap is what you get from LIBERALS that think they have to take care of everybody because they know best.

Dirtydog, becareful what you say, most gay guys are not "sissies" and i know a lot of guys who came out after their children grew up and were on their own. My husbands kids love him and include me in everything. I can't wait for grandkids to spoil and love. They won't see anything as wrong because they won't be taught its wrong (just different). I know dozens of kids raised by two same sex people and all seem to be doing well (and they appear to all be ending up str8, gay parents don't mean gay children)

In the end, the only problem is people like you

And now you know why this entire nation and world is going to chit Cee. And no, your views are definitely in the very major minority. Just you "progressive" liberals whine so way much more than normal folks about what color the rainbow is supposed to be in your neighborhoods, that's all we hear anymore. Normal folks just go about their lives. Only in California do these Liberal idjuts in office just sit around and think up more, and more stupid crap. Look a this state Cee. See the future your idolized liberal progressives bring.

Dirtydog...that was about the funniest way of nailing something I have read in a while.

“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” Leno told the Sacramento Bee.

I don't think having 2 Moms is being 21st Century. The parents should remain the biological Mother and Father, Period. Normal parents have paperwork in place for others to take care of their children in case of death or illness. Why don't these folks? They need to do their part, the govt. does not need to step in. These people are lazy, that doesn't mean we need to change the rules/norm to accommodate their laziness!

I just can't believe they would put a kid in foster care when there was a wanting biological father that would take him. Disgraceful.

Only in CA. Aren't kids messed up enough?

The Government is already runing our lives. They think we can't sopit without a law about it. Come to think about it there is laws about spitting. See they really don;t think we can spit without a law.

So it seems like it's more important for the majority of people commenting that having more than two parents is weird, than it is for a child to be cared for by an actual parent like in the example in the article. By all means, let the child become a ward of the state as long as the "traditional" views of marriage remain intact.

So the example used to cajole support of the law is because of the mess created when two gay people wanted a kid...?

Rich, you are correct in that this country is a Republic Democracy. However, the states have no sovereignty. that was eliminated with the passing of the Constitution. Which took out the word sovereign. And inserted the Supremecy Clause

It amazes me that most of the people screaming that we need to adhere to the Constitution, have no idea what is contained in it. And, the electoral college actually gives states like California more of a voice in electing a President, than a direct vote does. Because California has the largest number of electoral votes.

The likelihood was that the state was always going to take custody. The federal government provides up to $40,000+ per child, per year, to states that have removed a child from it's natural parents.

This 'legalized' and sanctioned form of kidnapping is COMMONPLACE.

The states treat these children as assets, to be funded into programs that have nothing to do with the child, and are more often the benefactors of more than $32,000 of what they receive for each child.

Estimates have placed the states average expenditure on these displaced children at about $8,200, including upkeep, processing, litigation, and social services.

Mind this little caveat, social services, which use these children as a reason to have more caseworkers, more hours, more involvement, more money.

The beast feeds itself.

The ONLY real answer to this problem is to STOP governmental impunity. Stop them from hiding these cases by havng them sealed to cover their own tracks.

Hold those judges, lawyers, social service workers, and the scum that protect them when they screw up, civilly, criminally, and morally liable.

It is time for a change !!!

Hey California morons...A biological parent is a parent for life. Stuff your bizarre, and mentally twisted electorate, where the Sun don't shine.

Rich, sorry I'm not in L A but in the State, Louisiana.

I don't really see an advantage to abandoning statehood for the most part. But I'll never understand why when voting for an office which crosses all voting borders that votes aren't simply tallied up. When you vote in a state election for governor, they don't add up winners of local elections and then decide who got the most districts. Enlarge that and there's no justifiable reason these days that Presidential elections are not a countrywide tally. I don't really care which party gains from that at present, it's just something that has always stuck in my craw.

T Bourlon: Kudos to you. I agree.

Ron42 & Tony Helland-1952007: This doesn't just apply to same-sex parents. Just because the example given in the article is of same-sex parents, doesn't justify that they are the only ones who could benefit from the bill. What about step-parents? Growing up, I was raised by my mom and step-dad, but I also had a 'real' dad and step-mom(s). I knew alot of kids like that. Or kids who are raised by adoptive/foster parents and have some support from their biological parent(s) [though rare, it still happens]. Not EVERYTHING congress comes up with is associated with same-sex partners.

The law, as proposed, takes care of the unusual situation where both of the custodial parents are not able to care for the child, but the non-custodial parent could not have rights because some 17th century thinking ultra-conservative could not conceive of a situation where there could possibly be more than two people involved in the life of a child.

Aside from situations involving two same sex parents, there could also be step-parents/ex-spouses, never married parents. While the perfect world for most conservatives would consist of one older white male who worked and one younger white female who stayed at home and took care of the children, the real world generally does not consist of that idolized situation.

This law is designed to allow the people who are, in reality, a child's "parent" to be their parent without having to remove rights from the existing parents. Much better than putting a child into the custody of the state and losing them in the foster care system.

At this point there is 227 comments....bet by the end of the day there will be thousands...and most will be by religious nuts claime this is against god...

I think the government should get out of this! My reason..."who is the father...the one who gets the woman pregnant and dissapears? Or the one who steps up and helps raise the child? I think the one who rasies the child. When the law intervenes...they place rules (because of tax purposes) not because of reasoning. Goevernment should also get out of the marriage business too. Again it is tax reasons they are involved....its all about $$$

willowbrook

Please explain how only the biological Mother and Father as legal parents is always best for the child. I have the most wonderful 10 year old daughter on the planet. She is adopted. Her birth mother did not know the identity of the biological father and thought a life of prostitution and drug use was a fine idea, even with an infant.

I shudder to think the life my precious baby girl might have had if the law did not step in for her sake.

California LOL, what a goofball state. I couldn't get out of there fast enough after I retired.

.....and the land of fruits & nuts gets even nuttier...

Hi calmdown,

I think you missed the point entirely. Had traditional laws remained in force then the child of the imprisoned woman, or the sick woman (I don't know which gave birth, if either did), would have had her biological father on the birth certificate as, can you imagine the horror, "Father". So, because California allows two people, one of which is not a parent, to be listed as a parent on the birth certificate in place of one or both of the biological parents this particular mess is created. But here is the rub....Leno doesn't want to simply resolve cases like this, he wants to normalize in the law all family forms imaginable.

I'm not sure if his own homosexuality is his motive or not, but this law he's proposed is not necessary to repair the defect exposed in this case. Even if you want to maintain the present system where actual biological parents are not listed on the birth certificate as such, and non-biological parents are, the way to fix this issue is to simply repair the law which requires Social Services to take charge of a child where both parents are unable to provide care. How can this be done? Simple. Alter the law so that Social Services are compelled to seek out, within reason, biological relatives first, then caring aquaintances next, looking for someone to care for the child. In this case the closest biological relative would have been the sperm donor of a father, and if he met the criteria then guardianship could be awarded. No need, at all, to alter how many parents a child can legally have. Which is why this law isn't about caring for a child. It's about altering our culture.

A biological parent is a parent for life.

I am so glad that the law disagrees with you. I, for one, am glad that I could ask my emotionally abusive bio father to give up parental rights to me so that my step-father could adopt me. Biology doesn't mean s***.

Trillions in debt. On the brink of war. Climate warming. And this is all these idiots got to work on???????????????Get rid of these piles of crap.

Only in crazy ole California.
Did you see it was a nutjob from San Francisco who proposed this?
Too funny.

Cali, Cali, Cali.......I know y'all sell plenty of weed in those "pharmacies" but I think the fumes are getting the best of you. Move on to more important things, there's plenty to be found.

A lot of folks are moralising about the one man, one woman thing, but seriously, this bill is about blended families and adoption.

What California is trying to do is protect children who are part of families where one (or both) of the biological parents dropped their legal ability to be a parent (IE, take the kid in should something happen to both legal parents), and said parents no longer can be there for the kid. This allows for, say, the dad to have the legal right to take custody of the child if the other two are incapable of caring for them, which is precisely what happened in this case.

This is an issue for heterosexual blended families, heterosexual adoptive families with ties to the bio parents, etc (say a family member was a surrogate). I understand that folks are worried about morality, but this isn't about that. Stop reacting with fear and think about it.

Say a husband and wife could not conceive, but the wife's sister offers to be a surrogate and donates her eggs. She's willing to take the child if something happens to the parents. But because she is not a parent, if mom and dad die, custody doesn't automatically revert to her and the kid goes into foster care. That's not right, is it?

My son had 4 parents. His father & stepmother, and his mother & stepfather. We were all responsible for him.

A child can only have two parents, whether anyone likes it or not. There is no government anywhere that I wouldn't fight to stop them from this abomination. If someone tried to force an additional parent on my children, there would be no end to the fight I would take to them.

Leno said inspiration for the bill came from a 2011 state appellate court case in which a young girl had two mothers. When one of the mothers was sent to prison and the other was hospitalized, the girl’s biological father wished to care for her.

The court, however, ruled the biological father could not be a legal guardian because of California’s current law allowing only two parents per child.

The state took custody of the child.

So, laws existed to legally change the "parent" from the biological father and mother to these 2 women, yet doesn't apply to going the other direction? Sounds like the law needed to be fixed rather than just adding a new law that sounds more like legalized plural marriage. Our elected officials need to ALL be voted out.

Let's not think too hard, follow the family tree. Mom and dad first, no one else. If something happens to mom and dad, then go down the family tree. If no one is left on the family tree, then the state should get involved. Don't stir the pot.

California is struggling to not go down the financial drain and now it's legislators will be spending their time on this issue. Just great !

A large chunk of the state's problems are caused by kids with two parents or legislators considering the needs of kids with three parents...many problems stem from the kids born to only one parent.

The country is in a finacial mess and dumb democrat senator is more concerned about social issues.

I agree with the Rev. Sylv Taylor. THINK...After reading all these posts, the trolls are really out in force.

They probably haven't read one bit of the code (law) that was offered by the Democrat from San Francisco.

They do not have an argument worth mentioning. Get a life you guys and actually go out door to door and try to sell your misquided argument to the people. Your certainly not doing it via the internet. Ron Paul, a perennial candidate. He's aging so senility could possibly be the reason his rantings are based on false reasoning.

The whorification of God's law begins with good intentions. In nature, is there a need for more than 2 parents?

No offense but wouldn't the next of kin get the kid, which in this case would be the father? Wow, I am really starting to hate California.

All this has to stop. Leave everything alone. Things are being forced into our lives that should not happen. Tradition is two parents. It's a very simple logic. Don't feed the beast. I hope this bill fails.

A child was put into the foster care system when the biological father was willing to step in and care for her. California's goofy law stated that a child can only have 2 parents and when those 2 are incapable of caring for the child, the state will take custody. Thats messed up.

More than 3 parents .... ??

Can some of them be human .... ??

Great...now more nipplesuckers can attach their name to each child and get more taxpayer money given to them. If it was only limited to CA, I couldn't care less. But we all know Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the bleeding hearts will want to make this US law. Can you say more EIC, welfare, food stamps, Medicaide, WIC, etc etc for the nipplesuckers in exchange for democrat votes??? Sure you can.

This is just a ploy by Latinos to allow 30 Mexicans to live in a house made for 6. My town was sued over such bullsnot.

@ karasselle, I'm speaking about children who have not been put up for adoption. I think it is great that you have adopted. But I bet you also have plans in place to care for your daughter if something happens to you. That was my point. Responsible parents take care of things like this, the govt. shouldn't make a new bill to make up for lazy adults. The more rules, the harder it get to use common sense. In other states, the child would have went to the biological Father or other blood related relative. CA is the problem.

dirtydog200

It must be confusing for children to have two sissy dads or muffler shop moms. I don't think anyone is really concerned with the feelings of the children. I would shoot myself in the face if I knew my dad was a pillow biting fellow.

It must be really confusing for children to have father and a mother... then another mother.... then another mother.. and then another mother.... like Newt Gingrich. Isn't it amazing that the heterosexual community has a divorce RATE of over 50%?

Children in our society are much more resilient than you or anyone else thinks. The world has changed since most of us commenting here were children.

As for California..... Why do we even need this bill? A child needs two parents, period. If one of them loses their rights to be a parent (e.g., prison), then another adult can become the legal parent. It's called "replacement" so to speak. I am a proud dem but why are you wasting california tax payer money on something like this....

I've done a number of adoptions in Oregon that resulted in more than two parents for a child. In each case the result was that the child was cared for by family that loved him or her; in each case no two people could have provided that child with the care that the three of them could. One judge asked whether this was possible, and the State itself provided the legal background for it. We have no statute on the subject. When you bring something like this into the legislative field, you throw common sense and caring for the child out the window. The problem here is with the California law that defines parents as being no more than two people. Yes, that is tradition; it is also tradition that when a child loses his or her parents the community steps in. It is absurd, even crazy to define something like this in law -- it results only in endless bickering and accusations. Look to the child and the child's best interests.

I thought Jay Leno was behind the thing - pushing for threesomes' rights. Is it any wonder the country laughs at California?

Dgibb

Trillions in debt. On the brink of war. Climate warming. And this is all these idiots got to work on???????????????Get rid of these piles of crap.

Its called Distraction.....this is how we the gut us to not payy attention to the election and real issues, and how we all just do as they wish....they distract us with nonsense, and then November comes and we are forced to elect the lesser of the two evils!

Willow, I agree.

This only became a problem when they started changing birth certificates to include a non biological parent. If one biological parent is not in the picture or gives up their rights as a parent then the 'new' parent can adopt and become a legal guardian, but the birth certificate should remain the same. There is no reason that the 'new' mom or dad cannot still be referred to as mom or dad and not have legal guardianship. That is what happens for step parents that do not become legal guardians.

My husband and I were granted custody of our best friends daughter when my best friend became ill. We had guardianship for two years. A parent , with supervision by a social worker and a sign off of a judge was all it took. THere is something fishy about this article. If it was the wish of one of the mothers it shouldn't have been a problem at all for the man to have guardianship whether he was the biological father or not----unless the guy was borderline unfit. "Guardian" has a more stringent standards set by social workers than "parent"

DirtyDawg's comment was one of the funniest things I have read on these boards ever. Even though he has obviously been collapsed, everyone should still appreciate the humor.

Hey raddave,

Good try, but all wrong. Sovereign was never excised when the constitution was adopted. No state would have accepted a federal (note that it isn't called national, but instead is federal) government that rendered the state totally subservient to the federal system. What was created was a system where the states agreed to a union where the federal government would have limited authority, but great powers within that authority, to act. Most Americans, right or left too, no longer care about those limitations, though it is easily the case that the left is more intrusive and extra-constitutionally acting than the right. And it began many decades ago--this is a recent change at all. It is to our detriment that we have compunded this error rather than work to eradicate it, but it is also probably the only direction we can go. Every other society in history has moved in a similar fashion until it ultimately collapses, which is an outcome that awaits us too if we don't retreat from nationalism back towards republicanism. England, really, is the only major power that after collapse retained at least some of its power and wealth that was gained during its expansion. Maybe that is the best we can hope to emulate.

Kind of conveys legitimacy to any hippy communes still operating. What about those farms where there's one guy with several women and a bunch of kids running around?

Can legalization of polygamy be far off? I don't really see how it would hurt anything to legalize polygamy.

Wasn't it Hillary who said it took a village to raise a child? Maybe they should allow 500 parents. It would make child support confusing if anyone left the village.

Good point, but what does it matter when half the people born in this country in the last four or five decades have no idea who fathered them anyway. No law is needed for this, reasonable people can share responsibilities for anyone they might choose.

Since several of you started with off-topic declarations of support for Ron Paul, let me state that this moderate hopes with all of my heart and soul that you and your fellows will be successful in your support of Ron Paul in November! I hope you and Millions of other Ron Paul supporters will write-in the name of Ron Paul on your ballots in November!!! Why? Well, it is very simple.

One has only to look to the impact of votes cast for Ralph Nader in the 2000 Presidential election -- especially in the state of Florida --for example of how this will work out in 2012. Every vote cast for Ron Paul, who has no chance whatsoever of winning election, is one fewer vote for Mitt Romney. "Mission Accomplished." You do the math. So ....

"WRITE-IN RON PAUL 2012"

( Translation: "OBAMA/BIDEN - FOUR MORE YEARS" :=)) Yep, I like it!

.

Now, to close with an on-topic comment, so many of you are always harping about how so many of america's social ills would be addressed if every child was raised in a two parent family. So, you should all be supportive of this move in California. If 2 parents is good, then 3 parents is 50% better. 4 parrents is 100% better, and so on. It's all about the kids, isn't it? So come on you so-called "Conservatives". Get onboard with this. The more parents the better (just so long as EVERY child has at least one). =)

I live in California. For those who do not, it is much worse than you can imagine. Yep, anything goes and they think that's a good thing. The place is now sick, dirty and trashy. They teach your kids all sorts of respect anyone no matter what they say or do, as long as its not about God, that is strictly forbidden. Devil-worship is fine though, even protected. Studios run by gays hire as many gays as possible and try to put as much gay TV on as possible---not for entertainment, but to promote their "cause."

Disease and sickness is everywhere, and people sneak across the borders and steal stuff---in the middle of the night.

Moving August 1 to answer your question. That's the soonest I could get out.

Here's what I don't get. If the parents had had a properly managed emergency plan and written their desire for care if a drastic situation came up (like one did) then this wouldn't be an issue at all. It takes little time or effort to write down your desires for family care and get it notarized, but because of one couple's lack of planning some politician thinks the government is the solution. And how would this be any different? Wouldn't the couple wanting a third parent recognized have to fill out some paperwork for the government to recognize the third parent? How about politicians stop finding non-problems to solve and work actual issues like job creation, balancing budgets, etc.

I am a step-mother and have been since they were toddlers. We are a 3 parent family in many aspects. Heaven forbid something happen to my husband and their mom, where would that leave us legally? Its a scary thought for a lot of families.

Timothy1Mil

I live in California. For those who do not, it is much worse than you can imagine. Yep, anything goes and they think that's a good thing. The place is now sick, dirty and trashy. They teach your kids all sorts of respect anyone no matter what they say or do, as long as its not about God, that is strictly forbidden. Devil-worship is fine though, even protected. Studios run by gays hire as many gays as possible and try to put as much gay TV on as possible---not for entertainment, but to promote their "cause."

Disease and sickness is everywhere, and people sneak across the borders and steal stuff---in the middle of the night.

Moving August 1 to answer your question. That's the soonest I could get out.

Timothy- Wishing you the very best of luck wherever you go, I got out in 2000 and have never looked back.

As for the article don't we already have things in place for issues like this? You know those little things called WILLS. If people aren't responsible enough to have one in place once they become parents, then they deserve whatever happens.

Children should have two biological parents, and however many non biological parents as needed to explain the social situation for the purpose of law. Biological mothers aren't always the most truthful when it comes to paternity of their offspring, yet it is not in the best interests of their grandchildren biologically to be sired through unrecognized ancestral relations between half brother and half sister. So note both biological parents on the birth certificate for medical purposes for genetic linked disorders in the children for health care. From a social perspective alone, not genetic, the number of parents is not significant.

Timothy1Mil' wrote:

"I live in California. For those who do not, it is much worse than you can imagine. Yep, anything goes and they think that's a good thing. The place is now sick, dirty and trashy. They teach your kids all sorts of respect anyone no matter what they say or do, as long as its not about God, that is strictly forbidden. Devil-worship is fine though, even protected. Studios run by gays hire as many gays as possible and try to put as much gay TV on as possible---not for entertainment, but to promote their "cause."

Disease and sickness is everywhere, and people sneak across the borders and steal stuff---in the middle of the night.

Moving August 1 to answer your question. That's the soonest I could get out."

.

OMG!!! Timothy, PLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE do not move to Oregon. You would absolutely HATE it here. If you think California is bad, Oregon would be absolute hell for you!!!

Timothy, we have GAYS here! We have HISPANICS here. We have ASIANS here! We even have BLACKS here!

And the very worst part of it is we are tolerant, and kind, and giving, and welcoming of the mix of faiths, and cultures and cultural identities .... and we even lend a helpful hand to our neighbors when they fall on hard times and need help. Yes, we even help those who are not just like us. :-O I know; pretty disgusting, huh?

See what I mean? You would be MISERABLE here!!!!

Oh, you might be happy in some remote pockets of the state. Down in the Southeastern corner of Oregon, for example, there is a lot of bigotry, racism, homophobia and general xenophobia on display. Even some militia groups and survivalists! Sound compelling?

However, I really think you would be MUCH, MUCH HAPPIER in Northern Idaho, however. You would find that most there think just like you, and even look just like you (I know that's important to you). They even have large and organized groups of White Supremacists!!!

If finances are an issue, just let me know. I'll forward your comments page to some of my Oregon neighbors and friends -- let them read a dozen or so of your posts -- and I know that the money will just pour in to help you buy gasoline to keep you moving right through Oregon and on to Northern Idaho; or better yet CANADA!!!

Oh, wait. Canada is trying to clamp down on undesirables crossing their Southern border seeking a better way of life for their families and trying to escape the violence and social issues not to their liking. At least THAT sort of attitude doesn't exist here, in America, right?

Just say the word, Timothy. We want you to be happy!

amazing how many religious nuts that are here that are incapable of simple comprehension. (but that goes with the right-wing zealots that don't want to understand the real world)

the children may well be adopted, or the bio parents may want nothing to do with the kids or may be (one or both) incapable of raising kids, yet you demand the biological parents take the kids. if the biological parents are in prison, where are you going to send the kids? there are an entire world of problems with your ridiculous views, this eliminates a problem that should never have existed in the first place.

Robert...

One would think it to be an irrefutable truth that "EVERY child has at least one (parent)".

Why are you such a hate filled racist?

Once and for all the liberal establishment is about to implode upon itself. I've wondered given the recent Obama, liberal "it's O K " same sex marrige debate why 3 people can not "marry", or 4 or 5 or 6 or what ever. Mormons all one man to have numerous wives but that's a sin in the minds of many, WHY?? If two can be married who are of opposite sex why not allow numbers dictate whatever goes as OK!!!

midwesterner, you don't even know what you are babbling about.

@robert-dude, your ridiculous. timothy1mil made a valid point: california is decrepit. I live in ND, and we have no such problem. true, a lot of our recent money comes from oil, but i live in the capital city of bismarck, and let me assure you, being a long time conservative state, we do indeed still help our neighbors. we don't have a large population of minorities, but i've never heard of a hate crime happening here towards anyone. and furthermore, being a small population state, we have a large population of what you, being a bigot but not realizing it, might call "hicks." the fact is that racism goes both ways. you're discriminating against timothy1mil when he didn't even bring up race. he rightfully pointed out that california, like other traditionally democratic states (i.e. new york, minnesota, washington, your own oregon), have very weak economies. make of it what you will, i'm definitely not saying that it is solely because of those states being traditionally democratic that they have weak economies. and surely both myself and timothy1mil don't think that it has anything to do with minorties or gay people. that's just ridiculous and its actually slander on your part, cause he didn't say that, i didn't say that and don't think it, your just a typical partisan in this country who wants to throw around harsh wording to make your point,and to create a rift between "sensible, non racist liberals" and us "radical, nut job conservatives." he's right though. instead of making personal attacks, you could try to listen and understand. that might actually do a little good for this country. if people like you (both liberal and conservative) could just let go of the hate for each other and actually get some good reasoning and logic skills instead of just hate words, we'd all be better off.

'tony-268769' wrote:

"Robert...One would think it to be an irrefutable truth that "EVERY child has at least one (parent)".

HA! Well, drat, you got me there, Tony!

Yes indeed, a poorly constructed sentence. I guess I should have said "....at least one present, and permanent parent (including those now in orphanages and foster homes)"

Good call, Tony. I suppose that even those among us who were clearly "cloned" (you know the type I mean; those whom there could be no other explanation except a devious, malevolent and mad scientist), ... even THEY had one parent.

Thanks for the chuckle.

'Concerned Bystander-3575299', I do not agree with your overall assessment, but I cannot fault your logic:

The fact that I STRONGLY OPPOSE and disapprove of cultural, ethnic and religious intollerance, homophobia, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, etc., DOES (by definition) make me "a bigot."

So, I am guilty as charged. Yes, it's true. I am VERY bigoted and disapproving in my view of ...bigots and hate-filled and intollerant people. And I am pleased that this came through to you.

I hope you have a good day.

I'd like to know how well concerned bystander in North Dakota treats his american indian neighbors.I don't care to know,because it's not good,I'm sure.He said they don't have many minorities there.Well,I guess he forgot those on the reservations crammed there by his ancestors.As for gays,who cares,it's none of your personal business.I'm a RN.I have cared for all races,all religions,even atheist(who don't bother me one iota because they never PREACH),all genders,even cross gender,etc.To me,people are people.And yes,even though I'm a liberal democrat,I've often had to help those narrow minded little republicans who want to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it.They aren't bright.But I help them too.And I am american indian.The republicans are hypocrites.They're in the dark ages.They still believe I am personal property of their church,the state and the US gov't.Thus the abortion issue.It really comes down to slavery,and we women aren't your slaves anymore,no matter what race we are.As for parents,the MORE the better.I see little kids who have biological parents who are lousy(both the mom's and dad's)This crosses all racial lines.These kids would be so much better off with new parents,or even in a commune or wherever where SOMEONE gives a damn about them.You wouldn't believe the child abuse in this country.At the hands of parents or caregivers.And some of the worst offenders are the so called Christians I've met.Let's see now,don't let that girl raped by her uncle have an abortion.But when she has the kid,LET"S complain and cut her and the kid off from any gov't help.Hypocrisy,at it's best.I see what happens when women have a baby and they JUST don't want it.It's ugly.Shaken baby,bruises,death.Burns,just try to imagine.It is sickening.NO one should have a baby if they DON't want one.And the children who are here need ALL the help they can get.And there are few christians helping them.Just go to the children's home.LOOK at all of the older kids sitting there.They'll be there til they turn 18.See,they want only babies.Brainwashing is alive and well in this country.I believe in a higher power,but NOT in JESUS or the BIBLE.Spiritual,not religious.That's why I am accepting of all people.I don't care what the hell they do as long as they aren't harming others,animals or themselves.KIDS should all be lucky enough to have 2,3 0r more parents.That is only a good thing!AS for California,I like that state.I've only been there once.I'm stuck here in the boring unimaginative midwest with all of these narrow minded BORING people.Some of them have never had an original thought in their entire lives.My father-in-law!HAHA!

I would shoot myself in the face if I knew my dad was a pillow biting fellow.

Why wait?

Another thing I just though of was this: what about godparents? I am the godmother to several nieces and nephews, along with great nieces and nephews? What are their rights in California. I am from Louisiana and about ten years ago, my husband and I took two great nieces who are also our godchildren to Disney World. There was a hurricane that was going to hit New Orleans while we were in Florida. The two girls were 2 and 3 at the time. One of my nieces called up crying begging us to come home to bring her daughter home and I told her the following: There is a storm coming, why would we drive back to Louisiana when we are safe in Florida? If anything happens we can raise her and her cousin ourselves. Another thing I want to bring up is that in the black community, folks have always raised others kids, whether the parent(s) are dead, in prison, or simple do not want to raise their kids. Example, my grandmother raised her sister's son, and I didn't know that he wasn't my dad's bio brother until he died. I also found out his second wife, whom I thought was his only wife, raised his kids from the first marriage because she didn't want to raise the kids. I don't see why this is a problem in California.

So we need MORE laws, because the courts have NO COMMON SENSE?? For goodness sakes..... this case illustrates the need for LESS laws not MORE!! If a relative with a clean record is wiling to step up and take responsibility for a child, they SHOULD be allowed to and not need a law to say they can!

That's how it should be but not in this country and not in a climate of laws that define marriage.

Unfortunately, what's common sense to one person is nonsense to the next.

Common sense isn't the law. That's why we have lawyers. To avoid common sense. And they get paid too.

Real Army Wife

That's how it should be but not in this country and not in a climate of laws that define marriage.

Careful there RAW. There needs to be a legal definition. Or are you all for polygamy? If you are going to limit/define in one context you need to define in ALL context.

Personally what do we expect out of CA courts? Did the biological father ever give up his parental rights? Were they taken from him before the other situation arose? Did the biological mother have a say in the matter? Typical half ass reporting by MSNBC. QUICK it might be news.. we don't need the details, just a headline.

no need for a new law, don't courts appoint foster parents all the time? how about orphans and next of kin "i.e., BIOLOGICAL relative?

Yep more laws, that's just what we need and the answer to everything! I always remind people that we don't have any rights or freedom in this country, merely a few things that we are "allowed" to do.

The reason one needs laws in this case is because what would happen if a person started parenting and then suddenly abandoned the child? The law giving a person parental rights would also bind that person to the child so he is financially responsible for it.

The ONLY reason for laws is that human beings don't do the right thing on our own.

Erick-491872
no need for a new law, don't courts appoint foster parents all the time? how about orphans and next of kin "i.e., BIOLOGICAL relative?

According to the article, a child couldn't be sent to stay with his or her biological relative because of the law. I can see why they think they need something to rectify that, I just hope that, like most knee-jerk reactionary laws, this doesn't turn around and bite them in the

Sounds like more Governmental Interference to me. Absolutely nuts.

"The ONLY reason for laws is that human beings don't do the right thing on our own."

Speak for yourself Bart...

Careful there RAW. There needs to be a legal definition. Or are you all for polygamy? If you are going to limit/define in one context you need to define in ALL context.

What's wrong with polygamy?

Real Army Wife, your logic is the reason our country is rapidly going downhill.

This proposed law is a no-brainer. That CA was legally required to deny the father custody of his own child is proof of that.

And of course kids have more than two parents! In today's society of endemic divorce, most have at least three, but only two of them are married.

Just another step in the life of a government to control every single aspect of life in this country. They THINK they know better than we do to run our lives...........complete communism is the end result for sheep and stupid humans.

just because something is defined as traditional values doesn't necessarily make it good. Slavery and treating women as chattels were once traditional values. I have a "traditional" family. I'm a woman married to one man and we have 3 children, no step children, no step parents. but who am I to define someone else's love or family. Just because someone else's family may be different doesn't mean it isn't valid or have value.

we are not the judge of right or wrong god is ,go read the bible, yeah i know most will think me a idiot, we will see when we die and we WILL.

RAW,

And that is fine what you have and what other people have or what their values are. But do i really need another law ?

Real Army Wife

just because something is defined as traditional values doesn't necessarily make it good. Slavery and treating women as chattels were once traditional values. I have a "traditional" family. I'm a woman married to one man and we have 3 children, no step children, no step parents. but who am I to define someone else's love or family. Just because someone else's family may be different doesn't mean it isn't valid or have value.

So when hundreds of Mexicans want public aid but they all use the name of the same child over and over, you would approve?

Destiny1945

I can't decide if I, my adopted parents, my biological parents or my step-parents should be more offended. DNA is over-rated.

Why is the state of California involved with an issue like this? Who cares how many parents a child has? Is Mark Leno Jay in disguise, because this sounds like a bad, Tonight joke. With all of the serious problems invoved with California, including the relatively minor one of how it will pay its bills, it's good to see that politicians still have the time to spend on issues such as this.

My husband and I were granted custody of our best friends daughter when my best friend became ill. We had guardianship for two years. A parent , with supervision by a social worker and a sign off of a judge was all it took. THere is something fishy about this article. If it was the wish of one of the mothers it shouldn't have been a problem at all for the man to have guardianship whether he was the biological father or not----unless the guy was borderline unfit. "Guardian" has a more stringent standards set by social workers than "parent"

Leno is a gay pervert who is insistent on force feeding his disgusting amoral lifestyle on the public whether they want it or not. He already achieved forcing public schools in CA to require mandatory teaching on "gay history" whatever that is in an effort to brainwash future generations to be accepting of his perverse lifestyle choices.

Too many cooks in the kitchen. Only a matter of time before biology has nothing to do with it and we subrogate all rights to the commune elders. People's Republic of California!

It takes a village.

If you bring kids to life, then you are responsible for them, not the state. DNA the kids, find the mom, dad and let them work for their kids. If they don't want the burden, don't bring them to life. Let's not think too hard, follow the family tree. Mom and dad first, no one else. If something happens to mom and dad, then go down the family tree to find who wants to take care of them. If no one is left on the family tree, then the state should get involved. Don't stir the pot.

" It takes a village to raise a child"----Hillary Clinton

"It takes alot of village idiots in Kalifornia to raise a child"--- Me

You have to have "Mulitple Parents" legal before they can pass The Almond Joy-Mounds Marriage Act...

Where 4 Bi-sexuals can marry .....because.....Sometimes you feel like nuts, sometimes you don't....

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA! ...............................DNA!.................................DNA! ....................................DNA!........................

DNA. you wouldn't be you without it. I wouldn't over-rate it too much. I'm all for kids being cared for. These two "mothers" then should be ashamed of themselves for not documenting legally via living trust or will their wishing for who cares for the child in the event they are unable. My theory on this one is that one was imprisoned BECAUSE of the other having to be hospitalized. Making both less than FIT to be parents. No matter what gender they are.

I agree. This isn't a matter of adding more "parents", it's that the current parents need to take initiative in case something happens to them.

If mom and dad die in a plane crash, the child(ren) go(es) to the grandparents or an aunt/uncle, depending on who's willing an capable. The quoted case sounds some political bullsh|t.

Beyond that, one of those mom's could've signed the kid away and the father adopted the child, if he had previously signed her away.

There's too many loopholes in this case and the bill. I hope it doesn't fly, it'll confuse the hell out of kids.

That is very correct. I believe our lawmakers are unable to find a way to plug the budget gaps, improve economy and jobs and are now concentrating on these not so important issues to get some publicity.

While I absolutely believe that a biological parent should have rights that would allow him/her to have custody in this sort of case (providing that they are not abusive, etc) before placing a child into state custody, I totally agree that all parents should create a legal document stating who will be their children's guardian if something should happen to them. There are times when both biological parents will die at the same time, and it is in the child's best interest to have someone - a good friend or relative, who knows the child and will become the parent if something were to happen.

I am 100% pro gay marriage and I like the law as far as extending the right to a biological parent to step in as legal parent if both legal parents die or become unable to care for the child, but I don't think we need to establish a law to allow children to have more than 2 parents. It seems that they want to include child support, and other rights. I would think most legal parents want full control of all decisions regarding their children, unless a time comes when they can no longer make those decisions.

The problem is not that the women had no such document, but that if three parents are raising a child, they should not have to make a document stating that the third gets the child in case of emergency.

How will this affect govt grants for college and ability for kids to get financial aid I wonder.. Seems like another attack on the middle class to me

zieglo87 - the real issue is that every parent, gay or straight, should have a legal document stating who their child's legal guardian will be if anything were to happen to them. Yes, the courts should have some common sense when it comes to placing children with relatives when they are available instead of with the state, but their doesn't have to be a new law.

...........................and who says a parent can't have more than 2 legs???

Did anyone notice that the Senator that authored this bill is from San Francisco?

Both mothers in this case were willing to let the biological dad care for the kid. The trial court even declared that he was a legitimate parent and should have custody.

Unfortunately, one of the review courts noticed that the trial court did this by declaring that the kid had three legal parents -- which should have been absolutely correct under California's Uniform Parentage Act. They reversed the decision because the trial court didn't have the jurisdiction to declare a three-parent family (saying in the decision that is should be up to the legislature -- hence this bill). So now the kid has none of her parents. Good job dudes.

And what about the man who started a relationship with a pregnant woman, let her move in with him, supported her, told everyone the kid was his, raised the kid as his own for 20 months -- and then the mom left him, and when he filed for visitation she found the bio dad who never wanted anything to do with the child and got him to sign a declaration of paternity for the sole purpose of keeping the first guy out? Under CA law he'd be legally the kid's dad and entitled to at least visitation... except that the law can't recognize three parents. (Note, CA finally got its act together and passed legislation saying you can't bugger a custody case with a VDP -- two YEARS after that case. Plugged that loophole, but what next?)

Several states already do this. Native American kids can have up to four recognized parents in some jurisdictions, since there've been special laws that say kids don't have to give up their recognized parentage (and tribal heritage) when they're being adopted.

The new law doesn't require the court to do ANYTHING, doesn't change the definition in CA of who is a parent in any way. It provides the option for the court to RECOGNIZE three legal parents when the judge thinks it's in the best interest of the child -- otherwise, they have no obligation, and can continue to recognize, two parents, or one or none. He says it's laughable to think of five or six parents because they'd all have to fit some very strict existing legal definitions. I don't think this will be common, at all. It won't affect the vast majority of cases ever. But for some it can make a huge difference.

Strange? Odd? Unheard of in civilized humanity? It must be Californicatia.

I hereby volunteer Gerard. California, and the stupidity that constantly springs forth from this state should be ignored. The Amish have a term for this, it's known as "shunning". I shun California!

Shunning Ca is the best news yeat! That means no more federal tax $$ for all their stupid ideas. Of course, if we pushed CA in the ocean no more nancy pelosi.

You do realize California gives out much more to subsidize your parasite federal welfare Red States than it takes in.

Were it not for them, California would probably be much better off. We'd also have a shot at a lot more progress in this country were it not for backwards, poorly educated, Red States dragging us down.

Btw, lest you complain about the "morals" of blue states, Red States have higher rates of divorce, poverty, STD's, teen pregnancy etc.

Why is the government involved? Get the government out of how you live your life! Ron Paul 2012!

Odysseus2012

Why is the government involved? Get the government out of how you live your life! Ron Paul 2012!

Other than as a write in is Paul even on the ballot? Go pedal those politics in another forum. RP wouldn't even have a vote on this issue, even if he was POTUS.

ChristeneH: I think you mean: *ridiculous, *fewer laws.

.....and, in the spirit of you wanting fewer regulations, this is less government! The law would alleviate the state's restrictions on the number of adults who can be legally responsible for a child. It also doesn't change your life in any way. :-)

Come on christeneH I just signed up Bill Gates and Larry Ellison as my new Dad's. I'm all for this stupid law. NOT! I have a child and a will that states what happens to my child should something happen to me or her mother. You don't need a law to tell you how to take care of your child. More stupidity from a bunch of idiots whose only job is to pass a budget but they have more pressing issues as the state falls into the abyss.

Does that mean you can ask for child support or alimony from all the parents? Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

What reality do you live in Tabitha?

becuz we stupid folks are jus too dumber to unnerstan whut we reeeeely neeeeed.

OBAMA fer prezudente - I lik Soshulizum.

Socialists UNITE!!!!!!! ELECT OBAMA in 2012. WE WILL MAKE THE USA into the USSR in one month!! Yahoooooo - skrew the Constitution - make EVERYTHING LEGAL just like in Back to the Future!!!!

Really.....who wants a pair of man-hating rug munchers as parents?

Sophie: the way I understand the story it is beacuse the Bio father is not on the birth cert he is not a related to the chid in he eyes of the law. same sex marriage and muliti parents it just seems to be getting to be too much. We have in place laws that allow parents to choice who "gets" a child in case something happens to the parents. no gay marriage no marriage at all anyone. Make it a civil union and let people have a party at a church if they want. get the gov out of the church and god out of the goverment.

That was the hardest to read post ever. What grade are you in?

Just remember that california is usually about 5 years ahead of trends in the rest of the nation.

california is usually about 5 years ahead of trends

So the other states have about 5 years before they go bankrupt like California................nice to know.

I they're five years ahead, the rest of us are learning from their mistakes.

It is not confusing to a child that has been raised in that loving environment. I had 2 parents that fought all the time. Talk about being confused.

OMG! Imagine that, a standard 2 parent married heterosexual couple causing confusion in a child!

Peace,

Myst

I had two drunken bio parent who like to use their kids as punching bags. I could have used a real parent

Actually I think this is a great idea. CA needs to make the most of it and charge a fee large enough to cover their costs and tack on a few extra hundred bucks for profit.

The State will just spend it on Group Therapy for Lonely Homosexuals or build a Hospital for Illegal Aliens only at the States Cost. It's fun to get billions in debt on someone else. Especially when you have millions of folks to get it from in the State. Happy Trails.

It was not that long ago that if California had been a seperate country it had the 5th strongest economy in the world! As it became more leftist in politics the inevitable collapse of the economy resulted. What happened to the economy of California is exactly where the nation as a whole has been heading since the clinton disaster. Get used to it, very few nations that have experimented with the fantasy utopia of the left has successfully been able to peacefully reverse the lunacy without collapse and tyranny as part of the cycle. It is nothing new, it has happened repeatedly throughout all recorded history and warned against by the authors of the Constitution.

The Governator was a repub. he didn't do anything to help the State. So, what's your point?

Courts work based on the law and besides "Common Sense" may mean one thing to you and something else to someone else.

When you take out a loan to buy a house do you sign all of that legal paperwork or do you expect the bank to just loan you the money based on "common sense".

Or even more basic common sense. Make the two parents, the kid's actual two parents. If there is one of the parent's partner or new spouse or whatever, they can be a legal guardian or other designation.

And that is why CA is going bankrupt. There was a natural father that would take the child and raise the child w/o government cost. CA chose to put the child in foster care at the cost of about $100.00+ a day. Now we know where Nancy Pelosi gets her spending sense mshe brings it from CA.

It's called the "California Respects Alternate Parents" Act or CRAP for short. It is expected to be voted on next session.

I hope ORegon or Idaho DO not adopt this crap! I am moving outta this nutcase state as soon as I can afford it! Mom and dad +a baby! Yeah, guess I believe the Ozzie and Harriet way of bringing up a kid is the BEST way!!

You do realize Ozzie and Harriet were fictional characters?

Not true Lori.........Ozzy was the lead singer for Black Sabbath...........oh you meant a different Ozzie............never mind.