Parental Rights At issue is whether a court ruled the right way when custody rights were assigned to a parent who was, legally, a step-parent. Indeed, the man in question was married to his wife and the wife had a child with another man. Because the biological parent was absent from the situation, the step-father was indeed the "father" based on presence, financial support and so forth. Further, it is noted in the case study that the step-dad treated his step-child with the same deference, respect and care as his twin children, which are both legally and biologically his. The question because whether that entitles him to legal and/or visitation rights.

Ruling

The step-father was initially awarded both legal rights and visitation. However, the former of those two was later rescinded and he only was given visitation rights in the end. The mother was pressing for the step-father to have no rights at all despite his prior sustained and perpetual presence in the life of the child. Presumably, the legal/custody rights were not given to the man because he is not the biological nor legal parent or guardian of the child. Thus, the court made an exception when it came to visitation and such but only because doing otherwise would likely cause mental harm to the child due to her de facto father being yanked away from her in an abrupt fashion due to the wishes and preferences of the mother. Beyond that, is has been deemed that the man has no legal/custodial rights other than the ability to visit and correspond with the child.

Analysis

There are a few points in question here that are extremely relevant. Some are mentioned in the case study while others are going to be fleshed out in the section to follow:

• There is no mention of whether the biological father gave up his rights to the child. Indeed, that is an important thing to consider given that refusing to exercise one's rights and legally giving them up are two entirely different things.

• Because the mother was...

It is fortunate that he got the visitation rights that he did since that would not normally be extended
• Based on the facts and details of the case, it would seem that an exception was warranted. Even though the mother is the biological mother and the biological father is not in the picture, she does and should have the ultimate right to do as she sees best for her child. That said, she seems to be using her legal status as a wedge to part her child and her ex-husband. Barring overarching circumstances or situations such as abuse, drug use or something like that, the mother engaging in such conduct is unnecessary and unfair and thus the exceptional circumstances, in at least some for, would be best since the interests of the child are what's in play here.

• If the step-father really wanted legal status, he should have sought to have the father relinquish his rights or otherwise ensconce his status as the legal father, even if he is not the biological one. Since he apparently made no effort to do that or otherwise adopt the child as his legal child, that is why he had to end up fighting in court

• Even with the lack of effort to gain legal parentage/guardian status of the child, it is clear that he was acting in the manner that a father could and should do

• The remedy for this situation is not something that should be done in all cases. Just because a step-father acts as the father in one or more ways does not automatically entitle him to rights (and the same goes for women in a step-parent situation).

• While the age of the child in question…