Common Law and Mother

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 However, the former of those two was later rescinded and he only was given visitation rights in the end.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 biological but the step-father was not, that alone puts him behind the proverbial eight-ball when it comes to seeking rights in court. 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 has bearing on what is about to be said, the wishes and preferences of the child should at least be considered and listened to. Indeed, if the child in question has no overt desire to see the step-parent in question, it should be considered whether it is necessary (from a legal standpoint) to force or push the issue in court or otherwise

• Common law versus statutory law is on full display here. Indeed, if only statute was followed in this instance, the step-father would receive no rights whatsoever . . . end of story. This is because he is not the legal father (in any sense) and the severing of the marriage means the severing of the relationship with any minor children or the ex-spouse. However, there are situations where common law principles can and should be implemented and used . . . and this is one of those instances.

• Beyond what was just said, common law can be seen as a way to allow the law to act in a way that is the best for the people involved, or at least the most vulnerable, given what is going on. There is certainly a lot of precedent for this going on. Indeed, if a woman is arrested for stealing bread or formula for her baby, that is quite a different thing than someone who tries to snatch and grab a DVD player. Both are technically guilty of minor/petty theft but the motives are entirely different.

• In the case of the mother, the step-father and the child that is not the biological child of the father, the mother is clearly being vindictive. Once again, she is technically the biological parent and she would typically have complete and unquestioned say-so on who the child does and does not see, up to and including grandparents, cousins, friends and so forth. However, there is a special place in the law sometimes carved out for step-parents who step in and play the role of father or mother even if the law does not require them to do so.

• In some instances, the law imposes fatherhood (or motherhood) in an involuntary way due to the best interests of the child and this can happen even if the step-parent wants to disengage. This is very much the polar opposite. While the example just given is dubious in its execution and motives, that is not the case with the step-parent in question here. If the daughter wants a relationship with the step-father and the feelings are the same in reverse, it is not right of the biological mother to ignore that wish unless she has a good reason. Since no such reason is stated in the case study, there probably is not one to be found.