Thursday, February 16, 2006

Contempt Of Court

So, there's been a turn in a publicly watched parental-rights case that has me a little baffled. The background of the case is that a couple with children filed for divorce in 1999. At the time, both the mother and the father agreed that the father should have sole parental rights. The mother even went so far as to say, in court:

"These are his children. I had the children for him. They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love of him. I did it for him to become a father. Not for me to become a mother. You earn the title parent. I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title."

Sounds pretty straightforward, right?

Not so fast. In 2004, she challenged the placement of the children with the father. Her attornys argued that proper court procedure hadn't been followed. A recent appellate court decision agrees with them:

"A court cannot enter a judgment terminating parental rights based solely upon the parties' stipulation that the child's mother or father relinquishes those rights," the appeals court said.

I honestly just don't get it. I really, really don't understand why, if the mother says "I give up my rights as a parent", that can't be interpreted by the court as the mother giving up her parental rights. I mean, is this one of those "No means Yes" situations?

What makes this more bizarre is the father is Michael Jackson.
posted by S.C. @ 11:00 AM |


<< Home