What you should know about Child Custody Laws
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an advocy for childrens rights who currently have 54 articles on their behalf. UNCRC is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. A Few examples of articles are listed for your education;
Article 9 states that children should not be seperated from either parent unless it is a bad situation for the child to be around that parent. However, whenever possible the child has the right to stay in contact with that parent without any concern of harm coming to the children.
Article 12 states that the children have the right to voice their opinion to the parents when a decision is being made on their behalf. It does not however, mean that the childs opinion is the decision but merely a voice in consideration when the parents are making the decisions.
Article 18 is on Parental Responsibility and State Assistance, Where both parents share the responsibility of raising their children and should always make decisions based on what is best for the child. Responsibility is placed on the Government to provide support services to parents more commonly when both parents reside outside the home. For a complete listing of all the articles please refer to this website. www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf. Or, look up United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Case Study
In Troxel v. Granville(2000)
the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that a biological parent holds a fundamental right in choosing how to raise one's children as they see fit. Later in the case of In re O'Donnell-Lamont(2004), the court affirmed an Oregon statute requiring a presumption the parent acts in the child's best interests to be met prior to applying the best interests of the child standard, placing both parties on equal footing. Likewise, the court upheld the requirement set forth mandating a child-parent relationship or long-term personal relationship existed between the child and non-blood related intervenor under the concept of the fundamental right of the parent. The court noted that the issue in itself allowed for an intervener with a legitimate purpose to come forth, and through the statute's requirement of first showing the relationship, second showing the rebuttal of the presumption, and finally judging the choice on the best interest of the child standard, the fundamental right of the parent was being given proper Due Process Requirements under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
In Guardinship of Z.C.W., (1999) 71CA4 524, 84 CR2 48 1st District Court of Appeal
Holding: A lesbian partner does not have standing to obtain guardianship of her partner's children. Facts: Kathleen C. resided with her lesbian partner, Lisa W, who had a child from a prior relationship. The parties agreed that Lisa would be artificially inseminated, which resulted in a birth of a child. After the parties separated they agreed in writing that Kathleen would have specified visitation rights. Four years later Lisa terminated the agreement. Over the next two years, Kathleen attempted to maintain contact with the children. When Lisa discovered that Kathleen has visited the younger child, she obtained an order restraining Kathleen from having any contact with the children. Kathleen responded by filing a guardianship petition. The Trial Court Ruling: Denied. Ruling on Appeal: Affirmed. Citing prior decisions, the court held that a non-parent in a homosexual relationship does not have the standing to obtain guardian ship of the partner's children. In addition, Kathleen failed to show that the children would suffer detriment if her petition was not granted. Finally, the court held that Kathleen was not entitled to visitation rights as the “de facto” parent of the children, which is a concept that is applicable to decency proceedings.
