[PASSED] Contact Rights between Parent and Child

[Simone Republic]

“I am confused how this resolution applies, if at all, to parents who do not reside in a WA Member State?” said Percy, jotting notes in his pad. “I see no reason why the law should limit the rights of parents based on WA status. I am also confused why a child does not have a clear and explicit right to veto contact with the estranged parent - the resolution only vaguely refers to a “consultation.” Surely the child’s opinion matters most here?”

If the WA member state deems the person legally competent to make a final decision on the person's own welfare, then my understanding is that a custody dispute would not arise - the hypothetical "child" would be deemed legally competent on all matters under WA#299 and would not require a custodian.

[Unibot III]

“I am confused how this resolution applies, if at all, to parents who do not reside in a WA Member State?” said Percy, jotting notes in his pad. “I see no reason why the law should the limit the rights of parents based on WA status.”

WA resolutions cannot affect non WA states due to the "meta gaming" rule. Please refer to the (very detailed) relevant rulez elsewhere in this Forum.

OOC: I’ve read the rules. Some of the rules exist because of me.

The WA cannot require a Non WA Member State to recognize parental contact rights, but the WA can observe the rights of non-WA residing parents to communicate with children in a WA Member State. This is because such a law doesn’t require Non-WA states to do anything. The onus is on WA Member States to comply and acknowledge these rights.

It appears your resolution was written with a misunderstanding regarding the limits and extent of the metagaming rule. The resolution seemingly denies parents in Non-WA member states with the same right as those that live in WA member states.

[Simone Republic]

WA resolutions cannot affect non WA states due to the "meta gaming" rule. Please refer to the (very detailed) relevant rulez elsewhere in this Forum.

OOC: I’ve read the rules. Some of the rules exist because of me.

The WA cannot require a Non WA Member State to recognize parental contact rights, but the WA can observe the rights of non-WA residing parents to communicate with children in a WA Member State. This is because such a law doesn’t require Non-WA states to do anything. The onus is on WA Member States to comply and acknowledge these rights.

It appears your resolution was written with a misunderstanding regarding the limits and extent of the metagaming rule. The resolution seemingly denies parents in Non-WA member states with the same right as those that live in WA member states.

OOC: sorry, we stepped on each other's replies and I clicked submit by mistake as I am typing on my phone. Obviously I don't doubt that you are far more experienced on the intricacies of WA rules than I am.

My point of view when drafting was that if a WA member state is forced to observe the citizenship rules of a non WA member state, that non WA state may not have the same regulations such as prevention of child abuse (say #222 or #297) that would bind citizens of a WA state. It was that sense of the meta gaming rule that concerned me (because other rights for that child would not necessarily be available in a non member state), not the meta gaming rule itself.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dear Princess Rainbow Sparkles,

[*]There is no clarity or criteria whatsoever for assessing what is in a child's "best interests," allowing the provisions here to be easily loopholed.

OOC: as mentioned above, even within the US, each state has different considerations on what constitutes "best interests", some of which are mutually contradictory. Deferring to the local authorities appears to be the best solution, in the hope that the local authorities will be able to analyze each child and each case on its own merits and make an appropriate decision.

"If the best possible way to deal with a subject is enacting laws that do nothing, disembodied voice, then there could as well be no legislation enacted on that subject... "

There are ambiguous clauses with uncertain effects and serious potential for abuse.

We would like to clarify that given any recognition of legal parenthood does not imply any rights. (Clause 6 does not impose anything on Clause 1 or Clause 3). A person with legal parenthood as a result of Clause 6 can have standing in court if that person desires. However, the court is entirely able to give zero custody rights (and cut off all contact) as it deems appropriate. In other words, say one of the stepfathers is an abusive orange buffon who tries to incite a riot, or if another stepparent turns up with 94 strangers in a polygamous relationship in some suicidal cult. There was a requirement to give some recognition in any earlier draft but it was taken out when Wallenburg mentioned this point.

"That isn't how it works, ambassador. In many legal systems, the status of being a legal parent already comes with several rights and duties eg custody rights, consent on behalf. In fact, legal parenthood is usually considered a form of guardianship, and several WA resolutions grant rights/duties through blind invocation of "parent" or "parents". In nations with such legal systems, this is harmful... Yes, one can try justify it by saying a member nation can just change its legal system so parenthood doesn't come with automatic rights and duties, but then is there any reason to coerce many member nations to go through that step of wankery to change their otherwise functioning legal system -- which some standing World Assembly mandates are based on -- just to avoid bad international law?"

The definition of "contact" including an ill-defined right to "the provision of information to such a Parent about the child" without any clarity of exactly how much information or how often it must be provided.

Again, a court is at liberty to simply decide not to grant any such Contact Rights to anyone it deems unfit. Or to send zero information whatsoever. That's again up to the Court.

"So you admit that the resolution does nothing? And why add a requirement intended to not be a requirement?"

We will add that we would interpret all Court proceedings would be protected by WA#213 and the subsequent privacy resolutions.

"This is a red herring. The issue here is not privacy -- it's that the resolution does nothing."

[Simone Republic]

Dear Jeramy Vliet, Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States, (Magecastle Embassy Building A5),

With all due respect please refer to the other thread for other ambassadors' replies to your queries which I believe have been put more eloquently than I can. I will not repeat them here.

[Simone Republic]

I thank everyone for approving this proposal, especially the 80% of the non affiliated voters in favour.

[Tinhampton]

Contact rights between Parent and Child was passed 9,902 votes to 4,742. (67.62% support)

[Simone Republic]

I want to mention that a revival of this resolution is still being worked on, following it's insta-repeal via GAR#617.

[Tinhampton]

I want to mention that a revival of this resolution is still being worked on, following it's insta-repeal via GAR#617.

It is best practice to draft new versions of repealed resolutions in their own threads. (I also urge you not to remove the contents of the passed version from the OP, for similar reasons!)