[DEFEATED] Marriage and Custody Act

[Starman of Stardust]

Noting that the repeal of "Contact rights between Parent and Child" has left an ominous silence in World Assembly law surrounding custody rights, and in particular, the civil right against arbitrary removal of custody,

Believing the discrimination and prejudice often faced by those who happen merely to have been born to unmarried parents to also be grossly unjust and a fundamental violation of the right to non-discrimination, despite past World Assembly law not having yet addressed discrimination against such individuals,

Wishing to correct the silence of World Assembly law on both of these topics of concern by collectively legislating,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _

1. In this resolution, "ward" means a minor or otherwise an individual lacking in mental capacity so as to require being under the custody of some "guardian".
   
   
2. All member nations must recognise a person's status as having been born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents as an arbitrary, reductive characteristic. Accordingly, each member nation is to address discrimination and hate crime motivated by an individual's status as being born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents with the same haste and severity as discrimination and hate crime motivated by race, sexuality, gender, or any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic. Further, no parents may be discriminated against in the granting or revocation of any parental right, duty, or privilege due to said parents' current or former married or unmarried status.
   
   
3. A member nation may only revoke an individual's status as a legal parent, guardian, or custodian of a ward where necessary to
   
   
   1. protect that ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing;
      
      
   2. enforce a prison sentence, contain someone currently charged with a crime, or otherwise ensure the functioning of court proceedings; or
      
      
   3. revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over.
4. No person may be discriminated against in any Section 3 procedure based on their holding or lack of any arbitrary, reductive characteristic. Further, due weight must be provided in a Section 3 procedure to the freely expressed views of the ward in question vis-à-vis that procedure, should that ward be able to form and outwardly express their own views on said procedure.

[Heavens Reach]

Support in principle, with some reservations.

In clause 2 subclauses b and c, there is no stipulation that the transfer of legal parenthood or custody needs to be to a fit individual, just a "freely consenting" one.

In clause 3, a child's consent is required for the transfer of legal parenthood or custody, but, in general, children are not able to consent, only assent. And, while it's well-intended, I wonder about the wisdom of allowing a child to choose to remain with a parent or guardian who does not want legal parenthood or custody of them.

In general, we feel that there are also enough references to "arbitrary reductive characteristic," that it may be worth defining this concept between the preamble and clause sections of the proposal.

There may be other things that other ambassadors will ultimately bring up, but these are our current concerns.

[Tinhampton]

In general, we feel that there are also enough references to "arbitrary reductive characteristic," that it may be worth defining this concept between the preamble and clause sections of the proposal.

GA#35 exists.

Support.

[Starman of Stardust]

Support in principle, with some reservations.

In clause 2 subclauses b and c, there is no stipulation that the transfer of legal parenthood or custody needs to be to a fit individual, just a "freely consenting" one.

In clause 3, a child's consent is required for the transfer of legal parenthood or custody, but, in general, children are not able to consent, only assent. And, while it's well-intended, I wonder about the wisdom of allowing a child to choose to remain with a parent or guardian who does not want legal parenthood or custody of them.

In general, we feel that there are also enough references to "arbitrary reductive characteristic," that it may be worth defining this concept between the preamble and clause sections of the proposal.

There may be other things that other ambassadors will ultimately bring up, but these are our current concerns.

"Thank you for the feedback, ambassador. I will converse with our mission on the issue surrounding 2b and 2c. The old Section 3 is nixed. There has also been more detail added on what characteristics are arbitrary and reductive."

[Heavens Reach]

GA#35 exists.

And doesn't define "arbitrary, reductive characteristic," even if it is related.

[Heavens Reach]

Support in principle, with some reservations.

In clause 2 subclauses b and c, there is no stipulation that the transfer of legal parenthood or custody needs to be to a fit individual, just a "freely consenting" one.

In clause 3, a child's consent is required for the transfer of legal parenthood or custody, but, in general, children are not able to consent, only assent. And, while it's well-intended, I wonder about the wisdom of allowing a child to choose to remain with a parent or guardian who does not want legal parenthood or custody of them.

In general, we feel that there are also enough references to "arbitrary reductive characteristic," that it may be worth defining this concept between the preamble and clause sections of the proposal.

There may be other things that other ambassadors will ultimately bring up, but these are our current concerns.

"Thank you for the feedback, ambassador. I will converse with our mission on the issue surrounding 2b and 2c. The old Section 3 is nixed. There has also been more detail added on what characteristics are arbitrary and reductive."

Pending feedback from other ambassadors, full support

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We will oppose this incredibly poorly written proposal to the minimum extent necessary

[Heavens Reach]

You'll have to excuse the ambassador from West Barack and East Obama. I'm sure they meant that in the least vitriolic, most helpful, way possible

[Daarwyrth]

Princess Madelyne Zylkoven, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Support in principle, Ambassador."

[West Barack and East Obama]

You'll have to excuse the ambassador from West Barack and East Obama. I'm sure they meant that in the least vitriolic, most helpful, way possible

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Indeed we did. For starters, this topic is not anywhere close to an international issue. And then, the authors have the audacity to claim that there was ominous silence left following the repeal of another resolution, which was audaciously caused by themselves on very poor arguments. Also, what discrimination and bigotry is there against those with unmarried parents? That seems like a made up concern. Also, it blocks incentives for couples to get married. Et cetera

[Starman of Stardust]

You'll have to excuse the ambassador from West Barack and East Obama. I'm sure they meant that in the least vitriolic, most helpful, way possible

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Indeed we did. For starters, this topic is not anywhere close to an international issue. And then, the authors have the audacity to claim that there was ominous silence left following the repeal of another resolution, which was audaciously caused by themselves on very poor arguments. Also, what discrimination and bigotry is there against those with unmarried parents? That seems like a made up concern. Also, it blocks incentives for couples to get married. Et cetera

"Whether you thought that the repeal of 616 was merited or not, that is irrelevant to this replacement proposal and whether it is merited. This argument strikes me as a red herring, ambassador."

"Discrimination against those with unmarried parents is, in fact, relatively common, such as in so-called 'honour' killings, primogeniture, citizenship laws, religious taboo and discrimination, etc. (Ooc: See also here). Also, can you offer any reason besides some bigoted antiquated moral code that expectant parents should be coerced to marry each other regardless of their actual wishes?"

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Indeed we did. For starters, this topic is not anywhere close to an international issue. And then, the authors have the audacity to claim that there was ominous silence left following the repeal of another resolution, which was audaciously caused by themselves on very poor arguments. Also, what discrimination and bigotry is there against those with unmarried parents? That seems like a made up concern. Also, it blocks incentives for couples to get married. Et cetera

"Whether you thought that the repeal of 616 was merited or not, that is irrelevant to this replacement proposal and whether it is merited. This argument strikes me as a red herring, ambassador."

"Discrimination against those with unmarried parents is, in fact, relatively common, such as in so-called 'honour' killings, primogeniture, citizenship laws, religious taboo and discrimination, etc. (Ooc: See also here). Also, can you offer any reason besides some bigoted antiquated moral code that expectant parents should be coerced to marry each other regardless of their actual wishes?"

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Let me be clear. Firstly, trying to dismiss the repeal as irrelevant when you're marketing this proposal as a replacement to the repealed one strikes me as particularly disingenuous. Especially since it is cited within the proposal, it is important to consider the merits and contents of both the original proposal and the repeal when judging the replacement.

Also, it is absolutely imperative that governments be able to offer incentives to married couples and families. Nuclear families are the backbone of many nations and governments should be able to encourage people to commit to stable, loving relationships before going off and having children. Offspring are a huge responsibility and it is the duty of the government to reduce broken homes, unemployment, crime and unhappiness. However, I have had my mind changed on the discrimination against children born out of wedlock being a non-issue, so you can keep that.

[Philimbesi]

formally transfer legal parenthood or custody to another freely consenting individual on free and informed consent of all custodial parents of the minor.

So if a parent is not involved in care for the child but is unavailable to show consent, the child may never be put up for adoption?

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

[Starman of Stardust]

"Whether you thought that the repeal of 616 was merited or not, that is irrelevant to this replacement proposal and whether it is merited. This argument strikes me as a red herring, ambassador."

"Discrimination against those with unmarried parents is, in fact, relatively common, such as in so-called 'honour' killings, primogeniture, citizenship laws, religious taboo and discrimination, etc. (Ooc: See also here). Also, can you offer any reason besides some bigoted antiquated moral code that expectant parents should be coerced to marry each other regardless of their actual wishes?"

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Let me be clear. Firstly, trying to dismiss the repeal as irrelevant when you're marketing this proposal as a replacement to the repealed one strikes me as particularly disingenuous. Especially since it is cited within the proposal, it is important to consider the merits and contents of both the original proposal and the repeal when judging the replacement.

Also, it is absolutely imperative that governments be able to offer incentives to married couples and families. Nuclear families are the backbone of many nations and governments should be able to encourage people to commit to stable, loving relationships before going off and having children. Offspring are a huge responsibility and it is the duty of the government to reduce broken homes, unemployment, crime and unhappiness. However, I have had my mind changed on the discrimination against children born out of wedlock being a non-issue, so you can keep that.

"By your argument, if a resolution is repealed on arguments you don't agree with, ambassador, we should never replace it, because a replacement is no longer merited if the repeal is not. Such an argument is absurd, and should be rejected as such."

"Coercing parents to formally marry each other simply because they spawned offspring would, in fact, be more detrimental to the wellbeing of the family than them not being married. Further, you also disregard the fact that it is possible to have a nuclear family without being formally married, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships exist."

"Your arguments, ambassador, seem to be borne out of bigotry against unmarried parents, rather than any true concern for the wellbeing of families."

formally transfer legal parenthood or custody to another freely consenting individual on free and informed consent of all custodial parents of the minor.

So if a parent is not involved in care for the child but is unavailable to show consent, the child may never be put up for adoption?

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

"The draft is referring to 'custodial parents'. Would custody not necessarily entail being 'involved in care for the child'?"

[The Pacific Northwest]

So if a parent is not involved in care for the child but is unavailable to show consent, the child may never be put up for adoption?

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

"The draft is referring to 'custodial parents'. Would custody not necessarily entail being 'involved in care for the child'?"

I think they may mean a situation where a parent has legal custody of a child but is not involved in their care. Having legal custody does not necessarily mean the person is physically taking care of the child. For instance, I’ve lived with my grandparents at least 50% of the time since I was 8, and full time since I was 13. They were providing 100% of my care, but my parents still technically had joint custody. My grandparents never legally adopted me because they knew my parents would not consent and they didn’t want to take it to court. We would have had to at least fight my mom in court for a bit. By the time I turned 18, I had seen my mom maybe twice that year and hadn’t seen or heard from my dad in five years, yet they both legally had custody of me until then.

Edit: I’m using my situation as an example because it’s the one I know best, but I’m far from the only person to be raised by someone other than who had custody.

I mainly dropped in here to say my biggest issue with the previous resolution was that it was mostly focused on the right of parents’ to see their children and children were not to be given a say in custody arrangements unless they were deemed “sufficiently competent”, which in many nations would be the age of majority, at which point they would no longer be a child. In my opinion all children capable of expressing an opinion on the matter should have their opinions taken into account. Obviously the decision cannot be left solely to a child as there are other things to consider, but I’m glad to see this proposal addresses this, and therefore already has my support over the previous resolution.

I am however curious as to what due weight means exactly. I interpret it as making sure the child has their opinion heard and that opinion is taken into account when granting full or partial custody to parents, even given preference over what the parents want under certain circumstances like if a child insists they really don’t like one parent and don’t want to see them.

[Starman of Stardust]

"The draft is referring to 'custodial parents'. Would custody not necessarily entail being 'involved in care for the child'?"

I think they may mean a situation where a parent has legal custody of a child but is not involved in their care. Having legal custody does not necessarily mean the person is physically taking care of the child. For instance, I’ve lived with my grandparents at least 50% of the time since I was 8, and full time since I was 13. They were providing 100% of my care, but my parents still technically had joint custody. My grandparents never legally adopted me because they knew my parents would not consent and they didn’t want to take it to court. We would have had to at least fight my mom in court for a bit. By the time I turned 18, I had seen my mom maybe twice that year and hadn’t seen or heard from my dad in five years, yet they both legally had custody of me until then.

Edit: I’m using my situation as an example because it’s the one I know best, but I’m far from the only person to be raised by someone other than who had custody.

I mainly dropped in here to say my biggest issue with the previous resolution was that it was mostly focused on the right of parents’ to see their children and children were not to be given a say in custody arrangements unless they were deemed “sufficiently competent”, which in many nations would be the age of majority, at which point they would no longer be a child. In my opinion all children capable of expressing an opinion on the matter should have their opinions taken into account. Obviously the decision cannot be left solely to a child as there are other things to consider, but I’m glad to see this proposal addresses this, and therefore already has my support over the previous resolution.

I am however curious as to what due weight means exactly. I interpret it as making sure the child has their opinion heard and that opinion is taken into account when granting full or partial custody to parents, even given preference over what the parents want under certain circumstances like if a child insists they really don’t like one parent and don’t want to see them.

"I have altered the wording to 'physically custodial parent'. As to what 'due weight' means, it is indeed intended to mean that the child's opinion has to be heard and taken into account during the procedures."

[Old Hope]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=617/council=1
The repeal highlighted flaws that are not really fixed in this draft(the flaws are similar to the old ones...)

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[Excidium Planetis]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Indeed we did. For starters, this topic is not anywhere close to an international issue. And then, the authors have the audacity to claim that there was ominous silence left following the repeal of another resolution, which was audaciously caused by themselves on very poor arguments. Also, what discrimination and bigotry is there against those with unmarried parents? That seems like a made up concern. Also, it blocks incentives for couples to get married. Et cetera

"Well said, er, Deputy Minister." Adelia remarks.

"I fully agree with my co-" She does a double take. "Hold on, are y-you even in the World Assembly, Doctor?"

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[The Finntopian Empire]

This thread was certainly a fun read. Like in many situations, I plan on staying neutral on this so far.

[Northern Dosletofe]

Noting that the repeal of "Contact rights between Parent and Child" has left an ominous silence in World Assembly law surrounding custody rights,

Knowing also of the discrimination and prejudice faced often by those who happen merely to have been born to unmarried parents, who as of yet are still not protected against the discrimination they face as a result of rabid bigotry and stigma,

Seeking to correct the silence of World Assembly law on these topics of concern by collectively legislating,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _

1. In this resolution, "ward" means a minor or otherwise an individual lacking in mental capacity as to require being under the custody of a "guardian".
   
   
2. A person's status as having been born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents is an arbitrary, reductive characteristic, and is to be recognised as such by member nations. Accordingly, no member nation may discriminate against unmarried parents in the granting or revocation of any parental right, duty, or privilege. Further, each member nation is to address discrimination and hate crime motivated by an individual's status as being born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents with the same haste and severity as discrimination and hate crime motivated by race, sexuality, gender, or any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic.
   
   
3. A member nation may only revoke an individual's status as a legal parent, guardian, or custodian of a ward where
   
   
   1. necessary to protect that ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing;
      
      
   2. to revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over; or
      
      
   3. to formally transfer guardianship or custody to another freely consenting individual when that parent becomes deceased or otherwise unable to adequately care for that ward.
4. No person may be discriminated against in any Section 3 procedure based on their holding or lack of any arbitrary, reductive characteristic. Further, due weight must be provided to the freely expressed views of the ward in question vis-a-vis a Section 3 procedure.

Taking in consideration everything that this draft stands for, you have Northern Dosletofe’s full support, and you can count on our vote if you ever do consider submitting it! - the Dissish Goverment

[Tinhampton]

On further consideration, opposed to Article 4 and will be voting against it if it remains in the proposal as-is. This should be a simple proposal about custody, not a sweeping charter about the rights of unmarried couples. Consider rewriting Article 3 to something as follows:

Due weight must be provided in a Section 2 procedure to the freely expressed views of the ward in question vis-a-vis that procedure. Further, no person may be discriminated against in any Section 2 procedure based on their holding or lack of any arbitrary, reductive characteristic, due to being unmarried at any point in a Section 2 procedure or having been unmarried when the ward who is subject to a Section 2 procedure was born or conceived.

[Starman of Stardust]

On further consideration, opposed to Article 4 and will be voting against it if it remains in the proposal as-is. This should be a simple proposal about custody, not a sweeping charter about the rights of unmarried couples. Consider rewriting Article 3 to something as follows:

Due weight must be provided in a Section 2 procedure to the freely expressed views of the ward in question vis-a-vis that procedure. Further, no person may be discriminated against in any Section 2 procedure based on their holding or lack of any arbitrary, reductive characteristic, due to being unmarried at any point in a Section 2 procedure or having been unmarried when the ward who is subject to a Section 2 procedure was born or conceived.

"As described in the preamble, this is intended to address both discrimination against unmarried couples and children thereof as well as custody rights."

[Tinhampton]

Smith: Just happening not to be married when you have kids should not by itself be grounds for the sweeping protection against discrimination you propose in Article 4, especially when some nations may not have marriage and even those that do are under no obligation to offer that status to those in marriages that experience childbirth. The fact that some people believe that sex before marriage is wrong does not suffice. Some theists believe that eating pork is wrong, but this does not entitle pig farmers to ARC status.
I would like to reiterate my opposition to the Act as written.