NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Birth and Custody Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

[DRAFT] Birth and Custody Act

Postby Starman of Stardust » Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:21 pm

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. 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, each member nation must grant exactly the same parental rights, duties, and privileges to unmarried parents as to married parents. 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.

  2. 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 respectively when that parent becomes deceased or otherwise unable to adequately care for that ward.
  3. No person may be discriminated against in any Section 2 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 2 procedure.
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:22 pm, edited 55 times in total.
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Heavens Reach » Sun Sep 18, 2022 5:56 pm

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.
Ambassador to the People of Heaven's Reach
(Constitutional Socialist Democracy)
(He/Him/His)
Post-Bacc Research Fellow | Neuroscience, Psychology, Physics

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11076
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Sep 18, 2022 6:04 pm

Heavens Reach wrote: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.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Sun Sep 18, 2022 6:07 pm

Heavens Reach wrote: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."
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Heavens Reach » Sun Sep 18, 2022 6:08 pm

Tinhampton wrote:GA#35 exists.


And doesn't define "arbitrary, reductive characteristic," even if it is related.
Ambassador to the People of Heaven's Reach
(Constitutional Socialist Democracy)
(He/Him/His)
Post-Bacc Research Fellow | Neuroscience, Psychology, Physics

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Heavens Reach » Sun Sep 18, 2022 6:10 pm

Starman of Stardust wrote:
Heavens Reach wrote: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
Ambassador to the People of Heaven's Reach
(Constitutional Socialist Democracy)
(He/Him/His)
Post-Bacc Research Fellow | Neuroscience, Psychology, Physics

User avatar
West Barack and East Obama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 395
Founded: Apr 20, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby West Barack and East Obama » Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:15 pm

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We will oppose this incredibly poorly written proposal to the minimum extent necessary
Official Account for the West Barack and East Obama Foreign Affairs Taskforce. Usually controlled by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Justin Obama, with additional contributions where stated.

Ruled by His Royal Highness, Most Venerable, His Most Serene Presence (among others) President Barack Horatio Obama of the Obama Dynasty.

First team to play in the ODI World Trophy with a legally blind player #progressive

Only team to not be defeated by HUElavia in IAC 16

For some reason has a whole department dedicated to commenting on WA proposals despite not being part of it. (Wrote GAR#622)

Allies: Lozho
Enemies: Anyone who dissents against us


she/her

Proud Esportivan and Sonnelian

im problematic :/

Not actually an Obama fan in real life

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 477
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Heavens Reach » Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:23 am

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
Ambassador to the People of Heaven's Reach
(Constitutional Socialist Democracy)
(He/Him/His)
Post-Bacc Research Fellow | Neuroscience, Psychology, Physics

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2361
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:32 am

Princess Madelyne Zylkoven, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Support in principle, Ambassador."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth
Forest's Minister of Foreign Affairs

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Current year: 2022 CE
  • Daarwyrth
  • Uylensted
  • Kentauria
  • 27 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
West Barack and East Obama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 395
Founded: Apr 20, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby West Barack and East Obama » Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:21 am

Heavens Reach wrote: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
Official Account for the West Barack and East Obama Foreign Affairs Taskforce. Usually controlled by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Justin Obama, with additional contributions where stated.

Ruled by His Royal Highness, Most Venerable, His Most Serene Presence (among others) President Barack Horatio Obama of the Obama Dynasty.

First team to play in the ODI World Trophy with a legally blind player #progressive

Only team to not be defeated by HUElavia in IAC 16

For some reason has a whole department dedicated to commenting on WA proposals despite not being part of it. (Wrote GAR#622)

Allies: Lozho
Enemies: Anyone who dissents against us


she/her

Proud Esportivan and Sonnelian

im problematic :/

Not actually an Obama fan in real life

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:50 am

West Barack and East Obama wrote:
Heavens Reach wrote: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?"
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
West Barack and East Obama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 395
Founded: Apr 20, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby West Barack and East Obama » Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:14 am

Starman of Stardust wrote:
West Barack and East Obama wrote: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.
Official Account for the West Barack and East Obama Foreign Affairs Taskforce. Usually controlled by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Justin Obama, with additional contributions where stated.

Ruled by His Royal Highness, Most Venerable, His Most Serene Presence (among others) President Barack Horatio Obama of the Obama Dynasty.

First team to play in the ODI World Trophy with a legally blind player #progressive

Only team to not be defeated by HUElavia in IAC 16

For some reason has a whole department dedicated to commenting on WA proposals despite not being part of it. (Wrote GAR#622)

Allies: Lozho
Enemies: Anyone who dissents against us


she/her

Proud Esportivan and Sonnelian

im problematic :/

Not actually an Obama fan in real life

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2377
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Philimbesi » Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:24 am

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 Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:12 pm

West Barack and East Obama wrote:
Starman of Stardust wrote:"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."

Philimbesi wrote:
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'?"
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
The Pacific Northwest
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: May 26, 2022
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Pacific Northwest » Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:20 pm

Starman of Stardust wrote:
Philimbesi wrote: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.
Last edited by The Pacific Northwest on Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don’t roleplay much, so all of my posts will be out of character. I don’t mind in character responses though, and I also have no preferred pronouns so feel free to refer to me however you wish.

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:45 pm

The Pacific Northwest wrote:
Starman of Stardust wrote:
"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."
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1226
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:07 am

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...)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:18 pm

Bump.
✨The Democratic Stellar Union✨

President: Hyo Joslyn
World Assembly Ambassador: Hayden Stubbe

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7771
Founded: May 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Excidium Planetis » Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:19 pm

West Barack and East Obama wrote: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?"
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 8, 7.5 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: None. Good, right?


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads