Brezzia wrote:Reading 3c for the first time, it seems to me that it allows a guardian to "freely and in good faith" renounce guardianship or custody over a ward whenever they want. There are real life laws that allow parents to leave children in hospital or caring center, but immediately after birth, not after 5/11/17 years. If they keep the child, they have the duty to care them. This is like a proposal by Hänsel and Gretel's parents.
"No part of this resolution obligates member nations to allow parents to renounce custody. Further Section 4 merely prohibits parents from being discriminated against in the revocation of custody based on an arbitrary, reductive charactieristic -- your nation is still allowed to, for example, prosecute persons for renouncing their custody, or simply fail to recognise renunciation of custody."
Mendevia wrote:Sentence b: "enforce a prison sentence, contain someone currently charged with a crime, or otherwise ensure the functioning of court proceedings; or" is especially poorly written. What does that even mean?
"In nearly all legal systems, parents lose custody of their children while imprisoned -- which is what this mandate exempts."
And the last sentence: "revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over." This should only be done if the other parent or guardian consents because again child support is terminated.
"That is what it already does? It only covers when the parent has freely and in good faith renounced the guardianship or custody."
Elwher wrote:This proposal, if passed, would wreak havoc with many nations' inheritance laws, allowing no discrimination between children born to a person's spouse and those born outside of wedlock.
"Good."
And, as a double whammy, consider what this will do to those nations with a hereditary monarchy. While Elwher sympathizes with the intent of the proposal, it goes too far when out-of-wedlock children are required to be treated the same as those born to a person's legal spouse.
"Why is this a bad thing?"
El Lazaro wrote:Are legal punishments for children born out of wedlock commonplace? This bill seems unnecessary if not. Additionally, the custody revocation conditions are self-defeating, as court proceedings could remove custody from unwed parents. If this was removed, however, conservatorship annulments and divorce rulings could be barred. The proposal seems to be making a mess of the law without providing significant utility.
"This only prohibits discrimination based on unmarried status in and of itself, such as refusing to recognise parenthood ab initio on the grounds that the parents are not married, or revoking custody by sole reason that said parents have terminated their marriage. There is a difference between that and revoking custody on the grounds that the parents no longer live together -- regardless of whether they are divorced -- and a joint physical custody arrangement would be harmful to the ward."