[DEFEATED] Marriage and Custody Act

[Starman of Stardust]

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."

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."

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?"

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."

[Brezzia]

"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."

No part of this resolution prevents member nations from allowing parents to renounce custody whenever they want too. The same way no part of this resolution obligates member nations to revoke custody in order to protect that ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing. The effectiveness of a resolution that combats discrimination "if member nations want it" is highly questionable.

[Maogs]

Official Statement of the Head of International Affairs Stating the Opinion of the Nation and Sovereign of Maogs Jerard Fitzgerald:

Maogs feels this proposal is an attempt to establish international child protective services (which we have, thanks) and outlaw or eliminate discrimination.

Furthermore, we believe that a better achievement this proposal could have gone for was placing children under better care than their parents or guardian is able to give, yet it does not (however, this has likely been covered in an already passed bill).

Overall, we think this proposal will accomplish very little and is a waste of the Assembly's time.

[Elwher]

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."

The assets of a married couple are the product of the joint work of both members. Children of both of them should be entitled to a greater share of these assets than children of only one of them.

[Heavens Reach]

"Good."

The assets of a married couple are the product of the joint work of both members. Children of both of them should be entitled to a greater share of these assets than children of only one of them.

If they do not want their assets to be apportioned equally to all children that are a part of the union, they can either 1. not enter into a marriage with someone who has children prior to their consortium, or 2. leave the marriage if their spouse has a child out of wedlock. Then their assets can be apportioned to their children and their children alone as they will hold ownership of only their own estate. But making a complicated morass where one child is favored over another because of their parents' indiscretions? Unnecessary.

[RemiorKami]

I've voted against it according to my region's vote.

[Straona]

Straona opposes this Act after careful consideration and hearing input of the other distinguished ambassadors from other nations.

[The Pacific Northwest]

After reading the resolution and arguments against, I’ve decided to vote against as well. I greatly appreciate that the opinion of the ward is taken into account and the attempt at reducing discrimination against children born out of wedlock. However not clearly defining emotional or mental wellbeing would effectively allow nations to declare something about the parents to be harmful to a child’s mental or emotional wellbeing without any evidence of that actually being the case. Obviously it’s referring to instances of emotional abuse or neglect, but if you allow each country its own definition they can twist it to work with their agenda.

Say a nation declares that a child simply living with their parents is harmful due to something the state doesn’t like. They could argue that removing the child would improve their wellbeing. If a particular nation doesn’t like a specific political ideology. They could just say that ideology is harmful because x reason, and these people are forcing it on their child with their parenting. The child’s mental wellbeing is at risk because their parents are insane and subscribe to a bad ideology, and the child needs to be removed.

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.

The assets of a married couple are the product of the joint work of both members. Children of both of them should be entitled to a greater share of these assets than children of only one of them.

Not every child born out of wedlock is the result of cheating and people can get married more than once. What happens if someone has a child with their partner, then marries them later on and has more children?

What if they have a child with their partner at the time, break up eventually, and years later marry someone else and have more kids? Does the first child not deserve anything from that parent simply because they never married the other?

Or in the case of someone I know personally, where a man had a child, married the mother after the kid was born, divorced a few years later, got married again, had another kid while married to his second wife, then divorced again, got married a third time, had another kid, divorced again, married again, another kid, divorced, married again. The man is on wife number five with four children, three born to previous wives, and the mother of the oldest was still just his girlfriend at the time, they only married after the fact.

What do you do then? Does the oldest not count because they were born before his first marriage? Does only the child from the most recent marriage count and not the other two who were born during the course of previous marriages? If he has a fifth child during marriage five does that child get everything just because the father happens to like getting divorced and remarried every few years?

[Heavens Reach]

As previously promised, we will not change our current vote on this proposal from for, but as others have pointed out, we would like to see air-tight protection against exploitation of the emotional well-being clause in the redraft, when and if you do redraft it. Otherwise, we support a redraft and will both approve and vote for it once it is submitted.

[Satafiso]

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Satafiso Harold Becker:
It's amazing how many people are alarmed about the rights of the child and such a term as discrimination. Satafiso opposes this resolution and wishes to send this draft for revision. If we are talking about discrimination based on the presence of biological parents, then we must talk about a few more facts:
a) When creating this resolution, we should talk about STRENGTHENING control measures over the "trustees" and large financing of social projects, which in case of inflation will lead to a crisis.
b) If this resolution tells us about discrimination, then let's also keep control over bullying and other manifestations of aggression towards the child, thereby we are again faced with a reduction in funding, and also declare that we "RESTRAIN AGGRESSION", although in fact we act only on a narrow spectrum of manifestations of aggression
So, we consider this resolution narrow and meaningless due to its lack of elaboration! Therefore, we consider this resolution unnecessary without revision

[PYT]

...what discrimination and bigotry is there against those with unmarried parents?

I venture forth that a timely answer to this intriguing question would be of vital significance to many nations still mulling over whether to support the proposed act.

[PYT]

[quote"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).

Thank you for the data SoS. Not seen before by my original post.

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?"

To be sure, PYT does not hold to mentioned antiquated code..nor will we in the future! Perhaps this topic is at the core of the proposed act? No assumptions, simply asking to better understand context.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Ahem," said Deputy Ambassador Roweina, shaking off months of accumulated dust, "the Princess must vote against this proposal."

"Termination of parental rights is an extremely complex subject. The Princess does not object to the World Assembly adopting safeguards to protect both parents and children... er, "wards"... when the state seeks to terminate parental rights. However the flat prohibition in this proposal (with limited exceptions) is far, far too draconian."

A member nation may only revoke an individual's status as a legal parent, guardian, or custodian of a ward where necessary to * * * protect that ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing; * * *
enforce a prison sentence, contain someone currently charged with a crime, or otherwise ensure the functioning of court proceedings; or * * * revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over.

"Perhaps if these were factors member nations were required to consider, rather than an exclusive list of options, we may have been more receptive."

[The Ice States]

The General Assembly resolution "marriage and Custody Act" was defeated 9,179 votes to 7,164.