Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.

[Zep]

Won't the baby carry some stigma in his/her religious family for being a bastard? Some regions still have bullying problems for that sorta thing.

Perhaps they should have thought of that before they started in blushed and giggling behind the bushes.

 

[Zep]

The law in your country really hates illegitimate kids I see, or does it just hate fathers who aren't married?

In many of cases like this one, there are tendencies for the penniless and immature (and totally bogan - redneck) father-to-be to bug out to the other side of the country (i.e. another state), or out of the country all together, specifically to hide and avoid his parental responsibilities.

Sometimes they are sent away, either by their own parents or at the specific request of the girl's parents, to stop them getting at each other...some more. (Seriously, some of them seem to be running on their reptilian cortexes only.)

 

[Zep]

Except that only children of married people get two parents. In the US all children have a right to support from both parents, and parents both have equal rights over the child.

Not so. We are talking about under-aged parents here, not adults. Once they are adults, the legal situation here is mostly the same as the USA, as you describe.

If they are under-age, they need to demonstrate they can be as responsible for themselves in a married state as if they were adults. As said before, many teenagers can do this, they are permitted to marry, and they successfully raise children at that age, no problems. But this couple did not meet that criteria, so they were not permitted to marry at this age. But when they turn 18, they will be adults and the doors will open.

Another difference is that some teenage parents choose not to marry but just live together. In which case they don't need to prove anything to anyone. The partnership success rate there is somewhat lower though.

 

[JWideman]

Won't the baby carry some stigma in his/her religious family for being a bastard? Some regions still have bullying problems for that sorta thing.

Yep. Though officially they don't apply Deuteronomy 23:2, lots of JWs treat such kids like they're doing them a favor by allowing them to attend the Kingdom Hall.

 

[Architect]

In Scotland marriage is allowed at 16 without restriction: as I recall, south of the Border parental permission is required between 16 and 18. So no, I don't in principle see an objection to their marriage. However they're quite clearly aware of the realities and have thrown in the religious reasons in a patently obvious attempt to wangle the whole thing.

The phrase we use here is "weans wi' weans". I'm sure you non-Scots (and non-Ulster Scots) can work it out.

 

[ddt]

The law in your country really hates illegitimate kids I see, or does it just hate fathers who aren't married?

No it doesn't, AFAIK. But when a married couple gets a kid, the parents are recognized as the parents, period. When an unwed mother gets a kid, the father has to recognize the child to be registered as the father. I guess the mother may object to the father recognizing the child, but I'm not sure.

We've had many a discussion on this board on civil unions, and how - at least in the US - there are myriad privileges conferred to married couples and not to unionized couples. In Dutch law there is nary a difference between married couples, unionized couples, or just living together. You can even inherit from your partner if you have a notarized partnership contract. But I don't know how this stuff pans out towards the children. I'd consider it foolish if a couple that expects a baby, not at least go to a notary to get advice on the matter and draw up a partnership contract, just in case. Divorces are messy enough with legal clarity of the situation.

(for clarification: in Holland, the notary is the one who advises on and registers wills, prenups, etc.).

Two dated examples how the law can be a funny beast. I think neither of them still applies, but it is still instructive in that family law is not entirely straightforward.

When my parents divorced, 30 years ago, they lost the legal status of "parent", and were henceforth "guardian". Not much of a difference, and this has been off the books for quite a while, but still - somewhere, there's that one article in the code which does not apply.

The second needs a set-up. My grandfather has the typical Dutch letter 'ij' in his family name. In handwriting, it looks just like an 'y' with two dots on it. My grandparents eloped to France to get married, and got five kids there. The French bureaucrats didn't understand this ij-business, so they wrote y. So all my aunts and uncles and their children save one carry the name with an y. My father was born after they returned to Holland, so his name (and my name and that of my siblings) has the 'ij'.

One of my aunts was an unwed mother and wanted nothing to do with the father. Her son - my cousin - couldn't at that time (50 years ago) get his mother's name. He could get his grandfather's family name, so my cousin has again an 'ij' in his name.

Just to dot the i's (and the j's ).

 

[kerikiwi]

How does her martial status impact her abilities to raise kids?

I do love a good typo.
Of course her martial staus impacts her abilities to raise kids!

 

[kerikiwi]

Except that only children of married people get two parents. In the US all children have a right to support from both parents, and parents both have equal rights over the child.

But wouldn't the father first have to be recognised as the father?

 

[ddt]

The law in your country really hates illegitimate kids I see, or does it just hate fathers who aren't married?

Your question piqued my interest how this really works in Holland. It's more complicated than I even thought.

No it doesn't, AFAIK. But when a married couple gets a kid, the parents are recognized as the parents, period.

Interestingly, this only holds for married couples; not in case of a civil union or a (notarized) cohabitation contract.

When an unwed mother gets a kid, the father has to recognize the child to be registered as the father. I guess the mother may object to the father recognizing the child, but I'm not sure.

A father may recognize a kid only with consent of the mother. Unless the parents have a civil union, that's not the end of the story. He may be recognized as the father, but that doesn't mean he has all parental rights and responsibilities - e.g., he may not yet act as the legal guardian for the kid. For that, the parents have to jointly file a petition with the court.

Even worse, in case of a 16- or 17-year unwed mother, there is legal limbo over who has the parental rights over the kid. The mother can't exercise those rights as she's a minor herself, and the law doesn't say who then has to exercise those rights. She can file a petition to the court to declare her legally adult though. In the meantime, who's going to consent on that medical procedure the baby needs?

So yes, a 17-year unwed mother (in Holland) gives a lot of paperwork to fix things up legally.

 

[HansMustermann]

Bah, these heterosexual couples ruin the sanctity of marriage for the rest of us. Err... the rest of them. I mean them. Seriously

 

[ponderingturtle]

But wouldn't the father first have to be recognised as the father?

Depends on how you define it. If the mother refuse to say who the father is, and the father doesn't make a point of it then it can be an issue.

But once the father is known, he can contest custody, is forced to pay child support and what have you. So as the guy knows he knocked this girl up and is pretty open about being the father, it is not an issue.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Interestingly, this only holds for married couples; not in case of a civil union or a (notarized) cohabitation contract.

What about cases of infidelity?

A father may recognize a kid only with consent of the mother. Unless the parents have a civil union, that's not the end of the story. He may be recognized as the father, but that doesn't mean he has all parental rights and responsibilities - e.g., he may not yet act as the legal guardian for the kid. For that, the parents have to jointly file a petition with the court.

Ah this is very different, a mother in the US can not remove a fathers rights in the US. In theory in many states fathers need to consent to putting kids up for adoption.

So it seems that there is a strong bias against fathers in Holland.

 

[Roadtoad]

Right. Time for the Former Fundie to weigh in...

Simply following the Bible does not mean you won't fall prey to sin. You're a human being, and as stated in Scripture, your every thought is sinful. You're going to make a mistake. Since that's the case, the goal of Christ's sacrifice is to provide forgiveness rather than perfection, since perfection by definition is simply impossible.

Having said that, while I can feel some sympathy for these kids and their situation, (and they are KIDS), I'm a little stumped. While I understand the Judge's decision, (yes, the new daddy's a bricklayer, a skilled tradesman, so an income shouldn't be a problem), a short delay like this is pretty much meaningless if the kids are intent on marrying.

OTOH, now being an atheist, I'm also pretty much a realist. When Peggy and I got married, our son Jonathan was already on the way. (Fundie or not, we got nekkid and pregnunt.) But we were also in our middle 20's when that happened, so we had a bit more going for us personally than these two have. Considering that even adults wind up falling in and out of love over the course of a relationship, that staying married requires real effort, the odds are against them making it as long as they have.

I'm not real hopeful here. As I said, I understand the judge's decision here. He's likely right. These two have a long and painful road ahead of them, and it's not looking particularly likely that they'll get very far. It can be done, but given their previous decisions to try and take easy ways out, I'm not optimistic.

First things first: O'l Romeo needs to get his posterior parts out of the GF's house and get an apartment of their own. Now. No, she won't be living with him until they're actually married, but they damned well need to get their own place, the sooner the better. That will prevent their parents from sticking their noses where it really doesn't belong.

Second, they need to get into marital counseling BEFORE they walk the aisle. (Trust me. That is supremely helpful.)

Do I think it's going to happen? Probably about the same time as we see porcine aviators...

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Why is this a news story? I mean, the laws say they can't get married until a certain age. They applied to get an exception granted and were denied. How by any stretch of the imagination is this worthy of press?

I mean, it's a neat thing to post on JREF, because it sparked an interesting discussion regarding the law itself that they are subject to.

But how did this ever make the news?

 

[Rasmus]

Except that only children of married people get two parents. In the US all children have a right to support from both parents, and parents both have equal rights over the child.

So, who gets to be the father of an unmarried woman in the US? Whoever she says the father is, right? (Assuming he doesn#t deny his fatherhood, that is)

Same here.

But there is no way the state can determine a father by default. (Well, they could set up a lottery, I suppose ...)

So, if you are not married when the child is born, you have to go through the paperwork. It gets worse if you marry after the child is born but before you've done the paperwork, I think ...

 

[ddt]

What about cases of infidelity?

The presumption is that the husband of the mother is the father of the child. Of course, either party can contest that in court.

Ah this is very different, a mother in the US can not remove a fathers rights in the US. In theory in many states fathers need to consent to putting kids up for adoption.

How does that work then? Anyone who thinks he's the father can go to the OB/GYN and ask to be registered as the father in the birth certificate? What when three claimants turn up? I guess the US also has a maximum of 2 parents per child?

What I sketched was the easy route - so well, saying "only with the mother's consent" was a bit stark. When the mother does not consent, the (claimant) father can of course go to court to demand to be recognized.

So it seems that there is a strong bias against fathers in Holland.

Seems not much in this respect. We are world leader, though, in assigning kids to the mother in a divorce case.

 

[Roadtoad]

Why is this a news story? I mean, the laws say they can't get married until a certain age. They applied to get an exception granted and were denied. How by any stretch of the imagination is this worthy of press?

I mean, it's a neat thing to post on JREF, because it sparked an interesting discussion regarding the law itself that they are subject to.

But how did this ever make the news?

Slow news day?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How does that work then? Anyone who thinks he's the father can go to the OB/GYN and ask to be registered as the father in the birth certificate? What when three claimants turn up? I guess the US also has a maximum of 2 parents per child?

Paternity test seems the easiest way, just like any other contested paternity issue. Fathers have rights after all.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

One could equally ask, it's only a few months, so why the urgency to do it now?
What difference does waiting a few months make if it is a stable, committed relationship?
How is waiting making anything worse?

In their world, being unmarried and expecting a baby is a very big deal. By getting married before the baby is born, they are preventing the child from being born a bastard.

And her mother is probably crying and complaining all the time about them not being married. So doing so and as soon as possible will make everyone's life a lot more peaceful and will probably make Grandma more accepting of the baby and make better her relationship with her daughter.

I've seen grandparents and great-grandparents refuse to visit a baby because the parents are unmarried. If this is the case here, it's better for the grandmother, parents and the baby that they get married.

 

[Sledge]

Then perhaps they should have explained that to the judge.