Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.

[kerikiwi]

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.

Family members reject a child because its parents are not married?
I can't think of many worse reasons to marry.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Then perhaps they should have explained that to the judge.

That's...actually a good point.

Family members reject a child because its parents are not married?
I can't think of many worse reasons to marry.

I don't advocate two ill prepared people who aren't in love getting married just because of family pressure.

However, if they say they are in love, want to try to build a life together and this will help keep the peace at the next family reunion and at the baby's 1st birthday party...well, that's something different.

 

[ddt]

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

That's no answer to the question. Let me rephrase the question for you.
Somewhere in the USA (*), an unwed mother gives birth. The OB/GYN is about to fill out the birth certificate. A guy walks into his office and claims he's the father. What does the OB/GYN do?
a) he fills the guy's name out in the birth certificate;
b) he says the guy has to get the consent of the mother to be registered as such;
c) he ignores the request;
d) other, ...

(*) of, if laws differ, make it NY, your state.

And now the same question when the guy walks into that office a week later, when the birth certificate has already been made.

Sure a paternity test can resolve the issue whether claimant is the father. Sure a court can order the mother to cooperate with a paternity test. Sure the father can go to court over the issue.

But the issue at hand is the minimal amount of paperwork needed to fix things up legally in case of an unwed, underage mother. That's the case in the OP: the judge wouldn't allow the couple to get married, while they wanted to. I claimed there would be quite some paperwork to fix things up, and showed the minimum amount that would be needed in Holland. You said that's father-unfriendly; show how it's done differently in the US (or in NY).

 

[Fiona]

What about cases of infidelity?


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.

Er, how does that work? If an unmarried woman is pregnant in the USA can any Tom, Dick or Harry claim to be the father and that is then accepted without question? If it is not then what happens if she says that the claimant is not the father? Are you saying that her word carries no weight at all?

ETA: I see ddt beat me to this: I should finish reading the thread before posting. My apologies

 

[stevea]

Meh - so what exactly is new here.

Some <18yos follow "the prime directive" and she gets pregnant. Happens every day.
The "powers that be" don't recognize the relationship. So what - happens every day.
I think they wrote a classical song about this every decade for the past millenia.

There is maybe a 30% chance these two will last till December, and perhaps a 3% chance they'll be together in 5 yrs. It's a losing proposition for them and for society to pretend this relationship is "quasi-permanent" since it's solely based on the fact that she seemed bang-able to him and she felt emotionally needy some Friday night last August.

You can't un-ring a bell. There is no reason to recognize this relationship except to tattoo these two as losers for the rest of their lives. It's not a nice thing to do to the not-too-bright and hormonally challenged.

 

[Zep]

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.

In the eyes of Australian law: Tough!

 

[Zep]

Meh - so what exactly is new here.

Some <18yos follow "the prime directive" and she gets pregnant. Happens every day.
The "powers that be" don't recognize the relationship. So what - happens every day.
I think they wrote a classical song about this every decade for the past millenia.

There is maybe a 30% chance these two will last till December, and perhaps a 3% chance they'll be together in 5 yrs. It's a losing proposition for them and for society to pretend this relationship is "quasi-permanent" since it's solely based on the fact that she seemed bang-able to him and she felt emotionally needy some Friday night last August.

You can't un-ring a bell. There is no reason to recognize this relationship except to tattoo these two as losers for the rest of their lives. It's not a nice thing to do to the not-too-bright and hormonally challenged.

...but only until they turn 18, at the end of the year. No-one can stop them, then.

So bubby will be barely months old, the wedding dress will fit again, and it is odds-on granny will drag out the bible and shotgun and there WILL be a wedding if she has any say in it! All someone needs to do is go cosh and drag the reluctant groom back from his hiding place up the coast in Western Australia, and it will be a perfect day!

 

[Slimething]

One wonders what earth-shattering event occurred in 1991 which suddenly impaired the judgment of all Australian females for an additional two years.

I'm hoping the event was that Australian society realized the inequity there and the lack of protection for females.

The way I see it, marriage is a contract and a very poorly written one at that. Minors are barred from entering into contracts for their own protection. Frankly, I can't think of any circumstances that would make a 16-year-old any fitter for marriage than an 18-year-old. I'm not sure most humans are ready even at 18 but that's just my cynicism showing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Er, how does that work? If an unmarried woman is pregnant in the USA can any Tom, Dick or Harry claim to be the father and that is then accepted without question? If it is not then what happens if she says that the claimant is not the father? Are you saying that her word carries no weight at all?

ETA: I see ddt beat me to this: I should finish reading the thread before posting. My apologies

ANd if a guy claims he isn't the father and never had sex with a woman, is that enough to get out of a paternity test? Seems like you are advocating for a large double standard.

 

[Fiona]

I am not sure of the law on paternity testing. It can certainly be ordered under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, but I am not sure in what circumstances such an order will be granted. Do you have case law on that? The relevant section says

20.
Power of court to require use of blood tests.
— [F16 (1) In any civil proceedings in which the paternity of any person falls to be determined by the court hearing the proceedings, the court may, on an application by any party to the proceedings, give a direction for the use of blood tests to ascertain whether such tests show that a party to the proceedings is or is not thereby excluded from being the father of that person and for the taking, within a period to be specified in the direction, of blood samples from that person, the mother of that person and any party alleged to be the father of that person or from any, or any two, of those persons.]
[ F17 (1A) Tests required by a direction under this section may only be carried out by a body which has been accredited for the purposes of this section by—
(a)
the Lord Chancellor, or
(b)
a body appointed by him for the purpose.]

ETA: there is an interesting discussion of the issues here
http://books.google.com/books?id=s6...resnum=7&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Although the court can order a paternity test it cannot be carried out if the person subject to it does not consent (S 21 of the same Act)

 

[sgtbaker]

That's optimistic - I give them until they need to top-up their mobile phones!

Lol, good point. However, I don't know what it takes to go through the divorce process but in the US (different states have different laws), the process could take up to a year or more. The hormonal state of mind, after the first birth can go one of two ways; she will either be on the post natal high or post natal depression. Given her age and idealistic view, I will put her in the likelyhood of going high. The first few weeks she will be confident "I can do this" because the baby will be sleeping for most of the day. By about six month, the child in both of them will rear it's ugly head; "It's your turn to change the diaper," and chances are, by nine months after the baby is born, she would be willing to sell the baby just for the opportunity to shower before noon. I stand by my time...two years

 

[ddt]

Er, how does that work? If an unmarried woman is pregnant in the USA can any Tom, Dick or Harry claim to be the father and that is then accepted without question? If it is not then what happens if she says that the claimant is not the father? Are you saying that her word carries no weight at all?

ETA: I see ddt beat me to this: I should finish reading the thread before posting. My apologies

No problem - it's good ponderingturtle gets asked that question twice. He was quite vague in his answer.

Another question to the Australians on the thread: suppose that baby is born with some congenital condition which requires immediate medical procedures. Who is going to decide on those? The mother, at 17, is still a minor, so she can't. Her parents?

Though I sympathize with the feelings "they're too immature to marry", I think that is a real (legal) problem that would have been avoided by allowing them to get married.

 

[Fiona]

Another question to the Australians on the thread: suppose that baby is born with some congenital condition which requires immediate medical procedures. Who is going to decide on those? The mother, at 17, is still a minor, so she can't. Her parents?

Though I sympathize with the feelings "they're too immature to marry", I think that is a real (legal) problem that would have been avoided by allowing them to get married.

Well in this country she does have that right: it is stated quite clearly in the legislation and it is not modified in any way by her age

 

[Wildy]

Another question to the Australians on the thread: suppose that baby is born with some congenital condition which requires immediate medical procedures. Who is going to decide on those? The mother, at 17, is still a minor, so she can't. Her parents?

As far as I'm aware if they need a parent to consent then they will turn to the father because he is old enough to give consent.

The problem is that the law covering consent for medical treatment is, as I'm finding out right now, very confusing and dependent on state laws, federal laws and also various precedent set by the courts.

Apparently section 174 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW) allows a doctor to carry out treatment if it's an emergency to save the child's life or minimise harm.

As far as I'm aware that trumps religious belief as well.

 

[Fiona]

Is he the father automatically in Australia, Wildy? Do either of them need to do anything to establish that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well in this country she does have that right: it is stated quite clearly in the legislation and it is not modified in any way by her age

I don't understand, how can you let people who are not old enough to sign their own contracts get married? This in a strange fashion incentives marriage as it would be a way to legally get away from parents, with out having to go through the process of emancipation.

 

[kerikiwi]

I don't understand, how can you let people who are not old enough to sign their own contracts get married? This in a strange fashion incentives marriage as it would be a way to legally get away from parents, with out having to go through the process of emancipation.

Wasn't Fiona referring to the right to exercise guardianship over the child, not the right to get marrried?

 

[Fiona]

Wasn't Fiona referring to the right to exercise guardianship over the child, not the right to get marrried?

Yes. The question of parental rights is covered in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995

S3. - (1)
(a) A child's mother has parental responsibilities and parenatal rights in relation to him whether or not she is or has been married to his father

There is no qualification with regard to her age

I do have a case at present where a 14 year old is mother to a baby and therefore has parental rights and responsibilities in relation to him: but her own parents have those rights with respect to her, because of her age. It is a curious situation but it makes not matter in terms of who has the right to consent to medical treatment for the baby

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, seems to have created a lot of discussion.

I think the point is that at 16 they are considered responsible enough to have sex and she is considered responsible enough to become a mother and therefore be legally (and morally) responsible for that child until the child reaches maturity but is not considered responsible enough to make the decision to get married.

This was sort of along the lines of my thinking. It seems strange that when in this day and age we know the issues that can occur from single parenting, that the law is specifically preventing a child's parents from "doing the right thing" and making sure that the child has two parents from birth. Perhaps if you are going to say that 16 is too young to raise a child in wedlock, you should be saying that it is also too young to be having sex and having a child too, otherwise the law is creating legalised solo mothers.

 

[kerikiwi]

that the law is specifically preventing a child's parents from "doing the right thing" and making sure that the child has two parents from birth. Perhaps if you are going to say that 16 is too young to raise a child in wedlock, you should be saying that it is also too young to be having sex and having a child too, otherwise the law is creating legalised solo mothers.

1. The law is not preventing the parents from both being parents from birth.
What nonsense. It is preventing them from entering into a marriage contract.
That in no way stops them from doing all the things good parents do.
2. Why shouldn't solo mothers be legal?
Do you want it to be illegal to have a child without a marriage certificate?
What do you propose for people who decide to divorce, or whose spouses die?
3. Yes, as a rule 16 is way too young to be having children. Having sex is arguable.
It is not essential to produce a child when a couple indulges.
In fact having a baby unintentionally is a good sign that they are not mature enough for marriage.