Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.

[Wildy]

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

It looks like he has to acknowledge that he is the father, or has legally agreed to be the father, but I don't know what has to be done though.

 

[Zep]

Wow, seems to have created a lot of discussion.



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.

Do you think you can stop every under-18 teenager from experimenting with sex, and all of them doing so from falling pregnant?

I think you are missing the point. These are non-adults who are wanting to take on the adults-only responsibility of marriage. They can get dispensation at that age by demonstrating to the correct authority (which is not their parents) they have the will and ability to do so. Many young couples are mature enough to succeed, and go onto have happy marriages and raise children. In fact, unsupported evidence suggests this is the norm in such situations here, i.e. it's usually no problem.

However this pair did not pass that simple first test, even with the incentive of a baby on the way. Which suggests very strongly that there is far more to the background story than they are telling. The impression I got from the report was this was a clear shotgun-wedding arrangement by the parents - "We is gunna go to the judge an' he's a'gonna marry yer!" Judges here do not like being used to settle scores or as political pawns and will actively take no part in such shenanigans...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, seems to have created a lot of discussion.



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.

And locking them up for statutory rape helps the situation how?

 

[Roadtoad]

Do you think you can stop every under-18 teenager from experimenting with sex, and all of them doing so from falling pregnant?

I think you are missing the point. These are non-adults who are wanting to take on the adults-only responsibility of marriage. They can get dispensation at that age by demonstrating to the correct authority (which is not their parents) they have the will and ability to do so. Many young couples are mature enough to succeed, and go onto have happy marriages and raise children. In fact, unsupported evidence suggests this is the norm in such situations here, i.e. it's usually no problem.

However this pair did not pass that simple first test, even with the incentive of a baby on the way. Which suggests very strongly that there is far more to the background story than they are telling. The impression I got from the report was this was a clear shotgun-wedding arrangement by the parents - "We is gunna go to the judge an' he's a'gonna marry yer!" Judges here do not like being used to settle scores or as political pawns and will actively take no part in such shenanigans...

I think this is the part I missed. These kids couldn't explain their "love" adequately, which leaves me wondering if perhaps there simply isn't any. Mom and Dad are simply covering the bases so the neighbors won't talk as much.

It's sad, of course, but the reality is that by forcing them into a marriage, they will multiply the chances that these kids will split up down the road. And while I think the kids will have a better chance if the young parents stay together as long as possible, the reality is that forcing this is going to create far more difficulties. I don't trust the girl's parents at all.

So, they dragged it before a judge, and the judge said no. At least for now. I'm beginning to appreciate the wisdom behind the decision.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

So legally it's fine for them to live together as a defato couple, but not a married one, got it.

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?

Sorry, I used the wrong word here. I wasn't meaning that it should be illegal, but rather that the Courts were forcing people to actually be solo mums because they were removing the option of them getting married and thus raising the kid with a spouse. It seems strange that courts would be enforcing the very thing that damages a lot of children.

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.

So they are too immature to get married, but not to raise a kid?

 

[Rasmus]

So legally it's fine for them to live together as a defato couple, but not a married one, got it.

Yes, the two issues are independent. They are not allowed to marry, whether they want to move together or not.

Sorry, I used the wrong word here. I wasn't meaning that it should be illegal, but rather that the Courts were forcing people to actually be solo mums because they were removing the option of them getting married and thus raising the kid with a spouse. It seems strange that courts would be enforcing the very thing that damages a lot of children.

They are free to raise the child as a couple, nobody forces her to raise the child alone. That is the father's decision, not the court's.

So they are too immature to get married, but not to raise a kid?

Again, the court didn'T give them permission to procreate and get a child. I think they are not mature enough to raise a child. But I think it is reasonable to have different standards here for the court to decide when to intervene.

Not letting them marry yet is not such a big deal, so very little evidence is needed to support that desision. Taking the child away would be a very big deal, so the descision had better be backed up by tons and tons of very specific evidence or underlying reason.

Again, I see a number of benefits they would have if they were allowed to raise their child as a married couple. But a marriage means a whole lot more than just that. What if they want to decide to not stay together two or three years down the line? A marriage would make that a lot more difficult, e.g. And the question here is not if they would benefit from a marriage or if they think they are in love now, but if they understand those implications and if they are mature enough to then make an informed decision. It seems the judge doesn't think so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, I used the wrong word here. I wasn't meaning that it should be illegal, but rather that the Courts were forcing people to actually be solo mums because they were removing the option of them getting married and thus raising the kid with a spouse. It seems strange that courts would be enforcing the very thing that damages a lot of children.

How can the courts force the father to be uninvolved if he wants to be and isn't proven to be a bad parent? The girls parents would seem to be the only ones who could do that at this time, and he could fight for partial custody of the kid.

So they are too immature to get married, but not to raise a kid?

It is easier to prevent them from getting married than getting pregnant.

 

[stevea]

...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!

First there is an excellent chance that these two will have a falling out once the realities of dirty diapers and "adult/parental responsibilities" kick-in. My *feeling* is that's probably the best outcome, without knowing the ppl involved and situation in detail.

OTOH I'm libertarian enough to let these two make a car wreck of their lives once they are 18. It's not a greek tragedy - it's common, and maybe my pessimistic assessment will prove wrong in this specific case. Not my business ultimately.