![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecunium"We are confronted here with the heartbreaking facture of a family. Brett and Patrick have spent twenty-five years together as life partners – longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents – and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick’s medical condition and by the Atkinses’ unwillingness to accept their son’s lifestyle."
Some of the other details are just appalling.
“the Atkinses acknowledged that it was ‘probably true’ that if the trial court did not order them to allow visitation between Patrick and Brett, they would not allow any contact between the life partners.”
The men in question have joint ownership of a home, the ill-partner's family have been given complete control of it.
Which seems to be a theft, to me; certainly in the "L"ibertarian sense.
On a more personal scale, I'm watching a failure to think ahead cause problems. A freind's son got married about four years ago. Only it seems he didn't. Someone made mistakes filing paperwork (I don't know all the details) and the marriage was never recorded.
They have a child. She has decided that things aren't working. She left, took their kid to her parents and took up residence with friends. Now she wants to move to Missouri, with their kid.
Since they aren't married... it's going to be ugly. Her parents delivered a strange "agreement" for him to sign. One in which he is supposed to waive all parental rights, not allow any future girlfriends to influence the child and give her permission to "do whatever she deems necessary to to further [the child's] best interests."
There is a promise that, if he agrees to this, he'll get custody for most of the summer.
Mind you, as I read it, that last isn't binding, since, by the terms above, he has 1: no rights, and 2: the mother gets to do whatever she deems in the best interests of the child.
Needless to say, he hasn't signed it, and is going into debt with his lawyer.
It would be differently difficult were they married, in fact, but at least the terms of the dispute would be known.
Some of the other details are just appalling.
“the Atkinses acknowledged that it was ‘probably true’ that if the trial court did not order them to allow visitation between Patrick and Brett, they would not allow any contact between the life partners.”
The men in question have joint ownership of a home, the ill-partner's family have been given complete control of it.
Which seems to be a theft, to me; certainly in the "L"ibertarian sense.
On a more personal scale, I'm watching a failure to think ahead cause problems. A freind's son got married about four years ago. Only it seems he didn't. Someone made mistakes filing paperwork (I don't know all the details) and the marriage was never recorded.
They have a child. She has decided that things aren't working. She left, took their kid to her parents and took up residence with friends. Now she wants to move to Missouri, with their kid.
Since they aren't married... it's going to be ugly. Her parents delivered a strange "agreement" for him to sign. One in which he is supposed to waive all parental rights, not allow any future girlfriends to influence the child and give her permission to "do whatever she deems necessary to to further [the child's] best interests."
There is a promise that, if he agrees to this, he'll get custody for most of the summer.
Mind you, as I read it, that last isn't binding, since, by the terms above, he has 1: no rights, and 2: the mother gets to do whatever she deems in the best interests of the child.
Needless to say, he hasn't signed it, and is going into debt with his lawyer.
It would be differently difficult were they married, in fact, but at least the terms of the dispute would be known.
