<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Finally! Some judicial common sense (and sound reasoning) on what qualifies one as a parent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/finally-some-judicial-common-sense-and-sound-reasoning-on-what-qualifies-one-as-a-parent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/finally-some-judicial-common-sense-and-sound-reasoning-on-what-qualifies-one-as-a-parent/</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:17:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heidi</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/finally-some-judicial-common-sense-and-sound-reasoning-on-what-qualifies-one-as-a-parent/#comment-3270</link>
		<dc:creator>Heidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 05:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2935#comment-3270</guid>
		<description>Eek.  That kind of decision entirely ignores the best interests of the children involved.  Shame on the court for ignoring the parent-child relationship that exists between this mother and her children.  And shame on the mother with legal rights to the children for denying the fact that these kids have two parents, regardless of legality.  Of course, we don&#039;t know what the &quot;incident&quot; is to which the article refers, and perhaps that is reason for the non-adoptive parent to not be involved with the kids, but it still does not provide a good basis for bad law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eek.  That kind of decision entirely ignores the best interests of the children involved.  Shame on the court for ignoring the parent-child relationship that exists between this mother and her children.  And shame on the mother with legal rights to the children for denying the fact that these kids have two parents, regardless of legality.  Of course, we don&#8217;t know what the &#8220;incident&#8221; is to which the article refers, and perhaps that is reason for the non-adoptive parent to not be involved with the kids, but it still does not provide a good basis for bad law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Wig</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/finally-some-judicial-common-sense-and-sound-reasoning-on-what-qualifies-one-as-a-parent/#comment-3158</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Wig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2935#comment-3158</guid>
		<description>One issue this case raises is why can&#039;t 2 moms parent as well as 1 Mom and 1 Dad.  Or for that matter, 3 or 4 moms!  Why limit adoption to just 2!?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One issue this case raises is why can&#8217;t 2 moms parent as well as 1 Mom and 1 Dad.  Or for that matter, 3 or 4 moms!  Why limit adoption to just 2!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 4/9 queries in 0.010 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2012-02-11 16:44:18 -->
