Platonic Parenting???

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/31/i-wanted-to-meet-a-mate-and-have-a-baby-without-wasting-time-the-rise-of-platonic-co-parenting?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As if family law attorneys aren't busy enough already. 

I suppose this sort of thing is a step up from a one-night stand, but still ...

No, marriage is no guarantee that things won't turn sour.  Nevertheless ...

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

[longview]

Will this new trend lead to more casual "family" arrangements?  Greater chances of alienation of children having to deal with biological parents who are not so committed, not so engaged?  Which will lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy:

D&C 45:27. And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound.

[poptart]

I'd love to hear from the legal scholars on this one.   I cannot understand why any rational adult would do something like this, when I do get into relationships I specifically avoid people with kids for that reason, the risk of he/she going to a judge, claiming their child depends on me and boom i'm on the hook for child support. 

 

By the way, would parenting by estoppel come into play?  I am not a lawyer but love learning about things like this.  Thanks!

Edited November 4, 2020 by poptart

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

Unless some of the participants are LDS, why would it be expected to square with our church's beliefs? At any rate, I don't see this as becoming a worldwide trend anytime soon. Generally speaking, we are a species that tends to prefer pair bonds. I understand the trend for single motherhood but I must admit, its a little mystifying to see young men intentionally embark on the single fatherhood voyage. I feel certain that the majority of men would reject that type of arrangement.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Unless some of the participants are LDS, why would it be expected to square with our church's beliefs? At any rate, I don't see this as becoming a worldwide trend anytime soon. Generally speaking, we are a species that tends to prefer pair bonds. I understand the trend for single motherhood but I must admit, its a little mystifying to see young men intentionally embark on the single fatherhood voyage. I feel certain that the majority of men would reject that type of arrangement.

I agree with your implicit assertion here that demanding that the world conform to the standards of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints won't work.  It would not be effective to try to impart Living Water, no matter how desperately it might be needed, through a fire hose set at full blast.  Certainly, time, and care, and soil preparation, and careful cultivation are needed.  However, are we so used to calling it "The Family Proclamation" or "The Proclamation on the Family" that we've forgotten its intended audience? 

It is directed inward.  Any member of the Church of Jesus Christ who is not abiding by its precepts had best weed his or her own garden.  However, it also is directed (and I would argue, primarily so), as the subtitle suggests, outward.  There is no religious limitation on its precepts.  The Wikipedia article on The Family: A Proclamation to the World (last accessed November 4, 2020) has this to say about its influence outside circles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Quote

The Proclamation has also been influential among leaders of other religious traditions. For example, in 2014 the Vatican's Humanum: An International Interreligious Colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman featured several world leaders including Pope Francis and Muslim theologian Dr. Rasoul Rasoulipour quoting from or citing its basic teachings.

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, poptart said:

I'd love to hear from the legal scholars on this one.

Certainly, it does, potentially, muddy the waters, which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned.  More than enough people bring offspring into the world in less-than-ideal circumstances through infidelity, uncommitted relationships, and other, similar circumstances and arrangements as it is.  I don't think that sort of thing should be encouraged.

2 hours ago, poptart said:

By the way, would parenting by estoppel come into play?  I am not a lawyer but love learning about things like this.  Thanks!

I am not an attorney, and this commentary is not legal advice.  Anyone with family law questions should contact a family law attorney who is licensed to practice where the matter arose.  Having said that, yes, depending on the law of the jurisdiction, parenting by estoppel might come into play.  If a father decides he no longer wants to "platonically co-parent" the child, I think the proper legal argument in response is, You contributed sperm, willingly, to father this child.  You had a pre-planned arrangement with the mother about parenting this child.  And, no, you cannot, now, simply abandon that arrangement even if, now, you have decided that you no longer want the heavy responsibilities that come with it. 

And the converse of that argument, if someone parents a child but did not conceive the child biologically, is, You have provided food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and (presumably) love and attention to the child.  Whatever the biological arrangement, in every way that matters most, you are that child's parent.  I think one of the problems with family law is that, too often, "the best interests of the child," which are supposed to predominate and to be paramount in family law, get turned on their heads.  Too often, a (non-biological) father in the second situation gets kicked to the curb, to the detriment of the child, when a sperm-donor "father" finally shows up, creating havoc and chaos for the child in the name of protecting the sperm-donor "father's" rights.

In the situation just discussed, often, fathers will say, "I didn't know she was pregnant," then, the next question, in my mind becomes, "How long did you stick around?  Did you want to know?  If you didn't want to know then but you want to know now, sorry, as much as I might feel for your plight, I'm not disrupting this child's current, stable family relationships simply to vindicate your supposed 'rights' as a father."

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Certainly, it does, potentially, muddy the waters, which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned.  More than enough people bring offspring into the world in less-than-ideal circumstances through infidelity, uncommitted relationships, and other, similar circumstances and arrangements as it is.  I don't think that sort of thing should be encouraged.

I am not an attorney, and this commentary is not legal advice.  Anyone with family law questions should contact a family law attorney who is licensed to practice where the matter arose.  Having said that, yes, depending on the law of the jurisdiction, parenting by estoppel might come into play.  If a father decides he no longer wants to "platonically co-parent" the child, I think the proper legal argument in response is, You contributed sperm, willingly, to father this child.  You had a pre-planned arrangement with the mother about parenting this child.  And, no, you cannot, now, simply abandon that arrangement even if, now, you have decided that you no longer want the heavy responsibilities that come with it. 

And the converse of that argument, if someone parents a child but did not conceive the child biologically, is, You have provided food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and (presumably) love and attention to the child.  Whatever the biological arrangement, in every way that matters most, you are that child's parent.  I think one of the problems with family law is that, too often, "the best interests of the child," which are supposed to predominate and to be paramount in family law, get turned on their heads.  Too often, a (non-biological) father in the second situation gets kicked to the curb, to the detriment of the child, when a sperm-donor "father" finally shows up, creating havoc and chaos for the child in the name of protecting the sperm-donor "father's" rights.

In the situation just discussed, often, fathers will say, "I didn't know she was pregnant," then, the next question, in my mind becomes, "How long did you stick around?  Did you want to know?  If you didn't want to know then but you want to know now, sorry, as much as I might feel for your plight, I'm not disrupting this child's current, stable family relationships simply to vindicate your supposed 'rights' as a father."

why don't others worry about how they do life and you worry about how you do life. You don't know these people and so you aren't personally investet but you know yourself, just live your life😊

[Calm]

It would be best to develop a strong friendship first. Hopefully most do.   And better for a kid that both want to commit to parenting at the beginning rather than only one parent being there.  

Didn’t read the whole article...waiting to be sure the dog stopped barking, then going back for a few more hours sleep  

But if this turns into babies commuting between parents, that is not going to be good. Constantly changing environments. Switching primary caregivers. I can see bonding issues  at the very least. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why don't others worry about how they do life and you worry about how you do life. You don't know these people and so you aren't personally investet but you know yourself, just live your life😊

Well, the children raised will be the adults of the future and if they are mucked up, that has lots of implications for the rest of society if this were to become a big thing. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, the children raised will be the adults of the future and if they are mucked up, that has lots of implications for the rest of society if this were to become a big thing. 

I guess time will tell! I wonder if Kenngo will deal with it? 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I guess time will tell! I wonder if Kenngo will deal with it? 

Would you tell someone to ignore a potentially abusive situation as not personally invested?  Or kids born into illiterate families who could probably use a boost with early schooling intervention?

Serious question...not trying to nanny you. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you tell someone to ignore a potentially abusive situation as not personally invested?  Or kids born into illiterate families who could probably use a boost with early schooling intervention?

Serious question...not trying to nanny you. 

the first is illegal so no I personally wouldn't and me personally if I saw a family with illiterate kids I would call the authorities and let them deal with it. In saying that i've seen home schooled kids that turned out terrible but what can you do? you can't force people

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

the first is illegal so no I personally wouldn't and me personally if I saw a family with illiterate kids I would call the authorities and let them deal with it. In saying that i've seen home schooled kids that turned out terrible but what can you do? you can't force people

Thanks for answering (I enjoy seeing how other people think things through) 

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/31/i-wanted-to-meet-a-mate-and-have-a-baby-without-wasting-time-the-rise-of-platonic-co-parenting?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As if family law attorneys aren't busy enough already. 

I suppose this sort of thing is a step up from a one-night stand, but still ...

No, marriage is no guarantee that things won't turn sour.  Nevertheless ...

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

Hmm, casually having children.  Without the parents being "in love" with each other and without them living in the same house together.  Sounds like the way many parents have already been living.  Their children may not ever know better.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Certainly, it does, potentially, muddy the waters, which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned.  More than enough people bring offspring into the world in less-than-ideal circumstances through infidelity, uncommitted relationships, and other, similar circumstances and arrangements as it is.  I don't think that sort of thing should be encouraged.

I am not an attorney, and this commentary is not legal advice.  Anyone with family law questions should contact a family law attorney who is licensed to practice where the matter arose.  Having said that, yes, depending on the law of the jurisdiction, parenting by estoppel might come into play.  If a father decides he no longer wants to "platonically co-parent" the child, I think the proper legal argument in response is, You contributed sperm, willingly, to father this child.  You had a pre-planned arrangement with the mother about parenting this child.  And, no, you cannot, now, simply abandon that arrangement even if, now, you have decided that you no longer want the heavy responsibilities that come with it. 

And the converse of that argument, if someone parents a child but did not conceive the child biologically, is, You have provided food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and (presumably) love and attention to the child.  Whatever the biological arrangement, in every way that matters most, you are that child's parent.  I think one of the problems with family law is that, too often, "the best interests of the child," which are supposed to predominate and to be paramount in family law, get turned on their heads.  Too often, a (non-biological) father in the second situation gets kicked to the curb, to the detriment of the child, when a sperm-donor "father" finally shows up, creating havoc and chaos for the child in the name of protecting the sperm-donor "father's" rights.

In the situation just discussed, often, fathers will say, "I didn't know she was pregnant," then, the next question, in my mind becomes, "How long did you stick around?  Did you want to know?  If you didn't want to know then but you want to know now, sorry, as much as I might feel for your plight, I'm not disrupting this child's current, stable family relationships simply to vindicate your supposed 'rights' as a father."

As someone who had a pretty bad childhood, it makes me sick when I  think about how people ruin their children and don't care about how things will be for them as adults.  Not everyone should breed.

This reminds me why I avoid children and most of my IRL friends and circles are child free, the politics and headache that goes with contemporary families here.  Glad I opted out, thanks for reminded me why I did.  People who put their kids through stuff like this deserve whatever horrible things karma throws at them later on in life.

[Damien the Leper]

No matter how much someone may want to argue, albeit from biased authority, the FP is not binding on the rest of the world as it does not address real specific issues that are part of everyday life. Sure it may make mention of generalized issues and fear monger with "calamities" but it does little to provide a foundation for "proper" or "appropriate" family dynamics. The antiquated and obsolete nuclear family that is idolized by self proclaimed "traditionalists" is of no consequence or relevance to how people determine and define their families in 2020. The nuclear family is more a preferred method rather than a 21st century standard.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

No matter how much someone may want to argue, albeit from biased authority, the FP is not binding on the rest of the world as it does not address real specific issues that are part of everyday life. Sure it may make mention of generalized issues and fear monger with "calamities" but it does little to provide a foundation for "proper" or "appropriate" family dynamics. The antiquated and obsolete nuclear family that is idolized by self proclaimed "traditionalists" is of no consequence or relevance to how people determine and define their families in 2020. The nuclear family is more a preferred method rather than a 21st century standard.

Fortunately, even today, in 2020, the nuclear family consisting of a Father and Mother and children is still the default version of every family relationship in existence, whether or not some people want to try to add to or take away something from it.

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

No matter how much someone may want to argue, albeit from biased authority, the FP is not binding on the rest of the world as it does not address real specific issues that are part of everyday life. Sure it may make mention of generalized issues and fear monger with "calamities" but it does little to provide a foundation for "proper" or "appropriate" family dynamics. The antiquated and obsolete nuclear family that is idolized by self proclaimed "traditionalists" is of no consequence or relevance to how people determine and define their families in 2020. The nuclear family is more a preferred method rather than a 21st century standard.

Th nuclear family is a relatively new concept, too new to be called antiquated. Americans are weird compared to many other cultures that keep aging parents with them and adult children as well. I think that if all parties can work together well in a healthy manner, then it's good. Pretty soon my SIL, MIL, and FIL will move into our home. I'm looking forward to the time we will have with them.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

why don't others worry about how they do life and you worry about how you do life. You don't know these people and so you aren't personally investet but you know yourself, just live your life😊

I appreciate your contribution.  I'm sorry you don't feel that I am entitled to have any opinions on the matter under discussion, but, if that's your opinion, you're entitled to it.  Thanks.

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree with your implicit assertion here that demanding that the world conform to the standards of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints won't work.  It would not be effective to try to impart Living Water, no matter how desperately it might be needed, through a fire hose set at full blast.  Certainly, time, and care, and soil preparation, and careful cultivation are needed.  However, are we so used to calling it "The Family Proclamation" or "The Proclamation on the Family" that we've forgotten its intended audience? 

It is directed inward.  Any member of the Church of Jesus Christ who is not abiding by its precepts had best weed his or her own garden.  However, it also is directed (and I would argue, primarily so), as the subtitle suggests, outward.  There is no religious limitation on its precepts.  The Wikipedia article on The Family: A Proclamation to the World (last accessed November 4, 2020) has this to say about its influence outside circles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

 

Kidding...kind of...So the Pope agrees with the LDS Proclamation on the Family? He is more Catholic than I thought!

Edit: So there was a quote above that didn't copy about Pope Francis liking it. Yeah...I know. It wasn't that funny anyway. 😕

Edited November 5, 2020 by 3DOP

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

why don't others worry about how they do life and you worry about how you do life. You don't know these people and so you aren't personally investet but you know yourself, just live your life😊

Because, as Calm pointed out, there are real consequences for society as a whole if these children don't turn out well.

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

No matter how much someone may want to argue, albeit from biased authority, the FP is not binding on the rest of the world as it does not address real specific issues that are part of everyday life. Sure it may make mention of generalized issues and fear monger with "calamities" but it does little to provide a foundation for "proper" or "appropriate" family dynamics. The antiquated and obsolete nuclear family that is idolized by self proclaimed "traditionalists" is of no consequence or relevance to how people determine and define their families in 2020. The nuclear family is more a preferred method rather than a 21st century standard.

I appreciate the fact that you're coming at the issue from a different vantage point and using a different paradigm.  But even though I disagree with gay marriage, if two gays or lesbians wish to marry and to parent children, I believe they should be committed, faithful, and monogamous, and should do everything else possible to provide a stable, nurturing environment for the children involved.  I certainly wouldn't support them having any sort of an arrangement akin to the one discussed in the article I link to in the opening post because they view children as some sort of "desirable accessory."  And, to be perfectly blunt, that seems to be exactly how many of the folks engaged in "platonic coparenting" view the children who result from their relationships.

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Hmm, casually having children.  Without the parents being "in love" with each other and without them living in the same house together.  Sounds like the way many parents have already been living.  Their children may not ever know better.

To be clear (notwithstanding Duncan's rep point), I don't think you're arguing that the status quo or that any new "innovation" such as that detailed in the article linked to in the opening post is a good thing.  (Knowing you as I think I do through your posting history, I highly doubt it ... to put it mildly.)

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Fortunately, even today, in 2020, the nuclear family consisting of a Father and Mother and children is still the default version of every family relationship in existence, whether or not some people want to try to add to or take away something from it.

Default is a far cry from "authoritative" or "appropriate" no matter how much one may wish it so.

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Th nuclear family is a relatively new concept, too new to be called antiquated. Americans are weird compared to many other cultures that keep aging parents with them and adult children as well. I think that if all parties can work together well in a healthy manner, then it's good. Pretty soon my SIL, MIL, and FIL will move into our home. I'm looking forward to the time we will have with them.

Relatively new by what standard? Your case is anecdotal and not at all universal. 

[Damien the Leper]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Because, as Calm pointed out, there are real consequences for society as a whole if these children don't turn out well.

I appreciate the fact that you're coming at the issue from a different vantage point and using a different paradigm.  But even though I disagree with gay marriage, if two gays or lesbians wish to marry and to parent children, I believe they should be committed, faithful, and monogamous, and should do everything else possible to provide a stable, nurturing environment for the children involved.  I certainly wouldn't support them having any sort of an arrangement akin to the one discussed in the article I link to in the opening post because they view children as some sort of "desirable accessory."  And, to be perfectly blunt, that seems to be exactly how many of the folks engaged in "platonic coparenting" view the children who result from their relationships.

I agree with you, sir. Children are not an accessory. However, to want to be a parent despite not being in a relationship is not morally unacceptable. I have a straight male friend who chose surrogacy because he wanted to be a father and rather than have a child as a positive consequence of a marriage. IOW, his choice to be a father had everything to do with him and the child. The negative consequence of this is that there are ignoramuses who make assumptions about the type of sex life he chooses to live. Vile and disgusting lot they are. Even if promiscuity were an issue, it is none of society's business.