home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 54405 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-06  |  1.3 KB
  1. Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54405 alt.dads-rights:3196 alt.feminism:6885 soc.men:22297 soc.women:22260
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!gcf
  3. From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
  4. Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
  5. Subject: Re: Affirmative Action on Custody
  6. Message-ID: <1993Jan6.223214.399@panix.com>
  7. Date: 6 Jan 93 22:32:14 GMT
  8. References: <C0EHs2.169@cs.psu.edu> <1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <C0FtDD.1oE@cs.psu.edu>
  9. Organization: mydog in exile
  10. Lines: 19
  11.  
  12. I think this is a sort of answer to my "what happens down
  13. at the courthouse" query in a related thread....
  14.  
  15. beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
  16. | >>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
  17. | >>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
  18.  
  19. A beginning, anyway.  What's "presumption"?  I'm familiar
  20. with legal terms like _prima_facie_ which relate to 
  21. presumption, but in this case I'm not sure how it would 
  22. work -- or whether it would solve the problem.  Does it
  23. mean that custody would be awarded to the father 
  24. regardless of the apparent welfare of the child, or
  25. what?  What if not enough fathers sought custody, would
  26. the courts be required to recruit -- draft -- them?
  27. -- 
  28.  
  29.  )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
  30. ( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
  31.