Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <1010@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 19:59:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.1010
Posted: Wed Feb  5 19:59:49 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 04:35:03 EST
References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: CONTEL CADO Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.women:8764 net.singles:10154

In article <125@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>One problematical side-effect:  My SO is trying to adopt my eldest daughter.
>There is no contention from my former husband.  Yet the Dept of Social
>Services recommends to the court not to allow the adoption because we are
>not married.  This, frankly, is laughable.  In the first place, it doesn't
>have any consistancy with divorce law (when you divorce, the court recog-
>nises the separate relationships of wife-husband and parent-child and
>provides for them).  Yet, according to the Dept of Social Services, there
>is no separation -- if Jon wants to be Megan's daddy, he also has to become
>Mr. Regard.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Why not marry the guy, adopt the daughter, then divorce the guy.  Marriages
and divorces are a lot cheaper than court battles if they are mutually
agreed upon.  Unless of course, the divorce would further monkey with the
'parent' status of your SO and your daughter, have you looked into it?
If this works, you could then thumb your nose at the stupid adoption system.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa