So here's an abomination for your Monday, one that would have been considered a reductio just, say, ten years ago. Of course we aren't going to share a child among three "parents," we would have been told. Well, guess what? The great state of New York is mandating that three adults share custody of one child.
I'll try to summarize the abominable mess briefly: A and B (man and woman) were married. Then they decided to have a "polyamorous" relationship that included C (a woman). B was infertile, so C and A conceived a baby together. Then B and C decided that they wanted to be a woman-woman "couple," so they broke up with A and moved out together. A and B got divorced. Now even the two women are "no longer romantically involved," though it sounds like they might still live together. The story is unclear on that point. The biological son of A and C is now ten years old.
Woman B got worried that, since she isn't the boy's biological mother, nor even in any legally recognized relationship with his biological mother, nor in any legally recognized relationship with his biological father, nor an adoptive parent of the boy, she might at some point not be able to have any relationship with him at all. Woman C supported her getting this cleared up legally and being officially recognized as his "parent." Maybe for political reasons. His father, A, didn't want his ex-wife, who is not related to the boy in any way, to be officially recognized as his "parent," so he opposed it, so it went to court.
Here's the outcome:
On Wednesday, Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge H. Patrick Leis granted Dawn the right to visit with her son on Wednesday nights, and have custody for one week of school vacation and two weeks of summer. In part through interviews with the boy, Leis determined that all three adults were in fact parents to the child—they had shown him love and been involved in his upbringing, and it was in his best interest to continue his relationships with all three of them.
If the two women are still living together, I'm not sure what actual difference this now makes to the boy's living arrangement, since presumably the "custody for one week of school vacation and two weeks of summer" would just look like living with his biological mother and her live-in whatever-she-is-now, as he mostly does anyway. If they are not living together, now or in the future, it means he will literally be shunted around among the homes of three different adults, as he is currently to some degree shuttled back and forth between his biological mother and father.
If you can't see that this is nuts, you need your head examined. And why stop at three? Hey, let's keep going. There are 52 weeks in a year, so maybe that means a kid could have up to 52 different "parents."
Notice Slate's summary of the judge's definition of "parent." One who has "shown him love and been involved in his upbringing." By that definition, all of my church youth leaders were my parents. The boy in this case has been taught that he has two moms and speaks of them accordingly, but that doesn't mean it's "in his best interests" to be in shared custody among three adults.
I don't know where this will end, but we're off to the races now. Will there be a point at which some judge says, "Enough. I will not trade this child among multiple people just to affirm the adults' agenda"? Will a judge be allowed to do that?
Pray for our country.