Tim- Now you are hitting on the social definition, much more important than any legal definition. And your right- please forgive my chauvinistic slip- it should be "parental" and not "paternal". I think I had the three children I had seen that day on my mind- in these it was a "paternal" problem. Take care- Kim Burlingham, MD -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ferguson <> To: <> Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 12:55 PM Subject: Re: kids with no dads >On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:37:34 -0500, you wrote: > >>in the state of Texas paternal rights can be terminated either >>electively by a parent or the rights can be adversely removed by the State >>in the case of child abuse. Paternal rights must also be terminated prior >>to adoption. Once rights are terminated the parent has no say in the >>child's upbringing and looses the right to make any decision on the child's >>behalf (such as a medical or therapeutic decision) I believe that though >>the parent can terminate his rights, the child is still considered a >>rightful heir and can inherit the parent's estate. > >I can see how parental "rights" came about in a common-sense way, but >it all gets very slippery when you look at it closely. Where do >parental duties come in: the duty to protect the child from harm, to >promote the child's access to education and health services, the >responsibility for the child's emotional and social well-being? You >know, all that International Rights of the Child Stuff. As with so >much of our legislation, it's all about the adults, with very little >in it for the ones who can't vote. > >Incidentally, I've just noticed that you were talking about _paternal_ >rights rather than _parental_. Subtle difference, but I guess >important if you're a mother? > >Best wishes > >Tim F > >-- ><!--- ---> > > >