[net.women] Regarding Regard's Re-Guardian Problem

kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (02/07/86)

Adrienne Regard laments that the Courts won't let her SO adopt
her eldest daughter, Megan.

Adrienne, you may be able to accomplish the functional equivalent
of adoption without going through adoption procedings.  As Megan's
parent and legal guardian, you can legally appoint your SO as
your agent with respect to your responsibilities of guardianship
of your minor children.  By enabling your SO to play the role of
parent, he ipso facto *becomes* Megan's parent.  You may recall
that administrators of prep schools and universities sometimes
invoke the principal of "in loco parentis" to govern the activities
of youngsters placed in their charge.  You are free to extend the
same privilege to your SO if he, for instance, takes Megan on an
outing.  If all three parties privately consent to the arrangement
no petition to the government is required.

"Never, ever, ever, ever ask permission.  You don't want to extend
to the other party the power to grant or deny permission."

				--Kort's Law of Dealing with Authority

-Barry Kort

scott@hou2g.UUCP (Mr. Berry) (02/07/86)

> "Never, ever, ever, ever ask permission.  You don't want to extend
> to the other party the power to grant or deny permission."
> 				--Kort's Law of Dealing with Authority

"It's easier to be forgiven after the fact than to get permission 
 in the first place."

				--Berry's corollary to Kort's Law

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (02/13/86)

In article <803@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP writes:
>
>> "Never, ever, ever, ever ask permission.  You don't want to extend
>> to the other party the power to grant or deny permission."
>> 				--Kort's Law of Dealing with Authority
>
>"It's easier to be forgiven after the fact than to get permission 
> in the first place."
>
>				--Berry's corollary to Kort's Law

I can certainly testify to the validity of these laws.  A good friend of mine
made a deal with a local sandwich shop owner (Daddy Cool's in Redondo Beach)
to paint a large advertising 'logo' on the side of his building.  He wanted
to do it *right* so he went to the local chamber of commerce, to get his
design *approved*.  Of course, they jacked him around for awhile, and finally
stated that he couldn't paint a sign that covered more than 1/4 of the wall
rather than the whole wall as he originally intended.  It was obvious that if
he had just painted the damn thing, no one would be the wiser, but the 
local *authority* just loved to exert their *power* in this situation, and
force modifications to the original design.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"

mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (02/16/86)

Summary:

In <1013@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>I can certainly testify to the validity of these laws.  A good friend of mine
>made a deal with a local sandwich shop owner (Daddy Cool's in Redondo Beach)
>to paint a large advertising 'logo' on the side of his building.  He wanted
>to do it *right* so he went to the local chamber of commerce, to get his
>design *approved*.  Of course, they jacked him around for awhile, and finally
>stated that he couldn't paint a sign that covered more than 1/4 of the wall
>rather than the whole wall as he originally intended.  It was obvious that if
>he had just painted the damn thing, no one would be the wiser, but the 
>local *authority* just loved to exert their *power* in this situation, and
>force modifications to the original design.

Here in Columbus, there is a fish store with a large mural painted on the side
of it (featuring fish in an underwater setting).  About three years after it
was painted, the local Council noticed and summoned the owner of the store to a
hearing.  They decided the mural was a commercial advertisement that exceeeded
the size allowed by the zoning ordinances and gave him a choice of paying a
BIG fine and risking jail or painting over the wall.  A large stink was made by
the locals because THEY thought of it as art, not a big billboard and THEY
liked having it there.  Now:  who are the zoning laws designed to protect?
The same folks who say they like the painting.  I believe that a variance was
granted, but it was a HUGE hassle.

DISCLAIMER:  The above story is basically true.  Some details may be inaccurate
due to hazy memory of events of two years ago that I didn't pay much attention
to at the time.
-- 
< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Mark D. Freeman                        			    mdf@osu-eddie.uucp
StrongPoint Systems, Inc.				    mdf@osu-eddie.arpa
Guest account at The Ohio State University		 !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf

I speak, therefore I disclaim everything I say.
< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >