Civil Partnership versus Marriage in Britain

It is probable that when the British government sanctioned marriage for same sex partners and enshrined the decision in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 they undoubtedly thought they had squared the circle of discrimination as far as equality for all life partnerships was concerned.

However that was not to be as, since Rebecca Steinfield and Charles Keidan first decided that they would prefer to have a civil partnership rather than get married and found that they were promptly knocked back, they have been campaigning ever since to challenge the decision that they do not meet the requisite legal requirement to enable them to have a civil partnership, that of being the same sex.

The couple lost their appeal yesterday at the High Court where they contended that they were subject to discrimination and state that they intend to appeal. The government welcomed the decision on the basis that “the current regime of marriage and civil partnership does not disadvantage opposite-sex couples”. 

Furthermore, it is felt that now that same-sex couples can marry it is likely that civil partnerships will fade away and eventually be phased out at some stage in the future and to amend that legislation at this stage would be an unnecessary expense, particularly as no decision has yet been made regarding civil partnerships as the government is keen to see what impact, if any, same-sex marriage has on civil partnerships. 

Ms. Steinfield and Mr. Keidan however, are keen to carry on with their campaign as they feel that civil partnership focuses on equality whereas, in their eyes, marriage is less so bringing with it patriarchal history. The couple further argue that whilst gay couples have a choice of the type of partnership they wish to embrace, opposite sex couples do not and by that token they are being discriminated against. Also, it was felt by them that their right to a private and family life was compromised. The government countered that the historical status of marriage was entirely democratic and encompassed traditional values of family life.

In light of the strong feelings that Ms. Steinfield and Mr. Keidan have in this respect it is surprising that they have not availed themselves of the facilities that the Isle of Man affords, being the only place in the British Isles that permits opposite sex civil partnership. Martin Loat and Claire Beale did and are the first heterosexual couple in the UK to have a civil partnership. 

The Ealing couple flew to the Isle of Man on October 21 to seal their 25-year relationship in a civil partnership, which brings with it all the legal responsibilities and entitlements to their relationship and children. It seems that early on in their relationship they made the decision not to marry for much the same reason as Rebecca Steinfield and Martn Keidan, too much patriarchal history. They too would like to see the legal status of civil partnership amended to include opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the fact that they found a satisfactory way round the problem.

Grounds for Terminating Parental Rights in Georgia

Numerous factors can constitute child deprivation resulting from parental misconduct and mistreatment. For example, a parent’s conviction for molesting other children could render him or her incapable of caring for a child. Likewise, if the child has been exposed to improper sexual activities or domestic violence, such conduct could suffice to demonstrate misconduct and mistreatment.

Under Georgia law, an individual’s parental rights may be terminated if:
•The parent “wantonly and willfully” failed to comply with a child support order entered in Georgia or any other state for at least 12 months or more;
•The parent consented to the termination of parental rights and such consent has been accepted by the court, or the parent voluntarily gave up the child for adoption;
•The parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances;
•The child was abandoned by the parents; or
•The child, due to a lack of appropriate parental control or care by the parent, is a dependent child and “reasonable efforts to remedy the circumstances have been unsuccessful or were not required, such cause of dependency is likely to continue or will not likely be remedied, and the continued dependency will cause or is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to such child.”

If any of the above-mentioned grounds have been met, the court will also take the following under consideration prior to determining if termination is in the child’s best interest:
•The child’s wishes and long-term goals;
•The child’s sense of attachment and the continuity of affection for the child;
•The child’s physical safety and welfare;
•The child’s need for permanence, including the need for stability and continuity of relationships with siblings, parents and other family members; and
•Any other factors as deemed relevant and appropriate by the court.

Georgia juvenile courts handle actions related to terminating parental rights and have exclusive authority to preside over such actions and render orders accordingly. Procedurally, the court handling the termination proceeding is required to follow a two-step process, as outlined below.

A number of guidelines must be followed to successfully initiate an action to terminate an individual’s parental rights. Given the serious nature of termination cases, the family law attorneys at Stearns-Montgomery & Proctor are prepared to handle your case with the utmost discretion and compassion.

The Two-Part Procedural Process for Terminating Parental Rights

Prior to making the decision to terminate one’s parental rights, the court will first examine whether clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability currently exists. In making that determination, four elements must be met:
1.The child in question must be deemed to be a “deprived” child. This means that he or she must be found to be without adequate nourishment, education and/or parental care.
2.The child’s deprived status was caused by the lack of parental care.
3.The parent’s actions with respect to the deprived child will likely continue.
4.The child’s continued deprivation will likely cause substantial harm (mental, emotional, physical or moral).

Each of these elements must be demonstrated in order for the court to find the existence of misconduct or inability.

Once a determination of misconduct/inability has been made, the court will proceed to the second step of the process, which involves examining whether or not terminating the individual’s parental rights would be in the child’s best interest
.