Should it be legal for a man to leave his wife without giving prior notice?

[Boojatta]

Scenario #1: A man and his wife have no children. They live together. Without giving prior notice, the man says that he is leaving and not coming back. He walks out the door. When his wife later gets into communication with him, he says that he might be willing to meet her in a public place where witnesses are present, but not otherwise.

Scenario #2: A boy and his single mother live together. Without giving prior notice, the boy says that he is leaving and not coming back. He walks out the door. When his mother later gets into communication with him, he says that he might be willing to meet her in a public place where witnesses are present, but not otherwise.

In scenario #2, unless the boy has received prior permission from the government, he cannot leave without violating his mother's custody rights. His mother is entitled by law to have him in her private home, and he is threatening to violate the law when he says that he will meet her only in a public place where witnesses are present.

[LooseWilly]

1. Are we considering the idea that a child is legally property?

Or are we considering the idea that a spouse should also be considered property, as a child is?

How about yes?...

[BlooInBloo]

4. I took it the idea was that the dad was considered property of the child.

[LooseWilly]

22. Hmm... but if the dad is the property of the child...

and the child is the property of the mother (assuming, of course, maternally granted custody rights)... then, by the transitive property... we once again have the dad belonging to the mom. Ipso Facto, I think.

In which case, obviously the dad would need a court order to leave the mom.

[BlooInBloo]

25. "Quod erat demonstratum" is what you were after, I think....

Stupid transitivity. :P

[Obamanaut]

41. "...demonstrandum..." ? edited to add '?' nt

[LooseWilly]

60. I suspect that your Latin Trumps mine...

touche, sir.

[marshall]

62. In a sense that is true

The child has a government protected interest in the wage earnings of the parent. That dynamic is not reciprocal.

[Laelth]

13. A child is NOT property.

Since the Civil War, no human in the United States can be property. That is well-settled law.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LooseWilly]

24. Then why did my son's mom need a signed letter from me to take him out of the country?

I submit to you, it was a matter of property rights. Permission was required of a co-owner.

[Laelth]

27. No. That's a question of parental rights.

Not property rights.

The SCOTUS has ruled that parents have the right (protected at strict scrutiny) to rear their children as they see fit. That includes making decisions about the health, welfare, education, and spiritual upbringing of the child. It also includes physical custody of the child (the right to determine where the child is at any given moment and with whom the child associates).

But none of that makes the child property. Property can always be sold. Children can not. Property has no rights of its own. Children do. If you abuse your child, the State can take away your parental rights and then make decisions about the health, welfare, education, and spiritual upbringing of the child, but that does not make the child property.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LooseWilly]

38. You say tomato, I say tomato...

Hmm, that doesn't carry the same weight in print... :shrug:

If I own a townhouse, and the HOA doesn't like the paint I apply to it... then the State will (following court proceedings) enforce a penalty upon me.

If I leave my car parked in the same place in Oakland for 73 consecutive hours, the City has the right to enforce a penalty (they can tow it).

If I drive a car on the street with no functioning lights... the State will enforce a penalty upon me.

If I wear clothing so torn that my {expletives deleted} hang out, the City will enforce a penalty upon me.

My townhouse has the right to be treated according to standards dictated by the HOA. My car has the right to exercise (specifically, at least 1 mile of travel per 72 hours). My car has the right to functioning headlights, taillights, brakelights, and turnsignals. My pants have the right to not be perforated according to the agreements of a number of anti-nudist conventions.

I sometimes wonder, after seeing sickness like Jesus Camp, if maybe a car has more rights than a child.

On the other hand, my car (thankfully) isn't granted freedom when it's old enough to vote...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. That's funny and quite silly.

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) If it's legal for a woman, and assuming there's no personal safety issues involved.

[Morning Dew]

3. What if

Mr. Ed leaves Wilbur and etc.

Should that be legal?

[Duer 157099]

5. Isn't the difference that one is a minor?

I don't really get this question, unless it's referring to something else that I don't know about.

:shrug:

[madeline_con]

6. Women do not have "custody" of their S.O's, so yes, it should remain

legal to haul ass at will, for either sex.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. Of course it's legal for a man to do this.

For the child, I don't know.

Spouses are NOT property.

:shrug:

[styersc]

8. The man's an adult. If the shoe was on the other foot and the

woman left the man, and fearing for her safety, she refused to meet anywhere but a public place, the scenario would not only seem reasonable, but smart.

Many divorce lawyers suggest that their client only meet the partner in a public place, if at all.

[ddeclue]

9. YES - next question...

[abumbyanyothername]

10. I'm not sure that I understand the question

And typically there are property issues involved that don't really go to the question of whether a spouse or a child is property. In California and some other states, all earnings are community property of the marital estate. In fact, a husband can be asked, upon divorce, to reimburse his wife for child support that he paid to a former spouse out of his own earnings (which are in fact not his, but community property).

[ejpoeta]

11. last i checked, an adult has the right to do what they want... that means they could walk off

and not tell anyone where they are going. even if married, a man or woman are not property of the other or required to do anything. while it would be common decency to tell someone, you aren't required to.

[HamdenRice]

12. There is not wife. Only Zuul !!!

You've spammed multiple smaller forums of DU with your insane questions. I don't think it's a good idea for you to start posting this crap in GD.

[valerief]

14. Door number 3. nt

[dustbunnie]

15. Adults can do whatever they want. What silliness. n/t

[Boojatta]

19. Really? Whatever they want? There are no laws restricting what adults can do?

The law allows adults to do whatever the law allows adults to do. A similar statement could be made for children. The law allows children to do whatever the law allows children to do. We haven't made much progress here.

[dustbunnie]

23. Maybe if you explained the progress you're looking for it would be easier to comment?

Hard to tell where you're coming from. Do you want more freedom for children, or are you intimating that adults should be required by law to get an okay from the other if they want to move out?

[pipi_k]

30. There's a real good reason for that...

children don't have the emotional or cognitive capacity to make decisions on their own.

That's why parents are generally responsible for the acts their minor children commit. Kid breaks a neighbor's window, kid's parents pay for a new one.

I guess like some of the others I don't quite understand what the point is...are children supposed to be allowed to run their own lives even though they aren't equipped to make sensible decisions?

What's "progressive" about giving the keys to the bus to someone who can't even drive it?

[Boojatta]

32. "they aren't equipped to make sensible decisions"

Can you really conclude, based on nothing but a person's age, that the person isn't equipped to make sensible decisions?

[pipi_k]

50. Yes, and here's why

The ability to make sensible decisions comes about with experience.

A 15 year old does not have the same life experience as a 25 year old.

People aren't born knowing everything they need to know in order to made good choices or decisions.

that's what parents are for...to teach kids.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Scenario #2 doesn't mention a man

Just a boy. And just what age is this "boy"? Is he a legal adult? If he is, then does he claim the mother as a dependent or vice versa?

And just what is this whole post in aid of?

[liberalmuse]

17. It is legal for the man to leave, and the kid as well if he is 18.

People do it all the time. Some kids leave when they are younger due to bad cirumstances at home. If a parent does not report their minor child missing, usually no one is the wiser and that poor kid is out on their own.

[surrealAmerican]

18. Assuming the boy is under 18 ...

... it's not really the mother's "right" to have the boy in her home, it's her responsibility to take care of him. If he's an adult she has no such responsibility, and he's free to go, just like her husband.

[Boojatta]

33. "it's her responsibility to take care of him"

So if the family of a friend at school allows him to move in, then his mother will be required by law to make payments to that family to cover the boy's expenses?

As a practical matter, perhaps the mother might allow into her home at least one child who doesn't want to live with his or her own parents, and she might receive payments from those parents.

[surrealAmerican]

34. This would not include paying his rent if he runs away from home.

She does have financial responsibilities, but I was thinking more of the responsibility to keep him safe and healthy, get him educated, etc.

[Boojatta]

35. I don't think the issue is what home he lives in.

For example, he could tell his mother that he wants her to "run away" from home, and that he wants to remain in that home. I think that the issue we're dealing with is whether or not the law forces him to interact with his mother in a place where journalists and the general public aren't permitted to be witnesses.

[anigbrowl]

20. Yawn...another hit-and-run post pretending to profundity

Boojatta, you might get more meaningful responses if you explained the point you want to make and take the trouble to document your assertions by reference to established law...without these, your various hypothetical dilemmas just come across as some sort of intellectual sudoku.

[seabeyond]

21. i dont get it. you have an adult, you have a child. i see no point to the post. nt

[Dr.Phool]

28. That's the point!

There is no point.

I just told my wife I was leaving. She said get out!

Is that legal?

[seabeyond]

29. bah hahah

that is funny. lol.

[rug]

26. It's abandonment and grounds for divorce.

How was your Thanksgiving?

[pipi_k]

31. PS...on the original question...

Yes, it should be legal. And this coming from someone who was left twice by the same husband before I got smart and refused to take him back a third time.

But lets pretend it isn't.

How much notice is a man supposed to give before leaving his wife? A year? A month? Five minutes?

I was given prior notice. It was long ago, so I don't recall exactly how much prior notice there was, but it still really sucked. How is prior notice supposed to make that easier?

And again...how much prior notice would be suitable before he would be guilty of a crime?

[Boojatta]

36. "how much prior notice would be suitable before he would be guilty of a crime?"

Not every illegal act constitutes a crime. For example, people can be required by law to pay fines for overdue books borrowed from a public library. Paying the fines isn't optional.

Thus, there is a penalty imposed by law for an action that is presumably illegal. (Perhaps this parenthetical example will be helpful. Unless there is a big change to law, an ordinary citizen cannot be required to pay a fine for walking down the street while wearing a combination of clothing that isn't color coordinated. Even if the person knows that it isn't color coordinated, and has clean clothes that he or she knows are color coordinated and could wear instead, no fine can be imposed because nothing illegal has been done.)

However, we do not speak of someone as "having a long criminal record" merely because the person has, over a long period of time, been required to pay a large number of fines for overdue library books.

[pipi_k]

47. OK now I'm really confused....

and I'm not even going to try and figure out what all that meant. I will ask, though...

if you want a man to be required to "give prior notice before leaving a marriage", what is the penalty if he doesn't?

Using your example of the overdue library books, while it may not be a crime punishable by prison time, there is still a penalty for doing it, and that is, the offender cannot borrow any more books from that library without paying the fine.

[LostInAnomie]

37. Uhh... yes. Are you trying to make some kind of point?

[Maru Kitteh]

39. First thought when I read the title? Must be an RG Bolen post.

That is decidedly not a complement.

[Lex]

40. Newsflash: Children under 18 don't have the same rights as Adults.

This is not something new.

Adults can leave home without asking permission. They can move out of their house without asking permission. They can act in all sorts of assholish ways without it being illegal.

[Boojatta]

43. Are abusive spousal relationships extremely rare in America?

I'm not necessarily talking about physical assault causing bodily harm. I'm talking about any kind of abusive relationship.

You see, I created two very simple scenarios. However, unless I'm mistaken, it's not unusual for a couple in a spousal relationship to have at least one child living with them.

I hope that the vast majority of break-ups of spousal relationships are simply motivated by the desire of one or both spouses to get more excitement elsewhere.

Perhaps that sounds cruel. In some cases a child is involved. Why should a child have to deal with a breakdown in the relationship of his or her parents simply because at least one parent wants more excitement?

The answer is that if there are lots of abusive spousal relationships, then there are probably also a lot of parents engaging in a pattern of abuse toward their children. The difference between the two kinds of abuse would then be that a man in an abusive relationship can walk away without having to fear the law, but a boy cannot.

Comparing Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 of the Original Post, we see that the law in its majesty protects all of the vulnerable men of America while recognizing that boys aren't vulnerable at all. Or perhaps the law recognizes that boys are vulnerable and it considers the abuser to be the best source of protection.

[Lex]

45. Now you are injecting pertinent facts that you hid in your OP. An abusive parent

would bring up another set of circumstances and all states have laws that can keep an abusive parent from visiting a child alone.

It's disingenuous at best to hide facts then spring them later.

[Boojatta]

48. Does anything in the Original Post imply that it wasn't a possibility?

If it was a possibility, then nobody reading the Original Post should have assumed otherwise.

Unless a child knows (or happens to correctly guess) what is legally considered to be parental abuse, a child is in no position to make any statement about parental abuse. In real life, facts are hidden and investigators need to make efforts to reveal them.

[Lex]

51. Too many pertinent facts could also be possibilities to consider them all.

We aren't "investigating" here; we are responding to the facts as you laid them out, and assumed that you didn't leave out any salient facts to spring later.

[Boojatta]

54. "the facts as you laid them out"

In neither scenario is there a statement of motive. Why is the man or boy leaving? Nobody responding to the thread had any way to answer that question. If people are going to jump to conclusions based on no foundation whatsoever, then I don't think that I am at fault.

[Lex]

55. People are responding to YOUR question "Should it be legal for a man . . ."

Now you are wondering why no one is answering a different question--one you didn't ask: "Why is the man or boy leaving?"

[Boojatta]

56. Please don't speak for other people.

Perhaps you ignore most of the content of the initial post in a new thread and focus almost all of your attention on the little bit that can fit in a thread title, but I'm not going to attribute such behavior to others.

[Lex]

58. I wish you well. However, I have no idea what you are talking about.

nt

[pipi_k]

53. OK so now we have the "abusive parent"

Here's my thought on that...

whenever there's one abusive parent, I usually suspect BOTH of the parents.

Oh, one of them may be the "active" abuser, but the other one usually acts in collusion with him/her


and the OP doesn't exactly state what KIND of "abuse" is happening. It's not enough to just throw the term around. It's done a lot by one parent wanting to hurt or get back at the other. Oh, she's ABUSING the child!!!!! Sometimes "abuse" isn't really abuse at all.

I think you need to come clean with facts if you want to get any kind of sensible answer. A lot of people wasted a lot of time and energy trying to figure out a topic that wasn't very clear because a lot of the facts weren't made plain. Hints don't work very well....

[mwooldri]

42. Scenario 1: yes, Scenario 2, depends if "boy" is of age.

If the boy is not of age, he is a "missing child".

[bemildred]

44. How can you give prior notice?

When you give notice, that's when you give notice. You can't give notice before you give notice. And once you give notice, you might as well get on with it.

[Boojatta]

49. Notice of an event is adequate "prior notice" if there's adequate time between notice and event.

For example, 24 hours, 5 business days, 30 days, or whatever.

[pipi_k]

52. What if the "prior notice" comprises all of three seconds?

Or two seconds? Or even one?


It's still prior notice, right?


as opposed to a guy walking out the door without saying anything and then he gets to the corner, calls the wife and says, "By the way...I'm leaving"

And why would someone necessarily HAVE to give prior notice, anyway? What if he doesn't say anything but he's packing his bags and throwing them in the trunk of his car? Non-verbal communication...does that count as "giving prior notice"?

[bemildred]

59. So then the real question is how much time should elapse between the notice and the event? nt

[RB TexLa]

57. A free human being is free to choose where they live when ever they wish. Gender isn't relevant.

They do not have to notify anyone.

[pipi_k]

61. I thought about this for some hours, and now I have to ask...

what is the REAL issue here?

It seems like the discussion is all over the place here....husbands leaving without "prior notice"...abused children...vulnerable men...


Come on...just spit it out without beating around the bush, for heaven's sake...