Preemptive Karma: Too much of a good thing?

March 25, 2005

Too much of a good thing?

A teenage boy in Massechusets has won his three year legal battle to divorce his father.

Patrick was one of the first children to initiate a parental-rights termination proceeding against one parent for killing the other. He argued Daniel Holland forfeited any right to be his father the night he shot Liz Holland eight times.

So far, so good. I completely agree that his father abdicated any moral or ethical right to be the boy's father at that point.

What I don't agree with is the court having agreed to issue a new birth certificate which lists the adoptive couple as the boy's parents...

A birth certificate isn't a "Good Parenting" award. It's a simple document listing biological and chronological facts which aren't open to interpretation of argument. Tossing out the original and issuing one that contains different biological "facts" doesn't do anything more than to turn birth certificates into a rather pointless award rather than a useful, objective document based solely upon the facts.

Correcting a factual error on a birth certificate is one thing. But, that's not what has happened in this case. It's been turned into a moral football.

I think it's great that this kid was able to terminate his biological father's rights. I support that 100%. But... the birth certificate thing just turns it all into a damn three-ring circus.

The family said its next goal is to push for the passage of "Patrick's Law," which would suspend the parental rights of any parent convicted of murdering the other, and give the couple's children a say on whether the rights would be terminated permanently.

Again, I applaud this effort. What they're saying about the proposed "Patrick's Law" makes sense to me. I'd vote for it if I could. Notably missing from this brief blurb is the phony birth certificate scheme, though.

What do you think? Should fact-based documents be turned into moral footballs?

Posted by Kevin at March 25, 2005 12:49 PM