Re: [UUPoly-L] contracts and such

[wabaldwin@aol.com]

 I think the point is, as long as polyrrelationships are considered aberrant, we're likely to be deprived of things allowed to monogamous relationships, simply because non-polys assume there's something wrong or unhealthy about us.


 
Bill


 

-----Original Message-----
From: licorice gumdrop <licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 9:30 am
Subject: [UUPoly-L] contracts and such










Valerie wrote:

> ... These things happened to people close to me: purchase of a  
> house for his poly family was challenged by the local Homeowner's  
> Association, on the (erroneous) grounds that their occupancy  
> violated the deed covenants.

i'm not sure what this has to do with a polyK - restrictive covenants  
exist for all sorts of reasons, and it sounds like in this case,  
there wasn't a legal issue, just a clueless (or perhaps prejudiced) HOA.

> adding a kitchen for an incoming formerly-LD lover was blocked by  
> the town building codes.

is this a poly problem, or a zoning issue?  i can't double the size  
of my house, or pop the top above a certain height - for whatever  
reason - because of the local zoning ordinance.  unless there's some,  
"we're a different/bigger family group, we shouldn't have to abide by  
the building codes" or "the building codes discriminate against  
large, nontraditional families" thread i'm missing?

> My own triad could not title or register in all three names a car  
> we all three paid for, because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts  
> will not let us.

i don't know anything about MA law, but the commonwealth code (at  
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-90d-toc.htm) looks like it  
restricts motor vehicle titles to a single owner.  everything in  
chapter 90D refers to a singular "owner"; however, the code does  
allow for multiple lienholders - i don't see why you couldn't have  
one owner and two lienholders; the two non-owners would then have  
security interests in the car even though they would not be owners of  
record.

> But the most significant problem that couldn't be contracted around  
> is custody/visitation. I don't know of any jurisdiction where the  
> court's perceived "best interests of the child" doesn't trump any  
> agreement parties may have had. For example, say my partners and I  
> signed an agreement that we are all three equal parents of our  
> twins and entitled to shared custody in the event any of us  
> separated. Then, say I broke up with my partners and they were mad  
> at me and disinclined to honor the agreement. I take them to court  
> to enforce the agreement . . . and the court says, "The best  
> interests of these children require that they have only two  
> parents, and I have no jurisdiction in any case to award visitation  
> rights or shared custody to an unrelated party."

i don't doubt that the risk of such an event is higher in a poly  
grouping than in a married dyad, but dyads do run the same risk.   
divorces get nasty, courts intervene - and not always in a positive  
manner.  it isn't limited to the family situations of polyfolk.

my point is that none of these seem (to me) to be poly-focused  
problems, but rather issues or policies that may have a  
disproportionate impact on polyfolk - and having little or nothing to  
do with contracts.  only the custody/visitation issue really seems  
immune to a group's ability to contract among its members.

regards,

        jenny
_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l



 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.