A Queensland woman gave birth to twin children with separate sets of biological parents last year, in what is believed to be an Australian first situation so rare it had not been contemplated by state surrogacy laws.
Bird got regular pregnant at same time as implanted. Twins born, but wholly different parents for each. Local law doesn;t allow breaking up twins or more in adoption, custody cases.
So, in this case, they decide that while “gestational twins” not wholly twins in hte meaning of local law and therefore the genetic parents on each side can continue – as they have for 10 months – their respective children.
Whatever we might think of how we got here it seems the obvious solution to the situation.
But note the joy of the common law system – as opposed to Roman. The judge sits there and looks at the whole thing and then decides. When in possession of the full facts. And wthout varied harpies screaming politics at him – as would be true if this were the sort of thing decided in a legislature.
Well, OK, but I like it, so there.
I’d love to know, I really would, how this illustrates the difference between Roman law and common law. But common law judges are infallible, y’see.
Statutes are inflexible. Unless the words in the Act are ambiguous (sometimes (often?) the case), then the judge has limited discretion in ruling.
Solomon had the right idea.
Well, presumably the intention was for bird+hubby to have children, so with a doner birth the donor would normally not be the legal parent anyway, so why any confusion? Where there are legal issues this is bog standard normally dealt with by the proper father adopting the doner offspring.
With extra chilli sauce
Dammit, now there’s a reply I can’t edit the typo.
LOL
It’s so annoying innit ?
LOL
It’s so annoying innit ?
🙂
The common law was fine before we created “human rights”. Now the judges just use “human rights” to render a judgement the State-which pays their wages-requires.
See the “public v chicken nuggets” case…
I’d like to see a legal system where the courts would say “This law makes no sense, oh Parliament, so give us another one”. I have in mind the absurd drivel about “work of equal value”, an impenetrably stupid, intellectually incoherent phrase.
In the Roman system, a case goes first to the Court of First Instance. That court decides if the case is justicable. See where I’m going?