Octomom Got It Right

As unpopular as she is, Octomom's suceess in the appellate court is the right thing.

"The petition's allegations are insufficient to infringe on a parent's civil rights or to rebut the presumption under California law that a parent is competent to manage the finances of his or her children," the justices wrote. "There is nothing in the petition that shows that the best interests of the children in the management of their finances are not being served by Suleman."

Paul Petersen, a "child former actor" - he was a Mousketeer back in 1955 who was fired after two weeks for disorderly conduct, but later as an adult wrote a book called Walt, Mickey and Me: Confessions of the First Ex-Mouseketeer, which must be a fast read given the brevity of his tenure with Disney - is a complete stranger to Nadya Suleman and her children.

Yet he successfully brought suit in Orange County Superior Court to have a financial guardian appointed over the children. His claim is that her children are vulnerable to financial exploitation. Although his web site offers no real details how he was exploited during his childhood career, he does state that he "knows" because he has "been there, done that."

Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. The point in this story is that Petersen had a burden of proof and one thing a court cannot do is to speculate as to "what will be" when there is no evidence as to "what has been." This is why an appellate court overturned the judge's decision and Nadya Suleman prevailed.

Think about it. A parent has a constitutional right, established by case law, to be a parent. That is not simply rhetoric but a serious issue, and one that allows parents to make decisions for their children, such as homeschooling or even religious education. Absent the proper evidence, does any parent want a third party - in this case, a stranger - to sue them in court for control over their children, much less even have the legal opportunity (what is called judicial standing) to even try?

Recently, I heard another lawyer make the statement that a person's court filing is not a letter to Santa Claus. I like that analogy. Children can ask Santa for anything, including a new baby brother or a rocket to fly to the moon. You have to have a legal basis for your claim, backed by a factual one - you can't simply stroll into court and file a motion, say, to have your neighbor dress her children more conservatively because you feel her 16-year-old's skirts are too high.

Like it or not, Nadya deserves to have her civil rights protected and it is a good thing the appellate court did just that. I am a parent and I do not want to have to defend my role as such against a stranger with an agenda.

Peteson's website promoting his cause can be found here.