Over the past year, we have seen several variant views of marriage surface. This has been in consequence of the federal government changing the definition of marriage. Now, there is no limit to what can be done or entered into.
One of the newest crazes has been the poly-relational groups. Whether you want to be married to more than one person, or you are entering into a polysexual relationship, the envelope has been pushed.
Now, we see the outcome of such choices.
Christian News reports
A New York judge has awarded tri-custody to a former couple and their neighbor, who they entered into a “polyamorous” relationship with over a decade ago.
“Tri-custody is the logical evolution of the Court of Appeals decision in Brooke S.B., and the passage of the Marriage Equality Act and DRL [Domestic Relations Law] §10-a which permits same-sex couples to marry in New York,” Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Patrick Leis III wrote.
In 2006, Garcia became pregnant with Michael Marano’s child—an agreement made between the three since Dawn Marano was infertile—and they all raised the boy together. However, in 2008, Dawn Marano left her husband to solely be in a relationship with Garcia.
So, this man and wife decided that they would include their recently single neighbor into their relationship. They moved her in and decided that she should bear the child of the husband. Once she gave birth, the fairy-tale ended. Mr. Marano was no longer needed and was subsequently kicked to the curb.
Mrs. Marano has now recognized the instability of the relationship she is currently in and has sought legal assurance that she would be in the child’s life. But, how do we know that this is what is best?
Well, with no absolutes in our world, the only way to be sure is to ask a minor what he thinks.
Christian News reports
On Wednesday, Judge Leis granted custody to all three, opining that it was in the child’s “best interests” to also keep Dawn Marano in his life.
“J.M. considers both plaintiff and Audria to be equal ‘mommies’ and that he would be devastated if he were not able to see plaintiff,” he wrote. “The interview with J.M. also clearly shows that he enjoys his present living situation and would not want it altered in any way.”
But, if the child were sexually abused and thought that it was normal and did not want it to change, would the judge side with him and his opinion?