Why is it against the law for someone who has custody of a child to sell custody?

[Boojatta]

I could understand some restriction on the frequency of transfers of custody, but does that necessarily have anything to do with whether or not someone seeking custody pays money to the person who has custody? If there are transfers of custody, then the transfers could be too frequent, even if the person who is seeking custody pays nothing.

Are there so many wealthy people who are infertile and who appear to be good, but are actually evil, that it would be impossible to screen people who are trying to buy custody, and impossible to do anything about them abusing children, simply because the number of cases of child abuse would be too large?

In contrast, are there extremely few people who are both fertile and evil? Perhaps some people are both fertile and evil, but they usually aren't quite evil enough to abuse their own biological children. After all, fairy tales indicate that if you're looking for someone who is evil, then a step-mother is a good bet. If we can't rely on fairy tales for information about who is evil, then what can we rely upon?

Maybe we can rely upon murder mysteries. I'm thinking of starting a new thread with this title: "Why is it legal for someone who works as a butler to adopt a child?"

[mrcheerful]

1. Because it is illegal to sell human beings or did you forget that whole

civil war thing?

[Boojatta]

6. Do laws against child labor specify that there's a special exemption

allowing a child to be forced to work if custody of the child was paid for?

If so, then after those laws were first enacted and they began to be enforced, a whole category of children lacked protection from the law. Don't you think that was or would have been unfortunate? Why not put all children under the umbrella of legal protection?

[Pithlet]

8. Usually I ignore stuff like this but I can't help it...

What the hell are you talking about?

[Boojatta]

14. After the civil war, did people give slaves as gifts, but no longer sell their slaves?

[Pithlet]

18. After the civil war, slaves didn't exist.

So, your question doesn't even make sense.

[Boojatta]

20. This subthread started when someone mentioned the civil war.

Do you have a specific question for me that is about both the Original Message of this thread and the civil war?

[Pithlet]

22. That doesn't change the fact your question makes no sense n/t

[Boojatta]

25. Your question for me was: "What the hell are you talking about?"

Now, I don't claim that the question "what the hell are you talking about" makes no sense, but perhaps you can see that it doesn't provide much guidance. Do you want me to put in effort to provide a satisfactory answer, or do you merely want to vent as though you have no opportunity to communicate with me and get clarification?

I presume from the context that, in asking what I'm talking about, you weren't asking me to choose a name or label in an attempt to classify the topic that I want this thread to focus on. However, process of elimination is a time-consuming approach. I cannot think of any matching statement: "I presume that you were asking about ..." that I can make parallel to my statement about what you apparently weren't asking about. In other words, you asked what the hell am I talking about and likewise I can ask you: what the hell are you asking about?

I didn't introduce the topic of slavery into this thread, and it seems that there's an onus on someone who wishes to introduce that topic to explain why it isn't merely a weak analogy or an attempt to hijack this thread. Are custody and ownership the same thing? Is it customary for children to labor like slaves?

[Pithlet]

27. My question was pretty straightforward and had nothing to do with slavery.

Your OP and your subsequent responses to other people's queries, whether they bring up slavery or not, are all pretty much hard to decipher. Hence my question. I'm still having a hard time really grasping what you're talking about. I think it might have something to do with child support. But not entirely sure.

[NobodyHere]

33. Slaves still exist

To pretend otherwise is naive

[Pithlet]

39. .....

:silly:

[WinkyDink]

41. What is the connection to your previous post?

[Philly219]

16. That was my question.....

As far as money being transferred in custody cases - aren't you talking about child support? I don't see it as "payment" for a commodity.

[WinkyDink]

40. Try again, more clearly. And trust me, your post IS incoherent.

[Boojatta]

49. "trust me, your post IS incoherent"

An interesting idea for education reform just occurred to me. To increase efficiency, teachers wouldn't devote time to motivating, presenting, or explaining step-by-step reasoning. Students wouldn't devote time to reading and understanding step-by-step reasoning. Instead, conclusions could be presented with key words of the conclusions in uppercase letters, and the words "trust me" written beside the conclusions.

What do you think? Should I start a thread about it in the Education forum? I'm willing to give some credit to you for the idea because I believe that I was inspired by your message (i.e. that I was inspired by the message that this post is a reply to).

[Boojatta]

53. I'm curious: what do you think of post #38 in this thread. Any comments on it?

Post #38 of this thread

[FLAprogressive]

2. because humans are not a commodity to be bought and sold....

[OregonBlue]

3. If it is being done for the good of the child, no money should be involved.

[Boojatta]

13. Consider a randomly chosen person who already has custody of a child, and

who is predisposed to give up custody for money. Do we have enough information to conclude that the person is probably an above-average parent? Obviously most parents aren't above average. The conclusion would be that whoever is getting custody is probably a worse parent. Is that the idea?

[Pithlet]

19. But when and how do people give up custody for money? When and where does this occur? How often?

Maybe if you gave examples of this, it would clarify what you're talking about.

[Boojatta]

26. "When and where does this occur? How often?"

We're talking about a law that deters people, not a law that is the basis for a constant stream of defendants who are determined by courts to have violated the law. Reliable statistics on violation of that kind of law are presumably difficult to obtain.

[Pithlet]

28. Edit never mind.

It's okay.

[Boojatta]

30. This thread begins (in the title!) with a reference to law:

"Why is it against the law for someone who has custody of a child to sell custody?"

Perhaps I should do some legal research. Is there really no such law? What about DU members who speak of the "best interests" of the child? They seem to think that the law I refer to actually exists. Why not reply to their posts to ask them what they're talking about?

[Pithlet]

31. Call me crazy, but they just might thing you're not being serious.

Some are even thinking it's performance art. I did respond to those who though child support is the same thing to the law you're proposing. I also wondered if that was the angle you were going for in your OP, but as I said, it's somewhat hard to decipher.

[WinkyDink]

43. No, you dolt. "The idea" is---again---that WE DO NOT CONDONE CHILD-SELLING.

[BOG PERSON]

4. hmm... a modest proposal...

[WinkyDink]

44. Really? I read "AMP." I taught "AMP." This OP, Sir, is NO "AMP."

[Boojatta]

48. Did you listen to Quayle, Letterman, or Carson?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You would have been all more confortable

on or around the 17th century Jamestown.

[T Wolf]

7. In reality - this IS DONE every day. In divorce settlements, custody parameters are often

bargained along with support.

How is that different than "selling custody?"

[Maru Kitteh]

12. Well DUH. Physical custody is correlational with expenditure.

Compensations and adjustments knowledge this.

[Pithlet]

17. But generally isn't it the parent who doesn't have custody that has to pay?

It's the custodial parent who's compensated, because they're the ones who incur the cost of childcare. Not the ones giving them up. You don't get money for giving up your custody. A sale usually means you give something up in exchange for compensation. I'm not really sure that's the point of the OP, anyway. It's rather hard to tell. It could be about child labor laws. Or slavery :shrug: Who knows?

[Quezacoatl]

9. Best interests of the child

I don't think selling custody is in the best interests of the child. Whether or not it already happens in some round about way is irrelevant.

[Morning Dew]

10. Why on earth would you have an interest in how many times custody is transferred?

Perhaps the custodian only has need of many children during planting and again at the harvest and the rest of the year has need for fewer of them.
Why should that custodian have to bear the burden during the "off season"?

[alex cross]

11. Have you never seen the horrible conditions in those

baby mills in Indiana and Kentucky? Breeders kept in cages, living in their own filth just to satisfy the ego of some wealthy childless couple. It's just beyond disgusting.

I think you'll find your answer there. (google is you're friend)

[beam me up scottie]

15. Well hell, if someone in Kentucky is wanting to buy a kid, talk to me.

I'm a free agent, no need to feel guilty about keeping those hideous baby mills in business.

Call me.

[slackmaster]

21. In my state, it's illegal to keep a primate as a pet without a wildlife permit from the state

A permit that is pretty tough to get.

[pintobean]

23. K&U

[Dorian Gray]

24. Performance art

on the internet.

[msanthrope]

34. Nah--don't confuse bong hits with art. n/t

[WinkyDink]

45. Hardly.

[flvegan]

29. Children aren't chattel. n/t

[Boojatta]

32. Land isn't chattel, but it's not against the law to transfer land from ...

a person who receives money to the person who pays the money.

However, if it were against the law to transfer land from a person who receives money to a person who pays the money, and if I asked why it is against the law, then you could answer, "Because land isn't chattel."

I don't think that would be a satisfactory answer. What do you think?

[flvegan]

36. Land is real property.

Chattel is tangible property. Children aren't property. Is that more clear to you?

[Boojatta]

38. You didn't disclose any step-by-step reasoning.

I will attempt to guess the reasoning that you are using but not disclosing.

Here's my guess:
#1 No child is property.

#2 If an entity or being isn't property, then it's against the law to transfer ownership of the entity or being in exchange for money.

#3 Therefore, it's against the law to transfer ownership of a child in exchange for money.

#4 The phrase "ownership of a child" means exactly the same thing as "custody of a child."

#5 Therefore it's against the law to transfer custody of a child in exchange for money.

I don't see any reason to believe that #4 is true, but I don't see how you can get your conclusion without assuming that #4 is true. Do you believe that #4 is true?

[Pithlet]

42. So, my suspicions were founded. This is about child custody.

This was all your roundabout way of saying child custody agreements make chattel out of children. That's insane. Someone has to take care of children. They can't take care of themselves. Arrangements have to be made. There wont' be a way to make everyone happy, thus the axe grinding. So it goes.

[Boojatta]

47. Suspicions? You noticed the secret, hidden words "custody of a child" in the title of this thread!!

This was all your roundabout way of saying child custody agreements make chattel out of children.

No. Focus on the word "why." Don't you have any suspicion that this thread might be not only about child custody, but also about why the law is what it is? Don't disappoint me.

[Pithlet]

58. So you actually are serious?

You're literally asking the question in the OP. Okay. Thanks.

[Boojatta]

59. Would you say that any civilization that has no such law is inferior?

[cali]

35. and yet another completely insane OP

[Boojatta]

55. Is that good or bad?

[blondeatlast]

37. You and RBTexLA should get together.

Preferably right here on DU for us all to see.

I'd pay big money; oh, yes, indeed.

[WillowTree]

51. +1000.......and I never even +1, let along 1000

[rucky]

46. Do they give a discount for circumcised kids?

[Iggo]

50. Closed adoption.

Happens every day.

[Boojatta]

52. Please elaborate a bit.

People reading this thread might not want to search to find out what you're talking about, and they might not want to make their own guesses about what you think is the relationship between the original message of this thread and closed adoption.

Also, given that "closed adoption" consists of only two words, it's possible that the term "closed adoption" has more than one interpretation.

[Iggo]

54. Young pregnant women sell their soon-to-be-babies to well-to-do couples.

I realize that's only one example of closed adoption. But that's what I meant.

Have a wonderful day! Merry Christmas!

[11 Bravo]

56. Because human beings are not chattel. (Despiter Haley Barbour's fondest wishes.) Hope that ...

clears it up for you.

[Boojatta]

57. That doesn't clear it up. It repeats something that I already responded to.

Please see posts #32 and #38 in this thread.

[xor]

60. I always get funny looks when I ask around about buying children...

[Boojatta]

61. At times and places where Sunday shopping was illegal ...

shopkeepers who were open for business on Sunday probably got funny looks. That doesn't explain why Sunday shopping was illegal, but was instead a byproduct of the fact that Sunday shopping was illegal.