An Orange County judge ruled Friday that an advocacy group for child actors can move forward with its bid to get a guardian appointed to oversee the financial interests of Nadya Suleman's children.
Superior Court Judge Gerald Johnston denied Suleman's motion to dismiss the guardian petition submitted by former child actor Paul Petersen, president of A Minor Consideration.
Johnston did not comment on the merits of Petersen's petition, but wrote that California law does not require someone to be an "interested person" or "enjoy any type of relationship with the minor or minors named in the petition."
Johnston's ruling states: "As the paramount concern in guardianships is the best interests of children, the Legislature has not restricted the class of individuals who may petition seeking to protect those interests."
Full Article and Source:
Suleman Loses in Financial Guardian Ruling
More information:
Judge rules against "Octo-Mom" on child finances
See also:
Suleman's Hearing
Superior Court Judge Gerald Johnston denied Suleman's motion to dismiss the guardian petition submitted by former child actor Paul Petersen, president of A Minor Consideration.
Johnston did not comment on the merits of Petersen's petition, but wrote that California law does not require someone to be an "interested person" or "enjoy any type of relationship with the minor or minors named in the petition."
Johnston's ruling states: "As the paramount concern in guardianships is the best interests of children, the Legislature has not restricted the class of individuals who may petition seeking to protect those interests."
Full Article and Source:
Suleman Loses in Financial Guardian Ruling
More information:
Judge rules against "Octo-Mom" on child finances
See also:
Suleman's Hearing
But who will watch the guardians?
ReplyDeleteBad news all around...
ReplyDeleteThe paramount concern of guardianships of children is supposed to be the children, but in this case, does anyone think concern about the children is the goal here? Or is it profit for the guardian?
ReplyDeleteI think there's something wrong with Octomom and those poor kids need to be protected from her.
ReplyDeleteSomebody's got to watch out for them. Obviously, her thinking is way off.
Can she even balance a checkbook? She certainly couldn't support the too many children she had before these and yet went ahead and brought 8 more mouths to feed into the world --- nuts, it's nuts.
Yes, as much as I hate guardianship, those kids need it.
Oboy, oboy, oboy!
ReplyDeleteHow many kids?
Gimme, gimme, gimme!
Here's the thing, Anonomous 3, Octomom has to do something wrong before the state should be charging in to "protect".
ReplyDeleteAll of this protection is prior to her doing anything wrong. And that's wrong.
This tug of war will occur throughout the entire lives of these children. Everyone will be wanting to profit from them.
ReplyDeleteWho says we have freedoms in the USA? I think this loss of freedom issue needs to be revisited and restated to reflect reality.
ReplyDeleteI wonder who is paying Suleman's fees to fight this take over?
ReplyDeleteLand of the FREE? I don't think so, nothing is free in this country, fighting for your own rights is costly. Who profits? Follow the $$$$$, therein lies your answers who is controlling whom.
ReplyDelete