B1317 - Family by Consent Bill Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


B1317 - Family by Consent Bill, Aph




A
B I L L
T O



Recognise that the family we choose is more important, if not more so, than the family we are given.

1: Adoption
1) Any 2 people over the age of 18 may agree to become family by adoption, The allowed allowed are:
I) Adoptive brother/sister
II) Adoptive parent and child (where the ‘parent’ is at least 16 years older than the child)
2) In the case of an adoptive parent and child relationship the child is assumed to be an adoptive sibling of all of the parents children unless requirements in section 2 are met.
3) Each person may only have a maximum of 4 parents at any one time.
4) Adoptive siblings, parents and children shall enjoy the same rights as those natural born siblings, parents and children respectively.

2: Disassociation
1) Any person over the age of 18 may disassociate themselves with any of their family’s or adoptive family at any time.
I) Consent from the other family member is not required for disassociation.
2) Upon disassociation the 2 people loose all legal protections and rights in regard to the disassociated person.

3: Bureau of family associations
1) Upon commencement of this bill the government shall establish the Bureau of family associations as a subsidiary of the National Archives
2) The Bureau shall establish forms and procedures for Adoption and Disassociation as mentioned in sections 1 & 2 of this bill, and
3) The Bureau Shall keep a record of all family associations of British citizens.

4: Short Title, Extent and Commencement
1) This Act May be revered to as the Family by Consent Act 2018;
2) Shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, and;
3) Shall come into force 2 Months after passing.


notes
I believe that too much emphasis is put on biology when it comes to determining who or what is family and what isn’t. I’m bringing this bill to dispute that fact as I believe family is about how you feel about a person not what your blood tells you. “The blood of covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” is a very true statement and we just don’t recognise that a friend can be far more like a brother than a biological brother can.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Seems like an unnecessary waste of time for civil servant?

Nay
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Family is a biological concept with the legal element of adoption used for children whose parents cannot care for them, what this bill describes is friendship.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
I don't think that this is necessary. I'm also not sure I would feel comfortable with the government having a record of all my familial associations.

I'd also like to point out a few errors: repetition of "allowed" in section 1 (1), "parents children" needs an apostrophe in section 1 (2), in section 2 (1) this doesn't make sense to me "any of their family’s or adoptive family at any time", "loose" should be "lose" in section 2 (2), "revered" should be "referred" in section 4 (1) and in section 4 (3), "month" does not need a capital.

I will be voting nay. A bill littered with errors and which seems to be a waste of governmental resources.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Mr Speaker,

In the first case, this bill is poorly written and formatted.

Secondly, I believe that the nuclear family is the main engine of success and social mobility in our society. The breakdown of this structure has caused a fair deal of our problems, and this bill would exacerbate the problem further.

Nay.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
This is a very pointless bill to me, as I don’t see the point of making this law. This would for sure needlessly complicate things when it comes to inheritance without wills, and to be perfectly honest, I think this bill seems to downplay the concept of a family. It will be a nay from me
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
This essentially legislates the "mommy and daddy" game that children play. Nay.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
This essentially legislates the "mommy and daddy" game that children play. Nay.
This must be that infamous high level debate that you claim to partake in.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
This must be that infamous high level debate that you claim to partake in.
I thought I was a waste of your time? And here you are responding to me... I guess you're just "obsessed" with me then.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Connor27)
You are the worst Prime Minister in MHOC history. At least your puppet master LP could formulate arguments without logical fallacies or having them limited to under 10 words.
What an intelligent debater you are.
1
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
This just seems to be creating needless paperwork and bureaucracy.
Nay.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
While I support the concept behind it, this bill seems quite redundant and meaningless. You get no benefits by being in this kind of relationship, and it's just something in name only.

If there were benefits to being this family configuration, I would consider voting aye, but currently, I'll be abstaining.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Connor27)
You are the worst Prime Minister in MHOC history. At least your puppet master LP could formulate arguments without logical fallacies or having them limited to under 10 words.
If you're trying to hurt my feelings or something then I must say this is a rubbish attempt at it. :rofl: I see you're already settling into the proposed clown party.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by JellyMilk)
While I support the concept behind it, this bill seems quite redundant and meaningless. You get no benefits by being in this kind of relationship, and it's just something in name only.

If there were benefits to being this family configuration, I would consider voting aye, but currently, I'll be abstaining.
I'll respond to this quickly and the rest later.

this would mean that if you die without a will these adoptive people would inherit part of your estate.

also, that these adoptive family can act as a legal guardian or have power of attorney and you are incapacitated and you hadn't designated anyone/the person you chose is unavailable.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
Mr Speaker

I believe families are important apart of our society this bill seeks to breakdown the structure of families. Families are a biological concept and adoption are for those who cannot be cared for by their biological parents. Secondly I feel this will complicate things when it comes to inheritances. Finally this bill is poorly formatted and written.

A strong Nay from me.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
Aph I'm assuming that if one didn't want to adopt family one's family would automatically be one's biological family as at present? If so aye, I don't see any harm in recognising that two non-related individuals can have a family-like bond without it being a romantic/sexual relationship.
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
I agree with the latter part of the bill surrounding disassociation. I don't with the adoption thing - I could aye it if it was just the latter part.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
Just abolish any legal recognition of family, and introduce a general equitable jurisdiction to allocate property in where there have been allocated roles in a relationship. Simpler.
0
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
The idea in regards to adoptive brother/sister is interesting, as it could mean in cases of someone 18+ who has no living biological family, or who has severed all ties to their biological family, it could mean they could list these people as next of kin and such. But there is no doubt a much better way to implement what I have said than this bill, in fact I would not be surprised if what I have suggested is already in some way possible.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
Nay. What a load of meaningless tripe.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (30)
13.1%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (21)
9.17%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (50)
21.83%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (32)
13.97%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (27)
11.79%
How can I be the best version of myself? (69)
30.13%

Watched Threads

View All