In North Carolina, a father has zero say in their child's life -- if he's not married to the mother. Keep that in mind, potential fathers. In the decision, the courts ruled that a father could not object to a child being put up for adoption the mother supported.
In addition, the court ruled that the alienation of affection law (utterly HATED by liberal Democrats) could be applied to someone who steals a spouse even after the date of divorce.
The alienation of affection law, for those not in NC, says that if one person "lures" another into adultery, the person not in the marriage can be sued for financial and other damages. In this case, the relationship started, then the couple got divorced. And folks, that's against the law. Keep that in mind, if you're visiting the this state.
This is an absolutely stupid law, the both of them. If the father wants the baby, let him have it. How hard is that?
As for the other one, what the hell. The article you have linked doesn't say anything about "stealing" a spouse after a divorce. If it did I think I'd be a little more livid. Once the divorce is finalized, then there is no alienation of affection (rolleyes). They are divorced, end of story.
As for having an affair before the marriage is disolved, in Illinois that's criminal charges called "adultry" and "Fornication".
The second one is a law that's almost unique. It specifically does NOT require sex to be a crime. I can't find the specific law in the miles of statues, but basically one can sue in a civil court if (1) there was genuine affection between the spouses; (2) the spousal affection was alienated; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection.
Adultery is a criminal matter, something different altogether. At issue in the case linked was that the non-marriage member started a relationship with the married person, then the divorce happened, then the sex. The court ruled that was still alienation of affection and the non-married person who "stole" the married person is still liable.
I should move to NC so my wife can sue various alcohol manufacturers, Microsoft and EA Games for alienation of affection. Because everytime I drink, get on the computer or play Madden, she experiences a loss of affection.
The difference between the criminal/civil issue I understand, I was just stating it's Illegal to have an affair in this state. Rarely inforced.
But this civil law in NC is just stupid. I'm sorry.
The issue here is not as much whether the father wants the child or not, but trying to completely demonize marriage. By writing laws which make it harder to do things once you are married, people will stop getting married, then the laws favor the women, so the left wins both ways.
This law is rarely enforced here, but when it is, it's usually vicious -- damages in the millions.
I like the law, myself, because it does encourge fidelity. And that is the state's business -- without more citizens, there is no state.
The government can stay out of my bedroom, if you want them in yours fine. But they can stay out of mine.
This has nothing to do with bedrooms!
Sure it does. infidelty implies sex, and when talking sex I'm generalizing bedroom. It also has everything to do with activities between two consenting adults.
How do they prove the one person was lured away? Is it just because it happens? If Jane meets Ted and decides she likes him better then her husband Tom and starts the affair. Does that mean Tom has no case? What if Tom has been emotionally distant because he spends all his time blogging? There are too many factors here.
The alienation of affection is specifically NOT about sex.
It is a questionable law, but it's intent is to keep married couples intact. It's designed to keep people honest. It's designed to promote families.
If Jane likes Ted better than Tom, then why did she marry Tom? Marriages are supposed to be "till death do us part," so saying she made a mistake is not enough. If Tom is emotionally distant, that doesn't give Jane the right to ignore her marriage vows (for better or worse).
In a way, I see this as an additional function of the state: contract enforcement. Jane and Tom signed a contract. If one of the two parties breaks that contract, the state should be able to intervene to enforce the contract or award damages against the party who broke the contract!
But then again, contract law is pretty much non-existent today.
Because Tom wasn't an internet pr0n addicted celebate when they got married, now he is. Or Maybe Tom has ED and is too embarassed to get medication for it so he closes in on himself. Or maybe Tom became an abusive asshole.
Contracts are all well and good, but even the most binding of contracts have legal ways to be broken. Especially if both sides don't live up to that contract.
It'd be fun if I was a lawyer to use this law to sue a husband for using the internet. It's an alienation of affection, especially if he's looking at porn.
And I'm seeing this a gateway law to other ways for the government to dictate how I can and can't live my life.
Yes, that's the point of the contract. If Jane wants to nullify the contract, she may. AFTER she has nullified the contract, she can go screw anything with legs if she wants.