This is a technical comment only. While the USSC denied Mike standing based on the CA court declaring him to be an NCP, that didn't generalize the issue. It was a holding of the USSC about one case, it didn't establish law on the matter. It could be argued that it's dicta for purposes of future cases, so Gecko's point is very strong despite Neudow. What's vital to notice is what's happening: Mere operation of law is trumping our fundamental parental rights. Argued in those terms, I don't see how it can stand. The convenience of the state (having one parent or the other empowered to make decisions for the kid) cannot constitutionally be allowed to prevail over the fundamental right to parent.
Before you holler at me, Frank, about the Constitution being what the courts say it is ... ;-) ... you're point is well made. What I'm doing above is arguing our case. Let's exhaust the logical possibilities: Either winning the case, or successful legislation, or gunpowder must, in the final analysis, solve the problem. Court is just the place we go to fight without gunpowder.
