Colorado drivers license laws applied STUPIDLY
Gotta love dim-witted law makers and enforcers
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Ok, so perhaps my sub title is a bit harsh in characterizing some law makers and enforcers as dim-witted. For the law makers, it was propably more a case of paving the roads with good intentions. For at least one particular law enforcer, Colorado State Attorney General John Suthers, and his office in general (along with, apparently, the entire Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles) I'd say that characterization (dim-witted) is probably very appropriate.
Read on in this article from USA Today. Headline is linked.
A blind spot in Colo. license law
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY
DENVER — A Colorado teenager can't practice driving because her mom is blind. The state attorney general says: Sorry, the law is the law. Net result: a federal case.
Julianna Barber, 15, and her mother Marcia, both of Colorado Springs, sued in federal court here Monday after the attorney general's office said the girl's grandfather could not act as her supervising driver under a state law that governs learner's permits.
The 1999 Colorado law was designed to give 15- and 16-year-olds driving experience while supervised by a licensed adult before gaining a regular license. The law requires that the supervisor be a parent, stepparent or guardian.
In October, Julianna completed a driver education course and obtained a learner's driving permit. Because her mother is blind and her father lives in another state, Julianna asked the state Division of Motor Vehicles whether her grandfather could supervise her while she practiced driving.
Not only were the Barbers turned down, but Attorney General John Suthers' office also responded to their appeals by suggesting that her mother assign guardianship of Julianna to someone else, according to Marcia Barber and her lawyer, Amy Robertson.
"Excuse me," Marcia Barber said, recalling her response. "Although I have a disability, I'm a responsible, loving, caring parent, thank you very much."
The Barbers allege in their lawsuit that the Colorado law violates federal statutes designed to protect disabled people from discrimination.
"The offensive thing is," Robertson said, "at a certain point the attorney general himself suggested to Mrs. Barber that she give up guardianship of her child. He was saying she should have to give up this integral family relationship just so her daughter could get driving practice."
Kristen Hubbell, a spokeswoman for Suthers, said that the attorney general is sympathetic to the Barbers' situation and that Suthers had advised the family to seek a limited guardianship to solve the problem.
"But unfortunately," Hubbell said, "he cannot override a state statute."
Posted 5/2/2005 11:07 PM on USAToday.com
Ok, so perhaps, after reading the article again, I'm even wrong in the characterization of Suthers, but.... WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE COMMON SENSE in the application of the law.
I'm as law-and-order as the next person. Maybe even a little more so. I want laws up-held, but I want laws that make sense, and I want them applied in ways that make sense. How in the hell are the child's grand parents not acceptable in the eyes of the law? Are the law-makers in Colorado so stupid as to not allow for such a need or potential hang up with the law? I'm curious what happens for an individual that is orphaned? How about a child that seeks and is granted emancipation? What does the law do with such an individual who no longer has adult parents or guardians.
I'm sure Gideon would get a lol in reading this article, knowing how he has pointed out in the past the potential for laws -- even when well intentioned -- to get out of control. This seems to be a prime example of such a case.
I must admit that I had similar thoughts as the recommended solution of granting limited guardianship (similar to a "limited power of attorney") as a way of resolving this case, but given that such a process typically requires the use of a lawyer, which the family may not have had ready access to before getting someone to file the discrimination suit, I can see where that solution may not seem acceptable to the family. If the article is correct in the original characterization of how the mother was spoken to regarding giving up custody of her child, then someone in the office of State Attorney General needs some serious sensitivity training.
Read on in this article from USA Today. Headline is linked.
A blind spot in Colo. license law
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY
DENVER — A Colorado teenager can't practice driving because her mom is blind. The state attorney general says: Sorry, the law is the law. Net result: a federal case.
Julianna Barber, 15, and her mother Marcia, both of Colorado Springs, sued in federal court here Monday after the attorney general's office said the girl's grandfather could not act as her supervising driver under a state law that governs learner's permits.
The 1999 Colorado law was designed to give 15- and 16-year-olds driving experience while supervised by a licensed adult before gaining a regular license. The law requires that the supervisor be a parent, stepparent or guardian.
In October, Julianna completed a driver education course and obtained a learner's driving permit. Because her mother is blind and her father lives in another state, Julianna asked the state Division of Motor Vehicles whether her grandfather could supervise her while she practiced driving.
Not only were the Barbers turned down, but Attorney General John Suthers' office also responded to their appeals by suggesting that her mother assign guardianship of Julianna to someone else, according to Marcia Barber and her lawyer, Amy Robertson.
"Excuse me," Marcia Barber said, recalling her response. "Although I have a disability, I'm a responsible, loving, caring parent, thank you very much."
The Barbers allege in their lawsuit that the Colorado law violates federal statutes designed to protect disabled people from discrimination.
"The offensive thing is," Robertson said, "at a certain point the attorney general himself suggested to Mrs. Barber that she give up guardianship of her child. He was saying she should have to give up this integral family relationship just so her daughter could get driving practice."
Kristen Hubbell, a spokeswoman for Suthers, said that the attorney general is sympathetic to the Barbers' situation and that Suthers had advised the family to seek a limited guardianship to solve the problem.
"But unfortunately," Hubbell said, "he cannot override a state statute."
Posted 5/2/2005 11:07 PM on USAToday.com
Ok, so perhaps, after reading the article again, I'm even wrong in the characterization of Suthers, but.... WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE COMMON SENSE in the application of the law.
I'm as law-and-order as the next person. Maybe even a little more so. I want laws up-held, but I want laws that make sense, and I want them applied in ways that make sense. How in the hell are the child's grand parents not acceptable in the eyes of the law? Are the law-makers in Colorado so stupid as to not allow for such a need or potential hang up with the law? I'm curious what happens for an individual that is orphaned? How about a child that seeks and is granted emancipation? What does the law do with such an individual who no longer has adult parents or guardians.
I'm sure Gideon would get a lol in reading this article, knowing how he has pointed out in the past the potential for laws -- even when well intentioned -- to get out of control. This seems to be a prime example of such a case.
I must admit that I had similar thoughts as the recommended solution of granting limited guardianship (similar to a "limited power of attorney") as a way of resolving this case, but given that such a process typically requires the use of a lawyer, which the family may not have had ready access to before getting someone to file the discrimination suit, I can see where that solution may not seem acceptable to the family. If the article is correct in the original characterization of how the mother was spoken to regarding giving up custody of her child, then someone in the office of State Attorney General needs some serious sensitivity training.
