Page 1 of 1
question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2026 2:54 pm
by Burning Petard
I am probably snowed in for another day. I am bored. Dangerous condition, I have too much time to think weird thoughts, leading to a legal question.
When i married I acquired brothers and sisters-in law. As time went on I added sons and daughters -in-law.
What is the law? What legal duties do we have for each other? Or is this another example of something like The Law of unintended consequences, a law administered and enforced by the universe as it is, not as we want,
But really, is there statutory attention to this condition?
snailgate.
Re: question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2026 3:43 pm
by Sue U
Burning Petard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 2:54 pm
I am probably snowed in for another day. I am bored. Dangerous condition, I have too much time to think weird thoughts, leading to a legal question.
When i married I acquired brothers and sisters-in law. As time went on I added sons and daughters -in-law.
What is the law? What legal duties do we have for each other? Or is this another example of something like The Law of unintended consequences, a law administered and enforced by the universe as it is, not as we want,
But really, is there statutory attention to this condition?
snailgate.
Not a question for JDs, but for DDs, as the term originates in ecclesiastical or "canon" law. It was originally used to define classes of persons prohibited by the church from marrying and dictating transfers/inheritance of property, later used more commonly (in English, anyway) to describe non-blood familial relations/status. I don't "do" family law, but as far as I know there are no actual secular legal rights or obligations that are dependent on "in-law" status;
Big RR would know better than I do, though.
Re: question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2026 4:08 pm
by Big RR
I agree with what Sue said; the "in law" originated in canon law, and no statutory or common law applies to in law relations. Maybe in other countries, but i am not sure.
Re: question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:21 pm
by Burning Petard
Thank you. That sort of goes to my observation that almost nobody in the USofA practices their religion religiously ()my dictionary has for definition 2 • with consistent and conscientious regularity
snailgate.
.
Re: question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2026 7:10 pm
by Sue U
Burning Petard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:21 pm
Thank you. That sort of goes to my observation that almost nobody in the USofA practices their religion religiously ()my dictionary has for definition 2 • with consistent and conscientious regularity
snailgate.
.
Why, are you planning to marry your sister/daughter-in-law?
Re: question for the Juris doctors here.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2026 7:06 pm
by Burning Petard
No, I was wondering if my daughter-in-law could sue me for support or abandonment
snailgate.