[pitbulllady]

The whole issue of the legal rights of the Imaginary Friends in the Foster's Universe is a very intriguing question, and one which seems to have no definate answer. It would appear that for the most part, they have about the same rights as African Americans in the US prior to the Civil Rights movement. They can get jobs, but apparently not jobs which pay much, or are considered important, like doctors, for example, nor can they hold public office or serve as officers in the military. Whether or not they receive "fair pay" for what jobs they CAN get, remains to be seen. We've seen Coco work at several jobs, but then, we don't know what she was paid for them. She has no rent or mortgage to pay, no car payments, no utilities bills, etc., so anything she made was hers to do as she wanted.

While no one questioned Mr. Herriman's and Coco's "marital" status in "My So-Called Wife", you have to realize that the main person that they were interacting with was nuttier than a fruitcake, so his reactions should be discounted. We have seen no other references to any Imaginary Friends being married, either to other Imaginary Friends or to humans...yet. I would assume though, that any Imaginary Friend who DID get married, would have to basically have "emancipated" status, and be no longer under the control of his/her creator or anyone else, and prove able to support at least the two of them, which again, goes back to whether or not they can have jobs that do pay fairly and sufficiently to allow self-sufficiency. Also, how would an Imaginary Friend ATTAIN "emancipated" status-would he/she simply declare autonomy, or would a court have to award it, as is the case with teens who seek to be "emancipated minors"? Again, I've seen no evidence of this. I once brought up the topic of whether or not the Imaginary residents of Foster's would be allowed to date, develope long-term romantic relationships, and marry, since most families looking to adopt an Imaginary Friend will only be seeking ONE, and furthermore having an Imaginary Couple around the house, who will need time for intimacy, would most likely be something that would create some issues(putting it mildly)for the kids in that adoptive family, especially if the Imaginary couple wound up having kids of their own(and we've already seen that some, at least, have that ability).

This also brings up the issue of whether or not a kid who creates an Imaginary Friend is his/her "owner". Apparently, Imaginaries still with their creators, or an adoptive family, are consider legal property of the kid and that family, like a tv or a pet. Apparently, laws protecting Imaginary Friends are less strict than those intended to protect animals from neglect or abuse. It's illegal in all 50 states, for example, to abandon a domesticate animal, but doing so with Imaginary Friends when their kids outgrow them, or when the parents decide the kid is too old, is considered perfectly acceptible, despite the fact that Imaginary Friends are far more like us humans in terms of mental, cognitive, emotional, and even spiritual developement. They might even be genitically the same as us, but their genes just manifest in different ways for different appearances. Still, apparently no one has ever been prosecuted for abandoning an Imaginary Friend, while in some states, it's a felony to do the same with a dog or cat. That makes me wonder if Imaginary Friends have protection against acts of violence, by either humans or other Imaginary Friends. Mac warns Coco that "if we did that, we'd go to jail", when she suggests(apparently)killing Peanut Butter to get him out of the coveted room, BUT Mac might not have been aware of the law as it pertains to Imaginary Friends' protection. Obviously, Imaginaries can be held accountable for following the law, as seen in many episodes, like "WTAWTAW", BUT are their laws to protect THEM, which HUMANS are accountable for?

pitbulllady